Re: Answer to 1611 "KJV" non-italics

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Wed Apr 03 1996 - 17:14:43 EST

On 4/3/96, Edward Hobbs wrote:

> Dear Friends,
> Kevin Woodruff has the right answer: the original publication of
> the so-cal"led King James Version was in 1611, and all three printings were
> in "black-letter" or (then-called) Gothic, or "Germanic". The translators
> "additions" ("necessary to complete the sense") were printed in "Roman
> small" type. Any modern printing that claims to be a "facsimile" of the 1611
> Bible which uses Roman type for the main text makes a false claim--it is NOT
> a facsimile. In 1612, popular pressure for a Bible in the format of the
> Geneva Bible, with Roman type, led to the printing of the text in that style.
> The three printings in 1611, by he way, differed in a now-famous
> way: the first is called the Great She Bible, and the second and third are
> called the Great She Bibles. The reference is to Ruth 3:15 -- who went
> into the city? Some modern writers refer to the She Bibles as
> "correcting" the He Bible; others point to the fact that the Hebrew MSS.
> in fact differ on this point. Perhaps different exemplars existed? There
> are several obvious misprints in each of them--more in the He than in the
> She editions.

Could there be one little typo here that makes a big difference? the first
is the HE Bible, the second and third SHE Bibles? As it stands written
(GEGRAPTAI!), all three are described above as SHE Bibles!

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:40 EDT