The Apocrypha in the KJV?

It is often asserted against King James onlyism that the KJV originally included the Apocrypha. And while this is true, it ignores several key points about what we actually believe, the history of the KJV, other Protestant translations, and what the translators themselves thought of the Apocrypha. Ironically, the inverse of this argument is used by Catholics who claim the King James Bible "removed" seven books of the Bible.

The Bible Text is Perfect

Firstly, King James onlyists believe the Bible text of the KJV to be perfect. We do not attach infallibility to anything else. The 1611 had its preface, table of contents, several charts, etc., yet we do not hold those to be infallible—it is no different in the case of the Deuterocanon. Even modern printings of various Bible translations are bound with dictionaries, maps, or even concordances in the back. Just because extra-biblical content is printed and contained within the same binding as the scriptural text does not mean that we are to believe it is infallible or inspired.

I will even use the Scofield Reference Bible as an example. Many preachers have used this edition of the King James Bible published by Oxford, and in the footnotes or margins, it contains notes produced by C. I. Scofield. Scofield was a man, and he was fallible. His notes can often be helpful, but they are not always right. In the same way, the Apocrypha being in the 1611 King James Bible should not concern us any more than the notes by Scofield.

The History of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible

Second, the KJV dropped the Apocrypha relatively early on. In 1615, King James translator and Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot "forbade the issuance of Bibles without the Apocrypha".¹ However, Dr. Phil Stringer, in his book The Unbroken Bible, states:

"In 1629, a revision was produced by [C]ambridge University. Dr. Samuel Ward and Dean John Bois, from the original 1611 translating committee, were involved in this revision. It is the 1629 revision that dropped the Apocrypha from its position between the testaments of Scripture."²

The Apocrypha was removed from the King James Bible very early in its history and persisted without it until modern times. In 1637, Robert Young printed a KJV without the Apocrypha. The 1638 (also edited by Dr. Ward and John Bois³), 1642, 1662, and 1672 do not contain the Apocrypha. The 1679 Oxford edition does contain the Apocrypha, while the 1679 KJV printed at London by John Bill, Thomas Newcomb, and Henry Hills does not. The 1700 KJV from London does not have it either.

The ending of Malachi and the New Testament title in a 1700 KJV

In 1714, at Edinburgh, an edition that didn't include the Apocrypha was printed by James Watson. A printing from 1747 did not contain the Deuterocanon. John Archdeacon, in 1769, printed a King James Bible, which I believe does not contain it. I confess I was unable to check to see the transition from Malachi to Matthew, as the photocopy I was using ended at Song of Solomon. However, the image below is its table of contents, which would imply it did not contain the Apocrypha. The 1772 didn't contain the Deuterocanon.

The (believed) table of contents from the John Archdeacon 1769 KJV

Robert Aitken was born in Scotland and emigrated to the United States. He was a printer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he became the first printer to print an English Bible in the US. This Bible, often called the "Aitken Bible," was printed in 1782 and did not contain the Apocrypha. The United States Congress would go on to endorse this printing of the Authorized Version.

"Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper."⁴

Other printings that lack the so-called Deuterocanon include the 1795, 1797, 1804, and 1830. The American Bible Society printed King James Bibles without the Apocrypha in, at least, 1816, 1819, 1837, and 1850. From around 1854 onward, they began to change the KJV text; thus, subsequent editions are not listed here. In 1863, Oxford University Press printed a King James Bible lacking the Deutrocanonical books.

A printing of the Bible from 1867 left the Apocrypha out as well. J. M. Fuller, a cricketer-turned-clergyman, released The Students’ Commentary on the Holy Bible, a commentary containing the biblical text. It was released in six volumes: 1879, 1879, 1880, 1882, 1884, and 1887. It did not contain the Apocrypha. The existence of King James Bibles without the Apocrypha began around 1629, and has persevered until modern times.

The Apocrypha in other Protestant Translations

The man often credited with beginning the Protestant Reformation is Martin Luther. Luther created a translation of the Scriptures into German, whose New Testament was first published in 1522, with the whole Bible, alongside the Apocrypha, in 1534. Martin Luther stated that the Deuterocanon was not inspired, merely good for reading.

"Apocrypha; that is, Books which are not to be considered as equal to Holy Scripture, and yet are useful and good to read."⁵

Because of his stance on the Apocrypha, he placed it in its own section between the Old and New Testaments. This practice would continue to be the standard for future Protestants.

For example, the 1535 Coverdale Bible puts twelve of the apocryphal books between the Testaments. It says that the apocryphal book Baruch is a part of the section, though it is placed after Lamentations. There is a section of text before the Apocrypha, stating:

"These bokes (good reader) which be called Apocrypha, are not iudged amonge the doctours to be of like reputacion with the other scripture, as thou mayest perceaue by S. Jerome in epistola ad Palinum. And the chefe cause therof is this: there be many places in them, that seme to be repugnaunt vnto the open and manifest trueth in the other bokes of the byble."

The Apocrypha is, similarly, contained in its own section in the 1535 Olivetan Bible. The Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and others used this same practice of placing the Deutercanon between the Testaments. This contrasts with the Catholic tradition, placing it within, rather than outside, the Old Testament. As the Geneva Bible (1560) states:

"THese [this is not a typo] bokes that follow in order after the Prophetes vnto the Newe testament, are called Apocrypha, that is bokes, which were not receiued by a comune consent to be red and expounded publikely in the Church, nether yet serued to proue any point of Christian religion, saue in asmuche as they had the consent of the other Scriptures called Canonical to confirme the same, or rather whereon they were grounded: but as bokes proceding from godlie men, were receiued to be red for the aduancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the historie, & for the instruction of godlie maners: which bokes declare that at all times God had an especial care of his Church and left them not vtterly destitute of teachers and meanes to confirme them in the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witnesse that those calamities that God sent to his Church, were according to his prouidence, who had bothe so threatened by his Prophetes, and so broght it to passe for the destruction of their enemies, and for the tryal of his children."

The Apocrypha was rejected by Proto-Reformation groups such as the Waldenses in their 1120 confession. The Deuterocanon was also rejected by the Gallican Confession (1561), Belgic Confession (1561), Helvetic Confession (1566), and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647).⁵ In the Westminster Confession of Faith, we read:

"The books called Apocrypha, not being of Divine confirmation, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God; nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings"⁵

The KJV Translators on the Apocrypha

While the KJV translators' beliefs do not dictate mine, it is interesting to note they didn't even accept the Apocrypha as inspired, despite them being the ones to translate it. The KJV translators were a part of the Church of England (i.e., Anglican), and as such, they would have held to the thirty-nine articles of religion. In article six, "Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation", it says:

"Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.

Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,

Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,

Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,

Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,

Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,

Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,

Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,

Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,

The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,

The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,

The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,

The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,

The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,

Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees."⁶

While many people in Anglican history have denied the thirty-nine articles, or at least parts of it (such as King James I), many of the translators would have held these beliefs.

Additionally, KJV translator John Rainolds (member of the first Oxford company)⁷ gave "250 lectures [on the Apocrypha that] were published posthumously as Censura librorum Apocryphorum veteris Testamenti"⁸. William Barlow, writing about the 1603 Hampton Court Conference, mentions an objection to the Book of Common Prayer, raised by Rainolds.

"D. Rein. [Rainolds] commeth now to Subscription, (which concerneth the fourth generall head, as he first propounded it, namely, The communion Booke,) taking the occasion to leape into it here, as making the urging of it to bee a great impeachment to a learned Ministery, and therefore intreated, it might not be exacted as heretofore, for which many good Men were kept out, other removed, and many disquieted. To subscribe according to the statutes of the Realme, namely, to the Articles of Religion, and the Kings Supremacy, they were not unwilling. The reason of their backwardnesse to subscribe otherwise was, first the Booke Apocryphall; which the Common-Prayer Booke enjoyned to bee read in the Church, albeit, there are, in some of those Chapters appointed manifest errors, directly repugnant to the Scriptures: the particular instance, which hee then inferred was Eccles. 48. 10. where hee charged the Author of that Booke, to have held the same opinion with the Iewes at this Day, namely, that Elias, in person, was to come before Christ, and therefore as yet Christ by that reason, not come in the flesh; and so, consequently, it implied a denial of the chiefe Article of our redemption: his reason for thus charging the Author, was, because that Ecclus, used the very word of Elias in person, which the Prophet Malachy, Cap. 4. doth apply to an Elias in resemblance, which both an Angell, Luke 17. and our Saviour Christ, Mat. 11. did interpret to be Iohn Baptist."⁹

He did not like these additions to the Bible. Rainolds argued against the Apocrypha being included in the Book of Common Prayer, and surely he did not believe it should be considered authoritative or on par with Scripture.

Arthur Lake, a member of the Second Westminster Company (which was responsible for translating the Pauline and General Epistles),⁷ had this to say about the Apocrypha:

"But we hold that which they [Catholics] confesse, that the Word written in the Canonicall bookes is vndoubtedly signed with Thus saith the Lord of Hostes; as for the Apocyphall Scriptures, not only the Fathers, but their owne men haue branded them for bastards, before euer wee challenged them; therefore doe not wee recommend them to the people further than they agree with the Bookes Canonicall."¹⁰

Clearly, he does not believe the apocryphal books to be inspired. John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators mentioned previously, both of whom worked on the Apocrypha during the KJV translation process⁷, were the ones who removed it. Why would they remove their work without a reason? They took it out because they did not view it as inspired.

Another evidence that the translators believed the Apocrypha to be lower than the Old Testament is that it begins with a title: "Apocrypha", and that is it. There is no full-page artwork like with the New Testament, just "Apocrypha."

In the 1611 King James Bible and many of the subsequent editions, the header contains a per-page sentence with a space in the center where the book title is contained. However, in the apocryphal books, it merely says "Apocrypha."

The translators and printers didn't see the Deuterocanon as important enough to add content information into the header. There is even more proof that they did not believe the Apocrypha to be inspired. If you look at the table of contents, it lists the Apocrypha separate from either the Old Testament or the New Testament.

In addition, the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments, a common Protestant translation practice that revealed that they did not believe it was inspired. If this is the work completed by the KJV translators, yet they didn't believe a section of their work to be Holy Writ, I am not required to believe so either.

Weren't There Cross References?

The 1611 King James Bible did contain cross references to the Apocrypha. However, this is not enough to overthrow the other evidence, and what the translators said, out the window. The Book of Common Prayer, the official Anglican prayer book, contains readings from the Apocrypha. As we saw earlier, the Church of England explicitly states that the Apocrypha is not Scripture. So why did the Book of Common Prayer reference the Apocrypha, and the King James Bible have cross references to it?

The answer for both is the same. The Anglicans believe that the Apocrypha is good for reading, and thus, the Book of Common Prayer references the Apocrypha where they believe it is in line with the Bible. The same goes with the KJV cross references—they added references where they believed you can receive edification from the Apocrypha.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are no grounds upon which to say a King James onlyist must accept the apocryphal books as Scripture. To say we must is to 1) misrepresent our position, 2) ignore the history of the KJV, 3) go against the Protestant tradition in regards to Bible translation, and 4) misrepresent what the translators believed. So, no, we do not have to accept the Deuterocanon.

Sources:

1. "George Abbot." Encyclopedia Britannica, britannica.com/biography/George-Abbot. Accessed 6 May 2025.

2. Stringer, Dr. Phil. The Unbroken Bible. The Bible Nation Society, 2018. p. 287.

3. McClure, A. W. The Translators Revived; A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible. Charles Scribner, 1853. p. 194.

4. Library of Congress. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. vol. 23, Government Printing Office, 1914. p. 574.

5. "Bible Translations and the Apocrypha." Trinitarian Bible Society, tbsbibles.org/page/BibleTranslationsAndTheApocrypha. Accessed 8 May 2025.

6. "Articles of Religion." Anglicans Online, 23 May 2017, anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html. Accessed 8 May 2025.

7. Hessayon, Ariel. "The King James Bible Translators." The Kings Bible, thekingsbible.com/Library/KJVTranslators. Accessed 8 May 2025.

8. Hessayon, Ariel. "The Apocrypha in early modern England – part four." Historical essays, 17 Jul. 2022, arielhessayon.substack.com/p/the-apocrypha-in-early-modern-england-802. Accessed 8 May 2025.

9. Barlow, William. The Svmme and Svbstance of the Conference, Which it pleased his excellent Majestie to have with the Lords Bishops, and others of his Clergie (at which the most of the Lords of the Councell were present) in his Majesties Privie-Chamber, at Hampton Court. Ianu. 14, 1603. 1638. pp. 60-61.

10. Lake, Rev. Arthur. Sermons With Some Religious and Divine Meditations. London, 1629. pp. 108-109.