Re: Italics in KJV 1611 and 1960's KJV

From: Davis Phillips (
Date: Thu Apr 04 1996 - 08:55:21 EST

>Kevin W. Woodruff wrote
>We have a facsimile edition of the 1611 that was done in 1911 by Oxford
>University. The Bible is printed in a dark Gothic Gemanic type and the
>supplied words or phrases are printed in a light Roman type.

I looked at another copy of the same facsimile edition. Kevin is right;
the light roman type is also smaller than the regular german gothic type.
Example, in Matt 5, the beatitudes have "are" in small roman type (in
"Blessed are..." phrases).

I looked thru Matt 17 and 18 quickly in this edition and did not see any
"small type" words; so the fact that I did not find any italics in my 1612
KJV folio I mentioned yesterday is not conclusive (I only have a folio
with Matt 17 & 18; and there were no italics, just as in the 1611 KJV).

I also found a 1960's Cambridge KJV had 7 italic words in Matt 17 and 18;
and 1960's NASB had about 8 or 9 italic words in the Matt 17 and 18.
(different words italicized; as the translations were different).
  NASB did not italicize "are" in the beatitudes, the Cambridge KJV did.

I feel that italics or [] or some "words supplied" indicator is helpful to
a lot of readers, as a signal (Yellow "caution" light?) from the
translator; but just how many, and which, words to italicize is a judgment
call -- it is a useful help, but NOT absolute.

 Davis Phillips, Senior Systems Analyst, College of Liberal Arts
 University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712 USA

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