Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-05-30
KINa JAMES EDITION
Prof. W. J. Be,chor,


The King James bibles italicize all the
words supplied in translating, even the
pronominal subject which is implied in
the verb by its ii Infection, or the copula-
verb implied by the iuxtaposition OF
words. The reysers, In their preface,
lay down rule which is, for substance,
that they will italicize only ewords that
are supplied for making good sense in
English, and not those which are prop
erly implied IN the phTaseology OF the
Hebrew. But Ia thrlr use OF this rule
they seem TO count all the ordinary con
lectures by which the translator into
English supplements the Hebrew phrase.
ology as implied; IT'S only in extraordi-
nary instances that they count anything
az supplied. That their rule, properly
understood, Is a correct one, ! do not dis
pute but am constrained 20 question
its correctness as Interpreted by the use
they make Of g.
That their usage is that hich ordinaTi-
~ obtains IN popular trdnsladtns into
English from other languages VIII readily
be admttedi but the English liole,
though popular translation, is In some
important respects different from NEST
other popular TRANSACTIONS. II there was
any reason why revisers should spend so
muca time upon 1t, that reason is found
| in the fact that the bible Is religious
book--a book which people are expected
not merely 10 read aud lay aside as they
do the latest novel or poem, but to study
carefully aud accurately. 1t follows that
all means not inconsistent with the flow
| ing character of a popular book should be
! oly..1 h.. al Lon la
reproduction Of the original. The revls-
ers recognize the use of italic type as a
means of this sort. We are familiar
with It. 1t does not offend the eye. It
does not interfere with continuous and
fluent reading. IL ought TO be retained,
therefore, wherever 1t actually conduces
| 20 the more accurate expression OF either
! the meaning or the characteristic style
of the original. Probably half or more Of
the omissions Of the italics In the revised
version are in violation of the principle.
Let me illustrate this by few IN
stances taken at random from Malachl
N "My name shall be great among
the Gentiles," (Mal. t.; p, the revised
version translates "my name is great, y
putting "shall be" into the margin. The
revisers, therefore, here recognize the
~ u
of Judgment whether the copuls
should be supplied IN the presen
or in the future--that is, whether th,
passage is a statement OF fact or pre-
dlction. The insertion of the word Is u
make out the sense In English Is no
merely the insertion of the copula which
is implied in the Hebrew, but is also th'
Insertion OF the opinion OF the translator
that the statement IL that OF Il fact ano
not Of prediction. think that thii
opinion Is correct, but manifesuy II u
supplied as matter OF critical judy
ment, and not implied In the Hebrew q
the clause. The italicizlng of 1t woult
Indicate this, and would thus avoid thu
stating Of the conjecture as II II were l
fact. In this instance, the matter u
somewhat less important, because IN
! marginal note calls attention 10 the OH
I ference of opinion as TO the tensei but II
,, hundreds of similar instances there Is M
/, marginal note.
2. aPour you out blessing, that Tier
! shan not be room enough 10 ffcstee q
: (Aial. i'll. 100 Here The revised version
omits the italics except with the las
: three words. The Hebrew Is here Oh
= scure. Different scholars give seyerl
different explanations OF II. The trans
i lators OF King James take one explains
!, ton. but make II evident that they OF
r tain it by filling up from the Hebrew
u THE reylsers lake the came explanation
Z and conceal the fact that IL Is mostly eN
y plenation. II one should retranslate n
/ King james version into Hebrew be wonl
g 1e very likely 70 hit upon the exact word
/ Of the original. II he should rctfanslal
p ihe revised version he would obtain
r sai, ehtlrely different from the origina
!, Rl A very different instance is SO so
u bonoreth Lis father and aseryant his ma
I, ~ (Nal. 1. o. Here the reylsiO
units the italics. In this case II Is ira
= tnat the word his * implied, which woul
!" ordinarily be Sufficient reason Tor lea
y IND Il uudlstIngnlshed, But here u
also true that Il would be as natural L
the Hebrew To- express the pronoun
fnr ti,e English; that the omission oil II
> a mnrk of peculiar style; that TINS y
cuiiarity might be transferred into pc
ie sectly GOOD English; "a son bonoreta
4. tatner ara servant his master" W
nscnl,arity Is at least indicated Ia u
ald version by It's noting that me VOL
In Is supplied; that u Is buried cnt
& s,ght IN the aevision, and that the test
retranslaiion would here yinole1ts v
old and condemn the new.
the Instances thus objected TO musf
nearly half as numerous as the yers es
the oId testament They may De relAtl'
IL fewer In the new testament. IN Y
matter ne bible Of King James, with
~ snnerrulty Of italics, Is ~ eatly 20
u nyeserrad 10 that o. the reyis'srs, with
Y sbonsSnds upon thousands Of suppll
al conIectures, uudistinguis liable from
other parts Of the text.