The Bodleian Bishop

1602 Annotated Bishops Bible, Bodleian Library Arch. A b.18

This link above  is to a 1602 Bishops Bible, held by the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford. It is purported to be a Bible in which some of King James’s translators made notes. These scans have been made available under Creative Commons licensing CC-BY-NC 4.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International). The Bodleian Library has done Bible and historical researchers a great favor, moving this particular Bishops Bible out of the hands of the few scholars previously with the time, ease, and financing to access it, so that it now may be seen freely by eyes all across the world.

The library notes on the page linked include this statement:

“Annotated Bishops’ Bible, 1602. At the beginning of the translation process, forty unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible were distributed to the translators to serve as the basis for their translation. The only surviving sheets from these Bibles are bound together in this copy described at the time of its acquisition by the Bodleian as ‘a large Bible wherein is written downe all the Alterations of the last Translacion’. The annotations appear in parts of the Old and New Testaments and reflect the work-in-progress of four of the six translating companies.”

Before we make too many conclusions on the insights into the translators’ decisions, we first ought to conclude, as best we can, just what this Bible is. If this is not clear, will the insights we glean be accurate and profitable? Perhaps some of these questions have already been answered. If so, may we be directed to where we might find these answers.

When did the Bodelian Libraries acquire this Bible? That would give a terminus ante quem (last possible date in which notes could have been written). 1602 is the obvious terminus post quem (earliest possible date it in which notes could have been written). What was the actual date or dates in which notes were written in this 1602 Bishops Bible?

Who wrote in it? Only the King James translators, later editors, both, neither? According to Tim Berg’s recent article (link below), it is thought that the OT notes are all in one hand, and the NT notes in three different hands. How does this correspond to possible use of this Bible in the King James translation process? Did one (or more) of the King James translators use this copy? What is the likelihood of someone else making these notes at a different time? Could the handwriting be compared to that of translators or others whose handwriting survives, for a possible match or matches?

A Newly Digitized Bible Reveals the Origins of the King James Version, Timothy Berg, Text And Canon, December 8, 2023

Berg writes, in reference to possible dates, “Several dates have been proposed, including ones that suggest the notes are an actual printers’ master copy, a copy of the printers’ master copy, notes made at the General Meeting, or a revision sent to the General Meeting. Miller argues that, most likely, ‘the annotations were made in preparation for the general, revisory meeting in London, assimilating into a single working manuscript the changes that had been separately proposed by the three Old Testament translation companies.’ This would mean the handwriting is likely that of a scribe, though it is also possible they ‘could have been made at the general meeting itself.’”

Is it necessary to believe that this was originally one Bible? Could it be that this is collected leaves from annotations in different unbound Bishops Bibles by different companies? That they were later found and bound into  one volume? Maybe not so likely, but then again, why not? The 40 Bibles were unbound copies (i.e., loose leaves).

Perhaps somewhat peripheral, but do we know how the 40 Bishops Bibles were distributed and used? In 1605, King James purchased from printer Robert Barker 40 large church Bibles (Bishops Bible) for the translators. There were more than 40 translators, so this was not one Bible each. There were 6 companies in 3 locations, neither of which divide exactly into 40. If six were used by each company, that might leave 3 for the small committee of revisers, and 1 for the final process. Or maybe, more simply, maybe the king just ordered extras. This may be an odd question from an odd thought of an odd guy. Then again, perhaps other inquiring minds want to know.

A picture provided by Christopher Yetzer

Some information acquired after starting this post several months ago:

This Bishops Bible was previously catalogued as BL Bib. Eng. 1602 b.1. It was given a new pressmark in September 2013: Arch. A b. 18. (My thanks to Chris Yetzer for informing me about its digitization.)

“The Bodleian Library acquired the volume in 1646 when it was described as ‘a large Bible wherein is written downe all the Alterations of the last translacōn.’” If this is correct, then the annotations in this “large Bible” were made between 1602 and 1646.

Due to his ministry in Italy, Christopher Yetzer noticed something others evidently previously have not:

“‘j/I’ is the most interesting sign to me and possibly the most important thing that I can contribute to this discussion. Some scholars have suggested that maybe it was a symbol for Jerome’s Vulgate. Westcott thought that the ‘j’ might stand for Junius. At Genesis 14:14 Edward Jacobs was confused by the word ‘allevi’ because he could not find it in an edition of the Latin Vulgate. Possibly what he did not know is that ‘allevi’ is not just a Latin word but it is also an Italian word. In fact, at Genesis 14:14 Diodati’s 1607 Italian Bible used that word. There are also other Italian phrases in the annotations: Genesis 1:12 ‘herba minuta’, Genesis 2:20 ‘conforme a lui’, Genesis 3:7 ‘cinture’, Genesis 3:24 ‘spada fiammeggiante’, Genesis 4:26 ‘nominar alcuni del nome del Signore’, Genesis 13:18 ‘tendendo i suoi padiglioni’, Genesis 20:15 ‘al tuo commando.’ etc. Each one of these is marked with the ‘j/I’. It is actually quite astonishing that the scholars who have looked at this did not notice all the Italian. There are currently two Italian phrases that are of some interest. Genesis 14:19 reads, ‘appo l'altissimo’. In English this would be ‘with the highest’, but Diodati’s text actually reads, ‘appo l'Iddio altissimo’ which would be ‘with the God most high’ or more Englished ‘with the most high God’. Possibly the annotator changed it on their own since the importance at that point had to do with the adjective. The other interesting one comes from Genesis 15:2, ‘governo della mia casa’. Diodati edited two Italian Bibles. One in 1607 and one in 1641. In this verse Diodati’s 1607 actually reads, ‘governo di casa mia’, however his second edition in 1640/41 reads, ‘governo della mia casa’ just like the note. If this note was truly taken from Diodati’s second edition then at least some of the notes in the volume were written after the fall/winter of 1640. However, most of the Italian notes clearly are derived from Diodati’s 1607 (see the note at Genesis 2:20, 3:7, 4:26, 18:4, 18:12, 20:15) and the reading at Genesis 15:2 is clunky Italian. If the annotator(s) knew Italian well, they might have simply reworded Diodati’s words without changing the sense to cleaner Italian. Diodati himself made that same change in 1641, so it is possible. All the notes from Latin and Italian do seem to appear in a darker ink. But sometimes the darker ink is used for Geneva readings as well (see Genesis 4:6 and 28:5).”

This statement by Yetzer demonstrates the utility of this Bishops Bible falling under the eyes of many rather than the small amount of people who had studied it previously. Their work was ground-breaking, but should not stand as the “be-all end-all” of research.