Page xl

idiom for idiom, with the English verb “to have.” It is so treated in the book of 1611 usually (e.g. Gen. xii. 20; xvi. 1), but not always (e.g. Gen. xi. 6 “they have,” ver. 30 “she had”). But “pertained” in such phrases is always italicised, as Judg. vi. 11 in 1611. Hence we would not follow Scholefield1, who reads “what have I” 1 Cor. v. 12.

(12) We have adopted, with some hesitation, Mr Gorle’s refined distinction, confirmed by 1611 in Jer. xli. 16, between אַחַר “after that” and אַחֲרֵי־כֵן “after that;” not however with infinitives, as 2 Chr. xxvi. 2. Jer. xxxvi. 27; xl. 1.

(13) When in different parts of Scripture a phrase or expression is given with more or less fulness, it is right to distinguish the shorter form, by setting the missing part of it in italics. Examples are in 1611 “dead men” Ex. xii. 33; “mighty man” Ps. cxx. 4 marg. (compare Ruth ii. 1. 1 Sam. xiv. 52. Jer. xli. 16 where “man” is expressed): in 1638, Job xvii. 8, 10. Isai. xxix. 8; xliv. 25: in 1769, Isai. xli. 2. Again in 1611, “fill with” Gen. xliv. 1. Ps. lxxi. 8 (bis); lxxii. 19, a preposition being supplied after the verb (מָלֵא) in Ex. xvi. 32. 2 Kin. ix. 24. Ezra ix. 11. Job xli. 7. Ezek. xxxii. 6. Care, however, should be taken to put in italics no more than is really wanting: thus in Matt. viii. 25 προσελθόντες ought to be “came to him;” Matt. x. 1 προσκαλεσάμενος “called unto him” as it is given in 1762, not as the same word is represented by 1769 in Matt. xv. 32 “called unto him.” This rule extends very widely, and is difficult to be observed with perfect consistency.

(14) The verb substantive is italicised before the participle passive (Paül), to distinguish it from the Niphal conjugation of the verb (e.g. Gen. xxix. 31, 33 “was hated” in 1629 Camb.); but more licence has been granted to the auxiliaries that render the active participle (Poel). In Num. x. 29 we have given “we are journeying,” though in other places the present “is” “are” &c. is in Roman type, but not “was” or “were.”

Such are the principal rules which the Translators of the Authorized Version designed to follow in the arrangement of italics for the standard Bible of 1611. How little what they printed was systematically reviewed and corrected in the preparation of later editions is evident from the numerous glaring errors, committed by them, which have remained undetected down to this day. The reader will perceive what is meant by comparing the present volume with any modern Bible in 1 Chr. vii. 6. 2 Chr. x. 16. Neh. v. 19. Job i. 5; xxii. 24; xli. 20. Ps. lv. 21. Prov. xv. 26. Cant. v. 12. Isai. xxii. 18 (“like” a little doubtful). Jer. xi. 4, 7; xxxvi. 22; xlvi. 13. Ezek. iv. 4, 9; xiii. 18; xxii. 20 marg.; xxxix. 11; xliii. 3 marg. Dan. i. 7; viii. 26; ix. 23 marg. Obad. 6. Hab. iii. 9. 1 Esdr. viii. 63. Tobit iii. 3. Wisd. ii. 1; xix. 14. 1 Macc. viii. 18; x. 24; xii. 37. Tit. ii. 3. 3 John 12. Indeed some more recent corrections are positively false, e.g. 2 Chr. iii. 11 “one wing of the one” (1638): Luke x. 30 “man” (1762).

What Blayney intended to do, and seems to have lacked time for (Appendix D, p. xcviii.), has been regarded as a matter of imperative duty by the editor of the present work. He has made out a full list of all the changes with respect to italics, in which this volume differs from his standard, the Cambridge small pica octavo of 1858, together with such reasons for them as each case might require; and has deposited the list for future reference in the Library of the Syndics of the University Press.

Section IV.

On the system of punctuation adopted in 1611, and modified in more recent Bibles.

“The question of punctuation,” to employ the language of the late Professor Grote2, “has two parts: one, respecting the general carrying it out for purposes of rhythm and distinction of sentences, independent of any question as to the meaning of the words; the other respecting the particular cases where different punctuation involves difference of meaning.” In regard to the first of these parts, much variety of practice will always exist,