Some Translation Traditions are Hard to Break (Test Case: Romans 1:3 "Jesus Christ Our Lord" in the KJV 1611)

 Some Translation Traditions are Hard to Break 

(Test Case: Romans 1:3 "Jesus Christ Our Lord")

If you've every bothered to read the opening pages of an English translation you no doubt, come across phrases trying to describe the translation tradition your given English Bible is following. For example, most English translations you read are following the heritage or tradition of Tyndale up through present (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, or the new LSB). Today I'd like to present a test case that translational traditions are hard to break. Even those translations with no Greek support (or at least none I can find). Our test case is Romans 1:3 in the King James Version 1611.

What is going on with Romans 1:3? Where did the KJV 1611 get the name “Jesus Christ our Lord?” If the KJV 1611 is supposed to be a literal word for word English translation, then where did this come from? It’s not in other early English translations. It’s not in Wycliffe, Tyndale, nor the Bishops Bible. It is however in the Geneva Bible. For background purposes, the KJV 1611 typically follows verbatim either the Bishop or Geneva Bibles (many spelling and other grammatical changes have occurred since then typically reflected in the 1769 or 2016 updates to the KJV). The KJV translators did this explicitly to follow the list of fourteen translational rules set down for them for their project which would become known as the King James Version. I'll mention two rules in summary, first, they were to use ecclesiastically established terms such as church, charity, or bishop. Second, they were to use the Bishops Bible as their standard text to work with. When the KJV departs from the Bishop or Geneva they typically follow Tyndale or the Great Bible instead. So, an obvious question, then where did the Geneva Bible followed by the KJV translators (subsequently the NKJV and MEV) get the phrase “Jesus Christ our Lord?”

From what I can see, this name “Jesus Christ our Lord” is not in any extant Textus Receptus. It’s not in Estienne (1550), Beza (1598), Elzevir (1624), nor Scrivener (1894). I personally find this one to be odd based on Scrivener’s motivation to produce a Greek text the KJV translators supposedly followed (it’s not in the 1881 nor 1894 editions). Interestingly, the name “Jesus Christ our Lord” doesn’t appear in the Nestle Aland (27^th Ed) nor any other Majority Greek text I can find either. No matter what your Greek text preference, no matter how you use the word providence, there is no Greek text to support this reading. I even checked out a facsimile copy of Erasmus 1522 (this is the picture at the top of this article). Please note it has two columns: left side in Greek and right-side in Latin.  You will not find the phrase here either.

On the other hand, it does appear in Greek texts at the end of vs. four “Jesus Christ our Lord.” Surprisingly, it's also there in the Latin column too (see the pic above).  This is exactly where nearly all modern English translations put the phrase (ESV, NASB, and NIV). For what its worth, other English translations based on the Textus Receptus, trying to update the KJV 1611, follow suit and include the phrase in verse three (NKJV and MEV). Strangely even the HCSB follows this tradition. Apparently, all English translations which place the phrase in verse three do not put it in verse four (where the Greek texts have it). I find this quite astonishing since they all claim to be based on a TR (for that manner any TR).

I would suggest here is a divide between academic honest (and English translation tradition) as opposed to conspiracy theory. Modern translations as listed above, do not include the phrase “Jesus Christ our Lord” in verse three. They do this being faithful to the underlying Greek text. And I would submit here: any Greek text. For some reason, the KJV 1611 translators chose to follow the older Geneva Bible instead of the earlier Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles or later Bishops Bible (even in the absence of any Greek text). I can find no comments from Metzger or the NET Bible. Commentaries stick closely with the translation given. I poured through the big hitters and still to no avail. No comments on this. Please someone provide an academic answer to this one that is absent to my eyes (am I missing something here?) On the other hand, perhaps this is simply the result of one author (or a very small group of authors) for the Geneva Bible. Perhaps this is an argument for committees instead? 

Can you see how this would play out today? Can you hear in your head or picture on the internet memes on this? It would go something like this: Modern translations take Jesus out of the Bible. Or something like, Modern translations deny the Lordship of Jesus. I’m guessing it must be a liberal conspiracy that modern English translations put the phrase “Jesus Christ our Lord” exactly where all available Greek texts put it too. I’m guessing some traditions are hard to break (even the ones with no textual basis at all). Can someone with academic honesty provide me an answer on this one? Can someone show me the Greek text they followed? Is there a facsimile somewhere? Is there a text on Logos showing evidence to the contrary?

Am I missing something? Where did the Geneva Bible and KJV get this from?

(Once again, as with all these articles, I don't pay an editor to comb through them looking for the right comma placement or grammatical mistakes. I just hope I catch them through editing. Enjoy.)

Please check out our translations resource page for other helpful sources on Bible translation.