Poor, however, as was the apparatus criticus at the command of the translators, they had an ad- vantage, which it would not be easy to over- estimate, in the existence of previous English versions. Some of these the king’s letter of in- structions had specially directed them to consult. Two others, not named in those instructions, they consulted frequently, and with the greatest benefit to themselves. These were the Geneva Bible and the Rhemish NT. The Douai OT appeared just too late to be of use, not being issued till 1610. It would be exceeding our limits to enter into the statistical calculations, by which it has been sought to apportion aright the indebtedness of the AV to each of its two rivals. It must suftice to say that its obligation to both was great ;—to the one for principles of interpretation, to the other for an enriched vocabulary. At the same time its inde- pendence was never sacrificed. ‘It differs from the Rhemish Version in seeking to fix an intelli- gible sense on the words rendered : it differs from the Genevan Version in leaving the literal rendering uncoloured by any expository notes.’ §
The gradual efforts that have been made from time to time to emend and perfect this noble trans- lation will be most fittingly noticed when we come to speak of the Revised Version of 1881. A few words remain to be said on the relation in which the first edition of 1611 stands to its immediate
successors ; and mention must be made briefly of |
some of the most conspicuous among the almost countless descendants of king James’s Bible.
* Westcott, General View, p. 268. t Ib. p. 269.
{ See Scrivener’s Supplement to the AV, 1845, p. 8; and the same writer's Authorized Edition, 1884, p. 60. The edition of 1598 was Beza’s fifth and last, judged less correct than that of
1589. § Westcott, /.c. p. 269.
That the edition described above as the first was really the editio princeps of the AV, few scholars will be found to deny.* But, when we come to inquire which of the others is to be placed next to it, we are met by a difficulty. A number of Bibles are in existence, the first, or general, title of which agrees in wording with that of the assumed. first edition, but differs slightly in the division of lines, and also in not having for border Boel’s copperplate engraving, but a woodcut, similar to the NT border of A.+ For date, the first title of B has 1613 (sometimes 1611); while the second, or NT title, has regularly 1611, and has also, what that of A has not, the words (in italics) ‘Appointed to be read in Churches.’+ In what relation, now, do A and B stand to each other? It has been held that they represent ‘two contemporary issues . : separately composed and printed, for the sake of speedy production, in 1611.’§ But this supposition is negatived by the fact that in both these Bibles— and indeed in all the black-letter folios of the AV, save only one of 1613, in smaller type—the printing is so arranged that every leaf ends with the same word. The sheets, notwithstanding many internal differences, could thus be interchanged, and in point of fact are often’ found so interchanged in copies of the editions dated 1611, 1613, 1617, 1634, 1640. It follows that no two could have been set up simultaneously from two corrected Bishops’ Bibles used as ‘copy’ by separate compositors. They could not by accident have brought their leaves to end uniformly at the same word. The alternative remains of supposing B derived from A, or A from B. Of these Dr. Scrivener chooses the latter. He considers B ‘to have been printed first, and rejected by the translators on account of its inaccuracy in favour of the more carefully revised A edition ; but to have been ultimately published, by a kind of fraud on the part of the printers, after the translators were dispersed.’ || Notwithstanding the learning and ability with which this opinion is defended by its author, it will hardly gain the credit of being more than a brilliant paradox, with those who weigh impartially the evidence furnished by the errors and corrections observable in the two volumes.
In endeavouring to single out the more notice- able in the almost endless list of editions of the AV that have appeared since 1611, our attention is first arrested by those which are conspicuous for the number of errors admitted, or for the efforts made to eliminate previous errors. A few pre- liminary words thus become necessary on the re- sponsibility of printers in the 17th century.
It is a mistake to suppose that the appointment of King’s or Queen’s Printer, then or formerly, implied any obligation to greater vigilance in ensuring accuracy of printing. It was simply a matter of purchase. In this way Robert Barker’s father, Christopher, had bought, in 1577, a patent granted by Elizabeth a few years before to Sir Thomas Wilkes, and thus became Queen’s Printer. In this capacity he opposed the claim of Cambridge, in 1583, to maintain a university press. In 1627 the Barkers assigned their rights to Bonham Norton and John Bill. But in 1635 Robert Barker’s second son, of the same name, bought back the reversion of the patent ; and it continued in their family till