Why were 14 books ripped out of the King James Bible in 1885?

reply to post by UnlimitedSky

Yes, reincarnation was mentioned on p.4 of the thread, especially by Pure Energy.

I'm not sure how much that has to do with the Apocrypha (still busy reading and analyzing the traditional Apocrypha), and since p. 3 on the thread there's a lot of confusion between the Apocrypha and the "Gnostic Gospels", which are not the same.

There does seem to have been an attempt to obscure the two at times, which is also very interesting.

So some Protestants will triumphantly mention Gnostic books (on the NT) and say they do know the Apocrypha, when clearly they do not, and they cannot distinguish between the missing 14 books and a range of other material.

If one deliberately sets out searching for proof of reincarnation the official NT probably has more relevant material (St. John and Elijah) than the KVJ Apocrypha that went missing in 1885.

For me it's more interesting to find out about the Pharisees, the Babylonians, and where customs like Hanukkah came from.

reply to post by halfoldman


Can't really say anything for certain until we have read every gospel...too bad most of them were burned.

Generally, we destroy that which is dangerous. What does that tell you about the Church?

My Oxford New Revised Standard Edition of the bible (which is based on the KJ Bible) includes the Apocrypha. It's a great edition in that it is heavily footnoted and offers the probably the best modern translation available of the original texts (even so, my college professor found himself occasionally giving lengthy explanations of some shade of meaning lost in the translation, so it's not perfect). It's not nearly as poetic as the KJB, but it's more accurate to the original text. It's what we used in my "Emergence of Christianity" class I had in college.

I noticed that in the 1560 Geneva Bible, which was the pilgrims bible for a good many years, that it does have 13 of the 14 books of the Apocrypha between the old testament and the new testament. The 14th book, of which is the Prayer of Manasseh, is placed between 2nd Chronicles and Ezra. Don't know who decided this. Of course the Geneva Bible was not sanctioned by the church as literary literature but was the protestant reformation bible.
The original 1611 King James Bible also has the entire 14 books of the Apocrypha between the old testament and the new testament. The KJV was sanctioned by the church of England at that time.

The Apocrypha was never canonized by the Jews. The five books of Moses were the canon of the Jews called Torah in about 200 BC. The Prophets were canonized by the Jews at about 200 BC. The Writings were canonized by the Jews at about 100 AD. Put them altogether and you have the Hebrew Tanakh or bible. The 14 books of Apocrypha never were part of the Hebrew bible.

The reason the Apocrypha was never canonized by the Jews was that the manuscripts were found written in Greek. The Jews only canonized manuscripts written in Hebrew and regarded any other language as impure. In other words these 14 manuscripts of apocrypha could never be proven to the Jews as being authentic and therefore never considered to be part of their prophets or writings. They were accepted by Christians because the early church consisted of Greek speaking Jews as well as Gentiles.

So in all reality the Jews disowned the apocrypha and the gentiles adopted them as their books. In other words the apocrypha was never borrowed or stolen by Christianity but simply adopted. What the early church did was to use these books as to edify the church just as they did with other literature such as the books of Enoch. The rest is simply history. Some people took authority and decided what others should or should not read or believe. We have this going on today. That is why we have so many different churches and bibles. Seems like everybody is doing their own thing. Actually it doesn't hurt a thing if you have the apocrypha in your bible. If you don't want it there just buy another bible that doesn't have it.

My question was originally why the Kings James Bible had the Apocrypha from it's first edition in 1611 until 1885.

I'm still not sure why it was removed at that particular point.

And the KVJ Bible isn't just any old Bible to Protestant English-speaking Christians.
It is the standard and "unadulterated" inspired Word of God.

So it's really not good enough to say, oh just get a Catholic or another Bible.

I want answers as to why these societies suddenly removed it after so many centuries.

Sure, there's many Bible editions, and debates.
Luther wanted to leave out Revelations, and eventually put in an appendix.
Some wanted The Song of Songs or Songs of Solomon out due to its soft-porn nature, and lack of much else.
I have an old Bible that was handed out in schools and the old South African Defense Force, where the entire Old Testament is missing.
But that could simply be to save space, and in a war situation the Gospels are probably more reassuring than the Levite purity laws, or endless tribal disputes (although Apartheid Nationalism certainly had a stream of viewing the Afrikaners as a lost tribe of Israel).

Still the attitude so far from most post-1885 KJV apologists is rather dismissive and unenlightening.

Creationists quote it, and find all kinds of dragons and dinosaurs in other cultures, except for the dragon in Bel and The Dragon.
Yet they make overtures to a Christian history when it suits them, except when it comes to the complete King James Bible!

Reading on The Maccabees it appears some chapters survived in Greek, but are regarded by Jews as translations from lost original Hebrew texts. They are still of great historical value.

So why is there this complete modern refusal to acknowledge these scriptures in any way?
How can they call the KVJ "unadulterated" when they actively participate in censoring very useful parts of the original KJV Bible?

I don't necessarily want a Catholic Bible, I want the original KJV Bible back in circulation, or they must find another term for the censored version.

Perhaps the "KJV-lite"?
Or the "post-1885 KJV"?
Why this lie and illusion?

TextMy question was originally why the Kings James Bible had the Apocrypha from it's first edition in 1611 until 1885.

reply to post by halfoldman


My understanding in your question is briefly that the original 14 books of Apocrypha were used in the early church and very frequent by the early church fathers. In other words this literature was found in Greek and used to edify the early church. It was accepted as holy script. Gutenburg brought his printing into play in 1450 and thus started the printing of bibles and translations into the English language. The first bibles of English were printed with these accepted Apocrypha so naturally they were introduced to the world as outside scripture simply because that was the tradition of the past.

1611found King James 1 of England with a problem in accepting the 1560 bible called the Geneva bible. The 1560 Geneva bible had teaching notes on the inner and outer margins. These notes offended James to the point that he despised the Geneva bible. It is said by historians that James was a bisexual sadist who enjoyed murder as well as homosexual people. The Geneva teaching notes left him in a rage as he ordered a new rendition of the scriptures printed into a bible without these notes.

As the bible was edited the editors accepted tradition of Apocrypha and inserted them between the old and new testaments against the wishes of James. James had no love for the Apocrypha because it was Catholic by tradition. The fight was on. For well over 250 years the battle over Apocrypha became more and more intense and as different authorities came into existence, they made decisions for vast amounts of people. One such authority was the American Bible Society. In 1880 the American Bible Society voted to remove the Apocrypha from the KJV and in 1885 the Archbishop of Canterbury officially removed the Apocrypha from the printing of the King James Bible. Since 1888 printing of the King Jame Bible censored the Apocrypha from the KJV.

It looks to me as though it was part and parcel of the reformation. In other words it became a Catholic and Protestant issue. That is the way I look at it. Martin Luther wanted it removed in his era and even King James 1 had an issue with it from the onset.

You can still purchase a copy of the original 1611 KJV and it really is not that difficult to learn to read. In fact I have a copy in my library along with the 1560 Geneva Bible. The 1560 Geneva is much harder to read than the 1611 KJV but that difference is the 50 years of progress in the English language. Both have the Apocrypha which I accept as holy script. You can also get copies with transliterated words in the modern English with out translation change. The KJV is a much clearer rendition of the English and I believe a most beautiful rendition to the mind. There is very little difference between the KJV and the Geneva bibles with the exception of the marginal notes.

Originally posted by MamaJ
I never assumed you were lacking anything.

Humor, cynical humor. Nothing that you triggered.

All you have is an opinion based on what you perceive reality is. What if younare wrong with your perception and opinion?

Is it more realistic to accept what happens repeatedly in this reality, in my face, or to assume something counter-intuitive to what I have seen all my life? Every appliance I've ever had eventually breaks. People get old and die. I certainly don't want to go through that more than 1 time.

I think I know energy never ends but what if im wrong?

What we're taught now is that energy converts to matter, and it takes far more energy to convert the matter back to energy.Sooner or later the energy runs out.

I think I know change is the only constant, what if im wrong?

That goes against the "steady state theory", lol. It's not about whether or not change is constant, it's about going off of what I see, or can find, so therefore I don't go past it--without at least admitting to living in the land of conjecture.

I think there is reincarnation, but what if im wrong and all there is ...is void.... Nothing?

then you look for data.

See what I mean? Opinions are just ..... Opinions.

I'm not talking about merely standing in the realm of opinions. I'm stating that we should look at the data and then apply concepts over it, and trying to figure if our conclusions (all that opinions are is conclusions--some better informed than others) have any grounding in reality. The concept of reincarnation without looking at the data of a decay-filled world is a bit dicey to me, due to the data on how this world falls apart without constant input. The assumptions that go for Reincarnation and Resurrection is that there is something incorruptible out there. Specifically the "soul". One has an outcome of a constant subjugation to decay ,and the other does not. I'd prefer to not be subjugated to decay, so sooner or later, I've got a choice to make--if I can get enough data on an "incorruptible" soul.

The best part is that I've answered the "incorruptible soul" part enough for me (data). There's plenty out there that have not--probably wouldn't accept the data that I have, for that matter. So there's plenty out there who believe (conclusions/opinions on the data) that their "soul" (mind, ect.) is corruptible and decays with he body, therefore there's only this broken existence to live through.

can you explain what the Apocryphal is about please?

This was not a secret nor should you get all upset about it.

The Apocrypha consists of books found in the Greek and Latin versions of the Old Testament, but do not exist in the original Hebrew. There is an interesting history to this collection; some churches, such as the Roman Catholic, the Greek Orthodox, and the Ethiopic, accepted them as part of the OT. But the Protestant Reformation, from Martin Luther (early 16th century) onward regard the Apocrypha as being inferior and non-canonical although generally regarded as "useful for study". Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, grouped all the Apocrypha books together in a section between the Old and New Testaments. The King James Version (1611) did likewise.

Evidently, at some time not much later, like the late 17th or early 18th century, a good many publishers of the KJV or of Luther's German or other Protestant versions of the Bible offered "streamlined" editions that omitted the Apocrypha altogether, although the de luxe editions (esp in England) continued to include the Apocrypha. Until the middle of the 20th century, the Anglican Church did include bits of the Apocrypha among the readings scheduled in its liturgical calendar, and for that reason the Apocrypha was still included in the best British editions of the KJV. It was also included in modern versions of the Bible such as the English Revised Version of the 1880s, the American Standard Version ca. 1915, the Revised Standard Version ca 1955, the New English Version ca 1970, Today's English Version ca. 1981, and others.

An interesting sidelight is that the KJV text of Second Esdras (which was thought to be originally Latin) has a very awkward passage in chapter 7, but there are a smattering of Latin manuscripts as well at ancient versions in Syriac and Ethiopic that have a lengthy passage (70 verses) that the KJV does not have. While the English Revised Version of the 1880s was being worked up, it was discovered that the "missing passage" coincided with a page that was carefully sliced out of the Codex Sangermanensis, a Latin manuscript of the 7th or 8th century - evidence razored out of the binding very early because all the Latin manuscripts subsequently made by copying from the Sangermanensis or one of the copies made from it lacked the missing passage. One of the members of the Old Testament Committee of the English Revised Version, Robert Lubbock Bensly, by a great deal of detective work and a greater amount of pure luck, managed to find that missing page, and the entire passage was restored in the English Revised Version of the Bible.

Scholars still use the Apocrypha to provide insights into religious attitudes and other information, primarily in the inter-testamental period.

The bible can provide spiritual comfort as well as providing lessons about life and dealing with one another. But the bible also show how greed and power can determine the end result of anything. I'm sure it would have been very easy to include the other writings and chapters but then those who made those decisions would have been left out of the loop in the decision making process. Power and greed has always shaped our world and it shows no sign of subsiding.

Were you guys aware that on November 27th 1983 Pope John Paul II, issued a Papal Bulletin which legalized secret society membership for Roman Catholics??

Just sayin'

Forget the Apocrypha. there's books by most the founding fathers. Enough is written that we could have put into a Bible format to make the NT 2-3 times longer than it is--on a whole variety of subjects. I've got to get around to reading up on Origen and Clement.

Here is a comprehensive list of the 14 Books ripped out of the King James Bible in 1885:-

- "10 Ways To Cook Veal With Uncle Herod"
- "Pompeii A-Z Street Maps"
- "How to Lose Friends And Influence People" by Judas Escariot.
- "An Elizabethan Lady's Book Of Needlecraft"
- "Noddy and the Magic Bed"
- A Dummy's Guide To Cruxifiction (A Reference Manual For The Rest Of Us]"
- "Sock Puppets For The Under Fives"
- "National Vintner's Association of Judea's Bad Debtor's Schedule, Volume J to K"
- "Roman Orgy Nightmares" by Gordonius Ramseyus.
- "My Best Julius Caesar And Cleo Jokes" by Flavius Maximus.
- "Origami For Beginners Part 3"
- "The Secret Diary Of A Norse God, Age 5 1/2"
- "Let's Speak Sanscrit"
- "The MacIntosh iChariot 3000 Operating Instruction Booklet"

reply to post by bearwithredhat

Nowadays we can have a sense of humor about such things, I suppose.

But Archbishop Abbot and King James would have regarded that as blasphemy, just as much as satirizing the remaining Bible would be today.
Naughty bears with red hats had to tread carefully in those days, or they'd end up in the bear baiting arena.

Here's a list and short summary of the actual 14 Apocryphal books.
goodnewspirit.com...

The site also gives explanations on the New Testament Apocrypha (which was never a matter of much dispute, except one book and The Revelations), and why, from a Christian view reshuffling and removing things from the Old Testament wasn't considered very serious.
goodnewspirit.com...

The author here surmises that the Old Testament covenant was broken in the Book of Acts, and it's only relevance was historic interest and to prophesy Christ. Since the Hebrew books were felt to have done that sufficiently the rest wasn't that important.
That may come as a shock to some modern believers, who take homophobic verses, creation theories (and sermons about Old Testament creatures like Behemoth and Leviathan as dinosaurs) and other legalisms straight from selective Old Testament scriptures.
Clearly they then take much more from the OT than the church fathers of the 19th century intended, which means the 10 accepted Apocryphal texts should at least be restored to the KJV.

So the books of the NT can never be unbound according to this logic:

Jesus took the keys of the kingdom out of the hands of the Jewish high priest and gave them to Peter, and through him, the Apostolic body. Nothing could be more "bound on earth" than the scripture they chose. With Christ's announcement that heaven would bind itself to their choices, it becomes a case-closed situation. The same cannot be said for Jamnia, however, because those decision occurred after the replacement of authority had already taken place. Christian binding appears exclusive. And once bound, Jesus said, scripture cannot be rejected.

In the New Testament, now divinely bound, is contained a chapter in the Book of Acts that unbinds the Hebrew covenant, nullifying the Old Testament that governed it. Because that, too, is bound in scripture, their decision in that regard cannot be rejected.

That's a bit strange, because Christ never specifically said what the canon of scripture would be after His ascension, or who could write it, and Acts was written afterwards. How do we know St.Paul and others didn't just appoint themselves as authorities? Nevertheless, that's the explanation given here.

The Old Testament, required no such hands-off approach in Christianity, and the Hebrew Tanakh could be reshuffled, and in 1885 the Anglicans could remove the Apocrypha:

The situation with the Old Testament is far less critical. It was dissolved as a legal and binding document on Christians by Peter and Paul and the Twelve Apostles. See Acts 15. They unanimously agreed that from the day of their decision forward, the Old Testament had no authority to lay down rules for Christians outside of those defined by the New Testament. For that reason, the Old Testament is now, for Christians, a book of prophecy and history only. That applies equally to its Apocryphal works.

However, I wonder how many evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants would be happy with this explanation and positioning of the Old Testament?
My guess is not many, if they knew about about such justifications for pruning the Bible.

Most astoundingly, one of the narrowly contested books of the New Testament Apocrypha was rejected not only because it referred to a "mythical bird" (although many Christians today believe in Leviathan), but because it prophesied the then "ridiculous notion" that "other worlds" existed beyond the oceans!

As far as the apocryphal books of the New Testament were concerned, none were chosen as scripture. The closest work was First Clement. It was written about 90 AD by the Bishop of Rome and was eliminated from contention only narrowly. One reason, it contained a prophecy stating that "across the impassable ocean other worlds" existed.

goodnewspirit.com...



Yes, the one verifiable true piece of knowledge and prophesy so far was excluded, superficially because it was too far fetched at that time, but perhaps also because the knowledge of the Americas was not yet meant for common knowledge.
That is, they probably removed it because it was true!
It was a truth the secret societies wanted to keep for themselves, until the time was ready to embark on massive colonization projects.
They didn't want every faithful Tom, Dick and Harry to sail away looking for other lands and beat them to the loot.

The irony of that is actually quite amusing.

Similarly, one suspects there are things in the accepted Apocrypha that were taken out for a purpose or due to unsound theology, but perhaps it's too late to acknowledge this now without some major embarrassment to the KVJ industry in the context of a literalist project that has pushed the post-1885 version as the inerrant Word of God for decades.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by PuRe EnErGy

 

Ahh yes, so I have been messing the spelling up a hair. Oh well, the idea I havent been messing up however. And what you find "funny" I dont really care. The truth of the matter is for the next few weeks Im without the use of my PC and Im utelizing the website via my Droid Razr and Im not too inclined to type more than a few sentences on a touch screen phone. Sorry, but you're going to have to just deal with that fact that I have big hands and it sucks to type out more than a few quick sentences. You acted shocked that the Gnostics believed Christ wasnt really flesh and blood, that He didnt really die on the cross yada yada. If you're the expert now on DOCETISM (is that satisfactory?) then all apologies, dont Google anything. But at the same time dont act or post like this is all of a sudden new information to what they believed and how it's fundamentally antibiblical.

edit on 31-5-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Actually, a careful examination of both the Nag Hammadi collection and other sources reveal that 'Gnostics' held a whole diversity of views (the ATSers of their time) but one thing is certain with all 'Gnostics' and that is a 'Gnostic' is one who seeks Gnosis. That stood then and stands now. We are not properly looking at these materials when we look at them as a 'religion' in the usual sense or a 'closed cannon' or as something 'set in stone'.

reply to post by halfoldman


And the big issue with the reference to Peter having the keys to the kingdom, or authority in scripture, is that, in English, the tenses are wrong.

Can't pull up the site to be able to show the issue in the Greek, right now, but basically, when it's talking about what Peter Bind's on Earth, it's "already bound" in heaven. This takes the weight of change off of Peter and back onto God. It's not: Peter Speaks, and it is so, but Peter Speaks because "the power of Christ compels him".

Which makes more sense. It covers "an inconsistency in the text": as in: if Peter wasn't compelled to speak only what is the truth, but could change things to suit his desires, then what does this state about Baalam? Man went out 3 times to curse the Israelites, but wound up blessing them, against his will. In the end, he tells the particular king that hired his services, that he couldn't physically curse what God had blessed, but then went on to tell that king how to defile that blessing, so that the blessing was null and void. Yes, this is the dude with the talking donkey. And it was over this dude and his defilement plan that one of those "genocidal wars" we get so up in arms about, happens--at least in this particular one we can point out that it was either kill them or lose their culture, right or wrong.

It doesn't take away free will--at least not completely. After Peter was "given the keys" he went on to make the proclamation that the law doesn't bind non-Jewish Christians, and that what people eat is not important (other than blood and sacrifice to idols), but under pressure from Jewish Christians, some time later, he quits eating with the non-Jewish when the Jewish were around--so blatantly so that Paul chewed him out, and was recorded as doing so. That's all in Acts.

Originally posted by Screwed
Ohhh boy, you have just opened up a can of worms.
Christians are not GENERALLY a group who are open to their holy book or religion being challenged with facts
and logic.

So, you have undoubtedly brought up a subject inspired by the devil to test their faith in God.

I am sorry for all of these facts being exposed.
I have known this for some time now and am poilte enough not to bring it up because
I don't want the devil working thru me in order to mislead the God fearing Christians.


Praise Allah.

My make believe invisible supreme being is more real than your make belueve supreme being. Nahnananah. Nanynanybooboo. REALLY? LOL

Originally posted by Arles Morningside
Actually, a careful examination of both the Nag Hammadi collection and other sources reveal that 'Gnostics' held a whole diversity of views (the ATSers of their time) but one thing is certain with all 'Gnostics' and that is a 'Gnostic' is one who seeks Gnosis. That stood then and stands now. We are not properly looking at these materials when we look at them as a 'religion' in the usual sense or a 'closed cannon' or as something 'set in stone'.

That's largely correct - Gnosticism emerged out of Platonism a century before Christ was born, and had a completely separate mythos and vision of God's realm. And there were (and continue to be) a wide variety of flavours of Gnostics (Kabbalah, anyone?) with all sorts of differing views of reality.

However, most people confuse Gnosticism with "Christian Gnosticism", a wholly separate bunch, who had the unenviable task of trying to reconcile classic Judaism (Christ being a Jew,) with derived Platonic Dualism. That they went with a polytheistic system should be sign enough that they were barking up the wrong tree, as regards Christ, at least. They weren't the first Christian heretics, and certainly not the last, but they've become the best known, particularly in the last forty years, even though few people really understand what they were on about.

reply to post by adjensen


Christian Gnosticism really isen't all that different from the rest of the Gnostic groups and individuals in that they sought Gnosis (hence why they are 'Gnostics') nor were they all necessarily dualists, especially when we consider the nature of the Bridal Chamber Mysteries (where Jesus teaches, 'the two are made one'). Like the other Gnostic Traditions of the time, Gnostic Christianity also had their own 'hero'. The Sethians had Seth, The Hermeticists has Hermes, and so on and so forth. They all hold more in common than first appears. The 'hero' in all of these groups represents the same thing and that same thing has many layers of meaning which are all interconnected. Most simply, the 'hero' represents what we all truly are, the 'hero' represents the 'saviour' and the 'saved', the 'hero' represents 'Gnosis'. A good example of this understanding can be seen in the Hermetic Writtings. For example, Hermes say in The Discourse of the Eigth and Ninth, "I see myself" and "I praise You. I invoke Your Name Hidden In me" (note the nature of the Father. Christos and the Initiate in Christian Gnosticism). We also see a hint of the initiation process not only in this intire work but when Hermes says "the edification you have experienced in stages". These qoutes I have mentioned come from Hermetic writtings of the Nag Hammadi but would have been most likely universally shared in all the Gnostic Traditions, including the Christian Gnostics, their writtings in the Nag Hammadi atleast lean in that direction.

I think what makes many of these writtings difficult to understand is, (A) they for initiates and (B) many of these writtings are for advanced initiates (as can be seen by the more advanced nature of the material). These writtings also have many layers of meaning both esoteric and exoteric and the initiate would have learned how to read and understand them. They also would have understood that what appears to be so on the surface is not necessarily as it appears to be (the writtings themselves hint at this themselves given their nature which would have encouraged the initiate to not only question them but look deeper). Two good examples would be the controversial 114 verse of the Gospel of St. Thomas and a qoute from the Secret Revelation of James which is:

"Behold, I speak that I may come forth.
Pay attention to me, that you may see me.
If I have come into being, who am I?
For I have come as I am not, and shall not appear as I am."

(Please forgive my lack of qoutes n' stuff, i'm in the process of moving and do not have my notes or books with me to provide better examples, i'm going by memory here, plus i'm in a hurry.)

The sources in the Nag Hammadi are rather diverse and appear to not just be limited to Judaism and Platonicism. I tend to personally think that there may be a potential for the movement itself as being more ancient than given credit. There's so little we really do know and what we do know isn't that much. We don't have all the keys to fully understand and appreciate what is preserved.
I think the idea that the Gnostic Christians were heretics is debatable because we really don't know that much about early Christianity in the first place and what we do have is mostly from the version of Christianity that won out...we are learning every day that early Christianity is far more interesting than we first thought. There has been some descussion about Judaism aswell being more diverse than originally thought and that there is also possible connections of some of the Nag Hammadi writtings with the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think these potentials could shed a great deal of light on the writtings and their writters.