An interesting KJV text comparison

A friend, David Smith, who has access to a multitude of early edition KJV texts has been doing some research on textual variations between the various printings. Although his findings are preliminary and should not be quoted as absolute, and as well will be updated from time to time, I thought you would find them interesting. I have David's permission to share this with you.

(P.S. I will be away from the computer for a few days so don't expect any responses from me until later next week.)
----------------------------------------------
KJV comparison Gen. 1:1-37:21

I have now examined the obverse of the first leaf of each signature in the first FOUR quires(A1-D6) of each of the five folio KJV bibles I am comparing. In other words I have examined 12 pages out of 48.

For the moment I am only identifying the various imprints of each signature but taking down detailed notes of each page I examine. It
is therefore not necessary to look at each page in order to identify a particular imprint.

Note: There are 12 pages in each quire in the text of the 1611 KJV bibles. Each quire consists of 3 folios which is 6 leaves or 12 pages. The first quire ends Gen. 13:14 and the fourth quire ends at
Gen. 37:21.

1. I have thus far found 34 WORDS spelled in a variety of ways i.e. be, bee - mee, me - said, sayd - city, citie - finde, find - etc.. It
appears spelling differences were just that, different, and not spelling or typographical errors. The differences do not affect the
meaning of the text.

2. I have thus far found the capitalization and spelling of proper nouns is consistent in both the "he"(1611, 1st issue) and "she"(1611/13, 2nd issue) bibles with the observation the "she" bible
sometimes and the “he” bible once capitalizes words unnecessarily i.e. Justice, Judgement, Nations etc.. There is a slight possibility
there was an earlier precedent(translation) for the capitalization of these words or possibly it was a peculiarity of a particular
compositor. Perhaps as more folios are examined a pattern will emerge so that a more definitive conclusion can be drawn.

3. I have thus far found only two spelling errors in both imprints, 1611 “he” and 1611/13 “she,” from the 24 pages examined.

Although the sample IS STILL FAR TOO SMALL to make a accurate guess, at the rate of two spelling errors per 24 pages of the two 1611 KJV
Bibles examined would mean a total of 77 spelling errors for the OT, 17 spelling errors for the Apocrypha and 27 spelling errors for the
NT for a total of 122 for the entire 1611 imprint of both the “he” and “she” Bibles. There are approximately 3,000 type face letters set
per page for a total of 4,392,000 letters set in the text of the “he” and “she” 1611 Bibles. The number of spelling errors in the first two
1611 KJV imprints is negligible. You figure the percentage.

Note: This sample IS TOO SMALL to quote the above analysis as absolute and the formula is too simple to accurately calculate but my guess is it will not be far off the reality of the truth of the matter.

4. I have thus far found only three typographical errors in both imprints, 1611 “he” and 1611/13 “she,” from the 24 pages examined.

Although the sample IS STILL FAR TOO SMALL to make a accurate guess, at the rate of three typographical errors per 24 pages of the two
1611 KJV Bibles would mean a total of 116 typographical errors for the OT, 26 typographical errors for the Apocrypha and 41 typographical errors for the NT for a total of 183 typographical
errors for the entire 1611 imprint of both the “he” and “she” Bibles.

There are approximately 3,000 type face letters set per page for a total of 4,392,000 letters and approximately 920,000 words set in the
text of the “he” and “she” 1611 Bibles. The number of typographical errors in the first two 1611 KJV imprints is negligible. You figure the percentage.

Note: This sample IS TOO SMALL to quote the above analysis as absolute and the formula is too simple to accurately calculate but my guess is it will not be far off the reality of the truth of the matter.

Note: I have made a distinction between spelling and typographical errors although the distinction is slight. With the one, a spelling error, the word is incorrectly spelled and with the other, a
typographical error, the word is correctly spelled but it is not the correct word.

5. There are many minor layout differences between the "he" and "she" bibles but they do not affect the reading or the meaning of the text. I have not made note of these difference unless it was the only means of identifying a particular imprint.

6. I have thus far found only two punctuation differences, both in the missing of a comma, and both in the 1611/13 reprint of the signature A1.

7. I have found that the word LORD is thus far always in a larger type face in the 1611 "he" bible than in the 1611/13 “she” bible including the 1611/13 reprint of the signature A1.

8. Of the 22 differences between the 1611/13 reprint of the signature A1 and A1 of the "he" and "she" bibles the 1611/13 reprint changes 14
words by dropping a redundant letter i.e. forme, form- darkeness, darkness - mooved, moved etc..

9. Of the 22 differences between the 1611/13 reprint of the signature A1 and A1 of the "he" and "she" bibles the 1611/13 reprint agrees with the 2001 KJV Cambridge text and the 1982 Oxford text 21 times.

 

Gee, am I the ONLY one who finds this interesting? Maybe I need a vacation also!