Was the book of Psalms in the 1602 Bishops' Bible a new version or translation?

[Logos1560]

As their starting point in English or as their English foundation, the KJV translators were given copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible.

David Norton wrote: “The 1602 Bishops’ Bible frequently differs from the original 1568 text, so much so that in parts such as the Psalms it ought to be thought of as a new version” (Textual History of the KJB, p. 35).

Should the book of Psalms in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible be considered a new version or a different translation than the book of Psalms in the 1568 edition of the Bishops' Bible?

 

[Logos1560]

In some 1572 editions of the Bishops’ Bible, the Psalms of the Bishops' Bible were printed in parallel columns with the Psalms of the Great Bible. In some of its later editions published in 1575 and 1595, the Psalms of the Great Bible were printed in place of Bishops’ Bible’s own rendering of them. Jack Lewis wrote: “All later printings of the Bishops’ Bible, except the 1585 edition which had the Bishops’ Psalms, carried these Great Bible Psalms rather than the Bishops’” (The Day after Domesday: The Making of the Bishops' Bible, p. 128). That statement would suggest that the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible on which the KJV is based would likely have the book of Psalms from the Great Bible.

The fact that some editions of the Bishops' Bible had the psalms from the Great Bible printed in place of the psalms from the 1568 Bishops' Bible could explain why David Norton noticed the book of Psalms being so different in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. Instead of being a new version, the 1602 edition's book of Psalms likely was an older version or translation--one from an edition of the Great Bible.