We should, however, form a very erroneous opinion both of the spirit and of the learning of King James’s translators, if we were to suppose that they would have claimed finality for their work. They were too well acquainted with the state of the original texts not to know what need there was for further research after the most ancient and trustworthy authorities. They were too keenly sensitive to the difficulties of translation not to feel that they must often have failed to convey the exact meaning of the words they were attempting to render. They were too conscious of the merits of their predecessors, and of the extent to which they had profited by their labours, to hesitate to acknowledge that others might in like manner profit by what they themselves had done. And they were too loyal in their reverence for the Scriptures, and too devoutly anxious that every imperfection should be removed from the form in which they were given to their fellow-countrymen, to offer any discouragement to those who should seek to remove the blemishes that might still remain. They would strongly have deprecated any attempt to find in their labours a plea against further improvement; and they would have emphatically proclaimed that the best expression of thankfulness for their services, and of respect for themselves, was in the imitation of their example, and in the promotion of further efforts for the perfecting of the book they so profoundly loved.
In the case of such a book as the Bible, however perfect the translation which may at any time be made, the duty of revision is one of recurring obligation. The necessity for it is inevitable, and this from two causes in constant operation. (1) By the imperfection that attaches to all kinds of human labour various departures from the standard form became gradually introduced in the process of reproduction; and (2) by the natural growth of language, and the attendant changes in the meaning of terms, that which at one time was a faithful rendering becomes at another obscure or incorrect.
No long time elapsed before blemishes arose in the version of 1611 from the first of these causes, and, to use the language of the translators themselves, their translation needed “to be maturely considered and examined, that being rubbed and polished it might shine as gold more brightly.” The invention of printing, although it has largely diminished the liability to error in the multiplication of copies, has not, as everyone knows who has had occasion to minutely examine printed works, altogether removed them. Various typographical errors soon made their appearance in the printed copies of the Bible, and these became repeated and multiplied in successive editions, until at length no inconsiderable number of variations, sometimes amounting to several thousands, could be traced between different copies. Most of these it is true were unimportant variations, but some of them were of a more serious nature. The following instances will serve to illustrate this. The dates attached are the dates of the editions in which the errors may be found: