Why does the ESV not Italicize Inserted Words that are not in the Greek?

[Ed Walsh]

Does anyone know why the ESV decided not to italicize added words that are not in the Greek? It is obvious why the NIV doesn't do so, for to do so would be impossible. But the KJV, NKJV, ASV (1901), NASB and even YLT [~] follow that convention. The ESV is certainly literal enough for that tradition to be continued.

 

[Jake]

Well, for one, the ESV is based on the RSV which doesn't do that. When you see how close the RSV and ESV are out of certain parts of the Bible (only about 6% of the RSV was revised and it was done in a relative hurry with a focus on certain passages), it would have been impractical.

I think when dive in, it's often difficult to cleanly separate out what is implied in a word versus what is truly added for clarity. I think it makes a lot of sense in places like "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite" (from II Samuel 21:19 KJV) where it an interpretation that is added (though these types of changes are more often noted in footnotes). However, there are a lot of words that just make sense of translating to English to be readable English that it can feel a bit arbitrary if the word is in italics or not.

 

[Logan]

While the italicized words are sometimes helpful, I sometimes feel like they are unnecessary (could be omitted in many places with no loss of sense) and even that they sometimes mislead in giving a sense of accuracy.

As an aside, when I first started to read, I assumed all the italicized words were meant to be emphasized, which was at least amusing when reading out loud to others

 

[Jake]

While the italicized words are sometimes helpful, I sometimes feel like they are unnecessary (could be omitted in many places with no loss of sense) and even that they sometimes mislead in giving a sense of accuracy.

As an aside, when I first started to read, I assumed all the italicized words were meant to be emphasized, which was at least amusing when reading out loud to others

In the original KJV, gothic black letter print was used for the main text and smaller Latin print were used for the words now denoted in italics. I think when the whole text switched to the Latin print they didn't have a great way to denote this, so they used italics.

I'm not sure if my terms are exactly right, but you can see an example here (look at verse 12 for a good example): https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1_Original-1611-KJV/

I actually prefer the NIV 84's use of small square brackets for added/implied text. It's also used more sparingly than the KJV.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I would have to see what you guys are referring to. Having studied Greek the idea that there are some words that should and should not be italicized seems to give translators more theological certainty than ought to be implicitly granted. All translation involves some interpretation even when you are striving for literal accuracy.

I get a little bothered when some people say in a sermon: "The text 'literally says No Killing in Exodus 20:13.'"

It's not that simple. We don't have different verb forms to communicate things with just the verb and a negation. We can only communicate the "literal" verbal idea by inserting words. If a verb is in the subjunctive mood then I wouldn't say: "Joe, clean room." I might say: "Joe should clean the room." or even "Joe shall clean the room" depending upon what I was trying to communicate. Italicizing the parts of a sentence that expressed aspect and mood of the verb while leaving the verb itself unitalicized makes it seem to me as if what's inspired is the verb selection that the interpreters chose.

Also, think about idioms. "What is up with you?" How would I "literally" translate that into a foreign language. Is it a "lteral" translation to assume a person in a foreign land is wondering why you're asking him if he is elevated? In Japanese I would ask "Ginke deska" - this "literally" means "are you well". I'm told that in Chinese the expression "literallynslates to "Have you eaten?" They all communicate a sense that a person is asking how a person is felling.

I guess my point is that you ought to assume that every word in your translation should be italicized. By that I'm not saying you should doubt the meaning can be communicated but someone else has labored to translate across languages, times, and idioms to give you a "literal" sense of the text. Even with that there are still some theological choices we might disagree with (e.g. how they choose to translate a genitive).

 

[David Taylor]

To me, as someone else alluded to, the use of italics is somewhat misleading to somehow mean more transparent. If you are really going to be transparent in italicizing "supplied" words that help convey meaning, you would need to italicize a lot more than what the other translations actually do. I understand the reason behind the italics but find it altogether unnecessary and not particularly useful.

 

[bookslover]

Perhaps it was a financial decision, as it would (probably) cost more to have Bibles with italics included.

Or perhaps it never occurred to them.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Addressing the early comments here, I don't think we need to go to the other extreme, saying that the practice of italicising words not in the original is simplistic or foolish. I actually think it's quite helpful. You don't build your theology on it, but there are times it definitely is informative. This is one of the reasons I use NASB; I love that feature.

 

[Polanus1561]

everyone train in the English language will auto insert the italics in their mind as they read the Greek text, it is an innocuous, natural act. e.g when two nouns in Greek are together, we automatically think of the word 'is' .

 

[alexandermsmith]

I would have to see what you guys are referring to. Having studied Greek the idea that there are some words that should and should not be italicized seems to give translators more theological certainty than ought to be implicitly granted. All translation involves some interpretation even when you are striving for literal accuracy.

I get a little bothered when some people say in a sermon: "The text 'literally says No Killing in Exodus 20:13.'"

It's not that simple. We don't have different verb forms to communicate things with just the verb and a negation. We can only communicate the "literal" verbal idea by inserting words. If a verb is in the subjunctive mood then I wouldn't say: "Joe, clean room." I might say: "Joe should clean the room." or even "Joe shall clean the room" depending upon what I was trying to communicate. Italicizing the parts of a sentence that expressed aspect and mood of the verb while leaving the verb itself unitalicized makes it seem to me as if what's inspired is the verb selection that the interpreters chose.

Also, think about idioms. "What is up with you?" How would I "literally" translate that into a foreign language. Is it a "lteral" translation to assume a person in a foreign land is wondering why you're asking him if he is elevated? In Japanese I would ask "Ginke deska" - this "literally" means "are you well". I'm told that in Chinese the expression "literallynslates to "Have you eaten?" They all communicate a sense that a person is asking how a person is felling.

I guess my point is that you ought to assume that every word in your translation should be italicized. By that I'm not saying you should doubt the meaning can be communicated but someone else has labored to translate across languages, times, and idioms to give you a "literal" sense of the text. Even with that there are still some theological choices we might disagree with (e.g. how they choose to translate a genitive).

Isn't there a difference between translation and insertion? Could it not be that a simple translation sometimes results in a higher word count? Whereas at other times a literal translation could be done but would result in a rather clunky phrase/sentence so the translators added words which have no counterpart in the original in order to make the sentence read more smoothly and it's those words which are italicised?

 

[Logan]

Addressing the early comments here, I don't think we need to go to the other extreme, saying that the practice of italicising words not in the original is simplistic or foolish. I actually think it's quite helpful. You don't build your theology on it, but there are times it definitely is informative. This is one of the reasons I use NASB; I love that feature.

What I'm thinking of could be illustrated by randomly picking something like Psalm 2:8. From what I can tell, the Hebrew has 7 words. The KJV has 23, of which 3 are italicized. So there are 13 "additional" words that are not italicized.

I'm not a linguist by any means but I understand that, for example, two English words are necessary to correlate to one Hebrew word. But sometimes the translator uses three or four to make the meaning clearer. I understand the italicized are additions for clarification, but I feel like there are already (somewhat subjective) clarification choices being made in the translation process itself.

I'm not opposed to the italics, I'm just not convinced they are really helpful and they may give an impression that there are no additional clarification choices made in the translation.

 

[Jake]

What I'm thinking of could be illustrated by randomly picking something like Psalm 2:8. From what I can tell, the Hebrew has 7 words. The KJV has 23, of which 3 are italicized. So there are 13 "additional" words that are not italicized.

I'm not a linguist by any means but I understand that, for example, two English words are necessary to correlate to one Hebrew word. But sometimes the translator uses three or four to make the meaning clearer. I understand the italicized are additions for clarification, but I feel like there are already clarification choices being made in the translation process itself.

I'm not opposed to the italics, I'm just not convinced they are really helpful and they may give an impression that there are no additional clarification choices made in the translation.

I agree with you for a lot of passages you mentioned. What do you think about using italics (or otherwise denoting) for extra interpretative information that are added in interpretation, like the example I gave of: "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite" (from II Samuel 21:19 KJV)

The ESV doesn't include brother of; the NIV does. KJV makes it clear that was not in the Hebrew.

 

[Logan]

What do I think as a complete layman whose opinion is not worth anything in this matter?

In that specific case, if it were me, I would say that if it's not in the text, then it shouldn't be in the translation. I would put a footnote (1 Chron 20:5 says "the brother of Goliath the Gittite.") or cross-reference to the parallel passage and leave it to the commentators. I don't think that harmonization or textual emendation is the job of translators.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Isn't there a difference between translation and insertion? Could it not be that a simple translation sometimes results in a higher word count? Whereas at other times a literal translation could be done but would result in a rather clunky phrase/sentence so the translators added words which have no counterpart in the original in order to make the sentence read more smoothly and it's those words which are italicised?

I'm not sure I follow your question completely. There are certainly some readability issues where the word order in the Greek would sound strange and may confuse an English reader. Some refer to the NASB as the "Yoda" version because it organizes sentences: "Happy, I am" in a way that is not what we're accustomed to. (I always wondered why some centuries-old creature couldn't figure out how to use the English language but I digress). That said, seeing the sentence in the Greek helps you see where the author may be placing some emphasis based on word order and it's hard to translate that into English. It's good that we have our English Bibles to get the truth across but it's also important to have Pastors trained who can see these things in the original language.

I also think that the way the English language has changed could result in inserted words that were not necessary in the past (e.g. the loss of forms of the second person) but English generally doesn't have a rich set of noun cases and verb aspects as the Greek does so you're left with having to insert words to express things like the future active indicative (I will speak) or perfect (I have spoken) where the idea in the Greek could be expressed by a single word for each.

 

[David Taylor]

In that specific case, if it were me, I would say that if it's not in the text, then it shouldn't be in the translation. I would put a footnote (1 Chron 20:5 says "the brother of Goliath the Gittite.") or cross-reference to the parallel passage and leave it to the commentators. I don't think that harmonization or textual emendation is the job of translators.

You can get those, it is called an interlinear, but I doubt you would profit much from it if you don't know the original languages.