Simon Wong asserted: “Blayney assumed wrongly that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Robert Stephanus (or Estienne) edition of the Textus Receptus tradition, whereas it was from the later editions of Beza (most likely that of 1598). Accordingly, the correct standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ about a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Bible Translator, Vol. 62, January, 2011, p. 7). One textual reading where Beza and Stephanus differ is at 1 John 1:4, which may indicate that Blayney could have intentionally altered the KJV’s text at this verse to match the 1550 Stephanus text. Concerning the italics in the 1769, Jack Countryman also reported or quoted from some source the following: “Unfortunately, Blayney assumed that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than from the later editions of Beza; accordingly the current standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ around a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Treasure of God‘s Word, p. 75). James D. Price maintained that “there have been a few alterations in later revisions of the AV that no longer follow the text followed by the 1611 translators” (King James Onlyism, p. 544). For possible examples of textually-based changes in use or non-use of italics in different KJV editions, see and compare Mark 8:14, Mark 9:42, John 8:6, Acts 1:4, Acts 26:3, Acts 26:18, 1 Corinthians 14:10, Hebrews 12:24, 1 John 3:16, 1 Peter 5:13, 2 Peter 2:18, Revelation 11:14, Revelation 19:14, and Revelation 19:18 in the 1611 to later editions. Some of these textually-based changes may have been made before 1769. Concerning one of those places, James D. Price noted: “The following is a place where the AV has words in italics that are actually in Scrivener’s TR: 2 Peter 2:18: the word ‘through’ was erroneously italicized in 1769 as though the word is not in the Greek text” (King James Onlyism, p. 544). Scrivener also indicated that the Greek word was in the text of Beza at this verse and that “through was not italicized before 1769” (Authorized Version, p. 254). In 1833, Thomas Curtis asserted: “Dr. Blayney and his coadjutors also employ them [italics] to express their doubts of the authenticity of particular readings--see John 8:6 where they thus, in a sense, discard the whole clause, ‘as though he heard them not’” (Existing Monopoly, p. 59). Edward F. Hills claimed: “At John 8:6, the King James translators followed the Bishops’ Bible in adding the clause, as though He heard them not” (KJV Defended, p. 221). Hills maintained that this clause is found “in the Complutensian, and in the first two editions of Stephanus. After 1769, it was placed in italics in the King James Version” (Ibid.). Concerning 1 Corinthians 14:10, Scrivener asserted: “Of them is placed in the type representing italics in the Bishops’ Bible and in ours of 1611, in deference to Beza” (Authorized Edition, p. 251) while later editors removed the italics. Charles Hodge contended that “to alter these italics is, therefore, to alter the version” (Princeton Review, July, 1857, p. 513). Hodge may raise a valid point concerning changing italics based on using a different edition of the original language text than that actually followed by the KJV translators themselves. However, Hodge’s point would not be valid in relationship to attempts to make the italics consistent to the actual rules or principles that the KJV translators themselves stated and used. Is the fact that Benjamin Blayney based his editing and revising of the KJV’s NT on the 1550 Stephanus edition avoided and ignored by KJV-only advocates? Did Blayney in effect change the underlying Greek text for the KJV’s NT in a few places?
