A friend of mine sent me these eleven places where the 1611 KJV has textual critical notes, places where the translators or editors felt it important to tell readers when the Greek New Testament manuscripts to which they had access included variant readings. Such notes are not a new invention.
(NT examples HT: Andy Efting)
As best I can tell, having checked David Norton’s New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, there are four places in the Old Testament (1 Chron 1:6, 7; Ezra 2:33; 10:40) and two in the Apocrypha (1 Esdras 5:25; 8:2) where the KJV translators did the same thing.
Hello Mark, speaking of critical notes or judging, why do so many people think they are being Biblical when they say, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”? That verse is nowhere in the Bible! It actually says: “Judge not, that be be not judged”
*ye
All Cambridge KJV reference Bibles have the original translators’ text critical notes and variant readings in them. There’s a big difference in philosophies between the people involved in determining the autographic text in the 1600s and today’s text critics. Their presuppositions and assumptions are as different as night and day. In the 1600s, people were readily able to identify the autographic text within the extant apographs and the translations these people produced (like the KJV) were (and still are) considered authentic representations of the autographic text. You may want to read “The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the Seventeenth Century Lutheran Dogmaticians” by Robert Preus.
Yes, I find that aspect of my Cambridge KJV Bible helpful as well.
However, if they were “readily able to identify the autographic text” why the need for including textual variants? The fact that they viewed their translations as authentic despite uncertainty regarding some of the readings seems to be the right position, and not at all different than how I view the ESV.
This is very interesting! Thanks for posting!
I may be wrong, but I think you could add Judges 19:2 and Psalm 102:3 to the list for the Old Testament.
Thank you for this, Omar!
But I confess to being a bit uncertain how to interpret the marginal notes here. I don’t see any Kethiv-Qere readings at these two places. The note at Judges 19:2 may simply mean that they are offering an alternate way to interpret the beth preposition:
And the one at Psalm 102:3 probably represents inconsistent use on the part of the translators of the phrase “some read.” I think that instead of meaning, “Some Hebrew manuscripts read…,” they mean, “Some interpreters read…”
So though it would be fascinating to find textual notes in the OT (or even Apocrypha) in the 1611 KJV, I’m not convinced we’re there yet! I don’t feel fully confident in my skills in OT textual criticism, so I’d love to be corrected by someone who is! I did check Brannan and Loken’sLexham Textual Notes on the Bible, and neither passage showed up. I also checked Keil and Deilitzsch, who seem pretty up on Hebrew niceties, and they didn’t mention textual problems in either place.
Ok. Yes, I see where the Judges passage is probably just a question of interpretation and not textual criticism. I assumed that note on Psalms 103:2 “Some read” was referring to “some Hebrew manuscripts” but your explanation makes sense, especially since there since we’re not aware of any textual variants there.