THE USE OF ITALIC TYPE IN THE AUTHORISED VERSION
The consensus of the scholars tells us that the King James Bibles italicized words are not in the Greek or Hebrew Text and therefore may be tampered with–with impunity, for they are not considered by them to be the word of God. Modern English bibles do not trouble themselves about adding italics, when they add English words to the Hebrew and Greek texts.Italics are a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Still, the integrity of the King James translators is manifested in that they were honest enough to show us, where they interpolated in their translation. They saw it to be their duty to indicate not only their rendering of corresponding English words for Greek and Hebrew words but also to supply what was necessary to make up the deficiency of the Hebrew and Greek terms, in terms of English, and vice versa.
The translators also indicated by italics that their translations of Greek and Hebrew idioms into suitable English words to clear up any ambiguity. Italics were also used to clarify, who was talking and who was being addressed with added English words, where the English could not match the grammar in Hebrew or Greek. Italics were also used, when they rearranged the word order to be understood in English, while also giving it a meter that would make it suitable for memorizing and reciting.
2Sam 21:19 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.
1 Ch 20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath [no italics] the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam. (See 1 Cron 11:16 and 2 Sam 23:24 for another Elhanan who was the son of DODO) – Herb Evans
Other Examples of Italicized Words
. . . they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. -- Acts 7:59
And, beheld a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew thatJesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at hisfeet . . . --Luke 7:37
AndJesusentered and passed through Jericho. -- Luke 19:1
Cornelius . . . was warned from Godby a holy angel . . . -- Acts 10:22
1 Deut25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
1 Cor 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 [no italics].
For it pleased the Fatherthat in him should all fullness dwell. -- Col. 1:19
1 Tim 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn [no italics]. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
The above Scriptures have italicized words. If the Father is left out of Col. 1:19; the question that immediately comes to mind is "Who was pleased?” If the Father is left out of Col. 1:19; the question that immediately comes to mind is "Who was pleased?” If Jesus is left out of Luke 19:1; the question that comes to mind is, "Who entered and passed by?” To say that words do not belong in God’s word because they are italicized is to speak without any more authority than saying that the ita1icized “Jesus” of Luke 19:1 does not belong in the passage.
Now, it can be determined who is being talked about from the context, but what in the name of heaven is wrong with understanding it with ease from a legitimate construct in an English sentence? Jehovah’s Witnesses would love for Fundamentalists to agree with them and remove the italicized God from Acts 7:59 but are left with Stephen praying to the Lord Jesus. If Jesus is not God, as the JW’s would love us to believe, why is Stephen praying to Jesus Christ at his death? This puts them on the horns of a dilemma.
In Acts 10:22, God is in italics in some Bibles but not others; still, God is not found in the Greek Text. However, the translators didn’t even consider italics because of the context and words that were used. Berry in his interlinear completely distorts the meaning of the passage by leaving God out of it. He renders the passage, “Cornelius . . . was divinely instructed by holy angels.” This makes the angels the source of the divine warning and not God. To say that it does not belong in God’s word because it is italicized is to speak without any more authority than saying that the italicized “corn” of Deuteronomy 25:4 does not belong, when 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18 both honor the italics of the Old Testament (Deut. 25:4)without using italics in the New Testament, since corn in 1 Cor 9:9 is in the Greek!An extremely great fuss is made over the indefinite article not being in the Greek Text of John 4:24. Many Bible Correctors seem oblivious to the fact that the rules of one language do not apply to another. There is no indefinite article in the passage we just studied for angel (Acts 10:22), but in English we require it. In Russian you say I put book on table without a definite article for book or table. Big deal!What about them apples!
See what the Trinitarian Bible society and also Scrivener have to say more in depth about the italics used in the King James Bible.
THE USE OF ITALIC TYPE IN THE AUTHORISED VERSION
Several readers of the Quarterly Record have asked for an article explaining the use of italic type in the Authorised Version. In his book on “The Authorised Edition of the English Bible (1611). Its subsequent reprints and modern representatives,” F. H. A. Scrivener gives the following information — In the editions of 1611 and 1613 there were many inconsistencies in the use of italics, and a close and critical examination of the version by those responsible for the editions of 1629 and 1638 resulted in a considerable improvement, which was carried further by Dr. Paris in 1762 and Dr. Blayney in 1769. The Translators employed italic type—
(I) When words quite or nearly necessary to complete the sense of the sacred writers have been introduced into the text from parallel passages of Scripture. E.g., 2 Sam. 5.8 “he shall be chief and captain” (supplied from 1 Chronicles 11.6). Jer. 6:14 “of the daughter” (supplied from Jer. 8:11).
(2)When the extreme compactness of the Hebrew produces a form of expression hardly capable of being transformed into a modem tongue. E.g., Gen. 13.9 “Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if the left hand, then I will go to the right. A.V. adds in italics— “thou wilt take”—reading— “If thou wilt take the left hand. This class includes cases where the “apadosis” (consequence resulting from an act) is implied in the Hebrew, but must be expressed in English—e.g., Gen. 30.27 “If I have found favour in thine eyes, tarry.”
(3) In instances of “zeugma,” a grammatical figure in Hebrew and Greek, by which an expression belonging to one part of a sentence is made to serve also in another—e.g., Gen. 4 :20 “And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.”
(4 Where it is necessary to indicate an abrupt transition from the oblique or indirect to the direct form of speech. E.g., Gen. 4.25 “And she bare a son, and called his name Seth: for God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel.” The italic words indicate the change to “reported speech.” (Note: there is a similar change in Gen. 32:30 without any such indication).
(5) To indicate that a word or clause is of doubtful authority as a matter of textual criticism. According to Scrivener there is only one such instance in the Canonical Books in the A.V., E.G., 1 John 2.23 “but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”
The Translators were aware that there was an omission in the Greek manuscripts and printed editions available to them, and correctly supplied what was lacking from the Latin Vulgate. The wisdom of their decision was subsequently confirmed by a stream of ancient evidence, including Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Ephraemi, the Palestinian and Harkelian Syriac, Memphitic and Armenian versions, Origen, Eusebius, Cyprian, Hilary. The words are found in all subsequent English versions.
(6) Where the words supplied are essential to the English sense, although they may be dispensed with in Hebrew and Greek, or could even be received into the original without burdening the sentence or marring the style. This is the most numerous class, far out-numbering all of the others put together. E.g., Gen. 33.15 “the folk that are with me.” The A.V. translators appear to have tried to observe the following rules, but consistency was not always achieved:
(a) The English possessive pronoun, when it renders the Hebrew or Greek article should be set in italics. E.g., Judges 3:20, 2 Sam. 6:7 etc.
(b) “This” and “That” when used for the Hebrew definite article should be italicised—e.g., Ex. 34:1 in these tables” (but 9:27 “this time”—no italics).
(c) No attempt was Made to put in italics every occurrence in English of the definite article where it is absent from the Hebrew and Greek. In some such instances italics would be helpful—e.g. Romans 1.6 “Among whom are ye also (the) called of Jesus Christ.”
(6. c. TBS – Scrivener) No attempt was Made to put in italics every occurrence in English of the definite article where it is absent from the Hebrew and Greek. In some such instances italics would be helpful—e.g. Romans 1.6 “Among whom are ye also (the) called of Jesus Christ.”
(d) When the Hebrew or Greek have the article before a participle, and the English is rendered “which are,” “that is” etc., the italics are not really necessary, but are used in some places—e.g. Judges 6:28 “the altar that was built.”
(e) When the original has an article prefixed to an adjective, rendered in English “that are,” “who is” etc., the words should be in italics—e.g. Isaiah 5.21 “Woe unto them that are wise . . .
(f) When the Hebrew infinitive is used without the personal pronoun, and this is supplied in English, it should be in italics— E.g., Gen. 6.19 “to keep them alive in famine.”
There are other instances involving finer points of Hebrew grammar and difficult to present in the present brief and nontechnical article. Scrivener endeavoured to follow all the rules consistently in his edition of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873.
[An extremely great fuss is made over the definite and indefinite articles not being in the Greek Text in various places but in the KJB. In Russian you would say I put book on table without any article for book or table. – Herb Evans]
– Copied from the Trinitarian Bible Society by Herb Evans
Scrivener on the Italicized words per the Trinitarian Bible Society
In his book on “The Authorised Edition of the English Bible (1611). Its subsequent reprints and modern representatives,” F. H. A. Scrivener gives the following information — In the editions of 1611 and 1613 there were many inconsistencies in the use of italics, and a close and critical examination of the version by those responsible for the editions of 1629 and 1638 resulted in a considerable improvement, which was carried further by Dr. Paris in 1762 and Dr. Blayney in 1769. The Translators employed italic type.
(5. TBS - Scrivener) To indicate that a word or clause is of doubtful authority as a matter of textual criticism. According to Scrivener there is only one such instance in the Canonical Books in the A.V., E.G., 1 John 2.23 “but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”The Translators were aware that there was an omission in the Greek manuscripts and printed editions available to them, and correctly supplied what was lacking from the Latin Vulgate. The wisdom of their decision was subsequently confirmed by a stream of ancient evidence, including Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Ephraemi, the Palestinian and Harkelian Syriac, Memphitic and Armenian versions, Origen, Eusebius, Cyprian, Hilary. The words are found in all subsequent English versions.
1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
The latter part of 1 John 2:23 was not in any Greek text that the KJB translators had but was in the Latin and other language texts, so they brought the Vulgate Latin over to the KJB to the chagrin of many Bible correctors. However, it was found later in the Greek after the KJB and now even some modern translations have it. – Herb Evans
(6. TBS - Scrivener) Where the words supplied are essential to the English sense, although they may be dispensed with in Hebrew and Greek, or could even be received into the original without burdening the sentence or marring the style. This is the most numerous class, far out-numbering all of the others put together. E.g., Gen. 33.15 “the folk that are with me.” The A.V. translators appear to have tried to observe the following rules, but consistency was not always achieved:
-- Scrivener quote excerpts copied from the Trinitarian Bible Society by Herb Evans