38 
be my ;* Exodus ii. 3, no for net ;} iv. 10, 
the second my should be thy; vi. 14, 
father’s for fathers (see verse 25.)} A 
pertodical journal of last month, in 
an article of biblical criticism, mentions 
it, as “not generally known, that in the 
successive editions of the bible, the num- 
ber of supplementary words printed in 
Ttalics has been unwarrantably and sur- 
reptitiously increasedto alarge amount.”§ 
Something, I know, bas been done toward 
reducing this amount, in the stereotype 
edition of the New Testament, lately 
executed at Cambridge ; but as. neither 
of my complete Bibles pretends to any in- 
novation in this respect,the few variations 
among them concern my present pur- 
pose. In the edition which | am now 
examining, the following words should be 
in Italic: Genesis xvill. 31, 2é ; xxi. 17. 
the first was; and xxx.38, zs.|| The enu- 
meration of errors merely literal and of an 
inferior description will serve only to shew 
what degree of general care has been 
exercised in the business of correction. 
Thus there is at Genesis iv. 23, in the 
margin, Aut for hurt ; x. 10, kingdon for 
kingdom ; xix, the sixth verse is nnm- 
bered 5; xxv. 2, margin Chrin. for 
Chron. ; xxxvil. 2, the first comma should 
be a full point: Exodus i.19, midwive 
for midwives; 11. 7, a note of admira- 
tion for an interrogation ; 1v. 4, Lord 
should be printed Lorn: vi. 28, the full 
point should be a comma; ix. 13, Pho- 
ruoh for Pharaoh ; ix. 29, as for As (be- 
ing the beginning of a speech), and a 
like mistake xi. 3, in remember for Re- 
member. ; 
The University Ociavo, and Duodecimo, 
eopies as I mentioned before, I have on- 
ly consulted occasionally, in matters of 
suspicion or doubt. ‘The list of errors, 
therefore which, I have found in these 
exclusively is but small.—In the Octavo, 
Genesis xxxi. 5, he should be omitted ;§ 
a ISTE FS 
* The Octavo also has thy, which howéver 
appears clearly to be wrong from the Duode- 
cimo, Wilson’s (with al/ the six various ren- 
derings collected in this latter), and Cruden. 
Geddes has neither. 
4 Cruden has ot under «* Hide,” and zo un- 
der “* Longer.” 
{ The Octavo also has this error. 
§ Eclectic Review, page 31. 
}j In xliv. 9, dctbis given by Wilson in ita- 
lics, which seems countenanced by Geddes, 
(compare his 16th verse). 
@ Haggai, in xlvi, 16, is supported also by 
On the Incorrectness of our printed Bibles. 
[Feb. dy, 
1 Samuel ix. 23, S2é it for Set 2. In Ge- 
nesis xxv. 28, there is veniszon, for vent- 
son ; Exodus iii. 22, neighbour for neigh- 
bour ; and ii. 21, a note of interrogation 
for a colon.—In the Duodecimo, Genesis 
x. 22, there is Edom for Elan. 
Bishop Wilson’s Bible (as it is called). 
Genesis vi. 21, for is- omitted before 
Sood ;* ix. 4, you for ye; xix. 21, also 
omitted after thing;{ xxi. 7, dhe omitted 
before wood; xxn. 23, bare-for bear; 
xxiv. 6, thou omitted after Beware §; xxv. 
18, 14, these verses are wrong divided 
(the sign of separation should have fol- 
lowed Mibsam instead of Adbeel) ; xxv, 
33, the second fo should be unto; xxx. 
39, longest for longedst; xxi. 34, ca- 
mels’ for camel’s ; xxxv. to omitted be- 
fore stink ; xxxvi. 22, Hemam for He- 
man ;|| xxxi. into for in to; Exodus i. 
6, Hebrew’s for Hebrews’ ;{ 110. 22, the lat- 
ter clause (after raiment) is erroneously 
made a separate verse, numbered 23; 
vill, 24 end, swarms for swarm ; 1%. 6, 
beasts for -beast ; ix. 41, the first bodd 
should be boils; x. 14. coast for coas/s 
(sce ver. 19), The following errors oc- 
cur in the use or omission of the Italie 
distinction: Genesis vil. 25, land should 
be in Italic ;** so likewise is im xxxV, 
19+ and xxxvi. 1, are xxxvi. 20, art 
Wilson, Cruden, and Geddes; but the Quarto 
and Duodecimo have Haggi: and when the 
name-is mentioned again of the same person 
(Numbers xxvi. 15) a// my authorities have 
Haggi, except Geddes, who constantly writes 
ai; and Cruden, who (as is not at all un- 
common) totally omits this text. 
* Geddes’s omission of for, seems a mere 
matter of style. 
+ Cruden also has you under **Eat not” and 
“Blood,” but ye under “* Life.” 
t Cruden has not this text under ‘Also ;” 
but his omissions of text decide nothing. 
§ Cruden has not the zhoz under ¢ Beware,” 
but he often omits inferior words for the sake- 
of compression: he has it under * Bring 
again.”> Geddes’s omission seems a matter of 
style. 
|| Hemam is also given in the Various Rene 
derings; Geddes has adopted that reading inte 
his text. 
This error occurs also inthe Duodecimo, 
Cruden, under the word has Hebrews, which 
is consistent with the correction; but under 
‘tis One” he has Hebrew, which I suppose to 
be mérely a typographical error. ; 
* See Genesis, i.9, 10. Geddes uses the 
Italic very sparingly. 
++ This is foundalso in the Octave edition. 
im 
