The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-11-11
FIRST BIBLE PRINTED HERE.
Revival Of the Controversy Over . Seer
Edition Of LISA.

" IsOS.
The recent sale in PHILADELPHIA of n
COPY OF what is believed to be the first
Bible printed I'm this country i'm the
English language. Robert Athens, Phil
adelphia, 17S2-has brought up again
Tor fresh discussion that old unan-
swered question:. was Athens Bible
the first printed here in English? WILL
,am e~ndeavored to issue a
Bible under the auspices Of the So
ciety OF Friends In 1858. Cotton Mather's
Bible the "Biblia Americana"), upon
the preparation of which he spent Is
years was never published. though he
tried to find printers in 171O, 17l3 and
l12s. and exists to-day in manuscript
in the library OF the Massachusetts
Historical society, and in I770 John
Fleming. a Scotch printer of Boston.
circulated the prospectus of a proposed
edition of the Bible ('This work will
be put to the press as soon as 300 are
subscribed for'). but the project failed
through want OF announcement.
Finally. In 1881, Robert Aitken of Phila-
delphia printed the New Testament
In English and the year following is
sued h whole Bible in that %anguage-
the first one so issued in this country
or which copies are known. Thus, one
apparently has to come down to the era
or American Independence without
meeting n Bible printed here in Eng
fish. though editions of the Scriptures
had been published for the use of the
Indians I'm 1861. 1863 and 1885, and for
the use Of the Germans in 1743, 1863 and
l776.
Long before Athens time. however
Tin 1I52. according to Isaiah Thomas),
kneeland a Green, the Boston printers,
issued for Daniel Henchman and other
booksellers 500 copies of the Bible i'm the
English language in small uuarto. No
copy now exists of this edition. which
was printed secretly with the London
imprint of the copy used Gondon:
Printed by Mark Basket. Printer to
the Kings Most Excellent Majesty').
I'm order to prevent a prosecution from
those who, i'm England and Scotland.
possessed the exclusive publishing
rights.
when | was an apprentice" Thomas
says, II often heard those who had as
sisted at the case and press i'm printing
his Bible make mention OF the fact.
The late Governor Hancock was related
To Henchman. and knew the particulars
or the He possessed a
copy of this impression. AS IL had a
London imprint, at this day IL can be
distinguished from an English edition
OF the same date only by those who
are acquainted with the niceties of
Typography"
Thomas also mentions that Kneeland
a. Green printed a little later edition
OF the New Testament in duodecimo.
with n London imprint. and still later.
he asserts, Rogers & Fowle printed
about 1000 copies Of the New Testa-
ment for the same booksellers who
handled the other editions.
The printing OF these editions, par
ticularly of the Bible. has been dis
puted by such an authority as George
Bancroft. who asserted that the Bible
was no printed here in English until
the nnd 800 Co. -
that 800 Bibles in quarto could hardly
have been printed, bound and sold In
Boston, then a small town, undiscov-
cred, nor would they all have disap-
peared. Till a copy" he continues. "of
the pretended American edition is pro-
duced. no credit can be given to the
second a story"
George Livermore, the late American
collector. believed that Thomas was
undoubtedly correct in the fact thai n
surreptitious edition was printed some
where about the middle of the last CEN
tury. though, writing from memory. he
not have given the details with
entire accuracy" He delivered an ad-
dress on the subject of Mr.. Bancroft's
Inaccuracies" before the Massachu-
setts Historical society. He once be-
lseved the Basket Bible of 1853 was
the surreptitious edition.
IL Is not impossible that the question |
Will some day be settled and Isaiah
proved positively to be wrong |
or right. The discovery Of a COPY OF
the edition of the Bible printed by
hneeland a Green would dc much 10
decide the matter. Governor Hancock's |
referred to by Thomas, seems to
disappeared. Mr.. Livermore. in
a letter To MIR. Lenox. dated March 4,
1883. said that 'the present representa-
tive Of the Hancock family a prom
lsed To search among the books Of his
iliustrious relative for the disputed
but evidently IL was never |