KJV and apocrypha

As Anglicans, the KJV translators likely did not accept the apocryphal books as "scripture". However, they did recognize their value and place in Church readings.

Anglicans have "39 Articles of Religion", basically a Statement of Faith. This list predates the KJV, and is still used today. As far as I am able to determine, this is how articles 6 through 8 read in the early 17th century:

----------
Article VI
Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings
The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less

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
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.


Article VII
Of the Old Testament

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore there are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.


Article VIII
Of the Three Creeds

The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius's Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture."
----------

Note that in their list, what they call "The First Book of Esdras" and "The Second Book of Esdras" are more commonly known today as Ezra and Nehemiah.

 

--------------------------------------------------
The intent is to take a look at historical evidence (not feelings) and determine if the apocrypha was included by the 1611 translators as scripture. Or is there evidence they did not feel that it was scripture.
--------------------------------------------------


You contradict yourself, and show quite plainly your real reason for starting this thread.


You would like to talk about the apocrypha? At least when it was included in the Bible, it was not incorporated in it as scripture and shortly taken out, unlike the Alexandrian manuscripts. It was separated from them, just as the maps, concordance, and footnotes, etc.

You would do well Phillip, in my opinion, if you just plain stopped trying to justify things, you KNOW are wrong by bringing up such irrelevant things such as this and continually approaching God's words with "what if's" and "then whats", which seem to indicate you are approaching this with human reasoning and false logic, rather than faith.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

No contradiction there, Michelle. He wants to look at the feelings/intent of the 1611 translators, not the feelings of the posters.

 

--------------------------------------------------
No contradiction there, Michelle. He wants to look at the feelings/intent of the 1611 translators, not the feelings of the posters.
--------------------------------------------------


Are you now condoning ESP? Can you or anyone else KNOW what the translators FELT? And even if you could, this doesn't prove ANYTHING regarding this issue.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Agree with manchester on this, Michelle. I pray that you let it lie as originally posted.

 

Does it matter what the KJV translators believed? If the KJV was uniquely inspired and God was transmitting all and only his true Word through the KJV, then the inclusion of the Apocrypha tells us something (just as the inclusion or exclusion of disputed verses in other books tells us something).

 

---------------------------------------------------

Michelle, would you please leave my threads alone. I am getting so tired of getting them SHUT down. If you don't want to add something constructive then go away. . . please!
--------------------------------------------------


So pointing out the TRUTH to you, that this is NOT constructive, is not adding something? I beg to differ.

Should we then discuss on the Bible Version Debate forum what the translators thought about the color of the leather should be? Or how bout what they thought about the maps? How in the world is this constructive, edifying and relevant to the issue?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

If the KJV was uniquely inspired, then I believe 2 Tim 3:16 and Rev 22:18-19 is God's way of speaking about the Apocrypha.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Does it matter what the KJV translators believed? If the KJV was uniquely inspired and God was transmitting all and only his true Word through the KJV, then the inclusion of the Apocrypha tells us something (just as the inclusion or exclusion of disputed verses in other books tells us something).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If this is the case, there is a much better reason to look long, close and hard at the translators of the modern versions, and those responsible for the texts and methods that underline them. There is much more evidence of their apostacy, and influence of that apostacy in them, than that of the KJB translators. This whole thread is NOT constructive to the central issue and is being used as a means to defer from the issue and the truth of it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Yes, the Episcopal Church is Anglican, and is the US extension of the Anglican Church of England. I'm not sure why they use the word "Episcopal" in addition to "Anglican". As far as I can tell, yes, they hold to the same 39 Articles.

As for why they included the books between the OT and NT without mention of whether or not they were considered "scripture", I think it's because it was common knowledge in England at that time that although the Church of England used and valued and read from the apocryphal books, it was more because of tradition and not because they considered them "scripture". They considered the books very important, given the fact that they spent so much of the translation effort on producing them, and then later made it illegal to sell Bibles in England without the apocrypha (this was also a political move, to minimize the use of the Geneva and other Bibles).

 

So Michelle believes we should reject all new translations and adopt the full KJV 1611, with all scripture (2 Tim 3:16) including the Apocrypha?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Does it matter what the KJV translators believed? If the KJV was uniquely inspired and God was transmitting all and only his true Word through the KJV, then the inclusion of the Apocrypha tells us something (just as the inclusion or exclusion of disputed verses in other books tells us something).
--------------------------------------------------


And this was my point exactly!


--------------------------------------------------
You contradict yourself, and show quite plainly your real reason for starting this thread.
--------------------------------------------------


because he said:


--------------------------------------------------
If this turns into a KJVO mess, would the administrators please close it. That is NOT the intent.

The intent is to take a look at historical evidence (not feelings) and determine if the apocrypha was included by the 1611 translators as scripture. Or is there evidence they did not feel that it was scripture.

Let's stick to facts folks and not get into a ruckus about KJVOnlyism. Thank you!
--------------------------------------------------


He is also antagonizing others because his stated INTENT, is different than what this thread REVEALS.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

"Originally posted by michelle:
You would do well Phillip, in my opinion, if you just plain stopped trying to justify things, you KNOW are wrong by bringing up such irrelevant things such as this and continually approaching God's words with "what if's" and "then whats", which seem to indicate you are approaching this with human reasoning and false logic, rather than faith."

Even if the KJVO people believe what they believe out of blind faith and without regard to reasoning or logic, that doesn't stop us from discussing the Apocrypha and the origins of the KJV.