1769 Oxford KJV Edition Reprint

The Bible: 1769 Revised Standard Oxford Edition, 1st Edition, 1st Printing.
Copyright 2017 The Bible Museum.

There is a reprint of the 1769 Oxford KJV edition available. It is a large size--15 inches in length, 10 inches in width, and 3 inches in thickness. It includes the 1611 preface The Translators to the Reader and the Generalogies of Holy Scripture. It includes the Apocrypha as the 1769 edition did.

It was available on Ebay and at the Bible Museum's Greatsite.com web site.

It was reprinted in honor of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation --1517-2017.

This KJV edition provides factual evidence that proves a number of KJV-only claims about KJV editions to be factually incorrect.

 

Some background information concerning this 1769 Oxford edition may be helpful.

In the March, 1860, Report from the Select Committee on the Queen’s Pinter’s Patent, Adam Thomson claimed: “It is well known that it was the scandalous inaccuracies of previous editions which led to the recommendation by Archbishop Secker that there should be a careful revision of the authorized version, and to the carrying out of that recommendation by the delegates of the Oxford press, under the editorship of Dr. Blayney” (p. 42). The editors of The British Critic also reported that “a complete and careful revision of the whole of the authorized version was, accordingly, recommended by Archbishop Seeker” (Vol. XIV, p. 5). David Norton indicated that “the Oxford Delegates ordered a collation of the Cambridge editions of 1743 and 1760 with the first edition and Lloyd’s 1701 folio” in 1764 (Textual History, p. 105). F. S. Parris, who would be the editor of the 1762 Cambridge edition printed by Joseph Bentham, had “checked and proofed the text” of the 1743 Cambridge edition and some other Cambridge editions between 1743 and 1762 (p. 104). Cambridge had not printed any Bibles after 1683 until this 1743 edition. Benjamin Blayney (1728-1801) would be the editor of the 1769 Oxford edition that was made as the result of that collation of earlier editions. John M’Clintock and James Strong maintained that Blayney compared the 1611 to the 1701 edition of Tenison and two Cambridge editions (Cyclopaedia, Vol. I, p. 562). Thomas Curtis quoted Dr. Burton as saying that “The instructions to which Dr. Blayney alludes, were merely a resolution at a meeting of the Delegates of the Press, that he should compare the edition of 1611, Bishop Lloyd’s of 1701-3, and the Cambridge editions of 1743 and 1760” (Existing Monopoly, p. 46). John Nordstrom claimed: “The problem was that they were not sure which [1611] version was the original--the ‘He Bible’ or ‘She Bible.‘ The Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Secker, decided it was the ‘She Bible’ edition, which was actually the second edition of 1611” (Stained with Blood, p. 228). Concerning Blayney and the Delegates of the Oxford Press, Edward Cardwell asserted: “It appears to me that the Bibles they employed for collation (the Hebrew and Greek originals being constantly before them) were wisely and skillfully selected” (Oxford Bibles, p. 6).

The 1762 Cambridge edition may have been collated instead of one of the other Cambridge editions mentioned [1743 or 1760]. Those four KJV editions may have been compared to an edition being printed then at Oxford. Should not the important 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions have also been collated? With this lack of information concerning which renderings were found in the 1638 Cambridge and which may have been intentionally introduced by editors that included two KJV translators, the 1769 Oxford could have changed some of their deliberate renderings. Should the 1611 ‘He’, 1616, 1640, and 1660 London KJV editions also have been collated by Blayney and his helpers? J. Collingwood wrote that “the Delegates of the Clarendon Press in the year 1767, commissioned Dr. Blayney to superintend the publication of an edition, exhibiting the text in a more correct form than any in which it had before appeared” (Curtis, Existing Monopoly, p. 111). Blayney himself asserted that he corrected many errors found in former editions (Scrivener, Authorized Edition, p. 238).

Gordon Campbell observed: “The sheer scale of the changes wrought by Blayney on the text can be seen in a copy of his edition owned and annotated by a clergyman called Gilbert Buchanan and now in the Cambridge University Library. Buchanan collated Blayney’s folio with what he thought was a first edition of the KJV but was in fact the second edition known as the ‘She Bible’” (Bible: The Story, p. 138). John Nordstrom wrote: “The Cambridge University Library holds an edition of the 1769 Oxford folio with annotations by Gilbert Buchanan that record the thousands of changes to the text between 1611 and 1769” (Stained with Blood, p. 228).

The 1769 Oxford edition was not free from all man-made errors as some KJV-only authors have claimed or assumed.
Concerning this edition, Christopher Anderson observed: “There had not been sufficient vigilance in superintendence, as more than a hundred errors have been detected since” (Annals of the English Bible, II, p. 560). Adam Thomson claimed: “Dr. Blayney’s edition itself is very incorrect; the errors are both numerous and important” (Report from the Select Committee, March, 1860, p. 42). Blackford Condit asserted that Blayney’s 1769 edition “was not entirely free from errors, which were discovered to the number of one hundred sixteen, when it was collated for Eyre and Strahan’s edition of the Bible in 1806” (History of the English Bible, p. 397). Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible confirmed: “In collating the edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney’s, not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered” (I, p. 312). P. W. Raidabaugh also reported that “not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered in collating the edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney’s” (History of the English Bible, p. 61).

T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule observed that the 1769 edition "contains many misprints, probably more than 'the commonly estimated number of 116‘" (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scriptures, I, p. 294). The Cyclopaedia of Literary and Scientific Anecdote edited by William Keddie asserted: “What is in England called the Standard Bible is that printed at Oxford, in 1769, which was superintended by Dr. Blayney; yet it has been ascertained that there are at least one hundred and sixteen errors in it” (p. 189). The Cambridge History of the Bible noted that Blayney’s edition “was indeed erroneous in many places” (Vol. 3, p. 464). David Daniell also asserted that the 1769 Oxford standard KJV edition included “many errors,” and that it repeated “most of Dr. Paris’s errors” (Bible in English, pp. 606, 620). Before a committee of Parliament, Thomson stated: “Dr. Blayney’s edition itself is very incorrect; the errors are both numerous and important” (Reports from Committees, Vol. XXII, p. 42). In an overstatement at least concerning omissions, William Loftie asserted that “Blayney’s folio of 1769” “abounds in omissions and misprints: yet this is still considered a standard edition” (Century of Bibles, p. 21). E. W. Bullinger maintained that the 1762 and 1769 editions "made many emendations of the Text; some of them very needless, and also introduced errors of their own, not always those pertaining to the printer" (Figures of Speech, p. 987). Concerning this 1769 Oxford edition, Lea Wilson asserted: “I find therein many errors of considerable importance, and unwarrantable departures from the text of the first edition” (Bibles, p. 128). John M’Clintock and James Strong asserted concerning Blayney’s edition: “But very soon his errors, one by one, came to light; some were corrected at one press, some at another; just has had been the case before; passages really correct were changed in ignorance, and the upshot of it all was, that in a very few years there was no standard again” (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. I, p. 563).

 

Most KJV editions today could be said to be based on the 1769 Oxford edition, but they are not identical in text to it.

Including spelling changes, there would be as many as 400 differences between the 1769 Oxford and a typical post-1900 KJV edition. The exact number of differences would vary a little depending to which one of the many varying post-1900 KJV editions to which the 1769 is compared.

 

Their controversy may be partially based on incorrect assumptions and lack of correct knowledge concerning Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV.

They may make assumptions or jump to their opinions based on a post-1900 Cambridge edition and a post-1900 Oxford edition [likely the Oxford edition in the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible]. They may have not learned the facts about Cambridge and Oxford editions in the 1700's and in the 1800's.

There is not one KJV text that has remained the same in Cambridge KJV editions from 1629 until today. There are different, varying Cambridge standard editions including the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, and the 1762 Cambridge. Cambridge University Press was actually printing six varying editions of the KJV in 2011 so there is not even one Cambridge text in all present Cambridge editions.

D. A. Waite asserted: “There are a few printer’s errors between the Oxford edition and Cambridge edition” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 28). Waite claimed: “I have found at least three errors in the Oxford edition of the KJB, which are correct in the Hebrew” (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 117). Waite asserted: "In Jeremiah 34:16 the Oxford University Press King James Version is wrong, false, and in error" (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 66). Waite maintained that “sins” at 2 Chronicles 33:19 “is an error in the Oxford editions” (Ibid.). Referring to “whom he” Jeremiah 34:16 and “sins” at 2 Chronicles 33:19, KJV-only author David Daniels claimed: “There are actually two single mistakes that were introduced by printers at Oxford University Press over 60 years after the KJV was first printed” (Answers to your Bible Version Questions, p. 127). Daniels asserted: “Cambridge University Press did not make the printing error. And all Cambridge-type texts have the correct readings” (Ibid.). Concerning Jeremiah 34:16, Thomas Holland wrote: "Although one cannot prove that this error is the fault of Dr. John Fell in his 1675 Oxford edition, we can state that considerable time had passed before the error was introduced, and that the error was limited to the editions published by Oxford or those based on the Oxford edition" (Crowned with Glory, p. 101). David Sorenson maintained that the Cambridge edition has the “correct translation” at Jeremiah 34:16 (Touch Not, p. 19). D. A. Waite referred to “the 1769 edition of the King James Bible that we use today” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul‘s God’s Word Preserved, p. 55). Does Waite’s own assertion that there were three errors in the Oxford edition conflict with his assertion that Blayney’s 1769 Oxford revision is the only accurate translation [“I, and others who agree, hold ‘Blayney’s 1769 revision of the 1611’ as the only accurate translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that underlie it” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s God Word Preserved, p. 77).]?

KJV-only advocates incorrectly blame Oxford University Press for renderings that were introduced in London or in Cambridge editions, that were found in standard Cambridge editions of the KJV, and that were typical of most Cambridge editions in the 1800's. Likely Cambridge and Oxford editions were more in agreement with each other during most of the 1800's [with the exception of a few years around 1812 to 1817 when Cambridge did not follow the Oxford standard] than a typical post-1900 Cambridge edition is with the Oxford edition in the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.

 

Many KJV-only advocates seem to be uninformed about KJV editions printed in the 1700’s and in the 1800’s. Do they assume that there are only three differences when they would actually be around 30 differences between post-1900 Cambridge editions and some post-1900 Oxford editions? They seem to assume that the differences in some typical post-1900 Cambridge editions and post-1900 Oxford editions were characteristic of all the editions by those publishers since 1769.

Do they ignore the fact that the renderings blamed on Oxford University Press had been introduced earlier in KJV editions printed in London or at Cambridge? There was not considerable time before the “whom he” at Jeremiah 34:16 was introduced as one KJV-only author claimed since it is found in London editions printed in 1613 and in 1616 and since it is in the standard 1629 Cambridge. Oxford University Press could be said to have adopted its Jeremiah 34:16 rendering from standard Cambridge editions in 1629 and 1638. From 1679 until around 1763, Oxford editions could be said to be based mostly on the 1638 Cambridge. One or both of the Cambridge editions collated and examined by Blayney and his helpers could also have contributed to the keeping of this rendering in the 1769. The 1629, 1638, 1743, 1760, and 1762 Cambridge editions all had “whom he” at Jeremiah 34:16. From 1764 until 1768, and again from 1770-1783 (with the exception of a 1774 edition based on a typical 1750’s Oxford text), Oxford editions seem to have adopted some of the renderings characteristic of the 1743 Cambridge text.

Concerning Nahum 3:16, several pre-1769 Oxford editions have “flieth away” so that the rendering “fleeth away” was likely adopted in the 1769 Oxford from the 1743, 1760, or 1762 Cambridge editions although it is also in some early London editions such as ones in 1614, 1636, 1630, and 1631.

At 2 Chronicles 33:19, the rendering “all his sins” seems to have first been introduced in the 1760 Cambridge edition, and it was also in the 1762 Cambridge as well as the 1769 Cambridge.

Did Waite and other KJV-only advocates prove that the errors were the fault of a printer at Oxford or did they perhaps assume their opinions?

 

D. A. Waite asserts that the 1611 KJV was based on the one of the Greek text editions by Beza instead of on the 1550 edition by Stephanus, but he may ignore the fact that the 1769 Oxford edition was revised based on use of that 1550 Stephanus edition.

Simon Wong asserted: “Blayney assumed wrongly that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Robert Stephanus (or Estienne) edition of the Textus Receptus tradition, whereas it was from the later editions of Beza (most likely that of 1598). Accordingly, the correct standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ about a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Bible Translator, Vol. 62, January, 2011, p. 7). One textual reading where Beza and Stephanus differ is at 1 John 1:4, which may indicate that Blayney could have intentionally altered the KJV’s text at this verse to match the 1550 Stephanus text. The 1769 Oxford edition has "our joy" at 1 John 1:4 in agreement with the 1550 Stephanus text while the 1611 and most KJV editions have "your joy." The 1775, 1778, 1790, 1800, 1822, and 1824 Cambridge editions of the KJV followed that 1769 Oxford rendering "our joy."

Concerning the italics in the 1769, Jack Countryman also reported or quoted from some source the following: “Unfortunately, Blayney assumed that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than from the later editions of Beza; accordingly the current standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ around a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Treasure of God‘s Word, p. 75). James D. Price maintained that “there have been a few alterations in later revisions of the AV that no longer follow the text followed by the 1611 translators” (King James Onlyism, p. 544). For possible examples of textually-based changes in use or non-use of italics in different KJV editions, see and comparlikelye Mark 8:14, Mark 9:42, John 8:6, Acts 1:4, Acts 26:3, Acts 26:18, 1 Corinthians 14:10, Hebrews 12:24, 1 John 3:16, 1 Peter 5:13, 2 Peter 2:18, Revelation 11:14, Revelation 19:14, and Revelation 19:18 in the 1611 to later editions. Some of these textually-based changes may have been made before 1769. Concerning one of those places, James D. Price noted: “The following is a place where the AV has words in italics that are actually in Scrivener’s TR: 2 Peter 2:18: the word ‘through’ was erroneously italicized in 1769 as though the word is not in the Greek text” (King James Onlyism, p. 544). Scrivener also indicated that the Greek word was in the text of Beza at this verse and that “through was not italicized before 1769” (Authorized Version, p. 254). In 1833, Thomas Curtis asserted: “Dr. Blayney and his coadjutors also employ them [italics] to express their doubts of the authenticity of particular readings--see John 8:6 where they thus, in a sense, discard the whole clause, ‘as though he heard them not’” (Existing Monopoly, p. 59). Edward F. Hills claimed: “At John 8:6, the King James translators followed the Bishops’ Bible in adding the clause, as though He heard them not” (KJV Defended, p. 221). Hills maintained that this clause is found “in the Complutensian, and in the first two editions of Stephanus. After 1769, it was placed in italics in the King James Version” (Ibid.). Concerning 1 Corinthians 14:10, Scrivener asserted: “Of them is placed in the type representing italics in the Bishops’ Bible and in ours of 1611, in deference to Beza” (Authorized Edition, p. 251) while later editors removed the italics. Charles Hodge contended that “to alter these italics is, therefore, to alter the version” (Princeton Review, July, 1857, p. 513). Hodge may raise a valid point concerning changing italics based on using a different edition of the original language text than that actually followed by the KJV translators themselves. However, Hodge’s point would not be valid in relationship to attempts to make the italics consistent to the actual rules or principles that the KJV translators themselves stated and used. Is the fact that Benjamin Blayney based his editing and revising of the KJV’s NT on the 1550 Stephanus edition avoided and ignored by KJV-only advocates? Did Blayney in effect change the underlying Greek text for the KJV’s NT in a few places?