Use of italics in leb translation

Dear Logos Bible Software Editorial Team,
I am a faithful user of the Lexham English Bible and a careful student of the biblical languages, and I am writing with a focused scholarly question regarding the LEB's italics convention.
The LEB preface explains that words supplied by the translators without a direct equivalent in the original language text are marked in italics, and that a note is included in cases where the need for the supplied word is less clear. I have been studying this convention closely, and I have three specific questions I would appreciate your help with.
First, does the LEB's italics system distinguish between two fundamentally different reasons a word may need to be supplied? The first reason is grammatical: the original language encodes certain information structurally — through verb endings, and case constructions — that English must make explicit with a separate word. The second reason is contextual or interpretive: the word is not grammatically implied by the source text, but has been supplied on the basis of discourse logic, rhetorical inference, or cross-textual reasoning. These are meaningfully different categories, and I would like to know whether the LEB's convention accounts for this distinction anywhere in its editorial documentation.
A concrete example that prompted this question is Luke 8:18, where the word "more" appears in italics without a footnote. Examining the SBLGNT — the LEB's stated New Testament textual base — I found no Greek word corresponding to "more" at that point in the text. The word does appear in the Synoptic parallels in Matthew 13:12 and Mark 4:25, which suggests it was supplied through cross-textual reasoning rather than from Luke's own grammatical structure. By the preface's own standard, this would appear to be a less obvious supply that warrants a note — yet none is provided.
Second, has the italics convention been applied with documented consistency across the entire translation? Specifically, is there an internal editorial stylesheet or guideline that governed these decisions, and is that document available for scholarly reference?
Third, and perhaps most precisely: given that some grammatically implied words may simultaneously be contextually obvious, has the editorial team accounted for cases where these two categories overlap? Is it possible that a word falling into both categories was placed in the unexplained group on the basis of perceived obviousness alone, even though it is also grammatically recoverable from the source text — and conversely, that a contextually supplied word received a footnote simply because a particular translator found it less intuitive? Understanding how the editorial process handled this overlap would be of considerable help to readers working closely alongside the Greek and Hebrew texts.
I raise these questions not as criticism but as a genuine scholarly inquiry. The LEB is a valuable resource precisely because of its commitment to transparency with the original language texts, and a clearer account of the italics convention would make it significantly more useful for readers who depend on it for close textual study.
Thank you sincerely for your time and for the considerable work that has gone into producing the LEB. I look forward to your response.
Respectfully,Kind regards In Christ Kgothatso

Find more posts tagged with

Lexham Press

Comments

Doug Mangum (Logos)

Excellent questions, Kgothatso. I should say that I was not directly involved in producing LEB, so I am also interpreting the principles stated in the preface based on my experience using the translation and by virtue of being one of the people at Logos responsible for evaluating LEB typo reports and fielding other translation-related questions due to my experience with the biblical languages and my research related to Bible translation. While my published work deals with ancient versions like the Septuagint, I've also been very interested in questions like this related to translating the Bible into English. All that is to say that I don't have an official answer of what was intended by the original editors and translators, but I will reply based on my experience. I have paraphrased your 3 questions below and responded.

Does LEB distinguish among the various reasons that words might be supplied in translation? No, LEB does not distinguish between the reasons for italics.
1. I suspect the majority of uses relate to what you've noted about structural differences. I find this usage to be potentially confusing to someone learning the languages because the element in italics is in some sense present in the original and thus not added. It is added only from the perspective of English not typically using inflected forms and having to "add" words to convey meaning that is present in the inflected form in Hebrew or Greek.
2. Contextual additions following discourse or rhetoric or inference should be a far smaller category of usage. The use of notes to clarify any of these occasions was based on the individual choice of the translator/editor for that particular book.
Has the italics convention been applied consistently? No, I would not say there is total consistency in the application of this principle. There are no written guidelines that would provide anything more than what I've said for "scholarly reference." I don't think there is any English Bible (or probably any Bible translation in any language) that would completely live up to its stated principles from its preface (see Dave Brunn's One Bible, Many Versions for some examples).
Was there attention to potentially overlapping categories? No, this would have required an affirmative answer to your first question. There is no documentation that I have been able to find explaining individual translator's decisions.

I suspect the guiding principle with use of italics, since LEB was developed based on Logos interlinears, was whether there was a one-to-one correspondence lexically between the original language word and the English representation. That would explain why additions that are obvious based on grammatical structure were still flagged with italics. They are indicating that there's no single word in Hebrew or Greek relating to the one in italics (but the one in italics may be, and probably is, encoded in the original differently). I would not be surprised if even some of these were missed and an occasional word that was "added" in English but structurally there in Hebrew or Greek was not put in italics. I hope this answers your questions and that you still find it useful to use LEB alongside another English translation and that it offers some transparency as intended to the underlying Hebrew and Greek.

Phil Theis

Helpful discussion, Doug!

Phil