The following excerpt from Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_ (1898), s.v.
Apocrypha, may be of interest. This is the section devoted to English
Protestant translations, and follows a discussion of Continental Protestant
translations.

(begin quote)

Coverdale was the first to tr. the A. from Gr. into Eng. (1536). He put
them between OT and NT with the title: 'Apocripha. The bokes and treatises
which amonge the fathers of olde are not rekened to be of like authorite
with the other bokes of the byble, nether are they fou[bar over the "u"]de
in the Canon of the Hebrue.'

Matthew's Bible (1537) reproduces Coverdale's A., and translates Calvin's
Preface, stating that these books are not to be read publicly in the
Church, nor used to prove doctrine, but only for 'furtherance of the
knowledge of the history, and for the instruction of godly manners.'

Cranmer's Bible (1540) divides OT into three parts: (1) Pent., (2) Hist.
books, (3) Remaining books, and adds, 'The volume of the bokes called
Hagiographa,' so called 'because they were wont to be read not openly and
in common, but as it were in secret and apart' ! But in the reprint of 1541
they appear as A., and simply as 'the fourth part of the Bible.'

The Bishops' Bible (1568) treats the A. still more favourably. The table of
contents gives it as ' The fourth part called Apocryphus.' The separate
title-page reads, 'The Volume of the bookes called Apocrypha.' But a
classified list of 'the whole Scripture of the Bible,' under the headings
Legal, Historical, Sapiential, and Prophetical, is given which follows the
Vulg., with two changes of order due to its scheme (puts 1 and 2 Mac after
Job, and Ps before Is), and with the addition of 3 and 4 Ezr, with the
explanation in the case of these two books only that they are apocryphal.

In the Authorized Version (1611) 'the bookes called Apocrypha' are marked
by the running title 'Apocrypha' at the top of the page, but have no
preface or separate table of contents, and in the table of lessons at the
beginning they are included under OT.

The edd. so far seem to indicate a growing rather than diminishing regard
for the books. It was not long, however, before edd. of AV began to appear
in which the A. was omitted (1629, etc.).

The Confessions of Lutheran and Reformed Churches agree substantially with
Article Vl. of the Eng. Church (Lat. 1562, Eng. 1571), which, with the list
of A., explains: 'And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth
read for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not
apply them to establish any doctrine.' But a less favourable judgment, held
at first by few, has gradually, through much controversy, prevailed in
Protestantism. At the Synod of Dort (1618) a strong, though unsuccessful,
effort was made to remove the A. wholly from the Bible. In England the
opposition came especially from the Puritans, and took final form in the
Westminster Confession (1648): 'The books commonly called A., not being of
divine inspiration, are no part of the Can. of the Scripture, and therefore
are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be in any otherwise
approved or made use of, than other human writings.' This means the
exclusion of the A. from the Bible and from use in Church service, which
the Puritans demanded in 1689. It was not until 1827, after two years'
sharp dispute, that the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to
exclude the A. from all its publications of the Bible.

Within the Church of England the number of readings from the A. has been
reduced. Originally covering Sept. 27-Nov. 23, in 1867 selections from Wis,
Sir, and Bar only are assigned for Oct. 27-Nov. 17, beside some selections
for certain holy days. The latter, with readings from To, Wis, and Sir for
Nov. 2-20, are retained by the Amer. Epis. Church, while the Irish removes
all.

Among non-Episcopal Churches the A. has had in recent years practically no
recognition.

On the Continent the movement toward the exclusion of the A. from edd. of
the Bible has been slower. The decision of the British Society in 1827 met
with a storm of disapproval. The controversy revived in 1850, when numerous
works appeared for and against the retention of the A. in edd. of the
Bible. Its ablest champions were among Conservative scholars, Stier and
Hengstenberg; among Liberals, Bleek. In the Revision of Luther's Bible
(1892) it still stands, with Luther's title.

(end quote)

Robert Kraft wrote:

I'm not sure whether the 1881 "Standard
>Version" (= 1901 American Standard Version) was as inclusive, although it
>should have been since it also claimed to be in the KJV/AV tradition.

A Revised Version Apocrypha was finished in 1894, 11 years after the
publication of the Old Testament (Protestant canon) in 1885; the RV New
Testament was first published in 1881. I wasn't able to find reference to a
copy of the RV Bible which included the Apocrypha, nor an American Standard
Version of it, either separate or included with the rest of the books.
Perhaps someone with ready access to Darlow and Moule and Hills'
bibliography of American editions of the Bible can check them?

Jim Mills wrote:

>Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that when the King James 1611
>version became the Bible for the Established Church in England, it became
>the Bible for the Established Church in Scotland. If this is so, then the
>1611 version was the official Bible for the Presbyterians, since the
>Presbyterian Church was the Established Church in Scotland. Since I am
>Presbyterian, I would ask again, why did the Presbyterian Church quietly
>"discard" the Apocrypha?

The _Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church_ (3e) in the article on the
Apocrypha, says:

"The common attitude to them in Great Britain, maintained officially by the
Church of Scotland and favoured by Nonconformists, was of rejection or at
least suspicion, and this, perhaps combined with Anglican antipathy, and
reinforced by the decision of the British and Foreign Bible Society not to
distribute Bibles containing them, led to the general omission from the
editions commonly sold."

This follows a very brief section Article VI and the Westminster Confession.

On a personal note, in my years as a bookseller from the mid-'70's to the
mid-'80's in a bookstore specializing in Christian books, I don't recall
ever having anyone inquire about a KJV which included the Apocrypha,
although we did sell a couple a year of the separate KJV Apocrypha along
with a few hundred a year of the Apocrypha-less KJV; I knew they existed
but never having had inquiries didn't stock them. On the subject of
"editions commonly sold" I would add that at the time most available were
intended for pulpit use, and thus were large, heavy, and expensive deluxe
editions.

In the US, the people who buy and use the KJV tended (at least at that
time) to be conservative Protestants,often Baptists, who have no interest
in the Apocrypha whatsoever. Episcopalians were using the RSV and sometimes
the NEB (this was before the NRSV and the REB) and Catholics were using the
RSV, JB and NAB. The KJV with Apocrypha was thus left orphaned, with the
only traditional buyers of this Protestant translation containing books
valued primarily by Roman Catholics (and Orthodox), the Episcopalians,
having largely deserted to more recent translations.

John



John McChesney-Young  ** [log in to unmask] **  Berkeley, California, USA




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%