Italics
From Textus Receptus
m (Protected "Italics" [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ==Italics in the King James Version== | ||
| + | |||
The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition 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 1595. Why they didn't follow the 1598 of Beza, who knows. If you go through Matt 1 you will find that there are 4 extra Italics. For example the 1:6 | The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition 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 1595. Why they didn't follow the 1598 of Beza, who knows. If you go through Matt 1 you will find that there are 4 extra Italics. For example the 1:6 | ||
Revision as of 02:49, 26 February 2011
Italics in the King James Version
The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition 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 1595. Why they didn't follow the 1598 of Beza, who knows. If you go through Matt 1 you will find that there are 4 extra Italics. For example the 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.
