1611 KJV and the Apocrypha
The KJV translators in their list of translation rules stated quite a few times they did not believe the Apocrypha was Scripture.
Please give and present those claimed direct quotations from the KJV translators with the documented source.
By the way, the KJV translators did not make the rules for their translating. The rules were likely made by Archbishop Richard Bancroft and approved by King James.
The Church of England's Book of Common Prayer required that portions or lessons from some of the Apocrypha books be read in the state churches on certain Sundays.
The actual high regard that the Church of England of the 1500's and 1600's had for the Apocrypha can also be seen in The Books of Homilies. These books were a collection of "authorized sermons" that were intended to be read aloud in the state churches. The first book of twelve homilies was issued in 1547 with authority of the Council. A second book with twenty-one homilies was issued in 1571 under Queen Elizabeth. Davies observed that "the first book of homilies was issued as a standard of Biblical doctrine and preaching for the nation" (
Worship and Theology, I, p. 231). Hughes noted that King James I laid down that "preaching ministers are to take the Articles of 1563 and the two Books of Homilies 'for a pattern and a boundary'" (
Reformation in England, p. 399). Does that suggest that the KJV translators were required to accept them as a boundary or standard? Peirce pointed out that in the Church of England's
Homilies: "Baruch is cited as the
Prophet Baruch; and his writing is called, 'The word of the Lord to the Jews'" (
Vindication, pp. 537-538). Peirce also claimed that in the
Homilies "the book of
Tobit is attributed to the Holy Ghost" (p. 538).
This high regard is also clearly evident in the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604). Thomas Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a 1583 conference the following: "The books called apocrypha are indeed parts of the scriptures; they have been read in the church in ancient times, and ought to be still read amongst us" (
Select Memoirs, p. 327). Benjamin Brook also quoted the same above statement made by Whitgift along with the following other statements: “The apocrypha was given by the inspiration of God.“ “You cannot shew that there is any error in the apocrypha. And it has been esteemed a part of the holy scriptures by the ancient fathers” (
Lives, II, p. 317). Based on Whitgift’s statements, Samuel Hopkins commented: “I will only observe that the Archbishop of Canterbury insisted that the apocrypha books were part of the Holy Scriptures, were given by inspiration of God, and were without error” (
The Puritans, III, p. 45, footnote 3). Several of the KJV translators who worked with, were taught by, or were associated with Whitgift may have held similar views. Is there any evidence that the KJV translators rebuked or criticized Archbishop Whitgift for publicly maintaining that the books called apocrypha are part of the scriptures? The few Puritans among the KJV translators would have disagreed with such high regard for the Apocrypha. It was Archbishop Whitgift that presided over the crowning of James as king of England in July of 1603.
The 1611 KJV had no clear disclaimer concerning the canonicity or inspiration of the Apocrypha.
In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches.
In addition,
the cross references in the 1611 edition of the KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority. In their cross references, did the KJV translators indicate any differences between when they have a reference to a book in the O. T. or N. T. and a reference to a book in the Apocrypha?
In contrast to the KJV, some of the earlier English Bibles had a clear disclaimer stating that the Apocrypha books were not inspired. KJV defender Thomas Holland acknowledged that the 1611 KJV did not have “an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva Bible” (
Crowned, p. 94). Arthur Farstad noted: “Unlike its predecessors, which clearly stated that the apocryphal books were not part of the canon of Scripture, the 1611 Version contained no comments about the canonicity of the Apocrypha, thus leaving the question open” (
The NKJV, p. 24). Before the Apocrypha in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators’ disclaimer began with the following: “These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is books, which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion.“ Did the 1611 KJV indicate the same clear distinction or separation between the Old Testament and the Apocrypha as it indicated between the Old Testament and the New Testament with its separate title page?
Probably aimed at the Geneva Bible, Archbishop Abbot, one of the KJV translators, issued in 1615 an order forbidding the sale of Bibles without the Apocrypha (Simms,
Bible from the Beginning, p. 198). KJV-only advocate Jack Moorman also acknowledged that Abbot "in 1615 forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (
Forever Settled, p. 183).
