1611 Apocrypha

1611 Apocrypha[i]

Cavilers slander the 1611 Translation because the apocryphal books were part of the KJV Bible translation. However, there just looking at that fact on the surface.

Here are the details about the inclusion of the apocrypha. The apocryphal books were translated by the 6^th company at Cambridge (John Bios &c., the Sixth Company at Cambridge[ii]). At that time in Church history the apocryphal books were more commonly read and they were treated as having some historical value. Though the Roman Catholic canonized the apocrypha at the council of Trent, and put a “curse causeless” (Prov. 26:2) upon anyone who didn’t except them as canonical books; yet Protestants still didn’t accept them as Scripture. The Roman Catholic church includes them with the Old Testament, scattering the books throughout the canon. (cf. Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21; 1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9) The 1611 translators placed between the Old and New Testaments.[iii] (That was a good place for them too: because they were written during the ‘intertestamental period’ [viz. Malachi {B.C.}–Matthew {A.D.}] and because they didn’t belong in the Old or New Testament canons.)

Was the Apocrypha part of the 1611’s Old Testament, like it is with the Roman Catholic church, Vaticanus (B), and Aleph (א)? No. Was the Apocrypha part of the 1611’s New Testament like Aleph (א)? No. The 1611 Apocryphal wasn’t part of the Old Testament Canon or the New Testament Canon, it was between Malachi and Matthew for historical purposes. They were not treated as canonical books! I have a 400 year anniversary replica 1611 Bible in my possession and when I turn it to the table of contents page it has three sections: a section for the Old Testament books, a section for the Apocrypha, and a section for the New Testament books. Note the three distinct sections, with Apocrypha not part of the Old Testament: unlike the Roman Catholic bibles which combine the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament. In the official Roman Catholic canon the seven apocryphal books are interspersed though the Old Testament books: the 1611 translators obviously didn’t follow this Catholic tradition because they created a whole new section for these uninspired books.

While Nicolaitan/Alexandrian scholars ridicule the apocrypha’s inclusion in the 1611 translation—at the same time they make a hypocritically fatal mistake: their darling mss (B & א) show less integrity than the 1611 Translation. Because while the 1611 placed the Apocrypha between the Testaments, B and א intermix it with the Old Testament! The same way the official Roman Catholic church’s canon includes the Apocryphal with their Old Testament. But that should not come as a surprise, after all, B’s name is “Vaticanus” and it was stored in the Vatican Library. No marvel pro-Catholic scholars advocate B; they secretly advocate the pope at the same time.

Here are Gipp’s notes about the apocrypha’s inclusion in the 1611 Translation:

‘First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.’[iv]

King James (commissioner of the 1611 Translation) rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. He likened it to a corrupting or leavening agent. Here’s the official quotation from the King, ‘And is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equal faith with the Canonical Scriptures, contrary to the Fathers opinions and Decrees of ancient Counsels?’[v] That’s completely true about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Because manuscripts B and א interweave the apocryphal books with the Jewish canon (the Old Testament canon the Lord Jesus Christ defined—see Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51, 24:44), those Alexandrian manuscripts are also chock-full of leaven. (see Matt. 13:33, 16:6; I Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9)

There are seven reasons why the 1611 translators didn’t accept the apocrypha as Scripture: those seven reasons are listed on page 142 of ‘Translators Revived’ by Alexander McClure and pages 99-100 (Question #34) of ‘The Answer Book’ by Samuel Gipp, pages 139-140 in David W. Daniels’ ‘Answers To Your Bible Version Questions’, and pages 27-28 in James L. Melton’s ‘Fighting Back!’. Here are the seven reasons: The reasons assigned for not admitting the Apocryphal books into the canon or list of inspired Scriptures are briefly the following. (1) Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. (2) Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. (3) These books were never acknowledge as sacred Scripture by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. (4) They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church. (5) They contain fabulous statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many places. (6) It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. (7) It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. For these and other reasons, the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one which is exant only in Latin, are valuable only as ancient documents, illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

The 1611 translators also labeled the top of each page as ‘Apocrypha’.[vi] I have a facsimile edition of the 1611 Apocrypha, and the word ‘Apocrypha’ is typed twice at the top of each page.

Further, the cavilers (usually modern scholars) who ridicule the 1611 translators for translating the apocrypha reveal themselves as hypocrites: because the KJV translators clearly rejected these books as authoritative by placing them between the Testaments and labeling them ‘Apocrypha’—yet the manuscripts (B and א) which modern scholars idolize and based their bible perversion off of are not only corrupt manuscripts, but them integrate the apocryphal book WITH the Old and New Testaments. Clearly the King James Bible translators had more integrity than the Catholic church (who canonized apocrypha and catalogued the Vaticanus ‘B’ manuscript), the Alexandrian ‘scholars’ (who corrupted the Scriptures and admixed the apocrypha with the Old and New Testaments), AND they had more integrity than the modern scholars who hypocritical accuse the 1611—while at the same time they ACCEPT everything that comes down the pipe from Alexandrian/Catholic scholarship.

The next time someone tries to complain about the apocrypha being included in the 1611 Holy Bible, ask them: ‘What’s 1x6x11?’ 66. There sixty-six canonical Book in the King James Authorized 1611 Holy Version. And what about the Book of the Prophet Isaiah? It is a ‘mini-bible’. It has exactly 66 Chapters with a division between the 39^th and 40^th Chapters: just like the Old and New Testament Canons. The 39^th Chapter concludes the story of Hezekiah and then the 40^th Chapters begins the prophecies of the restoration of Israel. Also in the 40^th Chapter, the forerunner of the Lord Jesus Christ, John the Baptist shows up with his ‘wilderness cry’ just like he does in the 40^th book of the Bible (Matthew)!