Over ten years ago I authored a piece on this blog called Baptists
and the Apocrypha. In it I tried to offer a consistent cautious conventional
approach for Baptists to what are known as the apocryphal books, sometimes set
between the Old and New Testaments. Today I want to consider “King James and
the Apocrypha”. At times some Baptists and others attack the King James Bible
on the basis of it originally containing these 14 books.
The King James Bible in 1611 included 39 books in the Old
Testament and 27 books in the New Testament, as well as 14 other books usually
called the Apocrypha.[i] The presence of the
Apocrypha in the first King James Bible is set forth by the anti-KJVists as
“proof positive” that the King James Bible cannot be defended,[ii] often asking, “Why do
advocates of the King James Bible reject the Apocrypha, since the original 1611
version contained the Apocrypha?”[iii]
Some history regarding the Apocrypha
Jerome, in the Latin Vulgate, “introduced the term ‘Apocrypha’ to
denote ‘books of the church’, as distinct from ‘books of the canon’.”[iv] All complete English translations
of the Bible (Old and New Testaments, e.g. Wycliffe, Matthew’s, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishop’s) printed up
to the 16th century included an Apocrypha, though it was not identical in all
of them. The first Bible in English without the Apocrypha was the 1599 Geneva Bible. This section was also found in Bibles in other languages, such as Luther’s German translation, the Zürich Bible, the Spanish Reina edition, and so
forth. Its long historical connection to the sacred writings goes back to
inclusion in the Septuagint,
the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. One can complain that these
books were there, and argue about why they were there – but they were there
nonetheless. There is nothing unusual or particularly significant about its
inclusion in the King James Bible of 1611. King James Bibles may have
officially included the Apocrypha until 1666, but various printings without it –
dated as early 1619 – have been found. The much-touted Revised Version
“replacement”[v]
of the King James Bible included these books,[vi] as did the Revised
Standard Version (1946-1957).[vii] Other modern English
Bibles which contain the Apocrypha include New English Bible/Revised English
Bible, Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Millennium Bible, World English
Bible.
These books were placed at the end of the Old Testament and before
the New, to set them apart from the canonical Scriptures. “…the historical
context for Protestant English translations of the Bible out of which the KJB
would emerge was one that included placing the books of the Apocrypha as a
separate collection at the end of the Old Testament.” The Geneva Bible included
a preface that the books of the Apocrypha “were not to be read or expounded
publicly in church and could only prove doctrine inasmuch as they agree with
the” Old and New Testaments.[viii] “[I]t was not until the
19th century that the removal of the Apocrypha from all Protestant Bibles
became the norm.”[ix]
King James Translators and the Apocrypha
“The proposal for a new translation came from Dr. John Reynolds
[Rainolds], President of Corpus Christi College at Oxford, a leader of the
Puritan side in the Church of England, and one of the greatest scholars of his
day. Reynolds’s proposal caught King James’ fancy and he set in order the
machinery to bring about the translation.”[x]
As yet I have not found much in the way of direct statements on
the Apocrypha by the King James Bible translators. King James himself perhaps
preferred it more than the Puritans, but did not count the books inspired (See The King James Version at
400, pages 348-349).
Translator George Abbot, when later the Archbishop of Canterbury,
issued an edict “that forbade the publication of Bibles without the Apocrypha.”[xi] But both the Puritans and
High-Church Anglicans apparently subscribed to “Article VI on the Holy
Scriptures” from the Book
of Articles which was “agreed
upon by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces and the whole clergy in the
convocation holden at London in the year 1562...” Referencing the Apocrypha, Article
VI stated, “And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for
example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to
establish any doctrine; such are these following:
“The Third Book of Esdras. [I Esdras]
“The Fourth Book of Esdras. [II Esdras]
“The Book of Tobias. [Tobit]
“The Book of Judith. [Judeth]
“The rest of the Book of Esther. [The rest of the
Chapters of the Book of Esther]
“The Book of Wisdom. [The Wisdom of Solomon]
“Jesus the Son of Sirach. [The Wisdom of Jesus the
Son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus]
“Baruch the Prophet. [Baruch]
“The Song of the Three Children. [The Song of the
Three Holy Children]
“The Story of Susanna. [The history of Susanna]
“Of Bel and the Dragon. [The history of the
destruction of Bel and the Dragon]
“The Prayer of Manasses. [The prayer of Manasses,
King of Judah]
“The First Book of Maccabees. [The first book of the
Maccabees]
“The Second Book of Maccabees. [The second book of the
Maccabees]”[xii]
Other evidences that indicate the King James translators (and
publishers) did not hold the Apocrypha as inspired include:
- The King James Bible segregates these apocryphal books together in a section between the Old and New Testaments, unlike Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Bibles.
- Notations in certain book titles hint at a lower view of the Apocrypha. For example, the title of “The rest of the Chapters of the Booke of Esther” adds, “which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Calde.” The additions to Daniel are marked as “That which followeth is not in the Hebrew” [The Song of the three holy children] and “it is not in Hebrew” [The history of Susanna].
- There is other material added between the covers, which is obviously not intended to be on the same level as inspired Scipture; for example, the genealogy on page 76 (lxxvi).
Many modern scholars consider the Codex Vaticanus one of the best Greek texts, with the Codex Sinaiticus an important support for critical studies. The Codex Vaticanus contained most of the Apocrypha and the surviving Codex Sinaiticus contains seven books the Apocrypha – as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. These codices are the dual support of popular Greek New Testaments and the modern translations founded on them. Those who advocate these texts and translations should be ashamed to harp about the Apocrypha being in the King James Bible, when it is found in their favored texts and sometimes in their favorite translations.[xvi]
Conclusion
Fourteen books of the Apocrypha are found in the King James Bible. It is a matter of historical record. It is no stain on the King James Bible. Modern proponents of the King James Bible may well follow the precedent of the translators and others – “The books commonly called Apocrypha” are not divinely inspired and are not part of the canon of Scripture. They are not authoritative as a rule of faith and practice, but may be read like any other human writing.
[Note: For other points made against the Apocrypha as scripture, see Against the Apocrypha as Scripture.]
[i] I
use “Apocrypha” as a singular noun standing for fourteen non-canonical books
associated with the Bible.
[ii] A
recent exchange with a closet anti-KJVist provided the impetus for this post.
“Closet” anti-KJVists often couch their objections in “I love the KJV, but…”
There are people who sincerely use this phrase, but closet anti-KJVists use it
to deflect objections when their obvious motives are about to be uncovered.
[iii]
The design of this rhetorical question is to posit that “the KJV as preferred
text” is indefensible. If supporters of the King James Bible have rejected the
Apocrypha, then if follows (so they say) that they should reject the King James
Bible as well.
[iv] Bible:
The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011, Gordon Campbell, London: Oxford
University Press, 2010, p. 44; Much can be found online claiming that the Roman
Catholic Church had an early and long-established canon including the “Apocrypha,”
or deuterocanonical works (literally meaning a second canon; to the Catholics
this means second in chronology, while to the Orthodox it means second in authority).
Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic 2001 Pontifical Biblical Commission study,
The
Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (English
translation copyright 2002) admits that the “Apocrypha” or “deuterocanonical” works
“were accepted only after centuries of hesitation” and this was not resolved (for them) until the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564. The Apocrypha of the
Church of England and the section in the King James Bible is distinct from the Roman
Catholic deutero-canon. The King James Bible includes three books (1 Esdras/3
Esdras, 2 Esdras/4 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh) which were not included in the
list of the Council of Trent. The Eastern Orthodox deuterocanonical books vary
somewhat from both of these.
[v] Of
Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort fame.
[vi]
And included 70 more verses of 2 Esdras; this comes out as 140 verses in
chapter 7 rather than 70 verses.
[vii]
Though they are often printed without them.
[viii]
The King James Version at 400: Assessing Its Genius as Bible Translation, edited by David G. Burke, John F. Kutsko, Philip H. Towner, Atlanta, GA:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2013, p. 347
[xi] The
King James Version at 400, edited by David G. Burke, John F. Kutsko, Philip H. Towner, p. 349
[xii]
The first book name in the list is from the “Book of Articles,” while the book name
that follows in brackets is from the King James Bible.
[xiii]
Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, Vol. III, London: Cassell, Petter and
Galpin, 1865, p. 15
[xiv] The
Summe and Substance of the Conference: Which It Pleased His Excellent Majestie
to Have with the Lords, Bishops, and others of his Clergie...at Hampton
Court, William Barlow, n.p. 1804, pp. 44-45; German Reformer Andreas
Bodenstein von Karlstadt divided the Apocrypha into non-inspired but good books
and “foolish writings ‘worthy of the Censor’s ban’.” Martin Luther’s Bible set
them apart, noting that these books “are not held equal to the sacred scriptures,
and yet are useful and good for reading.” (See The Apocrypha, Martin Goodman, Editor,
Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 3.)
[xv] The
Apocrypha in Early Modern England, Ariel Hessayon, p. 143; See also The
Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church, p. 106
[xvi]
KJV-Onlyists often invite these kinds of arguments with ill-advised and
hypocritical arguments of their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment