Section V.

On the orthography, grammatical peculiarities, and capital letters of the original, as compared with modern editions.

One of the salient points which distinguish the early editions of our Bibles from those of modern date, is their wide divergency of practice in regard to modes of spelling. It would be nothing remarkable, but rather analogous to what we observe in the case of all modern and probably of some ancient languages, that the customary orthography, even of very familiar words, should vary considerably at different periods of their literary history. But this is not the phænomenon we have mainly to account for in regard to English books printed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Judged by them, it would hardly be extravagant to assert that our ancestors had no uniform system of orthography whatsoever, since there are comparatively few words, except a few particles of perpetual occurrence, that are not spelt in several fashions in the same book, on the same page, sometimes even in the same line2. The licence extended, as is well known, even to proper names: men of the highest culture (Shakespeare for a conspicuous example, if we give credit to certain biographers) varying the orthography of their own signatures in three or four several ways. This circumstance affords a conclusive answer to the demand that has sometimes been urged by ill-informed persons, that our modern Bibles should be exact reprints of the standard of 1611; and it was partly to silence such a demand that the Oxford reprint of 1833 was undertaken. A glance at that volume must have convinced any reasonable person that more recent editors were right in the main in gradually clearing the sacred page of uncouth, obsolete, and variable forms, which could answer no purpose save to perplex the ignorant, and offend the educated taste; whether the judgment of those who are responsible for the Bibles of 1762 and 1769 (for these were the great and most thorough modernisers) was always as true as might be wished for, we shall have to consider in the sequel.

The general rule laid down in the preparation of the present volume is a very simple one:—whensoever an English word is spelt in the two issues of 1611 in two or more different ways, to adopt in all places that method which may best agree with present usage, even though it is not so found in the majority of instances in the older books. Thus though charet is the form employed in at least nineteen places out of twenty, we have uniformly taken chariot as in Ecclus. xlix. 8; 1 Macc. i. 17; viii. 6. Kinred is probably the correct mode of spelling, and is by far the most frequent in the standard Bible, yet we abide by kindred, as it is found in Ecclus. xiv. 4; 2 Macc. v. 9; 1 Tim. v. 8 marg. We take caterpillar from Joel i. 4; elsewhere in 1611 it is caterpiller. Cieled and Cieling are due to the Cambridge Bible of 1629, sieled and sieling being the forms of 1611 in all the eight places where they occur: possibly the American ceiled and ceiling would be better, as the root seems to be cœlo, not ciel. Again, forrest occurs everywhere else, but forest Isai. xxi. 13. For fain, the ordinary form, we see feign in Neh. vi. 8 only. Ghest occurs mostly, as in Matt. xxii. 10, but guests in ver. 11. Iron appears in Ecclus. xxxviii. 28, instead of yron, the common form. Linen is found 1 Kin. x. 28; 1 Esdr. iii. 6, but linnen elsewhere. Miter is almost constant in 1611, yet we adopt mitre from Ex. xxxix. 31; Zech. iii. 5. We find oake Josh. xxiv. 26, elsewhere oke. Between burden, murder, household, and burthen, murther, houshold, the usage is more divided: we prefer the former. Pedegree occurs thrice, but pedigree in Heb. vii. 3 marg., 6 marg. Pelican appears in Ps. cii. 6, elsewhere pellicane or pellican. After 1611, in Ecclus. xxxviii. 25 we give plough for the noun, but plow for the verb and its compounds in the 26 places where it occurs: the American (1867) has plough always. Pray (præda) is almost always used, but prey Job ix. 26. Again, surfeited, the modern form, occurs only Wisd. v. 7 marg., surfetting, &c. elsewhere. We find profane in Ezek. xxiii. 38, 39; 1 Macc. iii. 51; 2 Macc. vi. 5; Acts xxiv. 6: elsewhere the incorrect prophane. Instead of renowned (Num. i. 16; Ezek. xxvi. 17; 1 Macc. iii. 9; v. 63; vi. 1) we oftener meet with renowmed (Ecclus. xliv. 3, &c.). Such examples might be multiplied indefinitely. On the other hand, for the modern scent, we have boldly printed sent, following the ordinary, if not universal practice of the seventeenth century, inasmuch as sent is true to the etymology, and is invariably used in all the five places where the word occurs, Job xiv. 9; Isai. xi. 3 marg.; Jer. xlviii. 11; Hos. xiv. 7; Wisd. xi. 18. For omitting the c in scythe we have good authority, as well as the practice of our Translation in the margins of Isai. ii. 4; Jer. l. 16; Joel iii. 10; Mic. iv. 3. We must return to rye of 1611, which occurs but twice (Ex. ix. 32; Isai. xxviii. 25), though rie is in both Bibles of 1629. Probably, too, lancers should have been restored in 1 Kin. xviii. 28: it came from the Bishops’ Bible (launsers), but occurs nowhere else, and was not altered into lancets before 1762. For andirons Ezek. xl. 43 marg. (which is etymologically true) 1638, 1769 and the moderns have endirons; end irons of 1744, 1762 is a bad guess. The Bishops’ margin has trevets. Another word, used but once, is ebeny, Ezek. xxvii. 15, which is so spelt both in Hebrew and Greek: ebony of the moderns is more recent than 1638. Thus, too, turbant, Dan. iii. 21 marg. only, the form adopted by Milton and Dryden, was not changed into turbans before 1762. So imbers, Tobit vi. 16 marg. Since sailer, Rev. xviii. 17, is pronounced by Johnson to be more analogical than sailor, and held the ground till after 1638, we have taken courage to revive it. In Nahum ii. 4 also justle of 1611 is restored, instead of jostle of some moderns. Of words met with but twice, ambassage Luke xiv. 32 is adopted rather than embassage 1 Macc. xiv. 23; scrole, Isai. xxxiv. 4, is preferred to scrowle, Rev. vi. 14; but it is not possible to take either champion, Deut. xi. 30, or champian, Ezek. xxxvii. 2 marg.; either musitian, Ecclus. xxxii. 4, or musition, Rev. xviii. 22; or scholler as in 1 Chr. xxv. 8; Mal. ii. 12. Nor would anker, ballance, threed, suit the modern eye, although they are never met with in what to us appears the only correct form.

The same liberty has been taken in regard to soldier and vinegar, which the standard Bibles, contrary to their derivation, invariably spell souldier and vineger. What is spelt haply in five other places, in 1611 was happily 2 Cor. ix. 4 (πως): though changed in both books of 1629, happily was brought back in 1630, but can hardly hold its ground. The particle of comparison than is uniformly then in the Bible of 1611, as in many books far into the seventeenth century: this fashion, of course, could not be imitated now. Although saphir or saphire or saphyre does not vary in the same Bibles, the original will not dispense with pph. Nor have we retained cabbins, used but once, Jer. xxxvii. 16: though we have ventured upon fauchin of 1611, Judith xiii. 6; xvi. 9. The strange form chawes for jaws Ezek. xxix. 4 suggests a questionable etymology. Traffique (the verb used once, the noun four times) and traffiquers Isai. xxiii. 8 have also been refused1.

Those English words which, whether from custom or difference of origin, vary in their signification according to the modes in which they are severally spelt, are invariably confused in the standard Bible. Travel and travail afford a familiar example of the fact, inasmuch as the fault has not yet been completely removed from modern editions, e.g. Num. xx. 14 where travel of 1629 (Camb.) and recent Bibles, though the Hebrew is הַתְּלָאָה, would just make sense, and has been substituted for travail of 1611. In Wisd. x. 10 also the latest Bibles, after that of 1629, erroneously render μόχθοις by travels, in the room of travails of 1611. In Lam. iii. 5 travel is given for תְלָאָה, as in Num. xx. 14, in all the books from 1611 to the American (1867) which has travail: although many like errors of the original edition have been corrected by its successors. The case between twined and twinned is stated below (Appendix B, p. lxxxviii., note 3). The distinction between morter (Gen. xi. 3) and mortar Num. xi. 8; Prov. xxvii. 22, was first taken in 1638: by spelling both morter, the Bible of 1611 confounds words which have only an accidental resemblance. We should also discriminate carefully between naught (רַע) 2 Kin. ii. 19; Prov. xx. 14, and nought (i.e. nothing) Gen. xxix. 15, &c.: they were both spelt nought previously to 16382. In spite of the analogy of nought, it is probably right to spell aught in such places as Gen. xxxix. 6, as the American revisers have done, but we have here abided by ought with 1611. We have not ventured on the fine distinction between veil, an article of dress, and the Vail of the Sanctuary, but retained in all cases (except in error Wisd. xvii. 3; Ecclus. l. 5 marg.) vail of 1611 in preference to veil of later editions. In Job xiv. 17 the great oversight of 1611 sowest for sewest was left in our Bibles till 1762. The similar error sow for sew in Eccles. iii. 7; Mark ii. 21, remained till 1629; in Ezek. xiii. 18 it survived beyond 1638. Between intreat (to pray) and entreat (i. e. treat) there is a broad difference of sense, properly recognized in 1762: yet in 1611 the former is spelt intreated Job xix. 16, but entreated in the next verse; while in Job xxiv. 21 the second is intreateth. In Jer. xv. 11 text and margin, intreat and entreat actually change places in 1611, and are not put right until 1638. Between enquire and inquire, on the contrary, the choice is purely indifferent; the former is chiefly adopted in 1611 (but inquired Deut. xvii. 4 Oxford reprint; Ps. lxxviii. 34; Ezekiel xx. 31 bis; John iv. 52, &c.; inquiry Prov. xx. 25), the latter is our practice, derived from our model (1858) and the recent Cambridge Bibles. Thus also we take informed with 1611 in Acts xxv. 2, rather than enformed as in 2 Macc. xiv. 1; Acts xxiv. 1; xxv. 15: but enrolled of 1611 in 1 Macc. x. 36 in preference to inrolled of the margins of Luke ii. 1; Heb. xii. 23. In Isai. v. 11 enflame is in 1611, but inflaming in Isai. lvii. 5; modern Bibles reverse this, yet all keep inflamed of 1611 in Hist. of Susanna ver. 8. Many words, the exact orthography of which is quite indifferent, we have laboured to reduce to a uniform method. Thus ankles, the usual modern practice, which we take in all five places, is found in 1611 only in Ps. xviii. 36 marg., but ancles in 2 Sam. xxii. 37 marg.; Ezek. xlvii. 3 text and marg.; Acts iii. 7: in 1629 ancles is set in the first place, ankles in the third and fourth, later Bibles recalling this last correction, but bringing ankles into 2 Sam. xxii. 37 marg. Sometimes the later Bibles issuing from different presses exhibit their characteristic varieties of spelling. Instead of inquire, noticed above as a peculiarity of the Cambridge books, those of Oxford (1857) and London or the Queen’s Printer (1859) read enquire: for axe (which word is thus spelt ten times in 1611) these last, after the example of their predecessors from 1629 (Camb.) downwards, wrongly print ax, against the modern Cambridge editions. In 1 Kin. v. 9; 2 Chr. ii. 16; 1 Esdr. v. 55 we find flotes in 1611, but recent Cambridge Bibles have needlessly changed it into floats. These last are again wrong in soap, which, after 1611, the Oxford and London Bibles spell sope in both places (Jer. ii. 22; Mal. iii. 2). The truer form rasor occurs seven times in 1611 and the Cambridge text, while the books of Oxford and London have razor. In Judg. ix. 53 the Oxford editions, with 1611, adopt scull, but the Cambridge, and 1611 in all other places, prefer skull. The Cambridge books, after 1611, have gray (greyhound Prov. xxx. 31, rightly so spelt in 1629 Camb., 1630, has no connection with it), the Oxford and London grey. With the Cambridge Bible we also spell counseller (not counsellor with those of Oxford and London), as does also that of 1611 except in three places, where it has counsellours (Ezra viii. 25; Prov. xii. 20; xv. 22). Council (variously spelt councill, councel, councell in 1611) is ordinarily distinguished from counsel or counsell, but the latter is put for the former in 1 Esdr. iii. 15 marg. (χρηματιστηρίῳ); Matt. v. 22; Mark xiv. 55, all subsequently set right. Since ours, yours, theirs are possessive cases plural of the personal pronouns, the apostrophe set before s in the editions of 1762 and 1769, as also in the London and Oxford Bibles to this day, is positively incorrect: hence the Cambridge practice, which never admitted the apostrophe, has been followed in this respect.

Again, there are forms not wholly banished from our modern books, though their number is diminished in later times, whose presence tends to lend richness and variety to the style. Such is marish Ezek. xlvii. 11; 1 Macc. ix. 42, 45, for the more familiar marsh: the pathetic astonied, yet standing for the more common-place astonished in Ezra ix. 3, 4; Job xvii. 8; xviii. 20; Jer. xiv. 9; Ezek. iv. 17; Dan. iii. 24; iv. 19; v. 9, and restored to its rightful position in the great passage Isai. lii. 14, whence a false taste has removed it subsequently to 1638. Stablish also has been brought again into twelve places (e.g. Lev. xxv. 30; Deut. xix. 15) instead of established of later books: grin or grinne (Job xviii. 9; Ps. cxl. 5; cxli. 9) has been treated as a legitimate modification of gin or ginne (Job xl. 24 marg.; Isai. viii. 14; Amos iii. 5), though cast out in 1762. Once only, it would appear, a superficial difficulty is attempted to be concealed by a slight change in the spelling. In Gen. l. 23 marg. borne, which in 1611 was equivalent to born, was sufficiently correct to convey no wrong impression. To ensure clearness the final e was dropped in 1629 (Camb.), but restored again in 1762, by which time it would be sure to suggest a false meaning.

Enough has been said of those variations in orthography which are due to accident or the caprice of fashion. Others, more interesting, spring from grammatical inflections common in the older stages of our language, which have been gradually withdrawn from later Bibles, wholly or in part, chiefly by those great modernisers, Dr Paris (1762) and Dr Blayney (1769), and have all been brought back again in the present volume. Yet it is not always easy to distinguish these from forms involving a mere change in spelling, and different persons will judge differently about them at times. Thus we cannot well retain growen 1 Kin. xii. 8, 10, while we alter knowen 1 Kin. xiv. 2, &c. To reject, however, such words as fet by substituting the modern fetched, is a liberty far beyond what an editor of our version ought ever to have assumed: we have restored fet in 2 Sam. ix. 5; xi. 27; 1 Kin. vii. 13; ix. 28; 2 Kin. xi. 4; 2 Chr. xii. 11; Jer. xxvi. 23; xxxvi. 21; Acts xxviii. 13: it is full as legitimate as fetcht of 2 Sam. xiv. 2; 2 Kin. iii. 9; 2 Chr. i. 17, and even of our latest Bibles in Gen. xviii. 7. The editors of 1762 and 1769 bestowed much evil diligence in clearing our English Translation of this participle in -t, Blayney following in the steps of Paris and supplying many of his deficiencies, yet, with characteristic negligence, leaving not a few untouched. Thus burned is substituted by them for burnt in some 93 places (burnt being left untouched in 2 Kin. xvi. 4; xvii. 11, &c.). For lift they put lifted 95 times, once (Dan. iv. 34, where lift is past tense indicative) with some show of reason; sometimes (e.g. Zech. i. 21, where lift up is present) to the detriment of the sense. Similar cases are built Neh. iii. 1 (builded ver. 2, 1611): clapt 2 Kin. xi. 12: clipt Jer. xlviii. 37: cropt Ezek. xvii. 4: crusht Num. xxii. 25: deckt Prov. vii. 16; 2 Esdr. xv. 47; 1 Macc. iv. 57: dipt Lev. ix. 9; 1 Sam. xiv. 27; 2 Kin. viii. 15; Rev. xix. 13 (dipped also in 1611 Gen. xxxvii. 31): girt 1 Sam. ii. 4 (girded ver. 18 in 1611): leapt 1 Kin. xviii. 26 (text, leaped marg.); Wisd. xviii. 15 (leaped 1611 in ch. xix. 9); 1 Macc. xiii. 44; Acts xix. 16: mixt Prov. xxiii. 30; Isai. i. 22; Dan. ii. 41 (sic 1611, not ver. 43, the second time); 2 Esdr. xiii. 11: past 2 Cor. v. 17 (so even moderns in 1 Pet. iv. 3; in Eph. ii. 11 we have passed in 1611, past 1769): pluckt 1 Chr. xi. 23; Ezra ix. 3; Neh. xiii. 25; Job xxix. 17; Prov. ii. 22 marg.; Dan. vii. 4, 8; xi. 4; Amos iv. 11; Zech. iii. 2; 2 Macc. xiv. 46 (plucked 1611 in Gal. iv. 15): puft Col. ii. 18: pusht Ezek. xxxiv. 21: ravisht Prov. v. 19, 20 (ravished 1611 in Zech. xiv. 2): ript 2 Kin. xv. 16; Hos. xiii. 16; Amos i. 13: slipt 1 Sam. xix. 10; Ps. lxxiii. 2; Ecclus. xiii. 22; xiv. 1: stampt 2 Kin. xxiii. 6, 15: start Tobit ii. 4 (started 1762, but it might be present, ἀναπηδήσας ἀνειλόμην): stopt 2 Chr. xxxii. 4 (stopped ver. 30; Zech. vii. 11 in 1611): stript Ex. xxxiii. 6; 1 Sam. xviii. 4; xix. 24; 2 Chr. xx. 25; Job xix. 9; Mic. i. 8: watcht Ps. lix. title: wrapt 1 Sam. xxi. 9; 2 Kin. ii. 8; Job xl. 17; Ezek. xxi. 15; Jonah ii. 5. These archaic preterites contribute to produce a pleasing variety in the style of our version, and are grammatically just as accurate as the modern forms; which is perhaps hardly the case with rent when it is used not as a preterite only, but as a present, as in Lev. xxi. 10 (sic, 1611); 2 Sam. iii. 31; 1 Kin. xi. 31; Eccles. iii. 7; Isai. lxiv. 1 (sic, 1611); Ezek. xiii. 11, 13; xxix. 7; Hos. xiii. 8; Joel ii. 13; Matt. vii. 6; John xix. 24. Other antiquated preterites are begun Num. xxv. 1 (began 1611 in Gen. iv. 26): drunk Gen. xliii. 34 (text not margin); Dan. v. 4: shaked Ecclus. xxix. 18; shined quite as often as shone; sprang Gen. xli. 6 (sprung ver. 23): stale Gen. xxxi. 20; 2 Kin. xi. 2 (stole 2 Sam. xv. 6; 2 Chr. xxii. 11 in 1611): strooke 1 Sam. ii. 14; 2 Chr. xiii. 20 (sic, 1611); 1 Esdr. iv. 30 (stroke 2 Macc. i. 16; Matt. xxvi. 51; Luke xxii. 64; John xviii. 22, also strake 2 Sam. xii. 15; xx. 10: never struck): stunk Ex. vii. 21 (stank ch. viii. 14 in 1611): sung Ezra iii. 11: swore 1 Macc. vii. 35: wan 1 Macc. i. 2; xii. 33 (sic, 1611); 2 Macc. x. 17; xii. 28 (won 2 Macc. xv. 9 in 1611). Among past participles may be noted (wast) begot Ecclus. vii. 28: (his) hid (things) Obad. 6: (have) sit Ecclus. xi. 5. It would have been well to have retained lien (which even modern Bibles keep in Ps. lxviii. 13) for lain in Num. v. 19, 20, as we have in the other places, Judg. xxi. 11; Job iii. 13; John xi. 17. Other verbal forms deserving notice are oweth Lev. xiv. 35; Acts xxi. 11, and ought Matt. xviii. 24, 28; Luke vii. 41, which were not changed into owneth and owed respectively till after 1638: leese (lose 1762) 1 Kin. xviii. 5. The noun flixe (flix 1629) was corrupted into flux in Acts xxviii. 8 as early as 1699.

It is hard to discover any intelligible principle which guided the editors of 1762 and 1769 in their vexatious changes of several particles into their cognate forms. Thus for amongst they print among 81 times, for towards they print toward 121 times, for besides they give beside 44 times1, yet keep the forms they dislike so often that it is plain they have no design to disuse them altogether. Such wanton, or perhaps merely careless, variations are cancelled in this volume. Nor can there be any good ground for turning sith into since as does Dr Paris in Jer. xv. 7; Zech. iv. 10 marg.; 2 Esdr. vii. 53, and Blayney in Jer. xxiii. 38, the rather as sith is in our modern Bibles Ezek. xxxv. 6: sithence in 2 Esdr. x. 14 was modernized into since as early as 1616, so that it must have been going out of use even then. All our Bibles preserve whiles in 2 Macc. ix. 9; x. 36, yet in Ps. xlix. 18 while is printed in 1762; in Isai. lxv. 24 whiles in 1769 becomes while; whilst becomes while in Heb. iii. 15; ix. 17 in the books of 1629; in 2 Macc. vii. 24 whilst is substituted for whiles in 1629. The interchanges between to and unto in Gen. xxv. 33 (1629 Lond.); 1 Kin. xxii. 53 (1616); 1 Macc. vii. 20 (1629 Camb.); Luke xx. 42 (1616); 2 Cor. xi. 9 (1629 Camb.) are not very intelligible. Amidst all this unmeaning tampering with the text, the several editors, especially those of 1762 and 1769, carried out fully at least two things on which they had set their minds: they got rid of the quaint old moe for more (spelt mo in the Bible of 1638) from the 35 places in which it occurs in the standard copies, and in 364 places they have altered the nominative plural you into ye, besides that Blayney makes the opposite change in Build you Num. xxxii. 24; Wash you Isai. i. 16; Get you Zech. vi. 7; Turn you Zech. ix. 12. In one particular the orthography of modern Bibles has been acquiesced in. The word midst is often spelt in the Authorized Bibles as middest, about Ezekiel and some of the later Prophets almost constantly for a time. This form, however strange to our eyes, would have the advantage of suggesting the true character of the word as a superlative adjective; but the spelling varies so much between midst, middest, midest (Judith vi. 11), middes (Ps. cxvi. 19; Acts xxvii. 21; Phil. ii. 15) and mids (Jer. xxxvii. 12; Hist. Susanna ver. 34, 48, &c.), that it seemed safer to fall back on our general rule of adopting that one out of several forms which best suits the modern usage.

The practice of the Authorized Version with respect to placing the indefinite article a or an before a word beginning with h calls for some consideration, the rather as modern Bibles, with the exception of the American (see p. xxiii.) which conforms to present usage, have made no systematic or important changes regarding it. It would seem indeed as if a were but an abridged form of an, the n being dropped before an initial consonant proper, and only subsequently, under certain limitations, before h aspirated. Thus Chaucer’s use an halle, an hare, an herth, is uniform, and the fashion maintained its ground far into the sixteenth century. In the earliest draft of our English Litany, contained in the King’s Primer of 1545, we read, “an heart to love and dread thee,” as it still remains in the Book of Common Prayer; and such cases as a harpe 1 Sam. x. 5, a hert Ecclus. xvii. 6 in Coverdale’s Bible of 1535 are quite rare, though no doubt the custom of dropping the n had already begun. In the Authorized Version of 1611 we mark a further step in the same direction. As a general rule an is there retained before the sounded h, though the exceptions are more numerous than some have supposed, and suggest to the modern editor the propriety of conforming the Bible to the now universal habit of the best English writers. The following list will shew how the matter stands in the original books:

An habergeon Ex. xxviii. 32; xxxix. 231: an habit Heb. v. 14 marg.: a habitation Jer. xxxiii. 12 up to 1629 Camb., 1630, but an in 8 places: an Hachmonite 1 Chr. xi. 11: a hair 1 Kin. i. 522; Luke xxi. 18 up to 1629 Camb. and Lond., 1630, an in 3 places: a hairy Gen. xxvii. 11, an twice: a half Ex. xxv. 10 (1st and 3rd, an in 2nd until 1629), 17, 23; xxxvi. 21; xxxvii. 1 (ter), 10; Ezek. xl. 42 (2nd); 2 Esdr. xiii. 45, but an in 16 places: a hammer Jer. xxiii. 29, an hammer Judg. iv. 21: a hand Ex. xix. 13 up to 1638, but an 5 times: an handbreadth 7 times: an handful 5 times: a handmaid Gen. xxix. 24 up to the two editions of 1629, but an twice: an hanging thrice: a happy 2 Macc. vii. 24: a hard 2 Kin. ii. 10; Ps. xxxi. 18 marg.; Ecclus. xl. 15, but an 4 times: a harlot Joel iii. 3 up to 1769, but an in 21 places: an harmless Wisd. xviii. 3: a harp 1 Sam. x. 5; 1 Chr. xxv. 3, but an 4 times: an hart Isai. xxxv. 6: an harvest Hos. vi. 11: an hasty Ecclus. xxviii. 11 (bis): a hat 2 Macc. iv. 12: a haven 2 Esdr. xii. 42, but an thrice: a haughty Ecclus. xxiii. 4, but an Prov. xvi. 18.

An he (lamb or goat) thrice: a head Judith xiv. 18, an Josh. xxii. 14: an head-tyre 1 Esdr. iii. 6: an healer Isai. iii. 7: an healing Dan. iv. 27 marg.: a heap Isai. xvii. 11; Ecclus. xi. 32, but an in 15 places: a hearer Wisd. i. 6; James i. 23: a heart 1 Chr. xii. 33 marg. (bis); Ecclus. xiii. 26; xvii. 6; xxii. 17, but an 15 times: a hearth Zech. xii. 6 up to 1762, an hearth Ps. cii. 3: an heathen Matt. xviii. 17: an heave (offering) 11 times: an heavenly Heb. xi. 16: a heavy Ecclus. xxv. 23 up to 1629, but an 5 times: an Hebrew 10 times: an Hebrewess Jer. xxxiv. 9: an hedge 4 times: an heifer 9 times: an heinous Job xxxi. 11: an heir 3 times, correctly by modern usage: an helmet 5 times: a help Ps. xliv. 26 marg.; Ecclus. xxxiv. 16 until 1762; xxxvi. 24, but an 5 times: a helper Ps. xxii. 11 marg. but an thrice: a hen Matt. xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34: an herald Dan. iii. 4: an herb Isai. lxvi. 14 is probably right: an herd twice: an herdman Amos vii. 14: an heretick Tit. iii. 10: an heritage occurs 14 times, and we have retained an, regarding the h as mute; compare heir, herb, honest, honour, honourable, hour, humble1.

An hidden Job iii. 16: a hiding Isai. liii. 3 marg. up to 1762, but an Deut. xxxii. 38 marg.; Isai. xxxii. 2: a high 1 Sam. xxii. 6 marg.; Isai. xxx. 13; 2 Esdr. ii. 43, but an 32 times: a highway Isai. xix. 23; xl. 3, but an Isai. xi. 16; xxxv. 8: a hill Josh. xxiv. 33; Isai. xxx. 17 up to both Bibles of 1629, but an 5 times: an hin always (21 times): an hire Gen. xxx. 18 marg.: an hired 7 times: an hireling 9 times: an hissing 6 times: an Hittite Ezek. xvi. 3, 45.

An hold Judg. ix. 46; 2 Sam. xxiii. 14: a hole Ex. xxxix. 23 up to 1769; 2 Kin. xii. 9; Jer. xiii. 4; Ezek. viii. 7, but an hole Ex. xxviii. 32; 2 Macc. iv. 14 marg.: a hollow 2 Macc. i. 19 up to 1762, an hollow Judg. xv. 19; 2 Macc. ii. 5: a holm tree Hist. of Susanna, ver. 58 up to 1762: a holy Lev. xxvii. 23; Isai. xxx. 29; Wisd. xviii. 9, but an holy no less than 45 times: a home-born Jer. ii. 14: an homer always (10 times): an honest 5 times, an honour thrice, an honourable 4 times, and rightly (see heritage): an honeycomb 5 times: an hoof Ex. x. 26: an hook 4 times: a horn Dan. viii. 5 marg., but an horn 1 Kin. i. 39; Luke i. 69: an horrible always (6 times): an horror Gen. xv. 12: a horse 2 Macc. iii. 25 up to 1629, but an 7 times: a horseman 2 Macc. xii. 35, but an 2 Kin. ix. 17: an host 15 times: an hostage 1 Macc. i. 10: an hostile Acts xii. 20 marg.: a hot Lev. xiii. 24; Ecclus. xxiii. 16; 1 Tim. iv. 2, an hot 2 Esdr. iv. 48: an hour 6 times, and rightly: a house Ex. xii. 30; Lev. xiv. 34 (not ver. 55 before 1769); 2 Sam. xx. 3 marg. (an 1762); 1 Chr. xvii. 5 (an both Bibles of 1629); Ps. lxviii. 6 marg.; Ecclus. xxi. 18; 1 Macc. vii. 37; Mark iii. 25; Luke xi. 17 (bis), but an house 84 times: an householder Matt. xiii. 52; xx. 1: an howling Jer. xxv. 36; Zeph. i. 10.

An huckster Ecclus. xxvi. 29: an humble Prov. xvi. 19; Song, ver. 16 is probably true, and is so represented in the American Bible: a hungry Isai. xxix. 8 up to 1762, 2 Esdr. xvi. 6 up to 1629, but an Ecclus. iv. 2: a husband Ruth i. 12 (once out of 3 times, but an thrice in 1762); Jer. xxxi. 32 marg. (not text) up to 1629 Camb.; Ecclus. iv. 10, but an 15 times: an husbandman Gen. ix. 20; Zech. xiii. 5.

An hymn Matt. xxvi. 30; Mark xiv. 26: an hypocrite Job xiii. 16; Prov. xi. 9; Isai. ix. 17; Ecclus. i. 29; xxxiii. 2: an hypocritical Isai. x. 6.

This variable and inconsistent practice of the Authorized Bible, rather concealed than remedied in later editions, will probably be allowed to justify our rejection of the n of the indefinite article, whensoever modern usage shall demand it. In the case of the word hundred alone this has not been done, as well because that out of the 150 places or more wherein hundred occurs a is found before it only in six (Ex. xxxviii. 9; Judg. xx. 10 once; 1 Kin. vii. 2; Isai. xxxvii. 36; Ecclus. xli. 4; 1 Macc. vii. 41), whereof all but Isai. xxxvii. 36 are corrected in subsequent copies, as especially because an hundred is still found in some recent writers conspicuous for purity of style. The choice between an hungred (Matt. iv. 2; xii. 1, 3; xxv. 35, 37, 42, 44; Mark ii. 25; Luke vi. 3) and a hungred, which latter does not occur in 1611, is more precarious, inasmuch as here an or a is probably not the article at all, but a prefix expressive of a continued state, as “a building” 2 Chr. xvi. 6; 1 Esdr. vi. 20, “a coming” Luke ix. 42, “a dying” Luke viii. 42; Heb. xi. 21, “a fishing” John xxi. 3, “a preparing” 1 Pet. iii. 20 (where, however, a might represent the prepositions at2 or on), athirst Matt. xxv. 44, for which thirsty is substituted in ver. 35, 37, 42, where the connection with an hungred is not so close3. An is also made to precede w in three passages of the standard Bibles, an whole Num. x. 2 up to 1762 (but not in Num. xi. 20), an whore Prov. xxiii. 27 also up to 1762; 2 Esdr. xvi. 49 altered after 1638. Such a one, where the sound is cognate to that of w, should be the form taken if we acquiesce in a before whole, &c., and is adopted by our Translators in Gen. xli. 38; Ruth iv. 1; Ps. l. 21 (an 1762); lxviii. 21 (an 1762); Ecclus. xxvi. 28 (an 1638); 1 Cor. v. 5 (an 1638), 11 (an both books of 1629); 2 Cor. x. 11 (an 1629 Camb.); xii. 2, 5 (an both books of 1629); Gal. vi. 1 (an 1629 Camb.); Philem. 9 (an 1762), but such an one Job xiv. 3; Ecclus. vi. 14; x. 9; xx. 15; 2 Macc. vi. 27.

My and mine, thy and thine, should of course be used respectively as a and an before a consonant, or vowel, or h; but neither the original Translators nor later editors have shewn any knowledge of the fact, so that in the present volume it has been deemed advisable to follow the Bible of 1611 exactly in this respect, the earlier issue a little in preference to the other. The changes introduced in more recent books are apparently capricious or accidental, being as often wrong as right. Thus if my of 1611 is turned into mine before integrity Job xxvii. 5 in 1762, and mine correctly changed into my before head by the same, Luke vii. 46; the opposite alterations of my for mine before eyelids Job xvi. 16 in 1617, of thy for thine before eyes Job xv. 12 in 1769, and of thine for thy before hands 1 Macc. xv. 7 in 1629, prove clearly that they had no principle to guide them in the matter. Mutations of these forms made for the better in later Bibles will be seen in Deut. xvi. 15 and xviii. 4 (1769); Isai. lxiv. 8 (1629 Camb.); Ezek. xvi. 11 (1762); Zech. viii. 6 (1629 Camb.); Tobit ii. 13 and v. 14 (1629); Wisd. viii. 17 (1629); 1 Macc. ii. 18 (1629); Luke xiii. 12 (1616); 2 Cor. xi. 26 (1629, both books). Those changed for the worse are Deut. ii. 24 and xv. 7 (1769); Ruth ii. 13 (2nd) and 1 Sam. ii. 35 (1629, both books); Job xxxi. 7 (1762); xl. 4 (1629 Camb.); Ps. cxvi. 16 (later than 1638); Eccles. iii. 18 (1629 Lond.); 2 Esdr. x. 55 and Ecclus. v. 8 (1629); Ecclus. li. 2 (1629, 1630). These passages may be verified by comparing any modern Bible with the present volume.

The apparent solecisms also and unusual grammatical constructions of our standard of 1611 have been scrupulously retained, without any attempt to amend them. Such as they are, they comprise an integral part of the Translation, and preserve phrases once legitimate enough, which have since grown obsolete. Later editors have but ill spent their pains in partial attempts to remove or conceal them. Some, indeed, violate the concord of the verb with its subject, as Ex. ix. 31 “the flax and the barley was smitten,” as in the Hebrew: “tidings is brought” 2 Sam. xviii. 31 marg.: “thou wast he that leddest” 1 Chr. xi. 2: “earth and water was wont” Judith ii. 7 marg.: “the number of names together were” Acts i. 151: “a great company…were obedient” Acts vi. 7, as in the Greek: “riches is…” Rev. xviii. 17. In 1 Cor. vii. 32, however, we have acquiesced in “the things that belong” (see Appendix A), “belong” being substituted for “belongeth” as early as 1612. These faults may be imputed to venial carelessness, to the momentary relaxing of close attention which every one is sensible of in the course of a long task. At other times our version reminds the reader of some racy idiomatic expression which once formed a part of the spoken or even of the written language of our ancestors. A good example of this kind of archaism, which the best grammarians even now hesitate to condemn, is the double genitive in such cases as Gen. xxxi. 1 and the rest, given in Appendix C, p. xci., and note 3. The opposite practice of suppressing the sign of the possessive altogether, which survives in modern Bibles in Judg. iii. 16 “of a cubit length,” is found in 1611 in Lev. vii. 23; xiv. 54 (Appendix C in loco); xxv. 5 “it2 own accord”; and in one issue, Esther i. 13 “the king manner” (Appendix B, p. lxxxix.): it was never removed from Rev. xviii. 12 (bis). It may be stated here that the habit of placing the apostrophe before or after s to indicate the possessive case, singular or plural respectively, was first adopted by the editor of 1762 in part, more consistently by Blayney, yet with so little care that not very few errors in the placing of the apostrophe, such as one glance at the original would have detected, have clung to our common Bibles to this day, and have been left for us to set right. These are all noted in Appendix A (see p. lxix., note 4), and being of modern date, are distinguished by being placed within brackets: e.g. 1 Sam. ii. 13; 1 Chr. vii. 2, 40. Since there exists no doubt that this s represents the Anglo-Saxon possessive ending -es (-is more often in Old English) it is manifest that the possessive his standing after the possessing noun is a mere error. We have accordingly adopted the changes of 1762, “Asa’s heart” 1 Kin. xv. 14 for “Asa his heart” (Bishops’); “Mordecai’s matters” Esther iii. 4 for “Mordecai his matters”; elsewhere retaining the original form in 1 Esdr. ii. 30; iii. 7, 8; Judith xiii. 9; xv. 11; 2 Macc. i. 33 marg.; iv. 38; xii. 22 (Bishops’), all in the debased style of the Apocrypha (see Sect. VII. p. lxv.). The antiquated singular for plural with the word “year” has been kept in 2 Kin. xxiii. 36; Jer. lii. 1; Dan. v. 31; Amos i. 1; 1 Esdr. i. 39; 1 Macc. ix. 57; 2 Macc. iv. 23; Rom. iv. 19 (see App. C in locis citatis). In like manner we have “two mile” John xi. 18 marg. (App. C): “three pound” 1 Kin. x. 17; Ezra ii. 69; Neh. vii. 71, 72; 1 Macc. xiv. 24; xv. 18; John xix. 39: “thirty change” Judg. xiv. 12, 13: “thirty foot” Ezek. xli. 6 marg.: so “an eight days” Luke ix. 28: these last have never been altered. The use of the cardinal for the ordinal number we have suppressed only four times, the earliest being Gen. viii. 13, on which passage in Appendix A, note 2, the case is stated. Nor have we meddled with a few manifest inaccuracies of other kinds, most of which the hands even of Dr Blayney have spared. Such are the pronouns pleonastic in “which pains…they slack not” 2 Esdr. xvi. 38; “Onias…he went” 2 Macc. iv. 4, 51: the double negatives in “shall not leave…neither name nor…2 Sam. xiv. 7; “Give none offence, neither…nor…nor” 1 Cor. x. 32. The objective in the place of the nominative in “him that soweth” Prov. vi. 19 was corrected in 1769; it is less clear that “whom” is wrong in Matt. xvi. 13, 15; Acts xiii. 25. The use of the adjective for the adverb is not unfrequent in the Authorized Version (Eph. iv. 1; 1 Thess. ii. 12; 2 Pet. ii. 6), and has not been disturbed even in so extreme a case as “wonderful great” 2 Chr. ii. 9. Double superlatives, “most straitest” Acts xxvi. 5; “chiefest” Mark x. 44, and the places cited in the margin there, have ceased to displease by reason of their very familiarity. Verbs transitive and intransitive are sometimes confounded; e.g. “lying in wait” Acts xx. 19 compared with “laying await” Acts ix. 24; “to be heat” Dan. iii. 19; “shall ripe” 2 Esdr. xvi. 26; “will fat” Ecclus. xxvi. 13 (see Appendix C, p. xcv., for the last three); “can white” Mark ix. 3; compare “did fear” Wisd. xvii. 9. The following errors have not been touched, the first three being imported from the Bishops’ version, “that we should live still in wickedness and to suffer, and not to know wherefore” 2 Esdr. iv. 12; “if any man knew where he were” John xi. 57; “or ever he come near” Acts xxiii. 15; “if we know that he hear us” 1 John v. 15 (Bishops’, after Tyndale). The next instance seems to have been influenced by the Greek (like Acts vii. 39), “she took it, and laid it on her mule; and made ready her carts, and laid them (αὐτὰ) thereon” Judith xv. 11.

A few miscellaneous observations may close this branch of the subject.

The more English prefix un- in the place of im- or in- has been restored in all eleven passages where it was given in 1611; even modern Bibles keep unperfect, Ps. cxxxix. 16. This form chiefly comes from the Bishops’ version; except those cases cited on Matt. xvii. 20 in Appendix C, it is found only in Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. To set s after the Hebrew termination -im (Gen. iii. 24; Ex. xxv. 18; xxvi. 1, &c.) is a manifest inaccuracy, and if the American rule (Report, &c. p. 22) had been adopted of rejecting the s throughout, no valid objection could have been raised. The middle course taken in recent English editions, that of sometimes making the required change and sometimes not, admits of no reasonable defence. We have simply abided by the standard of 1611 in every instance, not caring to adopt even such changes as that set down in Appendix C on Gen. xxvi. 1. In regard to the interjection O or Oh, the American plan (ubi supra) looks tempting from its simplicity, since it limits O to the pure vocative, and employs Oh for the optative, which practically introduces the latter into the great majority of places. But Oh in English is neither dignified nor pleasing enough for constant repetition, and after a fruitless attempt to discover the law observed by our Translators, it has been judged advisable to limit Oh to passages where the optative sense is very decided, as when it answers to the Hebrew נָא Gen. xix. 18, 20, or אִם 1 Chr. iv. 10, or אָנָּה Ps. cxvi. 16, or הוֹי Isai. xxix. 1 marg.: it would probably be better to banish Oh altogether. The intensive forms of certain words are occasionally put for the weaker, and vice versâ, perhaps for euphony: thus bide Rom. xi. 23 becomes abide, ware in Matt. xxiv. 50 becomes aware (see App. C in loco), both in 1762: rise becomes arise 1 Sam. xxiv. 8 (both books of 1629, 1630); xxv. 42 (1629 Camb., which makes the opposite change in ch. xxviii. 25); 2 Sam. xix. 8 (1629 Lond.); Tobit xii. 21 (1638); 1 Macc. ix. 23 (1769); Mark x. 1 (1629 Camb.); Luke viii. 24 (1616). In Gen. xi. 3 thoroughly best represents thorowly of 1611, though the latter has throughly in Ex. xxi. 19 (where thoroughly of 1762 should be withdrawn from our text); 2 Kin. xi. 18; Job vi. 2. Lastly, it ought to be stated that the diphthongs œ and œ occur only in that small Roman type which in the Bibles of 1611 answers to our italic, and have no corresponding characters in the black letter in which the text is printed. In this way we mark Cœsars Phil. i. 13 marg., chœnix Rev. vi. 6 marg., the same character being set up in both places. In fact, a simple e represented both these diphthongs in the ordinary Bibles until after Blayney’s time, when they gradually came into use, though they are wanting in the latest copies for Nagge Luke iii. 25, Menan ver. 31, Colosse Col. i. 2, nor do they exist at all in the American book, except in chœnix. In 1611 indeed they found more favour than afterwards, for besides the margins afore-mentioned, we meet with Coelosyria in 1 Esdr. ii. 17, &c., Aenon John iii. 23, which double vowels, after having been made real diphthongs in 1630, and partly in both books of 1629, were converted into simple e in the influential edition of 1638.

The employment of capital letters was much more free in the seventeenth century than at present, and in the Authorized Version whole classes of words that seem little entitled to that distinction are constantly so represented. Such are Altar, Ark, Court, Hanging, Mercy-seat, Noble, Priest, Sabbath, Statutes, Tabernacle; even Cedar-wood, Shittim-wood, &c. The tendency of later times has been to diminish such capitals very considerably, and in a few instances the moderns may have gone a little too far. Cherubims has a capital now only in Gen. iii. 24, and the Americans seem right in removing it thence. Archbishop Trench would restore the lost capital in “Vengeance” Acts xxviii. 4, which is not in the Bishops’ Bible, and was withdrawn as early as 1629 (both editions), but then we must treat Wisd. xi. 20 in the same way, for the personification is just as strongly marked, though the initial v is small in 1611. Ordinary words also, when pregnant with sacred associations, may wisely be distinguished by a capital. Such are Testimony Ex. xvi. 34, &c., Witness Num. xvii. 7, 8, &c., especially in Acts vii. 44, where in 1611 the w is small. But indeed the practice of our Translators in this matter is little more consistent than in certain others. Thus we have “the city of Salt” Josh. xv. 62, but “the valley of salt” 2 Sam. viii. 13, in all our books from 1611 downwards. With Mr Gorle we prefer no capital, where the character rather than the name of the region is designated. Sometimes an initial capital is useful to intimate a change of speaker, as in John iv. 9, where “For” of 1611 (“for” 1629 Camb., &c.) shews that the woman’s speech is already ended1.

But what in most instances is only a matter of taste or propriety, becomes of real importance where the Divine Persons are spoken of. The familiar rule that Spirit should have a capital when the Holy Ghost or Spirit Himself is indicated, while spirit ought to be used in other cases, even when His power or influence is referred to, may be as safe as any, yet in application it gives rise to occasional perplexity, which the inconsistencies of the standard and other editions do little to remove. Thus in Gen. xli. 38 the Bible of 1611 has spirit (changed as early as 1613, though Spirit was not finally adopted before 1762), while in the precise parallel (Ex. xxxi. 3) it reads Spirit. The original edition is right also in 2 Chr. xxiv. 20 (s); Ps. cxxxix. 7 (s); Isai. xi. 2 (S, and s three times); xxx. 1 (S); lix. 19 (s); Matt. iv. 1 (S); Mark i. 12 (S); Acts x. 19 (s, as ch. xi. 12, 28); Rom. i. 4 (S); 1 John v. 8 (S, as all ver. 6), against some or many later Bibles, but wrongly has S Num. xi. 17, 25 (bis), 29. In 2 Esdr. vi. 39 Spiritus calls for the capital, when the verse is compared with Gen. i. 2, though none hitherto have so printed it, whereas spiramen 2 Esdr. xvi. 62 requires the opposite. Thus every case must be considered on its own merits. So again, while we admit that “Son of God” or “Son of man,” wheresoever the word refers to the Lord Christ, should invariably have a capital letter1, we may legitimately question its propriety in Dan. iii. 25; vii. 13, where it does not appear in 1611: the analogy of Rev. i. 13 has persuaded us to receive S from the books of 1629 (Lond.), 1630. Appellations derived from the Divine attributes we have indicated by capitals, whatever the variations of editions, being more studious of uniformity in such matters than of following the inconsistencies of those that have preceded us. Thus, when relating to God, we have Author (Wisd. xiii. 3), Father, the Most High, the Holy One, Maker2, Mighty One, Redeemer3, Saviour4. As regards Scripture, we abide by the ordinary rule of using the capital where the whole body of Holy Writ is meant (e.g. John v. 39, to which might be added 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16), the small s where some particular portion is referred to5.