index-topical-hb

2009-9-6

It is a curious fact that in cyberspace Benjamin Blayney is both everywhere and nowhere all at the same time. On the one hand, if you are reading just about any KJV text online or elsewhere, the odds are that the text you are reading was edited by Benjamin Blayney for his 1796 Oxford edition of the KJV. If we are to put it more precisely, the odds are that the electronic edition you are reading is based on a printed text or texts which, in turn, eventually trace back to Blayney's 1769 text.

It is often said that today's KJVs are from the 1769 edition, and this is almost true when it comes to their text of the books the KJV editors regarded as canonical. Prior to Blayney, there was a much larger amount of variation between different printings of the KJV. After Blayney, almost everyone copied Blayney nearly letter for letter.

By the turn of the twenty-first century, as we will see below in a quote from Norton, the text of the KJV as printed at Oxford and Cambridge differed in about thirty places from the 1769 edition. Still, there do exist various pointy-headed nerds like myself who, for various reasons, would be interested in seeing the edition of Blayney and checking it against more recent editions in specific verses.

This winds up being harder than it looks. I don't have access to Blayney, but I have access to multiple texts claiming to be Blayney.^[1] It is a problem of too much, not too little, evidence. I'm trying to pick my way methodically through the available information here.

Two well-respected sources on the history of the KJV text are F. H. A. Scrivener, editor of the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible and an accompanying historical work, and David Norton, editor of the 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible and an accompanying historical work. I am willing to rely on both of them implicity. Below are some key things they had to say about Blayney's text:

In listing the differences between the 1769 text and the "current" text, Norton's A Textual History of the King James Bible has the following to say (in 2005, on page 115):

The three official guardians of the text, the two University presses and the King or Queen's Printer, became two when Cambridge took over Eyre and Spottiswoode. So the standard English editions of the text are those currently issued by Cambridge in its own right and as Queen's Printer, and Oxford. They are identical in the Testaments but not the Apocrypha.

Only six new changes to the text have been introduced into them since 1769. In the OT 'LORD' [small caps] is changed to 'Lord' at Neh. 1:11, and in the NT 'Zaccheus' becomes 'Zacchæus'. In the Apocrypha 'Ioribas' becomes 'Joribus' (1 Esdras 8:44), the verbs following 'alms' are changed to plural at Tobit 4:10, 'generation' is made plural at Ecclus. 4:16, and the apostrophe is moved in 'king's sons' (Baruch 1:4), making 'kings' plural (only the last of these is in the Oxford text.)

The other readings -- Norton is not sure how many they are, but "at least thirty", have been reintroduced.

Readings other than names: Josh. 19:2; 2 Chr. 33:19; Job 30:6; Ps. 148:8; Nahum 3:16; Zech. 11:2; Matt. 26:39 (and Mark 1:19); John 14:6. Names: Gen. 10:7; 25:4; 46:12; Exod. 23:23; Josh. 10:1 (and 3); 19:19 (two readings); 2 Sam. 5:14; 21:21; 23:37; 1 Chr. 2:49; 5:11; 7:19; 23:20; 24:11; 2 Chr. 20:36; Ezra 4:10; Neh. 7:30; Esther 1:14; Amos 2:2; 1 Esdras 5:55; 1 Macc. 3:16 (and 3:24; 7:39; 9:50).

So far as Norton knows, there are then thirteen differences outside of names, and twenty-odd name changes, depending on whether one is counting verses, individual names, or instances of names.

Scrivener lists errors he alleges he has found in Blayney. The references below are taken from from pages 32 through 34 of Scrivener. I have not included alleged errors in the marginal notes to the KJV, or to the Apocrypha.

Deut. x. 2 brakedst ... Ps. cxxxv. 5 "our LORD" of 1611-1630 restored instead of "our Lord" of 1629 Camb., 1638, 1744 (1769, but moderns from Oxf. 1835 have "our Lord") ... Jer. xl. 1 the word that; ... Nahum iii. 16 fleeth; Hab. iii. 19, see Appendix A ... James ii. 16 [Blayney wrongly italicizes a 'ye'] ... ... Ex. vi. 21; Josh. xix. 2, 19; 2 Sam. xxiii. 37; 1 Kin. xv. 2 (marg. of 1769) Michaia; 1 Chr. ii. 47; vii. 1 (an error revived); 2 Chr. iv. 12 (the second "the top of" omitted): Job xli. 6 (see Appendix C): Ps. xviii. 47 "unto" for "under;" xxiv. 3; lx. 4 "feared" for "fear;" lxxviii. 66 "part" for "parts:" so a Scotch edition (Coldstream) as late as 1845; cxlviii. 8; Prov. xxv. 24; Ezek. v. 6, the comma placed before "and my statutes" in 1629 is removed, for want of looking at the Hebrew ... John xi. 34; Rom. vii. 20 "Now if do;" xi. 23 om. "still" (thus many later Bibles, but not our model, Camb. 1858: see below, p. 38); 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; Rev. xviii. 23 (see p. 31). ... 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"; i 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; Ixxv. 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. I "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 employed in the Apocrypha for 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. I4 "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.

From the references above, leaving aside bits about italics, the Apocrypha, marginalia, and references that direct us to look elsewhere, we find some very clear statements about what Blayney's edition contained in 1769 for Deut. 10:2; 2 Chr. 4:12; Neh. 1:11; Ps. 18:47, 40:4, 78:66, 135:5; Jer. 40:1; Ezek. 5:6; Nahum 3:16; Rom. 7:20, 11:23; 1 Cor. 4:13, 7:16, 12:2; 1 Timothy 4:10.

Meanwhile, Wikisource seems to believe it has the Blayney edition, at least in a file which contains Genesis through Jeremiah.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:KJV_1769_Oxford_Edition,_vol._1.djvu

We may thus check Blayney according to Wikisource against Blayney according to the testimony of Scrivener and Norton. (Of all the verses in the chart below, the column for testimony records the testimony of Scrivener on every point except for the case of Nehemiah 1:11, where our information comes from Norton.)

Chart 1

So far, it would seem that the Wikisource facsimile of Blayney matches perfectly the explicit statements in Scrivener and Norton.

However, this is not the only scanned text which claims to be the 1769 edition. Another can be found here:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Holy_Bible_Etc/kWrQxQEACAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

What shall we call this edition? For now, let us call it the "Three shillings" Bible, from the price of three shillings which appears on its title page. Let's see how it compares to the combined testimony of the historical works and the Wikisource facsimile:

Chart 2

While the Wikisource Blayney agrees with the historical testimony in all eights places, the "three shillings" text disagrees with both in five. It would seem that the "three shillings" text is not the genuine article.

We can flesh this article out a bit further. For example, in Genesis 10:7, we are informed -- in the quotation from Norton above -- that some sort of difference of names in Genesis 10:7 between Blayney and the "current" text. I think it should be fair to say that if we can find a difference between the Wikisource Blayney and Oxford's 2008 KJV as published by Robert Carroll, then that difference is presumably the one referred to by Norton.

Even beyond Jeremiah, there are examples like Ezek. 5:6, where Scrivener spells out in sufficient detail where he thinks Blayney has gone wrong that we can check the 'Three shillings' version and Carroll to see whether they have followed Blayney.

Five harder cases remain: Amos 2:2, Zech. 11:2, Matt. 26:39, Mark 1:19, and John 14:6 -- five passages where Norton says there has been a change since the time of Blayney in the current text. Here we can turn, at least experimentally, to

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=File:KJV_1772_Oxford_Edition,_vol._2.djvu&page=8

This is an Oxford 1772 printing of the New Testament, a mere three years after Blayney, at the same University as Blayney. If in any of the three New Testament passages -- Matt. 26:39, Mark 1:19, and John 14:6 -- the 1772 text differs noticeably from Carroll, we might tentatively assume (and I will Mark this in a chart with an asterisk in the Blayney-Wikisource column) that the 1772 text preserves Blayney's reading. In all three cases, a difference appears.

This leaves Amos 2:2 and Zech 11:2 unaccounted for. Here, we may turn to the work of Michael Verschuur. Despite his doctrinal claims about Cambridge's early 20th century printings of the KJV, as far as I can tell, he has paid close attention to detail in collecting many variant readings from KJV editions. On page 552 of this Guide to the Pure Cambridge Edition, he indicates that the 1769 text reads "Kirioth", later changed to "Kerioth" by Cambridge in the early 20th century. Likewise, he finds in 1769 Zechariah 11:2 "mighty is", where the early 20th century Cambridge reads "mighty are". We will file Verschuur's claims here in the Blayney Testimony column.

Thus we produce:

Chart 3

Overall, given the close match between Norton's list of differences and the actual differences found between the Wikisource Blayney text and the Carroll text, I think it is fair to say that Wikisource must be either the original Blayney printing or something extremely close to it, while Carroll's text is either identical or nearly identical to what Norton calls "the current text".

There are two interesting anomalies. For one thing, in Exodus 23:23, we find no difference between Blayney and Carroll. There is, however, a known variant between some texts at Exodus 23:23 which some texts read "and the Hivites", adding an italicized and. Given that I don't directly have a physical example of whatever Norton consulted when he described his "current text", I cannot say whether Norton made a mistake here.

The other interesting anomaly is Esther 1:14, where, once again, no difference appears between Blayney (Wikisource) and Carroll. According to Verschuur's yet unpublished Guide to the Pure Cambridge Edition (Sixth Draft, p. 554), 1769's edition reads "Tharshish", while the Wikisource copy reads "Tharshish".

Leaving aside those two oddities, I think we're left with a pretty interesting picture of what little textual change has occurred between the 1769 text and the current standard text, as summed up in the remaining 27 verses where I've more or less verified Norton's finding of difference: ten verses where there is a difference other than names, and seventeen name differences.

A look at the sorts of changes that have occurred since 1769 shows the extremely conservative nature of the changes made. Norton lists only two new readings (I speak here only of the canonical books) that have been introduced to the text not found in previous editions: standardizing the name "Zacchæus" and correcting the mis-capitalization of "LORD" in Nehemiah 1:11. All the other differences consist of editors reverting to readings found in previous versions of the KJV.

Why and under what conditions do they revert?

In Joshua 19:2, there is a genuinely difficult issue of interpretation, hinging on whether the text should be read as indicating that "Beer-sheba" and "Sheba" are two different places, or two names for one place. The two options, as they existed prior to 1769, where "and Sheba" and "or Sheba". Blayney, for some reason, picked neither, and simply read "Sheba", leaving the waw untranslated, against both the general practice of the KJV and the practice of past editions on this particular place. The return to "or Sheba" is simply a return to how the KJV originally read.

The changing of "cliffs" for "clifts" restores the original KJV reading, which refers to "clefts" under an unusual spelling, not to "cliffs". The other restorations: "all his sin" for "all his sins", "vapour" for "vapours", "flieth" for "fleeth", and "mighty are" for "mighty is" -- are simple corrections of readings that have gone wrong by 1769.

Many of the remaining name changes are similar simple corrections. For example, it is a general principle in the KJV that a name will only end in "-ah" in English if it has a final he consonant in Hebrew. On those grounds, the h is removed from Sabtecha(h), Abida(h), Shammua(h), Shimea(h), Shemida(h), and Jeshua(h). On similar grounds -- the lack of a he -- "Shihon" is corrected to "Shion". In Haphraim, Blayney skips over a Hebrew kamatz, a sort of 'a' vowel, which is restored to Hapharaim. Likewise, Blayney misses a patah, another sort of 'a' vowel, in Nahar(a)i. Another patah appears in the last syllable of the name of the man Blayney calls Asnapper, whose name is therefore corrected to Asnappar. Without too many more specific details, other simple fixes to the vowels give us Kerioth, Ezion-geber, and Geba.

I am not so sure about the merits of the changes that give us Adoni-zedek, Achsah, Salcah, and Michah, but I cannot say that any of these last four constitutes a mistake, and none of these last four changes are significant enough even to change the pronunciation of the name to which they apply.

Looking back over the whole parade of changes, they come down to alterations of names -- many or perhaps even all for the better -- and all the remaining non-name changes consist of minor fixing errors in the 1769 edition, in almost every case by reverting to an earlier reading. It would be difficult to complain that the word in the standard text since 1769 has in any way hurt the KJV.