Misplaced, mis-inserted, moving, or missing commas in KJV's?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Oct 30, 2010.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Punctuation can sometimes change the meaning and interpretation of verses. Do you know of any places where KJV editions misplaced or misinserted commas or where they need a comma and do not have one?

    Here is one example of a comma that was misplaced in the 1638 Cambridge edition and stayed that way in some KJV editions until 1838.

    Hebrews 10:12
    sins, for ever (1679, 1715, 1754, 1758, 1769, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1787, 1788, 1792, 1795, 1798, 1803, 1804, 1810, 1812, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1758, 1760, 1763B, 1765, 1768, 1769, 1778, 1790, 1795, 1817, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844 Cambridge] {1711, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1767, 1772, 1795, 1817, 1824 London} (1722, 1756, 1766, 1789, 1793, 1842, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1813 Carey) (1816 Albany) (Clarke) (1828 Boston) (1829, 1843 ABS) (1846 Portland) (1958 Hertel)
    sins for ever, (1847 Oxford, SRB Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1842, 1865 Cambridge, DKJB] {1611, 1614, 1617, 1838 London}

    Here is an example of where the 1611 KJV edition seems to have added a comma that was not needed. Benjamin Blayney in his 1769 Oxford edition is sometimes credited for being the first to remove this comma, but the 1743 Cambridge edition may actually have been the first to remove it. It remained in some Oxford editions after 1769. It is still found in some early American editions of the KJV because they may have been based on pre-1769 editions, on editions printed in London or Edinburgh instead of those printed in Oxford or Cambridge, and because the 1769 may not yet have been recognized as the standard in America in the early 1800's.

    Titus 2:13
    God, and our Saviour (1679, 1715, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1774, 1788, 1795 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1769 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1617, 1634, 1672, 1711, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1767, 1772 London} (1722, 1756, 1764, 1766 Edinburgh) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1829, 1843 ABS) (1846 Portland) (1833 WEB)
    God and our Saviour (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford, SSB Oxford, Oxford Classic) [1743, 1747, 1760, 1763B, 1765, 1768, 2005 Cambridge, CCR, CSTE, DKJB]
     
  2. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Missing commas are problematic, and our current English state of affairs is pushing to eliminate commas in some circumstances where they should be used, for instance terminal commas after a list. Here is an example taken from an actual newspaper article:

    The missing comma made Kris K., and Robert D., the ex wives! Of course, that was not the case, but the sentence sure was changed by the grammatical mistake.

    In the text, such as the KJV Bible, punctuation is more problematic, for one has to first translate from the original Greek or Hebrew, then add commas according to the rules of English grammar. That will always be a subjective call, for even the KJV does not follow precisely the original language sentence structure. If it did, we would have multiple page-long sentences in some cases, for that is what is in the Greek!
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Should there have been a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 in the 1611 edition of the KJV?

    2 Peter 1:1
    God, and our Saviour (1679, 1715, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1774, 1788, 1795 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1769 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1617, 1634, 1672, 1711, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1772, 1795 London} (1722, 1756, 1764, 1766 Edinburgh) (1782 Aitken) (1813 Carey) (1813 Johnson)

    God and our Saviour (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford, SSB Oxford, Oxford Classic) [1743, 1747, 1760, 1763B, 1765, 1768 Cambridge, CCR, CSTE, DKJB]
     
  4. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    του Θεου ἡμων και σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου

    Literally, "Of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"

    Clarke says that this is mis-translated in the KJV:

    This reading, which is indicated in the margin, should have been received into the text; and it is an absolute proof that St. Peter calls Jesus Christ GOD, even in the properest sense of the word, with the article prefixed. It is no evidence against this doctrine that one MS. of little authority, and the Syriac and two Arabic versions have Κυριου, Lord, instead of Θεου, God, as all other MSS. and versions agree in the other reading, as well as the fathers. —Adam Clarke's Commentary

    Virtually every other translation agrees with Clarke, even the NIV. The ones that do not are the KJV and the ASV. My list includes Youngs, Phillips, NASB, ASV, NKJV, HCSB, NEV, NEB, JB, Darby, Weymouth, and a few others.
     
  5. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,629
    Likes Received:
    45
    Ooops, John Calvin didn't get the memo:

    Commentary on II Pet. 1:1:

     
  6. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Calvin predates the KJV...
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    2 Peter 1:1


    Several early English Bibles and many modern translations clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534 and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops', Haak’s 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible, Wesley's, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, NKJV, Majority Text Interlinear, and many other translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." James White maintained that this is the proper translation of the Greek according to the Granville Sharp's rule (King James Only Controversy, p. 268). Granville Sharp (1735-1813) cited 2 Peter 1:1 as his first example “of sentences which fall under the first rule, and are improperly rendered in the English version [KJV]“ (Remarks, p. 20). Concerning this verse in his multi-volume commentary, David Sorenson wrote: “Though it is not quite as evident in English, in the Received Text, the phrase literally reads, ‘the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ’” (p. 228). Kenneth Wuest asserted: “The expression, ‘God and our Saviour’ is in a construction in the Greek text which demands that we translate, ‘our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (In These Last Days, p. 17). John Ankerberg and John Weldon noted that “Greek scholars Dana and Mantley, in their A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, confirm the truth of Sharp’s rule, and then explain: ‘Second Peter 1:1 … means that Jesus is our God and Savior” (Facts On Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 24). In his commentary on 1 and 2 Peter, Gordon Clark translated the phrase as “of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (New Heavens, New Earth, p. 170). Clark noted: “Other references to ‘our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’ do not diminish the deity asserted here in 1:1” (p. 171). Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse? Concerning this verse in his 1633 commentary on 2 Peter, Thomas Adams observed: “Some read these words by disjoining them; of God, and of our Saviour,“ which would seem to refer to the rendering in the 1611. At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note. Granville Sharp observed: “In the margin of our present version the proper reading is ‘of our God and Saviour,‘ manifestly referring both titles to one person” (Remarks, p. 22). James Scholefield maintained that this verse has “the same construction as in verse 11” where it was rendered in the KJV as “of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Hints, p. 157). A. T. Robertson wrote: “In 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18, the pronoun ’our’ comes after ’Lord,’ but that makes no difference in the idiom. It is ’our Lord and Saviour,’ and it is so translated in the English versions. But we have precisely the same idiom in 2 Peter 1:1, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (The Minister, p. 63). Robertson asserted: “The idiom compels the translation, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (p. 64). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1, Ralph Wardlaw noted in 1815: “An instance of construction, in every respect the same, occurs at the eleventh verse of this same chapter” (Discourses, p. 75). Wardlaw asserted: “It is just as improper to render the words in the first verse, ‘through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,‘ (unless the appellations ‘God and our Saviour’ be understood as both connecting with ‘Jesus Christ’) as it would be to render those in this verse [1:11] ‘in the kingdom of the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 76). John Dagg indicated that the rendering in our common English version at 2 Peter 1:1 should be emended to “the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Manual of Theology, pp. 183-184). Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) wrote: “According to the original, of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Theology Explained, I, p. 525).
     

Share This Page

Loading...