For my part, when I first learned about italics in the Bible it helped me to understand that there were more things going on with language than I expected. They didn’t exactly help me better understand a specific passage, but it gave me an overall bigger idea of what was behind the Bible. It also helped encourage a desire to learn the original languages (which is a journey I’m hoping to find time for).
I concur that italics in my kjv helped me to understand the complex nature of translation, which eventually led me to soften my stance on things and realize that there isn’t a single flawless translation. I only wish that I wasn’t in a position that every church within an hour’s drive was kjv only. I actually visited a church where a visitor quoted their bible and said “please don’t shoot me, I’m reading from NLT.” That’s how ingrained it is to the culture here.
I know I'm not neutral here because I have studied Greek and Hebrew, but I like italics for interpretive decisions. I agree that using italics for implied words is unnecessary and confusing, particularly if the practice of implied subjects/verbs is clear in the original language. But there are a number of passages where the preposition is unclear, or the implied noun could be taken two ways (in the place of or as; young widows or young women; evil men or silly women; etc.) In those cases, I like to know that the translators are making a judgment call. This is more than appreciating their care in translation. This allows me to think more closely about the text. But this may be the minority of uses.
This is good. I don’t disagree! You are the target audience for italics. You can use them responsibly. They are shorthand letting you know to study further. You can often guess what they’re doing without even seeing the Greek, I’ll bet.
The problem with both the classic use of italics in Bibles and this idea, in my opinion, is that they both directly contradict the standard use of italics to highlight something more important by overly emphasizing something either, in a sense, less important or more questionable. I wish there were a better means of indicating such passages.
Thank you, @Mark Ward , for your careful and gracious shepherding and teaching how to read God’s Word in our Bibles with greater understanding, avoiding obstacles and hurdles we may not have realized were there. I learn something from every video and you make it fun. Anyone beside me binge-watching Mark Ward's previous videos? "Why Bible Typography Matters" is my favorite. And so is "Noah Webster is On My Side!"
Ah! Thank you, Steve! What you can't know-but I'm going to tell you-is that I attended my church in Greenville for 18 years, was a member for 17, got a B.A. in Bible while there, got an M.A. in Bible while there, and finally got a Ph.D. in New Testament while there. But I never got to preach from the pulpit! I'm not upset or disaffected, not at all; I will never repay the debt I owe to that church. But I did sense at some point before Jan 2015 that I needed to finally just ask-so I asked my mentor there if I could take the whole-church adult Sunday school we did for a month every year. I asked for just one lecture. That was it. I never worked harder on any lecture/lesson/sermon. I actually practiced it out loud multiple times, including before an audience of designers at BJU Press. It was a love letter to that church. And the Lord moved me on to Logos Bible Software shortly thereafter. I've always been grateful that I got to "preach" from that pulpit at least once!
Thank you, once again, Mark. A real blue touch paper lighter looking at the comments so far! Having pretty much settled on the NKJV as my translation of choice, but still referring to the NASB, NIV, KJV, ESV and others, I have found italicised text to be helpful. I sometimes like to reread passages with and then without the italicised words, as it helps me to contextualise and better understand the translators making sense of the original languages in their presentation of those languages into English and their subsequent choices/decisions. When I lived in Cyprus, I would often preach and teach in a local Greek Cypriot church and a few dear brothers with excellent English skills would translate into Greek (bizarre twist really). I would often notice in the early days how sometimes I would say something that I perceived to be simple and straightforward and they would pause and think long and hard about how to translate. They might say far more than I did, in terms of numbers of words, because they were supplying words to make sense of my UK English to the Greek-speaking hearers. I should point out that most of the congregation were brilliantly bilingual, but some non-English speakers for whom Greek was their first or second language needed the translation. I suppose that had my sermons or teachings been transcribed from the Greek translations, then those additional words might have been italicised to show that the translators had added them to make sense of my English. In addition, there was inevitably a fair amount of interpretation, as I might unthinkingly and unhelpfully use a UK English idiom that simply didn't translate. Nevertheless, I trusted my brothers to do the right thing and not misrepresent me. I once heard that translators of the Bible working amongst the Kenyan Maasai had difficulty translating Isaiah 1:18, because the Maasai had never seen snow. Rather than leave it to the people to figure out what this meteorological phenomenon meant, they used the word 'milk' instead - a word that was familiar and highly valued in the culture. I speculate that maybe a Maasai scholar might request that the word 'milk' be italicised with a footnote given, but they probably didn't much care. When I was a young believer, God spoke clearly to me through my Bible - it happened to be a 1984 NIV - and I was blissfully unaware of the translation spectrum, underlying texts, blah, blah, blah. I have to remind myself that we are not saved through our Bibles (regardless of translation) and neither are we sanctified, justified or preserved by them. In John 5:39 Jesus' words remind His hearers that the Scriptures serve to bear witness to Him. He is our saviour, sanctifier, justifier and preserver. If our reading of Scripture (regardless of translation) is not bearing witness to Him, then what are we doing? Italics or no italics... TR or CT... KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, CSB, NLT or NIV... and any translation onlyism... meaningless, meaningless, vanity of vanities, vapour of vapours...
Where we are in Mexico the closest we get the word “welp” is “bueno” we can use it in the same way we would use “welp” however it’s not an exact translation.
Let me make sure that I understand what you're saying. You're saying that it's fine for translators to put in "extra words" (words not in the original language of the source transcript) as long as those words do help people understand the sentence in the language they're reading it in. You're just saying that those words should not be shown in _italics._ I'll note that some pastors are much better at explaining the words-in-italics than others. My pastor never told us that those were words we shouldn't "trust". He described them as words that translators needed to put there so that the sentence makes sense in our language. That's a sentence that he'd say maybe once a month. That's all it takes, IMO. He'd also sometimes note how the sentence reads without those extra words, just to show us that a strict translation from the Greek or Hebrew would sound really odd to our ears. So I'd say that the problem is not with the *italics,* it's with pastors who say that those italics mean that the translation cannot be trusted. And if a pastor wants to say that from the pulpit, then the issue is not whether the extra words are in italics or not. The issue is that the pastor is willing to state "Don't trust your bible!".
Since we're talking about fine distinctions here, about technicalities, I think that how your pastor said it was very defensible given his audience-but that it was not technically accurate. The words were not "added." They are necessary for translation. The only way they can be said to be "added" is if one word in the Hebrew/Greek somehow has to match one word in the English/French/Urdu translation. And that's just not the case. It can never be the case. Does that make sense?
@@markwardonwords - It would be inaccurate to think that my comment was an exact quote of what my pastor said. And in any case I'm sure he worded it differently in different sermons. The point is not _"did my pastor say 'added'?",_ the point is that my pastor never said or even implied _"... and therefore we cannot trust this bible"._ This is another case where maybe we should zoom out a little instead of focusing on exact words! 🙂
This is what I learned before I had any ability in Hebrew or Greek. I learned that "ADDED WORDS" the translators added are usually needed. I for 5 months skipped the supplied words. And found that if I could understand I understood BY ADDING the same or similar words. So yes EVERY thing you said is right on.
Your second point is very good. I always read the NLT and I don't believe there was italics in the NLT. But before I got into apologetics I admit, I would've just assumed it meant "emphasis". Hey, who knows, maybe there is italics in NLT and the only reason I'm not aware is because I had always assumed it meant emphasis lol
Great video as always! I've come to prefer translations without italics, but agree that is good for some translations such as the NASB to keep them. In defense of italics, I have occasionally been able to use them to show someone that the translators were providing a particular interpretation of the text, but not the only interpretation of the text. I was able to do this with the italicized "to lead us" in Gal. 3:24 (NASB), for example.
Thank you, I've been concerned about this for some time and have found that often, as you mentioned, italics are unnecessary and sometimes misleading. A good example is Christ's arrest. In John he asked, Whom do you seek? And when they told him, he said "I am he" but the "he" has been added by the translators. However without the "he" Jesus was saying, "I AM", a totally different distinction.
In a 2020 interview, Don Wilkins of the Lockman Foundation lamented the use of italic font in the NASB because it incorrectly suggests emphasis rather than a lack of emphasis, but he felt that there should be something in the text to indicate the supplied words. (He seemingly preferred brackets, though that option would be even more intrusive.) There is some value in italics for _especially interpretive_ supplied words. A footnote can help to indicate a place where interpretations differ, but readers may overlook the superscripts more easily than they will the italics. I think of the pre-2020 NASB in 1 Corinthians 7.36-38, where "virgin" was understood to mean "virgin daughter" by the committee. I wouldn't want _daughter_ in the text with nothing to point out that it is an addition to the text. (That said, I think the 2020 edition did even better by dropping the interpretive supplied word and relying completely on footnotes to communicate the different possible relationships between the man and the virgin.)
I love footnotes. I don't think a Bibke translation should exist without them. This is variants and explanations should be place and not in the text itself. It doesn't necessarily have to have the multitude of footnotes that the NET Bible has, but sufficient enough so that the reader can know what is going on. Manuscript variants, translator choices and other nuances should be footnoted in a Bible. All translations have them, but there are instances where explanatory footnotes would have been a good idea. I like what the ESV does when the add the footnote to notify you when the word "you" is being used as a singular or plural pronoun. I also love their footnotes on manuscript usage although there are places where this is lacking. Italics always has me emphasing when this was not the purpose of it.
@@edwardgraham9443 I would prefer a more subtle alternative to italics in the NASB, for sure. I would suggest that 2K Denmark develop a font family for the translation that has both a serif and sans serif variant. The two variants could be similar enough that they wouldn't impede casual reading, but the subtle differences (including, but not necessarily limited to, the presence or absence of serifs) could clue in readers that certain words are supplied by the translators.
@@MAMoreno That is not a bad idea. Anything that would both show supplied words yet not causing the reading to something else other than what the translators intended would be a great idea.
Most of my bibles have some type of times new Romanesque font. I wonder if switching to a sans serif text would be better than italics, or if it would just be distracting to the eye? I appreciate the italics as the translators’ effort to be completely transparent with the readers, but I have found myself more than once accidentally emphasizing the words, if the emphasis flows with the sentence, when reading aloud to my kids.
I've made that suggestion as well, but the typeface would have to be designed to meet this need. The shift has to be recognizable without being distracting.
Great video. Interesting. Quick look and it looks like the NKJV changed "measures" (KJV) to "ephahs". This seems to be an odd choice because of its precision when the text is not precise.
On your second good point, Amplified places some supplied words in square brackets. I looked at Ruth 3, I found that "measures/ephahs" weren't put in square brackets. But it does put other words that way suggesting that the square brackets are words supplied by Amplified that other translators may not include. For instance, it did "[last night]" at the end of Ruth 3:14 as the NIV, KJV, The Message, and others I didn't check don't include those words.
The Defined KJB is a big step in the right direction. But it is also an argument against the continued use of the KJV in institutional contexts. Why not just put the modern equivalents in the text? And it’s terribly, terribly typographically ugly. :/
Thomas Nelson kjv reference bible, Defined King James, TBS Westminster, KJVer, Rock Of Ages study bible are good at explaining most archaic words but they still miss some archaic words, so it is better to read the kjv in parallel with the free kjv verse by verse commentaries easily found on the internet. If evangelical, there are many free kjv evangelical comprehensive commentaries such as Keil and Delitzsch for OT, henry alford new testament for english readers for NT. These evangelical commentators were probably believers in the critical text like Henry Alford does take note of differences with the critical text in the footnotes of his kjv commentary, and he was in favor of a new translation like RV based on the critical texts. If fundamentalist, older free kjv commentaries from the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, might be acceptable.
@@markwardonwords I have seen videos of kjv only believers who believe kjv is a new revelation so these type of kjv only believers oppose any changes to the text of the kjv. Some also count the english words or english letters of the kjv as revealing some secret revelations. Not really sure how numerology superstitions entered the christian religion.
Revisions of the kjv tend to leave many archaic words unchanged such as gen 4 v5 countenance which was not changed in nkjv and mev. The latest minor update SKJV (simplified kjv from barbour) does not update lots of archaic words so it is useless. KJ21 also does not update most archaic words but it does retain thee, thine, thou, ye, which some fundamentalists want to be retained. Instead of only relying on nkjv and mev to detect all false friends, should also look at free kjv verse by verse commentaries easily found on the internet, or look at easy to read modern translations like New Century Version, Good News Translation, New Century Version, etc.
Another enjoyable video... From my experience, most people that read a bible with italics don’t even take notice of them. I indeed notice them, at least, rarely. If I give them thought, it might be something like; “Ah, I see why they inserted that word/phrase” (typically to make the reading more pleasing to our “English ears” though sometimes it’s to make the writer’s thoughts a little more clearly comprehensible) and generally read on. I must say (and I’m not a KJV onlyist) Luke 21:8 inserts a helpfully added, italicized word into the text; “Christ” in that verse. Ultimately, I just prefer to know when/if words or phrases are added, regardless of rhyme or reason. NWT has Ruth 3:15 as “six measures” and a footnote that says; “Possibly six seah measures, or about 44 L (40 dry qt). See app.....” Would the KJV be continuously obliged to italicize the word “a” since Greek doesn’t have an indefinite article? I can't help but notice something rather petty if anything, but caught my ear; You say "an one" instead of "a one." Since "one" actually starts out with a consonant sound "W" would it still be grammatically acceptable to say "a one"? Reminiscent of "an history" or "a history." Just curious... :)
The ASV, CEB, CSB, ESV, KJV, LEB, NAB, NASB, NEB, NIV, NJB, LEB, MEV, NRSV, and RSV also say "measures." The NKJV is the odd one out for trying to supply a precise ancient measurement. The GNB, NET, and NIRV agree with the NWT's footnote and offer the weight as approximately "fifty" (GNB, NIRV) or "sixty" (NET) pounds.
Love your channel and almost always agree with you …. Until now! I love the italics and love them pointing out those added words to let me know. Keep up the great work!
As someone who reads his Bible in Hebrew italicized words in English bibles are great, help me to understand which words I stumble upon and need to research. I agree with point 3, italics really are not the best way to illustrate this, you mentioned the font difference in the old KJV, well I got another solution. In my ELB (revediert) German Bible instead of italics the translators used brackets such as these < > to bracket these words. It's good that it's different from the usual square brackets [ ] used for words found in later manuscripts.
In some Chinese bibles, an underline is used to indicate that something is the name of a place, person, etc. It avoids any possible incorrect parsing of the text. However, this is actually a standard (but rare) practice in Chinese.
See, I completely disagree. Italics help us know what has been added to help us understand. One of the things I don’t like about the ESV is that you don’t know what they added to help us.
But these are actually implied in the Hebrew and a person reading the Hebrew would actually understand it that way. It's the difference between language. Being bylingual helps you to understand this.
I do believe there are instances where the words added provide one of two or more interpretations of what is implied, not just the only possible interpretation of what is implied. Having that kind of transparency is certainly of benefit for more than biblical language students. I get his points, but this is an over-reaction that exaggerates the problems with italics. Sure, when adding implied pronouns and linking verbs, italics might seem redundant. But there are many examples where a lot more is added that is not necessarily clearly implied in the original languages, and this video does not interact with this at all. Strawman comes to mind...
A modern day translation example for you. In American English I've seen phrases like "May I have your permission to write Anne". In the UK this is not a good sentence. It needs a word added: "May I have your permission to write to Anne". So the translator could italicise the extra "to" showing that it was not in the original but was added to improve the translation. (Also we do use the word "well" when getting up to leave the house.)
This is fantastic thank you! I like the italics, but mostly because I’ve been trawling through BDAG and trying to (very basically) learn some Koine Greek and learning some basic language - and I like it purely for that reason. It’s like a wee cheat sheet help when my brain is not playing ball! Thanks for all your videos! Really very much appreciated x Ps. Found it hilarious when you emphasised the italics - made me giggle a fair amount!
This video is worth it just for the HP references =) Now I know definitively how to levitate objects, in addition to how italics can be both helpful and harmful. I never took the time to think through the costs and benefits of this translation tradition, but I see how people can stumble because of it. In my own study, I never paid much attention to the italics in the KJV. When I learned what they meant, I took them at face value. When you understand the practice of translation requires the addition or omission of certain words and phrases to become intelligible in the target language, you cease to be offended or bothered by such petty grievances. It seems like those who strain at the gnats of italics in English Bibles either don't understand the nature of translation or they don't understand the nature of inspiration (the notion of "magical words" in the Bible).
@@markwardonwords "I have undertaken to translate the Bible into German. This was good for me; otherwise I might have died in the mistaken notion that I was a learned fellow." Martin Luther
Thank you for this! I typically read ESV and while I have considered reading thru in the NKJV or NASB, I never have because I am concerned about the effects the italics will have on my psyche (introducing even subtle doubts). I see that there’s a reader’s NKJV that doesn’t have the italics so I might try that one at some point.
Do you prefer the HCSB practice of putting added words in [brackets] rather than using italics? I like the use of italics [or brackets] in a Bible because they let me know which are the additional words that the translator added (and not because I am suspicious of the translator). The italics [or brackets] just inform me as to which words the translator believed were 'necessary' to be added in English in order to make the sentence understandable [which is useful to readers who do not understand Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew].
Maybe even more clear, "How tall are you?" "Five, Ten." At least in US/CAN, almost everyone would know exactly what you are saying. Either way, great clarification of italics use in bibles.
"Welp" could correspond to "bueno" which is "good". "Welp, I'm leaving." "Bueno, me voy." Obviously in this sense "bueno" means "good" as much as "welp" means "well"
At 6:30, I noticed you quoted from Psalm 14:1 KJV I'm not sure that you noticed it, you might have very well done that after uploading the video. I saw that you got the correct chapter and verse number, but you mixed the book of Psalms with Proverbs. Trust me, that has happened to me so many times, so I understand where you are coming from. Overall this video is very helpful for educational purposes and I encourage you to keep up the good work, brother
My main problem with italics is that I find myself wanting to put emphasis on the italic words because that's the way they are usually used in contemporary writings. I find myself accidentally doing it occasionally while reading the Bible aloud, and every single person I know from Monday night Bible studies occasionally make the same mistake despite knowing full well why the italics are actually there (meaning it's not a case of them being unaware of the purpose of the italics, but just plain muscle memory).
I appreciate the transparency of the translators putting them in there, but I find that they cast more doubt than anything to the person that takes notice of them to then be ill-advised on their purpose by someone that is just echoing an uninformed talking point.
An unchurched friend once told me she'd been reading the Bible and asked if I'd help explain it to her. As we sat down I noticed she had a KJV. That was my main version at the time, but I suggested finding another one with more up-to-date English. For some reason she declined (maybe she took it as a challenge?), so we plunged into Matthew. Someone else had already explained the "begats" to her. One of her first questions to me was "Why are they emphasizing all these words?" When I explained what the italics represented, she looked confused and responded, "Isn't that just how different languages work?" She certainly had a point. Do you know any of the history behind how we got from 1611's intuitive smaller, plainer typeface to today's confusing italics? I can't help thinking there must have been some point where it made more sense. After 10 seconds of racking my brain, the main place I can think of where the italics made a difference is John 1:17. I see someone else has already mentioned that. Overall, I can think of more examples of people thinking they were for emphasis than of times when they helped.
Good stuff. I don't know the history. I have a friend who may do some looking into it for me. “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17 KJV) Hmm. I think intuitive principles of parataxis take care of this one. =) That is, when we say, "I went to the store this afternoon. I got some cheese." Everybody knows that you intended a connection between the two ideas. Likewise, I think the "but" here is necessarily implied.
Fair enough. I think most people would agree there's a connection here, but differ on what it is. How one interprets the context, whether details like the meaning of χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος in v 16 or the bigger picture of God's relationship to His people throughout history, could influence what connection one sees. To use your example, consider two scenarios: 1. It's homemade pizza night. You promised you'd pick up ingredients. Your wife insisted on giving you a list, since the last two times you got groceries you forgot the cheese. When you arrive home, you tell her, "I went to the store this afternoon." Before she can ask, you add, "I got some cheese." 2. It's homemade pizza night. Your wife decided to go vegan a month ago. At first you went along in solidarity, but today, as you pass the dairy aisle, the thought of trying yet another soy-based substitute feels unbearable. You arrive home. Avoiding your wife's gaze, you confess, "I went to the store this afternoon. I got some cheese." In each scenario, the translator of your biography might chose different function words to convey what you meant. I'm with the theologians who see John 1:17 as cumulative rather than contrastive. But I don't have a PhD in NT interpretation =)
@@michaelhessii1866 Very good thinking. And don't feel you need to bow to a PhD! I admit to going off the top of my head and/or from my gut on this one. I haven't read up on what careful interpreters throughout history have said. I'm giving you my feel after years of reading the verse. I'd love to look into the commentary literature. Will file this idea away!
I agree that italics aren't necessary, but sometimes I like to read a passage without the italicized words just to see how well the meaning comes through. They like English (in different ways) have syntactic rules that allow one to omit what is implied in the context.
@markwardonwords - One place where I feel like italics are warranted would be in Leviticus 20:17 where I think "DIS" in "disgrace" should be in italics. The word חסד Chesed means "grace" and is always used as a positive thing - except in this verse where the context is very clearly that it should be something negative. We can't very well translate it into English here as a positive thing and the KJV (etc) renders it as being "a wicked thing". Rashi & Sifra indicate that the Chesed here hints towards the original kindness in allowing the children of Adam & Eve to marry each other. While probably true, it still seems like a very odd use to flip the word to mean just the opposite of what the word means everywhere else.
@@markwardonwords - You have access to more commentaries than I do I'm sure. Just skimming the limited set of commentaries on BibleHub (I don't own Logos), I'm not seeing anyone who makes note of the peculiar opposite use of Chesed. Of course, any commentator who is only looking at an English translation here is going to miss this oddity entirely. Did any translation committee ever leave behind comments on this passage I wonder? Ramban mentions that some commentators have connected Chesed here to the Aramaic word חִסוּדָא Chisuda which can mean "disgrace". Ramban dismisses that explanation, which make sense that he would. (Why would Moses in the midst of the 40 years in the Wilderness, suddenly lapse into an Aramaic meaning when Israel was still centuries away from using Aramaic?) Ramban takes Chesed to have its typical "kindness" meaning - that the passage is saying that the brother-sister relationship SHOULD be "kindness" to each other rather than falling into the brother abusing his sister in this manner. (I would draw a cross-reference to Amnon & Tamar, children of David, in 2nd Samuel 13). The brother should be a man of kindness, bringing good; but instead he becomes cruel by troubling his own sister. I like that explanation, though it demands that the reader come up with a great deal of expository ideas from the somewhat limited wording that is provided in the verse.
I use the Android Bible app and an intralinear Bible to figure out odd wording. And I don't have any background in Hebrew/Greek. I usually have to troubleshoot KJV oddities when prepping for Sunday school.. One time, there was an interesting NASB issue in Mt 14:13 - "about John." Only the more recent NASBs have it. The 1971 version doesn't. (Not even the KJV does that). It alters the whole context for what follows. In the previous section, Herod Antipas has heard of Jesus, and thinks John the Baptist has risen from the dead. Then, we get a flashback to the death of John the Baptist. BUT, is Matthew 14:13 referring to Jesus hearing about the death of John (meaning the flashback is still ongoing?) OR, has Jesus heard that Herod thinks he is John the Baptist? If the former, he goes to a secluded place, perhaps to mourn. If the latter, he goes to a secluded place to avoid Herod. Actually, I'm not sure which it means. I'm okay with the ambiguity, but the post 1995 NASB decides to make a decision about it.
translation always requires interpretation which is probably why jewish christians, orthodox, catholics, protestants, jehovah's witnesses, etc. all have their own translations. fundamentalists do not like evangelical translations, and similarly, evangelicals do not like liberal translations. I am not sure if there is a liberal youtuber telling evangelical churches to switch to liberal translations.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 oh, I'm not KJO. I use an ESV to teach Sunday School. But some of my students use different translations. This was an odd situation. I think the NASB errs on this word drop-- and it was the italics that illustrated it.
@@TurtleTrackin I am pretty sure you are not kjv only since pretty much only evangelicals use nasb, niv, esv, nlt (fundamentalists usually use kjv and liberals usually use ceb and nrsvue 2021). I have heard some fundamentalists say all of the nasb translators are satanic or some other very evil labels. Listening to how some fundamentalists put labels on evangelicals is pretty hilarious.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 indeed. It was a commentary that made me wonder. N.P. France's NT commentary. It doesn't address the translation. Just the context of the situation. And the question of "error" is a subjective one. The name drop "about John" supplies information that isn't there, but may be inferred. I think it was an error to do that.
I think the importance that many people seem to put on italics in the Bible goes back to E.W. Bullinger's book "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" in which he makes the case that such are evidences of a figure which he calls "Ellipsis" and he provides examples using A LOT of verses with explanations following that don't really make sense as to the meaning gleaned from reading the text without the italicized the word(s).
So, For me italics do two things 1. Inform me when there is elided information in Hebrew that's needed for English. But sometimes 2. They hint to me that the translators were inserting information that they are supplying by interpretation or from outside resources. The problem I see is the majority of italics are things that, while not stated explicitly in Hebrew, are very clear from context and needed in English. However, there are definitely places where the italicized insertions are interpretive. The problem is, people who don't have some Hebrew and/or Greek simply won't be able to tell between the two. That being said, I find italics to be annoying mainly because they hinder readability to me and as you point out, they don't follow our normal printed English conventions, if you like them fine, but like red letters, and capitalization of pronouns for deity, I don't care for them.
I used to think italics were necessary for a good formal translation until I studied Greek a little more and I don’t think they’ve helped me much. I now like that we have a formal equivalent translation, ESV, without the italics in it. It reads better and the text itself looks aesthetically more appealing to me. Plus when it’s thought wise to do so the ESV gives footnotes indicating a word or phrase is not in the original language truth implied or they’re exchanging a proper noun for a pronoun. It would be nice to have some KJVs and LSBs without italics. At least just make certain editions without them.
I don't think so; somehow it just doesn't mean the same thing. It's our closest equivalent, but as an interjection it just carries a different meaning, I'd say, than idou in Greek.
If italics tend to lead believers to distrust their Bibles, then do you also believe that translation notes (in certain translations) also lead to distrust? You usually make much good sense. But your arguments against italics in Bibles left me more puzzled than anything else. Why wouldn't a believer want more accurate info about God's Word? Perhaps I'm a purist, I don't know. But I like a Bible translation that uses italics, that capitalizes pronouns referring to deity, and that provides extensive translation notes--which is the reason that I don't like the ESV (although I concede that it is a good translation otherwise).
I wouldn't say that the italics necessarily lead to distrust; they *ought to* lead to trust, as I said. And I also did not call for the elimination of all italics from all Bibles. For purists like you, there's always the NASB! =) I think translation notes at least have the advantage of being somewhat understandable on their face to a lot of Christians. And I don't see these get misused much. I love translation notes; I love the NET Bible-have you seen that one?
I would love to hear your opinion on John 8:24 on “I am he” (he italicized in KJV) vs “I AM.” Especially since the point of this discourse leads up to Jesus declaring “before Abraham was, I AM!” “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”
I honestly can't do anything more than give the off-the-top-of-my-head answer right now, but I would say that is an elided copula and that the "I am" are utterly required.
Could you keep me in prayer? Because I've been dealing with some translation tribalism within my own heart for the longest time. I never did officially identify as a King James onlyist. But for the longest time if not half my life I would say I lean towards that way of thinking. I'll be more than happy to tell you the full story sometime but for now. I became so mentally attached and emotionally dependent on the King James Bible that when I came away from it it was like the floor right from beneath me disappeared and I fell right through the building on to the first story. I lost my common sense my passion my joy my energy and it was all replaced by anxiety mental and emotional turmoil depression and a not so sober mind. What's worse is that I didn't feel close to God anymore it was like I had to start my whole spiritual walk all over again. I knew how to intellectually pray but it was like I forgot how to emotionally pray. Eventually by God's grace it got settled in my mind that every good translation of the Bible says the same thing but unfortunately it's like I've been having to drag my heart Kicking and Screaming on board. It's affected me so much and I've gotten so upset over the issue that some folks and recommended that either go back to the King James Bible or go see a professional like psychiatrist in counselor type of professional. But neither one of those ideas made any since then and they don't make any sense now because well I know the King James Bible is not that hard to understand it's still not in my own language or in the language of the common people as the Bible was always meant to be and seeing a professional doesn't make any sense cuz one most of the so-called professionals are secularist hence why I don't trust them. And the ones that are Christians I'm not sure they'd understand what I'm going through. The good news is that God has helped settle most of my heart and mind about the matter but I still haven't fully gotten the joy and passion and the sober mind and energy I once had. I don't know what to do anymore. Cuz I've got all the answers I need I know all the facts I need to know I honestly don't know what's missing I honestly don't know why I'm not able to show the current Bible I have the same loyalty I once had for the King James Bible. So please. Be praying for me
Wow, Austin! My heart goes out to you! Do you have a good pastor, my brother? You do need personal pastoral care and support! Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, so don’t feel you must violate your conscience! But if you do, let the Spirit himself be the one to push you past the objections of your conscience. His words in Scripture must be the force that does this. Or it is not worth doing. I am praying for you now!
Thanks I appreciate that. And yes I did talk to my pastor. But unfortunately he doesn't have the wisdom in this any more than I do. The problem is I don't know what conviction my conscience is under. During my search for which Bible translation I should use as my main translation after I came away from the King James Bible. I got tired of thinking about it I got tired of searching I got tired of looking at the facts so finally one day I just prayed and asked God what translation he would have me use. I wake up the next morning and the first thing on my mind with the New American Standard Bible. Although I was reluctant to give The New American Standard Bible a try I did and I liked it but unfortunately I still don't have the same he's in the same sense of loyalty if I did with the King James Bible and I'm still going through a lot of mental and emotional turmoil not as much as I did before my new but I'm still going through it I still don't have all of my joy my passion and my energy back. So on one hand I feel drawn back to the King James Bible but on the other hey man I trusted God ask him to tell me what you would have me do and I wake up the next morning with the new American Standard on my mind. I don't know if that thought was from God I don't know if he caused it to happen I don't know if he allowed it to happen all I know is that when it happened God gave me the grace to trust him and pray to him. So at this point I don't know what direction I'm supposed to go. I pray to God I've talked to my pastor I've spoken to many other brothers in Christ from different denominations I might add. I don't know what to do. So definitely thank you for the prayers
I really hate to be a spammer. But given the fact that I have no means of contacting you except through comments on TH-cam. For a lot of folks in the King James only movement the King James Bible is more than just their Bible it's their creed it's the core of their doctrine and their belief system. Once you remove that or once they start coming away from that. What do you think they should or would put in its place, what would be the new creed and core of their belief system?
I would expect Christians to look to something like the Apostles' Creed if they need a written creed, but the adage, "We have no creed but Christ," is still to be preferred over, "We have no creed but King James Only," since Christ should be the center of our faith regardless of our adoption of formal written creeds. (And despite what I once heard a KJV-Only preacher say, the KJV is not Christ!) And to keep myself from spamming on more than one of your comments: you may consider continuing to use the KJV in addition to the NASB, especially for devotional reading and prayer time. You don't have to abandon one for the other if you are being edified by both. (That said, if you feel that continued use of the KJV would be unhealthy for you, then you should stick with your current approach of quitting it cold turkey.) I went from being in a KJV-Only congregation to a church with mixed translations, and the NASB was the first non-KJV Bible that I owned, too. I grew to appreciate its unique features that the KJV didn't offer, even if the KJV had its own strengths against the NASB. And then I found other translations with their own strengths, and I've grown to make use of them for their most suitable purposes--without ever throwing the KJV off my bookshelf. Every (reliable) translation that can bring out a different nuance of the original texts is a helpful resource. You can have a primary version for study (e.g. the NASB) and then some other versions for specific uses, such as devotionals (e.g. the KJV) and extended reading (e.g. the CSB). I'm not saying that you need 50 translations on your shelf, but you may feel less distressed about using something besides the KJV if you use two or three different translations as specific tools for specific jobs. The problem with the KJV-Only movement is not that it encourages people to use the KJV, but that it scares people away from using modern translations and pushes them to obsess over one translation as if it were more than just a translation.
@@MAMoreno what about " no creed but the Bible", do you think that's a good one ? Because when I lean towards King James only ism. That's what I would go with. I'm thinking I should still go with it just with a different perspective and a different understanding of it in mind
Not a Greek student, but I thought this was illuminating (maybe I misunderstood): in John 18.5 (and some other places in John), Jesus said "I am," with "he" being italicized. I figured that was one of His clear claims to deity?
you use "bueno... (small pause)". Example: Bueno.... hora de irnos. In South America but not all Spanish countries 😆 bueno can also be use as an interjection.
Using Spanish further, to ask someone, who speaks Spanish, their name, you say, “Como se llama?” Word by word, is that “how you called?” I would reply, “me llamo Steve” to which I believe the polite response is “much gusto” which an English speaker can probably spot is the equivalent of “much pleasure” however nobody says that in English; the polite way to say it in English is “nice to meet you.” “Much pleasure” and “nice to meet you” have no words in common, no overlap. Which words would be italicized?
I agree that the use of italics is not that helpful for the most part if the translation is just revealing what is implicit in the text. I think the most valuable use of italics is in those instances in which a Hebrew/Greek word can have a variety of possible meanings and each interpretation requires a different set of supplied words to complete the idiomatic expression. A great example is Psalm 16:2. The ESV says, "I have no good apart from you". The KJV says "my goodness extendeth not to thee (with "extendeth" in italics)". The issue here is that this portion contains the word "עָלֶֽיךָ (ale-ka)" which is the preposition "al" with the pronominal suffix "ka (you)". "al" could mean "about" or "above", depending on context. An English-speaker might wonder how the same word could mean both "about" or "above", but I think the closest English equivalent is the word "over". We can say, "I am flying over (above) the water". We can also say, "There is no point in arguing over (about) this subject". So Psalm 16:2 could be translated equally ambiguously in English as "My goodness is not over you", which could mean either "My goodness is not about you" or "My goodness is not above you". The former is the interpretation taken by some Rabbis and the KJV (the KJV basically saying that "my goodness" is not made available for "thee"). The latter is the interpretation taken by modern translations (the ESV basically saying that "my goodness" is inferior without "thee"). I do believe the KJV italics are helpful in this instance because it tells me that something debatable is happening with the translation and that the various translational differences are not due to underlying textual reasons. I think Psalm 16:2 is a great example also because the different interpretations can give rise to different Messianic applications of this Psalm (as is seen in various commentaries). So the signification of the italics is not trivial. That being said, the same information could be conveyed by footnotes with an alternative translation. However, this information placed within the text itself (via italics) could be more visually noticeable. Maybe the best compromise is to italicize or bracket not every supplied word but only those supplied words that are both debatable and highly consequential.
This is reasonable, for sure. As I'm coming to expect with you, Masao. Indeed, I'd just prefer a footnote here. What weight do you give to the countervailing factors, my friend? The fact that italics already have a meaning-namely, emphasis? The fact that the vast majority of them are unnecessary? Should they be used only when necessary? If so, then brackets already carry that meaning. But no one has had the guts to put them in a major Bible translation-aside from their use for a few passages with uncertain textual attestation.
@@markwardonwords I'm not so sure that italics always mean emphasis in today's writing. Otherwise, I jest that the NIV really really wants to emphasize the Longer Ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae (though I concede the NIV's use of the italics is more obvious from the immediate context with the accompanying textual notes). Italics are originally intended only to "draw attention". The purpose of drawing the attention could vary, such as drawing attention due to importance/emphasis or drawing attention due to uncertainty (as is the way used by the NIV translators from a textual viewpoint, as well as by the KJV translators from a translational viewpoint - and an anomalous use by the KJV translators from a textual viewpoint at 1 John 2:23b). But I grant that in popular usage, the use of the italics to draw attention for emphasis has become the predominant use. I do have a possible solution though. Interestingly, the original 1611 KJV renders 1 John 2:23b in smaller italics. All other italics in the 1611 KJV are kept the same size as the rest of the text. I think small italics could work to indicate controversial additions of words. Small font by itself can cause readers to wonder if their eyes are playing tricks on them. Italics alone could cause modern readers to think there is emphasis. But a combination of both can alleviate the countervailing factor you raise. I wouldn't prescribe this convention on everyone, but it does solve the problem for a translation that wants to maintain italics - except for old people with bad eye-sight. Ok, I give up.
Great video - loved your 3 +2 style - best of both worlds (see below, though, for a minor caveat) Superb introduction also to modern linguistic theory, i.e, words only having meaning within their respective contexts (clauses, phrases, sentences, etc) I do think, however, that you should have been more precise in your clarification of what the measure in Ruth was as ephahs are simply far far too much (contra NKJV) To quote the NET Bible, " Heb “and she gripped it tightly and he measured out six of barley and placed upon her.” The unit of measure is not indicated in the Hebrew text, although it would probably have been clear to the original hearers of the account. Six ephahs, the equivalent of 180-300 pounds, is clearly too heavy, especially if carried in a garment. Six omers (an omer being a tenth of an ephah) seems too little, since this would have amounted to six-tenths of an ephah, less than Ruth had gleaned in a single day (cf. 2:17). Thus a seah (one third of an ephah) may be in view here; six seahs would amount to two ephahs, about 60 pounds (27 kg). See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 222, and F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 178." In any case, while the Hebrew itself may not be clear the actual amount is far less 'up in the air' than you seem to intimate here NB: while you may have a point about the benefit of italics for original language study it has never been noted (in my research at least) on actual, specifically noted 'aids' for acquisition - do you know any articles that actually say as much? PS: O.L.S.H.A is awesome! Is that actually yours? If so, amazing, amazing, aiming!
Good call on the ephah. I read that but should have shared it! On your NB: No; I am working from logic and personal experience and not any kind of empirical observation-or anyone else's! O.L.S.H.A. is something I invented a few years back at Logos. =) Tongue-in-cheek! But still needed!
Mark, the only time italics have helped me was recognizing that “high places” in Ephesians 6 should have been translated “heavenly places” if the KJV translators had been consistent with their translation of ἐπουρανίοις throughout the Ephesian letter…which would make our war against the unseen (and not humans) make a good bit more sense.
Excellent. But, of course, your inclusion of Unicode Greek tells me that you are the kind of person I was talking about for whom italics can be useful: someone who already knows Greek. Right?
On the other hand, Psalm 127.2 in NASB says He gives to His beloved EVEN IN HIS sleep; NKJV omits that phrase. Two different meanings there. I guess that's one where you need to be a student of the original language?
I have found the italics to provide great insight into the language behind the translation. When people properly understand where they come from, they add depth to the readers understanding. I agree about preachers making a big deal of it from the pulpit. that does nothing but undermine trust in God's Word. I see italics as beneficial, or at least neutral, just as long as preachers refrain from making more of them than they actually are.
@@markwardonwords as I was reading the passages you used in your video (I paused and read them from Logos app on my phone, shameless plug) my thoughts were driven to the grammatical elements that lead to the need for supplying those words in order to create a readable translation. Without supplied words, the text would be choppy and difficult to read. The italized words are just a language crutch. Like in Ruth - God did not inspire a record of measurement of grain that was given. It would be inappropriate then (on so many levels) to emphasize the amount given beyond that it was significant. That thought is further supported in context when Ruth returns with it to Naomi. Naomi's response had everything to do with the substance of the gift, not the amount of it. I also have observed that many of the supplied words are pronouns or linking/helping verbs. But that is simple observation and not based on any dedicated study. Those words are often times implied in the original languages but are supplied in translation for readability. When reading the verse without italicized words (Ruth 3:15): "Also he said, Bring the vail that ... upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six ... of barley, and laid ... on her: and she went into the city." In this verse I am able to get the gist, but it is work. I understand the importance of supplying them and the italics. Knowing italicized words are, at some level, interpretive additions, allows me to ensure I don't over (or under) emphasize something. Your Psalm 14/53 video demonstrates the danger of that. Oh, and for what it's worth, I really don't understand the "readabilty" issue with italicized words. I had to read the verse four times when I pasted it to make sure I got all of the italicized words and I am still slightly worried that I missed one. When I read Scripture, I don't even notice them.
Although I haven't gained any insight from italics. I like them because as you know certain words and phrases that are not in the original languages might nevertheless be implied. Case in point in the original language the word brethren although a masculine term is referring to brothers and sisters not just brothers. So when Bibles like the nasb 2020 Edition adds the words and sisters but put them in italics I like that because they're trying to bring clarity to the text while at the same time admitting certain words are in the originals but are implied. While I understand that is doing interpretive or at least in the case of italics the translators are admitting that this is an interpretation. And in all honesty the csb had done that I would have stuck with it instead of switching over to the nasb 2020
Thank you for the video. I have heard the same comments from the pulpit and it only casts doubt on tbe non italic using translations as if they are not honest. But if the italics are not used consistently by the 1611 or other italic using translations does that mean they are not being honest? Obviously not. Scrivener in Section III of the introduction to The Cambridge Paragraph Bible that he edited discusses the use of italics in several Bible versions including the 1611. If I read Scrivener correctly the use of italics was so inconsistently used in the 1611 that they are almost useless and he would rather not have italicized words in his edition however he was cconstrained to do so. He is a little hard to read so maybe I am misunderstanding him. He does give a lot of examples that I checked out. He was a diligent scholar. I am working on a short explanation of why it's a bad argument to dismiss a translation because they don't use italics for words not in the orginal languages. Does "is" really need to be italicized? If you or someone else can point me to a paper on the subject I would appreciate it. Blessings to you!
I don’t have a paper to point you to, I’m afraid. I have to imagine someone has written on this at a formal, academic level. But with copulas (“is” and “are”) a paper isn’t necessary. It’s very clear that what Hebrew can leave out English often requires. “Is” is not “missing” from the Hebrew, and it is not “added” in the English. To say this is to assume that one word in Hebrew or Greek must always be reflected by one in English, and vice versa. And that’s just not how language works.
Isn’t ‘behold’ a shortened way of saying… ‘understand this’ at the beginning of a sentence? It isn’t needed, but; rather, added simply for the sake of it.
It's also a surprise word sometimes. The OT was produced in a context where it would be read aloud always always. "Behold! A child!" In exodus 2 for instance. It's always in the original text.
You could totally use "oh!" and "look!" if you want totally mainstream contemporary translations. I think Ward has a bit of excessive contempt for reading comprehension and something of a delusion about exact mapping between written and spoken languages in any era, though. Some conventions and sentence structures exist only in writing at ANY time, yet people get them fine. If people are barely literate, they should be free to choose NLT. That's fine. But pushing it because you assume that everyone is barely literate is ridiculous.
@@toomanymarys7355 He knows that he is being excessive with his views, but he explains that he only uses such excess to emphasise his points to a person who is excessive toward the other end of the scale… people who believe that ‘everybody MUST follow a particular prescription… bla bla bla’ In this instance… argument, if you like… I actually prefer the italics and bolding/drop caps that are used within text blocks of literature… but that is just me.
I know this is a little off-topic, but I do have a question for you. A Sunday school teacher at my now previous church, a KJV only man whom I shared one of your videos with, really was not too happy about it at all. He said that you believe that there is no perfect, errorless Bible anywhere. He also said that when you use the word “Bible” or “word of God” that you’re not being intellectually honest. He also said that you would hold to the belief that you have never seen the “word of God” a day in your life, I was surprised and disappointed at the harshness of his comments. We texted a little more, but that has been it. I have tried to reach out several times with a friendly text here and there, but I have been totally ghosted. I guess I am being shunned. Have you experienced this a whole lot? Although I am no longer attending there, I still do like to keep in touch with other brothers and sisters in Christ who still attend there. I am very thankful that others have continued to be kind, gracious and loving, but just saddened by someone I used to really enjoy discussing scripture with even outside of class, now is just a case of crickets.
I have heard this many, many times. It is a huge reason I work on this topic. My read: this is a good man who has been fooled by divisive people. What he is saying comes straight out of the Peter Ruckman playbook, to the letter. My heart goes out to you-and to him. I pray he is a victim and not a perpetrator. But for him to look-as he apparently does?-at the vast majority of fellow Christians, those of us who use contemporary translations, and say that we don't have a Bible and have never seen one, that is incredibly divisive. KJV-Onlyism is not a victimless crime.
I do appreciate italics. 1. I find it can be a useful tool when navigating unusual (compared to modern English) phrasing. 2. Knowing that a word or words are there for clarity and context required for correct understanding of the original meaning, it is interesting to read side by side with other translations and see how different translators dealt with adding context. When I first switched to digital bibles, I would almost always have two or sometimes three translations open at a time. All tracking along together. As an English only reader, I feel it gives me a small window into what bible translation is.
@@markwardonwords Yes! On several occasions. (Sorry, I can't provide an example at this time though. Admittedly it doesn't happen often, but it does happen.)
Not all translations are equal or serve the same exact purpose. Why can't the more literal versions contain italics or light face type to show what is found in the original and what is added for clarity and understandability.
I believe italics provides a path to deeper meaning in Ecclesiastes 12:13 KJV. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man." When the word "duty" is omitted, it doesn't change the meaning, but it expands from solely responsibility to "whole or all of man." Although, I one could argue that it would be better to simply consult other translations. "...because this is for all humanity." CSB "...because this [applies to] every person." NASB "...for this is the whole duty of man." ESV "...because this is [the end of the matter for] all mankind." LSB "...For this is man's all." NIV and NKJV Italics in the KJV lead to same meaning in NIV and NKJV: "whole of man" means the same as "man's all". Which I believe could be described as deeper meaning. Both ESV + NIV interpretations in the same translation. This however is not natural English, which is why I would only want italics in a word-for-word translation where I get to "finish the translation process." And I have zero knowledge or training in Hebrew or Greek. I just like italics because it helps me see how the translators made interpretive decisions. Edit: Also, I think MEV is italics done best.
Eph. 2:1 in the KJV and NKJV is one case of italics I don't understand. And you , (He made alive), who were dead in trespasses and sins (NKJV) or And you , (hath he quickened), who were dead in trespasses and sins; (KJV). Why? It is not in Greek and is unnecessary since verse 5 in the Greek states we have been made alive or quickened. I also believe it's distracting at the beginning of the paragraph to include this phrase as Paul is emphasizing our past state before trusting Christ and being made alive. Thank you for the video. Good stuff as usual.
@@markwardonwords It's interesting comparing the 1611 to the 1769 KJV and noticing how much more the Bible is italicized in the 1769. It's a worthwhile point to bring to someone who is KJVO.
Here’s two Bible verses that I believe italics helped me understand better: Proverbs 24:25 But those who rebuke [the wicked] will have delight And a good blessing will come upon them (God blessed those who rebuke anyone - even the righteous when they sin, not just the wicked) Nahum 1:3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And will not at all acquit [the wicked] God will acquit no one (without an acceptable sacrifice), whether righteous or wicked Btw I like your channel and hate kjvonlyism; it has caused me much harm and grief
I love this comment. Very few people have tried to give me a serious response (to an admittedly minor issue!). But… On Prov 24:25, context almost demands the insertion of "the wicked" there. That "verse" has to be read in the "paragraph" that goes from 24:23b to at least 24:25, possibly (as in my ESV) 24:26. And on Nah 1:3… You may have a point on that one, though I might make the same argument from that context as I did from Prov 24. I'll have to think about that one! I'm sorry KJV-Onlyism has caused you harm and grief! I feel your pain, I really do. It's done a lot of silent evil to me. A lot.
When you mention about Paul's knowledge of the Old Testament having been obtained naturally, that made me think of a question for you. Matthew quotes the Old Testament, and in one famous case, he is obviously quoting the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text. Generally, the Masoretic text is regarded as more reliable; the Catholic church switched to it as far back as the Vulgate, and that's what the Old Testament in the KJV is based on too. Some really old arguments for trusting the Septuagint instead even verged on anti-Semitism. So how does one manage to maintain that, yes, Matthew was inspired by God to say that the virgin birth of Jesus was prophesized in the Old Testament, as opposed to having to admit this is some kind of a mistake in the Bible?
It seems to me that the reason for italics (or Roman type instead of Gothic) in Bibles is obvious; at the time these translations were first made, the translators were worried that without indicating the words added to make the translation make sense in English... would put them at risk of having the plagues described in the Book of Revelations added to them. Today, we would call it superstitious. But I think that most Christians do know what the italics in the KJV are for, and thus avoid the potential for confusion they have.
Strangely enough I think the translation for “welp” in Spanish would be “pos” which is itself an informal variation of the word “pues” and it’s connotations in Spanish are almost identical to that of “welp” in English 😂
Just remembered something that fascinated me as a kid. "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: _[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."_ (1 John 2:23, KJV) (My Bible included _but_ in square brackets; it looks like not all KJV editions do.) I used to wonder how an entire clause could be absent, yet so strongly implied that the translators felt the need to add it. I also wondered why _but_ got both brackets and italics. It wasn't until years later that I realized there was a textual variant here and it all made sense 😃
Italics are for emphasis. Italics for supplied words is an horrible idea. That idea seems that people are adding to the word of God. Italics are only for emphasis and textual indication.
This video and its comments are about the only place so far I've encountered welp in the sense of "well... " In another context I might think of puppies but the spelling would be different, I.e. whelp.
"the kingdom of God does not consist in words" (20:48) .... but is this correct exegesis of the words of the apostle Paul? isn't this an "exegetical fallacy"? to put this citation in the context of Bible translation? this was not the context of what Paul said... "Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the *speech* of them which are puffed up, but the *power* . For the kingdom of God is not in *word* (=speech), but in *power* . What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?" (1.Cor.4.18-21)
You are correct that 1 Corinthians 4.20 refers to oral communication. And that distinction is reflected in some modern translations: AMP - For the kingdom of God is not based on talk but on power. CSB - For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. ESV - For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power. NABRE- For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. NEB - The kingdom of God is not a matter of talk, but of power. NET - For the kingdom of God is demonstrated not in idle talk but with power. NIV - For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. NJB - For the kingdom of God consists not in spoken words but in power. NLT - For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God’s power. NRSVUE - For the kingdom of God depends not on talk but on power. Most of these translations are following the lead of the RSV, which says, "For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power."
@@MAMoreno yes, but even long before the RSV (1946-52), we find the formal conformity of rendering between the two verses,... first, in the pre-1611 bibles, they had "wordes" / "worde" both places, including Wycliffe 1382 ("word" both places), and since the context of Paul here is not "word on the page", but rather "word of mouth" (speech), the intention of the translators was naturally "word" in the sense of "speech", shown by the 1611 translators when they varied between "speech" and "word" within the same context... in post-1611 bibles, formal conformity in translating the same word became more common again, while the AV translators had made it clear in their "The Translators to the Reader" that they intentionally did not subject themselves to such a rule but varied the translation with synonymous words and expressions... contra Reina Valera 1602/1909 where we find conformity of wording (i.e. both before and after 1611), "palabras" in both verses, meaning both "words" and "utterances", and in John Wesley’s NT (1755), we find that he slightly revised the 1611 text at places, often according to conformity of wording, and travels into the future and reads: "...not the speech of them who are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power." ... and likewise, in Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (1903), we find "speech" in both places: "... not the speech of them who are puffed up, but, the power; For, not in speech, is the kingdom of God, but, in power." ... But whether one renders "word" in both places, or "speech" in both places, or "word" in the one verse and "speech" in the other, the meaning is the same, due to this particular context.... In fact, i would even argue that the English *words* themselves mean the same thing in this context... and that's what we find in the Greek, anyway... :-)
@@markwardonwords well, i understand why, for it kind of sounds like you are, sometimes, and i know many interpret it like "picking" on the KJV... but communication and understanding of communication is not always an easy thing... it is no secret that many who have read your book "Authorized..." and listened to your TH-cam videos, have interpreted several of your statements on the language of the KJV as "unnecessarily negative", to put it mildly, and i am sure you have read a lot of it, (i'm not talking about the typical "extreme" KJO rants)... and one able blog writer, Taylor DeSoto, has pointed out several things in his articles (The Young, Textless, and Reformed), and concluded one paragraph in this way: "It speaks volumes that Chistopher Hitchins has a higher evaluation of the KJV than Ward." ... but why did Taylor think this? and he is not alone... and in the same blog (dated May 8, 2020), he kicked off the "Conclusion" this way: "After reading Ward’s book twice, I cannot help but point out the inconsistency of his thesis, and the hypocrisy of his writing style. He has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source for the critiques he issues towards the KJV and KJV readers. He imposes an extreme version of the problem that he claims the KJV imposes to his reader. He slaps KJV readers for making equivocations while constantly equivocating the English of the KJV with Shakespeare, the comprehensibility of the KJV with the Latin Vulgate, and KJV English with Old or Middle English. This is one of those cases where it isn’t wise to throw rocks in glass houses. What Ward seems to miss is that being able to understand words is far more important than those words being in “vernacular English.” As a fellow “language nerd,” I expect more from somebody claiming to be in the dwindling population of people who love the English language." ... Maybe there is a reason why there are many (outside the "extreme KJO" league) who think this (or similarly) of several things you have written and said about the KJV... so there you have the "picking", agree or disagree, but Taylor is not alone in thinking that you are "imposing an extreme version of the problem that you claim the KJV imposes ..." - An "extreme version" sounds like a form of "extremism" and it has become obvious to many long ago that your views of the KJV are somewhat "extreme", "extremism", but this time the other way around, not "KJO extremism" but rather a form of "anti-KJV extremism" (whether intended or not).... while at the same time claiming to "love the KJV"... and that's OK, we are allowed to have our own views on Bible translations... and we should debate these issues... but i suspect that your "message" about the language of the KJV does not reach all those you try to reach, precisely because of the issues related above...
While I appreciate some of your points on this topic, I would have to disagree with your conclusions. Here are the two places where I would disagree most. 1. There are many subcultures within the larger group of English speakers that handle the English language differently than the broader culture does. In any subculture, it is important to understand the aspects of language that are different from the broader culture i.e. this is true of Scientists, people in the IT industry, people in the Medical field, etc... The way that italics is used in Bible translations reflects a subculture use that no more wrong than the unique aspects of how language is used in many other subcultures. 2. Some use of italics represents words that must be supplied in translation, but some represent conjecture and sometimes different translators would supply different words. In this cases, italics can be very helpful to English speakers with no background in the biblical languages when they are trying to understand why two translations convey different meaning. This is especially true of Hebrew which is often very terse.
On your first point: that’s why we have the NASB! More power to people who see benefit here. On your second point, which I think is stronger: that’s why we have the NASB! More power to those same people. But I’m skeptical, though I wish I weren’t, that many monolingual laypeople can successfully do what you describe. I would truly LOVE to be wrong, and I’m seriously planning to write a book that will help me help laypeople prove me wrong!
I think that with good pastoral training, most people in the pew can take advantage of things like this. When I teach hermeneutics to English speaking, non-biblical language students, I emphasize that they can understand Scripture without looking at the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. We have a wealth of tools in English that allow people to gain understanding. Here is my list in order of preference. 1. Look at a passage in multiple good English translations and note any significant differences (if any exist). We spend a little time discussing what is and what is not a significant difference. Understand that these translations communicate the meaning as understood by scholars who do understand these languages. It is at this step that italics can be helpful. 2. Take notes on their own understanding of the passage before looking at any addition material i.e. let commentators persuade you that you are wrong rather than letting them tell you what the passage means. 3. Look at multiple good commentaries written by people who can read the biblical languages (recognizing that many commentaries are written by people who can read the original languages no better than they can) i.e. choose wisely. 4. Look at resources like the NET bible notes. ================================ I specifically tell them to avoid using biblical language works like lexicons, unless they are learning the biblical languages, as these far more often lead those who do not know the biblical languages to misunderstandings than aid in understanding. To give an example, one very popular preacher/teacher taught that עזב in didn't mean "leave," it meant "abandon." Based on this new "revelation" about what this word meant, he taught that a married couple should never live with their parents in any circumstance, nor even in the same neighborhood as their parents (and probably shouldn't live in the same city). This kind of "pick the meaning I like best" is common for those who resort to lexicons but do not know the language and, like this case, frequently results in disastrously wrong interpretations of the text.
One of the slides that I use when I teach presents the following verse from three versions and asks which ONE of these verses incorrectly communicates the meaning of this verse. HCSB Isaiah 53:3 a man of suffering who knew what sickness was. ESV Isaiah 53:3 a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; KJV Isaiah 53:3 a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: It is a trick question because two of these appear identical but the KJV meaning (in the 17th century) was much closer to the HCSB today. Although the HCSB doesn't quite understand the meaning of "sickness" as it is used in the 8th century BC or in the 17th century AD. When the ESV used these same words 400 years later they communicated a meaning that was much different.
I never really knew what that Italics used for nor have I every paid attention until now. I see they are used for emphasis but that's it. Thank you Mark Ward
The NWTs convention of using square brackets instead is so much easier to read. I know what italics mean, and they mean stress. Using them to mean something entirely unrelated is just horribly confusing. This is, of course, orthogonal to the question of whether the NWT is otherwise a good translation. That's a can of worms I don't particularly want to open here. But it definitely has better typography. And, of course, indicating "interpolated words" in any way at all can be misleading, as the video says, because _languages are not codes for each other_ and translation is an art with many judgment calls, and to specifically indicate some is to gloss over the others.
Italics in the Bible make an interesting Sunday School lesson when my second graders learn that italics mean emphisis and so read the weekly Bible lesson emphasising all the italicised words. I learn a little self control when I don't giggle at them and then explain what Bible italics mean.
Not strictly necessary, but surprisingly elucidating occasionally. More succint than a note. Besides, the translator himself may not realize the significance, yet allows the reader to do so. Greek is very expensive to learn; I enjoy these features, even agreeing they might be done better.
I never really even noticed the italics until I read the preface of a KJV Bible explaining some of its quirks. Now, I always read italicized Bible text twice: once as-is, and once without the italicized words to see how it sounds 😂
My understanding of Bible translation is that some level of interpretation is also necessary. Italics is just an example of interpretation. I agree that, for the most part, italics is of no benefit for the average person. I enjoy reading translations of Russian novels (preferably Fyodor Dostoevsky) and I don't recall the use of italics in these translations that would be considered out of place for Standard Contemporary English (if they're used at all). Yet, the lack of italics doesn't concern me at all. The same applies to Bible translations.
"This pastor was such an one." And, "he shot himself in the foot, but only with an air soft gun". I don't know about TR vs. CT vs. MT, but you are really funny and always leave this old woman laughing.
When I was a kid, I used to think italics were for emphasis in the Bible and tried to read them that way. Very confusing. 😁 Eventually I realized that they couldn't be for emphasis, but didn't learn till years later what they were really for.
some fundamentalists and some evangelicals like the italics and the customer is always right. There is no need to give up the kjv if you use more completely annotated kjvs. If you cannot beat the kjv readers, maybe just join them. People will probably not stop reading archaic hamlet since there are good annotated hamlet like arden shakespeare hamlet.
In a very real way I *have* done this. I have done more to teach people to read the KJV than anyone else I know of. Hour after hour of instruction! If someone uses my videos, as a commenter recently said he did, to remain KJV-Only but read with better understanding, I rejoice! The bigger point is understanding, not picking "the right" Bible translation.
Mark, I've been thoroughly enjoying your video series, including this latest one on the KJV debate. It seems to me that you and your colleagues are increasingly realizing that the core issue here is actually Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI). I couldn't agree more with your 30-thousand-foot perspective; focusing on larger units like paragraphs and sentences is far more informative than dissecting individual words. While VPI advocates for divine origin of each word, other modes of inspiration like direct revelation, teaching by the Holy Spirit, and divinely prompted recall offer a richer and more nuanced understanding of the text. These modes, although not as "clean" as VPI suggests, offer firsthand spiritual insights that align more closely with how the Bible was actually written, constructed and distributed (no golden tablets). I'm eager to see if you and your colleagues will eventually pivot to discuss VPI explicitly. It's a delicate subject but addressing it could go a long way in resolving the divisions and apostasy this debate has been causing. Looking forward to your future content.
Mark holds to VPI, from what I recall. What we can say for certain is that some words in the inspired texts have to be verbally inspired. Paul's arguments rest too heavily on the precise phrasing of certain key texts. If VPI is incorrect, it's incorrect in the sense that it uncritically applies something that's true in specific cases to the entirety of the Scriptural text. The problem is that there's no clear standard for determining which passages are inspired at the verbal level and which ones are inspired at a broader conceptual level. The only consistent method I could see would be a minimalist approach: assuming that the only verbally-inspired passages in the Old Testament are the ones explicitly treated in the New Testament as such.
@@MAMorenoThe point I'm making is that those who are KJV-only are advocating for Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI), as specifically applied to the Authorized Version (directly or indirectly). They have a point; if VPI holds, then textual criticism and variations in the Scripture would undermine that doctrine. However, Mark and his colleagues argue that VPI isn't actually how God provided us with the Scriptures. They've gone so far as to say, "God is okay with not having a perfect text." I agree. If VPI doesn't hold to an English text it is rendered mute given the differences in the manuscripts. As they have said, "we've got a macro stability" not a micro one (which is VPI). They also caution that VPI could lead people to treat the text as almost "magical," similar to golden tablets. And they acknowledge that we no longer have tools like the Urim and Thummim to guide us in choosing the correct version or textual variants. In essence, for the KJV-only crowd, VPI matters only if you can hold that perfect text in your hands. Eventually, the conversation will likely shift to focus more on the validity of VPI itself. The Bible itself describes various methods of its own composition, which differ according to genre and I echo their conclusions that God oversaw this process and that its imperfection does not thwart the purpose and efficacy of the text anymore than an imperfect message preached thwarts people's spirits being moved by the Holy Spirit.
@@davidbeiswenger60 "its imperfection does not thwart the purpose and efficacy of the text" Do you mean to say that it's not inerrant? I'm quite sure Mark Ward is an inerrantist, as well.
@MAMoreno I think Mark and his colleagues would say the originals are inerrant, but they must also acknowledge that this is more of a formality, since none of those manuscripts are extant. This is the point KJV-only advocates make: why hold a position on an ethereal Bible? While English versions may not be inerrant (depending on your definition), they might be infallible in serving God's purpose and for faith and practice. VPI is a *textual absolutist* position, and I think that will become clear at some point.
@@davidbeiswenger60 It's possible that a person's view on the inerrancy of the autographs might have implications in their view of textual criticism, though. Should certain readings be disregarded regardless of the evidence in their favor if they create a contradiction? This point is raised by KJVOs in the comments all the time: they see the Nestle-Aland's preferred reading in a certain passage as incompatible with another passage. And while some of these readings can be explained away, it still provides them with ammo: surely the more obviously inerrant reading must be the original, right? The textual criticism of today often takes the opposite approach: the "hardest" reading is the best, including any reading that causes problems for inerrancy or Christian orthodoxy. Alternatively, some supporters of the text underlying the KJV have suggested a kind of progressive inerrancy: even if the original readings contained errors, those errors were corrected in the apographs. Considering that much of the Hebrew Bible appears to have been written in stages by more than one hand, they suggest the same could be true about the "canonical" versions of the New Testament books. From this view, the problem with the modern critical texts is that they're peeling off the revisions that were part of the completion process for each book. Perhaps they would go so far as to say that such changes are themselves verbally and plenarily inspired. Once you throw out VPI on your own end and concede inerrancy as a mere formality, do you really have a way to challenge a view like this one without alienating conservatives in the process?
It's a translation and translator problem, not an italics or light face type problem. The translations have to be consistent and accurate in it's use of italics .
I took a Bible study class lo these many years ago where we used the NASB. And I had classmates who thought italics meant emphasis. Being the nerd I am, I'd read the preface and knew what they meant, but most of the class was confused. But I still like the italics in the NASB and wish the ESV did something similar. Maybe we're doing it wrong, but people tend to write whole treatises based on one word (/hyperbole), and it's nice to know when that word is simply implied or even added for clarity.
I must disagree with reason 3. If you want to only use italics for what we use it for in non-scripture then you have simply eliminated italic usage in the Bible altogether, and now need to use something else to denote words that used to be in italics. So there is no point in reason 3. People who want to understand their translation should always read the textual notes at the beginning. It is quite clear (at least in the NASB) what italics means, along with 'stars', brackets, etc. I find the NASB very useful for its notes and obvious intent to be both correct and to ensure that the reader understands the textual meanings. And reason 2 is very real! It builds trust in the translation.
I used to think that italics were valuable, but after learning to read the Bible in Greek I discovered that translation is complicated and messy. How about a video on red letter bibles? My minister recently told us that the verse he was teaching on was very important because it is in red. Face-palm emoji.
I actually prefer the italics in my 1985 Nelson NKJV. I like to know when English words are added in the effort of clarifying the meaning. I'm aware that Greek or Hebrew can't go directly word-for-word into English. I like to be able to see where and how these translators did their work. That's also why I like the copious references as to various texts and their wording that are in this volume. Not all translations have these references or those italics. Some of the later ones simply do not use them. But I know where many of them are. Experience and time is a good thing.
@@markwardonwords They tend to cause the English to flow more easily as we use the language. They simply remind me that they are not in the original Greek. I tend to have a critically technical mind after 40 years as an electronics repair technician. I prefer it that way.
1Cor 7:36 is a prime example of why italics are in fact useful. The NASB and LSB, probably others too, by using italics here, give the reader the information that daughter is implied, perhaps, but not specified. The ESV just adds it and the NIV interprets it differently. Without the italics one may never know there are other interpretations possible here.
![ออร่า (AURA) - JUEPAK feat. SARAN | [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RY9j7Lzp-FI/mqdefault.jpg)
For my part, when I first learned about italics in the Bible it helped me to understand that there were more things going on with language than I expected.
They didn’t exactly help me better understand a specific passage, but it gave me an overall bigger idea of what was behind the Bible. It also helped encourage a desire to learn the original languages (which is a journey I’m hoping to find time for).
This is excellent! This is basically my second point in defense the value of italics. A good application, basically, of that point.
I concur that italics in my kjv helped me to understand the complex nature of translation, which eventually led me to soften my stance on things and realize that there isn’t a single flawless translation. I only wish that I wasn’t in a position that every church within an hour’s drive was kjv only. I actually visited a church where a visitor quoted their bible and said “please don’t shoot me, I’m reading from NLT.” That’s how ingrained it is to the culture here.
@@threeqtrthrottle Wow, what part of the world are you in? Even my old country church in rural Kentucky reads from the NKJV
I know I'm not neutral here because I have studied Greek and Hebrew, but I like italics for interpretive decisions. I agree that using italics for implied words is unnecessary and confusing, particularly if the practice of implied subjects/verbs is clear in the original language. But there are a number of passages where the preposition is unclear, or the implied noun could be taken two ways (in the place of or as; young widows or young women; evil men or silly women; etc.) In those cases, I like to know that the translators are making a judgment call. This is more than appreciating their care in translation. This allows me to think more closely about the text. But this may be the minority of uses.
This is good. I don’t disagree! You are the target audience for italics. You can use them responsibly. They are shorthand letting you know to study further. You can often guess what they’re doing without even seeing the Greek, I’ll bet.
The problem with both the classic use of italics in Bibles and this idea, in my opinion, is that they both directly contradict the standard use of italics to highlight something more important by overly emphasizing something either, in a sense, less important or more questionable. I wish there were a better means of indicating such passages.
Just what I wanted to say, but much better said!
Thank you, @Mark Ward , for your careful and gracious shepherding and teaching how to read God’s Word in our Bibles with greater understanding, avoiding obstacles and hurdles we may not have realized were there. I learn something from every video and you make it fun. Anyone beside me binge-watching Mark Ward's previous videos? "Why Bible Typography Matters" is my favorite. And so is "Noah Webster is On My Side!"
Ah! Thank you, Steve! What you can't know-but I'm going to tell you-is that I attended my church in Greenville for 18 years, was a member for 17, got a B.A. in Bible while there, got an M.A. in Bible while there, and finally got a Ph.D. in New Testament while there. But I never got to preach from the pulpit! I'm not upset or disaffected, not at all; I will never repay the debt I owe to that church. But I did sense at some point before Jan 2015 that I needed to finally just ask-so I asked my mentor there if I could take the whole-church adult Sunday school we did for a month every year. I asked for just one lecture. That was it. I never worked harder on any lecture/lesson/sermon. I actually practiced it out loud multiple times, including before an audience of designers at BJU Press. It was a love letter to that church. And the Lord moved me on to Logos Bible Software shortly thereafter. I've always been grateful that I got to "preach" from that pulpit at least once!
Thank you, once again, Mark. A real blue touch paper lighter looking at the comments so far! Having pretty much settled on the NKJV as my translation of choice, but still referring to the NASB, NIV, KJV, ESV and others, I have found italicised text to be helpful. I sometimes like to reread passages with and then without the italicised words, as it helps me to contextualise and better understand the translators making sense of the original languages in their presentation of those languages into English and their subsequent choices/decisions.
When I lived in Cyprus, I would often preach and teach in a local Greek Cypriot church and a few dear brothers with excellent English skills would translate into Greek (bizarre twist really). I would often notice in the early days how sometimes I would say something that I perceived to be simple and straightforward and they would pause and think long and hard about how to translate. They might say far more than I did, in terms of numbers of words, because they were supplying words to make sense of my UK English to the Greek-speaking hearers. I should point out that most of the congregation were brilliantly bilingual, but some non-English speakers for whom Greek was their first or second language needed the translation. I suppose that had my sermons or teachings been transcribed from the Greek translations, then those additional words might have been italicised to show that the translators had added them to make sense of my English. In addition, there was inevitably a fair amount of interpretation, as I might unthinkingly and unhelpfully use a UK English idiom that simply didn't translate. Nevertheless, I trusted my brothers to do the right thing and not misrepresent me.
I once heard that translators of the Bible working amongst the Kenyan Maasai had difficulty translating Isaiah 1:18, because the Maasai had never seen snow. Rather than leave it to the people to figure out what this meteorological phenomenon meant, they used the word 'milk' instead - a word that was familiar and highly valued in the culture. I speculate that maybe a Maasai scholar might request that the word 'milk' be italicised with a footnote given, but they probably didn't much care.
When I was a young believer, God spoke clearly to me through my Bible - it happened to be a 1984 NIV - and I was blissfully unaware of the translation spectrum, underlying texts, blah, blah, blah. I have to remind myself that we are not saved through our Bibles (regardless of translation) and neither are we sanctified, justified or preserved by them. In John 5:39 Jesus' words remind His hearers that the Scriptures serve to bear witness to Him. He is our saviour, sanctifier, justifier and preserver. If our reading of Scripture (regardless of translation) is not bearing witness to Him, then what are we doing? Italics or no italics... TR or CT... KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, CSB, NLT or NIV... and any translation onlyism... meaningless, meaningless, vanity of vanities, vapour of vapours...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on translation.
Where we are in Mexico the closest we get the word “welp” is “bueno” we can use it in the same way we would use “welp” however it’s not an exact translation.
Yes, I now think I've heard this in Spanish! But I don't get the niceties; they have to be explained to me. So this is helpful.
If someone said welp to me, I might mistakenly think of whelp, which has connotations of puppies or a female dog giving birth.
Let me make sure that I understand what you're saying. You're saying that it's fine for translators to put in "extra words" (words not in the original language of the source transcript) as long as those words do help people understand the sentence in the language they're reading it in. You're just saying that those words should not be shown in _italics._
I'll note that some pastors are much better at explaining the words-in-italics than others. My pastor never told us that those were words we shouldn't "trust". He described them as words that translators needed to put there so that the sentence makes sense in our language. That's a sentence that he'd say maybe once a month. That's all it takes, IMO. He'd also sometimes note how the sentence reads without those extra words, just to show us that a strict translation from the Greek or Hebrew would sound really odd to our ears.
So I'd say that the problem is not with the *italics,* it's with pastors who say that those italics mean that the translation cannot be trusted. And if a pastor wants to say that from the pulpit, then the issue is not whether the extra words are in italics or not. The issue is that the pastor is willing to state "Don't trust your bible!".
Since we're talking about fine distinctions here, about technicalities, I think that how your pastor said it was very defensible given his audience-but that it was not technically accurate. The words were not "added." They are necessary for translation. The only way they can be said to be "added" is if one word in the Hebrew/Greek somehow has to match one word in the English/French/Urdu translation. And that's just not the case. It can never be the case. Does that make sense?
@@markwardonwords - It would be inaccurate to think that my comment was an exact quote of what my pastor said. And in any case I'm sure he worded it differently in different sermons.
The point is not _"did my pastor say 'added'?",_ the point is that my pastor never said or even implied _"... and therefore we cannot trust this bible"._ This is another case where maybe we should zoom out a little instead of focusing on exact words! 🙂
@@markwardonwords - ... and in re-reading my comment, I'll note that *I* never said the word "added".
@garanceadrosehn9691 ✔
This is what I learned before I had any ability in Hebrew or Greek. I learned that "ADDED WORDS" the translators added are usually needed. I for 5 months skipped the supplied words. And found that if I could understand I understood BY ADDING the same or similar words. So yes EVERY thing you said is right on.
Amen!
Your second point is very good. I always read the NLT and I don't believe there was italics in the NLT. But before I got into apologetics I admit, I would've just assumed it meant "emphasis". Hey, who knows, maybe there is italics in NLT and the only reason I'm not aware is because I had always assumed it meant emphasis lol
Great video as always! I've come to prefer translations without italics, but agree that is good for some translations such as the NASB to keep them. In defense of italics, I have occasionally been able to use them to show someone that the translators were providing a particular interpretation of the text, but not the only interpretation of the text. I was able to do this with the italicized "to lead us" in Gal. 3:24 (NASB), for example.
Good-I like this.
What other interpretation is there?
@@MM-jf1me "Until Christ came"
@@nerdyyouthpastor8368 Ah, that makes sense! Thank you.
Please keep finding need to make nerdy videos. We nerds love them.
I don’t think I could stop if I wanted to. ;)
Thank you, I've been concerned about this for some time and have found that often, as you mentioned, italics are unnecessary and sometimes misleading. A good example is Christ's arrest. In John he asked, Whom do you seek? And when they told him, he said "I am he" but the "he" has been added by the translators. However without the "he" Jesus was saying, "I AM", a totally different distinction.
✔
This could be interesting. I have never seen italics to be bad. To the contrary, I have always seen them to be helpful.
No italics is not capitalized. There three versions of highlighting I’ve seen in bibles
a) italics
b) bold
c) capitalized
d) red letters
In a 2020 interview, Don Wilkins of the Lockman Foundation lamented the use of italic font in the NASB because it incorrectly suggests emphasis rather than a lack of emphasis, but he felt that there should be something in the text to indicate the supplied words. (He seemingly preferred brackets, though that option would be even more intrusive.)
There is some value in italics for _especially interpretive_ supplied words. A footnote can help to indicate a place where interpretations differ, but readers may overlook the superscripts more easily than they will the italics. I think of the pre-2020 NASB in 1 Corinthians 7.36-38, where "virgin" was understood to mean "virgin daughter" by the committee. I wouldn't want _daughter_ in the text with nothing to point out that it is an addition to the text. (That said, I think the 2020 edition did even better by dropping the interpretive supplied word and relying completely on footnotes to communicate the different possible relationships between the man and the virgin.)
I love footnotes. I don't think a Bibke translation should exist without them. This is variants and explanations should be place and not in the text itself. It doesn't necessarily have to have the multitude of footnotes that the NET Bible has, but sufficient enough so that the reader can know what is going on. Manuscript variants, translator choices and other nuances should be footnoted in a Bible. All translations have them, but there are instances where explanatory footnotes would have been a good idea. I like what the ESV does when the add the footnote to notify you when the word "you" is being used as a singular or plural pronoun. I also love their footnotes on manuscript usage although there are places where this is lacking. Italics always has me emphasing when this was not the purpose of it.
@@edwardgraham9443 I would prefer a more subtle alternative to italics in the NASB, for sure. I would suggest that 2K Denmark develop a font family for the translation that has both a serif and sans serif variant. The two variants could be similar enough that they wouldn't impede casual reading, but the subtle differences (including, but not necessarily limited to, the presence or absence of serifs) could clue in readers that certain words are supplied by the translators.
@@MAMoreno That is not a bad idea. Anything that would both show supplied words yet not causing the reading to something else other than what the translators intended would be a great idea.
@@MAMoreno this is brilliant. Please send an email to Nelson and Lockman Foundation. Seriously!
Ooh, M.A.! A nice thought! I will talk to Klaus Erik Krogh!
Most of my bibles have some type of times new Romanesque font. I wonder if switching to a sans serif text would be better than italics, or if it would just be distracting to the eye?
I appreciate the italics as the translators’ effort to be completely transparent with the readers, but I have found myself more than once accidentally emphasizing the words, if the emphasis flows with the sentence, when reading aloud to my kids.
I've made that suggestion as well, but the typeface would have to be designed to meet this need. The shift has to be recognizable without being distracting.
Great video. Interesting. Quick look and it looks like the NKJV changed "measures" (KJV) to "ephahs". This seems to be an odd choice because of its precision when the text is not precise.
Agreed!
On your second good point, Amplified places some supplied words in square brackets. I looked at Ruth 3, I found that "measures/ephahs" weren't put in square brackets. But it does put other words that way suggesting that the square brackets are words supplied by Amplified that other translators may not include. For instance, it did "[last night]" at the end of Ruth 3:14 as the NIV, KJV, The Message, and others I didn't check don't include those words.
What do you think about the Define King James Bible and the Sword study Bible?
The Defined KJB is a big step in the right direction. But it is also an argument against the continued use of the KJV in institutional contexts. Why not just put the modern equivalents in the text? And it’s terribly, terribly typographically ugly. :/
Thomas Nelson kjv reference bible, Defined King James, TBS Westminster, KJVer, Rock Of Ages study bible are good at explaining most archaic words but they still miss some archaic words, so it is better to read the kjv in parallel with the free kjv verse by verse commentaries easily found on the internet. If evangelical, there are many free kjv evangelical comprehensive commentaries such as Keil and Delitzsch for OT, henry alford new testament for english readers for NT. These evangelical commentators were probably believers in the critical text like Henry Alford does take note of differences with the critical text in the footnotes of his kjv commentary, and he was in favor of a new translation like RV based on the critical texts. If fundamentalist, older free kjv commentaries from the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, might be acceptable.
@@markwardonwords I have seen videos of kjv only believers who believe kjv is a new revelation so these type of kjv only believers oppose any changes to the text of the kjv. Some also count the english words or english letters of the kjv as revealing some secret revelations. Not really sure how numerology superstitions entered the christian religion.
Revisions of the kjv tend to leave many archaic words unchanged such as gen 4 v5 countenance which was not changed in nkjv and mev. The latest minor update SKJV (simplified kjv from barbour) does not update lots of archaic words so it is useless. KJ21 also does not update most archaic words but it does retain thee, thine, thou, ye, which some fundamentalists want to be retained. Instead of only relying on nkjv and mev to detect all false friends, should also look at free kjv verse by verse commentaries easily found on the internet, or look at easy to read modern translations like New Century Version, Good News Translation, New Century Version, etc.
Another enjoyable video...
From my experience, most people that read a bible with italics don’t even take notice of them. I indeed notice them, at least, rarely. If I give them thought, it might be something like; “Ah, I see why they inserted that word/phrase” (typically to make the reading more pleasing to our “English ears” though sometimes it’s to make the writer’s thoughts a little more clearly comprehensible) and generally read on. I must say (and I’m not a KJV onlyist) Luke 21:8 inserts a helpfully added, italicized word into the text; “Christ” in that verse.
Ultimately, I just prefer to know when/if words or phrases are added, regardless of rhyme or reason.
NWT has Ruth 3:15 as “six measures” and a footnote that says; “Possibly six seah measures, or about 44 L (40 dry qt). See app.....”
Would the KJV be continuously obliged to italicize the word “a” since Greek doesn’t have an indefinite article?
I can't help but notice something rather petty if anything, but caught my ear; You say "an one" instead of "a one." Since "one" actually starts out with a consonant sound "W" would it still be grammatically acceptable to say "a one"? Reminiscent of "an history" or "a history." Just curious... :)
The ASV, CEB, CSB, ESV, KJV, LEB, NAB, NASB, NEB, NIV, NJB, LEB, MEV, NRSV, and RSV also say "measures." The NKJV is the odd one out for trying to supply a precise ancient measurement. The GNB, NET, and NIRV agree with the NWT's footnote and offer the weight as approximately "fifty" (GNB, NIRV) or "sixty" (NET) pounds.
Love your channel and almost always agree with you ….
Until now!
I love the italics and love them pointing out those added words to let me know.
Keep up the great work!
As someone who reads his Bible in Hebrew italicized words in English bibles are great, help me to understand which words I stumble upon and need to research.
I agree with point 3, italics really are not the best way to illustrate this, you mentioned the font difference in the old KJV, well I got another solution.
In my ELB (revediert) German Bible instead of italics the translators used brackets such as these < > to bracket these words. It's good that it's different from the usual square brackets [ ] used for words found in later manuscripts.
✔
In some Chinese bibles, an underline is used to indicate that something is the name of a place, person, etc. It avoids any possible incorrect parsing of the text. However, this is actually a standard (but rare) practice in Chinese.
Fascinating!
See, I completely disagree. Italics help us know what has been added to help us understand. One of the things I don’t like about the ESV is that you don’t know what they added to help us.
I agree 1000%
But these are actually implied in the Hebrew and a person reading the Hebrew would actually understand it that way. It's the difference between language. Being bylingual helps you to understand this.
J.J., please interact with the arguments I made in the video!
I do believe there are instances where the words added provide one of two or more interpretations of what is implied, not just the only possible interpretation of what is implied. Having that kind of transparency is certainly of benefit for more than biblical language students. I get his points, but this is an over-reaction that exaggerates the problems with italics. Sure, when adding implied pronouns and linking verbs, italics might seem redundant. But there are many examples where a lot more is added that is not necessarily clearly implied in the original languages, and this video does not interact with this at all. Strawman comes to mind...
A modern day translation example for you.
In American English I've seen phrases like "May I have your permission to write Anne".
In the UK this is not a good sentence. It needs a word added: "May I have your permission to write to Anne".
So the translator could italicise the extra "to" showing that it was not in the original but was added to improve the translation.
(Also we do use the word "well" when getting up to leave the house.)
Have you seen Michael McIntyre's bit on leaving the house in his fantastically funny send-up of parenting? That's what you made me think of!
Is that a Patriot quote?
This is fantastic thank you! I like the italics, but mostly because I’ve been trawling through BDAG and trying to (very basically) learn some Koine Greek and learning some basic language - and I like it purely for that reason. It’s like a wee cheat sheet help when my brain is not playing ball!
Thanks for all your videos! Really very much appreciated x
Ps. Found it hilarious when you emphasised the italics - made me giggle a fair amount!
Ha! Great comment!
I have gotten my M. Div. in Theology, and until this video I thought the italics were emphasizing the words. This was a very helpful video!
So glad to be of service! This is a great reason to believe that they're not necessary.
That you could get a degree and not know this is telling..
6:30 - Oh, nice! What font is that? It makes Gothic print much more readable and beautiful. 😊
This video is worth it just for the HP references =) Now I know definitively how to levitate objects, in addition to how italics can be both helpful and harmful. I never took the time to think through the costs and benefits of this translation tradition, but I see how people can stumble because of it. In my own study, I never paid much attention to the italics in the KJV. When I learned what they meant, I took them at face value. When you understand the practice of translation requires the addition or omission of certain words and phrases to become intelligible in the target language, you cease to be offended or bothered by such petty grievances. It seems like those who strain at the gnats of italics in English Bibles either don't understand the nature of translation or they don't understand the nature of inspiration (the notion of "magical words" in the Bible).
Yes, I do wish all Christians could do at least a little translating, to humble and instruct them!
@@markwardonwords "I have undertaken to translate the Bible into German. This was good for me;
otherwise I might have died in the mistaken notion that I was a learned fellow." Martin Luther
Right!!
Thank you for this! I typically read ESV and while I have considered reading thru in the NKJV or NASB, I never have because I am concerned about the effects the italics will have on my psyche (introducing even subtle doubts). I see that there’s a reader’s NKJV that doesn’t have the italics so I might try that one at some point.
A great plan!
Do you prefer the HCSB practice of putting added words in [brackets] rather than using italics?
I like the use of italics [or brackets] in a Bible because they let me know which are the additional words that the translator added (and not because I am suspicious of the translator). The italics [or brackets] just inform me as to which words the translator believed were 'necessary' to be added in English in order to make the sentence understandable [which is useful to readers who do not understand Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew].
It just kinda looks like the Amplified Bible when you use brackets.
Maybe even more clear, "How tall are you?"
"Five, Ten."
At least in US/CAN, almost everyone would know exactly what you are saying.
Either way, great clarification of italics use in bibles.
Yes!
"Welp" could correspond to "bueno" which is "good". "Welp, I'm leaving." "Bueno, me voy."
Obviously in this sense "bueno" means "good" as much as "welp" means "well"
Love it!
At 6:30, I noticed you quoted from Psalm 14:1 KJV
I'm not sure that you noticed it, you might have very well done that after uploading the video. I saw that you got the correct chapter and verse number, but you mixed the book of Psalms with Proverbs. Trust me, that has happened to me so many times, so I understand where you are coming from.
Overall this video is very helpful for educational purposes and I encourage you to keep up the good work, brother
Ah, yes! So sorry!
I almost wonder if using brackets is a better option than italics.
I vote neither!
I had a PDF of the KJV back in 2014 that rendered all of the italicized words as bracketed words instead.
@@curtthegamer934 I have a .TXT of the KJV that does it.
My main problem with italics is that I find myself wanting to put emphasis on the italic words because that's the way they are usually used in contemporary writings. I find myself accidentally doing it occasionally while reading the Bible aloud, and every single person I know from Monday night Bible studies occasionally make the same mistake despite knowing full well why the italics are actually there (meaning it's not a case of them being unaware of the purpose of the italics, but just plain muscle memory).
This is gold for me. Thank you for this!
I appreciate the transparency of the translators putting them in there, but I find that they cast more doubt than anything to the person that takes notice of them to then be ill-advised on their purpose by someone that is just echoing an uninformed talking point.
I think you just described 83% of the internet: echoing uninformed talking points. =)
An unchurched friend once told me she'd been reading the Bible and asked if I'd help explain it to her. As we sat down I noticed she had a KJV. That was my main version at the time, but I suggested finding another one with more up-to-date English. For some reason she declined (maybe she took it as a challenge?), so we plunged into Matthew. Someone else had already explained the "begats" to her. One of her first questions to me was "Why are they emphasizing all these words?" When I explained what the italics represented, she looked confused and responded, "Isn't that just how different languages work?" She certainly had a point.
Do you know any of the history behind how we got from 1611's intuitive smaller, plainer typeface to today's confusing italics? I can't help thinking there must have been some point where it made more sense.
After 10 seconds of racking my brain, the main place I can think of where the italics made a difference is John 1:17. I see someone else has already mentioned that. Overall, I can think of more examples of people thinking they were for emphasis than of times when they helped.
Good stuff. I don't know the history. I have a friend who may do some looking into it for me.
“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17 KJV)
Hmm. I think intuitive principles of parataxis take care of this one. =) That is, when we say, "I went to the store this afternoon. I got some cheese." Everybody knows that you intended a connection between the two ideas. Likewise, I think the "but" here is necessarily implied.
Fair enough. I think most people would agree there's a connection here, but differ on what it is. How one interprets the context, whether details like the meaning of χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος in v 16 or the bigger picture of God's relationship to His people throughout history, could influence what connection one sees.
To use your example, consider two scenarios:
1. It's homemade pizza night. You promised you'd pick up ingredients. Your wife insisted on giving you a list, since the last two times you got groceries you forgot the cheese. When you arrive home, you tell her, "I went to the store this afternoon." Before she can ask, you add, "I got some cheese."
2. It's homemade pizza night. Your wife decided to go vegan a month ago. At first you went along in solidarity, but today, as you pass the dairy aisle, the thought of trying yet another soy-based substitute feels unbearable. You arrive home. Avoiding your wife's gaze, you confess, "I went to the store this afternoon. I got some cheese."
In each scenario, the translator of your biography might chose different function words to convey what you meant.
I'm with the theologians who see John 1:17 as cumulative rather than contrastive. But I don't have a PhD in NT interpretation =)
@@michaelhessii1866 Very good thinking. And don't feel you need to bow to a PhD! I admit to going off the top of my head and/or from my gut on this one. I haven't read up on what careful interpreters throughout history have said. I'm giving you my feel after years of reading the verse. I'd love to look into the commentary literature. Will file this idea away!
I agree that italics aren't necessary, but sometimes I like to read a passage without the italicized words just to see how well the meaning comes through. They like English (in different ways) have syntactic rules that allow one to omit what is implied in the context.
True at times for sure.
@markwardonwords - One place where I feel like italics are warranted would be in Leviticus 20:17 where I think "DIS" in "disgrace" should be in italics. The word חסד Chesed means "grace" and is always used as a positive thing - except in this verse where the context is very clearly that it should be something negative. We can't very well translate it into English here as a positive thing and the KJV (etc) renders it as being "a wicked thing". Rashi & Sifra indicate that the Chesed here hints towards the original kindness in allowing the children of Adam & Eve to marry each other. While probably true, it still seems like a very odd use to flip the word to mean just the opposite of what the word means everywhere else.
Wow! That is FASCINATING. I'd have to look this up in some commentaries. I'll be there's quite a discussion.
@@markwardonwords - You have access to more commentaries than I do I'm sure. Just skimming the limited set of commentaries on BibleHub (I don't own Logos), I'm not seeing anyone who makes note of the peculiar opposite use of Chesed. Of course, any commentator who is only looking at an English translation here is going to miss this oddity entirely. Did any translation committee ever leave behind comments on this passage I wonder?
Ramban mentions that some commentators have connected Chesed here to the Aramaic word חִסוּדָא Chisuda which can mean "disgrace". Ramban dismisses that explanation, which make sense that he would. (Why would Moses in the midst of the 40 years in the Wilderness, suddenly lapse into an Aramaic meaning when Israel was still centuries away from using Aramaic?) Ramban takes Chesed to have its typical "kindness" meaning - that the passage is saying that the brother-sister relationship SHOULD be "kindness" to each other rather than falling into the brother abusing his sister in this manner. (I would draw a cross-reference to Amnon & Tamar, children of David, in 2nd Samuel 13). The brother should be a man of kindness, bringing good; but instead he becomes cruel by troubling his own sister.
I like that explanation, though it demands that the reader come up with a great deal of expository ideas from the somewhat limited wording that is provided in the verse.
I use the Android Bible app and an intralinear Bible to figure out odd wording. And I don't have any background in Hebrew/Greek. I usually have to troubleshoot KJV oddities when prepping for Sunday school..
One time, there was an interesting NASB issue in Mt 14:13 - "about John." Only the more recent NASBs have it. The 1971 version doesn't. (Not even the KJV does that).
It alters the whole context for what follows. In the previous section, Herod Antipas has heard of Jesus, and thinks John the Baptist has risen from the dead. Then, we get a flashback to the death of John the Baptist.
BUT, is Matthew 14:13 referring to Jesus hearing about the death of John (meaning the flashback is still ongoing?) OR, has Jesus heard that Herod thinks he is John the Baptist? If the former, he goes to a secluded place, perhaps to mourn. If the latter, he goes to a secluded place to avoid Herod.
Actually, I'm not sure which it means. I'm okay with the ambiguity, but the post 1995 NASB decides to make a decision about it.
translation always requires interpretation which is probably why jewish christians, orthodox, catholics, protestants, jehovah's witnesses, etc. all have their own translations. fundamentalists do not like evangelical translations, and similarly, evangelicals do not like liberal translations. I am not sure if there is a liberal youtuber telling evangelical churches to switch to liberal translations.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 oh, I'm not KJO. I use an ESV to teach Sunday School. But some of my students use different translations. This was an odd situation. I think the NASB errs on this word drop-- and it was the italics that illustrated it.
@@TurtleTrackin can confirm if nasb has error by maybe consulting commentaries.
@@TurtleTrackin I am pretty sure you are not kjv only since pretty much only evangelicals use nasb, niv, esv, nlt (fundamentalists usually use kjv and liberals usually use ceb and nrsvue 2021). I have heard some fundamentalists say all of the nasb translators are satanic or some other very evil labels. Listening to how some fundamentalists put labels on evangelicals is pretty hilarious.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 indeed. It was a commentary that made me wonder. N.P. France's NT commentary. It doesn't address the translation. Just the context of the situation. And the question of "error" is a subjective one. The name drop "about John" supplies information that isn't there, but may be inferred. I think it was an error to do that.
I think the importance that many people seem to put on italics in the Bible goes back to E.W. Bullinger's book "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" in which he makes the case that such are evidences of a figure which he calls "Ellipsis" and he provides examples using A LOT of verses with explanations following that don't really make sense as to the meaning gleaned from reading the text without the italicized the word(s).
So, For me italics do two things 1. Inform me when there is elided information in Hebrew that's needed for English. But sometimes 2. They hint to me that the translators were inserting information that they are supplying by interpretation or from outside resources. The problem I see is the majority of italics are things that, while not stated explicitly in Hebrew, are very clear from context and needed in English. However, there are definitely places where the italicized insertions are interpretive. The problem is, people who don't have some Hebrew and/or Greek simply won't be able to tell between the two.
That being said, I find italics to be annoying mainly because they hinder readability to me and as you point out, they don't follow our normal printed English conventions, if you like them fine, but like red letters, and capitalization of pronouns for deity, I don't care for them.
You nailed it. *I* should have said what you said. Excellent.
I used to think italics were necessary for a good formal translation until I studied Greek a little more and I don’t think they’ve helped me much. I now like that we have a formal equivalent translation, ESV, without the italics in it. It reads better and the text itself looks aesthetically more appealing to me. Plus when it’s thought wise to do so the ESV gives footnotes indicating a word or phrase is not in the original language truth implied or they’re exchanging a proper noun for a pronoun. It would be nice to have some KJVs and LSBs without italics. At least just make certain editions without them.
Right. Agreed.
Really every other formal equivalent uses italics besides the ESV. I’m glad the CSB doesn’t. It’s pretty close to formal equivalent.
Such a nit, but wouldn’t “Look!” be the English version of “Behold!”?
I don't think so; somehow it just doesn't mean the same thing. It's our closest equivalent, but as an interjection it just carries a different meaning, I'd say, than idou in Greek.
@@markwardonwords fair enough! Thnx for the reply!
If italics tend to lead believers to distrust their Bibles, then do you also believe that translation notes (in certain translations) also lead to distrust? You usually make much good sense. But your arguments against italics in Bibles left me more puzzled than anything else. Why wouldn't a believer want more accurate info about God's Word? Perhaps I'm a purist, I don't know. But I like a Bible translation that uses italics, that capitalizes pronouns referring to deity, and that provides extensive translation notes--which is the reason that I don't like the ESV (although I concede that it is a good translation otherwise).
I wouldn't say that the italics necessarily lead to distrust; they *ought to* lead to trust, as I said. And I also did not call for the elimination of all italics from all Bibles. For purists like you, there's always the NASB! =) I think translation notes at least have the advantage of being somewhat understandable on their face to a lot of Christians. And I don't see these get misused much. I love translation notes; I love the NET Bible-have you seen that one?
I would love to hear your opinion on John 8:24 on “I am he” (he italicized in KJV) vs “I AM.” Especially since the point of this discourse leads up to Jesus declaring “before Abraham was, I AM!”
“I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”
I honestly can't do anything more than give the off-the-top-of-my-head answer right now, but I would say that is an elided copula and that the "I am" are utterly required.
Thank you for another great video brother!!!
My pleasure!!
Could you keep me in prayer? Because I've been dealing with some translation tribalism within my own heart for the longest time. I never did officially identify as a King James onlyist. But for the longest time if not half my life I would say I lean towards that way of thinking. I'll be more than happy to tell you the full story sometime but for now. I became so mentally attached and emotionally dependent on the King James Bible that when I came away from it it was like the floor right from beneath me disappeared and I fell right through the building on to the first story. I lost my common sense my passion my joy my energy and it was all replaced by anxiety mental and emotional turmoil depression and a not so sober mind. What's worse is that I didn't feel close to God anymore it was like I had to start my whole spiritual walk all over again. I knew how to intellectually pray but it was like I forgot how to emotionally pray. Eventually by God's grace it got settled in my mind that every good translation of the Bible says the same thing but unfortunately it's like I've been having to drag my heart Kicking and Screaming on board. It's affected me so much and I've gotten so upset over the issue that some folks and recommended that either go back to the King James Bible or go see a professional like psychiatrist in counselor type of professional. But neither one of those ideas made any since then and they don't make any sense now because well I know the King James Bible is not that hard to understand it's still not in my own language or in the language of the common people as the Bible was always meant to be and seeing a professional doesn't make any sense cuz one most of the so-called professionals are secularist hence why I don't trust them. And the ones that are Christians I'm not sure they'd understand what I'm going through. The good news is that God has helped settle most of my heart and mind about the matter but I still haven't fully gotten the joy and passion and the sober mind and energy I once had. I don't know what to do anymore. Cuz I've got all the answers I need I know all the facts I need to know I honestly don't know what's missing I honestly don't know why I'm not able to show the current Bible I have the same loyalty I once had for the King James Bible. So please. Be praying for me
Wow, Austin! My heart goes out to you! Do you have a good pastor, my brother? You do need personal pastoral care and support! Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, so don’t feel you must violate your conscience! But if you do, let the Spirit himself be the one to push you past the objections of your conscience. His words in Scripture must be the force that does this. Or it is not worth doing. I am praying for you now!
Thanks I appreciate that. And yes I did talk to my pastor. But unfortunately he doesn't have the wisdom in this any more than I do. The problem is I don't know what conviction my conscience is under. During my search for which Bible translation I should use as my main translation after I came away from the King James Bible. I got tired of thinking about it I got tired of searching I got tired of looking at the facts so finally one day I just prayed and asked God what translation he would have me use. I wake up the next morning and the first thing on my mind with the New American Standard Bible. Although I was reluctant to give The New American Standard Bible a try I did and I liked it but unfortunately I still don't have the same he's in the same sense of loyalty if I did with the King James Bible and I'm still going through a lot of mental and emotional turmoil not as much as I did before my new but I'm still going through it I still don't have all of my joy my passion and my energy back. So on one hand I feel drawn back to the King James Bible but on the other hey man I trusted God ask him to tell me what you would have me do and I wake up the next morning with the new American Standard on my mind. I don't know if that thought was from God I don't know if he caused it to happen I don't know if he allowed it to happen all I know is that when it happened God gave me the grace to trust him and pray to him. So at this point I don't know what direction I'm supposed to go. I pray to God I've talked to my pastor I've spoken to many other brothers in Christ from different denominations I might add. I don't know what to do. So definitely thank you for the prayers
I really hate to be a spammer. But given the fact that I have no means of contacting you except through comments on TH-cam. For a lot of folks in the King James only movement the King James Bible is more than just their Bible it's their creed it's the core of their doctrine and their belief system. Once you remove that or once they start coming away from that. What do you think they should or would put in its place, what would be the new creed and core of their belief system?
The Hebrew and Greek, brother. Send me an email through byfaithweunderstand.com/contact!
And you’re not a spammer! I’m here to help!
Thanks man
I would expect Christians to look to something like the Apostles' Creed if they need a written creed, but the adage, "We have no creed but Christ," is still to be preferred over, "We have no creed but King James Only," since Christ should be the center of our faith regardless of our adoption of formal written creeds. (And despite what I once heard a KJV-Only preacher say, the KJV is not Christ!)
And to keep myself from spamming on more than one of your comments: you may consider continuing to use the KJV in addition to the NASB, especially for devotional reading and prayer time. You don't have to abandon one for the other if you are being edified by both. (That said, if you feel that continued use of the KJV would be unhealthy for you, then you should stick with your current approach of quitting it cold turkey.)
I went from being in a KJV-Only congregation to a church with mixed translations, and the NASB was the first non-KJV Bible that I owned, too. I grew to appreciate its unique features that the KJV didn't offer, even if the KJV had its own strengths against the NASB. And then I found other translations with their own strengths, and I've grown to make use of them for their most suitable purposes--without ever throwing the KJV off my bookshelf.
Every (reliable) translation that can bring out a different nuance of the original texts is a helpful resource. You can have a primary version for study (e.g. the NASB) and then some other versions for specific uses, such as devotionals (e.g. the KJV) and extended reading (e.g. the CSB). I'm not saying that you need 50 translations on your shelf, but you may feel less distressed about using something besides the KJV if you use two or three different translations as specific tools for specific jobs.
The problem with the KJV-Only movement is not that it encourages people to use the KJV, but that it scares people away from using modern translations and pushes them to obsess over one translation as if it were more than just a translation.
@@MAMoreno what about " no creed but the Bible", do you think that's a good one ? Because when I lean towards King James only ism. That's what I would go with. I'm thinking I should still go with it just with a different perspective and a different understanding of it in mind
Not a Greek student, but I thought this was illuminating (maybe I misunderstood): in John 18.5 (and some other places in John), Jesus said "I am," with "he" being italicized. I figured that was one of His clear claims to deity?
you use "bueno... (small pause)". Example: Bueno.... hora de irnos. In South America but not all Spanish countries 😆 bueno can also be use as an interjection.
LOEV THIS!
Using Spanish further, to ask someone, who speaks Spanish, their name, you say, “Como se llama?” Word by word, is that “how you called?” I would reply, “me llamo Steve” to which I believe the polite response is “much gusto” which an English speaker can probably spot is the equivalent of “much pleasure” however nobody says that in English; the polite way to say it in English is “nice to meet you.” “Much pleasure” and “nice to meet you” have no words in common, no overlap. Which words would be italicized?
I agree that the use of italics is not that helpful for the most part if the translation is just revealing what is implicit in the text. I think the most valuable use of italics is in those instances in which a Hebrew/Greek word can have a variety of possible meanings and each interpretation requires a different set of supplied words to complete the idiomatic expression. A great example is Psalm 16:2. The ESV says, "I have no good apart from you". The KJV says "my goodness extendeth not to thee (with "extendeth" in italics)". The issue here is that this portion contains the word "עָלֶֽיךָ (ale-ka)" which is the preposition "al" with the pronominal suffix "ka (you)". "al" could mean "about" or "above", depending on context. An English-speaker might wonder how the same word could mean both "about" or "above", but I think the closest English equivalent is the word "over". We can say, "I am flying over (above) the water". We can also say, "There is no point in arguing over (about) this subject". So Psalm 16:2 could be translated equally ambiguously in English as "My goodness is not over you", which could mean either "My goodness is not about you" or "My goodness is not above you". The former is the interpretation taken by some Rabbis and the KJV (the KJV basically saying that "my goodness" is not made available for "thee"). The latter is the interpretation taken by modern translations (the ESV basically saying that "my goodness" is inferior without "thee"). I do believe the KJV italics are helpful in this instance because it tells me that something debatable is happening with the translation and that the various translational differences are not due to underlying textual reasons. I think Psalm 16:2 is a great example also because the different interpretations can give rise to different Messianic applications of this Psalm (as is seen in various commentaries). So the signification of the italics is not trivial. That being said, the same information could be conveyed by footnotes with an alternative translation. However, this information placed within the text itself (via italics) could be more visually noticeable. Maybe the best compromise is to italicize or bracket not every supplied word but only those supplied words that are both debatable and highly consequential.
This is reasonable, for sure. As I'm coming to expect with you, Masao.
Indeed, I'd just prefer a footnote here.
What weight do you give to the countervailing factors, my friend? The fact that italics already have a meaning-namely, emphasis? The fact that the vast majority of them are unnecessary? Should they be used only when necessary? If so, then brackets already carry that meaning. But no one has had the guts to put them in a major Bible translation-aside from their use for a few passages with uncertain textual attestation.
@@markwardonwords I'm not so sure that italics always mean emphasis in today's writing. Otherwise, I jest that the NIV really really wants to emphasize the Longer Ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae (though I concede the NIV's use of the italics is more obvious from the immediate context with the accompanying textual notes). Italics are originally intended only to "draw attention". The purpose of drawing the attention could vary, such as drawing attention due to importance/emphasis or drawing attention due to uncertainty (as is the way used by the NIV translators from a textual viewpoint, as well as by the KJV translators from a translational viewpoint - and an anomalous use by the KJV translators from a textual viewpoint at 1 John 2:23b). But I grant that in popular usage, the use of the italics to draw attention for emphasis has become the predominant use. I do have a possible solution though. Interestingly, the original 1611 KJV renders 1 John 2:23b in smaller italics. All other italics in the 1611 KJV are kept the same size as the rest of the text. I think small italics could work to indicate controversial additions of words. Small font by itself can cause readers to wonder if their eyes are playing tricks on them. Italics alone could cause modern readers to think there is emphasis. But a combination of both can alleviate the countervailing factor you raise. I wouldn't prescribe this convention on everyone, but it does solve the problem for a translation that wants to maintain italics - except for old people with bad eye-sight. Ok, I give up.
Great video - loved your 3 +2 style - best of both worlds (see below, though, for a minor caveat)
Superb introduction also to modern linguistic theory, i.e, words only having meaning within their respective contexts (clauses, phrases, sentences, etc)
I do think, however, that you should have been more precise in your clarification of what the measure in Ruth was as ephahs are simply far far too much (contra NKJV)
To quote the NET Bible, " Heb “and she gripped it tightly and he measured out six of barley and placed upon her.” The unit of measure is not indicated in the Hebrew text, although it would probably have been clear to the original hearers of the account. Six ephahs, the equivalent of 180-300 pounds, is clearly too heavy, especially if carried in a garment. Six omers (an omer being a tenth of an ephah) seems too little, since this would have amounted to six-tenths of an ephah, less than Ruth had gleaned in a single day (cf. 2:17). Thus a seah (one third of an ephah) may be in view here; six seahs would amount to two ephahs, about 60 pounds (27 kg). See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 222, and F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 178."
In any case, while the Hebrew itself may not be clear the actual amount is far less 'up in the air' than you seem to intimate here
NB: while you may have a point about the benefit of italics for original language study it has never been noted (in my research at least) on actual, specifically noted 'aids' for acquisition - do you know any articles that actually say as much?
PS: O.L.S.H.A is awesome! Is that actually yours? If so, amazing, amazing, aiming!
Good call on the ephah. I read that but should have shared it!
On your NB: No; I am working from logic and personal experience and not any kind of empirical observation-or anyone else's!
O.L.S.H.A. is something I invented a few years back at Logos. =) Tongue-in-cheek! But still needed!
@@markwardonwords All that sounds good - your O. L. S. H. A. needs to be patented 🙂
Mark, the only time italics have helped me was recognizing that “high places” in Ephesians 6 should have been translated “heavenly places” if the KJV translators had been consistent with their translation of ἐπουρανίοις throughout the Ephesian letter…which would make our war against the unseen (and not humans) make a good bit more sense.
Excellent. But, of course, your inclusion of Unicode Greek tells me that you are the kind of person I was talking about for whom italics can be useful: someone who already knows Greek. Right?
On the other hand, Psalm 127.2 in NASB says He gives to His beloved EVEN IN HIS sleep; NKJV omits that phrase. Two different meanings there. I guess that's one where you need to be a student of the original language?
I have found the italics to provide great insight into the language behind the translation. When people properly understand where they come from, they add depth to the readers understanding. I agree about preachers making a big deal of it from the pulpit. that does nothing but undermine trust in God's Word.
I see italics as beneficial, or at least neutral, just as long as preachers refrain from making more of them than they actually are.
Good, balanced comment. Can you give a specific example?
@@markwardonwords as I was reading the passages you used in your video (I paused and read them from Logos app on my phone, shameless plug) my thoughts were driven to the grammatical elements that lead to the need for supplying those words in order to create a readable translation. Without supplied words, the text would be choppy and difficult to read. The italized words are just a language crutch.
Like in Ruth - God did not inspire a record of measurement of grain that was given. It would be inappropriate then (on so many levels) to emphasize the amount given beyond that it was significant. That thought is further supported in context when Ruth returns with it to Naomi. Naomi's response had everything to do with the substance of the gift, not the amount of it.
I also have observed that many of the supplied words are pronouns or linking/helping verbs. But that is simple observation and not based on any dedicated study. Those words are often times implied in the original languages but are supplied in translation for readability.
When reading the verse without italicized words (Ruth 3:15): "Also he said, Bring the vail that ... upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six ... of barley, and laid ... on her: and she went into the city." In this verse I am able to get the gist, but it is work. I understand the importance of supplying them and the italics.
Knowing italicized words are, at some level, interpretive additions, allows me to ensure I don't over (or under) emphasize something. Your Psalm 14/53 video demonstrates the danger of that.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I really don't understand the "readabilty" issue with italicized words. I had to read the verse four times when I pasted it to make sure I got all of the italicized words and I am still slightly worried that I missed one. When I read Scripture, I don't even notice them.
Although I haven't gained any insight from italics. I like them because as you know certain words and phrases that are not in the original languages might nevertheless be implied. Case in point in the original language the word brethren although a masculine term is referring to brothers and sisters not just brothers. So when Bibles like the nasb 2020 Edition adds the words and sisters but put them in italics I like that because they're trying to bring clarity to the text while at the same time admitting certain words are in the originals but are implied. While I understand that is doing interpretive or at least in the case of italics the translators are admitting that this is an interpretation. And in all honesty the csb had done that I would have stuck with it instead of switching over to the nasb 2020
This is a good answer.
Thank you for the video. I have heard the same comments from the pulpit and it only casts doubt on tbe non italic using translations as if they are not honest. But if the italics are not used consistently by the 1611 or other italic using translations does that mean they are not being honest? Obviously not. Scrivener in Section III of the introduction to The Cambridge Paragraph Bible that he edited discusses the use of italics in several Bible versions including the 1611. If I read Scrivener correctly the use of italics was so inconsistently used in the 1611 that they are almost useless and he would rather not have italicized words in his edition however he was cconstrained to do so. He is a little hard to read so maybe I am misunderstanding him. He does give a lot of examples that I checked out. He was a diligent scholar. I am working on a short explanation of why it's a bad argument to dismiss a translation because they don't use italics for words not in the orginal languages. Does "is" really need to be italicized? If you or someone else can point me to a paper on the subject I would appreciate it. Blessings to you!
I don’t have a paper to point you to, I’m afraid. I have to imagine someone has written on this at a formal, academic level. But with copulas (“is” and “are”) a paper isn’t necessary. It’s very clear that what Hebrew can leave out English often requires. “Is” is not “missing” from the Hebrew, and it is not “added” in the English. To say this is to assume that one word in Hebrew or Greek must always be reflected by one in English, and vice versa. And that’s just not how language works.
Isn’t ‘behold’ a shortened way of saying… ‘understand this’ at the beginning of a sentence?
It isn’t needed, but; rather, added simply for the sake of it.
It's also a surprise word sometimes. The OT was produced in a context where it would be read aloud always always. "Behold! A child!" In exodus 2 for instance. It's always in the original text.
You could totally use "oh!" and "look!" if you want totally mainstream contemporary translations. I think Ward has a bit of excessive contempt for reading comprehension and something of a delusion about exact mapping between written and spoken languages in any era, though. Some conventions and sentence structures exist only in writing at ANY time, yet people get them fine.
If people are barely literate, they should be free to choose NLT. That's fine. But pushing it because you assume that everyone is barely literate is ridiculous.
@@toomanymarys7355 He knows that he is being excessive with his views, but he explains that he only uses such excess to emphasise his points to a person who is excessive toward the other end of the scale… people who believe that ‘everybody MUST follow a particular prescription… bla bla bla’
In this instance… argument, if you like… I actually prefer the italics and bolding/drop caps that are used within text blocks of literature… but that is just me.
@@djpodesta I massively prefer them, as well.
Too Many Marys, try these same points again without the acid tone and I might be super interested. I might already be!
I know this is a little off-topic, but I do have a question for you. A Sunday school teacher at my now previous church, a KJV only man whom I shared one of your videos with, really was not too happy about it at all. He said that you believe that there is no perfect, errorless Bible anywhere. He also said that when you use the word “Bible” or “word of God” that you’re not being intellectually honest. He also said that you would hold to the belief that you have never seen the “word of God” a day in your life,
I was surprised and disappointed at the harshness of his comments. We texted a little more, but that has been it. I have tried to reach out several times with a friendly text here and there, but I have been totally ghosted. I guess I am being shunned.
Have you experienced this a whole lot?
Although I am no longer attending there, I still do like to keep in touch with other brothers and sisters in Christ who still attend there. I am very thankful that others have continued to be kind, gracious and loving, but just saddened by someone I used to really enjoy discussing scripture with even outside of class, now is just a case of crickets.
I have heard this many, many times. It is a huge reason I work on this topic. My read: this is a good man who has been fooled by divisive people. What he is saying comes straight out of the Peter Ruckman playbook, to the letter. My heart goes out to you-and to him. I pray he is a victim and not a perpetrator. But for him to look-as he apparently does?-at the vast majority of fellow Christians, those of us who use contemporary translations, and say that we don't have a Bible and have never seen one, that is incredibly divisive. KJV-Onlyism is not a victimless crime.
I do appreciate italics.
1. I find it can be a useful tool when navigating unusual (compared to modern English) phrasing.
2. Knowing that a word or words are there for clarity and context required for correct understanding of the original meaning, it is interesting to read side by side with other translations and see how different translators dealt with adding context.
When I first switched to digital bibles, I would almost always have two or sometimes three translations open at a time. All tracking along together.
As an English only reader, I feel it gives me a small window into what bible translation is.
Can you think of a time when it helped you understand a given passage?
@@markwardonwords Yes! On several occasions. (Sorry, I can't provide an example at this time though. Admittedly it doesn't happen often, but it does happen.)
Not all translations are equal or serve the same exact purpose. Why can't the more literal versions contain italics or light face type to show what is found in the original and what is added for clarity and understandability.
I believe italics provides a path to deeper meaning in Ecclesiastes 12:13 KJV.
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man."
When the word "duty" is omitted, it doesn't change the meaning, but it expands from solely responsibility to "whole or all of man."
Although, I one could argue that it would be better to simply consult other translations.
"...because this is for all humanity." CSB
"...because this [applies to] every person." NASB
"...for this is the whole duty of man." ESV
"...because this is [the end of the matter for] all mankind." LSB
"...For this is man's all." NIV and NKJV
Italics in the KJV lead to same meaning in NIV and NKJV: "whole of man" means the same as "man's all". Which I believe could be described as deeper meaning. Both ESV + NIV interpretations in the same translation. This however is not natural English, which is why I would only want italics in a word-for-word translation where I get to "finish the translation process." And I have zero knowledge or training in Hebrew or Greek. I just like italics because it helps me see how the translators made interpretive decisions.
Edit: Also, I think MEV is italics done best.
Eph. 2:1 in the KJV and NKJV is one case of italics I don't understand. And you , (He made alive), who were dead in trespasses and sins (NKJV) or And you , (hath he quickened), who were dead in trespasses and sins; (KJV). Why? It is not in Greek and is unnecessary since verse 5 in the Greek states we have been made alive or quickened. I also believe it's distracting at the beginning of the paragraph to include this phrase as Paul is emphasizing our past state before trusting Christ and being made alive. Thank you for the video. Good stuff as usual.
I should have talked about that passage! And 1 John 2:23! Maybe I will… Those are two odd instances of italics in the KJV.
@@markwardonwords It's interesting comparing the 1611 to the 1769 KJV and noticing how much more the Bible is italicized in the 1769. It's a worthwhile point to bring to someone who is KJVO.
Wow. Interesting. Specific examples? Certain chapters to point to?
Also, I believe the italics in the 1611 stopped entirely after Acts 20.
digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=auss
Here’s two Bible verses that I believe italics helped me understand better:
Proverbs 24:25
But those who rebuke [the wicked] will have delight
And a good blessing will come upon them
(God blessed those who rebuke anyone - even the righteous when they sin, not just the wicked)
Nahum 1:3
The LORD is slow to anger and great in power,
And will not at all acquit [the wicked]
God will acquit no one (without an acceptable sacrifice), whether righteous or wicked
Btw I like your channel and hate kjvonlyism; it has caused me much harm and grief
I love this comment. Very few people have tried to give me a serious response (to an admittedly minor issue!).
But… On Prov 24:25, context almost demands the insertion of "the wicked" there. That "verse" has to be read in the "paragraph" that goes from 24:23b to at least 24:25, possibly (as in my ESV) 24:26.
And on Nah 1:3… You may have a point on that one, though I might make the same argument from that context as I did from Prov 24. I'll have to think about that one!
I'm sorry KJV-Onlyism has caused you harm and grief! I feel your pain, I really do. It's done a lot of silent evil to me. A lot.
I have never heard of welp?
Midwestern phrase
It's the cousin of "Yup!"
When you mention about Paul's knowledge of the Old Testament having been obtained naturally, that made me think of a question for you. Matthew quotes the Old Testament, and in one famous case, he is obviously quoting the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text. Generally, the Masoretic text is regarded as more reliable; the Catholic church switched to it as far back as the Vulgate, and that's what the Old Testament in the KJV is based on too. Some really old arguments for trusting the Septuagint instead even verged on anti-Semitism. So how does one manage to maintain that, yes, Matthew was inspired by God to say that the virgin birth of Jesus was prophesized in the Old Testament, as opposed to having to admit this is some kind of a mistake in the Bible?
I really like the KJV translators’ explanation for the New Testament writers’ use of the Septuagint. Have you read that?
It seems to me that the reason for italics (or Roman type instead of Gothic) in Bibles is obvious; at the time these translations were first made, the translators were worried that without indicating the words added to make the translation make sense in English... would put them at risk of having the plagues described in the Book of Revelations added to them. Today, we would call it superstitious. But I think that most Christians do know what the italics in the KJV are for, and thus avoid the potential for confusion they have.
This is an interesting supposition, but I really just can’t follow it. Any translator worth his salt knows that some words must be “added.“
Strangely enough I think the translation for “welp” in Spanish would be “pos” which is itself an informal variation of the word “pues” and it’s connotations in Spanish are almost identical to that of “welp” in English 😂
Just remembered something that fascinated me as a kid.
"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: _[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."_ (1 John 2:23, KJV) (My Bible included _but_ in square brackets; it looks like not all KJV editions do.)
I used to wonder how an entire clause could be absent, yet so strongly implied that the translators felt the need to add it. I also wondered why _but_ got both brackets and italics. It wasn't until years later that I realized there was a textual variant here and it all made sense 😃
Right! And that's the only place *I know of* where they do this.
@@markwardonwords John 8:6 is another example, although the italicizing here wasn't done until 1769.
Italics are for emphasis. Italics for supplied words is an horrible idea. That idea seems that people are adding to the word of God. Italics are only for emphasis and textual indication.
Psalm 14:1 (not Proverbs)
Thank you!
I’ve heard ‘bueno’ be used in Spanish where ‘welp’ would be used in English.
Welp I’m leaving
Bueno ya me voy
Excellent! Love this!
This video and its comments are about the only place so far I've encountered welp in the sense of "well... " In another context I might think of puppies but the spelling would be different, I.e. whelp.
"the kingdom of God does not consist in words" (20:48) .... but is this correct exegesis of the words of the apostle Paul? isn't this an "exegetical fallacy"? to put this citation in the context of Bible translation? this was not the context of what Paul said... "Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the *speech* of them which are puffed up, but the *power* . For the kingdom of God is not in *word* (=speech), but in *power* . What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?" (1.Cor.4.18-21)
You are correct that 1 Corinthians 4.20 refers to oral communication. And that distinction is reflected in some modern translations:
AMP - For the kingdom of God is not based on talk but on power.
CSB - For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.
ESV - For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power.
NABRE- For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.
NEB - The kingdom of God is not a matter of talk, but of power.
NET - For the kingdom of God is demonstrated not in idle talk but with power.
NIV - For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.
NJB - For the kingdom of God consists not in spoken words but in power.
NLT - For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God’s power.
NRSVUE - For the kingdom of God depends not on talk but on power.
Most of these translations are following the lead of the RSV, which says, "For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power."
My error. Cited from memory! I concede.
@@MAMoreno yes, but even long before the RSV (1946-52), we find the formal conformity of rendering between the two verses,... first, in the pre-1611 bibles, they had "wordes" / "worde" both places, including Wycliffe 1382 ("word" both places), and since the context of Paul here is not "word on the page", but rather "word of mouth" (speech), the intention of the translators was naturally "word" in the sense of "speech", shown by the 1611 translators when they varied between "speech" and "word" within the same context... in post-1611 bibles, formal conformity in translating the same word became more common again, while the AV translators had made it clear in their "The Translators to the Reader" that they intentionally did not subject themselves to such a rule but varied the translation with synonymous words and expressions... contra Reina Valera 1602/1909 where we find conformity of wording (i.e. both before and after 1611), "palabras" in both verses, meaning both "words" and "utterances", and in John Wesley’s NT (1755), we find that he slightly revised the 1611 text at places, often according to conformity of wording, and travels into the future and reads: "...not the speech of them who are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power." ... and likewise, in Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (1903), we find "speech" in both places: "... not the speech of them who are puffed up, but, the power; For, not in speech, is the kingdom of God, but, in power." ... But whether one renders "word" in both places, or "speech" in both places, or "word" in the one verse and "speech" in the other, the meaning is the same, due to this particular context.... In fact, i would even argue that the English *words* themselves mean the same thing in this context... and that's what we find in the Greek, anyway... :-)
"i don't want anyone thinking that i'm picking on the King James" (9:17) ... but isn't that a little too late?... :---)
I don't seem to be able to get people to stop thinking this. Sigh. But it ain't true!
@@markwardonwords well, i understand why, for it kind of sounds like you are, sometimes, and i know many interpret it like "picking" on the KJV... but communication and understanding of communication is not always an easy thing... it is no secret that many who have read your book "Authorized..." and listened to your TH-cam videos, have interpreted several of your statements on the language of the KJV as "unnecessarily negative", to put it mildly, and i am sure you have read a lot of it, (i'm not talking about the typical "extreme" KJO rants)... and one able blog writer, Taylor DeSoto, has pointed out several things in his articles (The Young, Textless, and Reformed), and concluded one paragraph in this way: "It speaks volumes that Chistopher Hitchins has a higher evaluation of the KJV than Ward." ... but why did Taylor think this? and he is not alone... and in the same blog (dated May 8, 2020), he kicked off the "Conclusion" this way: "After reading Ward’s book twice, I cannot help but point out the inconsistency of his thesis, and the hypocrisy of his writing style. He has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source for the critiques he issues towards the KJV and KJV readers. He imposes an extreme version of the problem that he claims the KJV imposes to his reader. He slaps KJV readers for making equivocations while constantly equivocating the English of the KJV with Shakespeare, the comprehensibility of the KJV with the Latin Vulgate, and KJV English with Old or Middle English. This is one of those cases where it isn’t wise to throw rocks in glass houses. What Ward seems to miss is that being able to understand words is far more important than those words being in “vernacular English.” As a fellow “language nerd,” I expect more from somebody claiming to be in the dwindling population of people who love the English language." ... Maybe there is a reason why there are many (outside the "extreme KJO" league) who think this (or similarly) of several things you have written and said about the KJV... so there you have the "picking", agree or disagree, but Taylor is not alone in thinking that you are "imposing an extreme version of the problem that you claim the KJV imposes ..." - An "extreme version" sounds like a form of "extremism" and it has become obvious to many long ago that your views of the KJV are somewhat "extreme", "extremism", but this time the other way around, not "KJO extremism" but rather a form of "anti-KJV extremism" (whether intended or not).... while at the same time claiming to "love the KJV"... and that's OK, we are allowed to have our own views on Bible translations... and we should debate these issues... but i suspect that your "message" about the language of the KJV does not reach all those you try to reach, precisely because of the issues related above...
I welcome debate. I almost never get it.
While I appreciate some of your points on this topic, I would have to disagree with your conclusions. Here are the two places where I would disagree most.
1. There are many subcultures within the larger group of English speakers that handle the English language differently than the broader culture does. In any subculture, it is important to understand the aspects of language that are different from the broader culture i.e. this is true of Scientists, people in the IT industry, people in the Medical field, etc... The way that italics is used in Bible translations reflects a subculture use that no more wrong than the unique aspects of how language is used in many other subcultures.
2. Some use of italics represents words that must be supplied in translation, but some represent conjecture and sometimes different translators would supply different words. In this cases, italics can be very helpful to English speakers with no background in the biblical languages when they are trying to understand why two translations convey different meaning. This is especially true of Hebrew which is often very terse.
On your first point: that’s why we have the NASB! More power to people who see benefit here.
On your second point, which I think is stronger: that’s why we have the NASB! More power to those same people. But I’m skeptical, though I wish I weren’t, that many monolingual laypeople can successfully do what you describe. I would truly LOVE to be wrong, and I’m seriously planning to write a book that will help me help laypeople prove me wrong!
I think that with good pastoral training, most people in the pew can take advantage of things like this. When I teach hermeneutics to English speaking, non-biblical language students, I emphasize that they can understand Scripture without looking at the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. We have a wealth of tools in English that allow people to gain understanding. Here is my list in order of preference.
1. Look at a passage in multiple good English translations and note any significant differences (if any exist). We spend a little time discussing what is and what is not a significant difference. Understand that these translations communicate the meaning as understood by scholars who do understand these languages. It is at this step that italics can be helpful.
2. Take notes on their own understanding of the passage before looking at any addition material i.e. let commentators persuade you that you are wrong rather than letting them tell you what the passage means.
3. Look at multiple good commentaries written by people who can read the biblical languages (recognizing that many commentaries are written by people who can read the original languages no better than they can) i.e. choose wisely.
4. Look at resources like the NET bible notes.
================================
I specifically tell them to avoid using biblical language works like lexicons, unless they are learning the biblical languages, as these far more often lead those who do not know the biblical languages to misunderstandings than aid in understanding.
To give an example, one very popular preacher/teacher taught that עזב in didn't mean "leave," it meant "abandon." Based on this new "revelation" about what this word meant, he taught that a married couple should never live with their parents in any circumstance, nor even in the same neighborhood as their parents (and probably shouldn't live in the same city). This kind of "pick the meaning I like best" is common for those who resort to lexicons but do not know the language and, like this case, frequently results in disastrously wrong interpretations of the text.
One of the slides that I use when I teach presents the following verse from three versions and asks which ONE of these verses incorrectly communicates the meaning of this verse.
HCSB Isaiah 53:3 a man of suffering who knew what sickness was.
ESV Isaiah 53:3 a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
KJV Isaiah 53:3 a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:
It is a trick question because two of these appear identical but the KJV meaning (in the 17th century) was much closer to the HCSB today. Although the HCSB doesn't quite understand the meaning of "sickness" as it is used in the 8th century BC or in the 17th century AD. When the ESV used these same words 400 years later they communicated a meaning that was much different.
I never really knew what that Italics used for nor have I every paid attention until now. I see they are used for emphasis but that's it. Thank you Mark Ward
Glad to be of service!
I hope you mean in current English. In the KJV they are NOT used for emphasis.
The NWTs convention of using square brackets instead is so much easier to read. I know what italics mean, and they mean stress. Using them to mean something entirely unrelated is just horribly confusing.
This is, of course, orthogonal to the question of whether the NWT is otherwise a good translation. That's a can of worms I don't particularly want to open here. But it definitely has better typography.
And, of course, indicating "interpolated words" in any way at all can be misleading, as the video says, because _languages are not codes for each other_ and translation is an art with many judgment calls, and to specifically indicate some is to gloss over the others.
The non literal versions don't need italics . Agreed. Let's make all options available for God's people.
Italics in the Bible make an interesting Sunday School lesson when my second graders learn that italics mean emphisis and so read the weekly Bible lesson emphasising all the italicised words. I learn a little self control when I don't giggle at them and then explain what Bible italics mean.
I would LOVE to have a video recording of this!!
Not strictly necessary, but surprisingly elucidating occasionally. More succint than a note. Besides, the translator himself may not realize the significance, yet allows the reader to do so. Greek is very expensive to learn; I enjoy these features, even agreeing they might be done better.
I’ve been asking: can you think of an insight you had into the meaning of Scripture through an instance of italics?
I never really even noticed the italics until I read the preface of a KJV Bible explaining some of its quirks. Now, I always read italicized Bible text twice: once as-is, and once without the italicized words to see how it sounds 😂
Interesting! And did you come up with any insights?
My understanding of Bible translation is that some level of interpretation is also necessary. Italics is just an example of interpretation. I agree that, for the most part, italics is of no benefit for the average person.
I enjoy reading translations of Russian novels (preferably Fyodor Dostoevsky) and I don't recall the use of italics in these translations that would be considered out of place for Standard Contemporary English (if they're used at all). Yet, the lack of italics doesn't concern me at all. The same applies to Bible translations.
Very, very good point.
Depends of what Is..... IS.........
After all these years, I never saw/read the original Clinton statement. Where can it be found?
@@markwardonwords I will look forward and post it, I heard your discussion about the word is and that was the first thing that I thought about.
@@markwardonwords th-cam.com/video/E6poYzFWkFg/w-d-xo.html
@@markwardonwords th-cam.com/video/j4XT-l-_3y0/w-d-xo.html
"This pastor was such an one." And, "he shot himself in the foot, but only with an air soft gun". I don't know about TR vs. CT vs. MT, but you are really funny and always leave this old woman laughing.
My pleasure, as I think you must already know!
When I was a kid, I used to think italics were for emphasis in the Bible and tried to read them that way. Very confusing. 😁 Eventually I realized that they couldn't be for emphasis, but didn't learn till years later what they were really for.
Ha! Right! Who's to blame those kids! They're probably the *good* readers who know what italics mean!
I thought your tone and manner in this video was great
✔
some fundamentalists and some evangelicals like the italics and the customer is always right. There is no need to give up the kjv if you use more completely annotated kjvs. If you cannot beat the kjv readers, maybe just join them. People will probably not stop reading archaic hamlet since there are good annotated hamlet like arden shakespeare hamlet.
In a very real way I *have* done this. I have done more to teach people to read the KJV than anyone else I know of. Hour after hour of instruction! If someone uses my videos, as a commenter recently said he did, to remain KJV-Only but read with better understanding, I rejoice! The bigger point is understanding, not picking "the right" Bible translation.
Mark, I've been thoroughly enjoying your video series, including this latest one on the KJV debate. It seems to me that you and your colleagues are increasingly realizing that the core issue here is actually Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI). I couldn't agree more with your 30-thousand-foot perspective; focusing on larger units like paragraphs and sentences is far more informative than dissecting individual words. While VPI advocates for divine origin of each word, other modes of inspiration like direct revelation, teaching by the Holy Spirit, and divinely prompted recall offer a richer and more nuanced understanding of the text.
These modes, although not as "clean" as VPI suggests, offer firsthand spiritual insights that align more closely with how the Bible was actually written, constructed and distributed (no golden tablets). I'm eager to see if you and your colleagues will eventually pivot to discuss VPI explicitly. It's a delicate subject but addressing it could go a long way in resolving the divisions and apostasy this debate has been causing. Looking forward to your future content.
Mark holds to VPI, from what I recall. What we can say for certain is that some words in the inspired texts have to be verbally inspired. Paul's arguments rest too heavily on the precise phrasing of certain key texts. If VPI is incorrect, it's incorrect in the sense that it uncritically applies something that's true in specific cases to the entirety of the Scriptural text. The problem is that there's no clear standard for determining which passages are inspired at the verbal level and which ones are inspired at a broader conceptual level. The only consistent method I could see would be a minimalist approach: assuming that the only verbally-inspired passages in the Old Testament are the ones explicitly treated in the New Testament as such.
@@MAMorenoThe point I'm making is that those who are KJV-only are advocating for Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI), as specifically applied to the Authorized Version (directly or indirectly). They have a point; if VPI holds, then textual criticism and variations in the Scripture would undermine that doctrine. However, Mark and his colleagues argue that VPI isn't actually how God provided us with the Scriptures. They've gone so far as to say, "God is okay with not having a perfect text." I agree. If VPI doesn't hold to an English text it is rendered mute given the differences in the manuscripts. As they have said, "we've got a macro stability" not a micro one (which is VPI).
They also caution that VPI could lead people to treat the text as almost "magical," similar to golden tablets. And they acknowledge that we no longer have tools like the Urim and Thummim to guide us in choosing the correct version or textual variants. In essence, for the KJV-only crowd, VPI matters only if you can hold that perfect text in your hands. Eventually, the conversation will likely shift to focus more on the validity of VPI itself. The Bible itself describes various methods of its own composition, which differ according to genre and I echo their conclusions that God oversaw this process and that its imperfection does not thwart the purpose and efficacy of the text anymore than an imperfect message preached thwarts people's spirits being moved by the Holy Spirit.
@@davidbeiswenger60 "its imperfection does not thwart the purpose and efficacy of the text"
Do you mean to say that it's not inerrant? I'm quite sure Mark Ward is an inerrantist, as well.
@MAMoreno I think Mark and his colleagues would say the originals are inerrant, but they must also acknowledge that this is more of a formality, since none of those manuscripts are extant. This is the point KJV-only advocates make: why hold a position on an ethereal Bible? While English versions may not be inerrant (depending on your definition), they might be infallible in serving God's purpose and for faith and practice. VPI is a *textual absolutist* position, and I think that will become clear at some point.
@@davidbeiswenger60 It's possible that a person's view on the inerrancy of the autographs might have implications in their view of textual criticism, though. Should certain readings be disregarded regardless of the evidence in their favor if they create a contradiction? This point is raised by KJVOs in the comments all the time: they see the Nestle-Aland's preferred reading in a certain passage as incompatible with another passage.
And while some of these readings can be explained away, it still provides them with ammo: surely the more obviously inerrant reading must be the original, right? The textual criticism of today often takes the opposite approach: the "hardest" reading is the best, including any reading that causes problems for inerrancy or Christian orthodoxy.
Alternatively, some supporters of the text underlying the KJV have suggested a kind of progressive inerrancy: even if the original readings contained errors, those errors were corrected in the apographs. Considering that much of the Hebrew Bible appears to have been written in stages by more than one hand, they suggest the same could be true about the "canonical" versions of the New Testament books.
From this view, the problem with the modern critical texts is that they're peeling off the revisions that were part of the completion process for each book. Perhaps they would go so far as to say that such changes are themselves verbally and plenarily inspired. Once you throw out VPI on your own end and concede inerrancy as a mere formality, do you really have a way to challenge a view like this one without alienating conservatives in the process?
It's a translation and translator problem, not an italics or light face type problem. The translations have to be consistent and accurate in it's use of italics .
I took a Bible study class lo these many years ago where we used the NASB. And I had classmates who thought italics meant emphasis. Being the nerd I am, I'd read the preface and knew what they meant, but most of the class was confused.
But I still like the italics in the NASB and wish the ESV did something similar. Maybe we're doing it wrong, but people tend to write whole treatises based on one word (/hyperbole), and it's nice to know when that word is simply implied or even added for clarity.
Right! But people who do that typically know the Hebrew or Greek and therefore don’t need the italics!
@@markwardonwords I think you overestimate the people in my Bible study group lol
;)
Nicely done
Thanks, Dr. Moritz! Great to see you here!
I must disagree with reason 3. If you want to only use italics for what we use it for in non-scripture then you have simply eliminated italic usage in the Bible altogether, and now need to use something else to denote words that used to be in italics. So there is no point in reason 3. People who want to understand their translation should always read the textual notes at the beginning. It is quite clear (at least in the NASB) what italics means, along with 'stars', brackets, etc. I find the NASB very useful for its notes and obvious intent to be both correct and to ensure that the reader understands the textual meanings.
And reason 2 is very real! It builds trust in the translation.
Just because you asked, in Japanese, “welp” or “well” would be “saa” or “sate”. Lol
Ah! Cool!
I used to think that italics were valuable, but after learning to read the Bible in Greek I discovered that translation is complicated and messy.
How about a video on red letter bibles? My minister recently told us that the verse he was teaching on was very important because it is in red. Face-palm emoji.
I do need to do this.
I actually prefer the italics in my 1985 Nelson NKJV. I like to know when English words are added in the effort of clarifying the meaning. I'm aware that Greek or Hebrew can't go directly word-for-word into English. I like to be able to see where and how these translators did their work. That's also why I like the copious references as to various texts and their wording that are in this volume. Not all translations have these references or those italics. Some of the later ones simply do not use them. But I know where many of them are. Experience and time is a good thing.
My friend, can you give an example or two of times when italics helped you understand the Bible better?
@@markwardonwords They tend to cause the English to flow more easily as we use the language. They simply remind me that they are not in the original Greek. I tend to have a critically technical mind after 40 years as an electronics repair technician. I prefer it that way.
1Cor 7:36 is a prime example of why italics are in fact useful. The NASB and LSB, probably others too, by using italics here, give the reader the information that daughter is implied, perhaps, but not specified. The ESV just adds it and the NIV interprets it differently. Without the italics one may never know there are other interpretations possible here.
This is a good hypothesis. Will have to think on it. I tend to think that the passage itself will send most interpreters to find help. This is good.
I met a couple of guys who scribbled through every single italicized in their KJV bibles.
No! Why??
Attacking the kjv is also what the Jesuits do.
yes, the words of Scripture do not have any "magical powers", but they have power, that is, God's power... :)
Agreed!
Breakfast time. Chorizo and eggs! 😋
Oh yes!