Italics

From Textus Receptus

Revision as of 00:47, 1 January 2014

Italics in the King James Version

The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition Of Benjamin Blayney wanted 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. That is why there are more italics in the 1769 than in the 1611 - because they used the 1550 and not the 1598. We are not exactly certain for the reason they didn't follow the 1598 of Beza. In Matthew 1 you will find that there are four extra Italics. For example Matthew 1:6

And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her (that had been the wife) of Urias;

Where in the original 1611 it has only italics on "that had been" not including "the wife"..

The KJV of 1611 had less italics - so the issue strengthens the KJV argument and does not weaken it. As far as italics goes there are very good reasons for their inclusion, and many times they make the verse much more understandable.

Words in italics are placed into the text to make it easier for the reader to comprehend the exact meaning of the original text. Whilst in the original Greek language these words were not needed, to get the exact sense in English language, italicized words are sometimes needed. The Textus Receptus Version follows the original 1611 KJV as closely as possible, unless it affects the modern relevance. The KJV translators studied and mimicked the process of the New Testament writers who often quoted sections of the Old Testament Hebrew. At times there were slight additions or subtractions which were needed in the Greek to faithfully translate those quotations, although many the Old Testament quotations are not verbatim. In such places many have fallen into the error of following the Septuagint. Many times in Beza's parallel Latin Text of 1598, he includes italics to make the Greek clearer in the Latin, such as in Matthew 1:6.