Adding words for clarity

Of course not Doc. I do like the way the KJV used italics for those words however. I would like to see them italicised or bracketed, or otherwise set off in some way.

 

I use the KJV, my parents and my grandparents use the KJV. The italicized words helped to bring light to the scripture verse one was reading.

For instance, Luke 6:29 would read like this without the words in italics.

Luke 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not coat also.

While the verse can be read and understood, there is better clarity with the italicized words included.

Luke 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not [to take thy] coat also.

Of course, we could go back to Wycliffe's 1534 Bible, it reads as such:

Luke 6:29 And to him that smytith thee on o cheeke, schewe also the tothir; and fro hym that takith awei fro thee a cloth, nyle thou forbede the coote.

 

TCassidy, can one be sure that God was indeed added when it should not have been? Could it be that those who claim to have some older manuscripts to cause text to be omitted be wrong?

I am not sold on all these different versions and translations that are popping up all over. I cannot place faith in paraphrases and translations that remove key words, remove the deity in many verses, remove the blood, remove whole passages.

It is just strange that so many are popping up and claiming to be the true word of God.

 

It all depends on whether or not we agree that it is an "error" or just clarifying the text for the English reader.

My preference would be that all words not in the texts be signified.

 

Translating a sentence from one language to another sometimes causes problems.

You could read, Yo habla piñata in Spanish and translate it as "I have a pinata."
(I hope that's close, last time used took spanish was high school )

OR you could say, "I have a paper mache-shaped animal filled with sweets and small toys."

Sometimes a more dynamic translation is helpful.

Rob

 

None of us would have any use for versions or paraphrases that truly do that.

The subject of this thread however is adding words for clarification.

 

Adding to for clarity is certainly not a sin. If it helps one to understand what the scripture is saying.

 

Another example is the oft-discussed Psalm 12:7 thingie. Neither the Geneva,(him) the KJV,(them) nor several other versions(us, all of us, every one of them)is incorrect. (Just a reminder; this subject need not be discussed here again unless a new poster brings it up.)

The phrase "God forbid" is added to the KJV's text several times; this phrase is quite different from the Greek "me ginomai", but 'God forbid' was a stronger negative than "may it not be" in Elizabethan vernacular and thus is correct.


Bottom line is, I see nothing wrong with adding words for clarity in ANY version where a verbatim literal translation would be garbled in the target language of the translation. After all, the words of the ms being translated would be meaningless to most of us; hence the reason for the translation being made.

I agree with DC that there's clearly a double standard employed by certain advocates of certain BVs or doctrines, and that this DS includes trying to force everyone to use certain words whose meanings have changed over the years, trying to fit those new meanings into an older text. This is the same as putting new wine into old skins.

Do any of our multi-lingual readers know if words are often added when translating an English work into another language?

 

I'm not against words being added for clarity. I think that it is perfectly all right.

 

This thread raises some interesting questions.

Were all the added words actually in italics in the 1611 edition? Later KJV editors actually changed many words not in italics in the 1611 edition to italics. For example, the Gospel of Matthew in the 1611 edition is said to have 43 words in italics while the 1762 Cambridge edition is said to have 352 words in italics and the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener is said to have over 500 words in italics.

It also suggests an inconsistency in the KJV-only view since words added for clarity in the KJV are accepted and even commended while words added for clarity in other translations are usually condemned.

What was the source of some of these added words in the KJV? Since the KJV was a revision of the Bishops' Bible according to the rules given the KJV translators, it is the most likely source of some of these added words.

Blackford Condit maintained that "the text of the Bishops' Bible is weakened still more by the introduction of explanatory words and phrases; a seeming attempt to expound as well as translate the original text" (HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 286).

If the KJV kept some of the added words for clarity in the Bishops' Bible, should it have kept them all? Based on what greater authority and on what consistent basis did the KJV translators remove added words found in the Bishops' Bible at some verses but keep the added words at other verses?

 

24 places? Tom, please provide me all 24 passages. I want to look at them.

 

Nope. Luke translates the Aramaic statement of Jesus, "Talitha cumi," as simply, "Maid, arise" (Luke 8:54). However, Mark adds a couple of words for clarity with, "Damsel, I say unto thee, arise" (Mark 5:41).

 

No, TCassidy, I didn't misunderstand the question. My failure was in not presenting my point well enough.

I was trying to come in on your side by showing that, when inspired Scripture translates within itself in this instance, Mark adds words for clarity when Luke did not. Thus, in my mind, based on this Biblical example, it is sometimes appropriate to add words for clarity when translating (whether it be in a MV or the KJV).

I wasn't referring to how English translations translate the Greek text here, I was referring to how the Biblical authors Luke and Mark translate the Aramaic original (given by Mark) of Jesus into the original Greek of the NT, Mark gives a more free translation than Luke does, adding words for clarity.

It does not follow, of course, that Mark is using dynamic equivalence here. He had perfectly good reasons for adding words for clarity, since in the original Aramaic of Jesus, "damsel" was emphatic, and "arise" was in the imperative.

Perhaps I should include the Greek original. Luke's Greek translation of the Aramaic statment of Jesus is, "H pais egeirou."

Mark's version is actually quite different: "To korasion soi legw egeirai."

 

Rob,

Thanks for a belly laugh! You said (to translate) 'I (He) speaks (a) piñata.' Thanks to you I now need a new keyboard.