Italics in the Bible
A Historical Survey
by Glenn Conjurske
The use of italics in the Bible to set off words added by the translators is the natural outgrowth of a belief in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. If the words of Scripture are the words of God, then we feel instinctively that any words added by the translators for clarity or smoothness should be clearly distinguished from the actual words of God.
But it should be understood that these remarks are applicable only if it is the words of the original texts which are held to be inspired of God, rather than the words of the translation. If the translation, no less than the original, is verbally inspired of God, then it were both unnecessary and impertinent to set off some of those words from the rest, as though they were not of equal authority with the others. This being so, the italics which meet us everywhere on the face of the King James Version constitute a standing proof that the producers of that version did not believe it to be inspired in the same sense as the original texts.
But italics----or some kind of type different from the body of the text, or some kind of distinguishing marks----have also been used to set off words which are of doubtful authority because of variations in the text of the originals or the ancient versions. Such a use also flows from a belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. If the words of the original texts are indeed the words of God, then we have no right either to add to them or to take from them. But alas, due to both the accidental mistakes and the purposeful alterations of ancient copyists, the original texts as we now have them have many variant readings, and those who have all the evidence before them are sometimes unable to say which reading is the true one. For this cause, certain editors and translators of Holy Scripture have used different type or other marks of differentiation to mark out words which they regarded as of doubtful authority. The first man to use such a method was apparently Origen, who flourished in the first half of the third century. In his edition of the Septuagint, which formed one column of his Hexapla, he marked with an asterisk the Septuagint words which were not in the Hebrew, and with an obelisk those words which were in the Hebrew text, but which were absent from the current text of the Septuagint.
A similar method was adopted by William Tyndale in the 1534 edition of his New Testament, howbeit in one instance only. The whole of I John 5:7 he printed in smaller type in parentheses, to indicate its doubtful character. He was followed in this by Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, and the Great Bible, but the later versions retained the verse, but dispensed with the marks of doubt.[x]
Coverdale used this method much more extensively in the Great Bible, frequently inserting in small type in parentheses words which were present in the Latin Vulgate, but which were not in the Greek texts then current, or in the earlier English versions. The words thus set off range from single words to long clauses and whole verses. Many of them are insignificant explanatory glosses. They are all from the Latin Vulgate, and none of them are to be found in Tyndale's New Testament. There is one apparent exception to this, but I believe it is only apparent. In Hebrews 5:8, where the Great Bible has "though he were ye sonne (of God)," Tyndale has, "And though he were Goddes sonne." This is a natural enough gloss, which Tyndale might have used on his own. If he borrowed it, it was probably from Luther's German (Und wiewol er Gottes Son war) rather than from the Vulgate. Tyndale used no italics to set off such glosses.
Most of the marked words in the Great Bible are rejected by the subsequent English versions, including the King James Version, not having sufficient support from the Greek to be retained. The King James Version retains a few of them, however, and handles them in three different manners:
1.Some of them are retained without any marks of doubt. Among these are the following entire sentences:
John 19:38----"He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus."
James 4:6----"Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."
Rev. 21:26----"And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it."
2.Another is retained in the King James Version with a marginal note stating its doubtful character. This is Luke 17:36, "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." This verse was relegated to the margin in the Geneva Bible. The Bishop's Bible retained it in the text, without any marks of doubt. The King James Version retained it in the text, with this note in the margin: "This .36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."
3.In one instance only, so far as I am aware, the King James Version retained one of the marked clauses with the same mark of doubtfulness which it had in the Great Bible. This is in I John 2:23, which appeared thus in the Great Bible:
Whosoeuer denyeth the sonne, the same hath not the father. (He that knowlegeth the sonne, hath the father also.)
The doubtful clause was relegated to the margin of the Geneva Bible, but retained in the Bishops' Bible and the King James Version after the same manner in which it was given in the Great Bible. Herein is preserved in the King James Bible one example of the original use of distinguishing marks in the text, as introduced by Origen, namely, to indicate a variant reading in the original text. There are other such instances in modern King James Bibles, which were not so marked in the original edition. An example is in John 8:6, where our Bibles have "as though he heard them not" in italics. These words did not appear in Tyndale's New Testament, nor Coverdale's Bible, nor Matthew, nor Taverner, nor the Great Bible, nor the Geneva Bible, nor the original Bishops' Bible, of 1568. They were first added in the Bishops' Bible of 1572, without italics, and the King James Version retained them, also without italics. They were italicized in later editions. Such a use of distinguishing type or marks in the text, however, has been generally replaced by notes in the margin, and the marks of differentiation in the text reserved for words added by the translators for clarity of sense.
The first Bible in English----and for aught I know to the contrary, the first in history----to employ "italics" to mark words added by the translator was the Wycliffe Bible, produced late in the fourteenth century. Actual italic type was not used, of course, for printing was not then known, and every copy was written by hand. The added words were designated by underlining. The Wycliffe Bible exists in two versions, an earlier and a later, the latter being a revision of the former. Both use underlining. The words underlined are of two sorts. Some are words added by the translator for clarity. Others are "glosses," as they were then called, that is, explanatory comments or definitions added following a word which was supposed to need some clarification. Both versions use underlining for both kinds of additions. Neither of them do so consistently throughout, however. The early version uses no italics at all through most of the Old Testament. What is supposed to be the original manuscript of the early version of most of the Old Testament[x] ends abruptly at Baruch 3:20. It contains no glosses, nor added words in italics. (Some of the later copies of the early version contain a few glosses----I believe only two, for example, in the Pentateuch.) The Old Testament of the early version from Baruch 3:20 to the end is evidently the work of another hand, and glosses in italics are common in it, beginning with "fablers, or ianglers" at Baruch 3:23. Some further examples of those glosses are:
Ezek. 1:4----"...as a lickenesse of electre, êat is, a metal of gold and syluere, cleerer êan gold." On the same word in Ezek. 7:2 is the gloss, "êat is, metal maad of gold and siluer, bri3ter êan gold."
Ezek. 14:7----"proselitis, or men new comen to êe lawe of Jewis."
Ezek. 40:9----"êe vestiarie, or porche."
Daniel 5:23----"...êou glorifiedist not God, êat haê êi wynd, or spirit, in his hond." (The later version here, instead of adopting the gloss, strangely alters "wynd" to "blast.")
Daniel 12:3----"Forsoêe êei êat shuln be tau3t men, or wijse, shuln shyne as shynyng of êe firmament, and êei êat lernen, or enfourmen, manye to ri3twijsnesse, as sterris in to euerlastyngnessis."
Hosea 13:3----"as a morewe clowde, or myst." ("Morewe," that is "morrow," means "morning.")
Amos 5:23----"Do awey fro me êe noyse of êi songis, or ditees."
Jonah 3:8----"...and be a man conuertid, or al turnyd, fro his yuel waye." ("Yuel" is "evil.")
Jonah 4:3----"And now, Lord, Y preye, take my soule, or lijf, fro me."
Micah 5:11-12----"dyuynaciouns, or tellingus by deuels craft, shuln not be in êee. And Y shal make for to perishe êi sculptilis, or grauen ymagis."
Such are apparently the first "italics" ever used in the English Bible. Of words in italics added for clarity or smoothness, the early Wycliffe Old Testament seemingly has none. There are a very few which might seem to be such, but they are actually explanatory glosses. The very few words which are added for clarity are not italicized.
In the New Testament the earlier Wycliffe version uses "italics" throughout, both for explanatory glosses and for words added for clarity. In each of the following examples, both kinds of additions are seen:
Matt. 4:24----"And his opynyoun, or fame, wente in to al Syrie; and êei offriden to hym alle men hauying yuele."
Matt. 10:37-39----"He êat loueê fadir or modir more êan me, is nat worêi of me. And he êat loueê sone or dou3ter ouer me, is nat worêi of me. And he êat takiê nat his crosse, and sueê me, is not worêi of me. He êat fyndiê his soule, êat is, temporal lyf, shal leese it; and he êat lesiê his soule, êat is, lif, for me, shal fynde it." (To sue is to follow, as in "ensue," "pursue.")
Col. 2:13-14----"...he quykenyde to gidere 3ou with hym; for3yuynge to 3ou alle giltis, or trespassis."
The vast majority of all italicized words in this version are explanatory glosses. There was but little occasion to italicize anything else, for the version is so literal that for the most part, aside from the numerous glosses, there simply are no added words. There is an occasional "womman" or "wymmen" to indicate the feminine gender in the Latin, and an occasional noun or pronoun added, where there is only an adjective or participle in the original, but these are few and far between. A few further examples of such added words are:
Mark 12:27----"He is not God of deede men, but God of lyuynge men."
Mark 16:10----"She goynge tolde to hem êat weren wiê him, hem weylinge and wepynge." "Hem" is "them," and is obviously added here to make it clear that it was they, and not she, who were wailing and weeping.
Luke 3:4----"çe voys of oon criynge in desert."
Luke 7:12----"and êis was a widowe; and moche cumpany of êe citee was wiê hir."
Romans 4:17 & 18----"çe which God quykeneê deede men, ... çe which Abraham a3ens hope bileuede in to hope."
In these it plainly appears that the early Wycliffe version was the first English Bible to mark added words in this way, though some have given that place to the Geneva New Testament. And so great a scholar as F. H. A. Scrivener affirms that "The practice of indicating by a variation of type such words in a translation of the Bible as have no exact representatives in the original is believed to have been first employed by Sebastian Munster in his Latin version of the Old Testament published in 1534."[x] But we have shown that the Wycliffe Bible employed the practice a century and a half earlier, though of course no "type" was used, and though Wycliffe's original was the Vulgate. Wycliffe used the same practice in the Scripture renditions in his English sermons.
The glosses in the early version are very plentiful, and most of them are simply definitions or explanations of words, introduced with "that is," or alternate translations, introduced with "or" (or "either," which then meant "or"). A few are exposition. A sampling of these glosses follows:
Mark 4:4----"briddis of heuene, or of êe eire." (That is, "birds of heaven, or of the air.")
Mark 4:17----"but êei ben temporal, êat is, lasten a lityl tyme."
Mark 10:45----"and 3yue his soule, or lyf, redempcioun, or a3en biyng." "A3en biyng" is "again-buying," that is, buying back.
Mark 15:13----"And êei eftsoone crieden, Crucifie hym, or put hym on êe cros."
John 1:1----"In the bigynnynge was the word, êat is, Goddis sone."
Romans 12:2----"And nyle 3e be confoormed, or maad lyk, to êis world."
Romans 12:19----"not defendynge, or vengynge, 3ou silf, but 3yue 3e place to ire, or wraêêe."
I Cor. 1:10----"scismes, or dyuysiouns, dissenciouns, or discordis."
Hebrews 12:7----"What sone is it, whom the fadir schal not reproue, or chastyse?"
Rev 15:4----"for êou aloone art piteous, or merciful."
The later Wycliffe version is a revision of the earlier. It uses italics throughout, but not consistently. The Old Testament has frequent explanatory glosses, but these are abandoned in the New Testament, and in fact the glosses of the earlier New Testament are often adopted into the text. Words are added for clarity throughout both Testaments, and these are italicized.
To speak first of the glosses, some of these are alternate translations (introduced with "or"), some are definitions or explanations of hard words (introduced with "that is"), and some even exposition or application, and even spiritualizing (see Deut. 32:10 below), such as was later put into the marginal notes of Tyndale's Pentateuch, the Geneva Bible, or the Scofield Reference Bible. A sampling of those in the Old Testament follows:
Gen. 2:12----"delium, êat is, a tree of spicerie."
Ex. 8:16----"litle flies, eêer gnattis."
Ex. 17:13----"in êe mouê of swerd, êat is, bi êe scharpnesse of êe swerd."
Ex. 22:8----"êe lord of êe hows schal be brou3t to goddis, êat is, iugis." ("Iugis" is "judges.")
Deut. 4:7----"Noon oêer nacioun is so greet, not in noumbre eêer in bodili quantite, but in dignite."
Deut. 4:26----"Y clepe witnesses to dai heuene and erêe, êat is, ech resonable creature beynge in heuene and in erêe." "Clepe" is "call." The same expression in Deut. 30:19 is glossed, "êat is, aungels and men."
Deut. 14:5----"a camelioun, êat is, a beeste lijk in the heed to a camel, and haê white spottis in êe bodi as a parde, and is lijk an hors in êe necke, and in the feet is lijc a wilde oxe."
Deut. 32:10----"a deseert lond, êat is, priued of Goddis religioun." "Priued" is "deprived."
Judges 8:33----"Forsoêe aftir êat Gedeon was deed, the sones of Israel turneden awey fro Goddis religioun, and diden fornycacioun, êat is, idolatrie, wiê Baalym."
While some of these glosses are very useful, most of them are unnecessary, and some of them had been by all means best omitted. The translator himself evidently perceived this, and did well to drop the glosses in the New Testament. The later Wycliffe Bible is generally careful to italicize added words throughout, and rather than giving a mere list of examples, I give a comparison of the earlier and later Wycliffe versions, in which the advantage of the practice will plainly appear.
Earlier Version
to an alyen puple he shal not haue power of sillyng. Ex. 21:8.
And he shal loue êee, and multiplie, and he shal blesse to êe fruyt of êi wombe, [&c.]. Dt. 7:13.
whom êei biholden to be ry3twyse, to hym the palme of ri3twisnes êei shulen 3yue, whom wickid, êei shulen condempne of wickidnes. Dt. 25:1.
And eche moost strong, whos is êe herte as of a lioun, shal be feblid for drede. II Sam. 17:10.
Forsoêe Y êe Lord êi God, of êe lond of Egypt. Hos. 13:4.
Later Version
he schal not haue power to sille hir to an alien puple.
And he schal loue êee, and schal multiplie êee, and he schal blesse êe fruyt of êi wombe, [&c.].
êei schulen 3yue êe victorie of ri3tfulnesse to him, whom êei perseyuen to be iust, êei schulen condempne hym of wickidnesse, whom êei perseyuen to be wickid.
And ech strongeste man, whos herte is as êe herte of a lioun, schal be discoumfortid for drede.
Forsoêe Y am êi Lord God, êat ledde êe fro êe loond of Egipt.
William Tyndale had probably never seen the Wycliffe version, and he used no italics in his New Testament. Neither did Coverdale, nor Matthew, nor Taverner. The Great Bible used them as rehearsed above, to mark textual variations, but not to mark words added by the translator. I believe the first to make a beginning in this direction was the printer Richard Jugge, in his edition of Tyndale's New Testament published in 1552. Besides making a few alterations in Tyndale's language, and adopting certain readings from the Great Bible, Jugge also set a number of the more important added words in parentheses and in small, raised italics, thus:
For it pleased (the father) that in hym shoulde all fulnes dwell.
The utility of italics will plainly appear in an example like this, for so important an addition as this had stood at Col. 1:19 in the former editions of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, and the Great Bible on the same footing as the rest of the text, as though it were a part of the inspired original. It appears also here that Jugge's edition of Tyndale was the first English version to use actual italic type for the purpose of marking such additions. This was perhaps an afterthought with him, as I can find no instances of it in the Gospels or the Acts, the first instance I have observed being in the first chapter of Romans. Jugge once used a similar shift, accompanied by a marginal note, to mark a textual variant, at John 8:9, which he exhibits thus:
And as sone as they hearde that (Beynge accused by their ovvne conscience) they wente oute one by one, the eldeste firste.
A few further examples of Jugge's italics are:
Rom. 1:13----"to haue some frute also amonge you, as (I haue) amonge other of the Gentyls."
I Cor. 3:5----"euen as the Lorde gaue euery man (grace)."
I Cor 13:3----"though I bestowe all my goodes (to fede the poore)."
Gal. 1:16----"I commened not (of the matter) with fleshe and bloud."
Heb. 5:5----"Christe glorifyed not hym selfe, to be made the hye prieste: but he that sayde vnto hym: thou arte my sonne, thys daye begat I thee (glorified him)."
Jugge did not add any of these words. He was not translating, but editing. All of these words stood in Tyndale's former editions. Jugge only italicized them, to mark them as not being in the Greek. Five years later, in 1557, his edition was used as the basis of the Geneva New Testament. That version followed his example in the use of italics, informing the reader in the preface, "And because the Hebrewe and Greke phrases, which are strange to rendre in other tongues, and also short, shulde not be to harde, I haue sometyme interpreted them without any whit diminishing the grace of the sense, as our langage doth vse them, and sometyme haue put to that worde, which lacking made the sentence obscure, but haue set it in sych letters as may easely be discerned from the common text." The translator had also before him the example of Theodore Beza (a man of great influence), who used italics for the same purpose in his Latin version of the New Testament, published at Geneva in 1556.
The Geneva New Testament expanded the practice far beyond what appeared in Jugge's edition of Tyndale, and was indeed rather too free in adding words, but so much the better that they should be put in italics. And here I may remark in passing that an apparent disadvantage of the practice of distinguishing added words by different type may be that it increases the temptation to add such words, where they are certainly unnecessary. This propensity appears in the later Wycliffe Bible, as well as in the Geneva New Testament. Many of the italicized words of the Geneva New Testament are wholly absent from the King James Version, with no loss of clarity. A sampling from the Geneva New Testament follows:
Rom. 2:28----"For he is not a Iewe, wc is a Iewe onely outwarde: nether is that Circumcision, wc is onely outward in the fleshe."
Rom. 9:16----"So lieth election then not in him that willeth, or runneth, but in God that pitieth."
I Cor. 9:20----"to them that are vnder the Lawe, as thogh I were vnder the Lawe."
Phil. 3:19----"Whose ende is damnation, whose God is their bely, and whose glorie is to their shame."
Col. 2:19----"encreaseth with the increasyng that commeth of God."
Col. 3:14----"And aboue all these thinges put on loue."
I Thes. 4:8----"He therfore that despiceth these things, despiceth not man, but God."
Philemon 19----"I Paul haue wrytten this with myne owne hande."
Heb. 7:28----"but the worde of the othe that came synce the Lawe maketh the Sonne Priest, who is perfect for euermore."
The reader will doubtless recognize in these examples the same sort of words which are italicized in our present King James Bibles. The Geneva Bible, which followed three years later in 1560, used the same sort of italics, extending the practice also throughout the Old Testament. These versions were the first to be printed in Roman type, and they used actual italics for the inserted words. The Bishops' Bible (1568) followed the same practice. The Bishops' Bible, however, was not printed in Roman type, but in "black letter," or old English type, and the added words were designated as follows (I Cor. 12:17 & 24):
Jf all [were] hearyng, where were the smellyng?
and hath geuen the more honour to that [part] which lacked.
The Bishops' Bible also contained an occasional gloss in the text, after the manner of the Wycliffe Bibles. Thus in Hos. 1:9, "Then sayd he, Call his name Loammi [that is, not my people]: for ye are not my people, therefore I wyll not be your [God.]" Such glosses were reserved for the margin in the Geneva and King James Versions.
The King James Version continued the use of italics. It was also originally printed in "black letter," and did not use actual italics, but designated the added words by small, raised Roman type, thus:
and her happe was to light on a part of the fielde belonging vnto Boaz, who was of the kinred of Elimelech. (Ruth 2:3).
That men may knowe, that thou, whose name alone is JEHOUAH: art the most High ouer all the earth. (Ps. 83:18).
This same format (black letter, with small raised Roman type) had been used in the Bishops' Bible in 1568, not for added words, but wherever the word "Selah" appeared. This was abandoned in the 1572 printing, and "Selah" printed in the same type as the rest of the text.
The 1611 Bible was far from consistent in its use of italics, and many of the italics which now appear in our Bibles were added in later printings. A few examples follow, showing added words which are italicized in our Bibles today, which were not so in the original edition:
Gen. 1:27----"So God created man in his own image."
Gen. 25:23----"and the one people shall be stronger than the other people."
Lev. 24:ll----"And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the LORD, and cursed."
Deut. 16:10----"a free-will offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the LORD thy God."
Mark 10:40----"but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared."
Luke 5:18----"and they sought means to bring him in."
Luke 19:22----"thou wicked servant."
I Pet. 4:11----"If any man minster, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth."
In many instances the added words were only partially italicized in 1611. To take one example only, where we read in I Pet. 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian," the original edition read, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian."
Revisions of the italics in the Bible were effected in the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and by Paris's edition of 1762 and Blayney's of 1769, yet the italics in our modern Bibles are neither correct nor consistent. A few examples must suffice:
In I Tim. 6:19, "Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come," the word "time" should certainly be in italics, for however it may be supposed to be understood, it is certainly not expressed in the Greek. The same expression is translated "that which is to come" in I Tim 4:8, in "having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come," where if any word were to be supplied it would certainly be "life," not "time." The same again in Eph. 1:21, "not only in this world, but also in that which is to come," where if any word were to be supplied, it would certainly be "world." The Greek expression is simply and literally "the coming," and may refer to the coming anything, according to the context.
So likewise ought the word "time" to be in italics in James 4:14. Our life, we are told, is "a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." Yet the Greek says only "appeareth for a little." The same is true again in "he must continue a short space" in Rev. 17:10. "Space" ought to be in italics. The Greek for both "a little time" and "a short space" is Jv, which of itself certainly does not mean "a little time." This is proved by the fact that it is twice used in the Greek New Testament with another word for time added, namely in Rev. 12:12 and Acts 14:28 (where "long time" is literally "not a little time").
More recent versions have continued the practice of italicizing added words, so long as the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures has been cherished, and so long as any pretence has been made of literally translating them. Where these things are given up, there is no more reason to use italics, and their use has been discontinued in such versions as the RSV and the NIV. Not knowing the translators of the NIV, we will not affirm that they do not hold the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, but the version itself (and not only in its abandonment of italics) is ample evidence that they had no proper sense of the meaning or importance of the doctrine. If that version were printed with the added words indicated by italics, the places where certain words of the original are dropped and not translated at all indicated by ***, and those words which are rather PARAPHRASED than TRANSLATED indicated by SMALL CAPITALS the version would look something like this sentence.
1 A full account of this, with several facsimiles, may be seen in the Sept., 1993, issue of
Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks.
2 Ms. Bodleian 959, designated E in Forshall and Madden's edition of the Wycliffe Bibke.
3 The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its Subsequent reprints, and Modern Representatives, by F. H. A. Scrivener; Cambridge: at the University Press, 1884, pg. 61. 
www.tapatalk.com