# How Important are Italics in the KJV?



## Brian R. (Oct 11, 2018)

This is likely mainly directed toward those who are heavy users of the KJV...

I've grown to appreciate the italics in the text so I'm alerted that the translated word isn't in the original Hebrew/Greek. But recently I was disappointed to learn that the Allan Longprimer, a very beautiful Bible, does not include the italics in its KJV layout. 

Are the italics unnecessary as I've heard some propose? Or do you consider them very important when you're embarking upon deep Bible study?

Thanks for any input.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 11, 2018)

Brian R. said:


> Are the italics unnecessary as I've heard some propose? Or do you consider them very important when you're embarking upon deep Bible study?


That would depend upon your own interests. For me they are relevant when doing systematic theology work. They also serve to give me insights into the minds of the translators that were doing the work on what I consider the received ecclesiastical text.

Try reading the translation omitting the italics and the relevance of them will be immediately visible in many instances.

Will Kinney's page on this is worth a read:
https://brandplucked.webs.com/italicswhy.htm
(Yeah, I know. I know. Don't shoot the messenger. Just mine what gold you find for your own edification.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 11, 2018)

I've thought about this topic for some time. Oddly enough the Oxford/Allan Longprimer brought my attention to the subject. I had bought a copy years ago and didn't notice that italics were omitted until I saw it mentioned in a review by Mark Bertrand.

This bothered me quite a bit. Leading to my reading up on it. In David Norton's, 'The King James Bible, A Short History', he mentions that he didn't include italics when editing The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible because in collating KJV manuscripts he found the use of italics was inconsistent. 

I kept my eyes peeled and found an old Oxford Longprimer, circa 1914 or so, with italics. Inconsistent or not I prefer the inclusion. It's not as pretty as the Allen, but the binding is solid and I feel it is complete. 

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jake (Oct 12, 2018)

They're also often missing in on-line versions. 

I find them helpful in more in-depth study. I read larger portions of Scripture without consulting study resources, etc. on a daily basis that I will read differently then when I am particularly studying a book. When reading larger portions of Scripture at a time, I generally find it less necessary.

Different translations value this marking differently as well. The KJV/NASB tend to use the italics quite frequently. The NIV uses its small, square brackets (which achieve the same purpose) rather infrequently. The ESV, while billing itself as a literal translation, doesn't use any such notation in the next, but only will occasionally note if something is added for clarity in the footnotes. I think the issue is that it's often not clear what should be noted as "added" words in the scope of translation.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 12, 2018)

I appreciate the fact that the KJV, in part through the use of italics, provides information about the text that other translations don't. If you are studying to teach on the text, you might like to have the italics so that you don't make a foolish error such as saying, "Look how this word is repeated for emphasis" when the original doesn't actually repeat the word.

However, I also try to remember that I am not a scholar of biblical Hebrew or Greek, and that I should take care not to read too much into the italics. The scholars who translated those texts had good reasons for adding those English words: they did it to help me, the non-scholar, accurately understand the text. If I try to be smarter than them and ask myself, "What does this text_ really_ say given that these words are not in the Hebrew," I am sometimes going to overthink things and end up drawing conclusions that aren't there.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed (Oct 16, 2018)

Jake said:


> The ESV, while billing itself as a literal translation, doesn't use any such notation in the next, but only will occasionally note if something is added for clarity in the footnotes.



To be fair, the ESV doesn't call itself a literal translation but an "essentially literal" translation. It is small but that is a distinct difference.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 16, 2018)

Reformed said:


> To be fair, the ESV doesn't call itself a literal translation but an "essentially literal" translation. It is small but that is a distinct difference.


Good point, and the truth is also that there is no perfectly literal translation, as that would give to us an interlinear, but not a real translation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jonathan R (Oct 17, 2018)

Italics are one reason that I prefer the NASB over other modern translations like the ESV. Its helpful first to see if a particular word is implied/supplied so that I don't overemphasize a word not present in the original and second, its helpful to see how the translators are interpreting the passage. 

In the grand scheme of things regarding translation faithfulness, I would not consider them overly important, in the KJV, NASB, or otherwise. As a matter of helpfulness I much prefer them.


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 18, 2018)

Reading the AV, or NASB, I sometimes exclude the italicized word/words to see if the clause makes sense without it/them. In some instances it seems the phrase is complete without the additional word/words, other times it is obviously necessary. One way or the other, as previously noted, I prefer the italics for words added by the translators.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------

