1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Apocrypha

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Salty, Apr 14, 2022.

Top Posters
  1. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,981
    Likes Received:
    2,616
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So why was the Apocrypha part of the KJV?
     
    #1 Salty, Apr 14, 2022
  2. Marooncat79

    Marooncat79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,643
    Likes Received:
    642
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They said that while uninspired that it was profitable for reading. Some parts of it are good. Macanese for examplw
     
    #2 Marooncat79, Apr 14, 2022
  3. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,981
    Likes Received:
    2,616
    Faith:
    Baptist
    IMHO - The Anglician church was nothing more that a re-named Roman Catholic church

    This happened in 1534 - - 77 years later - was the KJV
     
    #3 Salty, Apr 14, 2022
  4. Reformed1689

    Reformed1689 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2019
    Messages:
    9,905
    Likes Received:
    1,820
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If that was the case, why not make a secondary book? Why include it with the Scripture?
     
    #4 Reformed1689, Apr 14, 2022
  5. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,981
    Likes Received:
    2,616
    Faith:
    Baptist
    IMHO - the Anglican church was nothing more than a re-named Roman Catholic church.
    This happened in 1534 - then 77 years later the 1611 KJV
     
    #5 Salty, Apr 14, 2022
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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 as Scripture in the churches.

    In addition, the cross references in the 1611 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?
     
    #6 Logos1560, Apr 14, 2022
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The high regard that the Church of England of the 1500's and 1600's had for the Apocrypha can 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).
     
    #7 Logos1560, Apr 14, 2022
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,916
    Likes Received:
    241
    So they did in a sense receive them in the same way Rome did?
     
    #8 JesusFan, Apr 14, 2022
  9. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,916
    Likes Received:
    241
    If Kjvo is right, why would we n ow then not have them included in the Kjv?
     
    #9 JesusFan, Apr 14, 2022
  10. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,981
    Likes Received:
    2,616
    Faith:
    Baptist
    #10 Salty, Apr 14, 2022
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Agree with Logos - I have a facsimile 1611 and the apocryphal (papist) books included and treaty as SCRIPTURE, not as uninspired history. Very sad. Remember, it is an Anglican copyright (yes, the KJV IS copyrighted but that is ignored) or royal patent and that denomination has 100% control.

    The AV1611 had these books AND had hundreds (I've never count, may be thousands) of "word choices" in the margin. They recognized that there could be 2 or 3 English words legitimately translating the inspired original Greek/Hebrew, so listed them. Really helpful. The AV was reprinted (reset in type) more than 100 times and NO TWO PRINTINGS were identical. These were NOT "revisions", but rather "editions" of the 1611 with corrections of spelling, grammar and some definitions. Within just a decade, however, the "extra word choices" in footnote or center column disappeared - they were complicated/expensive to printing.

    The apocryphal books were also removed over the years as cost-saving until 1885 when the official decision to make inclusion optional was made by the Church of England. Most editions still opted to keep them. BTW, the Revised Version (1881) still included the apocryphal books in their Bible. The RSV (1952) removed the apocrypha from between Old/New testaments and moved them to the back of the book at the insistence of the US Episcopal Church to make a complete separation from the Bible text.
     
    #11 Dr. Bob, Apr 14, 2022
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    $64,000 question. IF the AV1611 was "perfect", how can it be "changed"? How can 20% of the AV1611 text be missing? How can all the word choices the AV1611 editors placed to give readers options in a text's wording be "omitted"?

    How can the KJV1762 Cambridge differ from the KJV1769 Oxford? For that matter how can ANY modern KJV edition differ from the AV1611 in major ways?
     
    #12 Dr. Bob, Apr 14, 2022
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,981
    Likes Received:
    2,616
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dr Bob - quick question - just for you
    Were you ever a KJV- Only?
     
    #13 Salty, Apr 14, 2022
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. I was well trained since my home church was the campus of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, my pastor its president, and many faculty members. I used and loved (and memorized) KJV. But there was no "only sect" then; this is modern error and schismatic in the church.

    In the post-war era, the liberal churches shifted to the RSV (a truly horrific translation). Our church was a leading IFB conservative Baptist from the old Northern Convention background and pushed the Old Scofield (1769 Oxford KJV) so that we would have same "study" Bible. But taking classes in the Evening Institute and then, later in high school, allowed to take seminary classes, the 1901 ASV was promoted as a better translation.

    My joy came in 1966 learning Greek and translating God's inspired Words into English. That drove me away from the beautiful KJV language but into a far clearer and more-accurate study. As a pastor and college professor, I did not want to preach one wrong thing, knowing I would be judged if unfaithful to God's Word. Then, when the attacks on the integrity and inspiration of God's Word by the "only" sect reared its ugly head, I led the opposition to it as best I could.
     
    #14 Dr. Bob, Apr 14, 2022
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,981
    Likes Received:
    2,616
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you for an excellent and informative reply.
    You brought up an interesting point "the beautiful KJV language"
    So many KJO will use that term.
    Exactly what does "Beautiful language" have to do with doctrine?
    (yes, rhetorical question)
     
    #15 Salty, Apr 15, 2022
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Conan

    Conan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2019
    Messages:
    2,062
    Likes Received:
    334
    Faith:
    Baptist
    MARGINAL REFERENCES TO THE APOCRYHA DELETED
    The total number of references to the Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James version as printed in 1611 is 113. Of this number, 102 are in the Old Testament, and 11 in the New. The New Testament passages with references to the Apocrypha are as follows:

    Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7:14
    Mat 23:37 2 Esdras 1:30
    Mat 27:43 Wisdom 2:15-16
    Luke 6:31 Tobit 4:15
    Luke 14:13 Tobit 4:7
    John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59
    Rom 9:21 Wisdom 15:7
    Rom 11:34 Wisdom 9:13
    2 Cor 9:7 Ecclesiasticus 35:9
    Heb 1:3 Wisdom 7:26
    Heb 11:35 2 Maccabees 7:7

    Changes in the King James version
     
    #16 Conan, Apr 15, 2022
  17. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,916
    Likes Received:
    241
    Why did the 1611 translators include in margins variant readings, if they had the only correct renderings available ?
     
    #17 JesusFan, Apr 15, 2022
    • Useful Useful x 1
  18. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,916
    Likes Received:
    241
    Especially if one cannot really understand what the "beautiful language" actually meant?
     
    #18 JesusFan, Apr 15, 2022
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...