# Peter, Paul and Italics?



## Gesetveemet (Apr 8, 2008)

How were Peter and Paul able to qoute the Italics in the Old testament verses below?




Psalm 16:8 ¶ I have set the LORD always before me: because *he is *at my right hand, I shall not be moved. 

*Peter quoted the italics *Acts 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 




Isaiah 65:1 ¶ I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of *them that *sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name. 

*Paul quoted the italics *Romans 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 



Deuteronomy 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out *the corn *

*Paul quoted the italics again *1Corinthians 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? 


Thank you,


----------



## Davidius (Apr 8, 2008)

From what I understand, words in Italics are either absent from the original and inserted by the translators/editors, or represent an attempt to translate a word of which the meaning is unknown.

For example, many languages, especially ancient languages, frequently omit forms of the verb "to be," as well as understood subjects or objects. These are some of the most frequently italicized "insertions" because it sounds bad in English.


----------



## HaigLaw (Apr 8, 2008)

There's a funny story about how Joseph Smith stumbled onto that fact Davidius pointed out above, and promptly issued another "translation" that omitted all the italics.

Later "prophets" discovered how the sans-italics "translation" read so awkwardly, and put them all back in.

All under the inspiration of their god, presumably. 

Just as their god led them to plagiarize the Masonic temple ritual and put it into the "Book of Abraham."


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 8, 2008)

Davidius said:


> From what I understand, words in Italics are either absent from the original and inserted by the translators/editors, or represent an attempt to translate a word of which the meaning is unknown.
> 
> For example, many languages, especially ancient languages, frequently omit forms of the verb "to be." These are some of the most frequently italicized "insertions" because it sounds bad in English.



It is also possible that the italicized words are present in the Septuagint but not the original Hebrew - so what the translators of the modern translation of the OT are doing are indicating the fact that they aren't in the original language. Quotations found in the NT of the OT often follow the Septuagint text, so this could in principle be it (not sure in these cases)


----------



## Davidius (Apr 8, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > From what I understand, words in Italics are either absent from the original and inserted by the translators/editors, or represent an attempt to translate a word of which the meaning is unknown.
> ...



Great point!


----------



## Gesetveemet (Apr 8, 2008)

Davidius said:


> For example, many languages, especially ancient languages, frequently omit forms of the verb "to be," as well as understood subjects or objects. These are some of the most frequently italicized "insertions" because it sounds bad in English.



Thank you, I know that to be true my wife speaks fluent Hebrew and Dutch.





.


----------



## Davidius (Apr 8, 2008)

For whatever reason, we speakers of Germanic languages decided that we like to be really wordy.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 8, 2008)

If the KJV was good enough for Peter and Paul then it's good enough for me!


----------

