Apocrypha

[Tony Merritt]

Hey all. I need some help here. I am doing some research on the KJV 1611 bible. I know that this could be posted somewhere else. But I put it here for personal reasons. My studies so far have stated that the Apocrypha was not in the first KJV 1611. But I have found on-line in places that is was in the first KJV 1611. But was later taken out. Which one is correct? And does anyone know any good trustworthy sites to do more research? Thanks for any help.



Tony M

 

[No Swansong]

The Deuterocanon/Apocrypha (called both) was included in the 1611 but was separated from the other books and placed between the Old and the New Testaments. Perhaps someone a little better informed can address the why's and wherefore's as to its removal.

 

[TwinCrier]

Yes, the Apocrypha was in the original 1611 edition of the bible. The word Apocrypha literally means of questionable reliability. They were never viewed as authenic scripture, but with them being in middle of the bible, obviously some would mistake them as such so they were removed.

A site I highly recommend is biblebelievers.com

 

[BigNorsk]

There is a complete fascimile of the first edition 1611 "he" KJV available for viewing at http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

You can take a look at it and see for yourself exactly how it was laid out, the text, the illustrations, and the other nonscripture parts in it.

Marv

 

[Tony Merritt]

The Deuterocanon/Apocrypha (called both) was included in the 1611 but was separated from the other books and placed between the Old and the New Testaments. Perhaps someone a little better informed can address the why's and wherefore's as to its removal.

Thank you.


Tony

 

[Tony Merritt]

Yes, the Apocrypha was in the original 1611 edition of the bible. The word Apocrypha literally means of questionable reliability. They were never viewed as authenic scripture, but with them being in middle of the bible, obviously some would mistake them as such so they were removed.

A site I highly recommend is biblebelievers.com

Thanks. I will check it out.




Tony

 

[Tony Merritt]

There is a complete fascimile of the first edition 1611 "he" KJV available for viewing at http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

You can take a look at it and see for yourself exactly how it was laid out, the text, the illustrations, and the other nonscripture parts in it.

Marv

Thank you Marv. I will look at it right now.



Tony

 

[BigNorsk]

The basic reason for the "removal" of the Apochrypha from the canon is that the Jews never recognized them as scripture, they are not part of the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. There were a lot of books written over the years, some of them were even held in quite high esteem. Take the Book of Jasher which is mentioned in a couple of places, like Joshua 10:13, it is basically treated as if it's written in the book of Jasher, you can trust it happened, yet still it is not inspired scripture.

Joshua 10:13 KJV And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher ? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

So what happened at the time of the Reformation is that the Protestants recognized that the Apochryphal books were not God-breathed, they were not written by an oracle of God. So we ended up with the same New Testament as the Catholics but the Hebrew Old Testament as canonical.

Now the major authority used to argue for the Apochryphal books being included is the Septuagint and that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from it. Note that though they both point to the Septuagint, the Catholics and Orthodox still have slightly different canons. But anyway, most of the Apochryphal books did not even exist when the Septuagint was translated, some, authorities seem to pretty well agree weren't even written until after Jesus. Yet, there seems to be this belief that Jesus was quoting from a Septuagint exactly like the Septuagint of today. That seems not to be the case, based on our best knowledge. So the Septuagint arguement seems to have a lot of holes in it.

Then there is the internal evidence. Some of the Apochryphal books are clearly not written by whom they claim to be written by. Now we don't know with certainty who wrote all the books of the bible, but if a particular author is claimed, it had better be correct to be scripture. There are also other mistakes in the books. And if you read them many just do not read as scripture. So external evidence for inclusion is weak at best, internal evidence is weak at best and when you consider external and internal evidence it's pretty clear in most cases that they aren't scripture.

That's just a small summary, there are of course entire books written on the subject and the arguements can get very detailed.

Marv

 

[Sketcher]

The basic reason for the "removal" of the Apochrypha from the canon is that the Jews never recognized them as scripture, they are not part of the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. There were a lot of books written over the years, some of them were even held in quite high esteem. Take the Book of Jasher which is mentioned in a couple of places, like Joshua 10:13, it is basically treated as if it's written in the book of Jasher, you can trust it happened, yet still it is not inspired scripture.

Joshua 10:13 KJV And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher ? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

So what happened at the time of the Reformation is that the Protestants recognized that the Apochryphal books were not God-breathed, they were not written by an oracle of God. So we ended up with the same New Testament as the Catholics but the Hebrew Old Testament as canonical.

Now the major authority used to argue for the Apochryphal books being included is the Septuagint and that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from it. Note that though they both point to the Septuagint, the Catholics and Orthodox still have slightly different canons. But anyway, most of the Apochryphal books did not even exist when the Septuagint was translated, some, authorities seem to pretty well agree weren't even written until after Jesus. Yet, there seems to be this belief that Jesus was quoting from a Septuagint exactly like the Septuagint of today. That seems not to be the case, based on our best knowledge. So the Septuagint arguement seems to have a lot of holes in it.

Then there is the internal evidence. Some of the Apochryphal books are clearly not written by whom they claim to be written by. Now we don't know with certainty who wrote all the books of the bible, but if a particular author is claimed, it had better be correct to be scripture. There are also other mistakes in the books. And if you read them many just do not read as scripture. So external evidence for inclusion is weak at best, internal evidence is weak at best and when you consider external and internal evidence it's pretty clear in most cases that they aren't scripture.

That's just a small summary, there are of course entire books written on the subject and the arguements can get very detailed.

Marv

That's pretty good, can you give me some sources? Especially about the Septuigant?

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Tony

Good question. If my memory serves me correctly the first Ed. of the 1611 KJV that did not contain the Apochrypha (Apoc) was a version that was printed by the United states govenment, using tax payers money.

The U.S government wanted to produce a bible some time in the late 17, eary 1800's. Seeing that the Geneva was the bible of choice and most used in the states. there desire was to have an other one in use, the US made arrangements with the Cambridge University Press who held and still holds the copyright for this version to reproduce the text under a letter pattern.
This version did not contain the Apoc as to be in line with the Geneva, as it represented the standand of the Scriptural traditions of early Purintians of U.S.A.

Today the copyright is still in place in united Kingdom and is some times refered to as a "crown" copy right. Letter patterns have been granted to many other contries today as this version has been the most used around the world by english speaking people.

Hope that helps,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

The basic reason for the "removal" of the Apochrypha from the canon is that the Jews never recognized them as scripture, they are not part of the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. There were a lot of books written over the years, some of them were even held in quite high esteem. Take the Book of Jasher which is mentioned in a couple of places, like Joshua 10:13, it is basically treated as if it's written in the book of Jasher, you can trust it happened, yet still it is not inspired scripture.

Joshua 10:13 KJV And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher ? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

So what happened at the time of the Reformation is that the Protestants recognized that the Apochryphal books were not God-breathed, they were not written by an oracle of God. So we ended up with the same New Testament as the Catholics but the Hebrew Old Testament as canonical.

Now the major authority used to argue for the Apochryphal books being included is the Septuagint and that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from it. Note that though they both point to the Septuagint, the Catholics and Orthodox still have slightly different canons. But anyway, most of the Apochryphal books did not even exist when the Septuagint was translated, some, authorities seem to pretty well agree weren't even written until after Jesus. Yet, there seems to be this belief that Jesus was quoting from a Septuagint exactly like the Septuagint of today. That seems not to be the case, based on our best knowledge. So the Septuagint arguement seems to have a lot of holes in it.

Then there is the internal evidence. Some of the Apochryphal books are clearly not written by whom they claim to be written by. Now we don't know with certainty who wrote all the books of the bible, but if a particular author is claimed, it had better be correct to be scripture. There are also other mistakes in the books. And if you read them many just do not read as scripture. So external evidence for inclusion is weak at best, internal evidence is weak at best and when you consider external and internal evidence it's pretty clear in most cases that they aren't scripture.

That's just a small summary, there are of course entire books written on the subject and the arguements can get very detailed.

Marv

Good Day, Marv

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BigNorsk again.​

​

 

[BBAS 64]

That's pretty good, can you give me some sources? Especially about the Septuigant?

Good Day, Twistedsketch

It is very hard to know in what form the Septuigant took for the days of our Lord and for the early Jews.

2. In the Early Church
17. Since the first Christians were for the most part Palestinian Jews, either “Hebrew” or “Hellenistic” (cf. Ac 6:1), their views on Scripture would have reflected those of their environment, but we are poorly informed on the subject. Nevertheless, the writings of the New Testament suggest that a sacred literature wider than the Hebrew canon circulated in Christian communities. Generally, the authors of the New Testament manifest a knowledge of the deuterocanonical books and other non-canonical ones since the number of books cited in the New Testament exceeds not only the Hebrew canon, but also the so-called Alexandrian canon.34 When Christianity spread into the Greek world, it continued to use sacred books received from Hellenistic Judaism.35 Although Hellenistic Christians received their Scriptures from the Jews in the form of the Septuagint, we do not know the precise form, because the Septuagint has come down to us only in Christian writings. What the Church seems to have received was a body of Sacred Scripture which, within Judaism, was in the process of becoming canonical. When Judaism came to close its own canon, the Christian Church was sufficiently independent from Judaism not to be immediately affected. It was only at a later period that a closed Hebrew canon began to exert influence on how Christians viewed it.


1. In Judaism
There are differences between the Jewish canon of Scripture30 “Law”, Nebi'im, “Prophets”, and Ketubim, other “Writings”. The number 24 was often reduced to 22, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In the Christian canon, to these 2422 books correspond 39 books, called “protocanonical”. The numerical difference is explained by the fact that the Jews regarded as one book several writings that are distinct in the Christian canon, the writings of the Twelve Prophets, for example.] and the Christian canon of the Old Testament.31 To explain these differences, it was generally thought that at the beginning of the Christian era, there existed two canons within Judaism: a Hebrew or Palestinian canon, and an extended Alexandrian canon in Greek — called the Septuagint — which was adopted by Christians.
Recent research and discoveries, however, have cast doubt on this opinion. It now seems more probable that at the time of Christianity's birth, closed collections of the Law and the Prophets existed in a textual form substantially identical with the Old Testament. The collection of “Writings”, on the other hand, was not as well defined either in Palestine or in the Jewish diaspora, with regard to the number of books and their textual form. Towards the end of the first century A.D., it seems that 2422 books were generally accepted by Jews as sacred,32 but it is only much later that the list became exclusive.33 When the limits of the Hebrew canon were fixed, the deuterocanonical books were not included.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html

Peace to u,

Bill​

 

[Tony Merritt]

The basic reason for the "removal" of the Apochrypha from the canon is that the Jews never recognized them as scripture, they are not part of the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. There were a lot of books written over the years, some of them were even held in quite high esteem. Take the Book of Jasher which is mentioned in a couple of places, like Joshua 10:13, it is basically treated as if it's written in the book of Jasher, you can trust it happened, yet still it is not inspired scripture.

Joshua 10:13 KJV And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher ? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

So what happened at the time of the Reformation is that the Protestants recognized that the Apochryphal books were not God-breathed, they were not written by an oracle of God. So we ended up with the same New Testament as the Catholics but the Hebrew Old Testament as canonical.

Now the major authority used to argue for the Apochryphal books being included is the Septuagint and that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from it. Note that though they both point to the Septuagint, the Catholics and Orthodox still have slightly different canons. But anyway, most of the Apochryphal books did not even exist when the Septuagint was translated, some, authorities seem to pretty well agree weren't even written until after Jesus. Yet, there seems to be this belief that Jesus was quoting from a Septuagint exactly like the Septuagint of today. That seems not to be the case, based on our best knowledge. So the Septuagint arguement seems to have a lot of holes in it.

Then there is the internal evidence. Some of the Apochryphal books are clearly not written by whom they claim to be written by. Now we don't know with certainty who wrote all the books of the bible, but if a particular author is claimed, it had better be correct to be scripture. There are also other mistakes in the books. And if you read them many just do not read as scripture. So external evidence for inclusion is weak at best, internal evidence is weak at best and when you consider external and internal evidence it's pretty clear in most cases that they aren't scripture.

That's just a small summary, there are of course entire books written on the subject and the arguements can get very detailed.

Marv

Thank you Marv. This has been a very intesesting study.


Tony

 

[Tony Merritt]

Good Day, Tony

Good question. If my memory serves me correctly the first Ed. of the 1611 KJV that did not contain the Apochrypha (Apoc) was a version that was printed by the United states govenment, using tax payers money.

The U.S government wanted to produce a bible some time in the late 17, eary 1800's. Seeing that the Geneva was the bible of choice and most used in the states. there desire was to have an other one in use, the US made arrangements with the Cambridge University Press who held and still holds the copyright for this version to reproduce the text under a letter pattern.
This version did not contain the Apoc as to be in line with the Geneva, as it represented the standand of the Scriptural traditions of early Purintians of U.S.A.

Today the copyright is still in place in united Kingdom and is some times refered to as a "crown" copy right. Letter patterns have been granted to many other contries today as this version has been the most used around the world by english speaking people.

Hope that helps,

Bill

Thank you Bill.


Tony

 

[Logos1560]

Yes, the Apocrypha was in the original 1611 edition of the bible. The word Apocrypha literally means of questionable reliability.

What source gives that as the literal meaning of the word 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 KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority. 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). 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? If according to the "guilt-by-association" argument, the LXX, Latin Vulgate, and early Greek manuscripts are "tainted" by including the Apocryphal books, would not this same faulty reasoning also condemn the 1611 KJV? KJV-only author D. A. Waite wrote: “I do not believe in a perfect situation with the King James Bible because of the original printing of the Apocrypha in 1611. If it had been perfect and spotless and if God was behind it, they never would have included that Satanic Apocrypha in the Old Testament” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 110).

 

[Logos1560]

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 regard is also clearly evident in the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604). 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). Several of the KJV translators who worked with, were taught by, or were associated with Whitgift may have held similar views. 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.

 

[jasper123]

Yes The Original Kjv Had 72 Books But Later They
Took Out 6 Books And Chopped Out Alot Of Ester
Because It Was In Latin


The Books They Took Out Were Books Of The
Cannon. Cannon Means Rule. By This Chopping
They Also Got Rid Of The Arch Angel Rafheal.

Thealso Put In About 30 Unicorns For Things
They Could Translate


Good Luck




John

 

[Logos1560]

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). Does this indicate that the official position of the "superior" KJV translators was that the Apocrypha should be published with the Bible? If George Abbot, who at least leaned toward or tolerated Puritan views, had such a high regard for the Apocrypha, the many KJV translators with High Church views had even more regard for it.