Why Italicized? John 8:6, 1 John 2:23, and 1 John 3:16 Answered

In the King James Bible, there are italics. They are used to show when the translators supplied words either because the English language requires them to make sense or because of something implied in the originals that aren't "explicitly" there.

Originally, in the 1611 King James Bible, there were no italics. Instead, since the text was mostly in Gothic type, the supplied words were in Roman type. When, however, they switched from Gothic to Roman, they began using italics where the Roman type had been originally. I have a leaf from a 1630 King James Bible, and it uses the Roman type with italics, so some point from 1611 to 1630 is when this switch was first being made (but not completely as I found a 1639 KJV with Gothic type).

Galatians 4:14 in the 1630 KJV; "even" is in italics
Galatians 4:14 in the 1630 KJV; "even" is in italics
 
There are three times that the KJV uses italics for something other than supplied words. It was used to denote variances in the received texts in three spots: John 8:6, 1 John 2:23, and 1 John 3:16.

John 8:6

In John 8:6, it says:

"This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not."
 
The phrase "as though he heard them not" is in italics. I checked the 1611, 1638, 1700, and 1762 editions of the KJV and none of them had the words in italics (or in the case of the 1611, Roman type).
 
John 8:6 in the 1611 KJV
John 8:6 in the 1611 KJV
 
John 8:6 in the 1638 KJV
John 8:6 in the 1638 KJV

John 8:6 in the 1762 Parris KJV
John 8:6 in the 1762 Parris KJV

However, the 1769 edition did italicize the words in question.

John 8:6 in the 1769 Blayney KJV
John 8:6 in the 1769 Blayney KJV

The italics for this verse only go back to the 1769 edition. They are not original to the King James Bible text, and as such do not reflect the opinions/beliefs of the translators, merely those of Benjamin Blayney—editor of the 1769 edition. Interestingly, the 1770 edition also doesn't have it in italics despite being after Blayney's edition.
 
John 8:6 in the 1770 KJV

1 John 2:23

Next, let's look at 1 John 2:23.

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

As you can see, the second half of this verse is in italics. The word "but" is supplied, which is why it has parentheses around it. Unlike the last verse, this one's italics/Roman type extend back to the 1611.

A picture of the 1 John 2:23 in the 1611 KJV
1 John 2:23 in the 1611 KJV

The reason for this was because the King James Bible translators noted that the majority of printed New Testaments they had did not contain the phrase.

The King James translators got the verse from the 1598 Beza Greek New Testament, the Great Bible, and the Bishops' Bible.

1 John 2:23 in the Beza 1598 Greek New Testament
1 John 2:23 in the Beza 1598 Greek New Testament




1 John 2:23 in the 1540 Great Bible
1 John 2:23 in the 1540 Great Bible

1 John 2:23 in the 1602 Bodleian Bishops' Bible
1 John 2:23 in the 1602 Bodleian Bishops' Bible

Those who believe the KJV is dually/doubly inspired (i.e. Ruckmanites) love to point to this verse. They say, "See, it's in italics, so the King James Bible translators didn't have that part of the verse—God inspired them to add it." However, this flies in the face of reality. The KJV translators had at least three witnesses to this phrase, including the very Bible they were revising (the Bishops' Bible).
 
I do not believe the King James translators used Roman type/italics to cast doubt upon this text. It was merely to reveal there were variants here within the received texts. Much like they did with some of their marginal notes.
 

1 John 3:16

The last verse we will look at is 1 John 3:16, which says:

"Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."

The two little words, "of God", are the ones in question. Here are the 1611, 1638, 1762, and 1770 editions.

1 John 3:16 in the 1611 KJV
1 John 3:16 in the 1611 KJV
 
1 John 3:16 in the 1638 KJV
1 John 3:16 in the 1638 KJV
 
1 John 3:16 in the 1762 Parris KJV
1 John 3:16 in the 1762 Parris KJV
 
1 John 3:16 in the 1770 KJV
1 John 3:16 in the 1770 KJV
 
As with John 8:6, these italics were added by Benjamin Blayney in his edition.
 
1 John 3:16 in the 1769 Blayney KJV
1 John 3:16 in the 1769 Blayney KJV
 
This means that "of God" was originally no different than the rest of the text. Editor Blayney probably saw that Stephanus' Textus Receptus was missing this phrase and italicized the words.

Conclusion

Unlike modern translations, the KJV doesn't cast doubt upon the Scriptures. Many have claimed that these italics mean they were, but I would disagree. They (the KJV translators and Blayney) were simply showing places where variants were between the received text editions. They chose the readings they believed were best and I agree with their choices.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Contradictions in Modern Bible Versions

Image
As Christians, we believe the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. Therefore, when a "contradiction" arises, we can, through careful study, see that no true contradiction exists within this divinely inspired Book. If someone intentionally messed with the Bible, you would expect this congruity to be ruined, and this is exactly what we see. These modern translations of God's Word not only come from a corrupted source, but the way they've translated God's Word also causes contradiction. As we look into this topic, it is important to define the two types of contradictions we see:  textual contradictions  and  translational contradictions.  Textual contradictions are those caused by the text underlying a particular translation whereas a translational contradiction is one which stems from a poor translation of a particular passage. We will take a look at both of these in this article. Textual Contradictions: 1. As we begin, we will take a look at the Gosp...
Read more

Why I am a Classical Trinitarian

Image
Today, many Christians lack a good understanding of the Trinity. They know of the "three in one" but past that, they seem to have little knowledge. And in an attempt to explain it, many times they accidentally teach heresies—even if that is not their intent. In this post, I want to explain what the Bible says about the Trinity, and why I believe the Bible teaches what is known as Classical Trinitarianism. Basic Explanation of the Trinity: As we begin, I want to just explain what the Trinity is. The Trinity is not a term found in the Bible. However, it's a term we use to explain the triune nature of God (which is found in the Bible). Simply put, God is one What and three Whos . In other words, God is one Being and three Persons . As the hymn writer put it: "Holy, holy, holy! merciful and mighty! / God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!"¹   There was a creed written in the 6th century, the Athanasian Creed. This creed gives a very good outline about th...
Read more

A Certainty of the Words

The Certainty, or Lack Thereof Modern Christianity is suffering. They doubt the Text of Scripture and question the legitimacy of many of its passages. However, this is not what God desires. "That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth ; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?" (Proverbs 22:21, emphasis mine) We can have a certainty in the Words of Truth—in the Word of God. We can trust the Words of Scripture! But today, modern translations cast doubt on Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and many other verses. The opposite of certainty is uncertainty. People today are questioning the certainty of those Words they call the Scriptures! "How can such a revision of the Scriptures be said to be the inerrant Word of God when multitudes of passages are brought into question by placing them in brackets?...With the questioning of many passages...how can one in all honesty confess unconditional trust in these new Bibles?"¹ The ...
Read more