Faith Works 6-6-2025
Jeff Gill
Missing Bible verses found in Biblical footnotes
Jeff Gill
Missing Bible verses found in Biblical footnotes
___
We were talking last week about verses which some English translations of the New Testament have relegated to footnotes, changing the numbering system going back to the King James Version (KJV) of 1611.
The dozen and a half or so you'll see marked differently in modern versions are: Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44 & 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36; John 5:3b-4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:6-8, 28:29; Romans 16:24; and then the very controversial status of I John 5:7-8 which is a column itself, let alone the highly debated Mark 16:9-20 closing which often gets a "box" or typeface change, plus the well-known story at the end of John 7 and opening verses of chapter 8 (which many scholars think is misplaced, but original to the Greek text).
In the Twentieth Century U.S., there were attempts to take the Tyndale-KJV tradition and render it into modern English for American churches (dealing with stuff like "suffer the little children," as well as "thee" & "Thou"). This produced a U.S. translation into English known today as the Revised Standard Version, which is the one I grew up with. The RSV translators used the newest Greek text consensus, which was different at a number of points from the old 1500s "Textus Receptus."
The RSV became controversial for using the oldest texts as their benchmark, then using footnotes to indicate "other sources say," differing from KJV readings. Some churches said "KJV or nothing," others accepted the newer readings from older texts, but there were challenges to some of the translation choices made. This meant after 1952 when the entire RSV Bible was published, other groups pushed for their own translation into modern English, starting with the New International Version (NIV) which was worked on between 1955 and 1978. Some liked it, some did not.
The Living Bible was also an attempt (originally by one man) to take the KJV norm, but adapting it or paraphrasing into modern language. Ken Taylor's complete Living Bible paraphrase came out in 1971, beating the NIV team (you may know it as "The Way" which was its paperback cover produced in large numbers through the Seventies and Eighties). The New American Standard Bible and New King James Version each were their own responses by different publishers to tensions around the choices made by the RSV & NIV translators.
Today we have around a dozen solid English translations, some aimed at more conservative audiences, others more academic in aim, but all stuck with the same question: lots of the bedrock KJV Bible underneath English language understandings of scripture is based on a consensus from the late 1500s. We have a different consensus today in the textual studies world about what the earliest readings are in some places -- and it's not the KJV reading. Which means in traditional numbering, some verses get "relegated" to footnotes, because they're now seen as pretty clearly additions or changes made, well after the earliest manuscript basis can be established. If we get a reading from two good manuscripts clearly dated to 250 or 275 AD, but the KJV/Textus Receptus reading is based on manuscripts from 300 or 325 or even 410, the translators today will go with the earlier reading.
The numbering issue does surprise if you don't know this background. If one says (for instance) Matthew 17:21 is a later interpolation into the text, you can't renumber the whole remaining New Testament from there. So the translators skip from 17:20 to 17:22, but I guarantee you there's a footnote explaining it, and usually including the former reading but in smaller print at the bottom of the page.
Ironically, we saw debates over translations back to the release of the KJV itself, when "conservatives" in 1611 said "We will keep using the Geneva Bible!" because they disagreed with some of King James's readings about kings, purple cloth, monarchs, etc. The issue of seeking clarity about what God is saying to us in these texts is one still with us today.
Jeff Gill is a writer, storyteller, and preacher in central Ohio; as his wife can tell you, he owns too many Bibles if that's possible. Tell him why you prefer a particular translation at knapsack77@gmail.com, or follow @Knapsack77 on Threads of Bluesky.
We were talking last week about verses which some English translations of the New Testament have relegated to footnotes, changing the numbering system going back to the King James Version (KJV) of 1611.
The dozen and a half or so you'll see marked differently in modern versions are: Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44 & 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36; John 5:3b-4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:6-8, 28:29; Romans 16:24; and then the very controversial status of I John 5:7-8 which is a column itself, let alone the highly debated Mark 16:9-20 closing which often gets a "box" or typeface change, plus the well-known story at the end of John 7 and opening verses of chapter 8 (which many scholars think is misplaced, but original to the Greek text).
In the Twentieth Century U.S., there were attempts to take the Tyndale-KJV tradition and render it into modern English for American churches (dealing with stuff like "suffer the little children," as well as "thee" & "Thou"). This produced a U.S. translation into English known today as the Revised Standard Version, which is the one I grew up with. The RSV translators used the newest Greek text consensus, which was different at a number of points from the old 1500s "Textus Receptus."
The RSV became controversial for using the oldest texts as their benchmark, then using footnotes to indicate "other sources say," differing from KJV readings. Some churches said "KJV or nothing," others accepted the newer readings from older texts, but there were challenges to some of the translation choices made. This meant after 1952 when the entire RSV Bible was published, other groups pushed for their own translation into modern English, starting with the New International Version (NIV) which was worked on between 1955 and 1978. Some liked it, some did not.
The Living Bible was also an attempt (originally by one man) to take the KJV norm, but adapting it or paraphrasing into modern language. Ken Taylor's complete Living Bible paraphrase came out in 1971, beating the NIV team (you may know it as "The Way" which was its paperback cover produced in large numbers through the Seventies and Eighties). The New American Standard Bible and New King James Version each were their own responses by different publishers to tensions around the choices made by the RSV & NIV translators.
Today we have around a dozen solid English translations, some aimed at more conservative audiences, others more academic in aim, but all stuck with the same question: lots of the bedrock KJV Bible underneath English language understandings of scripture is based on a consensus from the late 1500s. We have a different consensus today in the textual studies world about what the earliest readings are in some places -- and it's not the KJV reading. Which means in traditional numbering, some verses get "relegated" to footnotes, because they're now seen as pretty clearly additions or changes made, well after the earliest manuscript basis can be established. If we get a reading from two good manuscripts clearly dated to 250 or 275 AD, but the KJV/Textus Receptus reading is based on manuscripts from 300 or 325 or even 410, the translators today will go with the earlier reading.
The numbering issue does surprise if you don't know this background. If one says (for instance) Matthew 17:21 is a later interpolation into the text, you can't renumber the whole remaining New Testament from there. So the translators skip from 17:20 to 17:22, but I guarantee you there's a footnote explaining it, and usually including the former reading but in smaller print at the bottom of the page.
Ironically, we saw debates over translations back to the release of the KJV itself, when "conservatives" in 1611 said "We will keep using the Geneva Bible!" because they disagreed with some of King James's readings about kings, purple cloth, monarchs, etc. The issue of seeking clarity about what God is saying to us in these texts is one still with us today.
Jeff Gill is a writer, storyteller, and preacher in central Ohio; as his wife can tell you, he owns too many Bibles if that's possible. Tell him why you prefer a particular translation at knapsack77@gmail.com, or follow @Knapsack77 on Threads of Bluesky.
