Words omitted from AV1611

[franklinmonroe]

One question (we'll probably never know the answer to) is: why did the AV translators include the subscriptions in their text? Is it possible that the king's revisors felt obligated to render all the words they found in the Greek text before them? No, I think the evidence shows that the AV men did not slavishly follow the Textus Receptus. It seems that at places the translators preferred to follow prior English versions or the Latin text. Many examples of this have been discussed on the BB in recent threads, but I will offer this specimen found at Acts 19:20 --

Thus with might the word of the Lord increased and prevailed. (Darby 1890)

So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. (KJV)

So mightily grew the word of the Lord and prevailed. (ASV 1901)​

The Greek word underlying the English word "God" is usually a form of theos (Strong's #2316). The KJV renders theos as "God" 1320 times (as "god", "godly", or "God-ward" an additional 18 times, but only in 5 occurrences anything else). There are only a few other stand-alone words in Greek that also can mean "god" (but are often not translated such in the KJV), but theos is overwhelmingly the NT word for "God". But the Greek word translated in this verse is not theos, nor is it even one of those other words; here the TR specifically has kurion (Strong's #2962) which is normally rendered in English as "Lord" or "lord" (721 times in the KJV) and also "master" or "sir" and additional 23 times, but as anything else just 3 times besides the occurrence in Acts 19:20. This is the only place in the KJV where a form of kurios is translated "Lord". Since most pre-1611 English Bibles and the Vulgate have "God" here, it would seem that the AV men have preferred to followed them rather than the standard rendering.

Another example of following English versions (Tyndale, Bishop's and possibly others but not the Vulgate), is at Mark 2:15 where the Greek word auton (a form of autos Strong's #846 which would mean 'he', 'him', or 'his' in this context) is found in the Textus Receptus, but the AV men chose to place "Jesus" in their English text; this first auton referring to Jesus (antecedent in verse 8) should not be confused with three other occurrences of this pronoun in the verse ("his" before "house", "his" before "disciples", and the "him" after "followed"), nor with the only actual occurrence of Iesous (Strong's #2424 the proper name "Jesus" or "Joshua") which follows "together with" later in Mark 2:15 --

And it came to passe as he sat at the table in his house, there sat many publicans & synners at the table with Iesus and his disciples: For there were many yt folowed him. (1535 Coverdale)

And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. (KJV)

And it came to pass, in his reclining (at meat) in his house, that many tax-gatherers and sinners were reclining (at meat) with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many, and they followed him. (1898 Young's Literal)​

Clearly, the AV men were not timid about departing from the Textus Receptus (as it stood in 1611), and would not have felt obliged to include the Pauline subscriptions simply because they existed in the Greek text. Perhaps they included these words because the words were included in some previous English versions (they do not appear in the Latin).

 

[franklinmonroe]

The paragraph marks in the AV1611 are not original from the apostolic writers, nor are these typographic symbols 'inspired'.

The pilcrow (¶), also called the paragraph sign or the alinea, is a typographical character commonly used to denote individual paragraphs. This non-alphabetic symbol varies from typeface to typeface, but is usually drawn like a backwards letter 'P' reaching to caps height or ascender height, but may also be drawn with the bowl stretching further downwards, resembling a backwards 'D'.

The pilcrow can be used as an indent for separate paragraphs or to designate a new paragraph in one long piece of copy. The pilcrow was used in the Middle Ages to mark a new train of thought, before the convention of physically discrete paragraphs was commonplace. They are not indicators of the quality or status of the text that follows.

This example from the AV1611 shows typical application of the pilcrow (Matthew 7:6,7) --

¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither caft ye your pearles before fwine: left they trample them under their feete, and turne againe and rent you.

¶* Aske, and it fhalbe given you: seeke, and ye fhall finde: knocke, and it fhalbe opened unto you:​

Some scholars (Scrivener and others) have noted that the paragraph marks inexplicably disappear after Acts 20:36 in the AV1611, except before book titles and postscriptions (although there may be aberrations: in the specimen I viewed the title THE EPSITLE OF PAVL THE Apoftle to the Romans. has no preceding pilcrow, and neither does the the postscription of 2 Corinthians). I have found the paragraphs marks added and omitted in various passages in later editions; in my paternal grandmother's KJV the very last pilcrow is found at Acts 28:30 (and as is more common now, there are no pilcrows before any book titles or any of the subscriptions in that particular KJV).

 

[franklinmonroe]

Some folks do believe that the subscriptions ought to be present in the KJV text, that they may be historically accurate, and that they should have equal status with scripture. Mr. Tommy H. Heffner, Sr. wrote in his article "Who Wrote the Book of Hebrews" (from kjv1611.org.uk, my underline) --

Introduction: There has been a lot of controversy over who wrote the book of Hebrews, however the reason for the controversy is just plain unbelief. If you believe the Authorized King James Bible is the perfect, preserved word of God, then there should be no question about who wrote Hebrews, because the book title tells you who wrote it.

If you are a King James Bible believer, then the question is how much of the KJV do you believe? Which one of the following statements do you believe?

a. I believe the English text as it stands in the KJV including the italicized words, the punctuation, the paragraph marks, the book titles and the endings in the books of Paul is the perfect, preserved word of God.

b. I believe the English text as it stands in the KJV including the italicized words, but excluding the punctuation, the paragraph marks, and the book titles, etc.

c. I believe the English text as it stands in the KJV, excluding the italicized words, the punctuation, the paragraph marks and the book titles, etc.

I know that some of you reading this may also believe some variations of the above statements. The point is if God can inspire and preserve his words in a book, why can't He inspire and preserve everything that pertains to what He said? For example, the italicized words, the book titles, the paragraph marks, the punctuation and the endings in the books of Paul.​

Mr. Heffner then goes on to attempt to prove the authorship of Hebrews: one of his seven proofs being the book's title as given in the KJV (a page of a 1678 edition is pictured), and his final proof is the existance of the subscription (which he calls a "footer") --

... Do you give up yet? Well here's number 6.

6. I wrote Rev. Terence H. Brown, secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society and asked if the book headings were in the "Received Text" or any other manuscripts?

He said, "The "Received Text" (Elzevir 1633) has the heading (in Greek) "The Epistle to the Hebrews", but the AV translation was translation was published in 1611. Earlier printed editions of the Greek such as Stephen's 1551 in which the Greek is accompanied by the Latin translations of Erasmas and the Vulgate, have the heading in Greek and Latin - "The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews". Some manuscripts have "To the Hebrews" and some include the name of the apostle." He also said in another question: "The AV translators followed the titles formerly used by Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible.

If you haven't believed that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews yet then I'll give you one more chance, here's number 7.

7. This is from brother Wei Kang (Kevin) Tsai with my editing.

Paul couldn't put his own name to the book of Hebrews because of his association with us unclean Gentiles which had made him an outcast among his own people.

If you will look at the footer (that is the small writings at the end of all of Paul's epistles as noted below) you will see that the only books in the NT that has the footer is the Pauline epistles (all of them) and the book of Hebrews.

That shows you that Paul wrote Hebrews...​

He basically concludes with a list of all 13 of the Pauline "footers".

http://www.kjv1611.org.uk/WHO%20WROTE%20THE%20BOOK%20OF%20HEBREWS.htm

 

[franklinmonroe]

1 Corinthians 16:24 with subscription (AV1611) --

My loue be with you all in Chrift Iefus, Amen.

¶ The firft Epiftle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi by Stephanas, and Fortunatus, and Achaicus, and Timotheus.​

Lest the suggestion that the Pauline subscriptions should not be presumed to be scripture simply because they follow after the word "Amen", it can easily be demonstrated that "Amen" does not neccessarily denote the completion of the writing. For example, the word "Amen" occurs in the KJV three separate times in the proximity of the closing of Romans (15:33, 16:20, and 16:24) with much ensuing scripture preceding the "Amen" of 16:27 (which is the last). The word "Amen" also appears in concluding chapters of five other Pauline epistles with additional verse written by the apostle still following (see Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 6:16; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 13:21).

In addition, the word "Amen" is very often of doubtful origin itself. In Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography (2005) Philip Comfort writes (his italics, my underline) --

Let us begin with the last word to show up in many manuscripts - the word amen. A study of the textual evidence reveals that in nearly every instance, the amen is a scribal addition. Only three epistles (Romans, Galations, Jude) appear to have a genuine amen for the last word. Obviously, the word amen was added for oral, liturgical presentation. (The word amen was also appended in later manuscripts to the end of each Gospel and Acts.)​

Adam Clarke wrote in his commentary at "Romans Chapter 16" (his italics, my underline) --

The word Amen was seldom added by the inspired writers, and here it is wanting in almost all the ancient MSS. As this was a word in frequent use in religious services, pious people would naturally employ it in finishing the reading or copying of this epistle, as they would thereby express their conviction of the truth of its contents, and their desire that the promises contained in it might be fulfilled to them and to the Church at large; and in this sense the word is not only harmless but useful. May the fulness of the Gentiles be brought in, and may all Israel be saved! This is treated of at large in this epistle; and to this prayer let every pious reader say AMEN! Often this word seems to be used as we use the word finis, i.e. the end.
​

 

[franklinmonroe]

Manuscripts have subscriptions at the end of books other than the Pauline epsitles. In Adam Clarke's commentary on the gospel of John (at "Chapter 21", my underline) --

The subscriptions to this Gospel, as well as to the preceding Gospels, are various in the different versions and manuscripts. The following are those which appear most worthy of being noticed.

"The most holy Gospel of the preaching of John the evangelist, which he spake and proclaimed in the Greek language at Ephesus, is finished." - SYRIAC in Bib. Polyglott.

"With the assistance of the supreme God, the Gospel of St. John the son of Zebedee, the beloved of the Lord, and the preacher of eternal life, is completed. And it is the conclusion of the four most holy and vivifying Gospels, by the blessing of God. Amen." - ARABIC in Bib. Polyglott.

"The four glorious Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are completed." - PERSIC in Bib. Polyglott.

Other subscriptions are as follow:-

"The end of the holy Gospel of John-delivered thirty years-thirty-two years after the ascension of Christ-in the Isle of Patmos-in the Greek tongue at Ephesus-under the reign of Domitian-written by John when he was an exile in Patmos-under the Emperor Trajan-and delivered in Ephesus by Gaius the host of the apostles. John, having returned from his exile in Patmos, composed his Gospel, being 100 years of age and lived to the age of 120." - SUIDAS.

In an AEthiopic MS. in the royal library in Paris, at the conclusion of this evangelist are these words: "Now the sum of all the clauses of the four Gospels is 9700. - By the grace of the Lord, here are ended the four Gospels. The sections of the four Gospels are 217. The clauses of the holy Gospel, even from its beginning to its end, namely, the writing of St. John, are completed."

It may be just necessary to inform the reader that the most ancient MSS. have scarcely any subscription at all, and that there is no dependence to be placed on any thing of this kind found in the others; most of the transcribers making conclusions according to their different fancies...​

 

[robycop3]

One quick Q...

In Jude 25, most newer versions have "through our Lord jesus Christ", while older Bibles, including the KJV, don't. Is this simply a difference in the mss used to make the respective versions?

 

[gb93433]

One quick Q...

In Jude 25, most newer versions have "through our Lord jesus Christ", while older Bibles, including the KJV, don't. Is this simply a difference in the mss used to make the respective versions?

The TR has words which are not there and are present in the UBS and NA texts.

 

[EdSutton]

The TR has words which are not there and are present in the UBS and NA texts.

You wanna' run that one by us one more time??

Even Language Cop cannot decipher this, as written, with any certainty.

Ed

 

[gb93433]

You wanna' run that one by us one more time??

Even Language Cop cannot decipher this, as written, with any certainty.

Ed

The NA 26 and UBS 4 Greek texts have words that the TR Greek text does not.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Here is the summation of some undeniable facts that have been presented here that support, with the highest possible certainty, that these words at the end of the Pauline epistles are part of the original AV1611 text --

• That the extant majority of the ancient Greek manuscripts include these subscriptions (including Alexandrian-type MSS)
• That there is much extraneous material (titles, colophons, etc.) found in ancient MSS that has properly been excluded from entering the main text
• That Textus Receptus editors included these words in their Greek texts
• That several other early English versions include these words: Tyndale's NT, Matthew's, Geneva, and Bishop's Bible
• That the king's rules of revision stated that the Bishop's Bible text was to be corrected only to bring it into greater conformity to the meaning of the original languages
• That the AV1611 translators did render them from the Greek into English (as they are obviously different than the Bishop's Bible text)
• That no subsequent revision of the KJV has ever edited these words out (they are not printer's errors)
• That many subsequent print publishers have included these words in their KJV editions to the present time
• That subsequent translators have included these words into their TR-based translations
• That some online KJV texts include them (the 'web' is where many folks get information)
• That ordinary readers view them in the KJV and are sometimes confused by them (despite some modern formatting attempts to clearly separate them from the scripture)
• That these words are presumed by academic writers to be in the KJV text
• That these words are presumed by clergical commentators to be in the KJV text

Here are three potential objections that these words were NOT part of the original AV1611 text with their refutations below --

That the word "Amen" indicates the end of the apostle's writing --

• But there many examples where there more scripture follows the word "Amen", even near the end of the book
• But the word "Amen" itself is often doubtful

That the AV1611 format indicates that they are not part of the text --

• But the subscriptions are located within the normal columns of the main text (they are not sidenotes)
• But the typeface style (Gothic-blackletter) is the standard scripture text, easily distinguished from the Roman typeface of peripheral text
• But the type size is the same as the standard scripture text, easily distinguished from the smaller (ie. sidenotes) and larger (ie. titles) sizes of peripheral text
• But the pilcrow ( ¶) is the same standard mark used throughout the scripture text to suggest paragraphs, and is not indicative of different textual status
• But the format is the same as the headings of the Psalms --
  
  [*] That the superscriptions/subscriptions are indented (rather than 'justified') in the column is not unexpected formating for introductory/concluding statements, and is not clearly indicative of different status
  [*] That the superscriptions/subscriptions have some intervening space (rather than directly affixed to the last verse) is not unexpected formating for introductory/concluding statements, and is not clearly indicative of different status​

That they should be dismissed for lack of verse number --

• But versification is not original (nor inspired)
• But even some other early English versions had no verses at all (Tyndale, Matthews)
• But the headings of the Psalms of the AV1611 also lack a verse number
• But that some versions do begin verse numbering with the headings of the Psalms (The Defined KJ, JPS Tanakh, NAB)

It would seem that one cannot reasonable hold that the Pauline subscripts are not scripture and at the same time hold that the headings of the Psalms are inspired (scripture); that is, if these subscriptions in the AV1611 are rejected on the basis of typography, then the superscriptions of the Psalms must also be rejected. According to Hills "these subscriptions have never been regarded as inspired"; additionally, Hills argumentation would indicate that he also doesn't believe that the superscriptions of the Psalms are inspired. If these words were "never" inspired, their inclusion within the text of the AV1611 cannot be justified.

Here is the summation of the evidence of the Psalm superscriptions trustworthiness --

• That NT writers cite from them as truth (see Matthew 22:45, Luke 20:42, Acts 1:16, Romans 4:6, and Romans 11:9)
• That there is good internal evidence that Moses did write Psalm 90
• That there is abundance of evidence that David was the composer of much sacred poetry

However, if the Psalm superscriptions are accepted as true scripture, then it would seem that the Pauline subscriptions must also be accepted as genuine scripture on the basis of the parallel formating. If the Pauline subscriptions were inspired scripture, it would be unconscionable for them to be omitted now from any Bible (KJVs included).

Here is the summation of the evidence of the Pauline subscriptions untrustworthiness --

• That they are not original apostolic writings inspired by the Holy Spirit
• That evidence shows that they are later scribal additions
• That they are not found uniformly throughout MSS
• That they take so many variants forms that the initial scribal wording is unrecoverable
• That several are almost certainly erroneous in historical fact

Since the Pauline subscriptions are original AV1611 text (and never having been officially edited out), it is, at the very least, unethical for them to be omitted now from KJVs.

 

[franklinmonroe]

That these subscriptions were included in the AV1611 text was a mistake in judgement by the king's revisors (simular to the inclusion of the Apocryphal books). The subscriptions are not original, not inspired, and plagued with historical inaccuracies. The existance of the subscriptions within the text confirms that the Textus Receptus has defects, the AV committee was not inerrant, and the 1611 version was not perfect from its inception, thus rendering untenable KJVO positions #3 ("I believe in the Received Text only") and #4 ("I believe the King James is inspired") as defined by the BB.

 

[Logos1560]

One question (we'll probably never know the answer to) is: why did the AV translators include the subscriptions in their text?

Possibly one reason that the KJV translators included the subscriptions was that at least two of them would be helpful in their pomotion of episcopal church government.

Ross Purdy suggested that two “examples of the [KJV] translators’ bias will be seen in the postscripts to two of Paul’s epistles” (I Will Have One Doctrine & One Discipline: An Essay on the influence of Religion and Politics on the Formation of the KJB, p. 63). At the end of 2 Timothy in the 1611 edition of the KJV, the postscript referred to Timothy as “ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians.” At the end of Titus in the 1611 KJV, the postscript referred to Titus as “ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians.” Bishop Thomas Bilson in his book defending Episcopal church government and apostolic succession maintained that Timothy and Titus were bishops (Perpetual Government, pp. 302-303, 341, 388). Purdy asserted: “The bias of the King James Version ’translators’ towards prelates (i.e., a hierarchy of ruling prelates/bishops is quite obvious” (I Will Have, p. 64).

The 1560 Geneva Bible also included a postscript to 2 Timothy. The Geneva Bible postscript referred to “Timotheus the first bishop elected, of the Church of Ephesus.” In its marginal note for the word “bishops” at Philippians 1:1, the Geneva Bible stated: “By bishops here he meaneth them that had charge of the word and governing; as pastors, doctors, elders.”

Perhaps another reason that they were included was that some of the pre-1611 English Bibles may also have included them.

 

[Thermodynamics]

Here is the first one listed, Romans 16:27 --

To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. Written to the Romans from Corinthus,
and sent by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea. (AV1611)

To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. (1769 Oxford?)​

That is a footnote, not scripture. However, those words DO appear in my 2005 Cambridge KJV, they ALSO appear in a 1983 Nelson KJV, as well as my c. 1994 Thompson's Chain KJV. They do not appear in my c. 2006 Ryrie KJV or my c. 2006 New Defender's KJV.

I also have a 1598 Beza's Textus Receptus and they do not appear in either Greek or English.

Because that is a translator's footnote is can not be counted as an addition when present or a deletion when absent. It was not a part of the Greek Text which must be used at all times to verify and correct ANY English translation. Remember the Greek is Scripture, the English is a translation of Scripture.

 

[EdSutton]

... the English is a translation of Scripture.

I know that and you know that.

Unfortunately however, it appears ... :tear:

Ed

 

[Thermodynamics]

I know that and you know that.

Unfortunately however, it appears ... :tear:

Ed

And that it would seem is the source of many problems.

 

[gb93433]

Thousands and thousands of words are missing from the KJV. The languages that the OT and NT was written in are missing from the KJV.

Somehow the experts who claim to have corrected those languages have chosen to use the English language in all of its ambiguity. I wonder why they think God spoke in 1611 English. Those poor Canadians, Germans, and Chinese people.

The translators didn't make very good decisions though. Obviously they lacked a lot of wisdom because they have not make life very easy for the KJVOs. The KJVOs of today have wisdom the translators did not have. The problem started with the language of the KJV 1611 and then as the English language was modernized the translators replaced the archaic language with modern English of the time. Those moderns just ruined the whole thing! If only a few lies would have come along the way then the KJVOs would not have any trouble today. At least the words would have been exactly the same. Maybe we need to learn English better so we can really know what scripture says. Certainly theological schools are so useless because if we learned English well then we would have that perfect word of God that God inspired in English. The others nations in the world are so foolish for not training the people in their churches to read English so they can have the perfect word of God. Today the word of God only comes in KJV 1611 English. If anyone wants to know the perfect word of God they would be so foolish to not learn 1611 language. They should learn it well enough to preach and teach in it too because the 1611 language is sacred and only God speaks that language. It is too bad that the KJVO preachers have not learned the 1611 English language well enough to avoid mixing the modern English language with the sacred English of 1611.

 

[franklinmonroe]

That is a footnote, not scripture. However, those words DO appear in my 2005 Cambridge KJV, they ALSO appear in a 1983 Nelson KJV, as well as my c. 1994 Thompson's Chain KJV. They do not appear in my c. 2006 Ryrie KJV or my c. 2006 New Defender's KJV.

It is interesting that some KJVs have these words and others do not. These "footnotes" are a part of the original KJV text and should always be included in the same way as the ascriptions to many Psalms. I would encourage you to read the whole thread (if not the entire thread, at least the summary at Post #70).

I also have a 1598 Beza's Textus Receptus and they do not appear in either Greek or English.

Thank you. This partially answers one of the original OP questions. However, these subscriptions are in Stephen's Textus Receptus of 1550.

Because that is a translator's footnote is can not be counted as an addition when present or a deletion when absent. It was not a part of the Greek Text which must be used at all times to verify and correct ANY English translation. Remember the Greek is Scripture, the English is a translation of Scripture.

These are definately NOT translator's footnotes. Actually, they seem to be in the majority of Greek MSS evidence. I agree that the Greek texts are Scripture (in as far as they are faithful copies to the originals).

 

[John of Japan]

These are definately NOT translator's footnotes. Actually, they seem to be in the majority of Greek MSS evidence. I agree that the Greek texts are Scripture (in as far as they are faithful copies to the originals).

According to Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, the subscriptions for all of the writings of Paul plus Hebrews have considerable mss support. In the simplest form (for example, "To the Romans") they occur in mss going back to P46 and Aleph. However, there is a wide variety in the readings, which is probably why most Greek NTs don't have them.

Here's the interesting thing. Only the Pauline epistles and Hebrews (written by Paul I think) have supscriptions. This makes me think that subscriptions are genuine, maybe a habit of Paul or his assistants. But don't quote me. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Thermodynamics]

Franklin, do they appear in any of the CT manuscripts?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Franklin, do they appear in any of the CT manuscripts?

See John's comments above (P46 & Aleph would be considered Alexandrian family MSS). Information on these subscriptions is scant. They are NOT in either the Majority Text or Byzantine Text Greek NTs. They are not in any NA/UBS texts (to my knowledge).