Why were the sidenotes removed?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by tinytim, Aug 20, 2007.

  1. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    When the 1611 KJV was translated, the translators included sidenotes, relative to the footnotes in the NIV...

    When and why were they removed from the KJVs of today?
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I can't answer your question, TT, but I know if all the translators' extratextual material, including the preface, had been left in subsequent editions of the KJV, the KJVO doctrine might not have ever been born.

    Maybe for brevity? Shoot, I dunno....
     
  3. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't know why. But obviously it was the translators intention to have them included. Somehow people responsible for reprinting and reediting newer version of the King James took the liberty to exclude all that the translators had intended for the readers to have available to them.
     
  4. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do we convince publishers and printers to put them back in?
    This may be a way of ending this feud between KJVOs and MVs.

    I know how, MONEY!!!
    If the printers and publishers see that money can be made by putting them back in, then they will

    Does anyone have Murdoch's number?
     
  5. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0

    It would be nice to see a publisher print a KJV that included all the original translators notes. But sadly, I assume the majority of people who buy KJV Bibles would not buy that edition, but rather smear it and shun it. So like you said, it is about the money, hence nobody would do it.
     
  6. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just sent an email to Hendrickson Publishers letting them know there is a market for this product...

    I know I would buy one...
    And it could be marketed in such a way that those that say they are 1611 KJVers would buy them up....

    After all, if you are a 1611 guy or gal, wouldn't you want the notes they had?
     
  7. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0

    Just my opinion, but I would think no. I think they wear the badge of 1611 for what they believe it now represents to them, and translators notes is not part of that.



    I agree with you, though on the value it offeres. I would buy one also.
     
  8. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would buy one.

    In fact, many of my KJVs have alternate readings in the margins. Sometimes though, they just add confusion to the reading of that particular passage. And sometimes the marginal readings change the meaning altogether. And sometimes (rarely) it is helpful.

    Example of a total change:
    From my grandfathers' 1934 Oxford 1 Kings 19:18;

    Text: Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel....

    Margin: * I will leave....

    One is past tense the other is future tense. Totally different. Opposite.
     
    #8 av1611jim, Aug 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2007
  9. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would that be the A-Team's "Howling Mad" Murdoch of several years ago? Sorry, don't have a number for him or any other Murdoch...
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    TT was right in post #4 . I think it would eliminate a great deal of the dispute between the KJV Only faction and others who appreciate some of the modern versions . I would buy a KJV edition with the original notes ( in modern typeset and updated spelling ) . I also think that the original Preface to the Reader ( by Miles Smith ) should be included . It would take a lot of wind out of the sails of most KJV'ers . However , the most extreme wing would continue on unabated , facts notwithstanding .
     
  11. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did have a large group of KJVO's here locally who informed me that the text was inspired by God, but their notes were of their own accord.
     
  12. Bro. Williams

    Bro. Williams
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    A publishing company called "Lifeline Philippines" does a copy of the 1611 NT with notes and all.

    I bought mine from:

    Larry Harrison, Christian Book Gallery, (219)365-4905

    You can buy it directly online at: http://www.lifelineprinting.com/

    There is an old thread on BB that deals with that copy as well.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=29347&page=2

    Finally, not sure on the OP question, if I come across it, I will share.

    (also, I have swordsearcher, which has the 1611 text as well... but no notes.)
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The Hendrickson repro AV1611 I have DOES have all the translators' extratextual material. I have consulted with several museums that have authentic AV1611s to confirm this.
     
  14. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not talking about a 1611 with the translator's notes... but I would like to have a 1769 with the notes. (that is not 135 yrs old! :))
    I have one from 1873. But I want one that is usable.
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ya know, TT, I aint NEVER saw one that has ALL the translators' extratextual materials...but that don't mean it don't exist. I hopeya find one.

    Meanwhile, here are some of the translators' remarx that, if they were included in the currently-used KJV editions, would put an end to a lotta the bickering:

    For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables?
    Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free,
    use one precisely when we may use another
    no less fit, as commodiously?
     
  16. Lions84

    Lions84
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe there is one online at Bibles.net Google it!
     
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV did still include the 1611 marginal notes plus a few additional notes added in 1762/1769, and it also still had character shaped like f for a long "s." All the many words with that character were not updated until around 1810. Some KJV editions printed at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1800's still had the 1611 marginal notes for I have copies of a few that do.

    The first KJV printed in America in 1782 did not have any marginal notes, supposedly in order to save paper. The American Bible Society in its effort to print Bibles as cheaply as possible and to get Bibles in the hands of as many people as possible in the 1800's did not include marginal notes in most of their editions. On the other hand, other publishers added so many study notes to their KJV editions that they may have decided to leave out the original 1611 marginal notes.

    The 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton includes the marginal notes from the 1611 KJV along with the additional notes added in 1762/1769. The additional notes are placed in square brackets to distinguish them from the notes from the 1611 edition. It also includes the orginal preface to the 1611 "The Translators to the Reader."
     

Share This Page

Loading...