Jesuits infiltrated the translation team of King James. The KJV translators didn't want to include the apocrypha but the infiltration was causing trouble.
Thus, the translators put the apocrypha BETWEEN the Testaments, and labeled every single page as "apocrypha," so that people would see that that was extra stuff, and not part of the Bible.
These days, many Bibles have dictionary and notes in them. These are not parts of the Bible, but are apocryphal - the words of man, not part of the Bible.
Later printings of the KJV rightly had the apocrypha removed.
First, the proper name for these books are the deuterocanonical books, because apocrypha is a larger term. They are placed between the testaments because that is where they occur chronologically. They were written in the time between the close of the Old Testament and the birth of Jesus. Jesus actually quoted from the deuterocanonical books.
Candy implies that only the 1611 King James Version included the deuterocanonical books, but they were included in all Bibles until 1826, when one Bible Society decided not to include them, and the practice spread from there.
Candy has a link to the preface to the KJV on her webpage. The translators not only quote from the Fathers of the Church frequently, but defend the Septuagint:
The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God.
I find it difficult to believe that the translators respected the Church Fathers, defended the Septuagint, yet rejected the deuterocanonical books and only included them because they were forced to do so.
She also seems to define apocryphal as "extra" here, where previously, she defines it as "false." Does she feel that the dictionary and notes are false, or has she finally admitted that her prior claim was false?
You can read our previous entry about the deuterocanonical books in The Catholic Bible.
You can also read an article at Envoy magazine called "5 Myths About 7 Books."
2 comments:
I found that post very interesting. The reason being is I'm almost sure that Candy blogged her thoughts on the Geneva Bible in Dec. 2007. (Does anyone else remember this post? I couldn't find it since she doesn't really archive all her posts.) I distinctly remember her saying that after reading some in the Geneva, she could see why there was a need for a better English translation.
I also thought she highly praised the KJV translators.
Now the translation was infiltrated by Jesuits??? This does not make any sense at all. Either they were the best in Hebrew & Greek for their time or they were not.
I'd like to know how the Jesuits infiltrated the AV translation team and why they didn't do a better job of "corrupting" it.
Apparently the Jesuits
were blamed for the Gunpowder Plot so I don't inagine James would have had much liking for them so would have been unlikely to include them in the team. (Incidentally, I was taught at school that the Catholics were driven to the Gunpowder Plot by terrible persecution.)
According to this
anti-Catholic site, "William Tyndale translated Erasmus's Greek Text into English. To counter this version, the Jesuit order of the Catholic Church sponsored the 1582 Rheims-Douay version, based on the Vulgate, in order to push Catholic control of the British Isles. In spite of the Spanish Armada and infiltrating Jesuits, English Protestantism stood firm against the wiles of Rome. A more readable English translation appeared in 1611, at the behest of King James. It has been called the most beautiful piece of literature in any language, and for 300 years served as a bulwark against the papacy."
And according to this
rather bizarre site, "From the year 1611 the Catholic Jesuits have changed Gods words so that it does not have the same meaning and they have created hundreds of bibles based on Gods words but they are no longer Gods words when they are changed as they are being created to lead people to the Catholic religion which is not a religion but a synagogue of Satan ."
and
"I read only from the Authorized King James Bible 1611 for this reason I have lived what he talks about I have had Catholic after Catholic put into my life and all were grooming me to take part in this war.
If the King James bible has been replaced in your Church by any other but especially the New International Version you very likely have a Jesuit priest and they come in all shapes and sizes but they will eventually lead all back to their Catholic Church ."
After a lot of searching I also managed to find this which claims the following:
"Catholic plants, stationed in the English court leaked news that King James intended to authorize an English Bible based on the inspired manuscript (Textus Receptus). The news electrified the Vatican. Jesuits, skilled in languages, were immediately ordered to join the Anglican church. Certain advisors trusted by King James were deep catholic agents. Puritans suspected that some of these men chosen to assist them were not of God. They complained to King James, but he overrode their objections. The plot was to secretly switch the text containing God’s Word and replace it with their Roman Catholic (Vaticanus) Alexandrian manuscript. God stopped these undercover Jesuits from destroying the Word by having guards posted at their tables to watch their every move. Then they moved to place the Apocrypha into the Old Testament. Their last mission; which was to place the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments was temporarily accomplished, until the plot was discovered. The Jesuits believed that once the apocrypha was between the covers of the Protestant Bible, that the Protestants would finally accept it as holy writ, and then turn back to the Vatican as their final authority.
After the King James Bible was printed, the Jesuits swore to destroy the Protestant translators who opposed them. They systematically eliminated both them and their families. Later, two Jesuits were soundly converted and they informed the puritans of the conspiracy against the Protestant movement and the Word of God."
This also begs the question why don't we have the names of these so-called Jesuit infiltraters?
Post a Comment