Italicized Words

[Dr. Bob]

Discussion seems to pop up on various threads and so decided to give it a topic of its own.

Were italicized words simply added to help the meaning while there is NO equivalent word in the original?

God forbid.

Comments - the Balcony is Open.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Were italicized words simply added to help the meaning while there is NO equivalent word in the original?

Sometimes. Italics were used for a variety of reasons, and even though there were some specific reasons, those reasons were not held to consistently. As well, sometimes italicized words changed to non-italicized, and vice-versa, between editions.

 

[Dr. Bob]

The Hebrew language, especially, demands "understood" verbs and antecedents. They may not be "in" the text, but are demanded by it.

Example: "The Lord is God". By the case structure (both being nominative) would force a verb to be "understood" so that one is the subject and the other the predicate nominative.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Numbers 20:26 (KJV1769, on-line)
And strip Aaron of his garments,
and put them upon Eleazar his son:
and Aaron shall be gathered unto his
people, and shall die there.

Numbers 20:26 (KJV1769, book on my desk)
And strip Aaron of his garments,
and put them upon Eleazar his son:
and Aaron shall be gathered unto his
people, and shall die there.

Numbers XX:26 (KJV1611)

And strippe Aaron of his garments,
and put them vpon Eleazar his son:
and Aaron shall be gathered vnto his
people, and shall die there.

Numbers 20:26 (nKJV, online):
and strip Aaron of his garments
and put them on Eleazar his son;
for Aaron shall be gathered to his
people and die there."

Numbers 20:26 (nKJV, on my desk):
"and strip Aaron of his garments
and put them on Eleazar his son;
for Aaron shall be gathered to his
people and die there."

(I have no idea why the on-line edition of nKJV
has no quote (") at the front of the verse.
The quotation of the Lord starts in verse 24.)

Lessons learned:
1. "to gather" in the Old Testament can
mean "to gather to his people".
2. electronic versions aren't as likely
to italicize as are printed versions.

Meanwhile, in my four barrelled cannon:

1. The KJV1873 has italic "unto his people"
2. The NIV has no italic "to his people"
3. The NLT has no italic "join his ancestors"
4. The NASB has italic "to his people"

 

[skanwmatos]

Italics were used in the KJV starting in 1611, having proven to be very helpful and popular in the Geneva bible. The italics were used to indicate an English translation which had no exact representative in the Hebrew or Greek original. However, the KJV translation committees were quite inconsistent in their use of italics, sometimes putting an added word in italics once in a chapter, but not for the second usage of the added word in the same chapter. This can been seen in the edition of 1611 in Leviticus chapter 11. Verse 20 reads, "upon all foure." Verse 21 and 42 read "upon all foure," and verse 27 reads "on all foure."

The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition sought to standardize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the Greek text. However, the Greek text they used for comparison was Stephen's 1550. As the KJV committees relied quite heavily on Beza's text of 1598, the 1769 italics can often be misleading, causing the reader to assume a word or phrase is not found in the underlying Greek text, when in fact it is present in Beza's text but was missing from Stephen's.

In fact, the original 1611 only used italics (actually it substituted Roman type for the Germanic Script or "Black Type") 69 times whereas the 1769 Oxford edition uses italics 384 times!

In 1866-1873 Frederick Scrivener analyzed the use of italic type in the various editions of the KJV and established 14 principles which he applied as consistently as possible throughout his revision.

Therefore the 1873 Scrivener KJV contains some italics not found in many earlier editions, most notably the 1762/1769, but omits many many more of the italics compared to those earlier editions. Scrivener seemed to be trying to undo some of the editorial errors which had crept into the earlier printings starting with the 1613 edition and continuing through the 1769 edition.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
The Hebrew language, especially, demands "understood" verbs and antecedents. They may not be "in" the text, but are demanded by it.

Example: "The Lord is God". By the case structure (both being nominative) would force a verb to be "understood" so that one is the subject and the other the predicate nominative.

So would Psalm 138:2 ... "for thou hast magnified thy word *above* all thy name" be such an example? Couldn't this verse just as correctly read, "along with thy name"?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Psalm 138:2 "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

I'm missing your point here. "above" (heb: al) and "all" (heb: kol) are both in the Hebrew text and there is no need for italicized word.

Explain your thinking on the text, please.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Italics were used in the KJV starting in 1611, having proven to be very helpful and popular in the Geneva bible. The italics were used to indicate an English translation which had no exact representative in the Hebrew or Greek original. However, the KJV translation committees were quite inconsistent in their use of italics, sometimes putting an added word in italics once in a chapter, but not for the second usage of the added word in the same chapter. This can been seen in the edition of 1611 in Leviticus chapter 11. Verse 20 reads, "upon all foure." Verse 21 and 42 read "upon all foure," and verse 27 reads "on all foure."

The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition sought to standardize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the Greek text. However, the Greek text they used for comparison was Stephen's 1550. As the KJV committees relied quite heavily on Beza's text of 1598, the 1769 italics can often be misleading, causing the reader to assume a word or phrase is not found in the underlying Greek text, when in fact it is present in Beza's text but was missing from Stephen's.

In fact, the original 1611 only used italics (actually it substituted Roman type for the Germanic Script or "Black Type") 69 times whereas the 1769 Oxford edition uses italics 384 times!

In 1866-1873 Frederick Scrivener analyzed the use of italic type in the various editions of the KJV and established 14 principles which he applied as consistently as possible throughout his revision.

Therefore the 1873 Scrivener KJV contains some italics not found in many earlier editions, most notably the 1762/1769, but omits many many more of the italics compared to those earlier editions. Scrivener seemed to be trying to undo some of the editorial errors which had crept into the earlier printings starting with the 1613 edition and continuing through the 1769 edition.

ah yes, it all sounds like a bunch of mindworshipping, Bible-correcting, naturalistic n humanistic-TC "scholars" to me!!

 

[aefting]

1 John 2:23 contains one of the more interesting uses of italics in the KJV:

1 John 2:23 (KJV)
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Here the KJV "brackets" one half of an entire verse. Modern versions include the entire verse without comment. I'm surprised that anyone could support a version that casts such doubt on the Word of God.

Andy

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
.... ah yes, it all sounds like a bunch of mindworshipping, Bible-correcting, naturalistic n humanistic-TC "scholars" to me!!

Considering Prebendary Scrivener and Dean Burgeon were contemporaries of and leaders of the opposition to Drs. Wescott and Hort and principles championed by them, I find your charaterization of the good Prebendary amusing to say the least.

 

[skanwmatos]

This is apparently a peculiarity of the Textus Receptus. The phrase is lacking in the Complutensian Polyglot, all of Erasmus's TRs, Stephen's TRs, the 1st and 2nd editions of Beza's TRs but was in Beza's 3rd edition. It is also missing from Tyndale, in the Cranmer but in italics, missing from the Geneva, in the Rheims, and of course, in italics in the KJV.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
.... ah yes, it all sounds like a bunch of mindworshipping, Bible-correcting, naturalistic n humanistic-TC "scholars" to me!!

Considering Prebendary Scrivener and Dean Burgeon were contemporaries of and leaders of the opposition to Drs. Wescott and Hort and principles championed by them, I find your charaterization of the good Prebendary amusing to say the least. </font>[/QUOTE]it's amazing, isn't it?

imagine what wld've been said IF W-H had been the ones putting the KJB's words into italics?!

woohoo ...

but in KJBO thinking, what's good for the goose is, well, just that

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:

Were italicized words simply added to help the meaning while there is NO equivalent word in the original?

While the italicized words in the KJV are generally used to make explicit that which is implied in the original language texts, there are some occasions when the italicized words are clear and plain additions on the part of the KJV translators. Examples:

(1) And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. (2 Sam. 21:19, KJV)

The italicized words "the brother of" are not found in or implied by the Hebrew text; the KJV has added them.


(2) But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above) (Rom. 10:6, KJV)

The italicized words "from above" are not found in or implied by the Greek text; the KJV has added them.


(3) But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. (Rom. 11:4, KJV)

The italicized words "the image of" are not found in or implied by the Greek text; the KJV has added them.


(4) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. (1 Cor. 14:2, KJV)

The italicized word "unknown" is not found in or implied by the Greek text; the KJV has added it.


(5) Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. (1 Jn. 3:16, KJV)

The italicized words "of God" are not found in or implied by the Greek text; the KJV has added them.

 

[Charles Meadows]

There is no question about the significance of italics in the OT translation. Hebrew, biblical Hebrew that is, is really a fairly primitive language compared to Greek. Many times we will find a noun and an adjective with no verb - that is the verb is just understood. Often a complex predicate in English will be only a participle in Hebrew.

Psalm 14. The fool hath said in his heart there is no God. The Hebrew is just "no God". It's sort of like saying "Me book!" instead of, "this is my book".

Psalm 138:2 isa a different issue. Bob pointed out the 'al kol is rendered "above all". 'Al is a preposition and kol in a noun which is in the construct state suggesting it means "all OF SOMETHING". The problem is that there are some different variants including one that not a construct. The best translation of "'al kol shimkah" is "above all of your name" - that would mean that God is setting His promise above His name. The NASB and NIV render it a little differently. To make it more confusing the Septuagint says "your holy name above all". The italics (which are not found in all bibles) in this verse refers to this uncertainty of wording!

 

[Daniel David]

What? No KJVOs? Shocking.