The Apocrypha in the KJV in 1611, but not now

[Exporter2]

I read that the Apocrypha was in all Catholic Bibles and also was in the King James Version of the Bible in 1611.

In Catholic Bibles the Apocrypha was included as a separate section between the O.T. and the N.T.

I believe there are over 125 Greek interpretations of Jame’s Protoevangelium

Why are so many Catholics unaware of such Books as the Protoevangelium of James or the Infant Gospel of James?

 

[Digitonomy]

Why are so many Catholics unaware of such Books as the Protoevangelium of James or the Infant Gospel of James?

Probably because it is not in the canon of scripture. Included in the original KJV as Apocrypha are mostly the Deuterocanonical books. Extracanonical books such as the Protoevangelium are rarely included in Bibles.

 

[rtconstant]

As Digi said it’s probably because that those books are not part of the canon. Also the “Apocrypha” in the KJV were the books that are considered canon by the CC (1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach etc).

The actual Apocrypha is probably just not considered necessary by most Catholics today.

 

[Exporter2]

Thank You Kind Sirs or Mams, perhaps I tried to be too brief and wasn’t clear when asking that question. Maybe someone can shed some intellegent light on this further question.

I know that the KJV Bible today doesn’t have all of the Books that our Catholic Bible does. The last Book in the O.T. of the KJV is Zechariah, But in the Catholic Bible ( Douay - Rheims version) the last Book of the old testament is 2ed Machabees.

The book written by the Jew named Josephus was accepted as History by the Catholic Scholastics. Josephas was born about the time of the crucifixion. Why don’t more people accept as HIstory the Book(s) written by James, i.e., The Proroevangelium of James in particular. It is pure History and doesnt delve into salvation, Heaven or Hell or Divinity. It is not spiritual but rather it is historu. Why don’t more use it as history?

 

[Digitonomy]

Josephus is interesting historically because he describes from his first-hand experience what happened to Jews in and around Jerusalem before, during, and after the destruction of the temple. He is not particularly interesting or useful when he rehashes the Old Testament through the Maccabbean era history of the Jews, which is readily available from other sources at least as reliable as Josephus.

The Protoevangelium is not a first-hand account, and is written long after the events. I’m not very knowledgable about this specific book, but if it claims to be written by James, brother of the Lord, then its veracity is tarnished even more. Mary’s early life is not particularly important for us historically, theologically, etc. So while it makes a nice and possibly true story, it’s maybe a notch above George Washington and the cherry tree, rather than on the level of interest and importance of the Jewish Wars by Josephus.

 

[MaryRose35]

The Apocryphal were not included in the original King James version, but the deuterocanonical were.

The reason you probably heard that the apocryphal were included is because the Protestants consider the deuterocanonical to be apocryphal.

“The books termed Apocryphal by Protestants and deuterocanonical by Catholics… were included in the King James Version of 1611, but they are usually omitted in the English Revised Version and the American Revised Version. The Puritans disapproved of them because they did not form part of the original Hebrew text. The Septuagint, however, which was the Greek version of the Jewish Bible, did contain these books, and from the Septuagint, they found their way into the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome” (Collier’s Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, Pg 348).

If you are discussing, with a Protestant, the 7 books of the Bible that the Protestants removed, be sure to tell them that the original King James Version included them, and that they were only excluded from a later printing (around 1629).

 

[thistle]

Josephus is interesting historically because he describes from his first-hand experience what happened to Jews in and around Jerusalem before, during, and after the destruction of the temple. He is not particularly interesting or useful when he rehashes the Old Testament through the Maccabbean era history of the Jews, which is readily available from other sources at least as reliable as Josephus.

The Protoevangelium is not a first-hand account, and is written long after the events. I’m not very knowledgable about this specific book, but if it claims to be written by James, brother of the Lord, then its veracity is tarnished even more. Mary’s early life is not particularly important for us historically, theologically, etc. So while it makes a nice and possibly true story, it’s maybe a notch above George Washington and the cherry tree, rather than on the level of interest and importance of the Jewish Wars by Josephus.

It wasn’t written by James. He was long dead. It was written around the year 150 AD.

 

[GMichuta]

Thank You Kind Sirs or Mams, perhaps I tried to be too brief and wasn’t clear when asking that question. Maybe someone can shed some intellegent light on this further question.

I know that the KJV Bible today doesn’t have all of the Books that our Catholic Bible does. The last Book in the O.T. of the KJV is Zechariah, But in the Catholic Bible ( Douay - Rheims version) the last Book of the old testament is 2ed Machabees.

The book written by the Jew named Josephus was accepted as History by the Catholic Scholastics. Josephas was born about the time of the crucifixion. Why don’t more people accept as HIstory the Book(s) written by James, i.e., The Proroevangelium of James in particular. It is pure History and doesnt delve into salvation, Heaven or Hell or Divinity. It is not spiritual but rather it is historu. Why don’t more use it as history?

The easy answer is that Josephus and the other books were not handed on by Jesus and the Apostles to be read as sacred Scripture in the Church.

Gary Michuta
www.HandsOnApologetics.com

 

[lak611]

Actually, there are more books in the Apocrypha of the KJV than in a Catholic Bible. The KJV Apocrypha includes the books that are called the Deuterocanonical books by the Catholic Church; but there are also a few more that are recognized by the Orthodox Church, but the not Catholic Church (e.g. Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 1 & 2 Esdras [not to be confused with Ezra or Nehemiah]).