The Watchman's Buffet
On the Apocrapha
Home | Insights | Q&A | Study Tools | Favorite Links | Essays/Studies | Contact Me | Guest Studies/Articles

Hello BOB,
I noticed that you said that the AV 1611 did not have all of the Apocrapha.

Do you know the reason that the Translators "PUT" the Apocrapha into the Bible?Howbeit inbetween the Old and New Testaments,not as canonical. Was it preasure by the Catholic company?

Just digging for information.
Peter

Hi Peter:

Actually, the word apocrapha itself tends to confirm this, since from the Greek 'apocrapha' can be loosely translated as 'from the writings', which infers that there are many 'writings'.

Just as even today there are many people who have written opinion there was then also. 

The important piece regarding the KJV that many people overlook through ignorance is the 'letter' which was written to the reader by the KJV translators.  This letter is quite lengthy, explains much about the pressures of the time, and was a preface furnished as a part of the original text.  I have often thought of scanning it and placing it online, but I cannot due to the need to remove pages from my copy.  I am still considering ways to do this.  Some comments on the letter are online.

here:  
http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/thesis.htm   and other places, and a searchable KJV w/ Apocrapha   Here:    http://www.biblicalproportions.com/modules/ol_bible/

From actually reading the letter it is clear that the 'apocrapha' which was included was not meant to be all inclusive:  That is, from various pressures and consent, many were excluded.   One can confirm this by noting that the apochraphical books in the catholic version is indeed different from those included with the KJV. 

Although the Catholics, as well as others (King Jacob himself) attempted to (and obviously did) apply some pressure (as can be inferred from the letter), it is not clear to what extent they succeeded.  That the catholics were somewhat successful is clear from 2 Esdras itself.  The seventh chapter of the original contains more than 110 verses, the ones after verse 70 being entirely missing in the catholic version.  The sad part is that it was the altered catholic version which was used in the KJV apocrapha.

This missing passage destroys a main (money-making) tenant of the present catholic teaching:  that is, praying for and making petition for dead people, ie, 'purgatory'.


The unaltered version is available today with a little searching. 

As James and Paul said, we have been given the Gospel, and those things which we read for edification which are foreign to this we are to discard, or at least place in a questionable position within our minds.   

The fact remains that there are many truths we do not yet know.  I can believe there were many eyewitnesses who wrote their own accounts, just as there is today.

It is my position that there was Jewish influence as well.  For example, the 'cannonized' book of Esther is a terrible travesty, and is in my opinion foreign and mystical to the Lord, and an insult.  Indeed, it is the only cannonized book which never once even mentions God or the Lord.  Some apologists have shown that the sacred name YHVH is present 4 times in the text, written backword and forward there.   see appendix #60 here:  
http://www.giveshare.org/library/companionbible/appendices/index.html

Anytime someone writes the sacred name backwards, my eyebrows go up.

My opinion is that the story of the book of Esther is one of a jewish harlot who succeded in seducing the king for the purpose of plundering and murdering thousands of innocent people, certainly not very spiritually uplifting, and certainly having within it no petition to God.  It is the story of a 'holocaust' ran by the jews.  Even today, Purim, or 'cast lots' is one of their required feasts.
Makes you wonder, eh?

We must use our spiritual eyes, my brother.

God Bless,
Bob

It's Your Choice:  You can Watch now or See later