Translate

Showing posts with label Orthography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Orthography. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 03, 2025

ALL CAPS in the King James Bible

Q. Why does the King James Bible print certain things in block all capital letters, such as “I AM THAT I AM” and “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN”?

A. As far as I know, the translators did not leave a direct explanation of their reason for using ALL CAPS. Therefore, we must learn and discern by research and comparison. I have found that there are about 25 places that have a section or word that is printed in ALL CAPS (Exodus 3:14; 6:3; 28:36; 39:30; Deuteronomy 28:58; Psalm 68:4; 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4; Jeremiah 23:6; Daniel 5:25-28; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12; 14:20; Matthew 1:21; 1:25; 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 1:31; 2:21; 23:38; John 19:19; Acts 17:23; Revelation 17:5; 19:16). This counting excludes all the places in the Old Testament where LORD translates JHVH [יהוה] (LORD – Small Caps or ALL CAPS, a printer’s style choice – translates the name Jehovah or the shortened form Jah).

Comparing all these cases, we find that this print style is used for emphasis, in two categories: (1) the name of God; (2) something written or engraved on something. It could be said that sometimes the categories overlap, with the “name written.”

Emphasis on the name of God.

  • Exodus 3:14 I AM THAT I AM
  • Exodus 3:14 I AM 
  • Exodus 6:3 JEHOVAH
  • Deuteronomy 28:58 THE LORD THY GOD
  • Psalm 68:4 JAH
  • Psalm 83:18 JEHOVAH
  • Isaiah 12:2 JEHOVAH
  • Isaiah 26:4 JEHOVAH
  • Jeremiah 23:6 THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS
  • Zechariah 3:8 BRANCH
  • Zechariah 6:12 BRANCH
  • Matthew 1:21 JESUS
  • Matthew 1:25 JESUS
  • Luke 1:31 JESUS
  • Luke 2:21 JESUS

Emphasis on an inscription, something written.

  • Exodus 28:36 HOLINESS TO THE LORD
  • Exodus 39:30 HOLINESS TO THE LORD
  • Daniel 5:25 MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN
  • Daniel 5:26-28 MENE | TEKEL | PERES
  • Zechariah 14:20 HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD
  • Matthew 27:37 THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS
  • Mark 15:26 THE KING OF THE JEWS
  • Luke 23:38 THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS
  • John 19:19 JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS
  • Acts 17:23 TO THE UNKNOWN GOD
  • 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

You should be able to select the above photo and enlarge it.

Note 1: I write “about 25” considering some Bible publishers may have varied in the use of ALL CAPS (and some may possibly use Small Caps where others use ALL CAPS).

Note 2: When JEHOVAH or JAH is translated specifically in reference to God’s name, it is capitalized. When Jehovah or Jah is included in some other name (a person or place), it is not capitalized.

Note 3: Exodus 17:15 was initially an exception to this, with what can be considered a printer’s error capitalizing JEHOVAH in Jehovah-nissi. That was later corrected to correspond with the other uses (Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-shalom).

Note 4: Jesus was not initially capitalized in Matthew 1:21-25 and Luke 1:31, 2:31. This was standardized in ALL CAPS at least by the 1682 Cambridge printing.

If you notice any errors or have any thoughts on this, please let me know.

Friday, April 25, 2025

Articles on Italics in Bibles

Some online articles I have found that discuss the use of differentiated type (usually italics) in Bible texts.

Wednesday, December 06, 2023

Fixing a typographical error

On a certain day I witnessed two adversaries aimlessly arguing on Ezekiel 24:7 concerning changes either made or not by Benjamin Blayney, while befuddled bystanders breathlessly hovered nearby. They were gasping at glimpses unseen to others and needing a word from a gentle true spirit to make a reply.

Unfortunately, such angry antagonists and bitter belligerents would not welcome a word of either hello or good-bye. I am placing a record here of what I found about the text of Ezekiel 24:7. There was a simple typographical error in Ezekiel 24:7 that was quickly corrected with no help from Benjamin Blayney, who was not even born until 1728.

For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it upon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it upon the ground, to couer it with dust:

Ezekiel 24:7, 1611 printing by Robert Barker

For her blood is in the midst of her: shee set it upon the top of a rocke, shee powred it not upon the ground, to couer it with dust:

Ezekiel 24:7, 1613 printing by Robert Barker

The word “not” was omitted in 1611, then shortly corrected by inclusion, and the text still stands today.[i] The old printings I have found online demonstrate that it was fixed at least by 1613, though it possibly happened even sooner.


[i] With the exception of spellings that have become more “fixed” as the English language progressed through the years. Notice even some variant spellings from 1611 to 1613. Some of this is because printers/typesetters would often choose the variant that would best help them justify a line of type. (In printing, to justify is to fit exactly into a desired length – so that each line of type is the same length.) Note that the the negative participle לֹ֤א is in the Hebrew text. It is obvious that this is not a translation issue, but a mistake made by the printers which they quickly corrected.

Wednesday, November 01, 2023

1 John 2:23

1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

In a blog post last November, I asserted that “it is past time that publishers remove the italics in 1 John 2:23 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.”

In this post I am primarily reproducing the same material, simply making a stand-alone post just on 1 John 2:23. Because of what we have been told about italics, when a person reads 1 John 2:23 in the King James Bible with an entire clause in italics, a solemn question arises in the reader’s mind. If the words in italics are those added by the translators simply to make a sentence clear (i.e., read correctly in the target language), how could they have added an entire clause?

The King James translators did not create the second half of 1 John 2:23 out of thin air, or from “implied” words. If you check English translations, the majority also have this clause. Early church writers mention it, and it is in Greek manuscripts.

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 even in the TR tradition.

The 1519 Desiderius Erasmus and 1550 Robert Stephanus Greek New Testaments have the following as Ιωαννου Α 2:23 -

πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον, ουδε τον πατερα εχει.

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

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

The Latin in Beza’s New Testament reads, “Quisquis negat Filium, nec Patrem habet: qui profitetur Filium, etiam Patrem habet.” Beza’s Greek and Latin texts may be translated to read “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; [but] whoever confesses the Son has also the Father,”or, in other words, as the King James Bible has it, “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”

Beza gives the following explanation concerning verse 23:

qui profitetur, ο ομολογων Restitui in Graecis hoe membrum ex quatuor manuser codicum, veteris Latini, & Syri interpretis auctoritate sic etiam affeuto Ioanne istis oppositionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissime. Vide Matth. 10:32.

Beza explains (translated into English, however poorly I may have done so):

“Whosoever confesses,” I restored to the Greek this statement on the authority of four Greek manuscripts, [and] consulting versions of the old Latin and Syriac. John, who was fond of these opposites, used them as often as possible. See Matthew 10:32.

In his explanation, Beza refers to external and internal evidence – Greek manuscripts and John’s typical style of writing.

The King James translators’ use of distinguishing type in the concluding clause of I John 2:23 indicates that they were following a minority TR reading in this verse (which they believed was the correct reading). Distinguishing this clause demonstrates their careful attention to detail in order to accurately convey what they were doing. However, the italics in modern King James printings of the Bible do not convey the intent of the translators to the reader. In modern times readers assume it means a few words added to complete the meaning and smooth out the translation in the target language. Therefore, I conclude the removal of the italics would better serve the modern reader and avoid confusion.

Tuesday, November 01, 2022

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

Small Caps

[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.

[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.

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Italics in Bibles (revisited)

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”). These italicized words have no direct equivalent in the Greek or Hebrew text, but are needful for the English for correct understanding. Therefore, the translators supply them. The original text implies them, though they are not there, strictly speaking. For example, the Spanish word “Yo” is the first person singular pronoun (“I” in English). One can 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” as “I want to eat,” even though the pronoun “Yo” technically is not there. This may be an oversimplification, but illustrates the idea nevertheless.

The Geneva 1557 New Testament and 1560 Old and New Testaments became the first English Bible translations to introduce italics for words added by the translators (they used Roman as the main type).[i] William Whittingham explains it this way in 1557:

“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.”

When the Authorized or King James Version of the Bible was printed in 1611, it was in Blackletter type. The printer used Roman type to signify words supplied by translators. Later, Roman type became common and the KJV printers switched to it as the main typeface. In order to distinguish words supplied by the translators, that type style was changed to italics.

At the Synod of Dort’s seventh session on November 20, 1618, the English delegates gave a report on the new Bible translation of 1611. Concerning putting text “with another kind of letter” they reported, “...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.” (This says “small roman” rather than “italics” because that was the original distinguishing font. See paragraph above.)

In succeeding years, editors of the Authorized Version thought that the printing of different type to indicate supplementary words was not always consistent (or at least they did not understand it). Therefore, various editors set out to revise the use of italics. Rufus Wendell writes:

“In the earliest editions of the Authorised Version the use of different type to indicate supplementary words not contained in the original was not very frequent, and cannot easily be reconciled with any settled principle. A review of the words so printed was made, after a lapse of some years, for the editions of the Authorised Version published at Cambridge in 1629 and 1638. Further, though slight, modifications were introduced at intervals between 1638 and the more systematic revisions undertaken respectively by Dr. Paris in the Cambridge Edition of 1762 and Dr. Blayney in the Oxford Edition of 1769. None of them however rest on any higher authority than that of the persons who from time to time superintended the publication. The last attempt to bring the use of italics into uniformity and consistency was made by Dr. Scrivener in the Paragraph Bible published at Cambridge in 1870-73.”[ii]

The revisions changing the amount of italicized words in the King James Bible was not without resistance.

“In 1832 a sub-committee of three Dissenters issued a short report complaining that ‘an extensive alteration has been introduced into the text of our Authorized Version, by changing into Italics innumerable words and phrases, which are not thus expressed in the original editions of the King James’s Bible printed in 1611’ and that ‘the alterations greatly deteriorated our vernacular version.’”[iii]

In a recent video, YouTube enthusiast Mark Ward opposed the use of italics in his video 3 Reasons Italics in Bibles Are Bad (and 2 where they are good).[iv] The first objection comes across as anomalous, in my experience. I cannot dispute what Mark has experienced, but I have been around a good bit longer than he has, and know (and have known) many people across the U.S. and other English speaking countries. I have never encountered the first person who regards the italicized words in the King James Bible as “magical.”[v] The other two objections can be considered as one – the reason for using italics can be misunderstood. Certainly, this is true. King James users and King James promoters at times have been guilty of not explaining their purpose. This can be alleviated by actually doing what we are supposed to do – teach! The last explanation of misunderstanding likely is the most common problem. In modern English writing the purpose served by italics is often emphasis or contrast (i.e., to draw attention to that part of a text).[vi] Emphasis is not their purpose in the King James Bible. Nevertheless, education is key – although some very educated people seem to object to this solution!! Many styles and symbols of modern English usage serve more than one purpose, so that the reader must learn to distinguish the ways they are used. For example, quotation marks (“”) commonly set off dialogue. But they are also “used to set off certain titles, ironic language, or specific terms.”[vii] The reader has some responsibility to learn the difference!

I have encountered some folks who supposed that, since the italicized words were “added,” that they might as well simply be “subtracted” or “removed” if the reader does not like them there. Here are a couple of examples of the tragedy of this mistake.

  • Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
  • Colossians 1:19 For it pleased that in him should all fulness dwell;

In Colossians 1:19 the object Father is “understood” in the context, and removing these two words would make the sentence difficult to comprehend in English.

  • Philippians 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
  • Philippians 1:21 For to me to live Christ, and to die gain.

In Philippians 1:21 the verb “is” is “understood” in the Greek text, but these are needed to structure the sentence in good English grammar.

In The King James Only Debate: Can you trust the modern scholars? author Michael Hollner has compiled some excellent information to demonstrate that italics are important and cannot just be deleted as “uninspired” additions. To do so, he shows where inspired New Testament authors write the understood word that is in/not in their Old Testament reference (See The King James Only Debate, Hollner, pp. 143-144.) Here are two examples.

  • Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.
  • Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

In the book of Deuteronomy, the Spirit inspires a sentence with the understood word/meaning “word” in Hebrew, which must be understood in the context, and is therefore in italics. In Matthew’s Gospel, the Spirit inspires Matthew to write down the word “word” in Greek and it therefore is not in italics there. And he is in fact quoting Jesus, who used “word” in speaking with reference to Deuteronomy. Same word. Same meaning.

  • Deuteronomy 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
  • 1 Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

In Deuteronomy “the corn” (i.e., grain; study the KJV) is in italics, so not directly in the Hebrew. However, when Paul, writing in Greek, refers to what Moses wrote, says Moses wrote corn! Why? Because it is there in the context, though not in the specific word.

It is either dishonest or ignorant for anyone who uses any English Bible to attack the King James Bible for its italicized words. All English Bible translations supply words that technically have no Greek or Hebrew equivalent, whether or not they identify them with different type. Learn what they mean. Learn why they are there.


[i] Geneva translator William Whittingham probably got the idea directly from Theodore Beza’s Latin New Testament, which in turn built on the ideas of Sebastian Münster’s Latin Old Testament and Pierre Robert Olivétan’s French Bible. See The Use of Italics in English Versions of the New Testament, by Walter F. Specht, 1968, pp. 89-92.
[ii] “Preface” (to the New Testament), The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments (The Revision of 1881 and 1885 Compared with the Version of 1611), Rufus Wendell, editor. Albany, NY: Revised Bible Publishing Company, 1886, p. xiii..
[iii] On a Fresh Revision of the English Old Testament, Samuel Davidson, Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1873, p. 129. This was also addressed by Thomas Turton in 1833 in The Text of the English Bible as Now Printed by the Universities: Considered with Reference to a Report by a Sub-committee of Dissenting Ministers.
[iv] The three reasons are: 1. They contribute to viewing the words as magical (a collection of magic words); 2. They are often misunderstood or misused; 3. They mean emphasis in modern English (or headings or book titles). This, then, in the KJV, violates the rules, according to Mark. He suggests the use of italics provides one more reason for more “Bible tribalism.” The good he finds is 1. For people studying biblical Hebrew and Greek; and 2. They communicate the care translators go through to get the Bible into someone’s language.
[v] Again, I am not saying Mark has not experienced this phenomenon. I am just incredulous that it could approach anywhere near common enough to mention it in this video.
[vi] Perhaps this problem could be alleviated by changing italics to some other typeface. For the purposes of italics in modern English, see “Using Italics.”
[vii] See “Using Quotation Marks.”