Page xxii

2 Esdr. i. 15 “to you” for “for you1;” 38 “come” for “cometh1;” iv. 21 “upon the heavens” for “above the heavens1;” v. 15 “upon” for “up upon1;” 27 “of people” for “of peoples1;” Judith ii. 20; Esther xiv. 14 “help” for “helper1;” Wisd. vii. 25 marg.; Ecclus. xvii. 5 comma removed after “seventh1;” xxvii. 13 “in” omitted before “the wantonness1;” xlv. 8 marg.; Hist. of Susanna, ver. 37 “was there” for “there was1;” Bel and Dragon, ver. 3 “was spent” for “were spent1;” ver. 6 “a living God” for “a living god” (1611–1762), as all in ver. 24 after 1744; 1 Macc. ix. 68; x. 39 “of Jerusalem” for “at Jerusalem1;” John xi. 34; Rom. vii. 20 “Now if do;” xi. 23 om. “still” (thus many later Bibles, but not our model, Camb. 1858); 1 Cor. iv. 13 “the earth” for “the world;” 2 Cor. vii. 16 “con-|dence” for “confidence;” xii. 2 “about” for “above,” repeated in later Bibles up to Bagster, 1846: but the American and our model restore “above.” This change seems intentional. 1 Tim. iv. 10 “the saviour;” Rev. vii. 6, see Appendix A, p. lxxxiii., note 2; Rev. xviii. 22 (see p. xx.).

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

Deut. viii. 17 “mine hand;” xv. 20 “eat it;” 1 Kin. xvii. 24 “and that” for “and that;” 1 Chr. xviii. 16 “was” 1611–1762, 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” of 1611–1762; xvii. 6 “hear my speech;” xlix. 7 “his brother” for “his brother” of 1611–1762; lxxv. 1 “is near” for “is near” 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. 11 “sentence against,” but “sentence against” 1611–1762; Isai. xxxvi. 3 “which was” for “which was” 1611–1762, as even 1769 in ver. 22; Jer. xxxiii. 12 “which is desolate” (after Camb. 1629), “which is desolate” 1611–1630, “which is desolate” 1638–1762; xxxvi. 19 “ye be” for “ye be” 1611–1762; Ezek, x. 1 “that was above” for “that was above” 1611–1762; Dan. viii. 3 (bis), 6, 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 in the Apocrypha of indicating what is omitted in the Greek, he regards as parenthetical, and accordingly the marks ( ) are removed in 1769; Matt. xxii. 10 “highways” for highways” (ὁδοὺς) of 1638–1762; Luke xiv. 4 “let him go” for “let him go” of 1638–1762; Rom. iii. 14 “is full” (γέμει); 1 Cor. iii. 23 “ye are Christ’s for “ye are Christ’s” of 1638–1762; Gal. v. 10 “his judgment” for “his judgment“ of 1611–1762.

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

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