From: Davis Phillips (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Apr 03 1996 - 09:25:38 EST
>On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Edward Hobbs wrote:
>> Of course, the original "King James" translation did not use
>> italics..., I suggest you look at a facsimile.
>then Bernard Taylor wrote:
>... and when someone finds out, how about letting the rest of us know.
I just happen to have an original page of a 1612 "popular" edition of KJVat
the office this morning -- This edition IS in ROMAN type, and DOES NOT have
italics for words omitted. (example Matt 18:8: the second "them" is not in
italics (as it is in Gideon's pocket KJV I consulted). Note, also Matt
17:20 says "unpossible" (which is also in the 1611). [literally
I have a facsimile (checked out from a library) of the 1611 KJV at home (in
black-letter); I'll checkit this evening. (I purchased a Thos. Nielson
Publishers "1611 KJV" after comparing some pages to the 1611 facsimile and
finding it reliable. The Nielson 1611 KJV is reset in Roman Type, but the
pagination follows the 1611 black letter edition and not the 1612 Roman
Letter edition. The 1611has "unpossible", and Neilson follows that also.
But perhaps someone else can take a look at at 1611 KJVblack-letter
facsimile today and let us know!
Davis Phillips, Senior Systems Analyst, College of Liberal Arts
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712 USA
Phone: (512) 471-4141 FAX: (512) 471-4518
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:40 EDT