Toronto ginibemtg
PRESENTED BY
The University of Cambridge
through the Committee formed hi the Old Country
to aid in replacing the loss caused by the Disastrous Fire of Februarv the 14th, 1890.
THE AUTHORIZED EDITION
OF THE
ENGLISH BIBLE (1611).
Sonton: C J. CLAY, AND SON,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO. : F. A. BROCKHAUS.
THE
AUTHORIZED EDITION
OF THE
ENGLISH BIBLE (1611),
/ ?
y
ITS SUBSEQUENT REPRINTS AND MODERN REPRESENTATIVES.
BY
F. H. A. SCRIVENER, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D.
PREBENDARY OF EXETER AND VICAR OF HENDON.
EDITED FOR THE SYNDICS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
CAMBRIDGE:
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
1884
[All Rights reserved]
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. & SON. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
PREFACE.
THE following pages comprise in substance a reprint of the author's Introduction to the Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873, with such additions and corrections as more recent studies have enabled him to make. The original work was the result of seven years' continuous labour, and has been generally recognized as the only attempt hitherto made to construct a critical edition of the Authorized Bible of 1611.
One interesting portion of his previous work, the discussion of the Greek text underlying the Author ized Bible and embodied in Appendix E, has been virtually re-written, in the hope of attaining a higher degree of accuracy than he or others have reached aforetime. The author has been blamed for stating that Beza, late in life, and through mere forgetfulness,
vi Preface.
asserted a claim to the revision of the Greek text which appeared in parallel columns with his Latin Version of 1556. Yet it is hard to put any other construction on the language of his Preface to his own latest edition, dated Calmdis Augusti 1598 :
Annus agitur quadragesimus secundus, Christiane lector, ex quo Novi Testamenti Latinam interpretationem emendare sum aggressus, Graeco contextu, non modo cum novemdecim vetus- tissimis quam plurimis manuscriptis et multis passim impressis codicibus, sed etiam cum Syra interpretatione collate, et quam optima potui fide ac diligentia, partim cum veterum Grsecorum ac Latinorum patrum scriptis, partim cum recentioribus, turn pietate, turn eruditione prasstantissimorum Theologorum versio- nibus, et variis enarrationibus comparato.
HENDON, February, 1884.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE Preliminary explanation !
Section I. History of editions of the Authorized Bible, 1611 —
1863 3
Section II. Its marginal notes and original texts ... 40
Section III. Its use of Italic type 61
Section IV. Its punctuation . . . . . . .81
Section V. Its orthography and grammar 93
Section VI. Parallel references in the margin . . . .116 Section VII. Miscellaneous observations . . . . .127
Appendix A. List of wrong readings of the Bible of 161 1 amend ed in later editions 147
Appendix B. Variation between the two issues, both bearing the
dateofi6n ......... 203
Appendix C. List of original readings of the Bible of 1611 re stored, later alterations being withdrawn . . . '215
Appendix D. Dr Blayney's Report to the Delegates of the
Clarendon Press . 238
Appendix E. The Greek text adopted in the Bible of 1611 ex amined and arranged 243
Note on the Synod of Dort 264
Original Epistle of the Translators to the Reader, with notes . 265 Index of Persons and Subjects 305
CORRIGENDA.
P. 147, last line but one: for i Mace. xiii. 15 read i Mace. xiii. 51. P. 148, col. i : for Gen. xii. read Gen. xli.
„ „ : for Lev. xviii. 20 read Lev. xviii. 21. P. 159, i Chr. xv. 18, 20 (first reference): for 1639 rea& 1638.
THE AUTHORIZED EDITION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE (1611),
ITS SUBSEQUENT REPRINTS AND MODERN REPRESENTATIVES.
A CRITICAL edition of the Authorized Version of the English Bible, having reference to its internal character rather than to its external history, and indicating the changes for good or ill introduced into the original text of 1611 by subsequent reprints, would have been executed long ago, had this Version been nothing more than the greatest and best known of English Classics. And such a design has been rendered all the more necessary by the fact that a formal revision of the Translation itself is now in progress, having been undertaken about fourteen years ago under the auspices of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury. If a judgment may be formed from previous experience in like cases, the revised and unrevised Versions, when the former shall be at length completed, are destined to run together a race of generous and friendly rivalry for the space of at least one generation, before the elder of the two shall be superseded in the affections of not a few devout persons, who, in so grave a matter as the daily use of Holy Scripture, shall prove slow to adopt changes which yet they will not doubt to be made, on the whole, for the better. With
2 Sect. I.} Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
so sharp a struggle before it, it is only right that the Author ized or King James's Bible should be represented, as far as may be, in the precise shape that it would have assumed, if its venerable Translators had shewn themselves more exempt than they were from the failings incident to human in firmity; or if the same severe accuracy, which is now de manded in carrying so important a volume through the press, had been deemed requisite or was at all usual in their age. The purpose of the present work is to discuss, within as moderate a compass as the subject will permit, the principles which have been adopted in editing the following pages, the reasons whereon they are grounded, and the difficulties which have been encountered in the prosecution of an arduous but by no means a wearisome task. For the reader's convenience it will be divided into seven Sections, the chief contents of which are here sub joined.
Section I. On the history of the text of the Authorized Version, from A.D. 1611 down to the present time.
Section II. On its marginal notes; and on the original
texts, both Greek and Hebrew, employed by the Translators.
Section III. On the use of the Italic type by the
Translators, and on the extension of their principles by
subsequent editors.
Section IV. On the system of punctuation adopted in 1611, and modified in more recent Bibles.
Section V. On the orthography, grammatical pecu liarities, and capital letters of the original, as compared with modern editions.
Section VI. On the references to parallel texts of Scripture which are set in the margin.
Section VII. Miscellaneous observations relating to the present edition, and general Conclusion.
To this short treatise is annexed, besides several other
History of the Text.
Appendices, a full Catalogue of the places in which the text of modern Bibles differs from that of the standard of 1611, with the dates at which the variations Were severally adopted, so far as by diligent care they have been ascertained.
The Translators? address to the Reader, prefixed to the edition of 1611, is reprinted at the end of this volume.
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 riot 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 ate deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority by men whose very names are often un known. 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 250 years1. A full and, it may be hoped, a fairly
1 On a question of so great made by previous editors of the importance as that of retaining Authorized Version, it is safe to changes for the better already be fortified by the judgment of so
I 2
4 Sect. /.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
complete list of these changes is given in Appendix A at the end of this volume, 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 success ful. Other copies, of an earlier date than that cited, may occasionally have anticipated it in making the given cor rection ; 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"j Acts vi. 3; a blemish which obstinately maintained its ground in some copies, at least as late as I6821. The several editions of
cautious and well-informed a writer only commend the sound judg-
as Dr Card well : "There is only ment which, after it was generally
one case, perhaps, in which it adopted, did not hesitate to retain
would become the duty of the it" (Oxford Bibles, 1833, p. 2,
privileged editor to enter into by Edward Cardwell, D.D., Prin-
questions of criticism, without cipal of S. Alban's Hall, Oxford),
some express authority to support x Hartwell Home, to whose In-
him. If a given mistake of the troduction all English students of
Translators had already been cor- the Bible owe more than they can
rected before his time, if the public ever duly acknowledge, adds an-
opinion had concurred, either avow- other instance of less importance
edly or tacitly, in the change, he (though he does not quite know
might reasonably hope that the its true history), which shall serve
general acknowledgment of the as a sufficient specimen of the
truth would relieve him from the whole class. In i Tim. iv. 16 for
obligation of returning into error. " the doctrine " of the books from
I say nothing of the boldness 1611 to 1630, we read " thy doc-
which first made the alteration ; I trine" in 1629 (Camb.) down to
History of the Text 5
the Authorized Version which have been used in the formation of our Catalogues and in our suggested revision of the text are chiefly, though not exclusively, the following. (i) The standard or primary one published in 1611, "Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestic." 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 information has been imparted 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. i) of which Mr Fry says in a manuscript note that "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 afore named issues, the preliminary matter being made up from the folio of 1617 or elsewhere, a circumstance which compli-
1762. Blayney (1769) restored Bible, \$y)* ...... also of the editions,
"the," but Home has seen "thy" in large folio, of the Authorized
in Bibles of the commencement of Version of the Holy Scriptures,
the present century. Introduction, Printed in the years 1611, 1613,
Vol. ii. Pt. ii. p. 79 note (1834). 1617, 1634, 1640. By Francis
1 A Description of the Great Fry, F.S.A., folio, London, 1865.
6 Sect. /.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
cates the question not a little, so that in what we have to say it will be advisable to exclude all considerations respecting these reprinted portions1. 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) re spectively. The textual differences between the two original issues have been diligently collected below in Appendix B, from which only very manifest misprints of both books have been excluded; by a careful examination of our 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 containing the Title-page, Dedication, and part of the Translators' Preface) has been substituted for the Museum book 3050. g. 2, and for 3050. g. i 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 Uni-
1 Gen. xlvi. 12 — xlix. 27; Num. — Ixiii. i; Jer. i. 7 — vii. 26; xi.
xxi. 2 — xxvi. 65; Josh. x. 9 — xi. 12 — xv. 10; xxvi. 18 — Ezek. xiv.
ii ; xv. 13 — xvii. 8; Judg. xiv. 22; xvii. 22 — xx. 44; Zech. xiv.
18 — xx. 44; Kuth i. 9 — 2 Sam. ix. 9 — Mai. ii. 13; i Esdr. iv. 37 — v.
13; xi. 26 — xiv. 19; xv. 31 — xvii. 26; Ecclus. xvi. 7 — xx. 17; Baruch
14; xix. 39 — xxii. 49; I Kin. i. iii. i — iv. 28; Song, ver. 20 — Hist.
17 — xvi. 3; xvii. 20 — xxii. 34; 2 Susanna, ver. 15 : in all 244 leaves
Kin. i. 15 — 2 Chr. xxix. 31; Ezra (but not so many in any one copy),
ii. 55 — Job xxii. 3 ; xxv. 4 — xxxi. distinguished by the comparison of
28; xxxiv. 5 — xli. 31; Ps. vi. 3 — B. M. 3050. g. 2 with 44 other
Prov. vi. 35; ix. 14 — xiv. 28; xvii. copies, in respect to initial letters
3 — Eccles. ii. 26; vi. i — Cant. vii. and minute typographical varia-
i; Isai. i. i — xxxii. 13; xli. 13 tions (Fry, Table 2).
History of the Text.
versity 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 Transla tion 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 Adver tisement 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 located1.
The question which of the two recensions is the earlier must be decided partly by external, partly by internal con siderations. 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 improve ments and corrections which betray a later hand (Appendix B § ii.), while the instances in which the Syndics' book is superior or not inferior to the other (App. B § i.) are scanty, slight, and incapable of suggesting the converse inference2.
1 Besides those named above xliv. 29, where what we call the the author has examined (not to first issue treats the final mem as mention some in private hands) if it were double; Amos vi. 7, resembling Camb. Synd. A. 3. 14, where the second issue corrects S. John's Coll. Cambridge (T. 2. the wrong number of the first; 24); King's College (53); Jesus but i Mace. x. 47 seems conclusive, Coil. Cambridge (A. 7. 7 with the where our second issue, deeming
false date of 1613 on the title-page "true peace" too strong a ren-
of the O. T.) ; Lambeth Muni- clering of \6ywv dp^viKwv, banished
ment Room: resembling the Ox- "|| True" into the margin. There
ford reprint, Brit. Mus. (466. i. 6) ; are no reprints in these leaves.
Sion College Arch. x. 3 ; Cam- It is fair to add two instances in
bridge University Library (i. 15, App. B which we have found tend-
16) ; Emmanuel College (B. I. 23), ing to an opposite conclusion, in the
and the very fine copy in the Bod- false arrangement of the margins
leian. of Wisd. iii. 14; Mark vii. 4,
2 A few instances are as good in the Oxford reprint. But the as a thousand, if only they be un- general drift of the internal evi- equivocal. We would press Ezek. dence sets strongly the other way.
8 Sect. /.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
Both contain innumerable errors of the press, some peculiar to a single issue1, not a few (including nearly all the false textual references in the margin, see below Sect, vi.) com mon 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 (forming three complete lines) 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 first2. 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 exemp tion from typographical oversights, it had undergone re vision, fitful and superficial perhaps, but not the less real on that account. Hence it seems 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 :
1 In compiling a list of errata vising for the King's Printer his
in the Syndics' copy (A. 3. 14) quarto edition of 1806. much aid was given by the cor- 2 It deserves notice that this
rections made in that book by Gil- could easily be clone if the type
bert Buchanan, LL.D., of Wood- were set up from the Syndics' copy,
mansterne, Surrey, in the winter where "the children of Israel " be-
of 1813 — 4, when engaged in re- gins a line in both parts of the verse.
History of the Text. 9
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 rannot 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 it 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, if they 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 Evan gelists 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
io Sect. /] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
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 sub scription 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 Testa ment. 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, a,nd 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, rests on facts relating to the reprinted leaves which Mr Fry has demonstrated with great pains and inge nuity. 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. 6 note), 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
History of the Text. u
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. i and No. 2 before alluded to1 are respectively of the ist 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 ou,t t;o Parish Churches, for which reservation their shameful inaccuracy will abundantly ac count. 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
1 As usual, Mr Fry does not leaves supplied at the end of the
indicate what and where are the. Syndics' copy of his own book,
copies he used. He only says just and from comparing various parts
before, " I placed my two best of Brit. Mus. 3050. g. i and g. 2,
copies side by side, the one with quite an opposite conclusion might
the error of three lines in Ex. xiv. be drawn : but if the difference
10, the No. i copy..., and the were ever so great, it would only
other with the vqrse correctly prove that the lines were repaired
printed, No. 2 copy... (p. 22)," for a new issue. It is even doubt-
which is vague enough. He tries ful, on close inspection, whether
also to make something of " the the same lines were used for both, obvious difference in the condition 2 " Because those Bibles which
of the rules with which the black were printed and bound up before
lines [inclosing the letter-press] are the 2nd Issue was printed (and
printed. In No. i they are straight no doubt there were such) could
and generally true at the corners ; have leaves of no other Issue or
in the 2nd Issue they are not so edition inserted" (p. 22). This
true, and are more open, shewing consideration he calls " almost ab-
the effect of use" (p. 25). The solute proof" of his opinion. It
difference will not appear so con- shews, of course, that his theory
spicuous to every one who inspects is self-consistent, but nothing more, these early Bibles ; from the original
12 Sect. /.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
have any control over their work, the printer seems to have gradually put forth the unused sheets that had been first struck off and deliberately laid aside, supplemented by re printed 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. Almost the only real informa tion available which bears even remotely on the matter is Dr Anthony Walker's Life of John Bois1 [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 service2, 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 Downes3 and he, out of the Cambridge company4, were
1 Harleian MS. 7053, printed seventy- two days and more," about also in Peck's Desiderata Ctiriosa, two years and nine months, as Vol. II. Book vni. 1732. The Canon Westcott notes (General Harleian manuscript is written by View of History of English Bible, the hand which records a list of p. 154), which The Translator Degrees conferred by George II. to the Reader speaks of. Else- at Cambridge, April 25, 1728: where Anthony Walker says of Peck derived his materials from Bois's labours, "Five years were one of the Baker papers, which spent in the Translation, which John Lewis also cited in 1739. makes no noise, because it carries The two manuscript authorities no name" (Peck, ubi siipra, p. 53). are independent, each preserving 3 " Though Mr Downes would passages not found in the other. not go, till he was either fetcht Both contain incidental statements, or threatened with a Pursuivant." hitherto unnoticed, which might Walker in Peck. The Harleian lead to the supposition that the copy does not mention this story, different Translators took to them- so characteristic of the times, selves separate books (Harl. pp. 4 So that " two out of each com- 104, 105), as was really the case pany, " mentioned just before, must with the Bishops' Bible. mean two out of each place ; and
2 So that we need not take lite- the final Committee consisted of rally the " twice seven times six persons, not of twelve, as was
History of the Text.
sent for up to London, where meeting their four fellow-labourers, they went daily to Stationers' 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 recovered1, 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. vn.). 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 been begun and ended within the short period of nine months, which seems wholly inadequate for the accomplish ing of all they had in hand2.
stated at the Synod of Dort (1618). Compare, however, Anderson, An nals of the English Bible (1845), Vol. II. pp. 381—2, and my friend Dr John Eadie's noble and almost posthumous English Bible, Vol. II. p. 20 1. Bp Miles Smith, the au thor of the Preface, and Bp Bilson of Winchester, "whose name does not appear among the revisers, superintended the work at press." See below p. 264.
1 Harl. 7053 contains John Bois's will dated the year he died (1643), wherein he bequeaths his books and papers, on which he set great store, to his daughter, Anne Bois, "to her best use and com modity," 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.
2 A ray of fresh light has been thrown upon the history of the
version by a letter referred to, so far as we know, for the first time by Mr J. H. Blunt, Annotated Bible, Introduction, p. xliv. notei (1878). The volume which contains it, the gift to the Bodleian (Rawlinson, C. 849) of Archbishop Ussher's grandson, James Tyrrell, consists of large abstracts of learned books in the Primate's cramped hand writing, one sheet being written, after the poet Pope's fashion, on the back of the letter in question, which has thus been preserved for our use. The writer, William Eyre, Eyers, or Ayers (the name being spelt each way), as the cour tesy of Dr Luard, the University Registrary, enables me to know, was Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, B.A. 1595 — 6, M.A. 1599, B.D. 1606, and afterwards Prebendary of Ely. Itschief purpose is civilly to decline a proposal made to him by Ussher, then Chancellor of S. Patrick's Cathedral, to accept
14 Sect. I.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
Although we have not been able to resist the pressure of the internal evidence which assures us that the issue repre sented 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, as given in our Appendices A — C, is infinitesimally small. It is strictly confined within the limits indicated in Appendix B, § i, the great majority of which variations are either purely indif ferent, or would have been received on their own merits, without reference to the prior claims of the copy that con tains them.
Respecting Appendix C, wherein are registered the joint readings of the two issues of 1611 which in later times have been displaced but ought now to be restored, not a few of them are quite insignificant in themselves, but are re-esta blished as a matter of right, and as a kind of protest against
a Fellowship at the infant College in Dublin. Dating from Emmanuel College Dec. 5, 1608 "W. Eyre" writes as follows : "Sr It pleased God to bring us in safety to Cam bridge before the last day of No vember... In my absence there was an order taken from the King's Majestic by the Arch B of Cantuar that the translation of the Bible shall be finished and printed as soon as may be, but two of the entire company are chosen to re vise and conform (sic] the whole at London. Hereupon I am ear nestly requested to get again that copy of our part which I lent you for D [?] Daniel his use, for albeit there be two fair written copies out of it : yet there will be use of it because I noted in the margent by rashe tevoth (JJ¥) of the places which were doubted of. And this |Vy p"n¥ [i.e. it wants conside ration. Cf. Zanolini, Lex. Chald.- Rabbin. Patavii, 1747. Rashe
tevoth seems to mean head ifiarks\ is not in the' others. Wherefore I am to request you so soon as yon can after my letters come to your hands to send that copy forthwith by some that may either deliver it to myself, or send me word where I may gain it." The D [or G?] Daniel to whose judgment the revision, had been "submitted must have been William Daniel, Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, 1593, translator into Irish of the N.T. (1602), and of the book of Common Prayer (1608), Archbishop of Tuam 1609 — 28. The name of Eyre is not in the list of translators, yet we see that the work of the Cambridge Com pany was subjected to his criticism, and by him imparted to others. The " two of the entire company" who were to finish the work in London, leaves that point just as ambiguous as ever. See above, p. 12 note 4.
History of the Text. 1 5
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 ; i Sam. xx. 5 ; 2 Sam. vii. 7 marg.', i Kin. xv. 27; xvi. 19; 2 Kin. viii. 19; Isai. vi. 8; Hos. xiii. 3; i Esdr. viii. 75; 2 Esdr. xv. 22; 2 Mace. viii. 33; Luke xix. 13 marg.1
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. 9) 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 i Kin. iii. 4; i Esdr. viii. 39; Rev. xx. 13 marg. this edition stands alone. The
1 Students should be aware that sometimes the text follows our
the representation given of the first issue, as in Matt. xiii. 4, 31,
New Testament of 1611 in Bag- 4.5; xviii. 30; xxii. 24; Mark xv.
ster's Hexapla, 1841 cannot be 46; Acts iv. 27; xvi. 7, 19; xxi.
implicitly relied upon. There are 2; xxv. i; Rom. vi. 21; x. 21;
two issues of that book, with two xi. 22 ; Eph. vi. 21 ; i Thess. i. 9;
several Introductions, and the James v. 4; 2 Pet. ii. 6: sometimes
stereotyped plates bear marks of that which Mr Fry counts the
alterations in what seems the later earliest, as in Luke ii. 24 ; x. 36 ;
(Matt. xiii. 45). Thus, for exam- John xiv. 23; Acts vi. 12; xv. n ;
pie, in John viii. 4 " said " suits I Pet. i. 22. In Rom. x. 19 "will I
neither form of the Bible of 1611 : anger" Bagster seems to stand alone.
1 6 Sect. /.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
following are examples of improvements brought into it, which immediate successors have overlooked : Ps. xcix. 2 ; 2 Esdr. ii. 7 marg.', Judith xvi. 24; i Mace. v. 9; Matt. v. 22; Acts xiii. 19; i Cor. vii. 32; 2 Cor. v. 20. We reject the grammatical corrections in Dan. v. 31; John xi. 1 8 marg.
(3) The Holy Bible of 1613 is the more generally known from a collation of the smaller black-letter folio copy of it at the University Press at Oxford with the Oxford reprint of the book of 161 1, 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 Oxford collation records, just 70 arise from the following of the Syndics' copy (A. 3. 14) in pre ference 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; i Mace. 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:
1 We have used for our own "fleshy" Oxon. In Josh. xii. n;
purpose a copy in the Syndics' 2 Sam. xvii. 25 ;Neh. xi. \\marg. ;
Library, Cambridge (A. 3. 13). I Esdr. v. 20 marg.; Judith iii. 5
To the variations recorded in the — vii. i6(Olofernes), Proper names
Oxford reprint we have been able are differently spelt, but the Ox-
to add in passing Ruth iii. 15 "she ford collation does not profess to
went" Synd. (A. 3. 14), 1613, but include these,
"he went" Oxon.; Ps. Ixxviii. 60 2 A few copies of what we re-
marg. "i Sam." Synd. (a reprint), gard as the first issue of 1611 are
1613, " i King." Oxon. ; Jer. xl. said to bear on the Old Testament
1 "|| chains" 1613, "|]captaine" title-page, but not on the New, a Oxon.; Ezek. xvi. 16 "Of thy genuine date of 1613: that being garments" 1613, "And of thy no doubt the year they were bound garments" Oxon. ; Wisd. ix. 15 up. There was at that time no "earthly" 1613, "earthy" Oxon. ; inducement to antedate falsely, but
2 Cor. iii. 3 "fleshly" 1613, rather the contrary.
History of the Text. 17
nearly all the other variations arise from the glaring mis prints of this handsome but inaccurate volume. Such are the omissions of clauses by reason of their having the same beginning or ending as those immediately preceding (i Kin. iii. 15 ; Matt. xiii. 8; xvi. 1 1 ; John xx. 25), and of two whole verses, Ecclus. xvi. 13, 14, as also the putting "de lighted" for " denied" Ezek. xxiii. 7, the omission of "thou" in Mark ix. 24, 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 "y1" in that book for "the" in Acts xxi. 38. The other issue has "that Egyptian" in full1.
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.
1 Other copies, by no means there, and Brit. Mus. 469. g. 10,
rare, are from S. Luke's Chapel, with Boel's frontispiece, and an
in the Precinct, Norwich (bought inserted title page of 1611. 1618), now in the Chapter Library
1 8 Sect. /] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
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; i Kin. xx. 3; i 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; i Mace. 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, cSzc. 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. xxii2. Among its few original corrections are Mai. iv. 2 ; 2 Tim. ii. 19. The Bible of 16-17, like that of 1612, 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 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
1 Other copies are numerous: (T. 6, 26) ; Caius Coll. (H. o. 26).
e.g. Brit. Mus. (1272 h. 4) and 2 They are Xx 3 (Neh. vii. ir
(3052. b.); a copy given by "Tho- — viii. 9), which is taken from our
mas Hobson, Carrier of Cambridge, first issue; Zz (Job i. 17 — iv. 16),
to Benet Parish," Trin. Coll. Cam- and Ccc 2 (Ps. xix. 2 — xxii. 31),
bridge (A. 12. 34), large paper, whence derived Mr Fry's list fails
very fine; S. John's Coll. Camb. to shew.
History of the Text. 19
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 Majestic." Also in folio with the same readings and the same setting up. Dr Newth tells me of one copy at New College, Hampstead; another is pos sessed by the Rev. W. L. Manley, Vicar of Treleigh, Redruth.
(7) The Holy Bible, also small quarto, 1630 "Im printed at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the King's most Excellent Majestic: 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, at least in my opinion, set up but once. The volume of 1629, however, is printed on much worse paper, and does not contain the Apocrypha1, 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 not the case : e.g. Gen. xlvi. 12; xlvii. 18 ; Lev. xviii. 30; xxv. 5 marg.; Num. v. 20; i Kin. xviii. 28;
1 Thus early began the practice said, "The Apocrypha is bound
of leaving out the Apocrypha, al- with the Bibles of all churches that
though it had been forbidden by have been hitherto. Why should
Archbishop Abbot in 1615 on pain we leave it out?" (Table Talk, p.
of a year's imprisonment (C. R. 10). The copies used by me are
Rivington, Records of Stationers' also in the Syndics' Library, A. 5,
Company, p. 21). It was harden- 12 and 25. ing into fixed habit when Selden
2 2
20 Sect. I.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
xx. 3; i Chr. i. 38; vii. 27; xxiv. n; 2 Chr. xxvi. 18; Esther viii. 5 marg. (devised 1630, for the device]-, Ps. xxiv. 10 ; Jer. xl. i; Ezek. i. 2; xvi. 59; xxxvi. 2; Dan. v. 4 (dranke 1629, drunke 1630 after 1611); Rom. x. 21; xvi. ioj 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; i Thess. i. 9; i Pet. v. 12. Instances such as these help to justify Mr Fry's assertion, which to an inexperienced reader might appear 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 seem peculiar to itself, e. g. i Mace, x. 20 "require of thee"; xii. 53^. "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 uncor- rected, only that occasionally a false quotation was set right. The next stage in 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)'. The first Cambridge editions of the Holy
1 These editions are not at all of 1629, Camb. University Li- rare. We have used for the one brary, I. 14. 12; for that of 1638,
History of the Text. 21
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 our subjoined Appendices. The task seems to have been executed between the two sets of editors in no unequal shares. What the one party left undone, by reason of haste or human oversight, the others in a good measure
Syndics' Library, A. 3. 8. The page of the New Testament, date of the latter is on the title
22 Sect. /] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
supplied, by inserting words or clauses, especially in the Old Testament, overlooked by the editors of 1611 j by amending manifest errors; by rendering the italic notation at once more self-consistent, and more agreeable to the design of the original Translators (see below, Sect. in.). What per sons 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 hand writing of Richard Sterne, Master of the College, and Vice- Chancellor that selfsame year, were Dr Goad of Hadley, Dr Ward (see below, p. 264), Mr Boyse \ and Mr Mead1: 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 (i Mace, iv. 15; ix. 36). We have seldom to hesitate about the pro priety of receiving their emendations of the text (see Ap pendix C, 2 Sam. xvi. 8; Ps. cxix. 42 marg.), as in the case
1 Doubtless meaning John Bois careless printers." or Boys, spoken of above (p. 12, 2 Kilburne calls the book of
&c.), and the illustrious Joseph 1638 " the Authentic corrected
Mede (d. 1638) from whose Works Cambridge Bible, revised Man-
(p. 767) Dean Burgon supplies the data Regio" "whatever that may
following curious extract : "Com- mean (Dangerous Errors in several
pare Acts ix. 7 (where it is said, late Printed Bibles to the great
They heard Pants voice,} with Acts scandal and corruption of sound
xxii. 9 (where it is said, They heard and true religion. Discovered by
not the voice of him that spake un- Win. Kilburne, Gent., 8vo., Fins-
to him} and take heed here of bury, 1659, p. 6). His little
some of our English Bibles, which pamphlet of 15 pages produced a
have put in a \nof\ where it should great effect, and is full of weighty
not be, as they have done the like matter. A copy is in the British
in other places. Fie upon such Museum (1214 a. 9).
History of the Text. 23
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) down wards. 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. ii marg.; Jer. xxxiv. 16; Ezek. xxxi. 14; Ecclus. xvii. 24; 2 Mace. 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. 38], 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, "m utterance" 1762: but 1743, 1769 and the moderns restored "and utterance" of 1611); i Tim. iv. 16 (see p. 4, note). Notice also that this edition has misled every sub sequent one by placing the reference to Ps. xxii. 6 in Job xxv. 6 over against the first "worm" instead of the second.
1638. Neli. xii. 3 marg. (see Appendix A) ; Ezek. xviii. i; Hos. xiii. 3 (see for these Appendix C) ; Acts vi. 3 (see p. 4) ; 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. iifrotn the thrumme (1638); Jer. xxv. 18 and the princes (1638); Ezek. xl. 4 art thou brought (1629); Zech. vi. 3 and bay (1638); i Esdr. viii. 58 is a vow (1629); Matt. xv. y for doctrines 1638, for doctrines 1762, &c. ; Eph. v. 26 cleanse it (1629). All these are merely uncorrected errata^.
1 Professor Grote (MS. p. 36) 1637, in Trinity College Library, speaks of a small 4to., Cambridge, "which has none of the additions
24 Sect. /] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
The next pair comprises the black letter folios of the King's Printer, dated (10) 1634 [B. M. 1276 1. 5. i — 2] and (n) 1640 [B. M. 1276 1. 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 elaborate tests (A Description, &c. Plates 46, 47). The latter is at once de tected 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 Cam bridge 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 i Chr. i. 20; John vii. 16 (see 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 (see Appendix A) that of 1640, but not the other, adopts the readings of 1629. A fuller examina tion would no doubt make known a few 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 incli nation nor means for costly undertakings of this nature. "You may well remember," writes William Kilburne (see above, p. 22, note 2) 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
of Buck, 1638." From the speci- script notes of Professor Grote, men Bp. Lightfoot gives of its from which we shall hereafter reading in i Cor. xii. 28 (On a make several extracts, though Fresh Revision, &c. p. 129, note), scarcely in a state suitable for it does appear to contain the publication in full, were obliging- changes or improvements of Cam- ly placed at my disposal by his bridge, 1629. Such is the case representatives, and throw much also in Gen. xxxix. i ; Deut. xxvi. light on the internal history of the i ; Job iv. 6. The valuable manu- printing of the Authorized Bible.
History of the Text. 25
Negative word [not] in the seventh Commandment, the Printer was fined ^2000 or .£3000 in the late King's time, as I have heard1, 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 Holland2; which being diligently compared by the late As sembly of Divines were reported to the Parliament in 1643 to be corrupt and dangerous to Religion" (Dangerous Errors, &c. p. 5 3). This importation indeed was expressly prohibited by statute, without much good effect; "More over, 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 an^ 7 Janu. 1652 for regulating of Printing" (ibid. p. 12). Kilburne furnishes a really painful
1 This notorious book, referred 5, folio, or 3052 b. 22, 8°. toby Addison (Spectator iNo. 579), 2 '"While on the table before them was published by the King's Prin- was lying unopened a Bible ters, Robert Barker and Martin Ponderous, bound in leather, brass- Lucas, in 1632: the real fine was studded, printed in Holland. ^300, to be expended on a fount Longfellow, Miles Standish, IV. of' fair Greek type. It was inflicted But the Dutch counterfeit of by Archbishop Laud (whom even Field's edition, 24°, 1658 (B. M. on the eve of the Restoration Kil- 3051 a. 7) is clearer and (I think) burne does not care to name) in more correct than Field's own (B. the High Commission Court. The M. 115913. 12). impression was of course called in, 3 This statement is confirmed but a single copy is said to survive by Whitelocke (Memorials, p. 89, in the Library at Wolfenbuttel. 1732): "1644* B7 advice of the Mr J. H. Blunt (Annotated Bible, Assembly of Divines, an erroneous Introduction, p. Ivii., note) finds print of the English Bible at Am- the same error in a German Bible sterdam sent over hither, was sup- of about 1731. Mr Stevens (At he- pressed by order of Parliament." neewn, June 20, 1874) speaks of si- So again (p. 167) "Aug. 19, 1645. milar copies dated 1632, possessed Ordered that no foreign impres- by Mr Lenox of New York and sions of English Bibles be vended by the British Museum. I do not here, without perusal of the find this error in B. M. 1276 k. Assembly."
26 Sect. 7.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
list of the inaccuracies of these foreign Bibles (u 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 (reputed to be the worst of all), Kilburne computes that he dis covered twenty thousand faults, some (which he parti cularises) being intolerably gross. On the other hand, he praises several editions in 8vo. and i2mo. issued "by Autho rity 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 seven teenth 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, u.) bearing the name of John Hayes, the University Printer, who had pre viously put forth a well-known edition in 1677. The later of Hayes's two contains a great number of fresh textual refer ences, 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 superin tendence appeared
(12) The Holy Bible, large folio, 3 vol. "London, Printed by Charles Bill and the Executrix of Thomas
History of the Text. 27
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, vn.), and sundry marginal annotations, of doubtful merit, discussing chronological difficulties and imparting other information (Sect. IL). Annexed are Bp. Cumberland's Tables of Scrip ture 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 paren theses were restored, which had been gradually removed from the text (see Sect. iv.). 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 so little influenced succeeding Bibles as this, not withstanding the high auspices under which it came forth.
It was doubtless through the care of Archbishop Wake (who, though himself not a very powerful writer, had the spirit of a true scholar) 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
1 Our authority for this state- year are incomplete. Those for
ment must be Lewis (Complete 1703 (the year then ending on
History of Translations of the March 24) are all preserved, and in
Bible, 2nd ed. 1739, P- 35°)' ^n" & long ]ist of Gravamina, brought
asmuch as on searching the to the Upper House on Feb. n,
Records of the Proceedings of one article declares " That in some
both Houses of Convocation, now late editions of the Holy Bible,
deposited in the Archiepiscopal and of the Liturgy of the Church
Library at Lambeth, I can find no of England, several gross errors
trace of synodical action about a have been committed." If this be
new edition of the Bible either in all, Lewis seems to have made too
the Registers or in the Schedules much of what actually occurred,
for 1699, which, however, for that 2 Lewis (ubi supra, p. 351).
28 Sect. /] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
effectual removal of misprints from their copies of the Au thorized 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 mis prints. 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 work we have used another of their editions, in substance almost identical with that of 1756.
(13 a.) The Holy Bible, quarto, with "above two hun dred 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 Testa ment). For the New Testament: "London, Printed by Thomas Baskett and Robert Baskett, Printers to the King's most excellent Majesty 1743."
(13 b.) The Holy Bible, quarto, London, "Printed by Thomas Baskett, Printer to the King's more excellent Ma jesty, and by the Assigns of Robert Baskett," 1756 (B. M. 464 b. 3).
We now come to the last two considerable efforts to im prove and correct our ordinary editions of Holy Scripture, made in 1762 by Dr Paris, Fellow of Trinity College, Cam bridge, 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 prin-
History of the Text. 29
ciples upon which it was executed in a brief Report to the Vice-Chancellor and Delegates of the Clarendon Press, re printed below (p. 238) as Appendix D, 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 warehouse l.
(14) The Holy Bible, folio and quarto, 2 vol. Cam bridge, ''Printed by Joseph Bentham,. Printer to the Univer sity. Sold by Benjamin Dod, Bookseller... London, 1762."
(15) The Holy Bible, quarto and folio2, 2 vol. Oxford, "Printed by T. Wright and W. Gill, Printers to the Uni versity: 1769." With Prayer Book prefixed.
It will be seen when we come to discuss the italic type (Sect, in.) 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
1 "Only six copies were pre- leian, but not in that in the British
served from a fire at the printers," Museum (1276 1. 9), the Apocry- MS. note in the British Museum pha is bound up so as to follow, folio copy. But more than six in not precede, the New Testament, quarto undoubtedly survive, as may and the signatures to the sheets appear from the Catalogues of va- suggest this unusual arrangement, rious booksellers. The statement Those in the Old Testament end may be true of the large paper or with 7 T, those in the New Testa- folio issue. We have used Camb. ment begin on the fifth page with Synd. A. 4. 3b, 3° for 1762; A. 4. 7 X, whereas the signatures in the 16 for 1769. Apocrypha extend afresh from A
2 In the folio copy in the Bod- to O.
30 Sect. /.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
would probably have sanctioned themselves. The marginal annotations also, which had been growing in some Bibles since 1660 but were excluded from others (see Sect, n.), were finally received into the place they have occupied ever since, sundry new ones being added, the great majority in 1762. Bp. Lloyd's dates and chronological notes were also received and added to at the same time, and the two edi tions 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 helped 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. 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, per formed his task with more diligence, exactness, and mode ration than his Oxford successor. Yet, much as they left undone or did amiss, their editions of the Bible are monu ments of genuine industry and pious zeal, all the more con spicuous 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 Seeker, 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 folio1) of 1769 are conspicuously deficient: on one page of the Apo crypha there are no less than three typographical errors
1 Here again, as in the case of at the printers or publishers de- the folio edition of Dr Paris, a fire stroyed most of the copies.
History of the Text. 31
(Esth. xi. 2 "Nison;" 8 "upon earth," "the" being omitted; xii. 6 "the eunuchs," "two" being 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 (above, p. 17): "And no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee1." 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 (see 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 11 the sleep of death," as from 1611 downwards; in i John iii. 16 "of God11 is italicised for the first time: his oversights in this matter will be noticed hereafter (p. 34). 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. Ixix. 12 "I was" for "/ 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 annota tions added in this pair of Bibles, and can be best accounted
1 Three complete lines, as above (as has been stated) in the latter p. 8. The omission occurs both only, in the folio and in the quarto, not
32 Sect. /.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
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 (1769); Num. xxvi. 13 (marg. of 1762) Zobar (1769); Deut. x. 2 bvakedst (1769); Josh. xvii. 2 (marg. of 1762) Jezer (1769); Judg. iii. 15 marg. Gemini (1769); xviii. 7 (marg. of 1762) Leshen (Leshem 1769); i 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) ; i Chr. i. 51 (marg. of 1762) Avah (Alvah 1769) ; iii. 8 marg. Bediada (Beeliada 1769); Ps. cxxxv. 5 "our LORD" of 1611 — 1630 restored instead "our Lord" of 1629 Camb., 1638, 1744 (1769, but moderns from Oxf. 1835 have "our Lord"); Prov. xxxi. 14 merchant (merchants 1769: see Appendix A); Jer. xl. i 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; Nahum iii. 16 fleeth (1769); Hab. iii. 19, see Appendix A (1769); i Esdr. ix. 22 marg. Josabad (1769); Baruch i. i Checias (1769, D'Oyly and Mant 1817, Oxf. 1835); ii. 16 thine holy (1769, &c.); 2 Mace. 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 cor rection of the same class. Blayney also refuses Paris's "be ye warned and be^7 filled," James ii. 16 ("be you warned 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 been afterwards neglected for the inferior reading of 1611, "these who" (Grote MS. p. 133). Paris 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 would not disturb.
Some other emendations of Dr Paris are a little too bold (e.g. Ps. cvii. 19, see App. C below, p. 223), and one at least of his marginal notes is 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. (2 Cor. v. 2).
History of the Text. 33
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 — be tween three and four years — spent by him in accomplishing, or at least in attempting, the burdensome task which his Report describes (Appendix D, below p. 238). The reader will refer to our Appendices A and C for further details.
Ex. vi. 21 ; Josh. xix. 2, 19; 2 Sam. xxiii. 37; i Kin. xv. 2 (marg. of 1769) Michaia ; i Chr. ii. 47; vii. i (an error revived); 2 Chr. iv. 12 (the second "the top of" omitted1): Job xli. 6 (see Appendix C) : Ps. xviii. 47 "unto" for "under2;" xxiv. 3; Ix. 4 "feared" for "fear2;" Ixxviii. 66 "part" for "parts2:" so a Scotch edition (Cold- stream) as late as 18.45; 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; Hah. iii. 13 (an error revived) "tby dis covering" for "by f discovering:" i 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 you3;" 38 "come" for "cometh3;" iv. 21 "upon the heavens" for "above the heavens3;" v. 15 "upon" for "up upon3;" 27 "of people" for "of peoples3;" Judith ii. 20; Esther xiv. i4"help"for "helper3;" Wisd. vii. 25 marg. ; Ecclus. xvii. 5 comma removed after "seventh3;" xxvii.
1 Report from the Select Com- 1845 under the direction of Bp. mittee of the House of Commons on Turton. See below, p. 36.
the Queen's Printers' Patent, 1859, 3 These errata, after holding
Mr Child's Evidence, 1859, p. 28; their place in the text of D'Oyly
a blue-book full of most interest- and Mant (1817), Oxford 1835,
ing information on the whole sub- and other Bibles, are amended in
ject of modern Bibles. our model for the Apocrypha,
2 These errata held their ground Camb. 4to. 1863. See below, p. until they were corrected before 38.
S. 3
34 Sect. /.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
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; i Mace. 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: see below, p. 38); i Cor. iv. 13 "the earth" for "the world;" 2 Cor. vii. 16 "con- 1 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. i Tim. iv. 10 "the saviour;" Rev. vii. 6, see Appendix A; Rev. xviii. 22 (seep. 31).
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. 17 " mine hand ;" xv. 20 "eat it;" I Kin. xvii. 24 "and that" for "and that;'1'1 i Chr. xviii. 16 "was" 1611 — 1/62, but "was" 1769; 2 Chr. xx. 34 "is mentioned;" xxiv. 26 "these are they" for "these are they" (1762); Ps. viii. 4 "What is man" for "What is man"ofi6n — 1762; xvii. 6 '•''hear my speech;" xlix. 7 "his brother" for '•'•his brother" of 1611 — 1762; Ixxv. i "is near" for "zVnear" of 1611 — 1762; ver. 5 "with 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. n "sentence against," but "sen tence against'1'1 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; Ezeki x. i "that was above" for "that was above" 1611 — 1762; Dan. viii. 3 (bis], 6, 20 " two 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 employed in the Apocrypha for indi cating what is omitted in the Greek, he regards as parenthetical, and accordingly the marks ( ) are removed in 1769; Matt. xxii. 10 "high ways" for "/zz^ways" (oSous) of 1638 — 1762; Luke xiv. 4 "let him go" for "let him go" of 1638 — 1762; Rom. iii. 14 "is full" (7^1); i 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. 1 Refer back to p. 33, note 3.
History of the Text. 35
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; Ixxv. 5, Professor Scholefield (whose care on this point will be noticed again, Sect, in., p. 79, note i) the last two. Blayney is followed in the rest by the whole flock of moderns, without inquiry and without suspicion.
For many years which followed the publication of the edition of 1769, even after its glaring imperfections had be come 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 com plained that all modern reprints of Holy Scripture departed widely from the original edition of 1611, to the great dete rioration of our Vernacular Translation1. It is needless to revive the controversy that ensued, in which the case of the privileged presses was successfully maintained by Dr Card- well 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 found so useful, 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 by Dr Cardwell to Dr Turton in 1839 respecting a more exact accordance
1 The Existing Monopoly an &c. By Thomas Curtis, London, inadequate protection of the Autho~ 1833, 8vo. rized Version of the Scripture, &c.,
3—2
36 Sect. /.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
between editions 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 my disposal, but they amount to very little, though it is to them that I am indebted, when in the Appendices or elsewhere I speak of an alteration as having been made by the direction of Bp. Turton1.
The revision of the Canonical Scriptures projected (1847 — 185 1) by the American Bible Society was a more ambitious enterprise, which until lately has hardly been heard of in England2. 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
1 It would be ungrateful not to far back as 1831. notice the minute and unpretending 2 The only detailed account
diligence of those who prepared which has reached England is
Bagster's editions of the Holy given in a scarce Tract in the
Bible. We have consulted the Library of the British and Foreign
miniature quarto of 1846, wherein Bible Society (U. 4. 23): Iteport
we found anticipated many a small on the History and Recent Col-
discovery we had supposed to be lation of the English Version of the
original. The instances cited in Bible: presented by the Committee
Appendix A will explain what we of Versions to the Board of Mana-
mean. The revision seems due in gers of the American Bible Society,
the main to Wm. Greenfield, and adopted, May i, 1851, pp. 32,
F. A. S., of the British and Foreign [New York] 1851. Bible Society, although he died as
History of the Text. 37
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 dis satisfaction with a number of the changes made1." 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 the present treatise and its Appendices2. 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 pro duce 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 gulf 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
1 Philip Schaff, D.D. Revision 2 The edition we have used is
of the English Version, &c. New the beautiful Diamond Ref. 241110. York, 1873, p. xxxi. note. of 1867.
38 Sect. I.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
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 adopted for the purposes of the present work is the Cambridge 8vo edition, small pica (with marginal references) 1858. This standard may be pronounced to be accurately printed, inasmuch as close an,d repeated examination has enabled us to note only the following errata in the text or margin.
i 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 Hebr.ew 2 Kin. xix. 37; Dan. i. 2); Esther i. 7 gave them; Job xv. 35 mischiof; xxi. 26 worm; Ps. xxxi. 7 adversity; xlv. n thy lord; Hos. ii. i Ru-hamah; Jonah i. 4 was tlike (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. 33, 34 and notes, this book alone (so far as we know) has the following changes for the better :
i Esdr. v. 5 marg. "Or?" set before " J oacim ;" 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 Mace, ix. 1 8, see Appendix C.
This book contains also the following errata :
i Esdr. v. 72 and Judith iv. 7 "straight" for "strait;" i 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.
History of the Text. 39
xxxvii. 16; 2 Mace. xiv. 5 "enterprises:" but "enterprises" in i Mace, ix. 55; Judith xvi. u ||with "these," instead of with the first "they;" Wisd. i. 6 "a witness" for "witness;" v. 23 "dealings"for "dealing;" vi. ir "affections" for "affection;" xiii. n "||a carpenter" for "a licarpenter ;" Ecclus. iii. 27 "sorrow" for "sorrows;" xlvi. 7 "mur- murings " for " murmuring ; " Song, ver. 5 "upon us" (second); i Mace, 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 and ch. xi. 2; xiv. 27 "hight priest;" ver. 32 "the ||valiant" for "||the valiant ;" 2 Mace. 1.23 "priest "for the second "priests;" xiii. •23 marg. "||Or, rebelled" over against ver. 24; ibid, "entreated" for "intreated" (as six times before) ; xiv. 25 "Hand" for "and||."
The Epistle of "The Translators to the Reader1," 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. 12 note 4), 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 some times 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 issued 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.
1 See p. 265.
40 Sect. If.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
SECTION II.
On the marginal notes and the original texts of the Authorized Version of the English Bible.
BESIDES those references to parallel texts of Scripture which will be spoken of elsewhere (Section vi.), the margin of most of our English Bibles, including the Authorized Version, contains certain brief annotations, the extent and character of which will now be described. The practice was begun by Tyndale, in whose earliest New Testament of 1525, the poor fragments of whose single known copy enrich the Grenville Library in the British Museum, notes rather expository than relating to interpretation are extant in the margin. In some places, and yet more in his version of the Pentateuch (1530 and subsequent years), these notes be come strongly polemical, and breathe a spirit which the warmest admirers of their author find it easier to excuse than to commend. In Coverdale's Bible (1535), which was put forth in hot haste to seize a fleeting opportunity, only five out of the eighteen notes found in the New Testament are explanatory, the rest having reference to the proper rendering : in the earlier pages of his Bible they occur much more frequently. Annotations of this kind are quite a distinctive feature as well of the Geneva New Testament of 1557, as of the Geneva Bible of 1560; and, mingled with others which are purely interpretative, are strewn somewhat unequally over the pages of the Bishops' Bible (1568, 1572). One of the most judicious of the Instructions to the Trans lators laid down for their guidance by King James I., and acted upon by them with strict fidelity, prescribed that "No marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some
Marginal notes and original texts. 41
circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text." It had by that time grown intolerable, that on the self-same page with the text of Holy Scripture, should stand some bitter pithy comment, conceived in a temper the very re verse of that which befits men who profess to love God in Christ.
In the Old Testament the marginal notes in our standard Bibles of 1611 amount to 6637, whereof 4111 express the more literal meaning of the original Hebrew or Chaldee (there are 77 referring to the latter language): 2156 give alternative renderings (indicated by the word "||Or" prefixed to them) which in the opinion of the Translators are not very less probable than those in the text: in 63 the meaning of Proper Names is stated for the benefit of the unlearned (e.g. Gen. xi. 9; xvi. n): in 240 (whereof 108 occur in the first Book of Chronicles) necessary information is given by way of harmonizing the text with other passages of Scripture, especially in regard to the orthography of Hebrew names (e.g. Gen. xi. 16, 20, 24): while the remaining 67 refer to various readings of the original, in 3 1 of which the marginal variation (technically called Keri] of the Masoretic revisers of the Hebrew is set in competition with the reading in the text (Chctiv). Of this last kind of marginal notes a list is subjoined, as many of them are not readily distinguish able from the alternative renderings, being mostly, like them, preceded by "||Or". They are
Deut. xxviii. 11. Josh. viii. 12 (Keri in marg.); xv. 53 (Keri in marg.). T Scam. vi. 18 (j?fc< for ^38, with the Targum and Septuagint) ; xxvii. 8 (Keri in text). 2 Sam. xiii. 37 (Keri in text); xiv. 11 (Keri in marg.). i Kin. xxii. 48 (Keri in text). 2 Kin. v. 12 (Keri in marg.); xx. 4 (Keri in text) ; xxiii. 33 (Keri in text), i Chr. i. 6; 7. 2 Chr. i. 5. Ezra ii. 33; 46 (Keri in text); viii. 14 (Keri in marg.); x. 40 J.
1 Strangely enough, this is the various readings, noticed by Bp. earliest marginal note relating to Turton in his Text of the English
42 Sect. //.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
Neh. iii. 20 (Keri in marg.). Job vi. 21 (Keri in text); xxxiii. 28 (twice as A?rz in text). Ps. ix. 12 (Keri in text) ; x. 12 (AVz in text) ; xxiv. 6 (marg. with the Septuagint, Syriac, and Latin Vulgate) ; Ixiv. 6 ; Ixviii. 30; c. 3 (Keri in marg.); cii. 3; cxlvii. 19 (Keri in marg.). Prov. xvii. 27 (Keri in text); xx. 30 (Keri in marg.); xxi. 29 (Akr/ in marg.); xxiv. 19; xxvi. 17. Cant. v. 4. Isai. x. 13 (Keri in marg. ?) ; xiii. 22; xviii. 2; xxx. 32 (Keri in marg.); xli. 24; xlix. 5 (Keri in marg.); Ixiii. n (marg. with Aquila and the Vulgate); Ixv. 4 (Keri in text). Jer. ii. 20 (Keri in. text); iii. 9 (text with the Septuagint); vii. 18 and xliv. 17 (rD&vP? for flD^P?? apparently from conjecture); xvi. 7; xviii. 4; xxiii. 31 (probably a conjectural reading, pTTI for pl~l7) ; xxxiii. 3; xlix. i and 3 (marg. with the Septuagint); 1. 9 (b> text, £> marg.); 26 (? text, /> marg.); li. 59 (marg. HNp? Trapa ZeSe/aof, Septuagint). Ezek. vii. n; xxiii. 42 (Keri in marg.) ; xxv. 7 (Keri in text); xxx. 18 (~W text, "b marg.); xxxvi. 14 (7Kb C7&tfzz> in marg., 73E? in text, but Keri is quite different, viz. "pS^) ; ver. 23 (marg. with the Masora, Septuagint, and some Hebrew manuscripts, against the commonly printed text); xl. 40; xlii. 9 (A^rz in, marg. "he that brought"). Dan. ix. 24 (Keri in text, "to make an end"). Amos iii. 12 (Hebrew manu scripts varying between p^EH of the printed text, which is represented by marg., and the name of the city p'^Dl).. Zech. xi. 2 (Keri in text). Mai. ii. 15 (marg. riNfc^ "excellency," being the rendering of Cover- dale, "an excellent spirit").
Where the variation in the reading was brought promi nently into view by the Masoretic notes, it was only natural that the Translators should refer to it in their margin. Re specting the Hebrew text which they followed, it would be hard to identify any particular edition, inasmuch as the dif ferences between early printed Bibles are but few. The
Bible Considered. He gives Ezra there" (p. 128, second edition),
x. 40. Ps. cii. 3. Cant. v. 4 for But, in truth, his whole treatise is
Ihe Old Testament, and eight a notable example of what wary
references to the New, adding, tact and dialectic skill may accom-
"I will not positively affirm that plish, when wielded by one who
no other Various Readings than does not know too much about
the following are to be found in the matter at issue, and is fortu-
the Margin, but the impression of nate enough to encounter oppo-
my mind is that no others do exist nents who know considerably less.
Marginal notes and original texts. 43
Complutensian Polyglot:, however, which afforded them such important help in the Apocrypha, was of course at hand, and we seem to trace its influence in some places, e.g. in 2 Chr. i. 5, B^ "there" of the Complutensian text the Septuagint and Vulgate, being accorded a place in the margin; as also in Job xxii. 6 THX "thy brother," where later editors give the plural, as do the Targum, Syriac, Sep tuagint, and Vulgate. Yet the Complutensian throws no light on the reading in many other passages, where some other text must have been before the Translators: e.g. i Chr. vi. 57 ("of Judah" added); Ps. Ixiv. 6, where the marginal rendering ought to be taken in preference. In Job xxx. n, 22 the Authorized prefers Keri to Chetiv.
It has been sometimes alleged that the alternative ren derings (introduced by "||Or") which are set in the margin of the Authorized English Version, are superior, on the whole, to those in the text1. It would be indeed a con spicuous instance of bad judgment on the part of the Trans lators, if it could be justly alleged that where two or more senses of a passage were brought fairly before them, they mostly, or even frequently, put the worst into the body of their work. But no competent scholar who has carefully examined the matter will think that they have gone so far wrong. On the other hand, he will perhaps feel disposed to complain that so many of these marginal notes assign a sense to the sacred record which cannot possibly be accepted as true. Some of these, no doubt, are taken either from the text or margin of the Bishops' Bible, which had been read in Churches for about forty years when the Authorized Version was made, and which King James had
1 "The Translators... have placed monly out-voted." Dr R. Cell's
some different significations in the Essay toivard the amendment of
M argent; but those most- what the last English Translation of the
the better; because when truth is Bible, 1659 (Preface, p. 24). tryed by most voyces, it is com-
44 Sect. //.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
expressly directed "to be followed, and as little altered, as the truth of the original will permit." But far the greater part must be traced to another source, to which adequate attention has not hitherto been directed. Of the several Latin translations of the Old Testament which were executed in the sixteenth century, that which was the joint work of Immanuel Tremellius [1510 — 80], a converted Jew (the proselyte first of Cardinal Pole, then of Peter Martyr), who became Professor of Divinity at Heidelberg, and of his son in law Francis Junius [1545 — 1602], was at once the latest and the most excellent. Originally published in 1575 — 9, and after the death of Tremellius revised in 1590 by Junius, who added a version of the Apocrypha of which he was the sole author, a large edition printed in London in 1593 soon caused it to become very highly esteemed in this country for its perspicuity and general faithfulness. One great fault it has, a marked tendency, in passages either obscure in themselves, or suggesting some degree of diffi culty, to wander into new paths of interpretation, wherein it ought to have found few to follow or commend it. This version must have lain open before the Translators through out the whole course of their labours : it has led them into some of the most conspicuous errors that occur in their text (2 Chr. xx. i; Job xxxiv. 33), while as regards the margin, whensoever a rendering is met with violently harsh, inverted, or otherwise unlikely, its origin may be sought, almost with a moral certainty of finding it, in the pages of Tremellius and Junius. These statements are made with reference to every part of the Old Testament (e.g. Gen. xl. 13, 16, 19, 20. Ex. xvii. 16; xxix. 43. Judg. ix. 31. 2 Sam. i. 9, 18; xxi. 8. Lam. iii. 35; iv. 14; 22'), but, for the sake of brevity,
1 Dr Ginsburg (An Old Testa- margin in Lev. xviii. 18, but one ment Commentary for English would doubt whether they were Readers, 1882) would adopt their the first to propose it. The very
Marginal notes and original texts. 45
the proof of them shall be drawn from one distinct portion, the books of the Minor Prophets. To these authorities solely, so far as the writer has observed, are due the supply ing of '''for nought" in Mai. i. 10, and the textual rendering of Mai. ii. 16: as are also the following marginal notes, scattered among others of a widely different type: Hos. i. 6; 10 ("instead of that")} vi. 4 ("kindness")'} x- I0j xn- 8 ("all my labours" &c.); xiv. 2. Joel iii. 21. Amos iv. 3; v. 22; vii. 2; Obad. 7 ("of it"). Mic. vii. 13. Nah. i. 12; iii. 19. Hab. i. 7; ii. n (second). Zeph. iii. i. Zech. v. 3; ix. 15 (twice); 17 ("speak")-, x. 2; xi. 16 (second); xii. 5; xiv. 5; 14 (first). Mai. i. 13; ii. 9 (but eSuo-wTrcicrfle Trpoo-wTra Symmachus); ii.
Thus far no marginal notes have been taken into con sideration except those given in the primary issues of 1611; but 368 others have been subsequently inserted by various hands, which ought to be distinguished in our Bibles from those of earlier date by being printed within brackets. Of these the Cambridge folio of 1629 contributes that on Jer. iii. 19; the folio of 1638 that on Ezek. xlviii. i: thirty-one others were inserted in the course of the century that fol lowed, viz. i Kin. xxii. 41, 51. 2 Kin. i. 17; viii. 16; ix. 29; xiii. 9, 10 ; xiv. 23,29; xv. 1,8, 10, 30 (bis),^ ; xvii. i; xxiii. 2,3. 2Chr. xx. 36; xxi. i, 3, 5, 12, 18. Jobi. i. Ps. xi. 6. Dan. i. 21 ; xi. 7, 10, 25. Hos. vii. 7; xiii. 16. As many as 269 are due to Dr Paris (1762), and 66 to Dr Blayney (1769), who is usually credited with them all. Many of them are not destitute of a certain value (especially in such explanations relating to Proper Names as occur in Gen. ii. 23) *, although a persistent resolution to set right the regnal years of the
improbable margin in Lev. xxvii. nal notes that occurs in the Autho-
12, also derived from Tremellius rized Bible (Gen. i. 20, fHeb. let
and Junius, is certainly counten- fowl fly] is taken from the Geneva
anced by 2 Kin. ix. 5. Bible (1560), and seems as good as
1 The first of these later margi- most of its date— 1762,
46 Sect. II."] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
Jewish kings, commenced in 1701, and fully carried out in 1762, leads on their authors to expedients which are at times rather daring than satisfactory: e.g. 2 Kin. xv. i, 30. The American revisers of 1851 (see p. 36) not unreasonably condemned notes like these and those on Judg. iii. 31; xi. 29; xii. 8, n, 13; xiii. i; xv. 20 (all from the Bible of 1762), as "containing merely conjectural and unwarranted com mentary," and expunged them accordingly from the margin of their book; but they all came back again with the other restorations which public opinion forced upon the New York Bible Society. In one instance (Dan. ix. 27) Dr Paris has ventured to substitute a marginal rendering of his own in the place of that of 1611 ("Or, with the abominable armies"), and has been followed by all modern Bibles.
The marginal notes appended to the Apocrypha, which have next to be examined, differ not inconsiderably in tone and character from those annexed to the text of the Canonical Scriptures. They are much more concerned with various readings, as was indeed inevitable by reason of the corrupt state of the Greek text of these books, which still await and sadly need a thorough critical revision, chiefly by the aid of materials that have recently come to light. Authorities also are sometimes cited by name in the margin, a practice not adopted in the Old Testament1. Such are Athanasius, i Esdr. iv. 36: Herodotus, Judith ii. 7: Pliny's History, Benedicite or the Song, ver. 23: Josephus, i Esdr. iv. 29. Esther xiii. i; xvi. i. i Mace. v. 54; vi. 49; vii. i; ix. 4, 35, 49, 50; x. i, 81; xi. 34; xii. 7, 8, 19, 28, 31. 2 Mace. vi. 2: in the Maccabees after the example of Coverdale. Even Junius, the Latin translator (above, p. 44),
1 The apparent exceptions of The reference to "Usher" in
Josephus, quoted Gen. xxii. i ; -2 Kin. xv. 30 forms part of a note
a Kin. xiv. 8, are respectively due added in 1701. to the editors of 1701 and 1762.
Marginal notes and original texts. 47
is appealed to eight times by name: 2 Esdr. xiii. 2, 13. Tobit vii. 8; ix. 6; xi. 18; xiv. 10. Judith iii. 9; vii. 3.
The texts from which the Apocryphal books were trans lated can be determined with more precision than in the case of the Old Testament, and were not the same for them all. The second book of Esdras, though the style is redolent of a Hebrew or Aramaic origin, exists only in the common Latin version and in Junius' paraphrase, which is cited for the reading in ch. xiii. 2, 13. In this book some excellent Latin manuscripts to which they had access (ch. iv. 51 marg.), as also the Bishops' Bible, must have had great weight with its revisers. The Prayer of Manasses had to be drawn from the same source, for the Greek was first published in Walton's Polyglott (1657) as it appears in the Codex Alexandrinus, the earliest that contains it, which did not reach England before 1628. The first book of Esdras ('O tepet>? as the Greeks call it), is not in the Complutensian Polyglott (1517), so that Aldus' s Greek Bible (1518) was primarily resorted to, as is evident from the margin of ch. ii. 12, the typographical error there de scribed being that of Aldus (7rape&o6r)<Tav a'/Sacro-apto for TrapeSo'tf?; Sava/iWo-apw), which had misled the Bishops' Bible. Besides this edition, our Translators had before them the Roman Septuagint of I5861, to which they refer, with out as yet naming it, in ch. v. 25; viii. 2. For the remainder of the Apocrypha they had access also to the Compluten sian, which in the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and
1 An excellent account of this sentatum:" yet both the Epistle
edition is contained in the Prole- of Cardinal Carafa, who super-
gomena to Tischendorfs Septua- intended it, and the Preface of
gint, pp. xix. — xxviii. (1869). Al- his assistant, Peter Morinus, dis-
though the work itself is not quite play an insight into the true prin-
what it professes to be, " exemplar ciples of textual criticism, quite
ipsum" (the great Codex Vatica- beyond their age. nus) "de verbo ad verbum repre-
48 Sect. //.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
Ecclesiasticus seems almost a copy of Cod. Vatican. 346 (Cod. 248 of Parsons)1, but they used with it the Aldine and Roman editions2: the latter "copy" they cite by name Tobit xiv. 5, 10; i Mace. ix. 9; xii. 37, as they also do "the Latin interpreters" in 2 Mace. vi. i. By means of these Greek authorities they were enabled to clear the text of Tobit of the accretions brought into the Old Latin version, which had been over-hastily revised by Jerome. As a small in stalment of what remains to be done for the criticism of that noble work, two passages in Ecclesiasticus (i. 7; xvii. 5) are inclosed within brackets in the books of 1611. The former is found in no Greek text our Translators knew of, but only in the Latin and Bishops' Bible: the latter occurs complete only in some late manuscripts, though the Complutensian and Cod. 248 have the last two lines of the triplet. These preliminary statements will enable the reader to understand the marginal notes in the Apocrypha which treat of various readings. They are no less than 156 in number, besides 13 of latter date.
i ESDRAS i. ii (TO irpw'Cvbv Greek, 1J53 for "1|53) ; 12 (cunt bemvo- lentid Vulg. , i.e. /xer' euvotaj); 24 (ev alffdijffei: om. Roman); ii. 12 (above, p. 47); v. 25 (217 as Roman edition: Vulg. has 227); v. 46; see below, p. 198 note i; vi. i fin. (if this be intended for a various
1 This manuscript contained 13; xliii. 26; xlvii. i. Bel and also i Esdras, if it be the same as Dragon, ver. 38. 2 Mace. i. 31 ; that for which Cardinal Ximenes viii. 23; xii. 36; xiv. 36. On the gave a bond in 1513 to the Libra- other hand the Roman is followed rian of the Vatican (Vercellone, rather than the Complutensian Pref. to Mat's Cod. Vat. Vol. I.). and Aldine text united in i Mace. So that he must have designedly iii. 14, 15, 18, 28; iv. 24; v. 23, kept back a book which the Coun- 48 ; vi. 24, 43, 57; vii. 31, 37, 41 cil of Trent afterwards refused to (bis], 45 ; viii. 10 ; ix. 9 (avowedly) ; declare Canonical. x. 41,42, 78; xi. 3, 15, 22, 34, 35,
2 Our Translation often adopts &c. ; xii. 43; xiii. 22, 25; xiv. 4, the Aldine text in preference to 16, 23,46; xv. 30; xvi. 8. 2 Mace, those of the Complutensian and viii. 30; xv. 22. Aldus is followed Roman editions jointly: e.g. Judith in preference to the Bishops' Bible iii. 9; viii. i. Ecclus. xvii. 31; in i Esdr. v. 14: cf. i Esdr. viii. xxxi. 2; xxxvi. 15; xxxix. 17; xlii. 39.
Marginal notes and original texts. 49
reading, no trace of it remains); 23 (routes Aid., TOTTOS Rom. Vulg. Bishops') ; vii. 8 (<pv\apx<Zv Aid. Rom., 0iAcoj' Old Latin, Vulg. Bishops') ; 10 (margin as Cod. 248, Vulg. Bishops') ; viii. i ('Afaplov Vulg. Coverdale only) ; 2 ('Oft'ou Rom., 'E^tou Aid. Bishops') ; ibid. (three names omitted in Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, not in Aid. Bishops'); 20 (a\Xa Aid. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops': but Old Latin, Junius aXa, as Ezra vii. 22 [non habet Cod. Vaticanus]) ; 29 (Aerrovs Aid., 'Arrows Rom., Acchus Vulg. Coverdale, Hattus Bishops', Chartusch Junius, t^-ltSn Ezra viii. 2); 34 (80 Vulg. Junius, Coverdale with Ezra viii. 8, against Aid. Rom. Bishops'); 35 (212 Aid. Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops': 218 Junius, Ezra viii. 9); 38 (AKarav Aid. Rom. Bishops', Eccetan Vulg., Ezechan Coverdale, Katan Junius: cf. Ezra viii. 12); 39 (60 Junius, Ezra viii. 13 only) ; 88 (margin requires ^07 6pyio-6r,s, for which there is no known authority) ; 96. See Appendix C ; ix. 20 (ayvoias Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, reatu Junius, ayvelas Aid. Bishops').
2 ESDRAS i. 22 (margin from the Bishops' margin: so Junius, in the form of a conjecture); ii. 15 (columba Vulg. Junius, columna Coverdale, Bishops'); 16 (text as Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops', though Fritzsche's three Latin MSS. STD1 read in illis, the margin is from Junius); 32 (text as Clementine Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops': but margin with Fritzsche's STD); 38 (in convivio Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops' text: ad convivium Junius; "||Or, for" Bishops' marg.); iii. 19 (text Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops': margin is fashioned from Junius and Bishops' margin); 31 (memini Vulg., Fritzsche's STD: perceive Coverdale, Bishops' : venit in mentem Junius, conceive margin) ; iv. 1 1 (corruptionem Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops' : incorruptionem Fritzsche's SD, but the whole passage is in confusion) ; 36 (Huriel Fritzsche's T only : all the rest Jeremiel}*, 51 (quid mVVuIg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops': but quis erit Fritzsche's STD, so that our Translators might well appeal to a "Manuscript" here); vi. 49 (Enoch Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops' : Be-
1 S is Codex Sangermanensis ment (ch. vii. 36 — 105) was ob-
at Paris of the ninth century, T tained from the Bibliotheque Com-
at Turin is of the thirteenth, D at munale at Amiens (10), and a
Dresden of the fifteenth, all col- transcript of the same passage was
lated afresh for or by Fritzsche made from a manuscript in Spain
(Libri Apocryphi V. T. 1871, pp. by J. Palmer, Professor of Arabic
xxvii. xxviii.). Mr R. L. Bensly at Cambridge (1804— 19), and dis-
also collated S for his Missing covered in 1877 among his papers
Fragment of the fourth book of at S. John's College. Esdras (1875). This Missing Frag-
50 Sect. II. ] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
hemoth Junius, Bishops' margin, Syriac and ./Ethiopia in Fritzsche) ; vii. 30 (/w&wVuIg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops' : iniciis Fritzsche's STD); 37 (Achaz Vulg., Achas TD, Coverdale, Bishops' : Hacan Junius, |3tf Josh. vii. i, &c. ; "FO^ Josh. vii. 26); 52 (tarde Vulg., considerate Junius, patient Coverdale, Bishops': but caste SD) ; 53 (securitas Vulg. Junius : freedom Coverdale, Bishops' ["Or, safety" "Bishops' margin]: saturitas Fritzsche's SD); 69 (curati...contentionum Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops': crcali . . .contemptionum Fritzsche's STD); viii. 8 (quomodo Vulg., like as Coverdale: but qiiando Junius, quoniam Fritzsche's STD, when Bishops') ; ix. 9 (miserebuntur Vulg. Junius, Bishops'; be in carefulness Coverdale: mirabuntur Fritzsche's STD); 17 — 19 (quoniam tempus erat... mores eorum. The whole passage is hopelessly corrupt, and no English version affords even a tolerable sense. In ver. 19 Coverdale reads creator with Vulg., mense with Fritzsche's TD : creator-tun (icnff6£vTUv) seems a conjecture, adopted by the Bishops' version and our own : our margin reads messe, and so pro bably the text and Bishops' seed: the Syriac must have read mensd) ; xii. 42 (populis Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops' : prophetis Fritzsche's SD) ; xiii. 2,13 (Junius stands alone : see above, p. 44) ; 3 (millibus Vulg. Junius, Bishops' : nubibus Fritzsche's SD, Coverdale) ; 20 (in hunc Vulg., in hunc diem Junius: but in hac Fritzsche's D, the Syriac and yEthiopic, in hac ST, in these Coverdale, into these Bishops', set in their substitute for italic type) ; 45 (the margin is only a bold guess of Junius1); xiv. 44 (904 Fritzsche's STD: he himself reads 94 from the versions); 47 (flumen all authorities. Perhaps lumen is conjectural) ; xv. 36 (text as suffraginem S, snffragmen D, fragmen T : avertam Junius : but sitb- stramen Vulg., litter Coverdale, Bishops') ; 43 (text exterrent Coverdale, Bishops' : but margin exterent Vulg. Junius) ; 46 (concors in spent Vulg. Junius [Coverdale, Bishops'] : censors specie or in specie Fritzsche's SD); xvi. 68 (very perplexing : fede the ydle with Idols Coverdale : cibabunt idolis occisos Vulg., shall stay -.you for meat to the idols Bishops'. Fritzsche notes no variation of his manuscripts). Three like marginal
notes (the first two of importance), due to the Bible of 1762, maybe conveniently added in this place, i Esdr. xii. 32 (ventus Vulg. Cover- dale, Bishops' ; Spirit us Junius -: Unctus Fritzsche's STD) ; xiv. 9 (consilio Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops' : filio Fritzsche's STD) ; xvi. 46 (in captivitatcm Junius, .but the margin hardly rests on his sole authority).
1 "Etsi quid si corrupte est niae. Docti viderint." Junius in Eretz Ararat, id est, regio Arme- loco.
Marginal notes and original texts. 51
TOBIT i. i (Kvptws Cod. 748. Compl. : KvSi'ws Aid. Rom.) ; 5 (Svvafj.€i 248. Compl. : 8a/ji,d\ei Aid. Rom., but Bahali deo Junius) ; 7 (' Aapuiv Compl. Aid. : Aev£ Rom.); 14 (ez> dypois TTJS M??5etas Aid., ey 'Pa7o?s TT/S M?/5. Rom., in Rages civitatem Medoritm Vulg. See Ap pendix A); 1 7 (e?ri roi) ret'xous Compl. Aid.: oTriVw roO r. Rom.); ii. 10 (arpovdia LXX., hirundines Vulg., whom Coverdale and the Bishops' follow closely throughout Tobit); vii. 17 (aTreSe^aro LXX.: direfwp- £aro two Old Latin manuscripts in Parsons);' ix. 6 (Vulg. rather favours the daring conjecture of Junius) ; xi. 18 (the margin is only another guess of Junius1); xiii. 10 (eu0paVty Compl. Aid., eiKppavcu Rom.); xiv. 5 (ets TroVas ras yeveds rov ai'wvos Compl. Aid. Junius : omitted by Rom. Vulg.); 10 (eir^av Comp. Aid. Junius; Zir^ev Rom.)1; n '(^ai/'et' Compl. Junius : ^da^av Aid. Rom.). The book of 1762 adds!,
ch. i. 2, Shalmanescr, from the Old Latin, Vulg. Syriac.
JUDITH iii. 9 andiv. 6 (Esdrelom refers to ch. i. 8, where only LXX. has that form) ; iii. 9 (Aorratas LXX. Junius, Dothan Syr. : but 'Iovdaias Aid.); iv. 3 (e/c rrjs lovdaias 248. Compl. Aid., but Rom. omits e/c) ; v. 14 (opos 248. Compl. Aid. Junius, 65oi> Rom., deserta Sina mantis Vulg.); vii. 3 (e?ri LXX. Vulg.: Junius alone has a); viii. i (Zct/xa^X Aid., 2ayuaXt7;X 248. Compl., SaXa^t^X Rom., Salathiel Valg., Sam- micl Junius); 22 (<pbvov Rom., <f)6j3ov 248. Compl. Aid.); xvi. i (KO.LVOV Vulg., Roman edition, against Cod. Vaticanus: Kal ouvov 248. Compl. Aid.); 13 (KOLIVOV Rom. with Cod. Vaticanus, Vulg. Junius: KO! alvov Aid.).
ESTHER xiv. 12 (Qe&v Aid. Rom. Vulg.: edv&v Compl. Jxinius) ; xv. 7 (irpoTropevofjih'rj's Rom. Compl. Junius: iroptvofji.ev'rft Aid.: wmt with her Coverdale, Bishops').
WISD. iii. 14 (vatp all authorities: cf. Isai. Ivi, 5. Whence came Xa£ of margin?); v. u (5ia.TTTdi>Tos Compl. Aid., but <5u7rrdz>ros Rom. Vulg. Junius); 14 (xoOs Rom. Coverdale's and Bishops' margins: X"™* Compl. Aid'. Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops') ; vii. 9 (T'^LOV 248. Compl. Vulg. Junius: o.ri^f\Tov of margin, Aid. Rom.);- 15 (dtSuKev Compl. Aid. Old Latiri, Vulg. Junius: 5y?7 Rom.); ibid. (5e8ofj,fruv Rom. Junius, 5i5o/ueVo;i' Compl. Valg., ev8o/j.ei>wt> Aid., \eyontvuv Fritzsche, after the Syriac and other versions, Codd. Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus) ; ix. n (ouvdfj.ec Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops' only, for 5o^); xv. 5 (8pe£u> Comp. Vulg. Junius : 6Wi5os Aid. Rom.). The text of
1_ "Hunc locum sic legendum made by Junius in ch. xiv. 10, with suspicor, 'Ax^XaP°s ° Ka^ Nwr- a reference to this place (Nitzba Pds." Junius in loco. The change for Manasses), is quite gratuitous.
52 Sect. //.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
this book is far purer than that of Ecclesiasticus, which is largely inter polated through the influence of the Complutensian Folyglott and its prototype, Cod. 248.
ECCLUS. Prolog. II. 1. 36 (e<f)o$iov Grabe, viaticum Junius, whence the margin: d0d poiov LXX.); ch. i. 13 (eupTjtrei ^dptv Aid. Rom.: fv\oyr)drj<reTai Compl. Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops'); vii. 26 (fj.Hrovfj.ti>ri Compl. [Aid. Rom. have not the line] Vulg. &c. No trace of "light," except it be a euphemistic paraphrase); xiii. 8 (eixppo<rvvrj LXX. Junius: a^poavvr] Vulg. Coverdale \simpleness\ Bishops'); n (£7re%e LXX., des operam Junius: cure^e retineas Vulg., withdraw Coverdale, Bishops'); xiv. i (-rrX-rjdei 248. Compl. Junius: XVTTT; Aid. Rom. Vulg., conscience Coverdale, Bishops'); xix. 12 (KoiXtg, LXX. Junius: Kapdlg. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops'); xx. 19 (cLvOpwiros adapts, (j-vdos a/ccupos* both clauses are in LXX. &c.); xxii. 9 (rpofirjv 248. Compl., rexvrlv manuscripts named by Arnald in his elaborate Critical Commentary on the Apocrypha, the only considerable one in English. In Aid. Rom. Vulg. &c. ver. 9, 10 are wanting); 17 (TOI^OU £u<rrou Aid. Rom. with the margin: 248. Compl. prefix eirl, Vulg. in. The render ing of ZVO-TOV as a noun is from winter house Coverdale, Bishops', xysti Junius); xxiii. 22, 23 (aXXou Compl. Junius: aXXorplov Aid. Rom. Vulg., but Coverdale and the Bishops1 vary in the two verses) ; xxiv. 1 1 (•fjyaTrrjfji^ri Aid. Rom. : rjyiaff^vri 248. Compl. Vulg. Junius, Cover- dale, Bishops'); 14 (ev alytaXois Aid. Rom.: ev Ta55t 248. Compl. [Syr. Junius] : Cades Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops') ; xxv. 9 (amicum verum Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops': (f>p6i>r)aiv LXX. Junins, Bishops' margin); 17 ((r&KKov Aid. Rom. Bishops': apKos 248. Compl. Vulg. Junius, Co verdale); xxx. 2 (eixppdvdrja-eraL 248. Compl. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops': dv^fferat Aid. Rom.); xxxiv. 18 (Swp^/zctra 248. Compl. Junius, yu,u>yu/>7- IJLO.TO. Aid., //w/c^ara Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops'); xxxvi. 14 (apai TO. Xo7t'a crov Compl. Aid. Junius, dperaXoyias ffov Codd. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus [cf. Field, LXX. Collatio, p. 204], inerrabili- bus verbis tuis Vulg., thine unspeakable virtues Coverdale, Bishops') ; 15 (Trpocp^Tas 248. Compl. Vulg. Junius: Trpo^relas Aid. Rom. Cover- dale, Bishops'); 17 (okertG^ Compl. Vulg. Syriac, Junius, Coverdale, Bishops': kerwv Aid. Rom.); xxxvii. 20 (rpo(pijs Aid. Rom., re Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops': <ro0i'cts 248. Compl. Junius) ; 26 (5o£aj> 248. Compl. Vulg. Junius: irianv Aid. Rom. Coverdale1, Bishops'); xxxviii. 2
1 It is worthy of notice how much on the Latin Vulgate, fol-
Coverdale (1535), whose version lows Aldus in preference in these
of the Apocrypha was the first readings, printed in English, though leaning
Marginal notes and original texts. 53
(n^v 248. Compl. Junius : 56/xa Aid. Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops'); 22 (jjiov 248. Compl. Vulg., tui Junius: avrov Aid. Rom. Coverdale, Bishops'); xxxix. 13 (aypov Aid. Rom. Coverdale, Bishops': vypov 248. Compl. [Vulg.] Junius) ; xlii. 8 (irepl iropveias of the margin is found in no edition or version, and in only three unimportant manuscripts) ; 18 (Kvpios Aid. Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops': U^IOTOS 248. Compl. Junius); xliii. 5 (/caTe'7rau<re 248. Compl. only, for /car^crTrevo-e) ; xliv. 12 (di avTof/s Rom. and all others, except /ter' avrovs Compl. Aid. Junius); xlvii. 3 (erraifrv Aid., /««/ Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops': eVe^eVwo-ev 248. Compl., wlience peregrinus conversatus est Junius: Ziraurev Rom.); n (Pa<n\twv Aid. Rom. : /3a(TtAetas 248. Compl. Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops'); xlviii. n (KeKOL^^voL 248. Compl. Junius: Kei<o<r/ji.r){j.ei>oi Aid. Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops'); xlix. 9 (Ka.Twp6u<re 248. Compl., correxit Junius : ayaduaai Aid. Rom. Coverdale, Bishops').
Add a various reading of 1762; ch. xlviii. 8 (thee Vulg. Junius, Bishops': avrbv LXX. Coverdale). Inch. li. n /cat of the Greek is rendered by Junius quod: hence because 1762 marg.
BARUCH i. 5 (rjijx°VTO Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops' : but Compl. Aid. Junius add eu%as) ; vi. 61 (/cat irvev^a of text Aid. Rom. Vulg., but Compl. with margin omits /cat).
BEL AND DRAGON, ver. 27 (t8e Compl. Aid. Vulg. Junius, Cover- dale, Bishops': t'Sere Rom. with margin).
PRAYER OF MANASSES, line 38 (dWo-ts Cod. Alexandr., but the Latin version [which is not Jerome's] and Bishops' Bible read respiratio, i. q.
i MACC. i. i (xfTTielfj, or -etefyt LXX., Chethim Vulg., Cethim Co verdale, Bishops', Chettim Bishops' marg.) ; 4 (rvpawuv Rom. Vulg. Co verdale, Bishops' : Tvpa.wi.utv Compl. Junius, rvpawtKuv Aid.) ; ii. 2 (Kaddls Rom. Junius, 'Ia55ts Compl., Fa55ts Aid. Old Latin, Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops') ; 5 (Avapciv Compl. Rom., 'Avapdv A\&.,Habaran Junius, Abaron Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops' ) ; 66 (iroXe/Mfffet Rom . Vulg. Co verdale, Bishops' : •jro\e^-f]ff€T€ Compl. Aid. Junius); iii. 29 (0opot Codd. Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, Old Latin, Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops': <popo\6yot. Compl. Aid. Rom. Junius); 41 (?rat5as LXX.: Tr^Sas Josephus, Ant. xn. 7, 3 and Syriac) ; v. 3 ('A/cpa/Jarrtj'?;!' Compl. Aid. Rom. Junius, Arabathane Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops'); 26 (BoWo/>a Aid., Codd. Alexandrinus and Vaticanus: Bocropa Cod. Sinaiticus withi6n: Bocroppa Compl., Abosor Vulg., Barasa Coverdale, Bishops') ; ibid. (Xacr0w/j Rom. Vulg. Cover- dale: Xa<r/co>/> Compl. Aid., Casbon Bishops'. In ver. 36, as the margin of 1762 notes, Xao-^w^ is read by Compl. Aid. Rom., but
54 Sect. //.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
Chasbon by Vulg., Casbon by Coverdale, Bishops'); 28 (Botroppa Compl. Aid., Boirdp Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops'); vi. 38 ((j>a\ay£iv Old Latin, Vulg. Syriac, Junius, Coverdale, Bishops': <pdpay£ii> Compl. Aid. Rom.); vii. 31 (Xa^apo-aXa^a Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops': Ka0ap<rapa;ua CompL Aid., Capharsama Old Latin, Carphasalama Bishops' margin); ix. 2 (Galileo, is a mere guess of Drusius, according to Cotton) ; 9 (much confusion exists in Compl. Aid. which read dXX' ras eavrujv \f/vx^- ro vvv eiri(TTpe\l/ov. /cat ot aSeX^ot i)fj.u>v /cat Tro\e/j.^<rofJ.ev... which Junius follows: this virtually agrees with Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops'. Our version justly professes to follow Rom. dXX' 97 crwfw/zev rds eavruv ^vxas TO vvv, /cat eTrtarp^w/xe*' fj.era [ad Vulg. &c.] TUV d5eX0u;v r}fj.uv /cat 7roXe/xr/(rw/uej'...) ; 37 (Na- dafiad Aid. Rom., Na/3a5d^ Compl., Madaba Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops', Medeba Junius); 66 ('05o/r>7pa Compl. Aid., "Odoaappyv Rom., Odaren Vulg. Coverdale,, Odomeras Bishops' text, Odareb margin. Odonarkes has absolutely no authprity, as Canon Westcott notices) ; xi. 63 (%wpas Compl. Aid. Bishops' : xpet'as Rom. Old Latin, Vulg. : from meddling in the realm Coverdale) ; xii. 37 (Zireae Aid. Old Latin, Vulg. Cover- dale, Bishops': tfyyiae Compl. Rom. Junius): xiv. 9 (de bonis terra Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops' only: Trept dyaduv LXX.) ; 34 (Gaza Cover- dale, Bishops' only: Gazaris Bishops' margin) ; xv. 22 ('Aptapafoj Rom. Junius, 'ApdOrj Compl. Aid., Arabe Vulg., Araba Coverdale, Bishops'); 23 (Za^aw Compl. Rom. Vulg., Samsanes Coverdale, Samsames Bishops', va^dKri Aid. See ten lines below, 1762); ibid. (TTJV 'BaaiXei- oav Cod. Alexandrinus only).
The Cambridge Bible of 1638, which very seldom adds to the mar ginal notes, in this book cites ch. iv. 15 'Acrcrap^cofl, the reading of Compl. Aid., and ch. ix. 36 'A/i/3/jl of Compl. The Bible of 1762 adds (besides two rectifications of dates) ch. iv. 24 (bomis Vulg. Junius, Co verdale, Bishops'); v. 13 (Tw/3tou Rom., TOV jSiov Compl. Aid., Tubin Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops'); xiv. 22 (rats /SouXats LXX. Vulg. Cover- dale, rots jSt/3Xtots one unimportant Greek manuscript, libris Junius, public records Bishops'); xv. 23 (Lampsacus Junius, adding "sic placuit legere ex conjectura."); 39 (Gedor, a like conjecture of Junius, approved by Grotius and Dr Paris).
2 MACC. iii. 24 (irvwv [i.q. Trvev/j.aTtov'] omitting /cuptos, Compl. Syr. Junius: Spiritus omnipotentis Dei Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops': irpuv [i. q. Trartpuv] Aid. Rom.); iv. 40 (Avpavov Cod. Alexandrinus, Compl. Junius: fvpdvvov Aid. Rom. Vulg., "tyrant" Coverdale, Bishops'); vi. i CAdrjvcuov LXX. Bishops' margin : Antiochenum Old Latin, Vulg.
Marginal notes and original texts. 55
Junius, Coverdale, Bishops'); ix. 15 (Junius stands alone here in ren dering Antiochenis] ; xi. 21 (Atocr/co/ot^^tou LXX. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops': Dioscori Old Latin, Vulg. Syriac); 34 (avdvwaTOi, if that word be meant in the margin, has no authority : these men were not consuls at all, but legati to overlook affairs in Syria) ; xii. 12 (if the margin represents a various reading, no trace of it remains) ; 39 (rpoirov [Aid.] Rom. : -xpovov Cod. Alexandrinus, Compl. Junius : but Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops' omit both words); xiii. 14 (KrfcrrT? Compl. Rom. Vulg. : Kvpiy Aid. with three manuscripts only).
The Bible of 1762 notes one various reading: ch. xii. 36 (Topytav Aid., five manuscripts, Coverdale, Bishops' text : "EcrS/up all other Greek, Vulg. Syriac, Junius, Bishops' margin).
To these 156 various readings indicated by the Trans lators of 1611 in the Apocrypha we must add 138 marginal notes, which express the exact meaning of the Greek, and three of the Latin of 2 Esdras. In 505 places varied renderings are alleged (the word ""Or" being prefixed to them), many taken from Junius (besides those where he is expressly named, p. 46), from the Bishops' Bible and other Old English versions. In 174 places (167 of them in i Esdras) alternative forms of Proper Names are given for the reader's guidance, to which must be added 42 notes containing more or less useful information. Hence the sum total of the notes due to the original Translators in the Apocrypha appears to be 1018. Besides these, two were annexed in the Cambridge Bible of 1638 (see above, p. 54), 18 in that of 1762, one (Tobit iv. 20) in 1769, in all 21. To these might very well be added, set within brackets, at Ecclus. xviii. 30; xx. 27; xxiii. 7, summaries of contents, extracted from the best Manuscripts, resting on authority quite as good and nearly identical with any in favour of those inserted by the Authorized version in Ecclus. xxiv. i ; xxx. i, 14; xxxiii. 24; xxxiv. i; xliv. i; li. i.
We come at length to the New Testament, the marginal
56 Sect. //.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
annotations on which in the first edition amount to 767, so that together with the 6637 in the Old Testament, and the 10 1 8 in the Apocrypha, the number in the whole Bible is no less than 8422. Of the 767 in the New Testament 37 relate to various readings, and will be detailed presently (p. 58); 112 supply us with a more literal rendering of the Greek than was judged suitable for the text; no less than 582 are alternative translations, 35 are explanatory notes or brief expositions. Of later notes, the Bible of 1762 added 96, that of 1769 no more than nine. Taking in therefore the 368 noted in the Old Testament (p. 45), and the 21 in the Apocrypha, these additional marginal annotations amount in all to 494, few of them of any great value, some even marvellously trifling, but all of them ought in editions of the Bible to be readily distinguished from the work of the original Translators by being placed within brackets. Those who shall look almost at random into the multitude of Bibles published between 1638 and 1762 (a branch of enquiry which our plan does not lead to the necessity of examining very minutely), will probably find the germ of some of these later notes in Bibles of that period, put forth as it were tentatively, and withdrawn in later copies. Thus the later margins of Matt, xxviii. 19 (slightly altered in 1683, 1701) and of Acts xiv. 21, first appeared in Field's Bible of 1660, then in the Cambridge edition of 1683. To the same Bibles may be traced the notes on Matt. x. 25; xiv. 6; xxi. 19; xxii. 26. Mark xi. 17. Luke xxii. 42. Acts vii. 44; viii. 13. i Cor. vii. 32. 2 Cor. viii. 2; x. 10. James iii. 6. 2 John 3. The Cam bridge Bible of 1683 first gave those on Matt. i. 20. Mark iii. 3; vii. 22. Luke vii. 8; xi. 36; xviii. 2; xxi. 8. Acts ix. 2; xv. 5; xvii. 3; xviii. 5. i Cor. vii. 16. Eph. ii. 5; vi. 12. i Tim. iii. 16. 2 Tim. postscript. Heb. x. 34; xii. 10. James iv. 2. 2 Peter i. i, 8: many of which were
Marginal notes and original texts. 57
obviously the work of the same mind. Two more appear in Lloyd's Bible of 1701, i Cor. xii. 5. Heb. i. 61. These 38 notes at least must accordingly be deducted from the 96 imputed to Dr Paris, and they are among the best of this class. After having been swept away from the ordinary Bibles whereof ours of 1743 — 4 is a type, he brought them back again into their former places.
As Tremellius had special influence with the revisers of the Old Testament, and Junius with those of the Apocrypha, so Beza had considerable weight with those of the New Tes tament. Some of their worst marginal renderings come from his Latin version, such as Mark i. 34. Luke iv. 41. Acts i. 8. Rom. xi. 17. i Cor. iv. 9, though this last belongs to 1762. The earlier versions also often gave rise to the margin. Thus 2 Cor. v. 17 is alleged to this effect by Bp. Turton2, where the Genevan Bible of 1560 led the Trans lators to insert a note in opposition to their own judgment, fortified as it was by Beza, and all the English translations save that one. Particular attention was naturally paid to the Bishops' Bible, which was the basis of the Authorized. Sometimes its renderings both in text and margin are re tained unchanged, e.g. 2 Cor. viii. 22 : or the margin alone is kept, after the text is changed, e.g. Heb. xii. 2: or the Bishops' rendering, although removed from the text where it once stood, is retained for a margin, e.g. Gal. iii. 4. Eph. iv. i. 2 Thess. iii. 14. 2 Tim. iv. 5, 15. In that primary passage Heb. ii. 16 the text and margin are both virtually the Bishops', with their places reversed. It is
1 All these particulars (a little ing of certain manuscripts of the
revised) are derived from p. 10 of Vulgate cujus gratia, seems due to
Professor Grote's valuable Manu- Scattergood (see p. 26), and is
script, for which see above, p. 23, suggested in that portion of Poli
note. He includes in his list Acts Synopsis of which he is the reputed
xvii. 19, but this is as old as 161 r. author (Grote MS. p. 41). The note on Eph. ii. 5 "by whose 2 Text of English Bible, p. 71
grace", taken from a various read- note.
58 Sect. IL] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
needless to pursue this subject further, however curious the questions it suggests, since, after all, every rendering must be judged upon its own merits, independently of the source from which it was drawn.
The following marginal notes relating to various readings occur in the New Testament in the two issues of 1611. They are nearly all derived from Beza's text or notes.
S. MATT. i. ir; vii. 14; ix. 26 (perhaps ai/roD of Codex Bezas [D] is represented in the text: "the fame of this" Bishops'); xxiv. 31; xxvi. 26. S. MARK ix. 16 (ai/rous Beza 1565, afterwards changed by him to avrovs). S. LUKE ii; 38; x. 22 (the words in the margin are from the Complutensian edition and Stephen's of 1550); xvii. 36. S. JOHN xviii. 13 (the words of this margin, except the reference to ver. 24, are copied from the text of the Bishops' Bible, where they are printed in the old substitute for italic type).1 ACTS xiii. 18; xxv. 6. ROM. v. 17; vii. 6; viii. n. i COR. xv. 3i2. 2 COR. xiii. 43. Gal. iv. 15 (nbi Vulg. text., rts marg. with Greek), ibid. 17 (u/mas Compl. Erasm. Steph. Beza 1565, i]/j.as Beza 1589, 1598). EPII. vi. 9 (UJAUV /ecu O.VT&V Compl.). i TIM. iv. 15 (om. ev text, with Vulg.). HEB. iv. 2 (<rvyK€Kpa(j.&&vt margin, with Compl. Vulg.); ix. 2 (ayta text, with Compl. Erasm. Beza: ay la marg. with Steph.) : see below, p. 253 ; xi. 4 (XctXet text, with Erasm. Aldus, Vulg. English versions : XaXeTrcu margin, Compl., Stephen, Beza4). JAMES ii. 18 (xupi-s text, Colinrcus 1534, Beza's last three editions, Syr. Vulg.: e/c margin, Compl. Erasm. Stephen, Beza 1565, all previous English versions), i PET. i. 4 (r/Aias Steph.); ii. 21 (vp,uv Beza 1565, not in his later editions: this marginal
1 It is doubtful whether even see Appendix E.
in the Bishops' Bible the words 3 But as no early edition reads
are designed to indicate a various criV, the margin may only suggest
reading, or are a simple comment a different rendering for ev. Beza
on the passage, compared with says "Sed ev pro crvv positum esse
ver. 24. There is Syriac and some vel illud declarat, quod in proximo
other though very slender autho- membro scriptum est ativ aur<£,"
rity for inserting them, but that of and so he translates cum eo, iv
Cyril alone would be known to our ai'r£.
Translators, who doubtless took 4 Beza's Latin is like the Vul-
them from Beza's Latin version gate "loquitur :" perhaps XaXe?rai
(1556). was not regarded by him as pas-
2 For the last three passages sive.
Marginal notes and original texts. 59
note is also in the Bishops' Bible). 2 PET. ii. 2 (dcre\yelais marg. Compl.); ii (marg. as Vulg. Great Bible); 18 (oAr/op Compl. Vulg. ). 2 JOHN 8 (etyxa<racr0e...a7roAa/3??Te marg. Vulg.). REV. iii. 14 (margin as Compl., all previous English versions); vi. 8 (airr<p margin, with Compl. Vulg. Bishops' Bible) ; xiii. i (oj/o/^arct margin, with Compl. Vulg. Coverdale) ; 5 (margin adds or prefixes 7r6\e/m.oj> to TTOI^CTCU of the text, with Compl. Colinseus 1534, but not Erasm., Beza, Vulg. or English Versions); xiv. 13 (marg. axa/m \tyei val TO Hvev/na with Compl. Colinaeus); xvii. 5 (marg. is from Vulg. and all previous Eng lish versions).
To these 37 textual notes of 1611, the edition of 1762 added fifteen, that of 1769 one.
1762. S. MATT. vi. i; x. io;; 25; xii. 27 (t "Gr. Beelzebul: and so ver. 24") now dropped. S. LUKE xxii. 42 (incidentally excluding vaptveyKe). ACTS viii. 13. 2 COR. x. 10. HEB. x. 2 (see Appendix E); 17 (probably from the Philoxenian Syriac version, then just becoming known). JAMES iv. 2, revived from the Bible of 1683 ((pdovetre Erasm. 1519, Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Geneva 1557, Bishops', but perhaps no manuscript). 2 PET. i. i (see Appendix E). 2 JOHN 12 (bfjuav Vulg.). REV. xv. 3 (ayluv text, after Erasm., English versions : the alternative readings in the margin being £0vu>v of Compl., which is much the best supported, and aluvuv of the Clementine Vulgate, of some Vulgate manuscripts, and the later Syriac) ; xxi. 7 (margin ravra Compl. Vulg. rightly); xxii. 19 (marg. £uAou for second /3i/3Aiou Compl. Vulg. rightly).
1769. S. MATT. xii. 24 taken mutatis mutandis from the marginal note of 1/62 on ver. 27.
In Appendix E has been brought together all that can throw light on the critical resources at the command of our Translators in the prosecution of their version of the New Testament. That these were very scanty is sufficiently well known, and, if for this cause only, a formal revision of their work has become a matter of necessity, after the lapse of so long a period. None of the most ancient Greek manuscripts had then been collated, and though Codex Beza (D) had been for many years deposited in England, little use had been made of it, and that single document,
60 Sect. //] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
from its very peculiar character, would have been more likely to mislead than to instruct in inexperienced hands. It would be unjust to allege that the Translators failed to take advantage of the materials which were readily acces sible, nor did they lack care or discernment in the application of them. Doubtless they rested mainly on the later editions of Beza's Greek Testament, whereof his fourth (1589) was somewhat more highly esteemed than his fifth (1598), the production of his extreme old age. But besides these, the Complutensian Polyglott, together with the several editions of Erasmus, and Stephen's of 1550, were constantly resorted to. Out of the 252 passages examined in Appendix E, wherein the differences between the texts of these books is sufficient to affect, however slightly, the language of the version, our Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113 places, with Stephen against Beza in 59, with the Com plutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in 80. The influence of Beza is just as per ceptible in the cases of their choice between the various readings which have been collected above (p. 58) : the form approved by him is set in the text, the alternative is mostly banished to the margin. On certain occasions, it may be, the Translators yielded too much to Beza's some what arbitrary decisions; but they lived at a time when his name was the very highest among Reformed theologians, when means for arriving at an independent judgment were few and scattered, and when the first principles of textual criticism had yet to be gathered from a long process of painful induction. His most obvious and glaring errors their good sense easily enabled them to avoid (cf. Matt. i. 23; John, xviii. 20).
The Italic type. 61
SECTION III.
On the use of the Italic type by the Translators, and on the extension of their principles by subsequent editors.
THE practice of indicating by a variation of type such words in a translation of the Bible as have no exact repre sentatives in the original is believed to have been first employed by Sebastian Munster in his Latin version of the Old Testament published in I5341. Five years later this di versity of character ("a small letter in the text" as the editors describe it) was resorted to in the Great Bible, in order to direct attention to clauses rendered from the Latin Vul gate which are not extant in the Hebrew or Greek originals. A good example of its use occurs in Matt. xxv. i where " (and the bride} " is added to the end of the verse from the Old Latin, not from any Greek copy known in that age. As the readings of the Vulgate came to be less regarded or less familiar in England, subsequent translators applied the smaller type to the purpose for which Munster had first designed it, the rather as Theodore Beza had so used it in his Latin New Testament of 1556. Thus the English New Testament published at Geneva in 1557, and the Genevan Bible of 1560, "put to that word, which lacking made the sentence obscure, but set it in such letters, as may easily be discerned from the common text2." The same expedient was adopted by the translators of the Bishops' Bible (1568, 1572), somewhat too freely indeed in parts.
1 Bp. Turton's Text of the the italics which is only not com-
Endish Bible Considered (p. in, plete.
second edition). In this branch a To the Reader, p. 2, N.T.
of the subject the Bishop was quite 1557. at home, and has given a view of
62 Sect. ///] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
It is one of the most considerable faults of this not very successful version, that its authors assumed a liberty of running into paraphrase, the ill effects of which this very difference in the type tended to conceal from themselves. From these two preceding versions, then held in the best repute, the Geneva and the Bishops' Bibles, the small Roman as distinguished from the black letter (now and as early as the Bible of 1612 respectively represented by the Italic and Roman type) was brought naturally enough into the Bible of 1611, and forms a prominent feature of it, whether for good or ill.
On this last point, namely, the wisdom or convenience of printing different words in the same verse or line in dif ferent kinds of type, with a view to the purpose explained above, it is not necessary for an editor of the Authorized Bible to express, or even to hold, an opinion. Italics, or whatever corresponds with them, may possibly be dispensed with altogether (though in practice this abstinence will be found hard to maintain) ; or they may be reserved for certain extreme cases, where marked difference in idiom between the two languages, or else some obscurity or corruption of the original text, seems to forbid a strict and literal trans lation. It is enough for the present purpose to say that our existing version was plainly constructed on another prin ciple. Those who made it saw no objection to the free use of a typographical device which custom had sanctioned, and would have doubtless given a different turn to many a sen tence had they been debarred from indicating to the un learned what they had felt obliged to add of their own to the actual words of the original; the addition being always either involved and implied in the Hebrew or Greek, or at any rate being so necessary to the sense that the English reader would be perplexed or go wrong without it. Taking for granted, therefore, the right of the Translators
The Italic type. 63
thus to resort to the italic type, and the general propriety of their mode of exercising it, the only enquiry now open to us is whether they were uniform, or reasonably consistent, in their use of it.
And in the face of patent and well ascertained facts it is impossible to answer such a question in the affirmative. Undue haste and scarcely venial carelessness on the part of the persons engaged in carrying through the press the issues of 1611, which are only too visible in other matters (see above, p. 8), are nowhere more conspicuous than with regard to this difference in the type. If it be once conceded that the Translators must have intended to use or refrain from using italics in the selfsame manner in all cases that are absolutely identical (and the contrary supposition would be strange and unreasonable indeed), their whole case in this matter must be given up as indefensible. There is really no serious attempt to avoid palpable inconsistencies on the same page, in the same verse : and those who have gone over this branch of their work will be aware that even comparative uniformity can be secured Only in one way, by the repeated comparison of the version with the sacred originals, by unflagging attention so that nothing however minute may pass unexamined. This close and critical ex amination was evidently entered upon, with more or less good results, by those who prepared the Cambridge Bibles of 1629 and more especially of 1638 (for before these appeared the italics of 161 1, with all their glaring faults, were reprinted without change1), and in the next century by Dr Paris in 1762, by Dr Blayney and his friends in 1769 (see Appendix D). The rules to be observed in such researches, and the principles on which they are grounded, must be gathered
1 There may be more altera- not in later Bibles before 1629 tions, but we can name only Gal. (Cambridge), i. 3, "^" italicised in 1613, but
64 Sect. ///] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
from the study of the standard of 1611, exclusively of sub sequent changes, regard being paid to what its authors in tended, rather than to their actual practice.
The cases in which the italic character has been em ployed by the Translators of our Authorized Bible may probably be brought under the following heads : —
(i) When words quite or nearly necessary to complete the sense of the sacred writers have been introduced into the text from parallel places of Scripture. Six such instances occur in the second book of Samuel :
ch. v. 8. " And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smite th the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain" The last clause is supplied from i Chr. xi. 6.
ch. vi. 6. " And when they came to Nachon's threshing-floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God." Rather "his hand" (as in 1638) from i Chr. xiii. 9.
ch. viii. 4. " And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen." We derive "chariots" from i Chr. xviii. 4.
ibid. 1 8. "And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over both the Cherethites and the Pelethites" (was over 1629). In i Chr. xviii. 17 " was over" (1611).
ch. xxi. 19. " ...slew the brother 0/ Goliath the Gittite." In i Chr. xx. 5 we read "slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite."
ch. xxiii. 8. "the same was Adino the Eznite : he lift ^lp his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time." i Chr. xi. 1 1 supplies "he lift up, &c."
Thus Num. xx. 26 is filled up from ver. 24 ; Judg. ii. 3 from Num. xxxiii. 55 or Josh, xxiii. 13; i Kin. ix. 8 from 2 Chr. vii. 21 ; 2 Kin. xxv. 3 from Jer. xxxix. 2 and lii. 6; i Chr. ix. 41 from ch. viii. 35; i Chr. xvii. 25 from 2 Sam. vii. 27 ; i Chr. xviii. 6 from 2 Sam. viii. 6; 2 Chr. xxv. 24 from 2 Kin. xiv. 14; Ezra ii. 6, 59 from Neh. vii. n, 61. In the Bible of 1638 Jer. vi. 14 " of the daughter" is italicised, as taken into the text from ch. viii. ii. This is the simplest
The Italic type. 65
case, for the words supplied in italics are doubtless lost in the one ancient text, while they are preserved in the other.
(2) When the extreme compactness of the Hebrew language produces a form of expression intelligible enough to those who are well versed in it, yet hardly capable of being transformed into a modern tongue. One or two of Bp. Turton's (Text, &c. pp. 50, 51) examples will illustrate our meaning :
Gen. xiii. 9. " Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if the right hand, then I will go to the left."
Ex. xiv. 20. "And it was a cloud and darkness, but it gave light by night."
Every one must feel that something is wanting to render these verses perspicuous ; the latter indeed we should hardly understand, without looking closely to the context. It seems quite right, therefore, that supplementary words should be inserted in such places, and equally fit that they should be indicated by some contrivance which may shew that they form no part of the Hebrew original. In our version ac cordingly the verses stand as follows, except that, in the former, "thou" (twice over) was not in italics before 1629; italicise also the second " to " :
"If thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or \ithou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left."
" It was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these."
To this class we may most conveniently refer the nume rous cases wherein what grammarians call the apodosis (that is, the consequence resulting from a supposed act or con dition) is implied rather than stated, yet in English requires something to be expressed more or less fully : such are the following texts :
Gen. xxx. 27. " If I have found favour in thine eyes, tarry."
s. 5
66 Sect. ///.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
2 Chr. ii. 3. " As thou didst deal with David my father, and didst send him cedars... even so deal with me."
Dan. iii. 15. "If ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet,... ye fall down and worship the image which I have made, well."
Luke xiii. 9. " And if it bear fruit, well."
Occasionally our Translators, with happy boldness, have suppressed the apodosis entirely, as in the original (Ex. xxxii. 32 ; Luke xix. 42). In some few passages the seeming necessity for such insertion arises from a misunderstanding either of the sense or the construction : such is probably the case in Neh. iv. 12, and unquestionably so in Matt. xv. 6; Mark vii. n.
(3) Just as little objection will probably be urged against the custom of our Translators in italicising words supplied to clear up the use of the grammatical figure known as the zeugma, whereby, in the Hebrew no less than in the Greek and Latin languages, an expression which strictly belongs to but one member of a sentence, with some violation of strict propriety, is made to do duty in another.
Gen. iv. 20. " And Adah bare Jabal : he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and cattle." Supply, " of stick as have cattle."
Ex. iii. 1 6. "I have surely visited you, and that which is done to you in Egypt." Our version here, with less necessity, inserts "seen " after "and."
Ex. xx. 1 8. " And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking." Here the order of the clauses renders it impossible to supply any single word which would not increase the awkwardness of the sentence: the passage is accordingly left as it stands in the original. Not so the sharper language of the parallel place:
Deut. iv. 12. "Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no simili tude, only a voice." After "only" insert with 1611 '"'ye heard"
i Kin. xi. 12 (so 2 Chr. xxiii. n). "And he brought forth the king's son, and put the crown upon him, and the Testimony." Insert '•'•gave him" before "the Testimony."
The Italic type. 67
Luke i. 64. "And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue," add "loosed"
1 Cor. xiv. 34. "It is not permitted unto them to speak, but to be under obedience." After "but" insert "they are commanded.'1'' So "and commanding" before " to abstain " in the exactly parallel passage, i Tim. iv. 3.
The following examples, taken from the Apocrypha, have been neglected by all editors up to the present date :
2 Esdr. ix. 24. "Taste no flesh, drink no wine, but eat flowers only."
xii. 17. "As for the voice which thou heardest speak, and that thou sawest not to go out from the heads. " This rendering, taken from the Coverdale and Bishops' Bible, is possibly incorrect.
Ecclus. li. 3. "According to the multitude of thy mercies and greatness of thy name."
(4) Akin to the preceding is the practice of inserting in the Authorized Version a word or two, in order to indicate that abrupt transition from the oblique to the direct form of speech, which is so familiar to most ancient languages, but so foreign to our own :
Gen. iv. 25. "And she bare a son, and called his name Seth : for God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel."
Ex. xviii. 4. "And the name of the other was Eliezer ; for the God of my Father, said he, was mine help."
2 Sam. ix. ii. "As for Mephibosheth, said the king, he shall eat at my table."
Jer. xxi. n. "And touching the house of the king of Judah, say, Hear ye the word of the Lord."
Judith v. 23. "For, say they, we will not be afraid of the face of the children of Israel."
Acts i. 4. "Which, saith he, ye have heard of me."
The inconvenience of a sudden change of person, un broken by any such words supplied, may appear from Gen. xxxii. 30, "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel : for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Just as abrupt is the construction in Gen. xli. 52 (compare
5—2
68 Sect. III.} Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
ver. 51); Tobit viii. 21. In 2 Mace. vi. 24 "said he" con tinued in Roman type till 1638.
(5) Another use of italics is to indicate that a word or clause is of doubtful authority as a matter of textual criti cism. Of this in the Authorized Version we can produce only one unequivocal instance in the Canonical books, i John ii. 23 (see Appendix E, p. 254); for it is not quite cer tain that the change of type in Judg. xvi. 2 ; xx. 9, employed to point out words borrowed from the Septuagint, intimates any suspicion of a lacuna in the text. Some doubt also hangs over i Cor. xiv. 10 "none of them" (see Appendix E, pp. 245, 251, where the italics were removed in 1638). In subsequent editions occur the following instances, most of them being due to the Cambridge edition of 1638, those that are not so having another date affixed to them :
Deut. xxvii. 26 ("all"}. Josh. xxii. 34 ("Ed"}, i Sam. ii. 16 ("Nay" 1629 Camb.)1. 2 Kin. xix. 31 ("of hosts"}*; xx. 13 (the second "all" appears in most Hebrew Bibles, and we should restore the Roman character). 2 Chr. v. i ("air}; xvii. 4 ("Z0A'Z>"). Job x. 20 ("cease then, and" 1611 inconsistently : we should read with 1638, "cease then, and" or leave all in Roman as 1629 Camb., since both particles are found in Kcri}. Ps. xli. 2 ("AndlbS shall be," Chetiv, not Keri}; Ixix. 32 ('and be glad"). Prov. xx. 4 (therefore: but 1 of Keri is in Symmachus and the Vulgate, so that we should restore the type of 1611). Jer. xiii. 16 ("and make," yet 1 of Keri is in the Septuagint and Vulgate). Lam. v. 7 ("and are not;" "And have." These two conjunctions are both wanting in Chetiv, but present in Keri, yet 1 769 italicises the first, not the second). Mark viii. 14 (" the disciples"
1 This is inevitable, as the ceived without italics where we
reading is either ft "to him" should not wish to insert them
now: e.g. Judg. xx. 13 the chil-
(Chetiv\ or *6 "Nay" (Keri}, dren; " Ruth iii. 5, 17 "to me."
not both. The two words are In ver. 37 of this chapter (2 Kin.
confused in 18 other places, of xix.) we should italicise Keri "his
which Delitzsch points out 17. sons" for the sake of consistency.
2 The addition in this passage In the parallel place Isai. xxxvii. and others is from the Hebrew 38 "his sons" stands in Chetiv, or Keri or margin ; but Keri is re- the text.
The Italic type. 69
first italicised in 1638). Mark ix. 42 (see Appendix E). John viii. 6 (1769: see Appendix E). In Acts xxvi. 3 "because I know," and the first "and" in ver. 18, the italics are due to 1769. i John iii. 16 (see Appendix E, p. 255).
Thus in the Apocrypha 1629 italicises on me inTobit xi. 15, /*e being wanting in the Complutensian, but we had better return to the Roman type. For similar cases examine Ecclus. iii. 22 (1629 and 1769); i Mace. iii. 18 (1638); x. 78 (1638); xi. 15 (1638, partim recte]\ xiv. 4(1638).
To these passages we may add 2 Chr. xv. 8 "^/Oded1," to point out the doubt hanging over the reading or construc tion in that place. Also in Ecclus. i. 7; xvii. 5, italics have been substituted, as was stated above (p. 48), in the room of brackets, as a mark of probable spuriousness in the lines so printed. The portion of i John v. 7, 8 which is now for the first time set in italics in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, is probably no longer regarded as genuine by any one who is capable of forming an independent judgment on the state of the evidence.
(6) The last class to which we may refer the italicised words in our version, is that wherein the words supplied are essential to the English sense, although they may very well be dispensed with in the Hebrew or Greek; nay more, although very often they could not be received into the original without burdening the sentence, or marring all pro priety of style. This last head comprises a far greater number of cases than all the rest put together, and it may reasonably be doubted whether much advantage accrues from a change of type where the sense is not affected to an appreciable extent. Whether we say "the folk that are with me" (Gen.
(contrast ch. xvi. 9. The Vulgate has here Azariajilii Oded, as all in ver. i.
ch. ix. 29 n»nK: nKtojrpsn). The Thus agam in prov. xv. 22> by
absolute state of f1^3}H seems italicising "they," one may in- connected with a break in the timate that "thoughts" is probably sense, such as occurs in ver. n ; not the real nominative to
70 Sect. ///.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
xxxiii. 15) with the Bible of 1611, or "the folk that are with me" with the Cambridge edition of 1629, could make no difference whatever, except to one who was comparing English with Hebrew idioms, and such a person would hardly need to carry on his studies in this fashion. One thing, however, is quite clear, that if it be well thus to mark the idiomatic or grammatical divergences between lan guages, all possible care should be devoted to secure UNI FORMITY of practice ; cases precisely similar should be treated in a similar manner. Now this is just the point at which our Authorized Version utterly fails us; we can never be sure of its consistency for two verses together. To take one or two instances out of a thousand: why do we find "it be hid" in Levit. v. 3, 4, and "it be hidden" in ver. 2, the Hebrew being the same in all? Or why should the same Hebrew be represented by "upon all four" in Levit. xi. 20, but by "upon (or "on") #//four" in ver. 21, 27, 42? Even in graver matters there is little attempt at uniformity. Thus ouros Heb. iii. 3 is "this man''' in 1611, but "this man" in Heb. viii. 3, a variation retained to this day; in i Pet. iv. n "let him speak" is italicised in 1611, but the clause imme diately following "let him do //" not before 1629. The foregoing gross oversights, with countless others, are set right by the revisers of 1629 and 1638, yet these later edi tors have been found liable to introduce into the printed text nearly as many inconsistencies as they removed. Thus, for example, whereas "which were left" Lev. x. 16 ade quately renders the Hebrew article with the participle of the Niphal conjugation, and so in 1611 was printed in ordinary characters, the edition of 1638 wrongly italicises "which were" here, but leaves untouched "that were left" in ver. 12, a discrepancy which still cleaves to our modern Bibles. The same must be said of "ye are to pass" ("are" first italicised in 1629) Deut. ii. 4 compared with "thou art
The Italic type.
to pass" ver. 18: "even unto Azzah" ver. 23 ("even" cor rectly italicised in 1638, indeed the word is expressed in ver. 36), but "even unto this day" left untouched in ver. 22: "the slain man''1 (''man'1'1 first in 1629) Deut. xxi. 6, but "the slain man" ver. 3: "their backs" ('their' first in 1629) Josh. vii. 12, but "their backs" ver. 81. The reader will find as many instances of this nature as he cares to search for in any portion of our modern Bibles he may please to examine, and from the whole matter it is impos sible to draw in the main any other conclusion than this: — that the changes introduced from time to time have been too unsystematic, too much the work of the moment, exe cuted by too many hands, and on too unsettled principles, to hold out against hostile, or even against friendly criticism.
Dr Blayney in his Report to the Oxford Delegates (Ap pendix D) appeals to the edition of Dr Paris (1762) as having "made large corrections in this particular," adding that "there still remained many necessary alterations, which escaped the Doctor's notice" and had to be set right by himself and his friends. And it cannot be doubted that the two Bibles of 1762 and 1769 between them largely increased the number of the words printed in italics, although the effect was rather to add to than to diminish the manifest in consistencies of earlier books. Thus Blayney (and after him the moderns) in Luke xvii. 29 (airavras) italicises "them"
1 In the Bible of 1638, with late nb-IVpn (O\OK\WUV, Symma-
all its merits, we occasionally , ,.,, : " , . „. , ,.
notice a strange want of critical chus«; ' of ^ same bigness -, Bishops ,
skill. In Prov. iii. 18 our version ?et "«*»"» set in italics as if it
happily changes "he" of the were a conjunction. In Heb xi.
Bishop7*' version into "everyone," f we may retain yet not without
to express the plural participle, to hesitation, the italics first used for
which the feminine ronoun
s
l638> since a11
.
affixed ; yet this book, followed by thf. earlier English versions were all the rest, actual^ sets "every satisfied with "mockmgs:" ludi- one" in italics. In Cant. iv. 2 *™' VulS' ''even shorn" is designed to trans-
72 Sect. ///.] Authorized Versioti of the Bible (1611).
before "all," yet leaves untouched "them all" ver. 27: in Luke xix. 22 he reads "thou wicked servant," retaining "thou good servant" in ver. 17. Nor can the correctness of Dr Paris be praised overmuch. In putting into Roman type the "good" of 1611, Eccles. vii. i, he has been blindly followed by the rest, though a glance at the Hebrew would have set them right: yet some of his errors in italics were removed in 1769, e.g. "way-side" Matt. xiii. 4; Mark x. 46; Luke viii. 5. Hence it becomes manifest that, in pre paring a critical edition of our vernacular Translation, which shall aim at meeting the wants and satisfying the scholarship of the present age, nothing less than a close and repeated comparison of the sacred originals, line by line, with the English Bible, will enable us to amend the mistakes which lack of time and consideration has led certain of the most eminent of preceding editors to pass by unnoticed, or even to exaggerate while attempting to remedy them.
In the Apocrypha indeed the work would have to be done almost afresh, inasmuch as the Company of Trans lators to whom these books were assigned took no sort of pains to assimilate their portion of the work to that executed by the others. They introduce this difference of type only 54 times in the whole Apocrypha, in fact only three in stances occur at all later than Ecclus. xlv. 4, after which brackets [ ], or sometimes ( ) are substituted in their room. No improvement worth mention seems to have been at tempted before 1638, when 96 fresh instances of italics were added (e.g. Judith xiv. 18, but Tobit iv. 13 in 1629), and most of the brackets were displaced for italics, though a few yet survive in modern Bibles (2 Esdr. iii. 22. Wisd. xii. 27; xvii. 2, 3, 4. Ecclus. vi. i, 2; viii. ir; xi. 30; xii. 5; xiv. i o '). About ten places more were subsequently italicised
1 In Ecclus. xliv. 22 the brack- marks of parenthesis ( ), since no ets [ ] can only be intended for copy omits the enclosed words.
The Italic type. 73
(e.g. Wisd. v. 17; viii. 2. Baruch iii. 33. 2 Mace. xi. 33 "and" all in 1769), so that the italics of modern Bibles are but 273 in all. Those that are employed are of much the same character as in the Canonical Scriptures; some for pointing out the zeugma (above p. 66), as i Mace. vii. 19'; x. 20, 24; 2 Mace. xi. 14: or for indicating a transition in the form of speech (Judith v. 23. Ecclus. ii. 18. i Mace, i. 50; xvi. 21 ; so i Esdr. i. 4 in 1629, and 2 Mace. vi. 24 in 1638): some for supplying a real or seeming grammatical defect (i Esdr. iv. u. Tobit viii. 10. Ecclus. xii. 5): one for calling attention to uncertainty in the reading (Tobit x. 52; see above, p. 68): a few for no reason that is apparent (Wisd. vi. 9 O kings. Ecclus. xl. 4; xlv. 43), it would seem in mere error. Since our version of the Apocrypha is so imper fectly revised as to resemble the Bishops' version in other respects more closely than we find in the inspired books, so does it in this over-free use of italic type by way of commen tary. The interpolations in Wisd. ii. i; xvi. 10; i Mace, vii. 32 are derived from this source; that in Ecclus. vi. 2 from the note of Junius (Jerodens incerto et vago impetii}\ and too many others are conceived in the same spirit, e.g. Wisd. x. 10; xiv. 12; xix. 14. Ecclus. viii. ii; xi. 30; xlvi. 6. i Mace. viii. 18. In i Mace. ix. 35, after Coverdale and the Bishops' Bible, our Translation actually brings a Proper Name into the text "[John]," avowedly on the
1 But we should set in ordinary persuades even Fritzsche to adopt character "[have they cast out]" cri) /x&et), from the Vulgate hen of 1611 in ver. 17, inasmuch as the heti me, fill mi, ^ltqu^dte misiimis. ellipsis is only accidental, arising The italic type should be changed from the order of the words cited into Roman, since the passage may from Ps. Ixxix. 2, 3 in the Septua- very well stand unaltered.
gint, and indeed in the Hebrew. 3 In the original edition the
2 In 1611 we read "Now I first four words of Ecclus. viii. 8 care for nothing, my son, since I are italicised by a like oversight. havelettheego,"ovfj.£\eiii.oi,TtKvov, They were set in Roman type in on ci^/cci ere, but Junius would 1629.
have us read ot for ou (Drusius
74 Sect. Iff.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
authority of Josephus, for the slight evidence now alleged in its favour (the Syriac and three recent Greek copies) was unknown to them.
After this general survey of the whole subject, it is proper to state certain rules, applicable to particular cases, which a careful study of the Bible of 1611 will shew that our Translators laid down for themselves, but which haste or inadvertence has caused them to carry out very imper fectly in practice. It will be seen that many of their omis sions were supplied in one or other of those later editions which display care in the matter, while almost as many have remained to be set right by their successors. "Whether the Translators, if they had foreseen and fully considered how far the system of italics which they adopted, when carried out, would lead, would have adopted it,... may be a question. And whether the abundance of the italics... does not in a measure defeat its own purpose by withdrawing attention from them, is perhaps a question also. But as it was, the course adopted by the editors of 1611 having been to mark by italics not important insertions only, but to aim at marking in this manner everything, even trifling pronouns and auxiliary verbs, not in the originals, carrying out how ever their intention very imperfectly : the choice for after editors lies between adopting a different system, and carry ing out theirs to the full1." Between these alternatives few perhaps will censure those who have chosen the latter with out much hesitation.
The following observations, therefore, grounded on the practice of our Translators, will guide us in a vast number of doubtful cases.
(i) The English possessive pronoun, when it renders the Hebrew or Greek article, should be set in italics. Com pare in 1611 Judg. iii. 20. 2 Sam. vi. 7; xvii. 23. 2 Kin. 1 GroteMS. p. 24. See above, p. 23, note.
The Italic type. 75
ix. 35; xiii. 3. 2 Chr. xiii. 10. Job i. 5; ii. 13. i Cor. i. i. 2 Cor. i. i. Gal. v. 10. Eph. iv. 28. Phil. ii. 13. So in 1629, Gen. xxvi. ii. Neh. xii. 42: in 1638, Matt. viii. 3; x. 24; xii. 10, 33; xiii. 15 (ter)\ xiv. 19, 31; xv. 5, &c. passim : in 1762, Matt. xii. 46; xxi. 31; xxvi. 23, 51; xxvii. 24: in 1769, Matt. xv. 8; xxv. 32. Mark v. 29; x. 16, &c.
(2) Since the definite article is only the unemphatic form of the demonstrative 'that,' and has itself a demon strative force1, it might not appear necessary to set "that" in italics when it represents the Greek or Hebrew article. In 1611, however, it is thus printed so often as to prove that our Translators designed to do so always with "this" and "that." For their practice compare Gen. xviii. 32. Ex. ix. 27; xxxiv. i. Num. xi. 32. Josh. iii. 4. i Sam. xiv. 8; xxv. 24. i Chr. xviii. ii; xxi. 22. 2 Chr. xx. 29; xxxvi. 18. Ezra ix. 2; x. 9. Eccles. vi. 12. Luke viii. 14. 2 Tim. ii. 4. In 1629 many more were added, e.g. Gen. xxxi. 43 ("these" ter); xliii. 16 (bis)\ in 1638, i Chr. vi. 64; vii. 21. 2 Chr. xxviii. 22. Ezra x. 4. Neh. viii. 10. Job xxxii. 5. Ps. Ii. 4. Eccles. viii. 8; ix. 9. Isai. xxxvii. 30 (yet not 2 Kin. xix. 29). Jer. ix. 26; xxxviii. 12. Ezek. xliv. 3; xlvi. 2, 8. Hab. i. 6. Mark iv. ii; ix. 42. John v. 13. Acts xxiv. 22. Rom. xvi. 22. i Cor. ix. 12; xi. 27. 2 Cor. v. i, 4. 2 Thess. i. ii. i Tim. vi. 7, 14. 2 Pet. i. 14: a few in 1769, 2 Sam. xvi. ii; xviii. 32. Hos. ix. 10. Yet in the New Testament this rule is even now greatly neglected.
(3) The idioms of the English and the Hebrew differ so widely that no attempt has been made, in the great majority of cases, to print the English definite article in italics when the Hebrew one is wanting. The only apparent instance of such distinction being kept up by our Translators occurs in i Sam. xxvi. 8, and is a mere error, the Hebrew article being present: hence "the" is put into Roman type
1 Bain, English Grammar, p. 34.
76 Sect. III.} Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
in 1 638'. Occasionally, however, the sense is so much affected, perhaps for the worse, by the presence of the English article, that we should be careful to note its absence in the Hebrew: e.g. Ps. xlv. i. Ezek. iv. i; x. 20; xxiii. 45. Hos. ii. 4; viii. 7; x. 10; xii. 4. Joel ii. 6. Amos vii. 10. Jonah iv. TO marg. Mic. v. 5. In thus dealing with the Greek article rather more freedom may be assumed, regard being always had to the anarthrous style of certain of the sacred writers, and to the licence which permits the omission of the article in certain constructions. Compare Ecclus. xliv. 1 8. Rom. i. 6; ii. 14. i Cor. ix. 20. Gal. iv. 31. i Thess. ii. 6. i Tim. ii. 5. Heb. ii. 5. i Pet. i. 12; iv. 10. i John ii. i. 3 John 3. Rev. xiv. 9; xv. 2; xxi. 17. The English indefinite article2, or none at all, would better suit most of these places.
(4) Annexed to proper and common appellations of places the Hebrew n, the old accusative termination, is re garded as denoting motion to, and its absence, or that of a corresponding preposition, is indicated by italics : e.g. Job xxx. 23; Ps. v. 7 in 1611. But n prefixed, which maybe the article, and sometimes accompanies n annexed (compare 2 Sam. xiii. 10), is not so regarded. Prepositions of motion in English, which have no Hebrew equivalent, should be systematically set in italics, the rather since it is not always certain that the right one is employed, e.g. i Sam. xxiii. 25. 2 Kin. xvi. 8.
(5) When an article is prefixed to a participle, but not otherwise, and it is rendered by "which are," "that is" &c. ("such as were" £ccles. iv. i), these words are best printed
1 In Job xi. 16 also Synd. A. 3. meaning to italicise our indefi- 14, B. M. 1276. 1. 4 and 3050. g. 3 nite article, as 1611 seems never read "the misery," but this is to have done, but only 1638 in probably a misprint for "thy Acts x. 2, and 1762 in Acts xxiv. misery" of the other issue. 5.
2 It is, of course, quite un-
The Italic type. 77
without italics, as in 1611 they are pretty uniformly, e.g. Lev. x. 16. Deut. xx. n; xxv. 6, 18; xxix. 29*. In 1638 italics came to be employed in some cases of this kind, e.g. 11 that was built" Judg. vi. 28; "which is shed" Ps. Ixxix. 10 • "she that looketh" Cant. vi. 10; "one that accuseth" John v. 45. In Judg. xi. 30 marg. "that which cometh forth" of 1611 is properly changed in 1629 into "that which cometh forth. ' '
(6) But even if the article be prefixed to an adjective, the correct practice is to italicise the words supplied. Thus in 1611 "that are wise," "that are mighty" Isai. v. 21, 22; "who is holy" Heb. vii. 26, in which passages there is no article. In Judg. viii. 15, where the article is found, we have "that are weary" in 1611, "that are weary" 1629, "that are weary" 1638 correctly. This last edition is very careful on the point, having rightly put into italics what had previously been Roman in i Sam. xv. 9. Neh. iv. 14. Ps. Ixxxv. 12. Ezek. xxii. 5. Yet in Judg. xvii. 6; xxi. 25 and such like passages some adopt (not very consistently) "that which was right," to intimate the presence of the article, as i Sam. ix. 24 in 1638.
(7) In such phrases as "and it came to pass... that," if the Hebrew copulative } be not expressed at the beginning of the second clause, its absence is denoted by italicising "that," which otherwise would stand in Roman type. This nice distinction is observed by our Translators with as much consistency as they display in greater matters. Thus 1611 in Gen. iv. 14. Ex. xxxiii. 8. Num. xvi. 7. 2 Kin. xviii. i. i Chr. xiv. 15. Esther v. 2. Isai. x. 12, 20, 27; xxiv. 1 8. So in 1629, Ex. xxxiii. 7. Lev. ix. i. Num. xvii. 5: in 1638, Neh. iv. 16: in 1762, Matt. xiii. 53; xix. i. Luke xx. i. Compare Luke v. i, 17; vii. 12; viii. i, &c.
1 In the concise style of poetry the absence of the article before we may often willingly overlook the present participle.
78 Sect. ///.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
(8) The personal pronoun, when omitted with the Hebrew infinitive (occasionally with some risk of ambiguity in the sense) should always, when supplied in the version, be printed in italics. This comprehensive rule is abided by in 1611 at Gen. vi. 19, 20 "to keep them alive;" Ex. xxx. 12 (second case, but overlooked in the first), 15; xxxi. 13. Deut. xxvi. 1 8. i Kin. xii. 6 ("/" overlooked by 1629 and later Bibles), i Chr. xxviii. 4. 2 Chr. xxxv. 6. Isai. 1. 4 ("/" again overlooked in 1629 and its successors). Thus also in 1629, Ex. xxviii. 28. Esther iv. u: in 1638, Gen. iii. 6. Acts xii. 19. Rom. xiii. 5: in 1769, Ex. xxxv. i. Deut. xxix. 29. Heb. xii. 10.
(9) Where in Hebrew the first of two nouns is in the state of construction, the word "of" between them is not italicised in English : but if the preceding noun be sus ceptible of a change by reason of the state of construction, and yet be not so changed, "of" or its equivalent is italicised. Compare, for example, Ex. xxxvii. 24 with Ex. xxv. 39. The Masoretic points are necessarily taken for true under this head.
(10) It would seem natural to italicise "own" in the expression "your own," "his own," &c. where the original has but the simple possessive pronoun. Yet in 1611 we find it so printed only in 2 Sam. xviii. 13. Job v. 13; ix. 20. Prov. i. 1 8 (Ins]. Blayney has "his own" in Gen. i. 27, and in no other place, as if he shrank from making about 200 changes in respect to one word. We should italicise "own" only in Job xix. 17, where its presence excludes one very possible sense, and in Acts xxi. n, where it is important to mark that tavrov is not in the text.
(n) The Hebrew preposition^ "to," with or without the verb "to be," is considered as equivalent, idiom for idiom, with the English verb "to have." It is so treated in the book of 1611 usually (e.g. Gen. xii. 20; xvi. i), but
The Italic type. 79
not always (e.g. Gen. xi. 6 "they have" ver. 30 "she had"). But "pertained" in such phrases is always italicised, as Judg. vi. ii in 1611. Hence we would not follow Scholefield1, who reads "what have I" i Cor. v. 12.
(12) We have adopted, with some hesitation, Mr Gorle's2 refined distinction, confirmed by 1611 in Jer. xli. 16, between TO "after that" and l?"nq« "after that;" not however with infinitives, as 2 Chr. xxvi. 2. Jer. xxxvi. 27; xl. i.
(13) When in different parts of Scripture a phrase or expression is given with more or less fulness, it is right to distinguish the shorter form, by setting the missing part of it in italics. Examples are in 1611 "dead men" Ex. xii. 33; "mighty man" Ps. cxx. 4 marg. (compare Ruth ii. i. i Sam. xiv. 52. Jer. xli. 16, where "man" is expressed): in 1638, Job xvii. 8, 10. Isai. xxix. 8; xliv. 25: in 1769, Isai. xli. 2. Again in 1611, "fill with" Gen. xliv. i. Ps. Ixxi. 8 (bis); Ixxii. 19, a preposition being supplied after the verb (*v?£) in Ex. xvi. 32. 2 Kin. ix. 24. Ezra ix. n. Job xli. 7. Ezek. xxxii. 6. Care, however, should be taken to put in italics no more than is really wanting: thus in Matt. viii. 25 w/ooo-eA0oWes ought to be "came to him;" Matt. x. i Trpoo-KaAeo-a/xevos "called unto him" as it is given in 1762, not as the same word is represented by 1769 in Matt. xv. 32 "called unto him" This rule extends very widely, and is difficult to be observed with perfect consistency.
1 In the Greek and English the Bible published since his time.
New Testament, published at 2 The Rev. J. Gorle, Rector
Cambridge by Professor Scholefield of Whatcote, submitted to the
(new edition, 1836), many words Syndics of the University Press,
were printed in italics for the first in or about 1864, very valuable
time, chiefly such as bear on our and elaborate notes on the use of
first rule, that regarding pronouns. italics in our Bibles, which proved
The changes he introduced evi- of great service in the preparation
dence great care, but seem not to of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, have influenced other editions of
8o Sect. III.} Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
(14) The verb substantive is italicised before the participle passive (Paul), to distinguish it from the Niphal conjugation of the verb (e.g. Gen. xxix. 31, 33 "was hated" in 1629 Camb.); but more licence has been granted to the auxiliaries that render the active participle (Poel). In Num. x. 29 we prefer "we are journeying," though in other places the present "is", "are", &c. is in Roman type, but not "was" or "were"
Such are the principal rules which the Translators of the Authorized Version designed to follow in the arrangement of italics for the standard Bible of 161 1. How little what they printed was systematically reviewed and corrected in the preparation of later editions is evident from the numerous glaring errors, committed by them, which have remained un detected down to this day. The reader will perceive what is meant by comparing the original Hebrew or Greek with any modern Bible in i Ghr. vii. 6. 2 Chr. x. 16. Neh. v. 19. Job i. 5; xxii. 24; xxx. 5; xxxiv. 14; xli. 20. Ps. Iv. 21. Prov. xv. 26. Cant. v. 12. Isai. xxii. 18 ("like" a little doubtful); Jer. xi. 4, 7; xxxvi. 22; xlvi. 13. Ezek. iv. 4, 9; xiii. 18; xxii. 20 marg.; xxxix. n; xliii. 3 marg. Dan. i. 7; viii. 26; ix. 23 marg. Obad. 6. Hab. iii. 9. i Esdr. viii. 63. Tobit. iii. 3. Wisd. ii. i; xix. 14. i Mace. viii. 18; x. 24; xii. 37. Tit. ii. 3. 3 John 12. Indeed some more recent corrections are positively false, e.g. 2 Chr. iii. ii "one wing of the one" (1638): Luke x. 30 "man" (1762).
What Blayney intended to do and seems to have lacked time for (Appendix D), has been regarded as a matter of imperative duty by the compiler of the present work. He has made out a full list of all the changes with respect to italics, in which the Cambridge Paragraph Bible as edited by him differs from his standard, the Cambridge small pica octavo of 1858 (see above, p. 38), together with such
The Punctuation. 81
reasons for them as each case might require; and has de posited the list for future reference in the Library of the Syndics of the University Press.
SECTION IV. On the system of punctuation adopted in 161 1, and modified in
more recent Bibles.
"THE question of punctuation," to employ the language of Professor Grote1, "has two parts: one, respecting the general carrying it out for purposes of rhythm and dis tinction of sentences, independent of any question as to the meaning of the words ; the other respecting the particular cases where different punctuation involves difference of meaning." In regard to the first of these parts, much variety of practice will always exist, according to the age in which a writer lives, or the fashion which he has adopted for himself. Thus the edition of 1611 abounds with paren theses2 which are largely discarded in modern Bibles, wherein commas supply their place, unless indeed they are left unrepresented altogether. The note of admiration, which is seldom met with in the old black-letter copies (wherein the note of interrogation usually stands in its room : e.g. Prov. xix. 7) is scattered more thickly over Blayney's pages than the taste of the present times would approve. Upon the whole, while the system of recent punctuation is heavier and more elaborate than necessity requires, and might be lightened to advantage 3, that of the standard of 1611 is too scanty to afford the guidance needed by the
1 Grote MS. p. -25. See above, nute argument for the priority of the p. 23, note. Syndic's copy (see above, pp. 8, 9).
2 In Synd. A. 3. 14, these 3 For instance, in such expres- marks of parenthesis often seem to sions as "and behold," "and lo," have been inserted with a pen, in "for lo;" we should omit the places where the Oxford reprinthas comma set by Blayney, &c. be- them ; thus supplying another mi- tween the two words.
s. 6
8 2 Sect. IV.} Authorized Version of the Bible ( 1 6 1 1 ).
voice and eye in the act of public reading. "It is a torture to read aloud from, as those who have had to do it know1." Grote contrasts it in this particular with a Cambridge edition of 1683, into which more changes in the stops were admitted than later books cared to follow, and whose punctuation differs in fact but little from that in vogue in recent times.
The case in which difference of punctuation involves difference of meaning cannot be thus summarily dismissed. Since interpretation is now concerned, rather than arbitrary liking or convenience, the principles laid down in the First Section are strictly applicable here (pp. 3, 14). The stops found in the original ought not to be altered unless the sense they assign be not merely doubtful, but manifestly wrong2. Modern changes, if still abided by, should be scrupulously recorded, and their retention can be justified only by the consideration that it is at once pedantic and improper to restore errors of the standard Bible which have once been banished out of sight. The following list will be found to contain all divergencies of punctuation from that prevailing in recent editions, not being too insignificant to deserve special notice, which can be supposed to influence the sense. They naturally divide themselves into two classes, those which are, and those which are not, counte nanced by the two issues of 1611.
I. The stops of 1611 are retained in preference to those of later Bibles, there being no strong reason to the contrary, in
Gen. xxxi. 40. " Thus I was in the day, the drought consumed me," 1611, after Masoretic stops, LXX., Vulg., against the Bishops', — 1769, moderns, who have " Thus I was; (, 1638 — 1762) in the
1 Grote MS., ubi supra. Dr Pusey's view seems very main-
^ Thus no stronger stop than tainable (Book of Daniel, p. 300),
a colon (as in 1611) is proposed that quite another line than Zerub-
after Jesaiah, i Chr. iii. 21, though babel's now follows.
The Punctuation. 83
day the drought consumed me." 'Lev. iv. 2, "(concerning things which ought not to be done)." Here 1769 and the moderns reject the parenthesis of the earlier books, which, though not found in vv. 13, 22, 27, tends to relieve a hard construction. Joshua iii. 16, "very far, from the city Adam," 1611 — 1630. In 1629 Camb. and subsequent editions the comma after "far " is removed, but the other distribution is not less probable, i Kin. xii. 32, "and hell offered upon the altar (so did he in Bethel,) || sacrificing." The moderns, after 1769, punctuate "and he|| offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, || sacrificing : " against the Hebrew stops, Zakeph-katon standing over both "altar" and " Bethel j" and rendering the margin (which provides for ?1J*1 being the Kal rather than the Hiphil conjugation) quite unintelligible, xix. 5, "behold then, an angel" (nt/TISrn) : "behold, then an angel," 1769, moderns. Neh. ix. 4, "upon the stairs of the Levites," (0*1? jl «^p~^) : "upon the stairs, of the Levites," 1769, moderns, ver. 5, "Jeshua and Kadmiel," (cf. Ezra ii. 40): "Jeshua, and Kadmiel," 1769, moderns. Job xix. 28, "persecute we him?... found in me." 1611 — 1617. But 1629 Lond., 1630 place the interrogative also after "me: " 1629 Camb., 1638, moderns, transfer the second clause into the oratio obliqiia "persecute we him,... found in me?" xxxi. 30. This verse is rightly set in a parenthesis in 1611 — 1744, which 1762 and the moderns remove, xxxiii. 5, "If thou canst, answer me," as in ver. 32. The first comma is removed in 1629 Camb. (not 1629 Lond., 1630) and all modern books, xl. 24 marg., "or bore," 1611: "or bore," 1629, 1638, Bagster 1846. But 1744, 1762, moderns, "or, bore," quite absurdly. Psalm ii. 12, "but a little: Blessed," 1611 — 1744, "but a little. Blessed," 1762 mod j1. Ixxix. 5, "wilt thou be angry, for ever?" Cf. Ps. xiii. i; Ixxxix. 46. The comma is removed by 1616 (not 1617, 1630), 1629 Camb., &c. ver. ii, "come before thee, According to the greatness of thy power: Preserve thou." Thus 1611 — 1744, following the Hebrew punctuation: "come before thee; According to the greatness of thy power (, 1762 only) Preserve thou" 1769, moderns, very boldly, though approved by Dean Perowne. Ixxxix. 46, "How long, LORD2, wilt thou hide thyself,
1 The two lines of the couplet xl. 12, Rebiah has tempted 1762
are closely connected, as the to change the comma after "head"
parallelism shews. Here, and in into a semicolon, 1769 moderns
some other places (notably in Ps. into a colon, where we prefer the
iii. 5; Ixiv. 7), the Masoretic comma of 1611 — 1744.
punctuation is at variance with '2 So read instead of "LORD?"
the poetical structure. So in Ps. of 1 769 mod.
6—2
84 Sect. /F.] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
for ever?" The third comma is removed in 1629 London and Camb. (not 1630), 1638, 1744, 1769 mod. In 1762 this comma is strengthened into a semicolon. Prov. i. 27. The final colon of 1611 — 1630 is clearly preferable to the full stop of 1629 Camb., moderns, xix. 2. Restore the comma before "sinneth", discarded in 1762: also in xxi. 28, that before "speaketh," removed in 1769: both these for the sake of perspicuity, xxx. i fin. The full stop is changed into a comma by 1769 mod. Eccles. ii. 3, "(yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom)." In 1769 mod. the marks of parenthesis are rejected and a semicolon placed after "wisdom." Cant. vii. 9, ", For my beloved, that" 1611, &c. (", For my beloved that," 1629 Lond., 1630: almost preferable; cf. Heb.): "For my beloved, that" 1769, moderns, viii. 2, ", of the juice" 1611 — 1630: "of the juice" 1629 Camb., 1638, &c. Isai. xxiv. 14, "they shall sing",. The comma is found only in 1611 (Oxford reprint, not Synd. A. 3. 14), and acknowledged by Vulg. and Field (^'•jubilabunt;'1''} as representing the Hebrew Athnakh. xlviii. 12, ", O Jacob, and Israel my called;" 1611 — 1630. But 1629 Camb., 1638, place commas after "Israel," 1769 and the moderns join "Jacob and Israel," against the Hebrew stops. Lam. ii. 4, "pleasant to the eye," (cf. Heb. stop) : 1769 mod. remove the comma, iv. 15, ", when they fled away and wandered:" ( , for : in 1769 mod.). Hosea vii. n, "a silly dove, without heart." In 1629 Camb. and the moderns, the comma (which represents the Hebrew accent) is removed, as if "without heart" referred exclusively to the dove. Hagg. i. i, 12, 14; ii. 2, remove the comma of 1769 mod. after "Josedech." Cf. Zech. i. i.
•2 Esdr. viii. 39, "and the reward that they shall have." (et salvationis et mercedis receptionis, Vulg., but et salutis, et redpiendcc mercedis Junius): but 1762 mod. place a comma after "reward," as if receptionis of Vulg. belonged also to salvationis. xii. 2, "and behold, the head that remained, and the four wings appeared no more." In 1762 a comma is inserted after "wings:" in 1769 mod. both commas are removed. There is a pause in the sense after "remained, "such as a semicolon would perhaps better represent, before the vision in ch.xi. 18, &c., is repeated. Judith iv. 6, "toward the open country near to Dothaim (/card irpbtrwirov rou Trediov TOV Tr\r)ffiov Auda'l'/j,, LXX.). Here 1629 Camb., 1630, &c., insert a comma before "near." viii. 9, 10. In 1769 mod. the marks of parenthesis are withdrawn, to the detriment of perspicuity, xiv. 17, "After, he went" (/ecu eurT/Aflev, LXX.): 1629 Camb. (not 1630), 1638 mod. remove the necessary comma. Ecclus. xxxvii. 8, "(For he will counsel for himself):" 1769 mod. reject the
The Punctuation. 85
marks of parenthesis, setting a semicolon after "himself", ver. n, " , of finishing" (?re/>i trwreXc/os, LXX.) : 1769 mod. obscure the sense by rejecting the comma. Baruch vi. 40, "that they are gods?" In 1629, &c., "gods," the interrogation being thrown upon the end of the verse. But compare the refrains ver. 44, 52, 56, 65, to justify our arrangement of the paragraph, i Mace. vi. 51, "to cast darts, and slings." The comma is removed in 1638 mod.
S. Matt. ix. 20 — 22, are inclosed in a parenthesis by 1611 — 1762, which 1769 rejects1. S. Mark iii. 17, and v. 41. The marks of paren thesis (of which 1769 mod. make too clean a riddance) are to be restored from 1611 — 1762. S. John ii. 15, " and the sheep and the oxen," thus keeping the animals distinct from Travras ("them all... with the sheep and oxen," Bishops'). In 1630 (not 1638, 1743), 1762 mod., a comma intrudes after "sheep." xviii. 3, "a band of men, and officers," 1611 _ 1762, thus distinguishing the Roman cohort from the Jewish vTnjperai (Archb. Trench]. In 1769 mod. the comma is lost. Acts xi. 26, "taught much people, and the disciples were called," 1611 — 1630: both verbs depending on eytvero. Yet 1638—1743 substitute a semicolon for the comma, while 1762 mod. begin a new sentence after "people," as if the editors had never glanced at the Greek, xviii. 18, "and Aquila: having shorn his head"; Paul being the person referred to in Ketpdfuvo*. By changing the colon into a semicolon, 1762 mod. render this more doubtful. Rom. i. 9, ", always in my prayers," 1611, 1612, 1613. The first comma is removed in 1629 Camb. and London, 1630, &c. : the second changed into a semicolon by 1769 mod. Cf. i Thess. i. 2; Philem. 4. iv. i, "Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh," 1611 — 1762. In 1769 mod. the comma is transferred from after "father" to before "our." v. 13 — 17 were first inclosed in a paren thesis by 1769, which is followed by all moderns, even by the American Bible of 1867, though the American revisers of 1851 (see p. 36) had removed it. It is worse than useless, inasmuch as it interrupts the course of the argument, viii. 33 Jin. The colon of 1611 — 1762 is almost too great a break, yet 1769 mod. substitute a full stop. The semicolon of The Five Clergymen is quite sufficient, xv. 7, "received us," 1611 — 1743. The comma is removed in 1762 mod. i Cor. vii. 5, "prayer," 1611—1630. But 1638 mod. substitute a semicolon for the comma, as if to drive us to take the various readin avvxya'de of Beza
1 The parenthesis is absent in Luke viii. 42 — 48, but we may from the parallel passage of S. retain it from 1611 — 1743, though Mark. It is not so much wanted 1762 mod. reject it.
86 Sect. IK] Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
1598 (note, not text), and the Elzevirs, viii. 7, "with conscience of the idol unto this hour," 1611 — 1762, as if the reading e'us apri rou eiSwXou were accepted ("with the yet abiding consciousness of the idol,"), or cf. Phil. i. 26, and Dr Moulton's Winer, p. 584. In 1769 mod. the comma is deleted. 2 Cor. xiii. 2, "as if I were present the second time," 1611 — 1762. In 1769 mod. a comma is put in after "present," through an obvious misconception. Eph. iii. 2 — iv. i, "of the Lord," is wrongly set in a parenthesis by 1769 mod. (not American, 1867). Rather connect ch. iii. i with ver. 14. Phil. i. ir, "by Jesus Christ unto the glory..." In 1762 mod. a comma is inserted before "unto." Col. ii. ii, "of the flesh," the two clauses beginning with eV T# being parallel (cf. var. led.}, so that 1762 mod. wrongly remove the comma after "flesh." i Thess. iii. 7, ", by your faith" 1611 — 1630, but 1629 London and Camb. and all after them wrongly omit the comma. 2 Thess. i. 8, "in flaming fire," 1611 — 1762, connecting the words with iv rrj airoKaXv^eL, ver. 7. In 1769 mod. the comma is absent. Titus ii. 8, "sound speech that cannot..." The comma after "speech" in 1769 mod. obscures, rather than helps, the English, ver. 12, " teach ing us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live..." Thus the sentence runs in the Oxford reprint of 1611 and in 1612, and this is the safest plan in such a construction, but Synd. A. 3. 14 places a comma after "lusts," and is followed by 1613 and the rest. In 1629 Camb., &c. another comma is set after "us," which 1769 mod. do not improve upon by transposing it to after " that." Heb. ii. 9, "lower than the angels,". In 1769 mod. this comma is removed, so as to compel us to take cua rb Tradrj/ma roO Qavarov with the preceding clause, to which it hardly seems to belong, iii. 7 — n. Reject the marks of parenthesis introduced into modern Bibles in 1769. The American Bible of 1867 has them not. x. 12, "for ever, sat down." So 1611 — 1630, plainly rejecting " is set down for ever " of Bishops' Bible. This arrangement is supported by our standard Cambridge edition of 1858, and the American (1867), by Bp. Christ. Wordsworth, &c., and is surely safer than "for ever sat down" of 1638 — 1769 and most moderns, xii. 23. Restore the commaof 1 611—30 after "assembly": see below, p. 2 53. xiii. 7. Restore the full stop of 1611 at the end of this verse, which 1762 mod. change to a colon. 2 Pet. ii. 14. The Greek compels us to reject the comma after "adultery" of 1743 and mod. Jude 7, "the cities about them, in like manner..." The comma after "them" is injudiciously removed by 1638, 1699 (not 1743), while 1762 mod. increase the error by placing it after "in like manner."
The Punctuation. 87
It would be endless, and would answer no good purpose, to enumerate all the cases wherein minute but real improve ments in the punctuation, introduced into editions subse quent to 1611, have been universally acquiesced in (e.g. Jer. xvii. 3; Dan. xi. 18; Bel & Drag. ver. 10; Matt. xix. 4; Rom. ii. 13 — 15; i Pet. v. 13). Some very strange over sights of the standard Bible, in this as in other particulars (see pp. 3, 4), were permitted to hold their place quite late. Thus in John xii. 20 "And there were certain Greeks among them, that came up to worship at the feast:" the intrusive comma lingered till 1769. The comma, which originally stood after "about midnight," Acts xxvii. 27, was removed and set after "Adria" later than 1638. In regard to weightier matters, the comma put by 1611 after "God" in Titus ii. 13 is fitly removed by 1769 mod., that "the great God and our Saviour" may be seen to be joint predicates of the same Divine Person. Luke xxiii. 32 affords us a rare instance of an important change in the stops subsequent to 1769 (we have not been able to trace it up earlier than D'Oyly and Mant's Bible of 1817) "And there were also two other malefactors," where recent editors insert a comma before "malefactors," in order to obviate the possibility of mistake in the meaning of a phrase which is rather Greek than English. They were rightly unwilling to adopt the alternative of changing the plural "other" into "others," as the American Bible (1867) has unfortunately done1. The following chief additional changes in punctuation recom mended by us, like those affecting the text itself (for
1 Luke x. i, is exactly parallel 2 Mace. vii. 34; xi. 7, n, 20;
in this use of other, but that Matt, xxiii. 23; Luke xi. 16, 42;
antiquated plural is very common xviii. 9; John xix. 18; Acts xvii.
in our version: Josh. viii. 22; xii. 9 (but others ver. 34) '•> i Cor. xiv.
19; 2 Sam. ii. 13; i Esdr. vii. 6; 29; 2 Cor. xiii. 2; Phil. i. 17;
i Esdr. x. 6, 57; xi. 18; xvi. 22; ii. 3; iv. 3, most of which remain
Tobit vi. 14; Wisd. xi. 10, 13; unchanged in modern Bibles.
88 Sect. IV.} Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
which see Appendix A), though usually sanctioned by respectable authority, occasionally by some recent Bibles, must ultimately depend on their own merits for justifica tion.
II. Passages in which the stops, as well of 1611 as of most later Bibles, have been altered in the Cambridge Para graph Bible.
Ex. xi. i — 3 is placed within a parenthesis, thus referring ver. 4 to ch. x. 29. Josh. vi. I might well be treated in the same manner. Josh. xv. i, "even to the border of Edom" is better followed by a comma, as in 1762, than by the semicolon of 1611 — 1744 : both stops are removed in 1769. i Kin. vii. 19, and xxi. 25, 26, should be set in parentheses, so as to connect closely the preceding and following verses in either case. xxi. 20. With 1617 (only) place a comma at the end of this verse, the protasis beginning with jl^ ver. 20, the apodosis with "O^il, ver. 21, just as in ch. xx. 36. Cf. also ch. xx. 42; xxi. 29. 2 Kin. xv. 25. Set a semicolon after "Arieh," in place of the comma of 1611, &c. The "him" following refers to "Pekah," not to "Arieh." So Tremellius after Heb.1 Job iv. 6. See Appendix A. vi. 10, "Yea, I would harden myself in sorrow ; let him not spare : " forms one line in the stichometry (Delitzsck). This does not appear in 1611 — 1744, which set a comma after "spare," or in 1762 mod., which punctuate " : let him not spare." xxviii. 3. Lighten the colon of 1611, &c., after "perfection" into a comma. "The stones" is governed by "searcheth out," whether we consider JlvFl'/'p1? to be used ad verbially, or no. Ps. cv. 6. "Ye children of Jacob, his chosen." Unless the comma be inserted, "his chosen" would not be understood as plural. In i Chr. xvi. 13, a comma is inserted by 1769 mod. without much need. Ps. cvii. 35. End in a semicolon: yet all our Bibles have a full stop. Ps. cviii. 5, 6. All our Bibles except that of the Tract Society (1861) join these two verses, which seems an impossible arrange ment (Perowne). Substitute a full stop for the colon of 1611 (which is
1 In Neh. xii. 24, we would a colon. It would seem from
substitute a semicolon instead of a i Chr. ix. 15 — 17; ch. xi. 17 — 19,
full stop at the end of the verse, that the list of the singers ends
and perhaps ought to change the with Obadiah, that of the porters
comma after Obadiah, ver. 25, into begins with Meshullam.
The Ptmctuation. 89
made a semicolon by 1629 Camb. and the moderns) at the end of ver. 5, and a semicolon for the colon after "delivered," as 1611 has in Ps. Ix. 5. Prov. vi. 2. Since this verse, as well as ver. I, is plainly hypothetical (Bp. Christ. Wordsworth], in spite of LXX., Vulg., and Tremellius, a comma must take the place of the full stop of 1611, &c. after "mouth." viii. 2, "high places by the way." Transfer the comma of 1611 from after "place" to after "way." Eccles. iv. i, "and behold," 1629 Camb. — 1762. In 1769 mod. the comma is removed though it is really wanted. Even the Hebrew has a distinctive mark (') here. Cant. iii. 2, "in the streets and in the broad ways,". So LXX., the Hebrew punctuation and parallelism. In i6n,&c., the comma is transferred to a place after "streets," thus joining the second clause with what follows. Isai. xi. n, "his people, which shall be left from Assyria,". So the Hebrew stops, the analogy of ver. 16 (recognized by 1611 — 1762, not by 1769 mod.), LXX., Vulg., Lowth, Field : "his people that shall be left, from Assyria" 1611 — 1762: in 1769 mod. another comma follows "people." xxxii. 9. This verse is a distich, the true division of which after "voice" is plainer in Hebrew than in English. It is variously punctuated in our Bibles, but all agree in suggesting a false division into three lines, ending respectively at "ease," "daughters," "speech." xxxviii. 10, "I said,". All insert the comma in ver. 11. Jer. xlviii. 29. Instead of the parenthesis which encloses "he is exceeding proud" in all our Bibles, substitute a semicolon before, a colon after the words, as in Isai. xvi. 6 in 1762 mod. Ezek. v. 6, "my judgments, and my statutes." The comma, imperatively required by the Hebrew, was inserted from 1629 (both editions) to 1762, dis carded in 1769 mod. xxi. 29, "that are slain of the wicked." The comma after "slain", apparently employed by 1611, &c. to aid the voice, fails to represent the status con^tructus of the Hebrew, xlvi. 18, "by oppression to thrust them out" renders a single Hebrew word (oppressions deturbando cos, Trem.). Yet 1611 — 1630 separate the English by placing a comma after "oppression," which 1762 mod. restore after it had been rejected by 1629 Camb., 1744. xlviii. 30, "of the city:" so the Hebrew stops. The Bishops' Bible and 1611—1630 have a comma after "city," which 1629 Camb. and the moderns omit altogether (cf. Wordsworth}. Hosea ix. 15, "inGilgal:" the colon of 1611 and the rest is too strong for the sense and the Hebrew accent, xii. 10. Remove the comma of 1611 &c. after "similitudes." Cf. Heb. Micah vi. 5, "; from Shittim" the inserted semicolon represent ing the Hebrew Athnakh (cf. Wordsworth}. The Bishops' Bible
90 Sect. IV.~\ Authorized Version of the Bible (1611).
separates these words from the preceding, though only by a comma1.
2 Esdr. ii. 15 marg. " , as a dove" with 1629 — 1744. In 1611 we have "as a dove:" in 1630 " , as a dove:" against the Latin. In 1762 mod. " , as a dove" but our way seems safer, vii. 42, "is not the end, where..." Without the inserted comma, our version is hardly in telligible; in co sc. scecido, not fine. Judith viii. 21, "if we be taken, so all..." Junius and i6rr, &c. join ourws closely to the preceding words. (Cf. Moulton's Winer, p. 678). Wisd. xiii. 13, "the very refuse among those, which served to no use," (TO 5£ e£ O.VTWV dw6^\i]/j.a els ov8£v eu'x/3i7<TTOJ'). If, with 1611, &c., we omit the comma, "those" will inevitably be taken as the antecedent to "which." xvii. u — 13. Place these verses within a parenthesis. Prayer of Manasses, 11. 17, 18, ' ' : Thou, O Lord, ..." The very long English sentence is so constructed (differently from the Greek, this Prayer having been rendered from the Old Latin, see p. 47), that the apodosis does not begin before this point; yet 1611 and all its successors put a full stop before "Thou." We adopt a colon from the Bishops' Bible, i Mace. vi. 36, "every occasion, wheresoever the beast was:" far preferable to "every occasion: wheresoever the beast was," of 1611, &c. ix. -$\marg. " understood on the sabbath day" 1629 — 1744. In 1762 mod. the false punctuation of 1611 — 1630 is revived ("understood, on the sabbath day"}, against the Greek, which is not in the same order as in ver. 43. We set ver. 35 — 42 in a parenthesis, x. i, "Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes" 6 ewi(pavris, the comma after "Antiochus" distinguishing the text from that of Josephus, namely TOV €iri(f>avovs, as mentioned in the margin. 2 Mace. x. 29, "men upon horses with bridles of gold" (e<£' ITTTTUV XpvcroxaMvuv avdpes). In 1611, &c., a comma, worse than idle, is set after "horses." xiii. 2, "a Grecian power, of footmen, &c." In 1611, &c. we have "a Grecian power of footmen2."
S. Matt. xix. 28, "which have followed me, in the regeneration, when &c." So 1630 alone of our old Bibles, with Nourse (Paragraph Bible, Boston, 1836), Bagster, 1846, Scholefield (English), Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles. This is at any rate the safest course. The second comma is wanting in 1611, 1612, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1629
1 Tremellius seems anxious that usque, dicas..."
no mistake should be made as 2 Yet it must be confessed that
to his judgment, rendering thus: the Roman edition reads iTTTrets
"et quid responderit ei Bilham immediately afterwards, while our
films Behoris ; ut agnoscens juste punctuation represents iirirtw of
facta Jehovse a Schittimis Gilgalem Codex Alexandrinus.
The Punctuation. 91
(London), most modern Bibles, D'Oyly and Mant (1817), Tract Society's (1861), Blackadder (1864), American (1867), Newberry (1870), and Alford. The first comma is absent in the Bishops' Bible, the books from 1629 (Camb.) to 1769, and Scholefield's Greek text. S. Luke i. 55, "(as he spake to our fathers)". Thus with Nourse, the Tract Society, and Blackadder (see last note], indicate by a parenthesis the change of construction. Ver. 70 is also parenthetic1. Acts xxiii. 8, "neither angel nor spirit : ". Even though the true reading be /u^re. . ./nfre instead of /u7?5£.../u77're, angel and spirit comprehend together one class, resurrec tion the other, the two classes together comprising ct^orepa. The comma after " angel" in 1611 — 1630, abolished from 1629 (both editions) to 1 743, is restored in 1762 mod. xxvii. 18. See below, p. 190. Rom. viii. 20, " , in hope." We can hardly do more in this doubtful passage, than relax the connection of tir' eXrri'Si with what precedes, by inserting the comma before it, and lightening the stop after it from a colon to a comma, as in 1769 mod., thus with Mr Moule (Romans in loco) regard ing "in hope" as forming a brief clause by itself, xi. 8, from "ac cording" to "hear" is rightly set in a parenthesis in