Why did the KJV originally include the Apocrypha?
I often hear it claimed, usually by those that are either attacking the KJV or who are advocating the Apocrypha books, that the KJV originally included the Apocrypha. This being used to show that the KJV was in error and therefore could not be the true English translation or as the advocates of the Apocrypha like to claim it shows that the Apocrypha was deemed scripture and was only later removed.
While it is very true that the KJV originally did include the Apocrypha, although it began being removed in 1666, contrary to the claim that it was in the 19th Century that the Apocrypha was removed, the Apocrypha was never deemed part of scripture. Unlike the Catholic Bible the books of the Apocrypha were not intermingled within the KJV but rather separated between the Old and New Testaments and distinctly labelled as Apocrypha on every page. I have dealt with whether the Apocrypha was deemed scripture or not in other writings so won’t deal with that here. 
As we see there are 3 sections. The 2nd section labelled as books called apocrypha.
The reasons why the Apocrypha was included in the original KJV while not being included as actual scripture are not stated by the KJV translators. However, there really are only a few options as to why they would be included. For instance they simply followed the example set before them. The Coverdale Bible of 1535 had set the precedence in English of including the Apocrypha not integrated within the books of the Bible but in between the Old and the New covenants, just as the KJV had done.
Coverdale himself wrote
“The books and treatise, which among the father’s of old are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible, neither are they found in the Canon of the Hebrews (Coverdale Bible, page 375).”
The Matthews Bible 1537, the Geneva Bible 1560 and Bishops Bible 1568 all followed the example of Coverdale. The KJV then did nothing unusual by including the Apocrypha between the testaments while also noting their unauthoritative status.
Furthermore Bishop Bancrof had issued 15 rules to the translators before the translation process. One of these rules stated.
“The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.”
As the Bishops Bible included the Apocrypha between the 2 Testaments it stands to reason that the KJV would do likewise.
The inclusion of the Apocrypha in between the two canons had actually started with Martin Luther who included the books in his German translation of the Bible although he did not accept the books as scripture. He named these books as Apocrypha in his Bible.
Luther himself stated in his translation
“ “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
Luther also did not put the books in his Canon of scripture.
We must also note that Luther had doubts over four New Testament books, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He placed these books separate from the New Testament books.
Luther wrote in his preface to these books.
“Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”
In his preface to the New Testament Luther wrote that certain books of the Bible were sufficient for docrinal purposes even if you had no access to the others.
St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter’s Epistle—these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind.”
Another reason the protestants were heavily involved in debates with Catholics at the time especially regarding doctrine. It most certainly would have been an advantage for protestants to have been aware of what was contained in them as they support Catholic doctrines such as Purgatory and praying for the dead. Being unaware of what was contained within these books would certainly have put any protestant at a disadvantage in any engagement.
It then would likely have simply been included for study. Although the Church of England did not view the Apocrypha as scripture it was widely read at the time of the KJV for its historical value and usefulness in exchanges with Catholics.
The Apocrypha went from being included in a way that would show its non authenticity to simply being removed entirely.
King James himself stated:
“As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist”
(Book I:13, Basilicon Doron)
Please read my other writings on the Apocrypha for more detailed arguments as to why the Apocrypha is not scripture.
If you liked this study please subscribe here
You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here
Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membership here