Geneva Pagina 1 de 3 jpasmssstecaane aria baa co Many ardent followers of the King Jmes Version atfempt to negte the presence of “Apocrpha" in the original 1611 KIV. “They argue thatthe sranslators did not hold the “Anaorypha" Books as Stripture w prove this point they ase the 1560 ‘Geneva Bible. There argument goes something like this “The Some of the earlier [pre1611] English Bibles such as the Geneva had a disclaimer satng thatthe Apocrypha books were nol inspired. Even Some 1599 editions of the Genevs Bible were published without the Apocrypha. The fist edition Geneva even Had marginal pole that erilieize the lext ofthe Apocrypht" (One PERF important point. The “Geneva” Bible wes rejeated by the Church [Anglions translators i there prefite algo attacked and openly denounced this 0 traditional Ecclesiastical England (who translated the KIV ), These ‘Protenant ranalati for leaving the words "Lastly. we have on the one side voided the conipnlosity ofthe Burilans, who leave ihe old Beslesiastial fords and felake them to other. as wien they put WASHING for |BAPTISM, and ICONGREGATION instead of |CHURCH:"EThe original preface to the 1611 King James Version called "To The Reader” page my Tis For this resin the pseudo-erudite English King James yhimeelf made the | sesertion tat the Geneva version was, Ho his thinking "the - vrorst that ado far [The tabi of context from the 1577 Geneva Bible Pred by CHRISTOPHER BARKER, containing | re greqr(ngish bic “peer” Books. ible. 1952 pe Versions of The (One ofthe reasons Yor Une creation ofthis translation(the KIV) was to compete And battle against with it At points Possession of one of those Puritan "Geneva Bibles in Anglican England athe lie meant almost cestsin death. So weather ‘not there was & “disclaimer” in the Puritan "Geneva" DOES NOT have any bearing om wha! the ranselors of the KTV did sr thought "sBven Some 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible were published without the Apocrypha.” In 1615, Archbishop Gorge Abbot. a High Commission Court member and one of the origonal translators of the 1611 KV, htip://www.catholicapologetics net/geneva.htm 21/12/2001Geneva Pagina 2 de 3 “forbade anyone to ive 1 Bible without the Apocrypha on puin of one year's imprisonment” (Moorman, Forever Settled, 183), This oder was likely aimed at the Geneva Bible with its 1599 edition printed without the Apocrypha, "The first edition jeneva even Had marginal notes that erilcize the text of the Apocrypha” ‘The Geneva had extensive marginal notes ren to appronimately 300.000 words, er one thin the length ofthe text af the Bille itscHM Iwas these marginal notes that were also the reason for is eventual demise. These strongly Protestant [Calsinistic} notes so ssfiniated Sing James that he considered Them "partial, untrue, seditious, and savouring of dangerous ‘ad traitorous conecits" and made is ownership a fclony. James I a8 particularly worsied about marginal notes such as the ‘one in Exodus 19 indicated thatthe Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Fayptisn kina’sonders, [King James ‘This undermined the theory of divine right of kings] and a note for 2 Chronicles 15:16 said that King Asa should have lind bis mother exeeuted and not metely deposed for the crime of worshipping an idel "it is supposed thet Famed! suspicious mind thought that this might react unfavourably upon the meniory of his own aiother, Mary Queen of Scots” [Bnice, story of the Bible m English. p. 97] Consequently, King James eventully introduced the King James ‘Version, which drew Iagsly fom the Geneva ible (minus the marginal notes that had enraged him). The King James ‘Version of the Bible grew out of th hing’ distaste for Unese brief but potent doctsinal commentaries. He considered the ‘anginal noes 1 bea poltieal threat to his Kinadom, Irae because of there rejection of famer’s theory ofthe "Divine right ss king", That King camo out apenty condeming the Paritan Religion andi Bible: “That Bibkops ought to bein the Church, I ever muintained its an Apostolic institution ad so the ordinance of Gd conirars tothe Puritans, . And as Tever maintained the state of Bishops and the eslesantcal Hicrarchy for order sake, so vas Lever an enemy to the confused anarchy or parity of the Puritans, (Isom Prememition to Ail Moss Mighty Monarchs, Kings Pree Princes, and States of Christendom Works, el Jamies Montague, Bp. of Wint hestes (1616). pp. 301-308] It wns during the reign of King Fames (1565-1625), that England adopted harsh measures apsinst the puritans which forced ‘of them {the Pilgrim] to lea England (1608), in order to escape religious persecution, they ended up in The [Netivzlands. The Pilgrims soon lef the Netherlands and sailed for the new wold. they avived st Plymouth Rock aboard the ‘Mayflower establishing the eolony of Massachusetts in 1620|five years belbee the death of King James}. The Pilarims ‘brought with them there Geneva translation The irony is hat even though openly condemning this Pusitan Bible. wal diey bad the version version uamed aller him, ‘King James [of England often used the Geneva, Jemes I later tied to diselsim any knowdedge of the Genevs Bible, though Ihe quoted the Geneva Bible in his own writings. As 2 Professor Batic reported “his virtual disclaimer of all knowledge upto a late period of the Genevan notes and version was simply a bole, unblushing fklsohoad, s clumsy asemps to sever himsel? end his earlier Sootish Betiefs and usages that he might win favor with his English churchmen.” "The first edition of the King James Version also have marginal notes that criticize the text ofthe Apoerypha. The translators ofthe 1611 Bible did not malign the canonical hooks the way they did the Apocrypha. At Esdras 5:5 the margin states," THIS Place is corrupt,” This is aold argument, (Ihave scent several times) and a easy one to explain. The problem here i the lack of ‘understanding of die the special guidelines sot forth by the King of England. Margins! notes were only sloud to: 1) Cross reference the verses this is one ofthe original 1M Guidelines set forth By King James 2) No marginal notes at allo be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greck Words, hich cannot without some circumnlocution, x9 briefly and filly be expressed in the text also one of the 14 Guidelines set forth By Kina James “To putt lundy, this i nothing move than textual oriticse forthe faulty manuscripts these tamslators had fo work with, end nothing more. Because ofthe Kings hatred forthe “Geneva” marginal Notes the translators of the 1611 KIV were not allowed io irepit the verses. The original 1611 edition contained 4.223 marginal notes giving 8 more literal translation and nother 2,738 alternative readings. ‘he Marginal note for 1 Esdras 5:5 wae simply atacking the accuracy of faulty manuscript the translators had to work with, NOT the eredibility of the verse or first book of Esdres, The 1611 King James Version In the Margin notes to the book of Esther say, " The rst ofthe Chapters of the Book of “Rather, which are found neither in the Hebrev, nor inthe Cale Fir, we note that the anslators refer to these chepters as belonging Wo the Book of ther. Secondly this is Again, 2 old ‘arguement, upd just 25 sips to answer. The translators could not find the last chapters ofthe Book of Bsthes, in either the hitp://www catholicapologetics.net/geneva.him 21/12/2001Geneva Pagina 3 de 3 hutp:tiwww.catholicapologetics net/ fe" what docs this prove? NOTHING. tis ss noting more than @ observation about the fned at had to work with, nota judgment on this purtof the Hook of Esther arehacology fas in reasen! yeare uncaveted sever ofthe "apocrapha” books in the origional Helnew. Te the in the eaves af ‘Quinean in 1947 [the "Dead sea serols” ndings] were Sound copy a of the “apocrypha" book of Eeclesissticus (Ihe ‘Wisdom of ten Sirs) the Hebrew. Another example would be the manuseript "Or 1102" perhaps the most farnous ‘manuscript of the collestion housed st CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY, England. 1t was the identification of this fragment ex tout Hebrew orizinal ofthe book of Ecslesiasteus, 1-ass was [ound in Genizah {Eat in 1596. Solomon ‘Schrchicr, Readcr in Talmud at Cambridge (and later president of the Jewish Theological Scminity in New York). identified the Feclesiasicu: text based on the existing Greck translation and argucd tha! these manuscripts represented parts af the lost Hicbrow original. Another eopy of Belesiasticis, in Hebrew. ws leer discovered by Vigael Yadin in the ruins of Masada in the 1960 i must itso be note that the discoveries found in the the eaves of Qumran have prodused more than just Bselesiasticus in the Hebrews, fer example fragments ofthe "apocry pha" hook af Tobit {scrolls SQ196- 4Q260] wore found in Cave four these lregments of the book of Tobit ae in Arameic as well as Hebrew How many, other books of the "epocrypha” are hhiden out therein Hbrew sill waiting to be found? There is no way of knowing. also mest be observed that the book of "The Song of the des Children” [part of the third chapter of Daniel, und ‘considered as one of “the Books called apoerypha"] also has a leading very similar fo the one above: "That which followeth isnot inthe Hebrew” Again this is nothing more than a remark about the manusoripts they had at had at hand to work with, of opinion a to the validity ofthis pat of the Book of Danie! isnot 2 stalerment ewe arote believe that the transtators fot the Greok (Sepssasing| version fs invatid or inferior, then its up to Protestants to expluin why they give Greek names instead of Hebrew names. or their English equivalent namesto the books of Moses, ‘Why all those books the Pentateuch instead of the Torah or its English designation, Instruction? Why Genesis, Exodus, lLevittas, Numbers (tarslstion of the Greek Aithmoi, ad Dewleronon” Tnsiead ofthe Palestinian Tekvew names. Bersshith, Shemoth, Vayikra, Bemidbar, and Pebasim? Or their English equivalents, The Begining, Names, And He Called In the Wildemess, and Words? Why call the Book "he Bible which is the Greck (Anglicized) name the Catholic (Church gave the Septuagint in union with the New Testament?” “Apocrypha” Books: To stat with we Know King James own Position on the “Apocrypha” Books: “As for the Scriptures, no man doubsed 1 will believe thet: but cwon for the Apocrypha, Thold them un the aame accourt that the ancients did they are stil printed and ound with cur Bibles and publichyread in our Chwreles: [reverence thom as the writings of holy and jarad mien. but since hay are not found inthe cannon, we account theme to be secundas lection, or ordins,” The Church History Of Beituin® bby Thomas Futfer, Oxford, MDCCC XLV], We Know That King James intened to have the “Apocrypha in his Bible, he ip the “Translation” Commitice ina very specific structure it was compased of six panels of translators (47 men in all. Tree panels were responsible forthe Old Testament, two forthe New Testament, and one specie} for the "Apocryph ceva him 21/12/2001