Okay, so I’m dumb . . . I’ve got several questions that never came up in English Comp, and they may become issues in something I might try to write for myself.
I’ve read that it’s improper in English to italicize the Bible and the titles of other holy books when you’re writing. For the purpose of figuring out whether or not to italicize, when exactly is a book considered holy? For example, should I italicize the Necronomicon, which is a fictional religious book (sort of)? And what about the Satanic Bible? Or, say, one of Aleister Crowley’s books on Magick, or something like Dianetics, which are considered by some people to be religious works even though they seem to be written and marketed in the same manner as cookbooks and Stephen King novels? You know what I mean–the kind of books whose paperback editions might contain ads for cigarettes or book club memberships. Should I just follow the “it’s-holy-so-italicize” rule based on my point-of-view (that is, the point-of-view I’m taking for the purposes of the piece I’m writing)?
Also, what are the quotation and italics rules, if any, for individual books of the Bible and their analogues in other religions? For example, is it the Book of Genesis (because it’s a holy book), or, following the rule that says to put short stories in quotation marks, is “The Book of Genesis?”
Do these rules change if you change the actual name of the holy work. For example, “The preacher thought the King James was the best,” referring to King James Version of the Bible. Or, for a similar abbreviation, “It talks about love in Acts,” as opposed to The Acts of the Apostles (which I think is the official name).
Finally, if anybody knows, why the heck do we have these rules for holy books anyway?
I checked out three different grammar sites looking for the answers to these questions and came up dry. Likewise, I didn’t find much on this subject in my English books. I’m not in school right now, or I’d corner an instructor in the halls. So can any of you help me? I know there must be rules covering this and some of you probably know what they are.
And yes, I can spot one or two grammatical errors up there that have nothing to do with italics or quotation marks, so spare me. Please? It’s one of those days.
Associated Press stylebook states that neither the Bible nor the books are italicized. So the correct form would be to write:
“As it is written in Ecclesiastes in the Bible . . .”
The book Acts is listed as just that.
Generally, italicizing is not used for the names of books or songs or any other types of titles. Quote marks are used instead, such as “Gone With the Wind,” “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.”
You also upper-case (but not use quote marks) around biblical-related terms, such as the Gospels, the Gospel of St. Mark, the Scriptures, and the Holy Scriptures.
But you lowercase biblical at all times, and bible when it does not refer specifically to the Book, such as, “‘The Straight Dope’ is my bible.”
A lot depends on which style manual you use. The AP is for newspapers, but for books and magazines, the guide is The Chicago Manual of Style, which says:
As far as the Bible is concerned:
“Roman type” = non-italic
Further,
They specifically mention Koran, Vedas, etc.
Now, with items like The Necronomicon or Dianetics, it’s a matter of your own personal style. I’d used italics for both because 1. is not a true holy book (at least, let’s hope not ) and 2. is not actually a holy book at all (it’s supposedly a science)
With all due respect, if you’re writing for anything other than a newspaper, I’d stay away from the AP style guide.
The three widely-recognized religious texts of the world are the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran and their component elements. Treating fictional works the same way as you treat these would be insulting to those who believe in these works.
Be very careful with that. The official title of that work is not the King James Version but the Authorized Version.
I am an English teacher. Eighth grade, Borrego Springs Middle School, thankyouverymuch.
Italicizing The Holy Bible no more denigrates it as a work of fiction than italicizing Encyclopaedia Britannica does. The italics denotes a major work - be it book, album, comic book, epic poem, movie, symphony, television show, newspaper, or magazine. If italics are not available, underlining is the next preferable formatting. Bold face type is not appropriate.
Quote marks are used to denote smaller works - songs, smaller poems, an episode of a television show (Buffy the Vampire Slayer is my favorite television series. One of my favorite episodes is “Hush.”), a magazine or newpaper article, and so on.
Generally speaking, this is only a big deal when you’re writing in a formal manner, such as a research paper. In liberal arts fields (or depending on the preference of the teacher), MLA standards are usually applied. By those guidelines, you wouldn’t italicize the name of a holy text.
What I try to make my students understand is this: different guidelines were created to serve different purposes. None are intrinsically better than the other. Expect rules. Expect the rules to be arbitrary. Learn the rules and abide by them, and one day when you rule the world, you can decree that all book titles are given [sub]just like this[/sub].
And so the lesson we learn is that there are no rules.
Or as one of my English profs pointed out when a student said that the prof’s use of a word did not match the dictionary:
“Who do you think writes those dictionaries?”
The answer is, of course, a bunch of English profs, no smarter (in her opinion) than her.
The answer to your question, mephisto is to pick a stylebook and go with it. Or make your own style. As long as it is consistient and not a hindrance to comprehension, do whatever you want. Using a style book helps CYA.
As far as Dianetics, well that’s your call to make. Is it a Holy Book?
And think nothing of abbreviating biblical titles however you wish. “Acts of the Apostles” and “The Gospel according to St Luke” are way too clunky for normal use. In a formal setting, maybe on first usage. But otherwise, “Acts” and “Luke.” I went through Bible College and never thought of using the “full names” of the books.
I think the idea behind Romanizing (as opposed to italicizing, not meaning “to make Catholic” or something) the Bible, the Koran, etc. is that there are many publications, differing in some major or minor aspects, which are legitimately called by that name. There are, for example, about a dozen translations of the Koran, each of which has been given a specific title including the word Koran. (I think this is out of respect for the Arabic original, which is considered the text and translations only secondary to it.)
So quoting The Holy Bible does not tell anyone anything about the book in question unless you annotate your cite with (KJV), (NRSV) or other encoding to indicate the version being quoted. On the other hand, a reference to The Good News Bible or The New Jerusalem Bible would reference a particular text, a given translation with standard copyrighted contents, and would therefore be given in italics.
It’s probably worth noting that nearly every book of the Bible has a long and a short title – the former what is published at its head and the latter the one it’s always referred to it by. The Acts of the Apostles follows The Gospel of Jesus Christ According to John and is itself followed by the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, but anyone not being pedantic will cite them as Acts, John, and Romans.
Thanks to Pesch for the info on how to write for the press . . . that may actually come in handy someday (we’ll see how college goes first . . .).
Also, KneadToKnow: Thanks. I guess I didn’t realize that “King James Version” was wrong.
furt said:
So it seems. It is good to hear that abbreviations for holy books are considered okay, even in religious schools.
I found RealityChuck’s quotation of The Chicago Manual of Style valuable, particularly the second part, which I’ve bold-faced.
That seems to give me permission to leave the Necronomicon (that is, the one written by the mad Arab in Lovecraft’s milieu) unquotation marked and unitalicized. After all, the book doesn’t have to be sacred to me or highly revered by you to be considered sacred or worth reverence, right? We may never have heard of the Europan Chronicle of the Hallowed Juggler, but since the people on Europa all but worship it, it should be accorded the same grammatical respect as, say, the Torah. Right?
Also valuable were Polycarp’s words:
In that case, all these highly revered books only deserve to be printed sans italicization if I’m giving their “generic” title. If there’s only one translation of the Europan Chronicle of the Hallowed Juggler, it should be in italics, but if there are many, it should be Romanized–-The Europan Chronicle, but the New Substandard Martian Edition of The Europan Chronicle . . . right? If so, this kind of makes sense to me.
The Necronomicon still troubles me (which, I suppose, is its purpose). Within the context of H.P. Lovecraft’s books, this is (arguably) a sacred text. So, if I follow the advice of the style manual you quoted, I should print this word Romanized. Not because I consider the Necronomicon sacred, but because a lot of those people in Lovecraft’s fictional universe who are seeking communion with the Elder Gods or whatever consider it sacred. It’s a holy book within the context of the imaginary realm where it’s real. However, if I take what Polycarp said into account, and realize that there’s only one Necronomicon (there are no alternate versions that I’m aware of and the thing’s self-translating), an argument could be made that I should italicize it–-that is, the imaginary professors at Miskatonic U would italicize it in their theses on it. What do you guys think?
Regarding Dianetics: good point, that this is just a “science” book. I merely included it in my question because it’s a book highly revered (I guess) by some, and considered BS by others (I haven’t read it so I’ll keep my own less-than-informed opinion to myself). Same thing with The Satanic Bible and works of Crowley. I was trying to figure out how to handle books whose holiness was disputed or disputable.
Phouka said:
Yeah, well, I’m trying to learn the rules, but those crusty old arbiters of word usage at Harvard or the White House or whatever made them too complicated and not quite black-and-white enough (thus this post).
And for your information, when I rule the world, all book titles will appear LiKe THiS
Don’t worry, Phouka, I bet some of your kids get you (I probably oughta go back and thank some of my teachers who think they had no influence on me).
Finally, although I’m still not perfectly clear on all the questions I brought up, I feel a little bit smarter. Thanks a lot everybody.
