Words omitted from AV1611

[EdSutton]

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

FTR, I didn't think there was (or could even be) any such thing as "variants from conflicting mss evidence" for a good 'KJVO'.

Well that is, except for maybe I Jn. 5:12.

Am I right, C4K? :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

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

You do not seem to object to added information as long as it is "clearly distinguished as non-Scripture", but that is exactly the issue when these subscripts are included (from the 1611 unto present KJV editions). BTW, the king's revisors engaged in sidenoting some "conflicting mss evidence" in the original AV edition (I recall one such note at Luke 17:36).

But would it not a more serious breech of the reader's trust to actually place a variant within the text? Notice 1 John 2:23 in the KJV --

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.​

The latter portion of the verse frequently indicated by italic typeface in modern KJV publication (representing the 'roman' typeface used in the AV1611) are NOT the words of the translators, and it is NOT a rendering of the Textus Receptus. While these words may be well supported by MSS outside the TR tradition, they are variant to the underlying Greek text of the KJV.

{*Ed Edwards raised this verse as a topic here on the BB just about 2 years ago, and also Pastor Larry in late 2001}

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

FTR, I didn't think there was (or could even be) any such thing as "variants from conflicting mss evidence" for a good 'KJVO'.

Well that is, except for maybe I Jn. 5:12.

Am I right, C4K? :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

I john 5v12 is the most obvious and major 1611 vs later editions difference

 

[Salamander]

You do not seem to object to added information as long as it is "clearly distinguished as non-Scripture", but that is exactly the issue when these subscripts are included (from the 1611 unto present KJV editions). BTW, the king's revisors engaged in sidenoting some "conflicting mss evidence" in the original AV edition (I recall one such note at Luke 17:36).

But would it not a more serious breech of the reader's trust to actually place a variant within the text? Notice 1 John 2:23 in the KJV --

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.​

The latter portion of the verse frequently indicated by italic typeface in modern KJV publication (representing the 'roman' typeface used in the AV1611) are NOT the words of the translators, and it is NOT a rendering of the Textus Receptus. While these words may be well supported by MSS outside the TR tradition, they are variant to the underlying Greek text of the KJV.

{*Ed Edwards raised this verse as a topic here on the BB just about 2 years ago, and also Pastor Larry in late 2001}

In translating the intent into words to be understood by the reader, nothing could be considerd as if the last words in italics to be harmful to the text.

 

[Salamander]

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

You should be more specific, Sir, when you make these claims in your objections to Scripture when al you have to oferr is a footnote.

 

[Salamander]

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.

Maybe you should go to each of the translators, the typesetters, and dig them up and tonguelash each and everyone so you wouldn't have these insidious objections of yours.

:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

I john 5v12 is the most obvious and major 1611 vs later editions difference

And it contains the wording to make the text completely clear you might add.

 

[franklinmonroe]

You should be more specific, Sir, when you make these claims in your objections to Scripture when al you have to oferr is a footnote.

Apology accepted.

 

[franklinmonroe]

In another thread, Pastor Bob asked --

Are these readings found solely in Alexandrian mss, or are they also found in Byzantine mss?

This verse, 1 John 2:23, is such an example.

{At home this morning, church services cancelled due to snow storm.}

 

[franklinmonroe]

You should be more specific, Sir, when you make these claims in your objections to Scripture when al you have to oferr is a footnote.

Maybe you should go to each of the translators, the typesetters, and dig them up and tonguelash each and everyone so you wouldn't have these insidious objections of yours.

I beg your pardon, sir, but where did I state any objections regarding the OP topic of Pauline subscripts (or "footnote" as you prefer)?

 

[franklinmonroe]

There are some other more recent translations (non-KJV) of the TR that contain these NT subscripts. The AV7: New Authorized Version (2006) of the New Testament has these words in it's text. So does the New Testament in Its Original Order (2002) which follows the 1550 Stephen's Greek.

 

[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...

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.

Actually, there is one more I've been holding back; I wanted to be able to address the entire group of verses as associated with Paul's writings. But as most here know, there has been traditionally some reservation about the authorship of Hebrews. This is the final words of Hebrews as it appears in the AV1611 (found at 13:25) --

Grace be with you all. Amen. Written to the Hebrewes, from Italy, by Timothie.​

Straightforward comprehension of this text would seem to indicate to the common English reader that Timothy has been identified as the writer of the book which is entitled in the AV1611 as "The Epistle of Pavl the Apoftle to the Hebrewes".

 

[Jerome]

As they actually appear the KJV1611, the colophons are not included in or affixed to the last verses of the epistles.

An intervening blank line, indentation, and a preceding pilcrow clearly separate the colophons.

 

[franklinmonroe]

As they actually appear the KJV1611, the colophons are not included in or affixed to the last verses of the epistles.

An intervening blank line, indentation, and a preceding pilcrow clearly separate the colophons.

Correct, they are not directly affixed to end of the verse in the AV1611. However, publishers of KJVs still treat them inconsistantly: with/without an intervening space; with/without smaller letter height; with/without the paragraph mark (the "pilcrow" which I did not know how to insert). Of course,
the pilcrow typesetter's mark is found throughout the standard AV1611 scripture text.

In my research I have not yet found these postscript remarks referred to as "colophons". The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early
Christian Literature indicates that "colophons" are for scribal information such number of stichoi, and sometimes even contain curses; it further
states that (Page 103) --

... the term "colophon" is also used less accurately for other information at the conclusion of a manuscript, including such things as the title, the name of the author, the name of the copyist, and the place and date of copying.​

 

[franklinmonroe]

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...

I wasn't the only one whose thoughts equated the Psalms superscriptions and Pauline epistle subscriptions. This is what Edward F. Hills answered in his The Text of the King James Version: Questions and Problems when the question was about the inspired nature of the headings to the individual Psalms (my underlines) --

Many of the Psalms have headings. For example, "To the chief Musician, A Psalm and Song of David" (Psalm 65). The King James translators separated these headings and printed them in small type, each one above the Psalm to which it belonged. Some conservative scholars, such as J.A. Alexander (1850) [The Psalms, New York: Scribner, 180, Vol. 1, p. viii], have criticized the King James translators for doing this. These headings, they have insisted, should be regarded as the first verses of their respective Psalms. They give three reasons for this opinion: first, in the Hebrew Bible no distinction is made between the Psalms and their headings; second, the New Testament writers recognized these headings as true; third, each heading is part of the Psalm which it introduces and hence is inspired. This position, however, may go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture. In any case, it is better to follow the leading of the King James translators and recognize the obvious difference between the heading of a Psalm and the Psalm itself.

The King James translators handled the subscriptions of the Pauline Epistles similarly, printing each one after its own epistle in small type. But this has never been a problem, since these subscriptions have never been regarded as inspired.​

First, Hills' statement that the KJV translators "separated these headings and printed them in small type" is NOT true. Look at any genuine 1611 Authorized Version and you will see that there is NO separation between the superscription and the initial words of the Psalm itself, AND the text is NOT smaller. The translators DID add their own summaries before each Psalm (and before each chapter in other books) in a smaller Roman typeface with a intervening space; but those are clearly not what Hills is talking about here. The line he uses as an example "To the chiefe Musician, A Pfalme and fong of David" is set immediately before the first verse of the Psalm 65 proper, without interruption, in the same Gothic-blackletter typeface and the same size as the words of scripture; except for the word "and" which was set in Roman typeface to indicate that it does not have a corresponding Hebrew word and was supplied by the translator. Second, Hills' is noncommittal (with his "may") toward the position that the "headings" are actually inspired text. Thus, Hills' conclusion that the best practice is to "recognize the obvious difference" between these headings and the inspired Psalm by pattern of the 1611 typography is FALSE!

KJVs published today almost uniformly DO NOT follow the actual 1611 format; witness Post #12 of this thread where Logos1560 cites that D. A. Waite's The Defined King James Bible which actually places the superscription as the first words of verse one. Lord willing, I will reveal some more interesting info on these Psalm headings soon.

Which brings us to his mistaken claim that the Pauline epistle subscriptions were also "in small type". The subscriptions are typographically the same as the other scripture text (as previously described in this thread) and the Psalm superscriptions as I just described above. Hills' supplies no basis for his assertion that the inspiration of these subscriptions have "never been a problem". If these subscriptions "have never been regarded as inspired" why did they get translated, placed in proximity, and given the same typographic character as scripture text? If they are not original scripture (and I agree that they are not) then why are they still included in the text of some KJVs?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Here is another instance where these Psalm headings and the Pauline epistle postscripts are lumped together. Some folks have gathered statistics on the KJV (total number of verses, chapters, etc.). According to one source there are 788, 280 words in the KJV. Following their data there were just two footnotes (italics theirs, underline mine) --

* The book of Psalms has superscriptions under some of the Psalms (chapters.) These were not counted in this chart because they are not in the verses. Also Psalm 119 has the Hebrew Alphabet translated into English. Even though these words are not in the verses they were counted because they are scattered throughout this Psalm (Chapter.)

* The fourteen epistles of Paul are sometimes accompanied by subscriptions at the end of each letter. These were not counted because they are not in the verses. They are credited to Euthalius, a bishop of the 5th Century. The wording has slightly been modified during the process of time. Some of them seem to disagree with the text.​

The words at the beginning of each Psalm (in every Bible I've ever read) are NOT included in their total word count of the KJV. The words at the end of all Paul's letters ("sometimes") also are NOT included. Why? The reason given for both the Psalm superscriptions and Pauline postscripts is that these words placed outside of the verse numbers.

Is "they are not in the verses" a justifiable reason to discount words that ARE in the majority of ancient manuscripts? Verse division was not inspired and seems somewhat random; versification is a late man-made device. Could the exclusion of these words really be based upon a lack of faith in their inspired status? The statisticians allude to untrustworthiness of some subscriptions, although no such accusation is leveled at the Psalm headings here. According to this same source --

Total words in superscriptions (sub-titles) of Psalms - 1,034

Total words in subscriptions (concluding remarks) in the epistles of Paul - 186​

That would be a very high number of uninspired words to be included in the KJV text (they remain even when all the sidenotes are eliminated).
I have more info, but I am trying to resist the urge of posting it all at once.

 

[franklinmonroe]

In Chapter 14 "Psalms" Barry L. Bandstra states in his Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (his bold, my underline)--

Superscriptions. In many English versions the psalm superscription is printed in different type from the rest of the psalm and is not given a verse number. Some versions, such as the New American Bible and the Tanakh (Jewish Publication Society), follow the Hebrew text more faithfully by giving the superscription a verse number, thereby rendering it more deliberately as part of the text. Readers of different versions should note that this quirk of the versions can result in the same verse being numbered differently in different translations. In this textbook we follow the versification of Hebrew printed editions.​

 

[EdSutton]

I wasn't the only one whose thoughts equated the Psalms superscriptions and Pauline epistle subscriptions. This is what Edward F. Hills answered in his The Text of the King James Version: Questions and Problems when the question was about the inspired nature of the headings to the individual Psalms (my underlines) --

Many of the Psalms have headings. For example, "To the chief Musician, A Psalm and Song of David" (Psalm 65). The King James translators separated these headings and printed them in small type, each one above the Psalm to which it belonged. Some conservative scholars, such as J.A. Alexander (1850) [The Psalms, New York: Scribner, 180, Vol. 1, p. viii], have criticized the King James translators for doing this. These headings, they have insisted, should be regarded as the first verses of their respective Psalms. They give three reasons for this opinion: first, in the Hebrew Bible no distinction is made between the Psalms and their headings; second, the New Testament writers recognized these headings as true; third, each heading is part of the Psalm which it introduces and hence is inspired. This position, however, may go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture. In any case, it is better to follow the leading of the King James translators and recognize the obvious difference between the heading of a Psalm and the Psalm itself.

The King James translators handled the subscriptions of the Pauline Epistles similarly, printing each one after its own epistle in small type. But this has never been a problem, since these subscriptions have never been regarded as inspired.​

First, Hills' statement that the KJV translators "separated these headings and printed them in small type" is NOT true. Look at any genuine 1611 Authorized Version and you will see that there is NO separation between the superscription and the initial words of the Psalm itself, AND the text is NOT smaller. The translators DID add their own summaries before each Psalm (and before each chapter in other books) in a smaller Roman typeface with a intervening space; but those are clearly not what Hills is talking about here. The line he uses as an example "To the chiefe Musician, A Pfalme and fong of David" is set immediately before the first verse of the Psalm 65 proper, without interruption, in the same Gothic-blackletter typeface and the same size as the words of scripture; except for the word "and" which was set in Roman typeface to indicate that it does not have a corresponding Hebrew word and was supplied by the translator. Second, Hills' is noncommittal (with his "may") toward the position that the "headings" are actually inspired text. Thus, Hills' conclusion that the best practice is to "recognize the obvious difference" between these headings and the inspired Psalm by pattern of the 1611 typography is FALSE!

KJVs published today almost uniformly DO NOT follow the actual 1611 format; witness Post #12 of this thread where Logos1560 cites that D. A. Waite's The Defined King James Bible which actually places the superscription as the first words of verse one. Lord willing, I will reveal some more interesting info on these Psalm headings soon.

Which brings us to his mistaken claim that the Pauline epistle subscriptions were also "in small type". The subscriptions are typographically the same as the other scripture text (as previously described in this thread) and the Psalm superscriptions as I just described above. Hills' supplies no basis for his assertion that the inspiration of these subscriptions have "never been a problem". If these subscriptions "have never been regarded as inspired" why did they get translated, placed in proximity, and given the same typographic character as scripture text? If they are not original scripture (and I agree that they are not) then why are they still included in the text of some KJVs?

I'm not exactly the President of the local Edward F. Hills "fan club", but I do recall seeing one or two copies of the Scriptures, with a subscript following the Epistles, at least from Romans through Hebrews, where this subscript was a different size type and/or font, as Dr. Hills has suggested. I believe both were italicized, and both were 'bolded', if my memory is correct.

I am drawing back on a faulty memory over forty years, for something I did not consider particularly noteworthy, at that time. So if I am not exactly accurate, with my remembrances, of the font in this, hopefully you do understand.

I am fairly certain this was a KJV from the early 20th Century, if not from the 19th. But I do remember being able to read it without having to mentally interchange any "u" and "v", or having to slow for an elongated "S" looking similar to an "f" in the middle of any words.

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I do recall seeing one or two copies of the Scriptures, with a subscript following the Epistles, at least from Romans through Hebrews, where this subscript was a different size type and/or font, as Dr. Hills has suggested...

Oh yes, you likely did, and I have seen many like this also. However, notice Hills' own words are "the King James translators" at least four times; this can only be a reference to the original 1611 work (there are so many variations after 1611 that a single description would not suffice). For example, Hills' suggests that "it is better to follow the leading of the King James translators" (speaking of the Psalm headings); he is talking about a precedent setting 1611 edition. Finally, he says "the King James translators handled the subscriptions of the Pauline Epistles similarly". We don't call subsequent publishers, or even the King's printers, the "translators". Thank you for the opportunity to make this important point very explicit.

 

[Jerome]

Yes, obvious misrepresentation of the actual format of the KJV1611 does tend to weaken one's credibility.