The italicized
words in the King James Bible (in most cases) are simply words included by the translators in
places where it took more words to translate into the target language than
there is an exact correspondence to words in the source language (i.e., “inserted into the text to complete the meaning”). These
italicized words have no direct equivalent in the Greek or Hebrew text, but are
needful for the English for correct understanding. Therefore, the translators
supply them. The original text implies them, though they are not there, strictly
speaking. For example, the Spanish word “Yo” is the first person singular pronoun
(“I” in English). One can simply say, “Quiero comer” instead of “Yo quiero
comer.” The verb carries or implies the information for the pronoun “I.” In English,
we would properly translate “quiero comer” as “I want to eat,” even though the
pronoun “Yo” technically is not there. This may be an oversimplification, but illustrates
the idea nevertheless.
The Geneva 1557 New Testament and 1560 Old and New Testaments became the first English Bible translations to introduce italics for words added by the translators (they used Roman as the main type).[i] William Whittingham explains it this way in 1557:
“I...sometyme have put to that worde, which lacking made the sentence obscure, but have set it in such letters as may easely be discerned from the commun text.”
When the Authorized or King James Version of the Bible was printed in 1611, it was in Blackletter type. The printer used Roman type to signify words supplied by translators. Later, Roman type became common and the KJV printers switched to it as the main typeface. In order to distinguish words supplied by the translators, that type style was changed to italics.
At the Synod of Dort’s seventh session on November 20, 1618, the English delegates gave a report on the new Bible translation of 1611. Concerning putting text “with another kind of letter” they reported, “...that words which it was anywhere necessary to insert into the text to complete the meaning were to be distinguished by another type, small roman.” (This says “small roman” rather than “italics” because that was the original distinguishing font. See paragraph above.)
In succeeding years, editors of the Authorized Version thought that the printing of different type to indicate supplementary words was not always consistent (or at least they did not understand it). Therefore, various editors set out to revise the use of italics. Rufus Wendell writes:
“In the earliest editions of the Authorised Version the use of different type to indicate supplementary words not contained in the original was not very frequent, and cannot easily be reconciled with any settled principle. A review of the words so printed was made, after a lapse of some years, for the editions of the Authorised Version published at Cambridge in 1629 and 1638. Further, though slight, modifications were introduced at intervals between 1638 and the more systematic revisions undertaken respectively by Dr. Paris in the Cambridge Edition of 1762 and Dr. Blayney in the Oxford Edition of 1769. None of them however rest on any higher authority than that of the persons who from time to time superintended the publication. The last attempt to bring the use of italics into uniformity and consistency was made by Dr. Scrivener in the Paragraph Bible published at Cambridge in 1870-73.”[ii]
The revisions changing the amount of italicized words in the King James Bible was not without resistance.
“In 1832 a sub-committee of three Dissenters issued a short report complaining that ‘an extensive alteration has been introduced into the text of our Authorized Version, by changing into Italics innumerable words and phrases, which are not thus expressed in the original editions of the King James’s Bible printed in 1611’ and that ‘the alterations greatly deteriorated our vernacular version.’”[iii]
In a recent video, YouTube enthusiast Mark Ward opposed the use of italics in his video 3 Reasons Italics in Bibles Are Bad (and 2 where they are good).[iv] The first objection comes across as anomalous, in my experience. I cannot dispute what Mark has experienced, but I have been around a good bit longer than he has, and know (and have known) many people across the U.S. and other English speaking countries. I have never encountered the first person who regards the italicized words in the King James Bible as “magical.”[v] The other two objections can be considered as one – the reason for using italics can be misunderstood. Certainly, this is true. King James users and King James promoters at times have been guilty of not explaining their purpose. This can be alleviated by actually doing what we are supposed to do – teach! The last explanation of misunderstanding likely is the most common problem. In modern English writing the purpose served by italics is often emphasis or contrast (i.e., to draw attention to that part of a text).[vi] Emphasis is not their purpose in the King James Bible. Nevertheless, education is key – although some very educated people seem to object to this solution!! Many styles and symbols of modern English usage serve more than one purpose, so that the reader must learn to distinguish the ways they are used. For example, quotation marks (“”) commonly set off dialogue. But they are also “used to set off certain titles, ironic language, or specific terms.”[vii] The reader has some responsibility to learn the difference!
I have encountered some folks who supposed that, since the italicized words were “added,” that they might as well simply be “subtracted” or “removed” if the reader does not like them there. Here are a couple of examples of the tragedy of this mistake.
- Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
- Colossians 1:19 For it pleased that in him should all fulness dwell;
In Colossians 1:19 the object Father is “understood” in the context, and removing these two words would make the sentence difficult to comprehend in English.
- Philippians 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
- Philippians 1:21 For to me to live Christ, and to die gain.
In Philippians 1:21 the verb “is” is “understood” in the Greek text, but these are needed to structure the sentence in good English grammar.
In The King James Only Debate: Can you trust the modern scholars? author Michael Hollner has compiled some excellent information to demonstrate that italics are important and cannot just be deleted as “uninspired” additions. To do so, he shows where inspired New Testament authors write the understood word that is in/not in their Old Testament reference (See The King James Only Debate, Hollner, pp. 143-144.) Here are two examples.
- Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.
- Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
In the book of Deuteronomy, the Spirit inspires a sentence with the understood word/meaning “word” in Hebrew, which must be understood in the context, and is therefore in italics. In Matthew’s Gospel, the Spirit inspires Matthew to write down the word “word” in Greek and it therefore is not in italics there. And he is in fact quoting Jesus, who used “word” in speaking with reference to Deuteronomy. Same word. Same meaning.
- Deuteronomy 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
- 1 Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
In Deuteronomy “the corn” (i.e., grain; study the KJV) is in italics, so not directly in the Hebrew. However, when Paul, writing in Greek, refers to what Moses wrote, says Moses wrote corn! Why? Because it is there in the context, though not in the specific word.
It is either dishonest or ignorant for anyone who uses any English Bible to attack the King James Bible for its italicized words. All English Bible translations supply words that technically have no Greek or Hebrew equivalent, whether or not they identify them with different type. Learn what they mean. Learn why they are there.
[ii] “Preface” (to the New Testament), The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments (The Revision of 1881 and 1885 Compared with the Version of 1611), Rufus Wendell, editor. Albany, NY: Revised Bible Publishing Company, 1886, p. xiii..
[iii] On a Fresh Revision of the English Old Testament, Samuel Davidson, Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1873, p. 129. This was also addressed by Thomas Turton in 1833 in The Text of the English Bible as Now Printed by the Universities: Considered with Reference to a Report by a Sub-committee of Dissenting Ministers.
[iv] The three reasons are: 1. They contribute to viewing the words as magical (a collection of magic words); 2. They are often misunderstood or misused; 3. They mean emphasis in modern English (or headings or book titles). This, then, in the KJV, violates the rules, according to Mark. He suggests the use of italics provides one more reason for more “Bible tribalism.” The good he finds is 1. For people studying biblical Hebrew and Greek; and 2. They communicate the care translators go through to get the Bible into someone’s language.
[v] Again, I am not saying Mark has not experienced this phenomenon. I am just incredulous that it could approach anywhere near common enough to mention it in this video.
[vi] Perhaps this problem could be alleviated by changing italics to some other typeface. For the purposes of italics in modern English, see “Using Italics.”
[vii] See “Using Quotation Marks.”
No comments:
Post a Comment