In the May 17, 2022 essay “Reading the 1611 Bible,” I included a brief paragraph on the marginal notes in this 1611 translation. On September 24, 2023, Bryan Ross published a good video lesson called “The AV 1611: Examining The Marginal Notes.” This encouraged me to expand and enlarge my comments on the marginal notes into something more comprehensive.
Early historical references to the marginal notes.
1603. King James on marginal notes, at the Hampton Court Conference
[Doctor Reinolds] moved his Majesty, that there might be a new Translation of the Bible…Whereupon his Highnesse wished, that some special paines should be taken in that behalf for one uniform ..And so this whole Church to be bound unto it, and none other…withall, he gave this caveat (upon a word cast out by my Lord of London) that no Marginal Notes should be added, having found in them which are annexed to the Geneva translation…some Notes very partial, untrue, seditious, and favouring too much of dangerous, and traitorous conceits.
The Summe and Substance of the Conference…at Hampton Court, Jan. 14. 1603 (William Barlow, Clerkenwell, UK: Bye and Law, Printers, 1804, pp. 34-35).
1604. Two of the King James’s Translation Rules that relate to marginal notes.
- 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.
The transcription of these rules is as they appear in In The Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture, (Alister Edgar McGrath, New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2001, pp. 173-175). Three manuscript copies of the translators’ rules are extant. According to David Norton in his A Textual History of the King James Bible, these are in the British Library: BL Add. 28721, fol. 24r; BL Harley 750; and BL Egerton 2884 fol. 6r. The first two contain 14 rules, and “BL Egerton” includes rule 15. This at least suggests that the first 14 were drawn up originally, and then rule 15 was added later.
1611. Miles Smith in “The Translators to the Reader”
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 S. Chrysostom saith, and as S. 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 loathing of them for their every-where 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, to resolve upon modesty with S. 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 S. 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 S. 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 no 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.
1618. Three comments on marginal notes from the “Report on the Making of the Version of 1611 Presented to the Synod of Dort.”
- …no notes were to be placed in the margin, but only parallel passages to be noted.
- …where a Hebrew or Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin. The same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies.
- …the more difficult Hebraisms and Graecisms were consigned to the margin.
How many marginal notes, and other comments.
F. H. A. Scrivener supplies the following count of marginal notes in the original 1611 Bible newly translated by the order of King James.
- Old Testament 6,637 (“4111 express a more literal meaning…2156 give alternative readings…in 63 the meaning of Proper names is stated…in 240 necessary information is given by way of harmonizing the text with other passages of Scripture…the remaining 67 refer to various readings of the original text”)
- Apocrypha 1,018
- New Testament 765 (“35 relate to various readings…112 present us with a more literal rendering…582 are alternative translations, 35 are explanatory notes
- Total 8,418
“On the marginal notes and the original texts of the Authorized Version of the English Bible,” The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version (Frederick Henry Ambrose, Scrivener, Cambridge: University Press, 1873, pp. xxiv-xxxii)
Scrivener says that 494 marginal notes were added by editors of later editions (in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769). Timothy Berg points to a slightly different modern computer total: 6,565 marginal notes in the OT, and 777 in the NT, for a total of 7,342 marginal notes, not counting the Apocrypha. This seems to be taken from the count that Calvin George gives: “There are 6,565 marginal notes in the OT, and 777 in the NT, for a total of 7,342 marginal notes.” Berg also suggests dividing the marginal notes into five types rather than three.
The types of marginal notes or references.
King James wanted “no Marginal Notes…added.” Considering the outcome, this restriction was not absolute, but referred to the types of marginal notes that filled the Geneva Bible – religious and theological commentary, similar to what we moderns might think of as a “Study Bible.” Though not often mentioned, the Bishop’s Bible also had study notes that included theological commentary.[i] By restricting these notes, the genius of the new translation avoided outwardly supporting the views of either the Puritans or the established Episcopacy.[ii] The rules set before the translators confirm this desire of the King – “No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only…” Rule 6 allows for necessary explanation of original language words that would not fit succinctly within the text itself. Rule 7 suggests cross references “of one Scripture to another.”
In “Translators to the Reader,” Miles Smith does not detail the extent of the use of marginal notes, but rather is defending their use with “Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin.” In doing so, he gives examples of some types of notes used. Notes are found in places of difficulty – such as words used only once, rare names, etc. – and notes of these kinds will “admonish the Reader to seek further.”
Samuel Ward’s explanation before the Synod of Dort corresponds with the three symbols used in marking marginal notes. He indicates they were used for cross references, alternate readings, and difficult readings.
Illustration. Isaiah 53:5-6
This picture with information to the left of the two verses from Isaiah 53:5-6 illustrates the three different symbols used to lead to marginal notes: asterisk, dagger (or cross), and double bar (*, †, ||). The asterisk (*) denotes a cross reference to a related scripture or scriptures. The dagger, (†) indicates a more literal translation (prefaced by Heb., Chal., or Gr., followed by a word or words in italics). The double bar (||) points to an alternate reading (|| Or, followed by a word or words in italics).
Based on the three symbols used, as well as the period references to or explanations of the marginal notes, we can conclude there are three types of marginal references in the 1611 King James Bible. At least one type admits of sub-categories. These may possibly be confused at times by the printer using the wrong symbol.
- Cross reference
- More literal translation
- Alternate reading
The third category might be subdivided to explain what kinds of alternate readings are noticed, such as a simple alternate reading (e.g., Job 30:29 ), definitions or explanations of names (e.g., Genesis 22:14), and reference to a reading in another TR (e.g., 2 Peter 2:2). - Job 30:29 owles || Or, ostriches.
- Genesis 22:14 Jehovah-jireh || That is, The LORD will see, or, provide.
- 2 Peter 2:2 || Or, lascivious wayes, as some copies reade.
Within the Apocrypha another type of system is also used, a small roman letter (a, b, c, d, etc.) in the text corresponding to a small roman letter in the margin. See example below from I Esdras 5:22-26.
Concluding thoughts.
Inspecting the marginal readings in the 1611 translation made by the order of King James provides evidence that the translators carefully followed rules 6 and 7. They provided notes of the kinds approved, and avoided partisan theological commentary. They were scrupulous or meticulous in ways that give insight into their thinking and choices (e.g., sometimes showing what they left out). It appears the printers made a few errors in their use of the symbols, For example, to me Genesis 22:14 and Genesis 28:19 seem to be the same type of note, yet one is marked with the double bar (||) and the other with the dagger (†). On the other hand, some argument could be made for why certain notes could be marked either way.
Over the years the original marginal notes have dropped out. The primary reason is that it saves the publishers time, space, and money. One can read the King James translation, learn from and be blessed by it, and live a Christian life according to it – without ever knowing the original contained these marginal notes. However, the notes can be instructive to all. Especially one who intends to engage in King James Bible and modern version debates should become familiar with them.
[i] For example, this page shows commentary on Acts 13:34, 50-51; 14:4, 7, 19, 23. [ii] Paul V. M. Flesher, professor in University of Wyoming’s Department of Religious Studies, explains: “Archbishop Bancroft pioneered a new approach to Bible translation, one which helped the translation overcome the political and religious conflict in which the project was conceived...Archbishop Bancroft...was a partisan bulldog for the Church of England establishment. Yet, he guided the creation of a new Bible translation that lasted for more than four centuries and was accepted by most branches of Protestant Christianity.”
