Why are some words in the Bible italicized?

Words in italics are supplementary, to help the English.

To put in italics all the words supplementary to the sense; but this is what the Authorized Bible Version has done.

The first thing that strikes the mind, as undesirable in an accurate version of the Scriptures, is, that words supplied by the translators, which have no counterpart in the original, should not be designated as such by italics as attempted more or less fully in the Authorised Bible. Dr. Scrivener's Cambridge Paragraph Bible sought this more systematically, and therefore is happier in this respect. In the Revised New Testament, on the contrary, the indication of supply is less than ever. It would have been better for the reader had the amount indicated been far greater. Take the instance of "the Lord" so common in the Synoptic Gospels, especially Matthew and Luke, where the Greek word is anarthrous, and means Jehovah. (See Matt. 1:20, 22, 24.) Not so the official title of Christ, unless employed predicatively which would of course deprive it of the article. Again, in Matt. 1:20 we have "take unto thee," and in 21 "took unto him," without indicating that the pronouns are supplied. So with "our" in Matt. 3:9. It seems arbitrary to print "it" in Roman in Matt. 2:3, and in Italics in Matt. 3:15. Many an unlettered preacher is thus exposed to dwell with emphasis on words merely inserted by the translators as if they were the veritable expressions of the Holy Spirit, from which error they were better guarded by the Authorised Version, and ought to have been yet more now. It is allowable in a version of Greek or Latin Classic or of any human composition to supply what seems idiomatically requisite in our tongue without distinct notification to the reader. But Scripture stands alone, and deserves the homage of carefully distinguishing what man judges necessary in the language which reflects the original. In some cases it may prove a danger signal; in all it seems due to God and man. As the tendency of the day is to deny the difference between the word of God and any other book, it is the more imperative.

En résumé, quand on voit l’original ainsi torturé, paraphrasé d’une manière inexacte, souvent même contredit, on a des raison suffisantes pour ne pas accorder de confiance à cette version qui ne peut guère être appelée une “traduction”. Les livres historiques eux-mêmes n’ont pas échappé à cette manie d’expliquer au lieu de traduire. Les mots ajoutés ça et là en italiques tiennent au système; mais, quelle que soit leur justesse, le lecteur est toujours à même d’en profiter ou de les rejeter; le fait qu’ils sont en italiques indique qu’ils ne se trouvent pas dans l’original.

The fact that the words, "the Father," are placed in italics in both versions proves that in both cases the translators had to admit that no equivalent of these words is found in the original tongue, and that the two words inserted express their own interpretation of the passage, namely, that it was the Father's good pleasure that all fullness should dwell in the Son.

The fact that the words, "the Father," are placed in italics in both versions proves that in both cases the translators had to admit that no equivalent of these words is found in the original tongue, and that the two words inserted express their own interpretation of the passage, namely, that it was the Father's good pleasure that all fullness should dwell in the Son.

The Genevan Bible was begun in Queen Mary's reign by refugees at Geneva, amongst whom was Whittingham, brother-in-law of Calvin, and was first published in its complete form in the year 1560. It abounds with marginal notes, often caustic, and breathing a Calvinism which proved most offensive to King James I. It adhered more closely than the previous English Bibles to the original form of Hebrew proper names, as Habel for Abel. It was the first English Bible in which we find italics used for words supplied that have no equivalent in the Hebrew.

CRANMER'S (passing over TAVERNER'S Edition, 1539, as a reprint of Matthew's, with the notes altered and some omitted) takes precedence of all that had yet been attempted as to detail of interpretation. Words not in the original were in a different type. It was pointed out, at least partially, where the Vulgate differed from the Hebrew, and where the Chaldee and Hebrew differed. It had marginal references, but no notes.

Do you observe that certain words, printed in the italics of the Authorised Version, are here left out? The reason is, because they ought never to have been in. It is no pleasure to make such a remark on the common English Version. They are the words of one who values as a whole the plain English Bible beyond any other version in general use. But let God be true Who did not write those words. There is a marked difference in the two clauses. "He was the propitiation for our sins." Who are the "our"? The family of God, you will answer: as this is the ordinary "we" of scripture: not, as is known, the only "we" there, but beyond just doubt the prevailing usage. For "we," as a general rule, unless there be modifying circumstances clearly marked, regularly means the family of faith, as "we know," "we believe," etc. Does everybody know or believe? Certainly not; but the faithful, or Christians. So in this case Christ is "the propitiation for our sins."

We now approach what would be, certainly, in the author's judgment, a charge of flagrant dishonesty in his dealings with God's word, if it could be supported by evidence. Very probably the reviewer, from not understanding the subject on which he is writing, has no idea of the gravity of the accusation implied in his statements. But is it true?" In not one instance," he writes, "as the simple reader would surely have expected to have found, is the word 'state' represented in the original, either in the Hebrew or in the Greek." Again, "Is there not a moral wrong in this way of dealing with divine truth, that quotes, as Scripture, words for which there is no equivalent in the original, and even calls special attention to the word 'state' by putting it into italics, while the actual word or words in the phrase which are represented in the original are left in ordinary type" (p. 281). One might well reply to such statements in a very summary way. But as God's truth is involved, and simple souls may be stumbled by such bold assertions, one is forced to disprove them.

And first it may be pointed out, that a very little attention to the text of the Authorised Version would have kept the reviewer from thus committing himself. For the simple reader may see for himself, and in a language he can understand, that in Gen 43:7, Esther 1:19, Ps. 136:23, Ezek. 16:55, Luke 1:48, Phil. 2:19, 4:11, the Authorised Version prints the word "state" in ordinary type, a proof that in the judgment of the translators there was an equivalent for it found in the original. With Matt. 12:45, Luke 11:26, they acted differently, printing "state" in italics. Fortunately the reviewer has spared one the necessity of saying a word on these two passages, for he admits (p. 259) "the thought of condition may be supplied," an admission which goes far to show that, without the word "state" being directly expressed in the original, the passage may imply it, and a translation should express it.