Marginal Readings of the King James Version

The translators of the King James Version were not certain about the correct translation and/or correct underlying original text in every single case.  As they explain in the front matter of the 1611, they felt it appropriate to put alternative readings in the margins in some cases.

Some Error-Free-KJV folks share the contemporary criticism that the KJV translators received.  People think that putting marginal notations can produce doubt and weaken people's confidence in Scripture.

There are three kinds of marginal indications in the King James: the asterisk (*), the dagger (†), and the double vertical lines (referred to as a caesura in poetry) (||).  The King translators also used some in-text indications.  When the tetragrammaton was translated as "Lord," they placed the "ord" in small capital letters.  Additionally, when the King Translators supplied words to the text, they indicated by using a simple Roman font rather than the usual Gothic font. There is at least one place (1 John 2:23) where the translators used the font change in a place where was apparently a split between the readings found in their printed texts.  It does not appear that the King James translators intended the chapter epitomes to be included as part of the text, and they were printed in that same (at least I believe it is the same) smaller Roman font as the inserted words.  The in-text indications also include English punctuation, including parentheses, commas, colons, periods, and question marks (though in the Gothic font they use, the question mark looks almost unrecognizable).  I did not find any semicolons or exclamation points in the text of the 1611 KJV.  If someone knows of any, I would be curious to see them.  A Gothic hyphen (two upslanted parallel lines) is used to break words that extend to a second line, and similarly a Roman hyphen (-) is used when the word is a supplied word) as well as similar marks that are not regularly found in text today, such as the pilcrow (¶).  The usual understanding is that the pilcrow in the 1611 KJV is that it is used to indicate separation of the text into paragraphs. Illuminated capital letters (as well as chapter headings) were used to indicate the start of chapters.  More elegantly illuminated capital letters were used at the start of books.  I did not observe any particular connection between the artwork used for the capital letters and the corresponding text. The more elegantly illuminated capitals sometimes have real or fantastic animals, humans, or other beings in them.  By way of commentary, I'm not a fan of the bare-breasted Eve, mustachioed Adam, or four-horned serpent shown in the Garden of Eden illustration in the Genealogies section, and I would have preferred if Lots' daughters had been more modestly portrayed. Thankfully, genitally are covered by banners. To my knowledge, the King James nowhere uses brackets in the text (as distinct from parentheses).

In "The Translators to the Reader" section, italics are used to indicate Scripture quotations (though, interestingly enough, not necessarily according to the reading provided in the main text) as well as names (Syria, David, and Solomon, for example) Latin text, "Tolle, lege", and even quotations from other authors, such as Augustine and Chrysostom.

The asterisk indications were used by the KJV translators to signal a cross-reference.  In the example at right,  Revelation 6:14 and Revelation 6:13 are identified as cross-references to different parts of Isaiah 34:4.  As can be seen here, sometimes more than one marginal note per verse was present.  Unlike modern footnotes and endnotes, these marginal notes were not distinguished using the verse number.  Instead, their relevance is established by their position in the margin, relative to the indicator found in the text.  So, "coupled ..." in Isaiah 34:4 corresponds Revelation 6:14, whilst "falling ..." in Isaiah 34:4 corresponds to Revelation 6:13, according to the marginal notes.

The dagger (†) indications were used in places where the King James translators translated the text in a way that, in their judgment, departed from the literal words but nevertheless conveyed the sense.  In the example at the right, for Isaiah 34:1, the translators used, "all that is therein" in the main text, but noted that the Hebrew literally says: "the fullness thereof."  Similarly, at Isaiah 33:22, the KJV translators put "Lawgiver" in the text, but note that the Hebrew is literally "statute-maker."  

The final indication is the double vertical line (||) indication. This is used for indicating alternative readings.  There seems to be some debate over the implication of this form of  notation.  In itself, the double vertical lines have no inherent meaning.  They were used by Stephanus in his Greek editions to link to marginal comments (sometimes including alternative readings).  The translators' letter to the readers uses them to link a Greek phrase to a corresponding English phrase in the first paragraph.

However, in the text of the 1611 KJV, the double vertical line (||) indication is used to indicate alternative readings.  These are usually alternative translations of the underlying Hebrew or Greek text, but sometimes they are indications of differences amongst the available Hebrew or Greek texts.  In the example at right, at Isaiah 34:7, the first marginal note says "Or, Rhinocerots" and the second marginal note says "Or, drunken" whilst the marginal notes at 33:23 says "Or, they have forsaken thy tacklings."  In each case, these marginal notes indicate alternative translations of the text.  In some cases, they may seem fairly similar but with different connotations, "drunken" as opposed to "soaked," for example, while others may be a completely different word choice ("Rhinocerots" rather than "Unicornes"), and still others may have a similar sense, but evidently not quite the same sense: "they have forsaken thy tacklings" as opposed to "thy tacklings are loosed."  

Now is as good a point as any to note that these marginal annotations seem to be at least somewhat at odds with the instructions provided by Archbishop Richard Bancroft to the translators.  His "Instructions" included the following instructions, relative to the margins (the earliest 17th century documentation for them I could find was from 1673; higher quality from  1683):

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.

7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.

Assuming these rules to be genuine, note that the dagger notes in the margins roughly correspond to the marginal notes permitted under Rule 6, while the asterisk notes in the margins roughly correspond to Rule 7.  On the other hand, the double vertical line notes in the margins seem to be in violation of the sixth rule.  

Nevertheless, the King James translators provide an explanation/justification for indicating a diversity of senses in the margin. 

Here's the section from the translators' preface that is relevant to the question (all emphases added are my own, and the original italics are omitted, also I'm working from a modernized adaptation of the letter in the preface):  

Reasons moving us to set diversity of senses in the margin, where there is great probability for each

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. For though "whatsoever things are necessary are manifest," as St. Chrysostom saith, and as St. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern faith, hope, and charity" ; yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their everywhere plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in His divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain), but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with St. Augustine (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground), Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, --"it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain." There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak), so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that rather because they would say something than because they were sure of that which they said, as St. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as St. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures ; so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good--yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition should be put in the margin --which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way--, but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers for this conceit. They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege as the dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while. They find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable; and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

In other words, the marginal notes are not clarifications of the meaning, they are alternative meanings because there is some uncertainty (or was uncertainty in the minds of the KJV translators).

Thus, taking the case of Isaiah 34:7, the KJV translators were not saying that "rhinocerots" is another word for "unicornes," but that it is a viable alternative reading at this place.  In point of fact (as I've demonstrated in another post), they were right to be uncertain here, and both the main text and the margin are in error.

With this understanding, one can see why the marginal notes were deemed valuable by the translators.  I note that Archbishop Richard Bancroft passed away in 1610, without seeing the conclusion of the translation work that he had been instrumental in authorizing and overseeing to some extent.  Thus, perhaps his passing afforded an additional opportunity for the King James translators to bypass his rule.  I will note that this entirely my own speculation.

Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener did an impressive study of the marginal notes.  Scrivener points out that practice was not new to the King James, have been practiced since at least the Tyndale New Testament of 1525.

Scrivener notes that the alternative Hebrew original word readings are not easy to distinguish from the alternative translation of the same Hebrew readings.  

Scrivener provides extensive notes, particularly on the marginal notes in the Apocrypha material, where the translators seemed to feel more free or at least felt greater need.

In the New Testament, Scrivener suggests that many notable marginal readings are derived, in one way or another, from Beza.  This makes sense, given the high estimation of Beza's work at the time.

What is absent from the margins of the King James are comments on the passage.  Many other versions included some (usually pithy) remarks about the text.  While the KJV includes chapter summaries, the margins are (as far as I can determine) free of such annotations as one might find in the Geneva Bible or even the Bishops' Bible.

Some Additional Comments

1. Paragraph/Pilcrow Marks in the 1611 KJV

The final pilcrow of the New Testament is reproduced at right.  It occurs at Acts 20:36.   It remains a mystery as to why the KJV does not include any subsequent pilcrows.  The idea that the typesetters ran out of the pilcrow type seems beyond belief, since it was not necessary to typeset all the pages at the same time.  

2. Question Marks in the 1611 KJV

Examples of KJV question mark at right (at the end of Galatians 3:1, at the end of Galatians 3:2, in the middle and end of Galatians 3:3, and in the middle of Galatians 3:4.  This example also illustrates a marginal alternative reading of "so great" instead of "so many" for Galatians 3:4.

3. Initial Letters in the 1611 KJV

An example of an initial T with a fanciful creature, as the first letter of the book of Deuteronomy is shown at right.

4. Sample from the letter of the Translators to the Readers in the 1611 KJV

An example of Scripture quotation in the Translators' letter to the readers is shown at right.  While it is a bit small as shown, you can get a better view by clicking on it.  Interestingly, the very first text quoted differs from the KJV.  The 1611 KJV has for 2 Samuel 11:25 "the sword deuoureth one as well as another" whereas the translators' letter quote it as "the sword deuoureth as well one as another," a very minor difference, of course. Likewise, the quotation from 1 Kings 22:31 quotes the text as "to fight neither with small nor great, save onely against the King of Israel" whereas the 1611 KJV has "[no to] Fight neither with small nor great, saue only with the king of Israel." Again, a small difference, but a difference nonetheless.

5. Criticism of the 1611 KJV with a Brief Discussion of a Marginal Reading

Hough Broughton was not included in the KJV translation committee, and criticized certain aspects of its work, particularly as it related to his area of expertise, the Hebrew Scriptures (link to his criticism). One excerpt at right shows his comment about how he believed that, at least in this instance, the translators relegated the true reading to the margin. (also note his complaints against Bishop Bancroft and others on similar issues before the KJV translation)

6. Others Writings on the Marginal Readings

• Scrivener's explanation and comments regarding the marginal notes can be found here (link to Scrivener's comments)
• Timothy Berg has an interesting article here (link to article).

7. Additional Supporting evidence for the views expressed here:

• An Exposition with Practicall Observations; continued upon the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth chapters of the Book of Job: being the summe of twenty three lectures, etc., Joseph Caryl (1650) (Example)
• A Discourse concerning the Authority, Stile and Perfection of the Books of the Old and New Testament. With a continued illustration of several difficult texts of Scripture, etc
• Volume 2, John Edwards (1694) (Example)
• A Discourse concerning the Authority, Stile and Perfection of the Books of the Old and New Testament. With a continued illustration of several difficult texts of Scripture, etc
• Volume 3, John Edwards (1695) (Example)
• A Discourse of Conscience (1697) A. Bosvile (example 1)(example 2)(example 3)(example 4)