Translate

Showing posts with label Typography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Typography. 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 04, 2025

Changing letter formation

In his lesson More On The Work Of F.S. Parris, at about 39 minutes, Bryan Ross mentions changes in letter formation. Yes, this is a change technically, but I wonder if we would even be talking about it if it weren’t for folks in the Bible version debates looking for minutiae to grab ahold of on one side or the other. (I mean folks in general, not in reference to Bryan simply mentioning it in his lesson.) Differences in letter formation is more noticeable in older Bible printings, I suppose, because we are talking about letter formations that are not common today. Yet in our own contemporary reading, I suspect most folks read right over differences in letter formation and never give it a thought. For example, most all type fonts use the “double-story a” and many use the “loop-tail g,” while others use the “open-tail g” and some the “single-story a.” Very few folks actually print their letters in the more common typed letter formations (“double-story a” and “loop-tail g”) when they doing writing it by hand. (See picture above.) (The fonts at places like Google and Facebook usually have the “double-story a” and the “open-tail g.” Who pays any attention to that? Had you noticed?)

This is just an odd thought that jumped out at me as I was listening through Bryan’s video. Letter formation should be a topic of information, and not a debate on something that is right or wrong that has changed in the Bible.

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.

Friday, August 05, 2022

Titus 3:14 typography

At the Textus Receptus Academy group on Facebook, Brent Riggs brought up a Titus 3:14 typography difference, by which I was quite intrigued. Some printings have the word our’s (with an apostrophe for possession, but which is not normally used in American English with pronouns) and some have ours (without the apostrophe). I checked all of my KJV Bibles that are accessible on shelves (some are boxed and stored). I made a list below of what I found. All are King James translations. Some of these Bibles do not include any copyright or publication year, and some do not have any distinguishing title. Sometimes there are details such as an item number/sku. To help narrow down the timeline for the undated Bibles, I include information about when they were gifted, purchased and such like. This will give some indication of when they would have printed – for example, a Bible gifted in 1956, had to be printed at least by that time. They are generally in chronological order.

Our’s

Titus 3:14 - And let our’s also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

  • 1769, Blayney 1st edition, Oxford, Bible Museum 2017 facsimile reprint
  • 1902, The Self-Pronouncing S.S. Teachers’ Combination Bible, The Southwestern Company
  • 1915 ca. Oxford (small Bible, about 4 X 6; no date, but has the name Horace Hart, who was Oxford printer and controller 1883-1915; given to my wife’s grandmother sometime between 1908-1915) 
  • 1945 - Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford
  • 1956 ca., World Publishing Company (no date, but my aunt gave this Bible to my grandmother in 1956) 
  • 1964, Thompson Chain-Reference, B. B. Kirkbride
  • 1965, The Holy Bible: Michelangelo Edition, Abradale Press
  • 1970, The Crusade Analytical Edition, Crusade Bible Publishers
  • 1976 ca., World Publishing Company (no date, but I gave this Bible to my mother in 1976)
  • 1978, Nave’s Study Bible: King James Version, Broadman Press
  • 1988, Thompson Chain-Reference, B. B. Kirkbride
  • 2009, R. L. Allan & Son Publishers 

Ours

Titus 3:14 - And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

  • 1611, Robert Barker, printer to the King (facsimile reprint)
  • 1833, The Holy Bible: An Exact Reprint Page for Page of the Authorized Version of 1611 in roman type, Oxford
  • 1873, Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Cambridge University Press
  • 1889, Franklin Publishing, Richmond, Virginia (a large family Bible)
  • 1972, Wide Margin, Thomas Nelson Publishers 
  • 1972, Thomas Nelson Snap Flap Pocket Bible, 344S 
  • 1976 ca., Zondervan/Eyre and Spottiswoode (no date, but I was given this Bible in 1976)
  • 1980, The Reese Chronological Bible: King James Version, Bethany House Publishers
  • 1982 ca., Cambridge Concord 17XRL (no date, but given to my wife in 1982)
  • 1983 ca., World Bible Publishers, KWM-14-5941 (no date, but purchased probably circa 1983)
  • 1985, The Holy Bible, Jove Publications/Consolidated Book Publishers
  • 1986 ca., Cambridge Pitt Minion 53X (no date, but I was given this Bible in 1986)
  • 1988, The King James Study Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers
  • 1989, Slimline-Reference, Thomas Nelson Publishers  
  • 1990, 1611 Roman type reprint, Thomas Nelson Publishers
  • 1990, The Companion Bible w/E. W. Bullinger notes, 1922, Kregel Publications
  • 1992, The Full Life Study Bible: King James Version, Zondervan Publishing House
  • 1993, The Original African Heritage Study Bible: King James Version, World Bible Publishers
  • 2000, King James Large Print, Compact Edition, Holman Bible Publishers
  • 2003, Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 2003 Edition
  • 2010, PCE Cambridge University Press 
  • 2014 ca., Bearing Precious Seed wide margin (no date, but purchased in 2014)
  • 2014, Local Church Bible Publishers 
  • 2016, KJV Study Bible for Boys, Baker Books
  • 2016, Reader’s Bible, Holman Bible Publishers
  • 2019, Holman Bible Publishers
  • 2020, Matthew Henry Study Bible, Hendrickson Publishers

My initial reaction is that “our’s” is a typographical error introduced in the Oxford printings. Regardless, this is something of little consequence beyond the curiosity of it all.

Tuesday, May 17, 2022

Reading the 1611 Bible

“I have seen an original 1611 King James Version. I cannot read it. It looks like a foreign language.”

These and similar words roll off the tongues of otherwise intelligent people who do not appreciate and often even oppose the use of the King James Bible. If you claim some measure of scholarship and cannot read it, I am afraid of you. I’m no genius, but I can read the 1611 King James Bible. I use it in research, and have read it once from Genesis to Revelation. If a so-called Bible teacher is not educated enough to read a 1611 KJV, then he is not educated enough to lecture folks about texts and translations of the Bible.

However, there are sincere folks who might want to read the 1611 King James Bible, but struggle with the typography, spelling, etc. It has some variations from modern English printing that may initially be off-putting. Understanding these variations before beginning will remove some of the difficulties. Perseverance will remove many of the rest. Below I will give some visual samples from (as well as links to) pages of a 1611 Bible printed by the Kings printer, Robert Barker.

1611 Bible typeface

A typeface is a particular set of characters (alphabet, numerals, punctuation, etc.) that share a common design. In modern times, we often think in terms of “font.” Font is a specific size and style of a particular typeface. In Microsoft Word, Old English Text MT will produce a typeface similar to the typeface used in the 1611 translation.)

The 1611 Robert Barker printing of the new Bible translation uses three different types. The Bible translation itself is blackletter typeface. Blackletter is sometimes referred to as Gothic script or Old English, but it is not a typeface limited to English. It was common in the western European countries, and remained the popular typeface in Germany, Norway, and Sweden long after it had gone out of style in England and the United States.

Roman type

The dedication, preface, chapter headings, summaries, genealogies, etc. are in roman type (and some italic), providing an intriguing visual distinction between the text of the Bible and its related materials. The first letter in each chapter is a very large roman letter. Illustration 1 shows large and small roman type used in the preface, “The Translators to the Reader.” 

Illustration 1. Translators to the Reader.

Blackletter type

The text of the 1611 Bible is printed in blackletter type, and added target language words are in smaller roman type. These represent words that were added by the translators to more understandably translate from the source languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) into the target language (English). For examples, see the word “and” in Illustration 4, as well as “are” and “to bee” in Illustration 7. (When printers began to set the King James Bible in roman type instead of blackletter, italics were used to distinguish the added words, as appears in our modern printings of the KJV.) This was explained by Samuel Ward to the Synod of Dort, thusly:

“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.” Reported by translator Samuel Ward to the 1618 Synod of Dort

Illustration 2. John 19:19

Illustration 2 shows the blackletter type in the first part of John 19:19, followed by small roman type.  The superscription placed over the crucified Messiah is furnished in roman type and in all caps (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19). See Illustration 2. Notice also in the John 19 example above, that when “U” is capitalized, even within a word, it appears in the “V” style. These (u & v) are not two distinct letters in this Early Modern English blackletter typeface of the King James Bible.

Small roman type is used in the New Testament at least twice to designate a phrase found in the Greek text from the Syriac (or Aramaic) language: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani (Matthew 27:46, but not in Mark 15:34), and Talitha cumi (Mark 5:41).

Italic type

Various places in the explanatory materials use italic type, including the introductions, as well as in the marginal references to more literal translations, and the alternate readings.

1611 Bible alphabet

The letter i

There is no “J” or “j” in the 1611 English Bible, only an “I” or “i”. The capital “I” looks much like the later capital “J”. That is a stylistic flourish, however, rather than a different letter. The “j” look also appears as an extended ornamental flourish, as on the letter “i” at the end of Roman numerals. For example, XXIIJ or xxiij is Roman numeral 23.

Illustration 3. “I” flourish in 1 Kings Chapters 13-14

Illustration 4. Genesis 24:1

Illustration 5. 1 Samuel 18:5-6

1 Samuel 18:5-6 in Illustration 5 exhibits several traits of printing style of the 1611 Bible, including the capital “I” in Israel. Notice also, (1) the capital “S” in Saul, (2) the lack of apostrophe in “Sauls servants”, (3) some symbols for marginal readings, and (4) at the beginning of verse 5 there is a pilcrow (⸿, a character marking the start of a paragraph).

The letter r

Illustration 6. Rounded “r”, Ephesians 1:6-7

The rotunda or rounded r (ꝛ) is a stylized “r”, probably used by printers to save space. In the example from Ephesians 1:6-7 (Illustration 6), both types of “r” are used, the regular “r” and the rounded “r”. In verses six and seven, “ꝛ” is found in the words “praise”, “glorie”, “through”, “forgivenesse”, and “according”. The regular “r” is found in “grace”, “wherein”, “redemption”, “riches”, and “grace”. The rounded “r” (ꝛ) follows letters with curved strokes – “p”, “o”, and “h” in this example (and a “w” in Illustration 2). Other than style, it is no different than the regular “r”. The regular “r” always begins words (i.e., when “r” is used as the first letter). A 1611 capital “R” is seen in the word LORD in Illustration 4.

The letter s

The small letter “s” comes in two forms. The long “s” ( ſ ) letter looks similar to “f” letters, and is often so confused by modern readers. The long “s” is a small letter “s”, either at the beginning of a word or used internally within a word. The capital “S” looks different (see Illustration 5), as well as the short “s” letter used when “s” is the last letter of a word (which, interestingly, is also a trait of the Greek sigma, σ and ς. See Illustration 7, “sonnes” in verses 18 and 19). A short or round “s” is always used at the end of a word ending with “s”, and possibly sometimes used when the letter “s” is adjacent to a letter “f” (though this was not true in the examples I checked, “satisfaction” in Numbers 35:31-32, “satisfied” in Isaiah 53:11, “offspring” in Acts 17:28-29).

Illustration 7. Genesis 9:16-20

The words “five” and “second” (et al.) in Genesis 7:11 (Illustration 8, below) depict how easily the “f” might be confused with a long “s” (ſ), and vice versa.

Illustration 8. Genesis 7:11-13

Several points are demonstrated in Illustration 8, this snip of Genesis 7:11-13. The pilcrow is used. There are no apostrophes (’) to show possession, as we punctuate modern words. Notice “Noahs life” in verse 11 and “Noahs wife” in verse 13. Verse 13 gives an example of the capital “S” beginning the name “Sem”, as well as the use of the long “s” and short “s” in the word “sonnes”. “Iapheth” shows how the capitalized “I” looks quite like a modern “J” (though it is not).

The letter u

The “u” and “v” are interchangeable letters, according to their placement in a word. When it is the first letter of the word, “v” style is used. When within the word, “u” style is used. “V” is used when the letter is capitalized (See Illustration 2). However, the capital “U” in blackletter appears more like what we modern readers might think of as a “U” rather than “V” (nevertheless, it is one letter).

In some roman type “w” is a double u (that is, two of them side by side, and the “u” usually appears like a “v” – thus “vv”, – vvhen, vvhere, etc.). I do not believe this type printing occurs anywhere in the 1611 King James Bible.

The letter z

In the 1611 blackletter type, the small letter “z” appears somewhat like a cursive “z”, but does not extend well below the line (z). For example, see Uzziah in 2 Kings 15:13, 30, 32, 34.

The letter þ (called thorn)


Illustration 9. John 3:16

A “y” (i.e., what appears to be one), when used with a superscript “e” (i.e., above the “y”, yͤ; see Illustration 9.) or in an abbreviation “yt” (yͭ, for “that” as in 2 Cor. 13:7), represents the Old English letter “thorn” (þ). In those cases, the “y” works as a “th” sound rather than “y”. It means “the” (not “ye”) and “that” (not “yet”). The word should not be confused with the second person plural pronoun “ye” (and it is pronounced with a “th” rather than “y” sound). This usage can be found in a number of places, such as in 1 Kings 11:1, Job 1:9, Ezekiel 32:28, John 3:16; 15:1, Romans 15:29, Colossians 1:1, and James 3:12. Illustration 10 shows the abbreviation “yt” (yͭ) for “that”.  Other cases of “yͭ” include Jeremiah 49:17; John 12:2; Hebrews 7:21.

Illustration 10. 2 Corinthians 13:7

The letter æ (called ash, Æ æ) 

This letter is used at least three times in the 1611 Bible, in the words Ænon (John 3:23) and Æneas (Acts 9:33-34). In some printings of the King James Bible, words like Judæa and Cæsarea are printed with the ash (æ). However, I did not notice this in the 1611 blackletter print (where these were spelled Judea and Cesarea). The English alphabet also once had the letter Ethel (an “o” and “e” joined, Œ œ), but I did not notice this in the 1611 printing.

In Modern English orthography, both the thorn (þ) and ash (æ) are obsolete. Though the æ occasionally appears in words like encyclopædia, it is not now considered a letter in the English alphabet. Technically, though not obviously, the use of þ (thorn) can still be seen in signs such as “Ye Olde Tavern” (meaning “The” Olde Tavern, though most readers may not realize it).

1611 Bible symbols

Abbreviations

Illustration 11. The tilde abbreviation, Mark 1:5

A tilde or macron (~ -) is used in some words as a sort of abbreviation. An “m” or “n” following a vowel may be replaced by placing the tilde or macron over the vowel, as cõfessing in Mark 1:5. This is the equivalent of “confessing,” abbreviated. This usage probably was a printer’s decision, to save space; compare Matthew 3:6 where it is confessing rather than cõfessing. See also Acts 13:30, which shows the omission may also be at the end of a word – “frõ.” “yͤ” abbreviates “the” and “yͭ” abbreviates “that”. In 2 Chronicles 23:21 “wt” abbreviates “with”. 

Marginal notes

Illustration 12. Isaiah 53:5-6

These two verses in Isaiah 53 in Illustration 12 show three different symbols used to lead to marginal notes: asterisk, cross or dagger, and double bar (*, †, ||). The asterisk (*) denotes a cross reference to a related scripture or scriptures. The cross, or dagger, (†) indicates a more literal translation (prefaced by Heb., Chal., or Gr., followed by a word or words in italics).The double bar (||) points to an alternate reading (|| Or, followed by a word or words in italics).

Miscellaneous

Illustration 13. Catchword under 2 Kings 22:7

At the bottom right of pages in the 1611 Bible, you will find a “catchword.” A catchword is a word placed at the right-hand foot of the page that anticipates (records or repeats) the first word on the following page. See Illustration 13. This was common in early printed texts up into the 18th century. It probably helped both the printer and the reader to make the connection between the two pages.

While there are no apostrophes of possession, there is at least one place it is used to form a contraction. An apostrophe replaces the “e” in “long wing’d” in Ezekiel 17:3.

Hyphens come in two styles – within words, the single dash “-” (e.g. Iehouah-ijreh, Genesis 22:14; Nebuchad-rezzar, Jeremiah 21:2, 7) versus a double dash “⸗” for a hyphen dividing a normally unhyphenated word at the end of the line of type (see Illustration 6, “accep⸗ted” in Ephesians 1:6).

The conjunction “and” is often abbreviated or brevigraphed (represented) with a form of the Tironian “et” (see examples in Genesis 2:4, 7, 22, 25.)

In Genesis, “LORD” for Jehovah is in all caps (LORD), but in small caps (Lord) in other books of the Bible. Unexpected capitalization sometimes emphasizes or calls attention to a verse or something within it. All roman caps accentuate an inscription, or something written, in Daniel 5:25 (+ vs. 26-28); Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19; Acts 17:23; Revelation 17:5; Revelation 19:16. In addition, I AM THAT I AM in Exodus 3:14 appears in all caps in blackletter type. Exodus 6:3 has IEHOVAH in all roman caps.

In the 1611 Bible, there are no quotation marks (“ ”) for dialogue, quotes, etc. If you use a modern KJV printing, this is the same, not a difference. Some of these typographical or orthographical traits may be seen continuing much later and even in printings in roman type, such as the long “s” and the “i” instead of “j”.

1611 Bible words

Extended discussion of Bible words is too cumbersome to include here. (A little information about thees and yes is here and about verb endings here.) In 1611, English spelling was not standardized to the point is has now developed. Therefore, a number of variant spellings appear throughout the 1611 printing. An “e” word ending that has dropped out of use is a very common trait. Nevertheless, it should be rare that the average reader cannot discern what the word is, despite the variant spelling. The sound of the word is often the same or very similar.

A few examples

  • beleeveth = believeth
  • crosse = cross
  • doe = do
  • euery = every
  • fortie = forty
  • iniquitie = iniquity
  • layd = laid
  • moneth = month
  • onely = only
  • owne = own
  • riuer = river
  • shalbe = shall be
  • sonne = son
  • warre = war
  • windowes = windows
  • yerre or yeere = year

Final notes

You can view and examine for yourself a digital image of a 1611 printing of the Bible. Here is one online option:

In addition to online images, facsimile reprints are also available. Kings printer Robert Barker made several printings of the new translation, some of which may vary slightly from the visual examples I give. If you find something that is slightly different, do not be surprised.

I am not advocating that one must read the 1611 printing of the King James, but rather offering some advice to those who want to do so. There is also an accommodation for those wishing to read the 1611 Bible while avoiding the blackletter type. A Bible reprint is available in print of the original 1611 except that it is set in roman type rather than blackletter. (It may or may not be available online.) Also, there is a “modernized” Online Blackletter Edition which “give(s) the reader a feel for the original 1611 King James Bible” without including “all the typographic representations found in the original.”

I do not claim any expertise, just learning by trial and error (including what others said about these trials and errors). I may have gotten some minor details wrong, or I may have left off something I should have addressed. (If you notice something that needs to be addressed, let me know.) This kind of stuff intrigues me, even when only in relation to the English language and its history. I hope this essay might benefit someone, and not just about quirks in our language – but most especially regarding the Bible. May the Lord bless you.