It seems the plot thickens!
I spoke a Don Callaghan today at the Bible Museum by phone, and he informed me that my bible is not a Baskerville, but one that was published from text done by a Dr. F. S. Paris.
Found this about Paris...
Quote
There were changes made between 1613 and 1639, largely for the purpose of correcting printing errors. The revisers included Samuel Ward and John Bois, two of the original translators. “Some errors of the press having crept into the first edition, and others into later reprints, King Charles the First, in 1638, had another edition printed at Cambridge, which was revised by Dr. Ward and Mr. Bois, two of the original Translators who still survived, assisted by Dr. Thomas Goad, Mr. Mede, and other learned men” (Alexander McClure, The Translators Revived, 1855).
Another major update of the KJV was made between 1762-69 to correct any lingering printing errors and to update the spelling, enlarge and standardize the italics, and increase the number of cross-references and marginal notes. The revision was begun in 1762 by Dr. F.S. Paris of Cambridge University and completed in 1769 by Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Hertford College, Oxford University. “The edition in folio and quarto, revised and corrected with very great care by Benjamin Blayney, D.D., under the direction of the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, and the Delegates of The Clarendon Press, in 1769” (Alexander McClure, The Revision Revised).
Other than the correction of printing errors, following are the major types of changes that were made:
1. The use of italics was more standardized and its use expanded.
2. Spelling and punctuation were updated.
http://www.wayoflife.org/files/8a51885e2ce91f3454c7b185f3e49a74-623.html The Paris name is new to me in my search, so off on a new direction. Apparently, if I understood the guy correctly, which he covered alot fast, but it seems this text comes from the 1762 done by Bethern(?). It does not match anything so far that I've found. It retains the lower case "s" in Genesis 1:2, and has many differences to the Cambridge.
So my bible doesn't really have a "name" like say a Baskerville-Birmingham. I need to write Mr. Callaghan for clarification on the name Bethern. Paris simply was a publisher. So maybe it can be called a "Paris", I don't know.
The fact is, there are many King James bibles out there, all based on the 1611 text, and some even include the 1611 year, but the reality is that they are obviously not a 1611, but later editions or versions up through 1769. The first big clue is the Gothic text(black letter). If it isn't in Gothic, it ain't a 1611. That is a fact. Roman type wasn't introduced till 1613 as I understand it.
Ultimately, one can only take what's available and make a decision for ones self which King James. Personally, I don't see any need for going beyond 1769, and then one must decide of the many from 1769, which one. I personally feel too much was changed with the Cambridge that led to the 1900 PCE, so I look to the Oxford line of editions, though Paris was from Cambridge! Some of the Oxford work was used by Cambridge to really muddy the waters.
If you really wanted to get technical, one should go with the first Roman type edition of I think 1613.
Mr. Callaghan said some interesting things about the King James, but I think we are rather close in our "preferences" of which edition or version. He seems more tolerent of later King James versions, at least more so than I.
Basically, there is a alot of misinformation out there, tossed into the mix of opinion, but the only way to sort all that out is by looking at an actual printing text, which the Bible Museum has MANY originals. But the one thing I've been wanting to locate, they have...online images of every page of the most popular bibles. They are the real deals.
http://bibles-online.net/This is an invaluable resource. A must have in your favorites.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 12:43:00 pm by Kilika »
UPDATE...
So, it seems that my bible may well be (haven't checked it word for word) a version based on the 1762 Parris that was published by Bentham.
http://greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/bibles/ks1104/(1762 Parris/Bentham for sale)
An attempt at a "standard text", two editions were done, one in 1760 (that became the 1762) and one in 1763 by Baskerville (folio).
Apparently, the 1760 Cambridge by F.S. Parris was printed unchanged in 1762. In 1769, the Oxford text by Blayney (1760 Parris update) became the 1769 Oxford Standard Text, in competition with the 1769 Cambridge by Scrivener.
Initially, Cambridge was using the 1760 Parris text, but switched to a version by F. H. A. Scrivener, then later they came out with the 1900 PCE.
Thus, the "split" of the "Authorized Version text was in 1769 when Cambridge went with Scrivener, and Oxford remained with Blayney. So, it seems that if a KJB is not a Cambridge (usually a 1900 PCE), it is most likely a Oxford Standard text by Benjamin Blayney, or possibly a Baskerville.
My personal bible from World Bible Publishers (no longer in business) is then apparently based on/is a 1760/62 Parris. So the 1769 Blayney Oxford Standard text is an edition from the bible I have I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_VersionI still need to locate the text of these editions in a format like in Blue Letter or eSword for comparisons. There are references to the 1762 Parris and 1763 Baskerville texts, but I haven't located the full text of either of them in digital format.