Words omitted from AV1611

[franklinmonroe]

Below is a list of 13 verses from the end of the Pauline epistles of the New Testament that have many more words in the 1611 than in some later (current) versions of the KJV. I have found these words in the Greek text of Stephen 1550 (considered to be one of the several Textus Receptus), although these words were enclosed within brackets.

In addition, I have found these words in the Bishop's Bible (the text the AV revisors were supposed to have mostly followed). I have observed these words in publications of the Matthew's Bible, and the 1560 Geneva Bible, and Tyndale's 1535 New Testament. I did not find them in the copies of Coverdale's Bible that I consulted; they are not in the Rheims, nor in Wycliffe's Bible (to be expected, since neither did I notice the words in the Latin Vulgate). The words did seem to appear in an edition I saw of the Reina-Valera (considered a good Spanish translation).

I would especially appreciate information leading to answers for the following questions --

Which Greek manuscripts support these words?
Are these words found universally in all the TRs? (all 9 of Beza's editions?)
What other versions carry these words? (does Cranmer's 1539 'Great' Bible have them?)
In what edition of KJV were these words first omitted? (were they removed during the 1629 revision?)​

The verses are: Romans 16:27, I Corinthians 16:24, II Corinthians 13:14, Galatians 6:18, Ephesians 6:24, Philippians 4:23, Colosssians 4:18,
I Thessalonians 5:28, II Thessalonians 3:18, I Timothy 6:21, II Timothy 4:22, Titus 3:15, Philemon 1:25.

 

[Palatka51]

Would you be so kind as to post those verses in text so those of us that are not privy to them might read them?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Would you be so kind as to post those verses in text so those of us that are not privy to them might read them?

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?)​

 

[Palatka51]

I would tend to think that this was covered by Romans 1:1-7
1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Salamander]

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?)
​

Learn to discern between a historical footnote and the Scripture please.

 

[tinytim]

Learn to discern between a historical footnote and the Scripture please.

OH, NEVERMIND!

 

[Salamander]

OH, NEVERMIND!

Ok, I won't. But ya don't hafta yell!

 

[franklinmonroe]

Learn to discern between a historical footnote and the Scripture please.

I beg your pardon, sir, but where did I state that these words were scripture?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Learn to discern between a historical footnote and the Scripture please.

Evidently, the AV revisors did not make this distinction. Those "footnotes" were set in the same Gothic Blackletter typestyle as all the rest of the scriptures. Meanwhile, all non-scriptural words such as: book titles (also larger type), words inserted into the text by the translators (represented in italic typeface in modern printing), and introductory summary (found at the beginning of each chapter), and side notes (also smaller type) were established in segregated Roman-style characters. Most common readers certainly would have accepted the appearance of these words to indicate that they were also scripture.

 

[EdSutton]

Evidently, the AV revisors did not make this distinction. Those "footnotes" were set in the same Gothic Blackletter typestyle as all the rest of the scriptures. Meanwhile, all non-scriptural words such as: book titles (also larger type), words inserted into the text by the translators (represented in italic typeface in modern printing), and introductory summary (found at the beginning of each chapter), and side notes (also smaller type) were established in segregated Roman-style characters. Most common readers certainly would have accepted the appearance of these words to indicate that they were also scripture.

The gent do have a point!

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

Learn to discern between a historical footnote and the Scripture please.

The words that are found at the end (subscripts) of the Pauline epistles in the original 1611 KJV reminded me of the historical notes that precede the Psalms (superscripts). Typographically, the superscripts of the Psalms are treated the same way as the subscripts of Paul's letters in the AV1611.

But some printings of the KJV now treat the superscripts differently than the actual words of the psalm itself, and separate them from the psalm text by a space. In some online KJVs there are double brackets around these historical notes. It seems the NASB has eliminated them. The ascriptions to the Psalms are still included in all the KJVs I have seen. In what way are the words that prefix some Psalms 'scripture', and the words found at the end of Paul's writings are not 'scripture'?

 

[Logos1560]

The ascriptions to the Psalms are still included in all the KJVs I have seen. In what way are the words that prefix some Psalms 'scripture', and the words found at the end of Paul's writings are not 'scripture'?

D. A. Waite's edition of the KJV [The Defined King James Bible] has the notes that precede the text of each psalm (superscripts) after the first verse number.

For example, Psalm 85:1 begins this way in Waite's Defined KJB:

1 <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm for the sons of Korah..>>LORD, thou hast been favourable unto thy land: thou hast brought back the captivity of Jacob.

For another example, Psalm 86:1 begins this way in Waite's Defined KJB:

1 <<A Prayer of David.>>Bow down thine ear, O LORD, hear me, for I am poor and needy.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I would especially appreciate information leading to answers for the following questions --

Which Greek manuscripts support these words?
Are these words found universally in all the TRs? (all 9 of Beza's editions?)
What other versions carry these words? (does Cranmer's 1539 'Great' Bible have them?)
In what edition of KJV were these words first omitted? (were they removed during the 1629 revision?)​

The verses are: Romans 16:27, I Corinthians 16:24, II Corinthians 13:14, Galatians 6:18, Ephesians 6:24, Philippians 4:23, Colosssians 4:18,
I Thessalonians 5:28, II Thessalonians 3:18, I Timothy 6:21, II Timothy 4:22, Titus 3:15, Philemon 1:25.

Addressing the final question of the four, I have examined several KJV texts to which I have access. It looks like from this small sample that these words were never officially edited out of the KJV text, but that some publishers have been deleting them recently (past 70 years maybe?) --

My Zodhiates Greek-Hebrew KJV Study Bible (first edition, 1984) does not have these subscripts at the end of Paul's epsitles.
My Johnson's "People's New Testament" (Vol. 2, Romans-Revelation KJV with RV in parallel column) has these words.
My Berry's "Interlinear Greek-English New Testament" (Greek TR with KJV text) does not have these words.
My wife's Scofield KJV (purchased new in 1981) does not have these words in the New Testament.
My paternal grandmother's KJV (with a personal inscription on the inside cover dated 1908) has these words.
Of course, my Nelson AV1611 facsimilie has these words.

What's in your KJV?

 

[franklinmonroe]

What's in your KJV?

Last night at church as we were sitting down before our Bible study began, and I asked the gentleman to my left if I could see his relatively new KJV, and his Bible has these words. So, I asked the gentleman on my right if I could see his KJV, and his did not have them.

 

[franklinmonroe]

To what source can I go to as the final authority for the official text of the KJV?

 

[Mexdeaf]

You're not going to get an answer. Of course, we knew that.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I checked the two primary sources of the so-called 'Majority Text': neither the Hodges-Farstad Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, nor does the Robinson-Pierpont New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform have these subscripts after Paul's writings. I own a print copy of each; I confirmed my findings with digital versions found on the web.

It seems we can then conclude that these words do not have the support of a majority number of manucripts; that is, those 175 English words were not based upon the so-called preserved 'traditional' text.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... It seems we can then conclude that these words do not have the support of a majority number of manucripts...

It has come to my attention that these words may very well be attested by a majority of ancient manuscripts, despite the fact that the principle MT editors omit them from their Greek texts.

If so, were the TR editors justified in their placing these words that are supported by the greater number of MSS into their Greek texts?
Then were the king's revisors justified in translating those Greek words into the AV text?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

It has come to my attention that these words may very well be attested by a majority of ancient manuscripts, despite the fact that the principle MT editors omit them from their Greek texts.

If so, were the TR editors justified in their placing these words that are supported by the greater number of MSS into their Greek texts?
Then were the king's revisors justified in translating those Greek words into the AV text?

First, let me say that I have enjoyed reading this thread and I appreciate the time you've put into the research.

Second, I really can't see where it is an issue either way. If it is not Scripture, there is no consequence for omitting it. If it is included and clearly distinguished as non-Scripture, I also have no issue. Either way, I can live with it. Personally, I enjoy the added information.

For the record, there is a huge difference in adding such information and adding footnotes that list variants from conflicting mss evidence.

 

[franklinmonroe]

First, let me say that I have enjoyed reading this thread and I appreciate the time you've put into the research.

Second, I really can't see where it is an issue either way. If it is not Scripture, there is no consequence for omitting it. If it is included and clearly distinguished as non-Scripture, I also have no issue...

First, let me say 'Thank you' and 'You're welcome'.

Second, please tell me how it is in your KJV (KJVs, if you have more than one). In your opinion, do you consider the information "clearly distinguished" as not being actual Scripture? Thanks