CHAPTER VI.

THE USE OF ITALICS IN OUR PRESENT VERSION.

There often occur, in both the Hebrew and the Greek originals, sentences and clauses which cannot be rendered into English by corresponding terms, without some added word or words. For instance, in the second chapter of Ephesians, the original reads, "And you who were dead in sins," pursuing this description of their previous state down to verse 4, where the predicate comes in, "hath quickened us." But in order to present the thought at once, the translators have introduced, often, "and you," with the predicate, "hath he quickened," in a different kind of letters, called italics. It will be seen that this is a very delicate and important work in giving a translation where each word is invested with momentous interest. The italics are, in fact, explanations, and often commentaries on the original. The first to introduce a different form of letter to fill up gaps-as we may say were the translators of the "Great Bible" of 1539. The prologue gives the following explanation:

"Whereas, oftentimes ye shall find a small letter in the text, it signifieth that so much as is in the small letter doth abound, and is more in the common translation in Latin than is found either in the Hebrew or the Greek, which words and sentences we have added, not only to manifest the same unto you, but also to satisfy and content those that here before time have missed such sentences in the Bibles and New Testaments set forth."

Previously to this all such added words were placed in brackets. The Geneva Bible was the first to use italics, which it employed similarly to our authorized version. The latter appeared in the year 1611, printed in black letter, and the supplementary or added

words in Roman. Afterwards the black letter was exchanged for Roman type, in which it is still printed, and then the additions were marked by italics.

Our translators have made too free a use of this privilege. We say privilege, because when the original reads, "And God saw that good," it is the privilege or duty of the translators to turn it into the English idiom by inserting the italicized words, "And God saw that it was good." But there is no need of adding the italic words in Luke xvi, 5, "He called every one of his lord's debtors unto him." In John xx, 5, 11, the Greek word translated "look," means both stooping and looking, and should be so translated, without any italics. But it reads, "She stooped down and looked into the sepulcher, as though "looked" were not in the original word. "Thy sins be forgiven thee," is implied in the address of Jesus, and the words used, and the pronoun "they" need not be printed in italics. So of "gathereth her children under her wings," the italicised word also being implied. The words of Jesus at his baptism are, in Greek, "Suffer now." To render this into plain English the pronoun "it" might well be introduced in italics. But the translators have added four words, "Suffer it to be so now." By the space of are added before"forty years" in Acts vii, 42. "Tell no man (Acts xxiii, 22) is prefaced with see thou, without any necessity. "For star differeth from star in glory," is the original. Our translators have made it with italics, 'one star differeth from another star in glory." "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ" (Eph iv, 14) has properly the "ye" implied, and there is no need of so much italics.

But there are other uses of italics in our English version which pervert the sense. In Matthew xxv, 14, are recorded the Saviour's words, "For as a man traveling into a far country, who called his own servants and delivered unto him his goods." The translators here have made it read, "For the kingdom of heaven is as a man traveling into a far country, who called his servants." This changes the character of the parable-as it really is one-and adds confusion to the meaning of "kingdom of heaven."

The apostle Paul says (2 Tim. iii, 16), "All scripture [that is,

writing] given by inspiration of God is profitable:" not that all writing, which is the meaning of the word scripture, is inspired of God. Our version, by the insertion of "is" in the wrong place, makes this incorrect impression. It reads "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable." The verb "is must doubtless be supplied to make sense, but should be placed after "inspiration of God," and not after " scripture."

A careful revision of these added words and clauses, so essential to a correct reading of God's word, is very necessary.

PART THIRD.

CHAPTER I.

ORIGIN OF THE WORK.

The various inaccuracies and mistranslations in our authorized version have induced many of the best Biblical scholars to attempt new translations, from which these blemishes would be removed. Dr. George Campbell, an eminent Presbyterian scholar of Scotland, published a translation of the four Gospels in the beginning of the present century, which was followed by a new version of the Epistles by Dr. McKnight, of the same country and church. These works were considered of high authority, but were merely contributions to Biblical literature. Other versions followed from different sources, until in 1852 the American Bible Union in America was organized for the express purpose of giving a pure version of the sacred Scriptures to the English-speaking peoples. This organization enlisted eminent scholars in their work, both in America and in England, and the subject of revision was very generally discussed. In the meantime Conybeare and Howson published a new and transparent version of Paul's Epistles, which showed what might be done in giving the Scriptures in our current English. The Bible Union published nearly all the New Testament in 1864, and several books of the Old, both in this country and in Engiand, and the venerable and erudite Archdeacon Trench gave to the world his masterly work on revision.

All these movements led to a Convocation of the heads of the English Established Church, led by Dean Stanley and the Archbishop of Canterbury, to inaugurate an Anglo-American Revision

Movement which should command the confidence of all interested in the work. A plan was arranged, and a Convocation was called to meet May 6th, 1870, by the committee having the preliminary arrangements in charge. They presented a plan that had been slowly maturing under the advice of the most eminent minds in America and Europe for years. This plan was so well digested, so broad in its catholicity, yet so conservative in its aims, that it met with prompt approval, and the work was begun without delay. The scheme could never have had any hopes of success had it been confined to the established church, and it therefore contemplated a union of learning and special fitness for the labor that would embrace the whole world; that would unite all Englishspeaking races and all denominations; that would produce a text to be accepted in all lands and among all peoples as an authorized version" and a correct rendering of the original text, so far as the original text can be agreed upon by scholars.

The English Committee appointed by 'the Convocation comprised.-.

THE ENGLISH REVISION COMMITTEE.

(1) Old Testament Company.

The Right Rev. EDWARD HAROLD BROWNE, D. D., Bishop of Winchester (Chairman), Farnham Castle, Surrey.

The Right Rev. Lord ARTHUR CHARLES HERVEY, D. D., Bishop of Bath and Wells, Palace, Wells, Somerset.

The Right Rev. ALFRED OLLIVANT, D. D., Bishop of Llandaff, Bishop's Court, Llandaff.

The Very Rev. ROBERT PAYNE SMITH, D. D., Dean of Canterbury, Deanery, Canterbury.

The Ven. BENJAMIN HARRISON, M. A., Archdeacon of Maidstone, Canon of Canterbury, Canterbury.

The Rev. WILLIAM LINDSAY ALEXANDER, D. D., Professor of Theology, Congregational Church Hall, Edinburgh.

ROBERT L. BENSLY, Esq., Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

The Rev. JOHN BIRRELL, Professor of Oriental Languages, St. Andrew's, Scotland.