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 slight 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 become strongly polemical, and breathe a spirit which the warmest admirers of that truly great man find it easier to excuse than to commend. In Coverdale’s Bible (1535), which was issued 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 Translators 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 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 reverse 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. 11): 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 text, in 31 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 (Chetiv). Of this last kind of marginal notes a list is subjoined, as many of them are not readily distinguishable from the alternative renderings, being mostly, like them, preceded by “|| Or”. They are

Deut. xxviii. 22. Josh. viii. 12 (Keri in marg.); xv. 53 (Keri in marg.). 1 Sam. vi. 18 (אֶבֶן for אָבֶל, with the Targum and Septuagint); xxvii. 8 (Keri in text). 2 Sam. xiii. 37 (Keri in text); xiv. 22 (Keri in marg.). 1 Kin. xxii. 48 (Keri in text). 2 Kin. v. 12 (Keri in marg.); xx. 4 (Keri in text); xxiii. 33 (Keri in text). 1 Chr. 1. 6; 7. 2 Chr. 1. 5. Ezra ii. 33; 46 (Keri in text); viii. 14 (Keri in marg.); x. 401. Neh. iii. 20 (Keri in marg.). Job vi. 21 (Keri in text); xxxiii. 28 (twice as Keri in text). Ps. ix. 12 (Keri in text); x. 12 (Keri in text); xxiv. 6 (marg. with the Septuagint, Syriac, and Latin Vulgate); lxiv. 6; lxviii. 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 (Keri 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.); lxiii. 11 (marg. with Aquila and the Vulgate); lxv. 4 (Keri in text). Jer. ii. 20 (Keri in text); iii. 9 (text with the Septuagint); vii. 18 and xliv. 17 (לִמְלֶאכֶת for לִמְלֶכֶת, apparently from conjecture); xvi. 7; xviii. 4; xxiii. 31 (probably a conjectural reading, חלק for לחק); xxxiii. 3; xlix. 1 and 3 (marg. with the Septuagint); l. 9 (שׂ text, שׁ marg.); 26 (לּ text, ל marg.); li. 59 (marg. מֵאֵת? παρὰ Σεδεκίου, Septuagint). Ezek. vii. 11; xxiii. 42 (Keri in marg.); xxv. 7 (Keri in text); xxx. 18 (שׁ־ text, שׂ־ marg.); xxxvi. 14 (כשׁל Chetiv in marg., שׁכל in text, but Keri is quite different, viz. שׁלך); ver. 23 (marg. with the Masora, Septuagint, and some Hebrew manuscripts, against the commonly printed text); xl. 40; xlii. 9 (Keri in marg. “he that brought”). Dan. ix. 24 (Keri in text, “to make an end”). Amos iii. 12 (Hebrew manuscripts varying between דְמֶשֶׁק of the printed text, which is represented by marg., and the name of the city דַמֶשֶׂק). Zech. xi. 2 (Keri in text). Mal. ii. 15 (marg. שְׂאֵת “excellency,” being the rendering of Coverdale, “an excellent spirit”).

Where the variation in the reading was brought prominently into view by the Masoretic notes, it was only natural that the Translators should refer to it in their margin. Respecting the Hebrew text which they followed, it would be hard to identify any particular edition, inasmuch as the differences between early printed Bibles are but few. The Complutensian Polyglott, 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 שָׁם “there,” of the Complutensian text, the Septuagint and Vulgate, being accorded a place in the margin; as also in Job xxii. 6 אָחִיךָ “thy brother,” where later editors give the plural, as do the Targum, Syriac, Septuagint, and Vulgate. Yet the Complutensian throws no light on the reading in many other passages, where some other text must have been before them: e.g. 1 Chr. vi. 57 (“of Judah” added); Ps. lxiv. 6, where the marginal rendering ought to be taken in preference.

It has been sometimes alleged that the alternative renderings (introduced by “|| Or”) which are set in the margin of the Authorized English Version, are superior, on the whole, to those in the text2. It would be indeed a conspicuous instance of bad judgment on the part of the Translators, if it could be justly maintained 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 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 yet 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 revised in 1590 after the death of Tremellius 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 difficulty, 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 throughout 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. 1; 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; xxi. 8), but, for the sake of brevity, 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 supplying of “for nought” in Mal. i. 10, and the textual rendering of Mal. 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. 10; xii. 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. 11 (second). Zeph. iii. 1. Zech. v. 3; ix. 15 (twice); 17 (“speak”); x. 2; xi. 16 (second); xii. 5; xiv. 5; 14 (first). Mal. i. 13; ii. 9 (but ἐδυσωπεῖσθε πρόσωπα Sym.), 11.

Hitherto no marginal notes have been taken into consideration except those given in the primary issues of 1611; but 368 others have been subsequently inserted by various hands, which are distinguished from those of earlier date in the present volume 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. 1: thirty-one others were inserted in the course of the century that followed, viz. 1 Kin. xxii. 41, 51. 2 Kin. i. 17; viii. 16; ix. 29; xiii. 9, 10; xiv. 23, 29; xv. 1, 8, 10; 30 (bis), 37; xvii. 1; xxiii. 23. 2 Chr. xx. 36; xxi. 1, 3, 5, 12, 18. Job i. 1. 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 such explanations relating to Proper names as we see in Gen. ii. 23)1, although a persistent resolution to set right the regnal years of the 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. 1; 30. The American revisers of 1851 (see p. xxiii.) not unreasonably condemned notes like these, and those on Judg. iii. 31; xi. 29; xii. 8, 11, 13; xiii. 1; xv. 20 (all from the Bible of 1762), as “containing merely conjectural and unwarranted commentary,” 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. In the present edition the two stand side by side.

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, 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, 1 Esdr. iv. 36: Herodotus, Judith ii. 7: Pliny’s History, Benedicite or the Song, ver. 23: Josephus, 1 Esdr. iv. 29. Esther xiii. 1; xvi. 1. 1 Macc. v. 54; vi. 49; vii. 1; ix. 4, 35, 49, 50; x. 1, 81; xi. 34; xii. 7, 8, 19, 28, 31. 2 Macc. vi. 2: in the Maccabees after the example of Coverdale. Even Junius, the Latin translator, 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 translated 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 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 (Ὁ ἱερεὺς 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 described being that of Aldus (παρεδόθησαν ἀβασσάρω for παρεδόθη Σαναβασσάρῳ), which had misled the Bishops’ Bible. Besides this edition, our Translators had before them the Roman Septuagint of 15862, to which they refer, without yet naming it, in ch. v. 25; viii. 2. For the remainder of the Apocrypha they had access also to the Complutensian, which in the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus seems a close copy of Cod. Vatican. 346 (Cod. 248 of Parsons)3, to the Aldine, and Roman editions4; the latter “copy” they cite by name Tobit xiv. 5, 10; 1 Macc. ix. 9; xii. 37, as they also do “the Latin interpreters” in 2 Macc. vi. 1. 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 instalment 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 triplet1. 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 154 in number, besides 13 of later date.

1 Esdras i. 11 (τὸ πρωϊνόν Greek, בֹקֶר for בָקָר); 12 (cum benevolentiâ Vulg., i.e. μετʼ εὐνοίας); 24 (ἐν αἰσθήσει: om. Roman); ii. 12 (supra, p. xxvii.); v. 25 (217 as Roman edition: Vulg. has 227); vi. 1 fin. (if this be intended for a various reading, no trace of it remains); 23 (τόμος Ald., τόπος Rom. Vulg. Bishops’); vii. 8 (φυλαρχῶν Ald. Rom., φυλῶν Old Latin, Vulg. Bishops’); 10 (margin as Cod. 248, Vulg. Bishops’); viii. 1 (Ἀζαρίου Vulg. Coverdale only); 2 (Ὀζίου Rom., Ἐζίου Ald. Bishops’); ibid. (three names omitted in Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, not Ald. Bishops’); 20 (ἄλλα Ald. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’, but Old Latin, Junius ἅλα, as Ezra vii. 22 [non habet Cod. Vaticanus]); 29 (Λεττοὺς Ald., Ἀττοὺς Rom., Acchus Vulg. Coverdale, Hattus Bishops’, Chartusch Junius, חַטּוּשׁ Ezra viii. 2); 34 (80 Vulg. Junius, Coverdale with Ezra viii. 8, against Ald. Rom. Bishops’); 35 (212 Ald. Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’: 218 Junius, Ezra viii. 9); 38 (Ἀκατὰν Ald. Rom. Bishops’, Eccetan Vulg., Ezechan Coverdale, Katan Junius: cf. Ezra viii. 12); 39 (60 Junius, Ezra viii. 13 only); 88 (margin requires μὴ ὀργισθῇς, for which there is no known authority); 96. See Appendix C, p. xciv., note 7; ix. 20 (ἀγνοίας Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, reatu Junius, ἁγνείας Ald. 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. though Fritzsche’s three Latin MSS. STD2 read in illis, Coverdale, Bishops’: margin 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. 11 (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 erit Vulg. 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’: Behemoth Junius, Bishops’ margin, Syriac and Æthiopic in Fritzsche); vii. 30 (judiciis Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’: iniciis Fritzsche’s STD); 37 (Achaz Vulg., Achas TD, Coverdale, Bishops’: Hacan Junius, עָכָן Josh. vii. 1, &c.; עָכוֹר Josh. vii. 26); 52 (tardè Vulg., consideratè Junius, patient Coverdale, Bishops’: but castè SD); 53 (securitas Vulg. Junius: freedom Coverdale, Bishops’ [“Or, safety” Bishops’ margin]: saturitas Fritzsche’s SD); 69 (curati…contentionum Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’: creati…contemptionum Fritzsche’s STD); viii. 8 (quomodo Vulg., like as Coverdale: but quando 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: creatorum (κτισθέντων) seems a conjecture, adopted by the Bishops’ version and our own: our margin reads messe, and so probably the text and Bishops’ seed: the Syriac must have read mensâ); xii. 42 (populis Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’: prophetis Fritzsche’s SD); xiii. 2, 13 (Junius stands alone: above, p. xxvii.); 3 (millibus Vulg. Junius, Bishops’: nubibus Fritzsche’s SD, Coverdale); 20 (in hunc Vulg., in hunc diem Junius: but in hœc Fritzsche’s D, Syriac and Æthiopic, in hac ST, in these Coverdale, into these Bishops’, in their substitute for italic type); 45 (the margin is only a bold guess of Junius3); 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, suffragmen D, fragmen T: avertam Junius: but substramen Vulg., litter Coverdale, Bishops’); 43 (text exterrent Coverdale, Bishops’: but margin exterent Vulg. Junius); 46 (concors in spem Vulg. Junius [Coverdale, Bishops’]: consors specie or in specie Fritzsche’s SD); xvi. 68 (very perplexing: fede the ydle with Idols Coverdale: cibabunt idolis occisos Vulg., shall slay 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, may be conveniently added in this place. 2 Esdr. xii. 32 (ventus Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’; Spiritus Junius: Unctus Fritzsche’s STD); xiv. 9 (consilio Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’: filio Fritzsche’s STD); xvi. 46 (in captivitatem Junius, but the margin hardly rests on his sole authority).

Tobit i. 2 (κυρίως Cod. 248. Compl.: Κυδίως Ald. Rom.); 5 (δυνάμει 248. Compl.: δαμάλει Ald. Rom., but Bahali deo Junius); 7 (Ἀαρὼν Compl. Ald.: Λευὶ Rom.); 14 (ἐν ἀγροῖς τῆς Μηδείας Ald. ἐν Ραγοῖς τῆς Μηδ. Rom. in Rages civitatem Medorum Vulg. See Appendix A, p. lxxxv., note 2); 17 (ἐπὶ τοῦ τείχους Compl. Ald.: ὀπίσω τοῦ τ. Rom.); ii. 10 (στρουθία LXX.: hirundines Vulg., whom Coverdale and the Bishops’ follow closely throughout Tobit); vii. 17 (ἀπεδέξατο LXX.: ἀπεμόρξατο 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 Junius4); xiii. 10 (εὐφράνη Compl. Ald., εὐφρᾶναι Rom.); xiv. 5 (εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος Compl. Ald. Junius: omitted by Rom. Vulg.); 10 (ἔπηξαν Compl. Ald. Junius; ἔπηξεν Rom.); 11 (ἔθαψεν Compl. Junius: ἔθαψαν Ald. Rom.). The book of 1762 adds, ch. i. 2, Shalmaneser, from the Old Latin, Vulg. Syriac.

Judith iii. 9 and iv. 6 (Esdrelom refers to ch. i. 8, where only LXX. has that form); iii. 9 (Δωταίας LXX. Junius: but Ἰουδαίας Ald.); iv. 3 (ἐκ τῆς ἰουδαίας 248. Compl. Ald., but Rom. omits ἐκ); v. 14 (ὄρος 248. Compl. Ald. Junius: ὁδὸν Rom. deserta Sina montis Vulg.); vii. 3 (ἐπὶ LXX. Vulg.: Junius alone has a); viii. 1 (Σαμαὴλ Ald., Σαμαλιὴλ 248. Compl., Σαλαμιὴλ Rom., Salathiel Vulg., Sammiel Junius); 22 (φόνον Rom., φόβον 248. Compl. Ald.); xvi. 1 (καινὸν Vulg. Roman edition, against Cod. Vaticanus: καὶ αἶνον 248. Compl. Ald.); 13 (καινὸν Rom. with Cod. Vaticanus, Vulg. Junius: καὶ αἶνον Ald.).

Esther xiv. 12 (θεῶν Ald. Rom. Vulg.: ἐθνῶν Compl. Junius); xv. 7 (προπορευομένης Rom. Compl. Junius: πορευομένης Ald.: went with her Coverdale, Bishops’).

Wisd. iii. 14 (ναῷ all authorities: cf. Isai. lvi. 5. Whence came λαῷ of margin?); v. 11 (διαπτάντος Compl. Ald., but διιπτάντος Rom. Vulg. Junius); 14 (χοῦς Rom. Coverdale’s and Bishops’ margins: χνοῦς Compl. Ald. Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’); vii. 9 (τίμιον 248. Compl. Vulg. Junius: ἀτίμητον of margin, Ald. Rom.); 15 (δέδωκεν Compl. Ald. Old Latin, Vulg. Junius: δῴη Rom.); ibid. (δεδομένων Rom. Junius, διδομένων Compl. Vulg. Jun., εὐδομένων Ald., λεγομένων Fritzsche, after the Syriac and other versions, Codd. Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus); ix. 11 (δυνάμει Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’ only, for δόξῃ); xv. 5 (ὄρεξιν Compl. Vulg. Junius: ὄνειδος Ald. Rom.). The text of this book is far purer than that of Ecclesiasticus, which is largely interpolated through the influence of the Complutensian Polyglott and its prototype, Cod. 248.

Ecclus. Prolog. II. l. 36 (ἐφόδιον Grabe, viaticum Junius, whence the margin: ἀφόμοιον LXX.); ch. i. 13 (εὑρήσει χάριν Ald. Rom.: εὐλογηθήσεται Compl. Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’); vii. 26 (μισουμένῃ Compl. [Ald. Rom. have not the line] Vulg. &c. No trace of “light,” except it be a euphemistic paraphrase); xiii. 8 (εὐφροσύνῃ LXX. Junius: ἀφροσύνῃ Vulg. Coverdale [simpleness], Bishops’); 11 (ἔπεχε LXX., des operam Junius: ἄπεχε retineas Vulg., withdraw Coverdale, Bishops’); xiv. 1 (πλήθει 248. Compl. Junius: λύπῃ Ald. Rom. Vulg., conscience Coverdale, Bishops’); xix. 12 (κοιλίᾳ LXX. Junius: καρδίᾳ Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’); xx. 19 (ἄνθρωπος ἄχαρις, μῦθος ἄκαιρος· both clauses are in LXX. &c.); xxii. 9 (τροφήν 248. Compl., τέχνην manuscripts named by Arnald in his elaborate Critical Commentary on the Apocrypha, the only considerable one in English. In Ald. Rom. Vulg. &c. ver. 9, 10 are wanting); 17 (τοίχου ξυστοῦ Ald. Rom. with the margin: 248. Compl. prefix ἐπὶ, Vulg. in. The rendering of ξυστὸν as a noun is from winter house Coverdale, Bishops’, xysti Junius); xxiii. 22, 23 (ἄλλου Compl. Junius: ἀλλοτρίου Ald. Rom. Vulg., but Coverdale and the Bishops’ vary in the two verses); xxiv. 11 (ἠγαπημένῃ Ald. Rom.: ἡγιασμένῃ 248. Compl. Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’); 14 (ἐν αἰγιαλοῖς Ald. Rom.: ἐν Γαδδὶ 248. Compl. [Syr. Junius]: Cades Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’); xxv. 9 (amicum verum Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’: φρόνησιν LXX. Junius, Bishops’ margin); 17 (σάκκον Ald. Rom. Bishops’: ἄρκος 248. Compl. Vulg. Junius, Coverdale); xxx. 2 (εὐφράνθησεται 248. Compl. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’: ἀνήσεται Ald. Rom.); xxxiv. 18 (δωρήματα 248. Compl. Junius, μωμήματα Ald., μωκήματα Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’); xxxvi. 14 (ἆραι τὰ λογία σου Compl. Ald. Junius, ἀρεταλογίας σου Codd. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus [cf. Field, LXX. Collatio, p. 204], inerrabilibus verbis tuis Vulg., thine unspeakable virtues Coverdale, Bishops’); 15 (προφήτας 248. Compl. Vulg. Junius: προφητείας Ald. Rom. Coverdale, Bishops’); 17 (οἰκετῶν Compl. Vulg. Syriac, Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’: ἱκετῶν Ald. Rom.); xxxvii. 20 (τροφῆς Ald. Rom., re Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’: σοφίας 248. Compl. Junius); 26 (δόξαν 248. Compl. Vulg. Junius: πίστιν Ald. Rom. Coverdale1, Bishops’); xxxviii. 2 (τιμὴν 248. Compl. Junius: δόμα Ald. Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’); 22 (μου 248. Compl. Vulg., tui Junius: αὐτοῦ Ald. Rom. Coverdale1, Bishops’); xxxix. 13 (ἀγροῦ Ald. Rom. Coverdale1, Bishops’: ὑγροῦ 248. Compl. [Vulg.] Junius); xlii. 8 (περὶ πορνείας of the margin is found in no edition or version, and in only three unimportant manuscripts); 18 (κύριος Ald. Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’: ὕψιστος 248. Compl. Junius); xliii. 5 (κατέπαυσε 248. Compl. only, for κατέσπευσε); xliv. 12 (διʼ αὐτοὺς Rom. and all, except μετʼ αὐτοὺς Compl. Ald. Junius); xlvii. 3 (ἔπαιζεν Ald., lusit Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’: ἐπεξένωσεν 248. Compl., whence peregrinus conversatus est Junius: ἔπαισεν Rom.); 11 (βασιλέων Ald. Rom.: βασιλείας 248. Compl. Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’); xlviii. 11 (κεκοιμημένοι 248. Compl. Junius: κεκοσμημένοι Ald. Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’); xlix. 9 (κατώρθωσε 248. Compl., correxit Junius: ἀγαθῶσαι Ald. Rom. Coverdale, Bishops’). Add a various reading of 1762; ch. xlviii. 8 (thee Vulg. Junius, Bishops’: αὐτὸν LXX. Coverdale). In ch. li. 11 καὶ Gk. is rendered by Junius quòd: hence because 1762 marg.

Baruch i. 5 (ηὔχοντο Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’: but Compl. Ald. Junius add εὐχάς); vi. 61 (καὶ πνεῦμα of text Ald. Rom. Vulg., but Compl. with margin omits καὶ).

Bel and Dragon, ver. 27 (ἴδε Compl. Ald. Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’: ἴδετε Rom. with margin).

Prayer of Manasses, l. 38 (ἄνεσις Cod. Alexandr., but the Latin version [which is not Jerome’s] and Bishops’ Bible read respiratio, i. q. ἀνάπνευσις).

1 Macc. i. 1 (χεττιεὶμ or -ειεὶμ LXX., Chethim Vulg., Cethim Coverdale, Bishops’, Chettim Bishops’ marg.); 4 (τυράννων Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’: τυραννιῶν Compl. Junius, τυραννικῶν Ald.); ii. 2 (Καδδίς Rom. Junius, Ἰαδδίς Compl.: Γαδδίς Ald. Old Latin, Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’); 5 (Αὐαρὰν Compl. Rom., Ἀναράν Ald., Habaran Junius, Abaron Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’); 66 (πολεμήσει Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’: πολεμήσετε Compl. Ald. Junius); iii. 29 (φόροι Codd. Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, Old Latin, Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’: φορολόγοι Compl. Ald. Rom. Junius); 41 (παῖδας LXX.: πέδας Josephus, Ant. XII. 7, 3 and Syriac); v. 3 (Ἀκραβαττίνην Compl. Ald. Rom. Junius, Arabathane Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’); 26 (Βόσσορα Ald. Codd. Alexandrinus and Vaticanus: Βόσορα Cod. Sinaiticus with 1611: Βόσορρα Compl., Abosor Vulg., Barasa Coverdale, Bishops’); ibid. (Χασφὼρ Rom. Vulg. Coverdale: Χασκὼρ Compl. Ald., Casbon Bishops’. In ver. 36, as the margin of 1762 notes, Χασφὼν is read by Compl. Ald. Rom., but Chasbon by Vulg., Casbon by Coverdale, Bishops’); 28 (Βόσορρα Compl. Ald. Βοσὸρ Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’); vi. 38 (φάλαγξιν Old Latin, Vulg. Syriac, Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’: φάραγξιν Compl. Ald. Rom.); vii. 31 (Χαφαρσάλαμα Rom. Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’: Καφαρσάραμα Compl. Ald., Capharsama Old Latin, Carphasalama Bishops’ margin); ix. 2 (Galilea is a mere guess of Drusius, according to Cotton); 9 (much confusion exists in Compl. Ald. which read ἀλλʼ ἢ σώζωμεν τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς. τὸ νῦν ἐπίστρεψον. καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν ἀπερρύησαν, καὶ πολεμήσομεν … which Junius follows: this virtually agrees with Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’. Our version justly professes to follow Rom. ἀλλʼ ἢ σώζωμεν τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχὰς τὸ νῦν, καὶ ἐπιστρέψωμεν μετὰ [ad Vulg. &c.] τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν καὶ πολεμήσωμεν…); 37 (Ναδαβὰθ Ald. Rom., Ναβαδὰθ Compl., Madaba Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’, Medaba Junius); 66 (Ὀδομηρα Compl. Ald., Ὀδοααρρὴν Rom., Odaren Vulg. Coverdale, Odomeras Bishops’ text, Odareb margin. Odonarkes has absolutely no authority, as Canon Westcott notices); xi. 63 (χώρας Compl. Ald. Bishops’: χρείας Rom. Old Latin, Vulg.: from meddling in the realm Coverdale); xii. 37 (ἔπεσε Ald. Old Latin, Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’: ἤγγισε Compl. Rom. Junius); xiv. 9 (de bonis terræ Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’ only: περὶ ἀγαθῶν LXX.); 34 (Gaza Coverdale, Bishops’ only: Gazaris Bishops’ margin); xv. 22 (Ἀριαράθη Rom. Junius: Ἀράθη Compl. Ald., Arabe Vulg., Araba Coverdale, Bishops’); 23 (Σαμψάμῃ Compl. Rom. Vulg., Samsanes Coverdale, Samsames Bishops’: σαμψάκῃ Ald. See below, 1762); ibid. (τὴν Βασιλείδαν Cod. Alexandrinus only).

The Cambridge Bible of 1638, which very seldom adds to the marginal notes, in this book cites ch. iv. 15 Ἀσσαρημὼθ, the reading of Compl. Ald., and ch. ix. 36 Ἀμβρὶ of Compl. The Bible of 1762 adds (besides two rectifications of dates) ch. iv. 24 (bonus Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’); v. 13 (Τωβίου Rom., τοῦ βίου Compl. Ald., Tubin Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’); xiv. 22 (ταῖς βουλαῖς LXX. Vulg. Coverdale: τοῖς βιβλίοις one unimportant Greek manuscript; libris Junius, public records Bishops’); xv. 23 (Lampsacus Junius, adding “sic placuit legere ex conjecturâ.”); 39 (Gedor, a like conjecture of Junius, approved by Grotius and Dr Paris).

2 Macc. iii. 24 (πν̅ω̅ν̅ [i.q. πνευμάτων] omitting κύριος Compl. Syr. Junius: Spiritus omnipotentis Dei Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’: πρ̅ω̅ν̅ [i.q. πατέρων] Ald. Rom.); iv. 40 (Αὐράνου Cod. Alexandrinus, Compl. Junius: Τυράννου Ald. Rom. Vulg., “tyrant” Coverdale, Bishops’); vi. 1 (Ἀθηναῖον LXX. Bishops’ margin: Antiochenum Old Latin, Vulg. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’); ix. 15 (Junius stands alone here in rendering Antiochenis); xi. 21 (Διοσκορινθίου LXX. Junius, Coverdale, Bishops’: Dioscori Old Latin, Vulg. Syriac); 34 (ἀνθύπατοι, 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 (τρόπον [Ald.] Rom.: χρόνον Cod. Alexandrinus, Compl. Junius; but Vulg. Coverdale, Bishops’ omit both words); xiii. 14 (Κτίστῃ Compl. Rom. Vulg.: Κυρίῳ Ald. with three manuscripts only).

The Bible of 1762 notes one various reading: ch. xii. 36 (Γοργίαν Ald., five manuscripts, Coverdale, Bishops’ text: Ἔσδριν all other Greek, Vulg. Syriac, Junius, Bishops’ margin).

To these 154 various readings indicated by the Translators 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. xxvii.), from the Bishops’ Bible, and other Old English versions. In 174 places (167 of them in 1 Esdras) alternative forms of Proper names are given for the reader’s guidance, to which must be added 42 notes containing useful information. Hence the sum total of the notes due to the original Translators in the Apocrypha appears to be 1016. Besides these two were annexed in the Cambridge Bible of 1638 (see above, last column), 18 in that of 1762, one (Tobit iv. 20) in 1769, in all 21. In the present edition are added, set within brackets, one marginal direction note at Esther xv. 1, and at Ecclus. xviii. 30; xx. 27; xxiii. 7, summaries of contents, extracted from the best Manuscripts, resting on authority quite as good as and nearly identical with any in favour of those inserted by the Authorized Version in Ecclus. xxiv. 1; xxx. 1, 14; xxxiii. 24; xxxiv. 1; xliv. 1; li. 1.

We come at length to the New Testament, the marginal annotations in which in the first edition amount to 765, so that together with the 6637 in the Old Testament, and the 1016 in the Apocrypha, the number in the whole Bible is no less than 84181. Of the 765 in the New Testament 35 relate to various readings, and will be detailed presently (p. xxxi.); 112 present 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. xxvi.), 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 in the present volume 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 the plan of our edition did 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. 1 Cor. vii. 32. 2 Cor. viii. 2; x. 10. James iii. 6. 2 John 3. The Cambridge 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. 1 Cor. vii. 16. Eph. ii. 5; vi. 12. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 2 Tim. postscript. Heb. x. 34; xii. 10. James iv. 2. 2 Peter i. 1, 8: many of which were obviously the work of the same mind. Two more appear in Lloyd’s Bible of 1701, 1 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 the Translators of the New Testament. 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. 1 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 our Translators to insert a note in opposition to their own judgment, fortified as it was by Beza, and all the English versions 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 retained 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 used for a margin, e.g. Gal. iii. 4. Eph. iv. 1. 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 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. 11; vii. 14; ix. 26 (perhaps αὐτοῦ of Codex Bezæ [D] is represented in the text: “the fame of this” Bishops’); xxiv. 31; xxvi. 26. S. Mark ix. 16 (αὑτούς Beza 1565, afterwards changed by him to αὐτούς). S. Luke ii. 38; x. 22 (the words in the margin are from the Complutensian edition and Stephens 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 type3). Acts xiii. 18; xxv. 6. Rom. v. 17; vii. 6; viii. 11. 1 Cor. xv. 314. 2 Cor. xiii. 45. Gal. iv. 17 (ὑμᾶς Compl. Erasm. Steph. Beza 1565, ἡμᾶς Beza 1589, 1598). Eph. vi. 9 (ὑμῶν καὶ αὐτῶν Compl.). Heb. iv. 2 (συγκεκραμένους margin, with Compl. Vulg.); ix. 2 (ἅγια text, with Compl. Erasm. Beza: ἁγία marg. with Steph.); xi. 4 (λαλεῖ text, with Erasm. Aldus, Vulg. English versions: λαλεῖται margin, Compl. Stephens, Beza6). James ii. 18 (χωρὶς text, Colinæus 1534, Beza’s last three editions, Vulg.: ἐκ margin, Compl. Erasm. Stephens, Beza 1565, all previous English versions). 1 Pet. i. 4 (ἡμᾶς Steph.); ii. 21 (ὑμῶν Beza 1565, not in his later editions: this marginal note is also in the Bishops’ Bible). 2 Pet. ii. 2 (ἀσελγείαις marg. Compl.); 11 (marg. as Vulg. Great Bible); 18 (ὀλίγον Compl. Vulg.). 2 John 8 (εἰργάσασθε … ἀπολάβητε marg. Vulg.). Rev. iii. 14 (margin as Compl., all previous English versions); vi. 8 (αὐτῷ margin, with Compl. Vulg. Bishops’ Bible); xiii. 1 (ὀνόματα margin, with Compl. Vulg. Coverdale); 5 (margin adds or prefixes πόλεμον to ποιῆσαι of the text, with Compl. Colinæus 1534, but not Erasm., Beza, Vulg. or English versions); xiv. 13 (marg. ἀπάρτι λέγει ναὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα with Compl. Col.); xvii. 5 (marg. is from Vulg. and all previous English versions).

To these 35 textual notes of 1611, the edition of 1762 added fourteen, that of 1769 one.

1762. S. Matt. vi. 1; x. 10; 25; xii. 27 (“† Gr. Beelzebul: and so ver. 24”) now dropped. S. Luke xxii. 42 (incidentally excluding παρένεγκε). Acts viii. 13. Heb. x. 2 (see Appendix E, p. ciii.); 17 (probably from the Philoxenian Syriac version, then just becoming known). James iv. 2, revived from the Bible of 1683 (φθονεῖτε Erasm. 1519, Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Geneva 1557, Bishops’, but perhaps no manuscript). 2 Pet. i. 1 (see Appendix E, p. c.). 2 John 12 (ὑμῶν Vulg.). Rev. xv. 3 (ἁγίων text, after Erasm., English versions: the alternative readings in the margin being ἐθνῶν of Compl., which is much the best supported, and ἁγίων of the Clementine Vulgate, of some of its manuscripts, and the later Syriac); xxi. 7 (margin ταῦτα Compl. Vulg. rightly); xxii. 19 (marg. ξύλου for second βιβλίου Compl. Vulg. rightly).

1769. S. Matt. xii. 24 taken mutatis mutandis from the marginal note of 1762 on ver. 27.

In Appendix E pp. c.–civ. 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 now 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 Bezæ (D) had been for many years deposited in England, little use had been made of it, and that single document, from its very peculiar character, would have been more likely to mislead than to instruct in inexperienced hands. It would be unjust to assert that the Translators failed to take advantage of the materials which were readily accessible, 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 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 Stephens’s of 1550, were constantly resorted to. Out of the 131 passages examined in Appendix E, wherein the differences between the texts of these books are sufficient to affect, however slightly, the language of the version, our Translators abide with Beza against Stephens in 81 places, with Stephens against Beza in 21, with the Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephens and Beza in 29. The influence of Beza is just as perceptible in the cases of their choice between the various readings which have been collected above (p. xxxi.): the variation approved by him is set in the text, that of the other is mostly banished to the margin. On certain occasions, it may be, the Translators yielded too much to Beza’s somewhat 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).