When did the KJV add to the Our Father?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Odell

Guest
And is there any translations of the KJV that are in circulation that have the original way of saying the Our Father and is there any that still have the 7 extra books in the Old Testament?
 
The original 1611 KJV had the deuterocanonicals as an add-on to the OT, but they also added the doxology to the Our Father. However, the major 18th- and 19th-century Protestant commentators (who all used the KJV) were all of the opinion that the addition was spurious.

DaveBj
 
sheila0405 said:
Isn’t the Douay-Rheims Bible a KJV with the apocrypha? :confused:
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. The DRB came out two years prior (1609) to the KJV and the DRNT had been out since 1582.

They are completely different translations though the period English is pretty much the same the translations are different. There’s a lot of KJV online texts, and you can find the Douay-Rheims can be found here.

The original “1611 King James version” actually does contain the Deuterocanonicals in between the Old and New Testaments, and what most KJ only types tout as that is the abridged version and not a real 1611. 🤷

BTW, there is no “apocrypha” in the Catholic Bible. The apocryphal writings never made the canon.
 
Tyndale Bible 1526
13 And leade vs not into teptacion: but delyver vs fro evell. For thyne is ye kyngedome and ye power and ye glorye for ever.
Click to expand...
Coverdale Bible 1535
And lede vs not in to teptacion: but delyuer vs from euell. For thyne is the kyngdome, and the power, and the glorye for euer. Amen
Click to expand...
Geneva Bible 1587
And leade vs not into tentation, but deliuer vs from euill: for thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glorie for euer. Amen.
Click to expand...
KJV 1611
And lead vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill: For thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glory, for euer, Amen.
Click to expand...
 
🙂 i noticed in the KJV bible the gospel writers are refered to as ST. Matthew,St.Mark,St. Luke,and St. John. why?
 
fbl9 said:
🙂 i noticed in the KJV bible the gospel writers are refered to as ST. Matthew,St.Mark,St. Luke,and St. John. why?
Click to expand...
The Anglican church uses those distinctions and always have.
 
Odell said:
And is there any translations of the KJV that are in circulation that have the original way of saying the Our Father and is there any that still have the 7 extra books in the Old Testament?
Click to expand...
No, the Greek text the KJV is based on has the insertion.

The NET gives you some explanation.

Mat 6:13 NET
(13) And do not lead us into temptation,18 but deliver us from the evil one.19

19 tc Most MSS (L W Θ 0233 Ë13 33 Ï sy sa Didache) read (though some with slight variation) ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν (“for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen”) here. The reading without this sentence, though, is attested by generally better witnesses (א B D Z 0170 Ë1 pc lat mae Or). The phrase was probably composed for the liturgy of the early church and most likely was based on 1Ch_29:11-13 a scribe probably added the phrase at this point in the text for use in public scripture reading (see TCGNT 13-14). Both external and internal evidence argue for the shorter reading.

So it’s an insertion. The Greek service it wold appear used the words there. And it probably started in the margin, so when the priest read from it he would have the words he used in the service handy there. And sometime when being copied, it moved from the margin into the main text.

The British publishers of the KJV make versions with the Apocrypha, look for Cambridge University Press cambridge.org/

JJ
 
The King James Version and the other English versions cited above did not add to the Lord’s Prayer. They were translated from what was has come to be called the Textus Recpeotus Greek New Testament published by Erasamus which was based primarily on a few later Greek manuscripts. Most current Protestant Bible are based on the Critical Text based on a few older manuscripts. This test does not contain the doxology and so it is now included in Protestant Bibles with a footnote or in a footnate. The exception is the New King James Version which is still bassed on the Textus Receptus.
 
The real deal is that that doxology is not in the oldest and best manuscripts of that passage and it is actually found in the Didache (Chapter 8) and most believe that it was added as a copyist’s error.
 
fbl9 said:
… hi rightlydivide that does not answer the question why though. are you a memeber of the Anglican church?
Click to expand...
Anglican is just a brother once removed from Catholicism. I am not Anglican
 
fbl9 said:
…did the KJV bible come the Anglican church or from Luther.
Click to expand...
It absolutely did not come from Luther, he had been dead 60 or so years and they did not use his German Bible in the translation, at least not that I have ever read.
 
GKC said:
Actually, we’re closer than that.

Yep. I can tell. Your board name is sufficent.

GKC
Click to expand...
Wow, I thought I was being nice…
Orthodox being brother, so I thought Anglican once removed would be close.
I did not say one negative thing about an Anglican…
sensitive…
go figure…
 
Rightlydivide said:
Wow, I thought I was being nice…
Orthodox being brother, so I thought Anglican once removed would be close.
I did not say one negative thing about an Anglican…
sensitive…
go figure…
Click to expand...
Nope. You did not. But neither did I say anything negative about you. Merely that I recognised your likely orientation, and it wasn’t Anglican.

As to the relationship, just being more precise, from the Anglican perspective. RCs wouldn’t agree with either of us.

Sensitive?

GKC
 
GKC said:
Nope. You did not. But neither did I say anything negative about you. Merely that I recognised your likely orientation, and it wasn’t Anglican.

As to the relationship, just being more precise, from the Anglican perspective. RCs wouldn’t agree with either of us.

Sensitive?

GKC
Click to expand...
it appears so
i apologize
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top