# Odd Variant Issue in 1 John 3:16



## NM_Presby (Oct 10, 2022)

This morning in my morning devotions I came across and odd textual situation in 1 John 3:16 which really sparked my curiosity, and I'm wondering if anyone on here might have some info or be able to point me in the right direction. 

In my Greek New Testament (the Scrivener TR), 1 John 3:16 begins with "By this we know the love of God". When checking my understanding with my English Bible, I noticed my NKJV does not have "of God" (corresponding to "tou theou" in Greek). Of course, there are variants in the TR tradition so I assumed this might have been a place where the NKJV went with a different TR reading. I was curious though, so I grabbed a KJV and noticed that it _does _have the words "of God", but in italics, indicating that it was not in the Greek text but was supplied by the translators. This is where the real confusion began. 

From what I've been able to glean online so far, the 1550 Stephanus edition of the TR does not have "of God", but the 1598 Beza does. I am not at all surprised by this, as I know there are variants among TR editions. What is confusing to me is why the King James would have "of God" in italics if the reading was present in the GNT upon which they most heavily relied. Are they saying they agree with the Stephanus reading but think "of God" is implied anyway? That would seem to be an odd position to take. Is it possible the KJV translators italicized it for some other reason? Additionally, Scrivener has the reading in his edition which is supposed to be based on the textual decisions of the KJV translators among the TR editions. So does this mean Scrivener thought that they thought it was original, in spite of the italics? 

I know the answer to this question is of very little consequence, but I can't help but be interested. Any info on this question or suggestions for where I can do further research would be appreciated!


----------



## Jake (Oct 10, 2022)

I John 3:16 does not have "of God" marked in Latin type (the equivalent to italics in later editions after the Gothic type was removed): https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-John-Chapter-3_Original-1611-KJV/ 1769 and onwards do have "of God" in italics

Scrivener noted many changes between the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KJV, and this was one of them. This page from bible-researcher.com is mainly based on his notes, and says:

"The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition undertook, therefore, to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Consequently, modern editions of the King James version are much more heavily italicized than the original" http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html -- I John 3:16 is among the list.

It should also be noted that Scrivener disagreed with many of the textual changes of the 1769 and other revisions. His edition is a mix from different revisions and the original KJV with the decisions it makes.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Oct 10, 2022)

Jake said:


> I John 3:16 does not have "of God" marked in Latin type (the equivalent to italics in later editions after the Gothic type was removed): https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-John-Chapter-3_Original-1611-KJV/ 1769 and onwards do have "of God" in italics
> 
> Scrivener noted many changes between the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KJV, and this was one of them. This page from bible-researcher.com is mainly based on his notes, and says:
> 
> ...


Oh, this is very helpful! Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## danekristjan (Oct 10, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> This morning in my morning devotions I came across and odd textual situation in 1 John 3:16 which really sparked my curiosity, and I'm wondering if anyone on here might have some info or be able to point me in the right direction.
> 
> In my Greek New Testament (the Scrivener TR), 1 John 3:16 begins with "By this we know the love of God". When checking my understanding with my English Bible, I noticed my NKJV does not have "of God" (corresponding to "tou theou" in Greek). Of course, there are variants in the TR tradition so I assumed this might have been a place where the NKJV went with a different TR reading. I was curious though, so I grabbed a KJV and noticed that it _does _have the words "of God", but in italics, indicating that it was not in the Greek text but was supplied by the translators. This is where the real confusion began.
> 
> ...


To echo what Jake said, the italics are not something which were ever executed successfully in the KJV tradition. Places were italicized which they didn't not intend and vice versa. In other words they are not a helpful guide. That is why I prefer the Oxford KJV's which jettisoned them entirely. If you want a Bible that does italitization accurately use a NKJV or NASB. 

Did you check the margin of either edition of Stephanus for the reading? Often times he placed readings in the margin which Beza later incorporated into the main body of his text.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan (Oct 10, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> Oh, this is very helpful! Thank you for the clarification.


Also, Scrivener was not making a claim one way or another about originality. He set out to work backwards from the KJV. Whatever the KJV said, he searched the common printed texts of the time to find the Greek reading (or Latin) which ungirded the KJV translation. His project was in support of the revised version and Wescott and Hort's Greek text, so that people could sit down with WH's Greek text (from which the Revised version was translated) and compare it to what may have lain beneath the KJV (since no Greek text had ever been identified for their translation prior to this).


----------



## NM_Presby (Oct 10, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> To echo what Jake said, the italics are not something which were ever executed successfully in the KJV tradition. Places were italicized which they didn't not intend and vice versa. In other words they are not a helpful guide. That is why I prefer the Oxford KJV's which jettisoned them entirely. If you want a Bible that does italitization accurately use a NKJV or NASB.
> 
> Did you check the margin of either edition of Stephanus for the reading? Often times he placed readings in the margin which Beza later incorporated into the main body of his text.


I don't believe the online edition of Stephanus which I know of (at textusreceptusbibles.com) has his marginal notes, so I was unable to check that. Is there somewhere else online to find his NT with notes?


----------



## NM_Presby (Oct 10, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> Also, Scrivener was not making a claim one way or another about originality. He set out to work backwards from the KJV. Whatever the KJV said, he searched the common printed texts of the time to find the Greek reading (or Latin) which ungirded the KJV translation. His project was in support of the revised version and Wescott and Hort's Greek text, so that people could sit down with WH's Greek text (from which the Revised version was translated) and compare it to what may have lain beneath the KJV (since no Greek text had ever been identified for their translation prior to this).


Yes, I know that Scrivener was not claiming his text was equivalent to the original-- I was just confused why he would include it if the KJV translators had included it in italics, implying that it wasn't part of the text they were translating. The historical info that Jake shared clears that up, however.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan (Oct 10, 2022)

1550 Stephanus Textus Receptus : Robert I Estienne (Robert Stephens) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


Robert Stephans 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament (Textus Receptus)



archive.org





You can read a copy here

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan (Oct 10, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> Yes, I know that Scrivener was not claiming his text was equivalent to the original-- I was just confused why he would include it if the KJV translators had included it in italics, implying that it wasn't part of the text they were translating. The historical info that Jake shared clears that up, however.





It does appear to be in the margin of the 1550 which I have underlined. So the reading was certainly in front of them in whatever edition they used. Perhaps because it was in the margin they noted it in italics, if the italics are accurate at that point.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Oct 10, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> 1550 Stephanus Textus Receptus : Robert I Estienne (Robert Stephens) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
> 
> 
> Robert Stephans 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament (Textus Receptus)
> ...


Thank you for this and the other reply. Helpful info!

Reactions: Like 1


----------

