Exceptions to the rule

The use of distinguishing type/font in the King James Bible

In “Italics in Bibles (revisited),” I wrote, “The italicized words in the King James Bible (in most cases) are simply words included by the translators in places where it took more words to translate into the target language than there is an exact correspondence to words in the source language (i.e., ‘inserted into the text to complete the meaning’).”[i] I added “in most cases” because when you lay down a rule some exceptions almost always appear. When speaking of modern printings of the King James Bible, “italics” is applicable. However, in the original printing, “small roman” type is actually the typographic method used. When printers began to set the main text of the King James Bible in roman type instead of blackletter, they changed to italics to distinguish the added words (where they previously used roman type). Samuel Ward explained the original idea to the Synod of Dort in this manner:

“Sixthly, that words which it was anywhere necessary to insert into the text to complete the meaning were to be distinguished by another type, small roman.”

Likewise, Ward emphasizes the rule but does not mention the exceptions. In researching and writing “Reading the 1611 Bible,” I noticed a few exceptions – that is, the use of roman type to set off certain words in the text, when the words were in fact not “inserted to complete the meaning” but were present in the original language. Some may not strictly be exceptions, in that the printer presents them in roman type, but in ALL CAPS rather than small roman.

Exceptions to the rule

The following verses are the “exceptions” that I have noticed, but likely are not all of them.

Roman type, ALL CAPS and Small Caps

These places of unexpected capitalization emphasize or call attention to a verse or something within it. All roman capital letters accentuate an inscription, or something written, in the following verses.

ALL CAPS

• Exodus 6:3 IEHOVAH
• Daniel 5:25 MENE, MENE, TEKEL VPHARSIN
• Daniel 5:26 MENE
• Daniel 5:27 TEKEL
• Daniel 5:28 PERES
• Matthew 27:37 THIS IS IESVS THE KING OF THE IEWES
• Mark 15:26 THE KING OF THE IEWES
• Luke 23:38 THIS IS THE KING OF THE IEWES
• John 19:19 IESVS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE IEWES
• Acts 17:23 TO THE VNKNOWEN GOD 

Small Caps

• Revelation 17:5 Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots, And Abominations Of The Earth
• Revelation 19:16 King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords

[Note: In my King James Version published by First Word Publishers, all 10 of these verses are in ALL CAPS roman. This section (above) does not include verses that set words in ALL CAPS or Small Caps in blackletter type. ℑ𝔈ℌ𝔒𝔘𝔄ℌ is in ALL CAPS blackletter in Exodus 17:15; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4.]

Small roman, but present in the original language

These three New Testament verses have in common placing in small roman words that are Greek transcriptions of Syriac (Aramaic) words.

• Matthew 27:46 Eli Eli, Lamasabachthani [ii]
• Mark 5:41 Talitha cumi
• Mark 11:9-10 Hosanna [iii]

[Note: In my King James Version published by First Word Publishers, the formerly distinguished words in these three verses are now in the same type as the rest of the text.]

Small roman, 1 John 2:23

I have placed 1 John 2:23 in a special category, because it seems to be an exception to the other uses of small roman in the New Testament.

𝔚𝔥𝔬𝔰𝔬𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔯 𝔡𝔢𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔱𝔥 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔖𝔬𝔫𝔫𝔢, 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔰𝔞𝔪𝔢 𝔥𝔞𝔱𝔥 𝔫𝔬𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔉𝔞𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔯: but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father also.

When a person reads this verse with an entire clause in italics (modern KJV printings) or small roman (1611 printing), a question rises in the reader’s mind.[iv] If translators add words simply to make a sentence clear (i.e., read correctly in the target language), how could they have added an entire clause? Did they just make this up?

The answer is “no,” the King James translators did not create the second half of 1 John 2:23 out of thin air (or even implied words). If you check most English translations, they also have this clause. Early church writers mention it, and it is in Greek manuscripts. Barring finding an explanation made by the translators themselves, we may submit the following as the best explanation of why this text is distinguished by a different type.

The King James New Testament translation is based on what we call the Greek Textus Receptus. Some differences existed in this verse in Greek manuscripts and the TR tradition.

The 1519 Erasmus and 1550 Stephanus New Testaments have the following transcription for Ιωαννου Α 2:23

πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον, ουδε τον πατερα εχει.

On the other hand, the 1598 Beza TR New Testament has the following transcription for Ιωαννου Α 2:23

Πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον, ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον, και τον πατερα εχει.

The use of the small roman type here was (apparently) to acknowledge that this clause was disputed in some sources. It was not included in some of the previous English translations, neither in all of the traditional Greek texts.[v] English Bibles prior to 1611 that include the clause are: 1384 Wycliffe, 1540 Great Bible, 1568 Bishops Bible, 1602 Bishops Bible. English Bibles prior to 1611 that do not have the clause are: 1526 Tyndale, 1535 Coverdale, 1537 Matthew, 1539 Taverner, 1560 Geneva Bible.[vi] The 1540 Great Bible has the reading in the text, in smaller type – He that knowlegeth the Sonne, hath the Father also. The 1560 Geneva Bible includes the reading in the margin – But he that confesseth the Sonne, hathe also the Father. The 1568 Bishops Bible has the text in small roman type and in brackets [But he that knowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father also]. In the 1602 Bishops Bible, the base text the King James translators used based on rule 1, the text is in small roman type, but not in brackets.

The King James translators followed the base text, accepting the eight-word clause as in the Bishop’s Bible. The verse in the 1611 translation is the same as the 1602 Bishop’s, with the exceptions that “But” is capitalized in the Bishop’s Bible and the 1611 translation has “acknowledgeth” rather than “knowledgeth.” The use of small roman probably initially indicated the choice of the minority reading in this verse, a place where there is departure from the earlier English translations.[vii]

Another consideration

Another consideration of which to be aware and exercise caution is this. Over the years, modifications of the italics have been introduced by various editors. Some of these do not seem to correspond with the original intent of the King James translators. One example can be found in 1 John 3:16. Some modern printings of this verse include the words “of God” (after “the love”) in italics. This goes back at least to the 1769 Blayney/Oxford edition. However, the 1611 printing did not have “of God” in distinguished type (small roman). This corresponds with the Beza 1598 Greek New Testament, which has “του θεου/of God.”

Concluding thoughts

With the change from using blackletter to using roman as the primary print type in the King James Bible, the distinguished roman type dropped out of fifteen of the verses above. Those with ALL CAPS or SMALL CAPS now appear in capital letters, but in roman type – not italics. The Syriac (Aramaic) words in Matthew 27:46, Mark 5:41, and Mark 11:9 do not now appear differently from the surrounding text. 1 John 2:23 seems to be the main remaining exception to the rule of using italics to signal a word or words added in the target language (I would consider “of God” in 1 John 3:16 an exception as well). In my opinion, it is past time that publishers remove the italics in 1 John 2:23 (and 1 John 3:16) in new printings of the King James Bible. They are unnecessary, and the generally understood meaning of italics in the King James translation makes their presence here in 1 John 2:23 confusing.[viii]

The above examples contain important information to help King James Bible readers correctly assess and understand the use of italics in their Bibles (small roman in early printings). It is incorrect to believe that every time they see italics they are seeing English words inserted to complete the meaning of English sentences translated from Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. That is correct most of the time – but not always. The examples alert the reader that italics on occasion have a different distinguishing use.

I may have missed other uses or types of uses. If so, I would appreciate my readers pointing me to those places. I also must specify that there may be printings other than the ones I inspected, that vary from what I have found and reported. Thanks.

---

[i] William Whittingham explained the use of different type in the Geneva New Testament this way: “I...sometyme have put to that worde, which lacking made the sentence obscure, but have set it in such letters as may easely be discerned from the commun text.” The “easily discerned letters” are meant to alert the reader to the presence of such uses. The original text implies it (or contains it within another word), though not there strictly speaking. English and Spanish speakers will understand the following example (and hopefully others). The Spanish word “Yo” is the first person singular pronoun (equal to “I” in English). In Spanish a person will often simply say, “Quiero comer” instead of “Yo quiero comer.” The verb carries or implies the information for the pronoun “I.” In English, we would properly translate “quiero comer” to “I want to eat,” even though the pronoun “Yo” technically is not there. We would never just say, “want to eat.”
[ii] But not in Mark 15:34.
[iii] But not in Matthew 21:9, 15, or John 12:13.
[iv] Another interesting case, different from 1 John 2:23, is found in 2 Samuel 5:8 – “he shall be chiefe and captaine” is in small roman type. According to Matthew Poole (which corresponds with the marginal notes in the Geneva and King James Bibles) “these words are fitly supplied out of 1 Chronicles 11:6, where they are expressed; and they must needs be understood to make the sense complete.”
[v] The eight-word clause “ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει” is not in the majority of extant Greek manuscripts, and so is a case like some other verses where TR editors and King James translators accepted a minority reading.
[vi] The clause is in some other language Reformation-era Bibles (not English) prior to 1611. It is in the La Biblia Spanish New Testament of 1602 by Cipriano de Valera – “Qualquiera que confiessa al Hijo, tiene tambien al Padre.” These words are also in the La Bibbia Italian New Testament of 1607 by Giovanni Diodati – “chi confessa il Figliuolo, ha ancora il Padre.” It was, perhaps, in some Luther German Bibles and not in others. For example, the translation claiming to be the 1545 Luther Bible at Bible Gateway has the phrase “wer den Sohn bekennt, der hat auch den Vater,” while the translation claiming to be 1545 Luther Bible at New Christian Bible Study does not have it!
[vii] Similarly, The Great Bible has both 1 John 2:23b and 1 John 5:7 in smaller type.
[viii] The Westminster Reference Bible published by the Trinitarian Bible Society has only the word “but” in italics. I think this is the best presentation of 1 John 2:23.