Disagreement of importance of italics in translation

The italics were not in the early translations (Vulgate, Ulphilas, etc.), because it was impossible to use italics in a translation until the printing press was invented.

Many languages do not use italics like English does. Japanese, Chinese, etc. So are those languages somehow defective?

Furthermore, the italics in the KJV are very confusing to many, especially those unused to the KJV. I recall when I was a little boy and learned in school that italics were for emphasis. The next time we had family devotions and it was my turn to read, I did what I had been taught--emphasized the italicized words.

My family laughed at me! I was scarred for life.

 

The 1560 Geneva Bible was the first to use italics.

Some early English Bibles used a different type or else brackets to indicate added words or phrases. The original 1611 edition of the KJV in Gothic type used a different type to indicate added words instead of italics. It was post-1611 KJV editions that used italics instead of a different type. The 1833 reprint of the 1611 in Roman type [instead of the Gothic] may have used italics so that some think italics was used in the 1611.

Gordon Campbell cited the important rule of the KJV translators themselves that related to their use of a different type [later italics] as: “Words that it was anywhere necessary to insert into the text to complete the meaning were to be distinguished by another type” (Bible, Story of the KJV, p. 42; see also Rhodes, English Renaissance Translation Theory, p. 201).

At Genesis 45:26, the 1560 Geneva Bible inserted or added the word “Jacob’s” before “heart,” and it put the added word in italics. The KJV also inserted “Jacob’s” but did not put it in italics [except in the 1873 Cambridge]. The 1611 KJV edition had a marginal note for “Jacob’s” [Hebr. his].

 

Seems Best to work from a facsimile of the original.

 

I was wondering if the 1557 Geneva New Testament was the first to use " italics"?

 

As John noted, the modern usage of italics signifies emphasis of a word, whereas in the KJV it signifies a word introduced into the translation that may be implied by the Hebrew text. This introduces a point of confusion into the translated text.

The use of italics to represent added words in the KJV can be of dubious worth in the OT text, often indicating simple grammatical differences between the Hebrew and English languages.

A very commonly seen use of italics is observed in the KJV's is use of "I am" ["am" being italicized) when translating the word 'ani {simple translation "I"}.
Hebrew does not have a present tense for the verb "to be" (e.g. Genesis 45:3,4 - "I, Joseph" vs. "I am Joseph").
The addition of "am" is simply a necessity of proper English grammar.​

More often the translators of the KJV (and others) expand the compact Hebrew text into long, memorable poetic verbiage.
The Hebrew text gets lost in the verbosity, yet nothing is italicized.

Robert Alter, in his book,The Art of Bible Translation, writes,

...from the twenty-third psalm: "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." This is grand, but the grandeur is nothing like the Hebrew. Instead of eight words and thirteen syllables, gam ki 'elekh begei' tsalmawet lo' 'ira r'a , we are given seventeen words and twenty syllables. The power of biblical poetry inheres in its terrific compactness. The English line from Psalms is a memorable line of poetry, but stretching from margin to margin on the page, it reads more like a line from Walt Whitman (who was profoundly influenced by the King James Psalms) than like a line of ancient Hebrew verse. ...​

Note that there are no italicized words in the KJV in this line of Hebrew text.
​

Rob

 

It is interesting to compare where the KJV used italics and where other versions use italics.
They often do not match up the use of italics even when the words match up.

Rob

 

The italics even just in KJV editions do not always match up. There have been several editions of the KJV printed that have no words in italics. On the other hand, the 1873 Cambridge KJV edition has 34,712 words that are in italics according to The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (p. x). Most post-1900 KJV editions may have around half that number found in the 1873 Cambridge and in some post-2000 editions based on the 1873 while the pre-1769 KJV editions would have even less.

J. R. Dore pointed out the many differences in the number of words in italics in various KJV editions. In his book entitled Old Bibles, Dore presented a table with the number of words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew in some KJV editions (p. 340).


Place of Publication Year No. of Italic words

London 1611 --- 43

Cambridge 1629 --- 165

Cambridge 1638 --- 224

Cambridge 1762 --- 352

Cambridge 1870 ---583

 

Tell you what, look at 1 John and the italics there and see if they are necessary.

In 1:2, we have "For the life was manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness." The NKJV leaves it out and it reads fine without it: "and we have seen and bear witness."

In 1:9, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins...." I'll translate without the italics: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just so that He may forgive us the sins...." No loss of meaning.

In 2:2, "and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." The NKJV does fine without the italics: "and not for ours only but also for the whole world."

2:13 & 14: "him that is from the beginning." Here is the Greek: τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. A literal rendering would be, "the from the beginning person." Therefore it is perfectly okay to translate without the italics, since the "that is" can be clearly ascertained from the Greek.

2:15: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world." A literal rendering is, "the things in the world," which is completely understandable with no loss of meaning, and that is how the NJKV renders it.

2:19 is tricky: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." The "no doubt" is superfluous. The reader can deduce that for himself. The "they went out" can be deduced from the ἐξ ἡμῶν, "from us." So I see no need for the italics.

In 2:23 we have a whole unnecessary clause inserted by the KJV translators: " Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." This addition to the text is completely unnecessary, and even adds meaning to the text that is not there in the original.

In 2:25, we have "And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life." The word "even" is unnecessary. It adds to the text. The NKJV leaves it out.

In 2:26, we have "These things have I written unto you...." The word "things" is implied in the demonstrative pronoun ταῦτα. The word "things" can and should be added to the text as being implicit within the Greek word.

In 3:12, we have the first italics word in that chapter, "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one...." The word "was" is, ἦν, the Greek imperfect of the copulative. Since the verb is 3rd singular, the translator understands that the subject is in the verb. Thus, "who" is explicit in the text.

In 3:14, we have, "He that loveth not his brother...." Here we have a textual difference, with "brother" not being in the Byzantine, etc. However, the word "his" adds meaning to the text because it limits loving the brothers to one physical, not many spiritual brethren.

3:16--"Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us." The italicized "of God" changes the meaning of the text. It makes "of God" explicit when there is no need for it. The NKJV has " By this we know love...."

Again, 3:16--"and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." Since we can't lay down the lives of others, to add the word "our" is completely logical, and implicit in the text. Therefore the italics are unnecessary.

3:17--"But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him," Here we have a Greek idiom, "bowels." The English idiom is "heart," and it makes perfect sense to say, "closed his heart to him."

Got to run to chapel. I'll finish 1 John after chapel.

 

The rest of 1 John:

4:3--"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." Here is the Greek: καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου. Since the word "spirit" occurs in the Greek text previously in the verse, there is an antecedent for the demonstrative pronoun "that" before "spirit." Then, there is the definite article, used as a "mild relative pronoun" (Black, It's Still Greek to Me, p. 79), meaning that there is no need to italicize the second "spirit." The meaning "spirit" is implicit in the text.

4:10--"and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The word "propitiation" (ἱλασμὸν ) is in the accusative case, making it the direct object of "sent" (ἀπέστειλεν). Therefore the only possible meaning for this word is "as" or, as the KJV has it, "to be." No need for the italics.

4:14--"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." This is a very similar grammatical structure to v. 10, with "son" in the accusative. No need for the italics.

1 John Chapter 5:

5:4--"and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." The Greek has simply, ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν, or literally "the faith of us." Why not just use a colon, thus? "This is the victory that overcomes the world: our faith."

5:6--"This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ." The word "even" here does not add anything to the text. Who else could it be in context, but Christ?

5:19--"And we know that we are of God...." This is an odd one. Translations usually delete the "and" of the original text, but here the translators added the "And." What that does is make v. 19 a continuation of v. 18, and that is completely unnecessary. John is starting a new thought in v. 19, not continuing the thought of v. 18.

And there you have it. IMHO, there is no need for any of the italics in 1 John.