Why No Parenthesis in Acts 1:18-19?

[KMK]

KJV: Acts 1:18,19 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. *19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

ESV: Acts 1:18,19 (Now this man obought a field with pthe reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong1 he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. *19And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called qin their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

I am aware of the arguments in favor of the parenthesis, but have not heard the arguments against.

Why did the KJV translators leave out the parenthesis?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

A parenthesis is not demanded around every retrospective remark. Perhaps the translators thought it better not to decide for the reader if Peter rehearsed this detail in his speech or not. It still reads like an aside.

 

[MW]

J. A. Alexander (Acts, p. 26):

Having mentioned the treachery of Judas, and his long connection with the college of Apostles, Peter reminds his hearers of his frightful end; not as something new to them, or something which they had forgotten, for the facts were too recent and notorious to be so presented; but to impress upon their minds the actual and terrible fulfilment of the divine threatening. There is no need, therefore, of regarding this verse as a parenthetical remark of the historian, which indeed is forbidden by the form of the original, where now is not a single but a double particle (mev ouv), employed to mark the interruptions and resumptions of a continuous discourse, like so then in the pauses and transitions of a narrative. Such an expression would be wholly out of place in the beginning of an insulated note or comment, interrupting the thread of the discourse.

 

[KMK]

Thanks for these.

 

[bug]

Why did the KJV translators leave out the parenthesis?

We will never know precisley why they choose to translate it as they did as the translation notes were lost in a fire. However we do know that the KJV was not an netirely new translation but one that followed on from previous translations, and the Bishop's Bible does not have the oarenthesis either.

 

[KMK]

Why did the KJV translators leave out the parenthesis?

We will never know precisley why they choose to translate it as they did as the translation notes were lost in a fire. However we do know that the KJV was not an netirely new translation but one that followed on from previous translations, and the Bishop's Bible does not have the oarenthesis either.

Neither does the Geneva. It appears to me that the ERV was the first English Version to insert the parenthesis.

 

[KMK]

J. A. Alexander (Acts, p. 26):

Having mentioned the treachery of Judas, and his long connection with the college of Apostles, Peter reminds his hearers of his frightful end; not as something new to them, or something which they had forgotten, for the facts were too recent and notorious to be so presented; but to impress upon their minds the actual and terrible fulfilment of the divine threatening. There is no need, therefore, of regarding this verse as a parenthetical remark of the historian, which indeed is forbidden by the form of the original, where now is not a single but a double particle (mev ouv), employed to mark the interruptions and resumptions of a continuous discourse, like so then in the pauses and transitions of a narrative. Such an expression would be wholly out of place in the beginning of an insulated note or comment, interrupting the thread of the discourse.

Interestingly, Alexander continues, in commenting on verse 19...

Some have inferred, therefore, that these [verse 19] cannot be the words of Peter, and that this verse [verse 19], at least, if not the one before it [verse 18], must be a parenthetical addition by the hand of the historian. But the utmost that can be inferred is that the clause immediately before us was so added, which may be admitted without any derogation from the credit of the narrative or the authenticity of the discourse.