Section I.

On the history of the text of the Authorized Version of the English Bible, from a.d. 1611 down to the present time.

Most readers will be aware that numberless and not inconsiderable departures from the original or standard edition of the Authorized Translation as published in 1611, are to be found in the modern Bibles which issue from the press by thousands every year. Some of these differences must be imputed to oversight and negligence, from which no work of man can be entirely free; but much the greater part of them are deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority by men whose very names are often unknown. Now, if such alterations had been made invariably for the worse, it would have been easy in future editions to recall the primitive readings, and utterly to reject the later corruptions. This, however, is far from being the case. Not a few of these variations, especially those first met with in Cambridge folio Bibles dated 1629 and 1638, which must have been superintended with much critical care, amend manifest faults of the original Translators or editors, so that it would be most injudicious to remove them from the place they have deservedly held in all our copies for the last 240 years1. A full and, it may be hoped, a fairly complete list of these changes is given in Appendix A at the end of this Introduction, to which the student is referred once for all: the attempt therein made to assign the period at which they were severally admitted into the text, although great pains have been bestowed upon the investigation, must be regarded as sometimes only approximately successful. Other copies, of an earlier date than that cited, may occasionally have anticipated it in making the given correction; but these inaccuracies will hardly affect the general results, or impair the conclusions to which they lead. One class of variations has been advisedly excluded from the Catalogue, as seeming rather curious than instructive or important; namely, that arising from errors which, having crept into editions later than that of 1611, after holding a place in a few or in many subsequent issues, have long since disappeared from the Bibles now in use. Of this kind is that notorious misprint in the Cambridge folio of 1638, once falsely imputed to ecclesiastical bias, “whom ye may appoint over this business” (“ye” for “we”) Acts vi. 3; a blemish which obstinately maintained its ground in some copies, at least as late as 16822. The several editions of the Authorized Version which have been used in the formation of our Catalogues and in our revision  of the text are chiefly, though not exclusively, the following.

(1) The standard or primary one published in 1611, “Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie.” Here, however, we are met on the threshold of our researches by the perplexing fact that at least two separate issues bear the date of that year, yet differ from each other in so many minute particulars, that we cannot help raising the question which is the earlier or more authoritative, and consequently the more suitable to be taken as the model to which subsequent reprints ought to be accommodated. On this subject, so interesting to students of the English Bible, much light has recently been thrown by Mr Fry of Bristol, whose materials will be thankfully used by many that feel unable to adopt his conclusions, and might desire a little more scholarlike precision in the method of his investigations1. The two chief issues of 1611 may be respectively represented by a folio now in the British Museum (3050. g. 2), and another in the same Library (3050. g. 1) of which Mr Fry says in a manuscript note “it is every leaf correct, and may be taken as a standard copy of this issue.” There is yet a third class of books, bearing date the same year, containing (some more, some less) sheets of six leaves or twelve pages each, or occasionally only two or four leaves of a sheet, which appear to be reprints of portions of one or the other of the aforenamed issues, the preliminary matter being made up from the folio of 1617 or elsewhere, a circumstance which complicates the question not a little, so that in what we have to say it will be advisable to exclude all considerations respecting these reprinted portions2. This may be done the better, inasmuch as Mr Fry’s researches have discovered only six such leaves in the Pentateuch, five in the Apocrypha, none in the New Testament. These reprints are bound up with and form a complete book with portions of each issue in two other Bibles in the Museum (1276.1. 4 and 3050. g. 3) respectively. The textual differences between the two original issues have been diligently collected in Appendix B, pp. lxxxvi.–xc., from which only very manifest misprints of both books have been excluded; by a careful examination of which collation, in those portions where there are no known reprints, the student can form an independent judgment respecting the internal character of each of them. In preparing the present volume, a Bible belonging to the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press (A. 3. 14, wanting sheet A of Title-page, Dedication and part of the Translators’ Preface) has been substituted for the Museum book 3050. g. 2, and for 3050. g. 1 the Oxford reprint of 1833, as being a well-known publication which exactly resembles it in all places consulted, and was itself taken verbatim, with unusual care for insuring accuracy, from a Bible in the Library of the Delegates of the Oxford University Press at that time in actual use. Copies of both issues or recensions of 1611 survive in great numbers in private as well as in public hands, since when the Translation was completed every Church had to be furnished with at least one without delay. Fifteen copies of that which it followed, twelve of the other, are enumerated in the Advertisement which preceded the publication of the Oxford reprint (dated Jan. 14, 1834), and Mr Fry has seen at least seventy, although he seldom gives us information as to where they are severally located3.

The question which of the two recensions is  the earlier must be decided partly by external, partly by internal considerations. The latter will speak for themselves, and it may be taken for granted that no one will doubt the great superiority on the whole of the text of the Oxford reprint to the other, or hesitate to mark in it many designed improvements and corrections which betray a later hand (Appendix B II. pp. lxxxviii.–xc.), while the instances in which the Syndics’ book is superior or not inferior to the other (App. B I. pp. lxxxvi., lxxxvii.) are scanty, slight, and incapable of suggesting the converse inference1. Both contain innumerable errors of the press, some peculiar to a single issue2, not a few (including nearly all the false textual references in the margin, see Sect. VI. p. lvi.) common to both. It is useful to remember one characteristic erratum of each, which will enable us to determine at a glance to which recension a particular volume in our hands belongs. The Syndics’ copy and its fellows have “Judas” instead of “Jesus” in Matt. xxvi. 36; the Oxford reprint and its associates read twice over the following words in Ex. xiv. 10 “the children of Israel lift up their eyes, and behold, the Egyptians marched after them, and they were sore afraid: and” the printer’s eye wandering back from the second “the children of Israel” in the verse, to the first3. Yet in spite of this portentous blunder, the recension which contains it is decidedly the more correct of the two, and irresistibly forces on the mind of any one that has minutely studied both, that whether we regard emendations of the sense or comparative exemption from typographical oversights, it had undergone revision, fitful and superficial perhaps, but not the less real on that account. Hence it is not quite reasonable, in answer to the enquiry “Which of the two issues was first printed?” to say with Mr Fry, “I do not think that any evidence on this point can be adduced, from the existence of an error in one, and the absence of it in another copy” (A Description, &c. p. 23). Not certainly from noting a single error or from noting twenty, for such an argument is cumulative in its weight, and can only be appreciated by patient enquirers: but if, out of two books substantially the same, one shall prove on examination more free than the other from mechanical imperfections and printers’ errata, and at the same time full of small yet unequivocal corrections whether of the style or the matter of the performance, we cannot doubt that, in the absence of any considerable proof to the contrary, the common consent of mankind would pronounce that the better executed volume must needs be the later of the two.

And what considerable proof to the contrary has Mr Fry been able to allege? Direct evidence on the subject there is none, for never was a great enterprise like the production of our Authorized Version carried out, with less knowledge handed down to posterity of the labourers, their method and order of working. There still remains the bibliographical branch of this investigation, and this will demand some attention. The first point we take up makes little in favour of Mr Fry’s view of the priority of that issue which the Oxford reprint follows with such faithful exactness. All copies of the other issue which have a title-page at all, exhibit a respectable and elaborate woodcut (repeated before the New Testament with the necessary change in the printed words) that had often done duty before, notably in the Bishops’ Bible of 1602. It represents the four Evangelists with their proper emblems at the top and bottom of the cut, the tents and armorial bearings of the twelve tribes on the left of the letter-press, the twelve Apostles on the right of it, the Paschal Lamb slain on the altar beneath it, the Lamb Triumphant under the Incommunicable Name surmounting all. But in many copies of the recension to which the Oxford reprint belongs the title-page is of a totally different character. It is a very elegant copper-plate engraving,  of whose refined beauty Mr Fry’s reproduction on stone (Plate 34) gives but a poor idea. Here Moses stands cornutus on the left of the letter-press title, Aaron on the right, the Apostles and Evangelists above and below in attitude and form quite different from the conventional manner of artists; above, the Incommunicable Name, the Dove, the Lamb Triumphant; below, the Pelican and her young; at the foot of this masterpiece the subscription C. Boel fecit in Richmont, Cornelius Boel of Antwerp then working at Richmond in Surrey. Now the point to be noted is this. It is admitted by Mr Fry and by every one else that in no copy of what he calls the second issue is there an engraved title, whereas some copies of his first issue have the engraved plate, others the woodcut, a few possibly, though not certainly, both, prefixed to the Old Testament. The inference seems a natural one that Boel’s plate not being ready when the earliest copies of our Authorized Version were published, the old woodcut was made to serve in its place for a while, and that those copies of Mr Fry’s first and our second issue which contain Boel’s copper-plate, are in all probability the latest of any. If there be any more simple solution of the matter, it would be well to state it.

But that which is most dwelt upon by such as would invert what internal evidence points out as the true order of the two issues insist on facts relative to the reprinted leaves which Mr Fry has demonstrated with great pains and ingenuity. Out of 25 copies of his first issue which he examined, 23 were leaf for leaf alike, agreeing entirely with each other: in one copy two leaves, in another six, were of the rival issue. Forty-five copies of this latter issue were then collated, of which the large number of 41 were found to vary from each other in some of the reprinted leaves supplied (see p. xi. note 2), and only two pairs were entirely identical. “I have now shewn” he proceeds to sum up “from the actual comparison of a very large number of the Bibles of 1611, as many as seventy, that one issue is unmixed (with the exception of eight leaves in two copies out of 25 examined), and that the other issue is made up in a very remarkable manner, not only with reprints, but that it is often mixed with the other issue, with the preliminary leaves of 1613, 1617, and 1634. Is not this conclusive evidence that the Bibles No. 1 and No. 2 before alluded to1 are respectively of the 1st issue and of the 2nd issue2” (Description, &c. p. 25)? Certainly not, if we understand what is meant by conclusive evidence. The facts established by Mr Fry (and we can confirm many of them from our own experience) are sufficient to raise a strong presumption that not very many copies of the earliest printed issue were bound up at once and sent out to Parish Churches, for which reservation their shameful inaccuracy will abundantly account: after the great and immediate demand was satisfied by that better edition which the Oxford reprint exhibits, and after the Translators were dispersed and had ceased to have any control over their work, the printer seems to have gradually put forth the unused sheets that had been first printed and deliberately laid aside, supplemented by reprinted leaves and other portions of later books.

“Why these 244 leaves were required to be printed a second time we can only conjecture” (ibid. p. 24). In truth the difficulty presses equally upon every possible hypothesis that can be maintained. The only real information available which bears even remotely on the matter is Dr Anthony Walker’s Life of John Bois3 [1560–1643], who was a  member first of the fourth, afterwards of the second Company. Of him we are told

“Four years he spent in this service1, at the end thereof (the whole work being finished, and three copies of the whole Bible being sent to London, one from Cambridge, a second from Oxford, and a third from Westminster), a new choice was to be made of six in all, two out of each company, to review the whole work, and extract one out of all the three, to be committed to the press. For the despatch of this business Mr Downes2 and he, out of the Cambridge company3, were sent for up to London, where meeting their four fellow-labourers, they went daily to Stationer’s Hall, and in three quarters of a year fulfilled their task. Whilst they were employed in this last business, he, and he only, took notes of their proceedings, which he diligently kept to his dying day.”

Could these notes be recovered4, they would solve, not only the problem discussed by Mr Fry, but many other questions of great interest. If Dr Walker can be trusted, it would seem that every part of each Company’s task had in some fashion been revised by each of the rest, a statement which neither the time employed, nor the results obtained, render very likely (see Sect. VII. p. lxiii.). At all events it is clear, unless we reject his evidence altogether, that the printing, so far as the Translators superintended it at all, must have begun and ended within the short period of nine months, which seems wholly inadequate for the accomplishing of all they had in hand.

Although we have not been able to resist the pressure of the internal evidence which assures us that the issue represented by Synd. A. 3. 14 is the earlier of the two, yet the influence of our error (if any shall still judge it to be an error) upon the text of the present volume is infinitesimally small. It is strictly confined within the limits indicated in Appendix B, § 1, the great majority of which variations are either purely indifferent, or would have been received on their own merits, without reference to the prior claims of the copy that contains them.

Respecting Appendix C, wherein are registered the joint readings of the two issues of 1611 which in later times have been displaced but are now restored, not a few of them are quite insignificant in themselves, but are re-established as a matter of right, and as a kind of protest against the unnecessary, the almost wanton changes, in which certain editors of the Bible have been pleased to indulge. Examples of this kind will be seen in Judg. xix. 29; 1 Sam. xx. 5; 2 Sam. vii. 7 marg.; 1 Kin. xv. 27; xvi. 19; 2 Kin. viii. 19; Isai. vi. 8; Hos. xiii. 3; 1 Esdr. viii. 75; 2 Esdr. xv. 22; 2 Macc. viii. 33; Luke xix. 13 marg.5

We now proceed to describe the principal editions of the Authorized Bible which have appeared since 1611, especially those which seem to have been prepared with some degree of care, or have largely influenced the text of succeeding impressions.

(2) The Holy Bible of 1612, copies of which are in the British Museum (1276. b. 6) and at  Trinity College, Cambridge (A. 8. 51), is beautifully printed in a small clear Roman type in octavo, the woodcut of the first issue of 1611 (above, p. xii.) being reproduced in a reduced size. On examining the collation we have made of this the earliest reprint of the Authorized Version (Appendices A, B, C below), it may be considered to depart but seldom from the issue represented by the Oxford reprint, except to correct some grave mistake (e. g. Mark vii. 4 marg.). In such a case it is usually followed by the edition of 1616, also printed in Roman type, but rarely influences the black-letter Bibles of 1613 or 1617. In 1 Kin. iii. 4; 1 Esdr. viii. 39; Rev. xx. 13 marg. this edition stands alone. The following are examples of improvements brought into it, which immediate successors have overlooked: Ps. xcix. 2; 2 Esdr. ii. 7 marg.; Judith xvi. 24; 1 Macc. v. 9; Matt. v. 22; Acts xiii. 19; 1 Cor. vii. 32; 2 Cor. v. 20. We have rejected the grammatical corrections in Dan. v. 31; John xi. 18 marg.

(3) The Holy Bible of 1613 is more generally known from a collation of the smaller black-letter folio copy of it in the University Press at Oxford with the Oxford reprint of the book of 1611, annexed to that very useful publication1. This book is readily distinguished from both issues of 1611, inasmuch as it contains 72 lines of smaller type in a column, to their 592. It is plain that no formal revision of the text, italics, or margin, was attempted thus early. Out of the 412 variations which the collation records, just 70 arise from the following of the Syndics’ copy (A. 3. 14) in preference to the other issue, but this includes corrections of some 20 evident misprints of the Oxford reprint issue. In about four places (Ezra iii. 5; Ezek. xxiv. 7; 1 Macc. iv. 29; 2 Thess. ii. 15) we find manifest improvements on the standard editions: in Dan. ix. 12 the reading of the Hebrew margin or keri is adopted (“word”) against the other books: nearly all the other variations arise from the glaring misprints of this handsome but inaccurate volume. Such are the omissions of whole clauses by reason of their having the same beginning or ending as those immediately preceding (1 Kin. iii. 15; Matt. xiii. 8; xvi. 11; John xx. 25), and two whole verses, Ecclus. xvi. 13, 14, putting “delighted” for “defiled” Ezek. xxiii. 7, the leaving out of “not” in 2 Tim. iv. 16, and other errors almost as gross. That this book was set up from our first issue appears likely, as well from many other resemblances to be seen in Appendix B, as from the printer’s mistaking “yt” in that book for “the” in Acts xxi. 38. The other issue has “that Egyptian” in full3.

The next two books were used at Tregothnan (R. 4 and R. 7), by the kind permission of their owner, Viscount Falmouth.

(4) The Holy Bible in small folio Roman type 1616; with the Prayer Book and Genealogies, Map, &c. prefixed, the metrical Psalms with musical notes (dated 1612) and Private Prayers at the end, with their first leaf lost. This seems a somewhat rare book, not particularly intended for Church reading, is beautifully printed, and in a very perfect state. It appears to be the first edition of the Authorized Version which was submitted to any considerable revision. Its value will be seen from the study of Appendices A and B, and it should be remarked all along, that improvements brought in from time to time in Bibles of the Roman type seem to have had very slight influence with the printers of the black-letter books of 1617, 1634, 1640, who continued to set the press from one or the other of the issues of 1611, almost regardless of subsequent changes for the better. Some of the corrections of 1616 were received into the great folio of 1617, but the following, among others, were overlooked: Gen. xxii. 7; 2 Sam. xxiii. 20; 1 Kin. xx. 3; 1 Chr. i. 5, 47; vii. 13; xxvi. 5; xxvii. 33;  2 Chr. xi. 20; xxx. 6; xxxii. 20; Neh. viii. 10; Eccles. vii. 26; Cant. v. 12; Jer. xxxv. 13; Tobit iv. 12; Ecclus. li. 12; 1 Macc. viii. 8; ix. 35; xi. 34, 56; xv. 23; Matt xvi. 19; Mark xiv. 32; Luke xxiii. 19; Acts iv. 17; xxvii. 18; Rom. vi. 12; vii. 13; xvi. 10. Dr Corrie, Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, has a rare 8vo. in Roman type, dated 1619.

(5) The Holy Bible, large folio, black letter, 1617, a much more pretentious but less valuable edition1. As its leaves have got much mixed with those of the other folios, especially of our first issue of 1611, it is proper to apply Mr Fry’s tests before using any copy (A Description, &c. plates 46, 47), so far as for critical purposes it is worth using at all. The large paper copies may be expected to be pure for obvious reasons. The Tregothnan book does not answer Fry’s tests in three leaves up to Ps. xxii.2 Among its few original corrections are Mal. iv. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 19. The Bible of 1617, like that of 1613, usually abides by the issue of 1611, represented by our Synd. A. 3. 14, while that of 1616 follows the Oxford reprint standard, even in such obvious errors as in Hos. vi. 5.

The public demand must have been satisfied with these several editions, especially of the large size, which were published so near each other. Some years elapsed before the appearance of other chief Bibles, whereof three several pairs can most conveniently be discussed according to their relation to each other, rather than in the chronological order,—the two of 1629, those of 1630, 1634, 1638, 1640.

(6) The Holy Bible, small quarto, 1629 “Imprinted at London by Bonham Norton and John Bill Printers to the King’s most Excellent Majestie.”

(7) The Holy Bible, also small quarto, 1630 “Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the King’s most Excellent Majestie: and by the Assignes of John Bill.”

These two books are of the same size, have the same title-page, though different tail-pieces at the end of the Prophets, correspond with each other page for page, line for line, with the closest exactness, even to the peculiar shape of the letters used in the same places (compare, however, Num. xxii. 31; Ezek. xx. 37 marg.; Dan. viii. 18 marg.), so that the type from which the two were printed off was clearly set up but once. The volume of 1629 however is printed on much worse paper, and does not contain the Apocrypha3, although APO- still remains, as in its fellow, below the tail-piece at the end of Malachi. At the end are the metrical Psalms with musical notes, and the date of 1630. It would never be suspected, prior to actual trial, that the text in these two books is not absolutely identical. Yet an inspection of Appendices A, B, C will shew that this is the case: e.g. Gen. xlvi. 12; xlvii. 18; Lev. xviii. 30; xxv. 5 marg.; Num. v. 20; 1 Kin. xviii. 28; xx. 3; 1 Chr. i. 38; vii. 27; xxiv. 11; 2 Chr. xxvi. 18; Esther viii. 5 marg. (devised 1630, for the device); Ps. xxiv. 10; Jer. xl. 1; Ezek. i. 2; xvi. 59; xxxvi. 2; Dan. v. 4 (dranke 1629, drunke 1630 after 1611); Rom. x. 21; xvi. 10; 2 Cor. vii. 3 (yee are 1629, you are 1630 after 1611); ix. 4 (haply 1629, happily 1630 after 1611); Gal. i. 6 (removen 1629); Eph. vi. 21, 24; 1 Thess. i. 9; 1 Pet. v. 12. Instances such as these help to justify Mr Fry’s assertion, which to an inexperienced reader might seem somewhat unlikely: “The absence of a particular error in one copy, is no proof that it is of a different edition from the one with the error; for I have observed many errors in one copy corrected in another of the same edition, in other Bibles than those here described” (A Description, &c. p. 23), meaning those of 1611 and their near contemporaries. The Bible of 1630 has some readings that appear peculiar to itself, e.g. 1 Macc. x. 20 “require of thee”; xii. 53 fin. “them” for “men.”

Thus far the reprinting of the Authorized Version had been entirely in the hands of the King’s Printers. They had made changes in the text, slight indeed and far from numerous, yet enough  to shew that they doubted not their competency to make more if they had taken the trouble. The italic type and textual references in the margin they left untouched, with all the obvious faults of both uncorrected, only that occasionally a false quotation was set right. The next stage of the history of our Translation is more interesting, and the Cambridge University printers, Thomas and John Buck in 1629, Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel in 1638, published two important folios which have largely (and on the whole beneficially) influenced our Bibles to this day.

(8) and (9)1. The first Cambridge editions of the Holy Bible shall be considered together, inasmuch as that of 1629, which is the smaller of the two, and has the Prayer Book prefixed to it, and the metrical Psalms with musical notes bound up at the end, inaugurated that course of systematic revision of the text, of the italics, and of the margin, which nine years afterwards was more fully and consistently carried out. It is not a little remarkable, that the subject of the internal character of our English Bible, as distinct from its external history, had excited so little attention for the space of two centuries, that the high merit of these books has been understood only within the last forty years. “For this beautiful edition,” Lea Wilson writes most truly of the elder of the two, “the text appears to have undergone a complete revision, although I can find no record of such having been done by authority” (List of Bibles, &c. 4to. 1845). “So far as I can judge” says Bp. Turton of its compeer of 1638 “the edition was carefully superintended” (Text of the English Bible considered, 2nd edition, 1833, p. 35). As he becomes better acquainted with it, his language grows more decided, as well it might: “a revision of the text of 1611…it is now certain, was carried into effect, from the beginning of the Volume to the end, at Cambridge, in 1638” (p. 126). “The revision indeed was a work of great labour” (p. 91), but he always speaks of it as commenced and carried out in the same volume. What Turton did not know, but only regarded as possible, that it might “hereafter appear that an earlier revision had taken place”(ibid.), is a fact that no one will doubt as regards the text who shall examine the contents of the subjoined Appendices (pp. lxviii.–lxxxiii.; xci.–xcvii.). The task seems to have been executed between the two sets of editors in no unequal shares. What the one left undone, by reason of haste or human oversight, the others in a good measure supplied, by inserting words or clauses, especially in the Old Testament, overlooked by the editors of 1611, by amending manifest oversights, by rendering the italic notation at once more self-consistent, and more agreeable to the design of the original Translators (see Sect. III. p. xxxiii.). What persons were concerned in the edition of 1629, as Lea Wilson notices, we are wholly ignorant, but if similarity of plan and spirit afford us any ground for conjecture, one at least of them must have had a share with others in preparing the subsequent book of 1638, and these latter, as we learn from a manuscript note in the Jesus College copy, in the handwriting of Richard Sterne, Master of the College, and Vice-Chancellor that selfsame year, were Dr Goad of Hadley, Dr Ward, Mr Boyse, and Mr Mead: men whose obscure diligence in a grave and delicate work was doubtless rewarded with honour more excellent than fame can give or take away2.

With this pair of editions began the habit of adding to the parallel textual references in the margin : the Bible of 1638 admits also one or two fresh marginal notes (1 Macc. iv. 15; ix. 36). We have seldom to hesitate about receiving their emendations of the text (see Appendix C 2 Sam. xvi. 8; Ps. cxix. 42 marg.), as in the case of some of their successors: their corrections command our assent by their simple truth. One of the changes introduced in 1638 it would have been better to have finally adopted, “and the truth” with the Greek in John xiv. 6. The “and” held its place beyond Blayney’s revision of 1769, but has disappeared in Bibles from D’Oyly and Mant (1817) downwards. The following errata have been noticed in these  two admirable books: most of which blemishes have been perpetuated to modern times.

1629. 2 Chr. ix. 11 marg.; Jer. xxxiv. 16; Ezek. xxxi. 14; Ecclus. xvii. 24; 2 Macc. ix. 18 (see Appendix C for all these); Judith i. 6 (“Hydaspe:” so also 1638 [not 1744], 1762, 1769, all moderns down to our model [below, p. xxiii.], which restores “Hydaspes” of 1611); Baruch vi. 8 (“gold,” all the editions just named, with 1744 added: here again our model restores “silver” of 1611); 2 Cor. viii. 7 (“in utterance,” repeated in 1638, 1699, “in utterance” 1762: but 1743, 1769 and the moderns restored “and utterance” of 1611); 1 Tim. iv. 16 (see p. x. note 2). Note also that this edition has misled every subsequent one by placing the reference to Ps. xxii. 6 in Job xxv. 6 over against the first “worm” instead of the second.

1638. Neh. xii. 3 marg. (Appendix A); Ezek. xviii. 1; Hos. xiii. 3 (see for these Appendix C); Acts vi. 3 (see p. x.); Rev. ii. 20 (“Jezabel,” the Greek form, followed by 1699, 1743: but “Jezebel” was restored in 1762).

In the matter of the italic type, to which much attention is paid in these two Bibles, one or other of them has led later copies wrong in the following places:

2 Sam. xxiv. 12 do it (1629), corrected in the American (1867) only; Isai. v. 9 marg. This is (1638); 25 were torn (1638); xxxviii. 12 marg. from the thrumme (1638); Jer. xxv. 18 and the princes (1638); Ezek. xl. 4 art thou brought (1629); Zech. vi. 3 and bay (1638); 1 Esdr. viii. 58 is a vow (1629); Matt. xv. 9 for doctrines 1638, for doctrines 1762, &c.; Eph. v. 26 cleanse it (1629). All these are merely uncorrected errata1.

The next pair comprises the black-letter folios of the King’s Printer, dated (10) 1634 [B. M. 1276. l. 5. 1–2] and (11) 1640 [B. M. 1276. l. 7]. The former is much mixed with later issues of the books of 1611 and 1617, and may be discriminated by the use of Mr Fry’s tests (A Description, &c. Plates 46, 47). The latter is at once detected by its use of Roman letters instead of italics in the marginal notes, nor does the type run quite line for line with the earlier folios. Speaking generally, these books contain none of the improvements found in the two Cambridge editions, although a few changes for the better may be met with here and there. Thus the edition of 1634 anticipates the emendations of 1638 in 1 Chr. i. 20; John vii. 16 (Appendix A): in Hagg. i. 12 it reads “Joshuah,” in Rev. xxi. 20 “sardonyx.” In Ecclus. xxxv. 18; xlix. 4; Acts iv. 17; vii. 10 (Appendix A) that of 1640, but not the other, adopts the readings of 1629. A fuller examination would no doubt bring to light some more instances, equally insignificant.

The volume of 1640 proved to be the last of the Bibles of its class, the Great Rebellion leaving men neither inclination nor means for costly undertakings of this nature. “You may well remember,” writes William Kilburne in 1659, to the honourable and elect Christians whom he addresses, “the zeal and care of the late Bishops (especially of reverend and learned Doctor Usher) was such, that for the omission in one impression of the Negative word [not] in the seventh Commandment, the Printer was fined £2000 or £3000 in the late King’s time, as I have heard2, which happened long before the late wars began: in which time, through the absence of the King’s Printers, and cessation of Bible-printing at London, many erroneous English Bibles were printed in and imported from Holland; which being diligently compared by the late Assembly of Divines were reported to the Parliament in 1643 to be corrupt and dangerous to Religion” (Dangerous Errors, &c. p. 5). This importation indeed was expressly prohibited by statute, without much good effect: “Moreover, during the time of the late Parliament great numbers of Bibles in a large 12° volume were imported from Holland in 1656 with this false title (Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Anno 1638)…being contrary to the several Acts of Parliament of 20° Sept. 1649 and 7 Janu. 1652 for regulating of Printing” (ibid. p. 12). Kilburne furnishes a really painful list of the inaccuracies of these foreign Bibles (“thirty grand faults in part of Genesis, a hundred in Isai. i.–xxvii.”), but shews plainly that the privileged printers, Henry Hills and John Field, were scarcely a whit more careful. They had, in truth, to pay for their privilege a bribe of £500 per annum to certain men in power, “whose names, out of respect to them, I forbear to mention” (ibid. p. 14), and reimbursed themselves for that shameful outlay by taking no measures for the due correction of the press. In their Bibles of 1653, 1655 (two editions), 1656 (two editions), and 1657 (thought to be the worst of all), Kilburne computes that he discovered twenty thousand faults, some (which he particularises) being intolerably gross. On the other hand, he praises several editions in 8vo. and 12mo. issued “by Authority of Parliament” in 1646, 1648, 1651, &c., by Wm. Bentley of Finsbury, based upon the Cambridge folio of 1638.

Of the Bibles published during the latter part of the seventeenth century, that of Hills and Field, small 8vo. London, 1660, is remarkable for certain additions to the original marginal notes of 1611, subsequently improved upon in a Cambridge quarto of 1682–3 (see Sect. II. p. xxxi., and note 1), bearing the name of John Hayes, the University Printer, who had previously put forth a well-known edition in 1677. The later of Hayes’s two contains a great number of fresh textual references, the reputed work of Dr Anthony Scattergood, and mostly taken from his Bible, also published at Cambridge in 1678. But the most celebrated edition of the period was that undertaken on the motion of Archbishop Tenison, and at the alleged request of Convocation in 1699, by the eminently learned William Lloyd [1627–1717], successively Bishop of S. Asaph and of Worcester, under whose superintendence appeared

(12) The Holy Bible, large folio, 3 vol. “London, Printed by Charles Bill and the Executrix of Thomas Newcomb, deceased, Printers to the King’s most excellent Majesty, 1701.”

This splendid but somewhat cumbersome book is the first that contains the marginal dates (see Sect. VII. p. lxii.), and sundry marginal annotations of doubtful merit, discussing chronological difficulties and imparting other information (Sect. II. p. xxvi.). Annexed are Bp. Cumberland’s Tables of Scripture measures, weights, and coins (first published in 1685), Tables of Kindred, Time, and Offices and Conditions of men. The textual references also are increased, but not very materially, and in respect to punctuation many parentheses were restored, which had been gradually removed from the text (see Sect. IV. p. xli.). On the whole, this hasty labour added little to the fame of the veteran Lloyd, and in 1703 the Lower House of Convocation made a formal Representation to the Upper respecting the many errors it contains1. Except in regard to the dates, no principal edition has so little influenced succeeding Bibles as this, notwithstanding the high auspices under which it came forth.

It was doubtless through the care of Archbishop Wake (who, though himself but a feeble writer, had a genuine love of sacred letters) that persons from whom so little could be expected as George I. and his great minister, were induced to issue four salutary Rules, dated April 24, 1724, to the King’s Printers2, with a view to the more effectual removal of misprints from their copies of the Authorized Version. One of these rules strikes at what was beyond question the root of the mischief in the evil days of Hills and Field, and prescribes that those employed on so grave a work should receive competent salaries for their pains and skill. In the middle of the eighteenth century the Bibles of the Basketts, at once the King’s and Oxford University Printers, earned a fair name both for the beauty of their typography and their comparative freedom from misprints. Their quarto of 1756 is particularly commended, and will supply the student with a knowledge of the exact state of our Bibles just before the commencement of the kindred labours of Paris and Blayney, which yet remain to be described. In preparing the present volume we have used another of their editions, in substance almost identical with that of 1756.

(13) The Holy Bible, quarto, with “above two hundred historys curiously engraved by J. Cole  from designs of the best masters,” “Oxford, Printed by Thomas Baskett and Robert Baskett, Printers to the University 1744” (Old Testament): For the New Testament: “London, Printed by Thomas Baskett and Robert Baskett, Printers to the King’s most excellent Majesty 1743.”

We now come to the last two considerable efforts to improve and correct our ordinary editions of Holy Scripture, made in 1762 by Dr Paris, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and still commemorated in the list of the Benefactors of the College, and by Dr Blayney, whose labours were published in 1769, both anonymously. The latter, however, has left a very interesting account of his work and the principles upon which it was executed in a brief Report to the Vice-Chancellor and Delegates of the Clarendon Press, reprinted below as Appendix D (pp. xcviii., xcix.), and well deserving of attentive perusal. Dr Paris’s name is not mentioned therein in such terms as might have been expected from the liberal use made of his materials by his successor: in fact his book is almost unknown even to Biblical students, although it has contributed more than that which appeared but seven years later towards bringing the text, the marginal annotations, the italics, and the textual references of modern Bibles into their actual condition. The truth is that Paris’s edition had no real circulation, partly because it was so soon superseded by Blayney’s, chiefly by reason of a large portion of the impression having been destroyed by fire in Dod’s the publisher’s warehouse1.

(14) The Holy Bible, quarto, large paper, 2 vol. Cambridge, “Printed by Joseph Bentham, Printer to the University. Sold by Benjamin Dod, Bookseller…London, 1762.”

(15) The Holy Bible, quarto [and folio], 2 vol. Oxford, “Printed by T. Wright and W. Gill, Printers to the University: 1769.” With Prayer Book prefixed.

It will be seen when we come to discuss the italic type (Sect. III.) that the use of it was considerably extended in these two Bibles, notably in the later one, by a more full carrying out of the system of the Translators than they would have probably sanctioned themselves. The marginal annotations also, which had been growing in some Bibles since 1660 but were excluded from others (see Sect. II. pp. xxx., xxxi.), were finally received into the place they have occupied ever since, sundry new notes being added, the great majority in 1762. Bp. Lloyd’s dates and chronological notices were also received and added to at the same time, and the two editions contributed largely, in about equal proportions, to swell the catalogue of textual references to parallel passages of Scripture. An inspection of our Appendices A and C will shew how far each of them contributed to amend or corrupt the Translators’ text, and it cannot be doubted that these two editors are the great modernizers of the diction of the version, from what it was left in the seventeenth century, to the state wherein it appears in modern Bibles. Much of the labour described in Sect. v. (pp. xlviii., xlix., &c.) has been rendered necessary for the undoing of their tasteless and inconsistent meddling with archaic words and grammatical forms. On the whole, Dr Paris, who has been kept so utterly out of sight, performed his task with more diligence, exactness, and moderation than his Oxford successor. Yet, much as they left undone or did amiss, their editions of the Bible are monuments of genuine industry and pious zeal all the more conspicuous in an age when shallow superciliousness was too often made a substitute for generous criticism and scholar-like precision: they might either of them have cheered the heart of worthy Archbishop Secker, on whose suggestion Blayney’s labours are believed to have been undertaken. In point of typographical correctness, as is already well known, the quarto (and to a slightly less extent the scarce folio) of 1769 are conspicuously deficient: on one page of the Apocrypha there are no less than three typographical errors (Esth. xi. 2 “Nison;” 8 “upon earth” (“the” omitted); xii. 6 “the eunuchs” (“two” omitted), so that the commonly estimated number of 116 such errata would seem below the truth. In Rev. xviii. 22 occurs an omission of a whole clause, for the same cause as was spoken of in regard to the Bible of 1613: “And no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee.” Some of Blayney’s needless changes are in Ps. cxv. 3; cxli. 9; 2 Pet. i. 9 (see Appendix C): certain of a better character occur in Prov. vi. 19  (App. A); Ecclus. xxix. 17 “[in danger]” for “in [danger]” of 1611, &c.; 2 Cor. iii. 3 “fleshy” of 1611 restored, for “fleshly,” which had held its ground since 1613. On the other hand, in Ezek. xxiii. 4 (his own margin) His tent should have been Her tent. In regard to italics, whereof at times he is somewhat lavish, he rightly prints in Ps. xiii. 3 “the sleep of death,” instead of “the sleep of death,” as from 1611 downwards; in 1 John iii. 16of God” is italicised for the first time: his oversights in this matter will be noticed hereafter (p. xxii.). In the Bible of 1762 also the following errors should be noted: 2 Kin. x. 31 “for” instead of “for” of 1611–1744; xxv. 4 “of war fled” for “of war fled” of 1611–1744; Ps. lxix. 12 “I was” for “I was” 1611–1744. The second and grossest is amended in the American Bible 1867, otherwise they remain untouched to this day.

The following list of errors which we have incidentally detected in Dr Paris’s edition of 1762 deserves the more notice, because they are nearly all repeated by Blayney, as we have indicated by adding the date 1769 within marks of parenthesis. They occur oftenest in the marginal annotations added in this pair of Bibles, and some of them can be best accounted for by supposing that Blayney’s sheets were set up by Paris’s, used as copy.

Ex. xxvi. 24 marg. and xxxvi. 29 marg. twined. See Appendix B, p. lxxxviii., note 3 (1769); Num. xxvi. 13 (marg. of 1762) Zobar (1769); Deut. x. 2 brakedst (1769); Josh. xvii. 2 (marg. of 1762) Fezer (1769); Judg. iii. 15 marg. Gemini (1769); xviii. 7 (marg. of 1762) Leshen (Leshem 1769); 1 Sam. xvi. 6 (marg. of 1762) 13, called Elihu. (13. Called Elihu, 1769); 2 Sam, vi. 2 (marg. of 1762) Baalab (1769); 2 Kin. xvi. 7 (marg. of 1762) Tilgath-pileser (1769); 1 Chr. i. 51 (marg. of 1762) Avah (Alvah 1769); iii. 8 marg. Becliada (Becliada 1769); Ps. cxxxv. 5 “our Lord” of 1611–1630 restored instead of “our Lord” of 1629 Camb., 1638, 1744 (1769, but moderns from Oxf. 1835 have “our Lord”); Prov. xxxi. 14 merchant (merchants 1769: Appendix A); Jer. xl. 1 the word that (1769); xliv. 28 marg. or them (1769); Ezek. xiii. 9 marg. council (1769); Dan. ix. 24 (marg. of 1762) Axtaxerxes (not 1769); 27 marg. (See Appendix A, p. lxxvi., note 3); Nahum iii. 16 fleeth (1769); Hab. iii. 19, see Appendix A (1769); 1 Esdr. ix. 22 marg. Fosabad (1769); Baruch i. 1 Checias (1769, D’Oyly and Mant, 1817, Oxf. 1835); ii. 16 thine holy (1769, &c.); 2 Macc. iv. 41 next in hand (1769, &c.); Acts vii. 28 “killedst” for “diddest,” a designed but needless correction, rejected by 1769, &c., as also is “things strangled,” Acts xxi. 25, a correction of the same class. Blayney also refuses “be ye warmed and be ye filled,” James ii. 16 (“be you warmed and filled,” 1611–1743), though he wrongly italicises the first “ye,” which he retains. In Gal. ii. 6 1762 recalls from the Bible of 1683 the reading “those who,” which had beenafterwards neglected for the inferior reading of 1611, “these who” (Grote MS. p. 133). It was followed by Blayney and others up to a very recent period (Bagster 1846, American 1867). Our model (Camb. 1858) falls back upon “these who,” which we do not disturb.

Some other emendations of Dr Paris are a little too bold (e.g. Ps. cvii. 19, App. C), and one at least of his marginal notes very questionable (Acts vii. 45). His punctuation is often good: he was the first to substitute a full stop and a moderate space for the colon of 1611, &c., at the great break in Zech. xi. 7 “And I took unto me two staves.” For a specimen of his successor’s merits in this respect see Sect. iv. p. xlv. (2 Cor. v. 2).

It is now necessary to subjoin an incomplete yet over-long list of the errors other than bare misprints which have met us in habitually consulting Blayney’s quarto of 1769. We must not suppress the notice of faults, some of which have led his successors grievously wrong, through the vain fear of detracting from the honour of a learned and diligent student of Holy Writ. All accuracy is only comparative, as every true scholar knows well; and if we be at a loss to account for the unusual number of his oversights, we may fairly impute much to the comparatively short time—between three and four years—spent by him in accomplishing, or at least in attempting, the burdensome task which his Report describes (Appendix D). The reader will refer to Appendices A and C for further details.

Ex. vi. 21; Josh. xix. 2, 19; 2 Sam. xxiii. 37; 1 Kin. xv. 2 (marg. of 1769) Michaia; 1 Chr. ii. 47; vii. 1 (an error revived); 2 Chr. iv. 12 (the second “the top of” omitted1); Job xli. 6 (Appendix C, p. xciii., note 6); Ps. xviii. 47 “unto” for “under2;” xxiv. 3; lx. 4 “feared” for “fear2;” lxxviii. 66 “part” for “parts2:” so a Scotch edition (Coldstream) as late as 1845; cxlviii. 8; Prov. xxv. 24; Ezek. v. 6, the comma placed before “and my statutes” in 1629 is removed, for want of looking at the Hebrew; Hab. iii. 13 (an error revived) “† by discovering” for “by †discovering;” 1 Esdr. iv. 29; v. 13 marg.; 20 “Ammidoi” for “Ammidioi3;” vii. 9 “service” for “services3;” viii. 56 “sixty” for “fifty3;”  2 Esdr. i. 15 “to you” for “for you1;” 38 “come” for “cometh1;” iv. 21 “upon the heavens” for “above the heavens1;” v. 15 “upon” for “up upon1;” 27 “of people” for “of peoples1;” Judith ii. 20; Esther xiv. 14 “help” for “helper1;” Wisd. vii. 25 marg.; Ecclus. xvii. 5 comma removed after “seventh1;” xxvii. 13 “in” omitted before “the wantonness1;” xlv. 8 marg.; Hist. of Susanna, ver. 37 “was there” for “there was1;” Bel and Dragon, ver. 3 “was spent” for “were spent1;” ver. 6 “a living God” for “a living god” (1611–1762), as all in ver. 24 after 1744; 1 Macc. ix. 68; x. 39 “of Jerusalem” for “at Jerusalem1;” John xi. 34; Rom. vii. 20 “Now if do;” xi. 23 om. “still” (thus many later Bibles, but not our model, Camb. 1858); 1 Cor. iv. 13 “the earth” for “the world;” 2 Cor. vii. 16 “con-|dence” for “confidence;” xii. 2 “about” for “above,” repeated in later Bibles up to Bagster, 1846: but the American and our model restore “above.” This change seems intentional. 1 Tim. iv. 10 “the saviour;” Rev. vii. 6, see Appendix A, p. lxxxiii., note 2; Rev. xviii. 22 (see p. xx.).

In regard to the use of italic type Blayney’s edition is very careless, although he had evidently taken some pains about the subject. Some of his errors are:

Deut. viii. 17mine hand;” xv. 20 “eat it;1 Kin. xvii. 24and that” for “and that;1 Chr. xviii. 16was” 1611–1762, but “was” 1769; 2 Chr. xx. 34is mentioned;” xxiv. 26 “these are they” for “these are they” (1762); Ps. viii. 4 “What is man” for “What is man” of 1611–1762; xvii. 6hear my speech;” xlix. 7 “his brother” for “his brother” of 1611–1762; lxxv. 1 “is near” for “is near” of 1611–1762; ver. 5with a stiff neck;” Prov. ix. 8 “wise man” and Isai. xxix. 8 “thirsty man,” against his own practice although 1638–1762 italicise “man;Eccles. viii. 11 “sentence against,” but “sentence against” 1611–1762; Isai. xxxvi. 3 “which was” for “which was” 1611–1762, as even 1769 in ver. 22; Jer. xxxiii. 12 “which is desolate” (after Camb. 1629), “which is desolate” 1611–1630, “which is desolate” 1638–1762; xxxvi. 19 “ye be” for “ye be” 1611–1762; Ezek, x. 1 “that was above” for “that was above” 1611–1762; Dan. viii. 3 (bis), 6, 20two horns,” though the noun is dual; Hab. i. 10 “shall be a scorn” for “shall be a scorn” 1611–1762; Hagg. ii. 19 “Is the seed” for “Is the seed” 1611–1762; Judith xiii. 14 “(I say)” 1611–1762, which is the method in the Apocrypha of indicating what is omitted in the Greek, he regards as parenthetical, and accordingly the marks ( ) are removed in 1769; Matt. xxii. 10 “highways” for highways” (ὁδοὺς) of 1638–1762; Luke xiv. 4 “let him go” for “let him go” of 1638–1762; Rom. iii. 14is full” (γέμει); 1 Cor. iii. 23 “ye are Christ’s for “ye are Christ’s” of 1638–1762; Gal. v. 10 “his judgment” for “his judgment“ of 1611–1762.

Out of this whole list of blunders in regard to the italic type, some of them being very palpable, the American Bible of 1867 corrects those in Ps. xvii. 6; lxxv. 5, Professor Scholefield (whose care on this point will be noticed again, Sect. III. p. xl., note 1) the last two. Blayney is followed in the rest by the whole flock of moderns, without enquiry and without suspicion.

For many years which followed the publication of the edition of 1769, even after its glaring imperfections had become in some measure known, the King’s Printer and the two English Universities continued to reproduce what was in substance Dr Blayney’s work, when the public attention was claimed in 1831 by Mr Curtis of Islington, who complained that all modern reprints of Holy Scripture departed widely from the original edition of 1611, to the great deterioration of our Vernacular Translation2. It is needless to revive the controversy that ensued, in which the case of the privileged presses was successfully maintained by Dr Cardwell in behalf of Oxford, by Dr Turton for Cambridge, in the pamphlets which have been already cited in this Section. The consequent publication of the standard text in the Oxford reprint of 1833, which we have used so much, virtually settled the whole debate, by shewing to the general reader the obvious impossibility of returning to the Bible of 1611, with all the defects which those who superintended the press had been engaged, for more than two centuries, in reducing to a more consistent and presentable shape. One result of the communication at that time entered upon between the Delegates of the Oxford and the Syndics of the Cambridge Presses was a letter written from Dr Cardwell to Dr Turton in 1839 respecting a more exact accordance of the Authorized Version as published by the two Universities. These learned men were instructed to confer together on the subject, although it is not easy to point out any actual result of their consultation. The only papers at Cambridge at all bearing on the subject have been placed at the Editor’s disposal, but they amount to very little, though it is to them he is indebted, when in the Appendices or elsewhere he speaks of an alteration as having been made by the direction of Bp. Turton3.

 The revision of the Canonical Scriptures projected (1847–1851) by the American Bible Society was a ambitious enterprise, which until lately has hardly been heard of in England1. A Committee of seven, on which we recognize the honoured name of Edward Robinson, engaging as their collator James W. McLane, a Presbyterian minister in the State of New York, superintended his comparison of a standard American Bible with recent copies published in London, Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh, as also with the book of 1611. Where the four modern British volumes proved uniform, the new revision was conformed to them, or, in matters of punctuation, to any three united. Other rules drawn up for McLane’s guidance shew laudable care on the part of the Committee, who felt and confessed that some restraint (even though a light one) was peculiarly needed by their citizens, since “the exposure to variations is naturally greater, wherever the printing of the Bible is at the option of every one who chooses to undertake it, without restriction and without supervision; as in this country since the Revolution” (Report, p. 8). To this task the good men devoted themselves for three years and a half, and finally presented their Report and revision to the Board of Managers which had appointed them. Ibi omnis effusus labor: adopted at first, the work was rejected the very next year (1852) by a majority of the same body, “on the ground of alleged want of constitutional authority, and popular dissatisfaction with a number of the changes made2.” Some small fruits, however, of their faithful toil remain in the editions of the Bible published by the American Bible Society since 1860, to which reference is frequently made in the course of this Introduction and its Appendices3. It is not easy to persuade ourselves that very much has been lost by the failure of the praiseworthy effort just described. The plan of operation was not sufficiently thorough to produce any considerable results. Between the five recent Bibles that were collated the differences would be slight and superficial, but when the standard of 1611 came to be taken into account, it is very credible that the recorded variations, solely in the text and punctuation, amounted to 24,000 (Report, p. 31). No attempt seems to have been made to bridge over the wide gulph between the first issues of the Authorized Version and those of modern times by the use of such intermediate editions as have been examined in the present Section; nor does the general tone of their Report encourage the belief that the previous studies of the revisers had lain in that direction. Hence followed of necessity, or at any rate in practice, so complete a postponement of Bibles of the seventeenth century to those of the nineteenth, that wheresoever the latter agreed together, their very worst faults, whether relating to the text or to the italic type (and more especially to the italics), were almost sure to escape detection, and never did come to the knowledge of the Committee, save by some happy accident.

It remains to state that the model or standard copy by which the present work has been set up at the press is the Cambridge 8vo. edition, small pica (with marginal references) 1858. This Paragraph Bible, therefore, agrees with the Cambridge method of spelling certain words enumerated in Section v. (p. xlviii.), rather than with the London or Oxford fashion. Our standard may be pronounced to be accurately printed, inasmuch as close and repeated examination has enabled us to note only the following errata in the text or margin.

1 Chr. iv. 24 (margin of 1762) Zoar for Zohar; 2 Chr. i. 4 Kiriath; Ezra i. 7 his god (presumably by accident, yet it looks true: compare in Hebrew 2 Kin. xix. 37; Dan. i. 2); Esther i. 7 gave them; Job xv. 35 mischiof; xxi. 26 worm; Ps. xxxi. 7 adversity; xlv. 11 thy lord; Hos. ii. 1 Ru-hamah; Jonah i. 4 was †like (see Appendix C); Luke iv. 7 marg. fall down (so Camb. nonpareil, 1857).

Since this Bible of 1858 does not contain the Apocrypha, a Cambridge 4to. 1863 has been adopted for the model of that portion of our work. Besides correcting the mistakes of Blayney and his successors in the passages indicated in pp. xxi., xxii.,  this book alone (so far as we know) has the following changes for the better:

*1 Esdr. v. 5 marg. “Or,” set before “Foacim;2 Esdr. vi. 49 marg. “Or,” set before “Behemoth;” Ecclus. iv. 16 “generations” for “generation” of 1611, &c. For Tobit iv. 10; Judith i. 6; 2 Macc. ix. 18, see Appendix C.

This book contains also the following errata:

1 Esdr. v. 72 and Judith iv. 7 “straight” for “strait;” 1 Esdr. vi. 22 “our Lord” for “our lord;” viii. 32 marg.Shechanaiah” for “Shechaniah;ix. 4 “bear” for “bare;”26 marg. Porosh for Parosh; 2 Esdr. vii. 17 “shall” for “should;” Judith x. 8 and xiii. 5; Ecclus. xxxvii. 16; 2 Macc. xiv. 5 “enterprizes:” but “enterprises” in 1 Macc. ix. 55; Judith xvi. 11 || with “these,” instead of with the first “they;” Wisd. i. 6 “a witness” for “witness;” v. 23 “dealings” for “dealing;” vi. 11 “affections” for “affection;” xiii. 11 “|| a carpenter” for “a || carpenter;” Ecclus. iii. 27 “sorrow” for “sorrows;” xlvi. 7 “murmurings” for “murmuring;” Song, ver. 5 “upou us” (second); 1 Macc. iv. 20 “hosts” for “host;” 34 “above” for “about;” vii. 45 “|| Then they” for “Then || they;” x. 54 “son-in-law” for “son in law:” Comp. Tobit x. 12; ch. xi. 2; xiv. 27 “hight priest;” ver. 32 “the || valiant” for “|| the valiant;” 2 Macc. i. 23 “priest” for second “priests;” xiii. 23 marg. “|| Or, rebelled” over against ver. 24; ibid. “entreated” for “intreated” (as six times before); xiv. 25 “|| and” for “and ||.”

The Epistle of “The Translators to the Reader,” which follows the Dedication in all principal editions of the Authorized Version, has been illustrated in this volume by such notes as seemed necessary. The reputed author of this noble Preface (for, in spite of the quaintness of its style and the old fashion of its learning, it deserves no meaner epithet) is Dr Miles Smith of the first Oxford Company, who would naturally be one of the six final revisers (p. xiv.), and became Bishop of Gloucester in 1612. The Calendar and Tables of Lessons usually annexed to this Preface are no more a part of the Version than the Book of Common Prayer and the metrical Psalms which are sometimes placed at the beginning and end of the Bible. The Genealogical charts, accompanied with a Map of Canaan and its Index, the work of John Speed, were printed separately in various sizes, that they might be bound up with the Bibles, without any option of the purchaser. Mr Fry prints (A Description, &c. p. 40) a Patent granting to him this privilege dated in the eighth year of James I., to hold good “only during the term of ten years next ensuing,” at an additional charge of not more than two shillings for the large folio size.


On a question of so great importance as that of retaining changes for the better already made by previous editors of the Authorized Version, it is safe to be fortified by the judgment of so cautious and well-informed a writer as Dr Cardwell: “There is only one case, perhaps, in which it would become the duty of the privileged editor to enter into questions of criticism, without some express authority to support him. If a given mistake of the Translators had already been corrected before his time, if the public opinion had concurred, either avowedly or tacitly, in the change, he might reasonably hope that the general acknowledgment of the truth would relieve him from the obligation of returning into error. I say nothing of the boldness which first made the alteration; I only commend the sound judgment which, after it was generally adopted, did not hesitate to retain it” (Oxford Bibles, 1833, p. 2, by Edward Cardwell, D.D., Principal of S. Alban’s Hall, Oxford).


Hartwell Horne, to whose Introduction all English students of the Bible owe more than they can ever duly acknowledge, adds another instance of less importance (though he does not quite know its true history), which shall serve as a sufficient specimen of the whole class. In 1 Tim. iv. 16 for “the doctrine” of the books from 1611 to 1630, we read “thy doctrine” in 1629 (Camb.) to 1762. Blayney (1769) restored “the,” but Horne has seen “thy” in Bibles of the commencement of the present century. Introduction, Vol. II. Pt. II. p. 79 note (1834).


A Description of the Great Bible, 1539,……also of the editions, in large folio, of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures, Printed in the years 1611, 1613, 1617, 1634, 1640. By Francis Fry, F.S.A,, folio, London, 1865.


Besides those named above the Editor has examined (not to mention some in private hands) resembling Camb. Synd. A. 3. 14, S. John’s Coll. Cambridge (T. 2. 24); King’s College (53); Jesus Coll. Cambridge (A. 7. 7 with the false date of 1613 on the title-page of the O. T.); resembling the Oxford reprint, Brit. Mus. (466. i. 6); Cambridge University Library, I. 15; 16; Emmanuel College (B. 1. 23), and the very fine copy in the Bodleian.


A few instances are as good as a thousand, if only they be unequivocal. We would press Ezek. xliv. 29, where what we call the first issue treats the final mem as if it were double; Amos vi. 7, where the second issue corrects the wrong number of the first; but 1 Macc. x. 47 seems conclusive, where our second issue, deeming “true peace” too strong a rendering of λόγων εἰρηνικῶν, banished “|| True” into the margin. There are no reprints in these leaves. It is fair to add two instances (App. B, p. lxxxvii.) we have found tending to an opposite conclusion, in the false arrangement of the margins of Wisd. iii. 14; Mark vii. 4, in the Oxford reprint. But the general drift of the internal evidence sets strongly the other way.


In compiling a list of errata in the Syndics’ copy (A. 3. 14) much aid was given by the corrections made in that book by Gilbert Buchanan, LL.D., of Woodmansterne, Surrey, in the winter of 1813–4, when engaged in revising for the King’s Printer his quarto edition of 1806.


It deserves notice that this could easily be done if the type were set up from the Syndics’ copy, where “the children of Israel” begins a line in both parts of the verse.


As usual, Mr Fry does not indicate what and where are the copies he used. He only says just before, “I placed my two best copies side by side, the one with the error of three lines in Ex. xiv. 10, the No. 1 copy…, and the other with the verse correctly printed, No. 2 copy… (p. 22),” which is vague enough. He tries also to make something of “the obvious difference in the condition of the rules with which the black lines [inclosing the letter-press] are printed. In No. 1 they are straight and generally true at the corners; in the 2nd Issue they are not so true, and are more open, shewing the effect of use” (p. 25). The difference will not appear so great to every one who inspects these early Bibles; from the original leaves supplied at the end of the Syndics’ copy of his own book, and from comparing various parts of Brit. Mus. 3050. g. 1 and g. 2, quite an opposite conclusion might be drawn: but if ever so great, it would only prove that the lines were repaired for a new issue. It is even doubtful, on close inspection, whether the same lines were used for both.


“Because those Bibles which were printed and bound up before the 2nd Issue was printed (and no doubt there were such) could have leaves of no other Issue or edition inserted” (p. 22). This consideration he calls “almost absolute proof” of his opinion. It shews, of course, that his theory is self-consistent, but nothing more.


Harleian MS. 7053, printed also in Peck’s Desiderata Curiosa, Vol. II. Book VIII. 1732. The Harleian manuscript is written by the hand which records a list of Degrees conferred by George II. at Cambridge, April 25, 1728: Peck derived his materials from one of the Baker papers, which John Lewis also cites in 1739. The two manuscript authorities are independent, each preserving passages not found in the other. Both contain incidental statements, hitherto unnoticed, which might lead to the supposition that the different Translators took to themselves separate books (Harl. pp. 104, 105), as was really the case with the Bishops’ Bible.


So that we need not take literally the “twice seven times seventy-two days and more;” about two years and nine months, as Westcott notes (General View of History of English Bible, p. 154), which The Translators to the Reader speak of (infra, p. cxvi.). Elsewhere Anthony Walker says of Bois’s labours, “Five years were spent in the Translation, which makes no noise, because it carries no name” (Peck, ubi supra, p. 53).


“Though Mr Downes would not go, till he was either fetcht or threatened with a Pursuivant.” Walker in Peck. The Harleian copy does not mention this story, so characteristic of the times.


So that “two out of each company,” mentioned just before, must mean two out of each place; and the final Committee consisted of six persons, not of twelve, as was stated at the Synod of Dort (1618). Compare, however, Anderson, Annals of the English Bible (1845), Vol. II. pp. 381, 2.


Harl. 7053 contains John Bois’s will (1643), wherein he bequeaths his books and papers, on which he set great store, to his daughter, Anne Bois, “to her best use and commodity,” and requests his curate, John Killingworth, to be “aiding and helpful in the disposing” of the same. They were no doubt sold, and may yet be found in some private collection.


Students should be aware that the representation given of the New Testament of 1611 in Bagster’s Hexapla, 1841 cannot be implicitly relied upon. There are two issues of the book, with two several Introductions, and the stereotyped plates bear marks of alterations in what seems the later (Matt. xiii. 45). Thus, for example, in John viii. 4 “said” suits neither form of the Bible of 1611: sometimes the text follows our first issue, as in Matt. xiii. 4, 31, 45; xviii. 30; xxii. 24; Mark xv. 46; Acts iv. 27; xvi. 7, 19; xxi. 2; xxv. 1; Rom. vi. 21; x. 21; xi. 22; Eph. vi. 21; 1 Thess. i. 9; James v. 4; 2 Pet. ii. 6: sometimes that which Mr Fry counts the earliest, Luke ii. 24; x. 36; John xiv. 23; Acts vi. 12; xv. 11; 1 Pet. i. 22.


We have used for our own purpose a copy in the Syndics’ Library, Cambridge (A. 3. 13). To the variations recorded in the Oxford reprint we have been able to add in passing Ruth iii. 15 “she went” Synd. (A. 3. 14), 1613, “he went” Oxon.; Ps. lxxviii. 60 marg. “1 Sam.” Synd. (a reprint), 1613, “1 King.” Oxon.; Jer. xl. 1 “|| chains” 1613, “|| captaine” Oxon.; Ezek. xvi. 16 “Of thy garments” 1613, “And of thy garments” Oxon.; Wisd. ix. 15 “earthly” 1613, “earthy” Oxon.; 2 Cor. iii. 3 “fleshly” 1613, “fleshy“ Oxon. In Josh. xii. 11; 2 Sam. xvii. 25; Neh. xi. 14 marg.; 1 Esdr. v. 20 marg.; Judith iii. 5–vii. 16 (Olofernes), Proper names are differently spelt, but the Oxford collation does not profess to include these.


A few copies of what we regard as the first issue of 1611 are said to bear on the Old Testament title-page, but not on the New, a genuine date of 1613: that being no doubt the year they were bound up. There was at that time no inducement to antedate falsely, but rather the contrary.


Other copies, by no means rare, are from S. Luke’s Chapel, in the Precinct, Norwich (bought 1618), now in the Chapter Library there, and Brit. Mus. 469. g. 10, with Boel’s frontispiece, and an inserted title-page of 1611.


Other copies are numerous: e.g. Brit. Mus. (1272. h. 4) and (3052. b); a copy given by “Thomas Hobson, Carrier of Cambridge, to Benet Parish;” Trin. Coll. Cambridge (A. 12. 34), large paper, very fine; S. John’s Coll. Camb. (T. 6. 26); Caius Coll. (H. 0. 26).


They are Xx 3 (Neh. vii. 11–viii. 9), which is taken from our first issue; Zz (Job i. 17–iv. 16) and Ccc 2 (Ps. xix. 2–xxii. 31), whence derived his list fails to shew.


Thus early began the practice of leaving out the Apocrypha. It was hardening into fixed habit when Selden said, “The Apocrypha is bound with the Bibles of all churches that have been hitherto. Why should we leave it out?” (Table Talk, p. 10.) The copies used are also in the Syndics’ Library, A. 5. 22 and 25.


These editions are not at all rare. We have used for the one of 1629, Camb. University Library, I. 14. 12, for that of 1638, Syndics’ Library, A. 3. 8. The date of the latter is on the title-page of the New Testament.


Kilburne calls the book of 1638 “the Authentic corrected Cambridge Bible, revised Mandato Regio,” whatever that may mean (Dangerous Errors in several late Printed Bibles to the great scandal and corruption of sound and true religion. Discovered by Wm. Kilburne, Gent., 8vo. Finsbury, 1659, p. 6). His little pamphlet of 15 pages produced a great effect, and is full of weighty matter. A copy is in the British Museum (1214. a. 9).


Professor Grote (MS. p. 36) speaks of a small 4to., Cambridge, 1637, in Trinity College Library, “which has none of the additions of Buck, 1638.” From the specimen Professor Lightfoot gives of its reading in 1 Cor. xii. 28 (On a Fresh Revision, &c. p. 129, note), it does appear to contain the changes or improvements of Cambridge, 1629. Such is the case also in Gen. xxxix. 1; Deut. xxvi. 1; Job iv. 6. The valuable manuscript notes of the late Professor Grote, from which we shall hereafter make several extracts, though scarcely in a state suitable for publication in full, were obligingly placed at our disposal by his representatives, and throw much light on the internal history of the printing of the Authorized Bible.


This notorious book, referred to by Addison (Spectator, No. 579), was published by the King’s Printers, Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, in 1632: the real fine was £300, to be expended on a fount of fair Greek type. It was inflicted by Archbishop Laud (whom even on the eve of the Restoration Kilburne does not care to name) in the High Commission Court. The impression was of course called in, but a single copy is said to survive in the Library at Wolfenbüttel.


Our authority for this statement must be Lewis (Complete History of Translations of the Bible, 2nd ed. 1739, p. 350), inasmuch as a search of the Records of the Proceedings of both Houses of Convocation, now deposited in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, which was recently made by Mr Kershaw, the Librarian, through the friendly interposition of the Prolocutor of the Lower House, Archdeacon Bickersteth, has failed to discover the slightest notice either of the supposed vote in 1699, or of the Remonstrance of 1703.


Lewis (ubi supra, p. 351).


“Only six copies were preserved from a fire at the printers,” MS. note in the British Museum copy. But more than six undoubtedly survive, as may appear from the Catalogues of various booksellers. We have used Camb. Synd. A. 4. 3b, 3c for 1762; A. 4. 16 for 1769.


Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Queen’s Printers’ Patent, 1859, Mr Childs’ Evidence, 1859, p. 28; a blue-book full of most interesting information on the whole subject of modern Bibles.


These errata held their ground until they were corrected before 1845 under the direction of Bp. Turton. See below, p. xxii.


These errata, after keeping their place in the text of D’Oyly and Mant (1817), Oxford 1835, and other Bibles, are amended in our model, Camb. 4to. 1863.


See note 3 on the preceding page.


The Existing Monopoly, an inadequate protection of the Authorized Version of the Scriptures, &c., &c. By Thomas Curtis, London, 1833, 8vo.


It would be ungrateful not to notice the minute and unpretending diligence of those who prepared Bagster’s editions of the Holy Bible. We have consulted the miniature quarto of 1846, wherein we found anticipated many a small discovery we had supposed to be original. Appendix A, pp. lxix., &c. will explain what we mean. The revision seems due in the main to Wm. Greenfield, F.A.S., of the British and Foreign Bible Society, although he died in 1831.


The only account which has reached England is given in a scarce Tract in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society (U. 4. 23): Report on the History and Recent Collation of the English Version of the Bible: presented by the Committee of Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society, and adopted, May 1, 1851, pp. 32, [New York] 1851.


Philip Schaff, D.D., Revision of the English Version, &c. New York, 1873, p. xxxi. note.


The edition we have used is the beautiful Diamond Ref. 24mo. of 1867.