Page xvi

2 Chr. xi. 20; xxx. 6; xxxii. 20; Neh. viii. 10; Eccles. vii. 26; Cant. v. 12; Jer. xxxv. 13; Tobit iv. 12; Ecclus. li. 12; 1 Macc. viii. 8; ix. 35; xi. 34, 56; xv. 23; Matt xvi. 19; Mark xiv. 32; Luke xxiii. 19; Acts iv. 17; xxvii. 18; Rom. vi. 12; vii. 13; xvi. 10. Dr Corrie, Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, has a rare 8vo. in Roman type, dated 1619.

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

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

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

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

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

Thus far the reprinting of the Authorized Version had been entirely in the hands of the King’s Printers. They had made changes in the text, slight indeed and far from numerous, yet enough