Is "LORD" the most accurate rendering of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton?

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You return to your bogus tactic of trying to put words in the mouths of others that they do not say and that you even know that they do not accept.
You know that I do not claim that English translations or English transliterations are "God-inspired."The Scriptures do not state nor teach that any English translation is "God-inspired". The only traditions anointed or approved of God are ones presented in the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Can you decide which is correct?

Jehovah/Yehovah or “Yahweh” ?

Or do you, once again, simply not know?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Is the Hebrew word that would underlie “LORD” in the 1769 Oxford KJV the exact, same Hebrew word as that would underlie “Lord” in many most-1900 or present KJV editions?

There are around 90 places where "LORD" in the 1769 Oxford edition has been changed to "Lord" in most present KJV editions [besides The Companion Bible and perhaps a few others] [Gen. 18:27, Gen. 18:30, Gen. 18:31, Gen. 18:32, Gen. 20:4, Exod. 15:17, Exod. 34:9, Num. 14:17, Josh. 3:11, Jud. 13:8, 1 Kings 3:10, 1 Kings 22:6, 2 Kings 7:6, 2 Kings 19:23, Neh. 1:11, Neh. 4:14, Neh. 8:10, Job 28:28, Ps. 2:4, Ps. 22:30, Ps. 35:17, Ps. 35:22, Ps. 37:13, Ps. 38:9, Ps. 38:15, Ps. 38:22, Ps. 39:7, Ps. 40:17, Ps. 44:23, Ps. 51:15, Ps. 54:4, Ps. 55:9, Ps. 57:9, Ps. 59:11, Ps. 62:12, Ps. 66:18, Ps. 68:11, Ps. 68:17, Ps. 68:19, Ps. 68:22, Ps. 68:32, Ps. 77:2, Ps. 77:7, Ps. 78:65, Ps. 79:12, Ps. 86:3, Ps. 86:4, Ps. 86:5, Ps. 86:8, Ps. 86:9, Ps. 86:12, Ps. 86:15, Ps. 89:49, Ps. 89:50, Ps. 97:5, Ps. 110:5, Ps. 114:7, Ps. 130:2, Ps. 130:3, Ps. 130:6, Ps. 135:5, Ps. 136:3, Ps. 140:7, Ps. 141:8, Ps. 147:5, Isa. 3:17, Isa. 3:18, Isa. 4:4, Isa. 9:8, Isa. 9:17, Isa. 11:11, Isa. 21:6, Isa. 21:16, Lam. 1:14, Lam. 1:15, Lam. 2:1, Lam. 2:5, Lam. 2:7, Lam. 2:20, Lam. 3:31, Lam. 3:36, Lam. 3:37, Lam. 3:58, Ezek. 18:25, Ezek. 18:29, Zech. 4:14, Zech. 6:5, Zech. 9:4, Mal. 1:14, Mal. 3:1].

At four verses, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord” where present KJV editions have “LORD” [Gen. 30:30, Deut. 29:23, Jud. 2:23, Jer. 7:4]. The 1769 Oxford has “LORD God” where most present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” at some verses [Exod. 23:17, Exod. 34:23, 2 Sam. 7:18, 2 Sam. 7:19, 2 Sam. 7:20, 2 Sam. 7:28, Isa. 56:8]. At Daniel 9:3, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord GOD” instead of “Lord God” that is in most present KJV editions. The 1769 Oxford has “Lord God” at seven verses where present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” [Jud. 6:22, Isa. 3:15, Isa. 61:1, Ezek. 16:23, Ezek. 23:35, Ezek. 32:11, Ezek. 45:9]. The 1769 Oxford has “LORD GOD” at one verse [Amos 6:8].

The 1769 Oxford still has “God” at 2 Samuel 12:22 instead of “GOD.” The 1611 edition of the KJV may have had "God" from following the Latin Vulgate or from following a pre-1611 English Bible such as the Bishops' Bible that had followed the Latin Vulgate in its rendering at 2 Samuel 12:22.
Later editors changed the underlying text with their change to "GOD" to indicate Jehovah.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Is the Hebrew word that would underlie “LORD” in the 1769 Oxford KJV the exact, same Hebrew word as that would underlie “Lord” in many most-1900 or present KJV editions?

There are around 90 places where "LORD" in the 1769 Oxford edition has been changed to "Lord" in most present KJV editions [besides The Companion Bible and perhaps a few others] [Gen. 18:27,

A quick check shows that the Hebrew is not the Tetragram.

AV-PCE
Genesis 18:27
And Abraham answered and said,
Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:

In the 1611 some non-Tetragram were put as LORD, you can see it was corrected by the correction editions.

The Holy Bible, conteyning the Old Testament, and the New. Imprinted at London : By Robert Barker ..., 1611.


Blue Letter Bible
וַיַּעַן אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמַר הִנֵּה־נָא הוֹאַלְתִּי לְדַבֵּר אֶל־אֲדֹנָי וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵֽפֶר׃
 

logos1560

Well-known member
A quick check shows that the Hebrew is not the Tetragram.
Your quick check is unreliable and incomplete. Your quick check ignores and avoids the fact that the KJV's Old Testament was based on multiple sources including Latin Bibles.

Around 100 differences involving LORD/Lord and GOD/God can be found between the 1769 Oxford and most post-1900 KJV editions. One possible explanation for them could be variation in the different printed editions of the Hebrew Masoretic Text in some of the places with the KJV translators and later editors possibly following different editions. The KJV translators consulted multiple varying sources, including Latin Bibles and Spanish Bibles. Stephanus’ 1557 edition of Pagninus’ Latin version and Tremellius’ 1575 Latin translation of the Old Testament could be possible sources for some uses of LORD in the 1611 edition. In addition, the 1569 Spanish Bible or the 1602 Spanish Valera and its underlying Hebrew text for its Old Testament could be one possible source that resulted in the use of “LORD” in a few cases. For example, the 1569 Spanish Bible has “Jehova” where the 1611 edition has “LORD” at 1 Kings 3:10, 2 Kings 19:23, and Nehemiah 1:11. Another possible explanation for these variations may be suggested in Appendix 32 in The Companion Bible. This appendix claimed: “Out of extreme (but mistaken) reverence for the ineffable Name ‘Jehovah,’ the ancient custodians of the Sacred Text substituted in many places ‘Adonai’” (p. 31). This appendix in The Companion Bible listed “The 134 passages where the Sopherim altered ‘Jehovah’ to ‘Adonai’” and asserted that these 134 passages were preserved and given in the Massorah. Elias Levita (1468-1549) as translated by Christian D. Ginsburg referred to “the sacred name of the Lord, which is written [Adonai], and on which they [the Massorites] remark ’one hundred and thirty-four times’ (Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita, p. 233). Elias Levita asserted that the reason for this is that “the tetragammaton must not be read as it is written, for it must not be pronounced with the lips, but is to be read under the appellation [Adonai]” (p. 233).

The Companion Bible has “LORD” in its KJV text in all of these 134 passages, and a number of other KJV editions do in a good number of them. Almost all KJV editions including the 1611 and 1769 have “LORD” [Jehovah] at least one of those 134 passages (Malachi 1:12) where some editions of the Hebrew Masoretic text are said to have Lord [Adonai]. Concerning Malachi 1:12, James D. Price asserted that “the MT and all Hebrew MSS read ‘the table of the Lord’” (King James Onlyism, p. 288). The Masoretic Text in The Interlinear Bible that was printed from the 1866 edition of the British and Foreign Bible Society has “Adonai” [Lord] at Malachi 1:12. If the name translated Jehovah or “LORD” is not found in Hebrew manuscripts at Malachi 1:12, was it put into the Bomberg edition mistakenly by the printer, from a mistake in a previous printed edition, or as an inconsistent editing decision? Many present KJV editions may also have “LORD” at least three of the other 134 passages listed in the appendix of The Companion Bible: 1 Kings 3:15, Isaiah. 38:14, and Ezekiel 33:29. At Isaiah 38:14, the note in the Companion Bible asserted: “This is Adonai in the Hebrew text, but it is one of the 134 places where it was altered to Adonai, as Jehovah is read in the famous Hillel Codex” (p. 978). Robert Lowth indicated that thirty Hebrew MSS and eight printed editions of the Hebrew text read “Adonai” at Isaiah 38:14 (A Literal Translation, Vol. I, p. 307). The 1569 Spanish Bible has “Senor” at Isaiah 38:14. A later KJV editor or printer may have removed some uses of “LORD” without knowing the actual reasons or possible textual sources for why they were found in the 1611 edition or for why they may have been found in later editions. Did a later KJV editor/printer change the underlying Hebrew words that would have been the textual basis for Blayney’s 1769 revision’s use of “LORD” in as many as ninety places where most present post-1900 KJV editions have “Lord”? Would KJV defenders suggest that Blayney’s 1769 KJV edition did not have an accurate translation of the Hebrew words that underlie it in these ninety places?

Concerning one of these passages (Psalm 2:4), F. H. A. Scrivener noted: “Jehovah is read in at least 85 Hebrew manuscripts and five early [printed Hebrew] editions, so that the translators (who seldom err in this matter) probably intended to use capitals” (Authorized Edition, p. 223, footnote 3). Thus, there may be stronger textual evidence for the 1611’s “LORD” [Jehovah] at Psalm 2:4 than there is for “LORD” at Malachi 1:12 and than there is for some other readings in the KJV. Concerning “LORD” at Job 28:28, E. W. Bullinger asserted: “Many MSS and old Editions read Jehovah, and the Massorah includes this among the 134 passages where Adonai is to be read, though it should be written Jehovah” (Book of Job, p. 146, footnote 3). Along with the evidence from the Massorah, there is also Hebrew manuscript evidence for the rendering “LORD” [Jehovah] at Job 28:28 in those KJV editions that have it. Those earlier and present KJV editions that have “LORD” at some of those other 134 places would seem to be on as sound and consistent a basis according to Hebrew manuscript evidence as those that have “LORD” at Malachi 1:12 or Isaiah 38:14.

Concerning these LORD/Lord variations, Sir Robert H. Inglis, member of Parliament for Oxford University, stated the following in 1837: “In the year 1832, a gentleman of the University, of competent knowledge in the Hebrew language, was engaged to examine all passages in the Hebrew Bible (I believe by Vander Hooght) in which the word ’Lord’ occurs, and to mark those which in the original signified ’Jehovah,’ and the University standard has been corrected by this marked edition” (Reports from Committees, Vol. XIII, p. 48). Did this unidentified person know exactly which edition of the Hebrew Bible that the KJV translators followed so that the same exact edition was used? The statement by Inglis indicated that an edition of the Hebrew text printed by Vander Hooght at Amsterdam (likely the 1705 one) was used instead of any actual edition used by the KJV translators. Was this 1705 Hebrew text edition identical to the one used by the KJV translators and has it ever been completely collated and compared to the 1525 Ben Chayyim edition? Could this 1705 Hebrew text edition be considered a different textual authority than the one used by the KJV translators? Was one person aware of other evidence or reasons as to why the 1611, the 1769, or other KJV editions may have had “LORD” in some cases? Was this person aware of the evidence from the Massorah, which the KJV translators consulted and sometimes followed? Is the Hebrew word that would underlie “LORD” in the 1769 Oxford KJV the exact, same Hebrew word as that would underlie “Lord” in many present KJV editions?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Is the Hebrew word that would underlie “LORD” in the 1769 Oxford KJV the exact, same Hebrew word as that would underlie “Lord” in many most-1900 or present KJV editions?

As I was beginning to say (my post went in accidentally) it is very possible that the 1769 simply put in LORD in many places that it was not proper. In some cases it may have tried to restore from the AV 1611, on verses that were quickly corrected, like Genesis 18:27.

So there is no reason to consider the 1769 Oxford as any type of comparison standard. It is not the Pure Cambridge Edition, and it is no longer published.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Concerning one of these passages (Psalm 2:4), F. H. A. Scrivener noted: “Jehovah is read in at least 85 Hebrew manuscripts and five early [printed Hebrew] editions, so that the translators (who seldom err in this matter) probably intended to use capitals” (Authorized Edition, p. 223, footnote 3)

This was corrected by 1637, important information that you hid.

KJB 1637
https://archive.org/details/holybiblecontain00cambiala/page/459/mode/1up

Here is the actual Scrivener note, where you omitted important material.

The Authorized Version of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=tly3gU8O9QUC&pg=PA223

3 The present text is Adonai, but Jehovah is read in at least 85 Hebrew manuscripts and five early editions, so that the Translators (who
seldom err in this matter) probably intended to use capitals. Since Oxf. 8vo. 1835, as also by Bp Turton’s direction (Sect. I., above, p. 36),
the capitals have been again withdrawn, but not in Bagster 1846.

Scrivener may be right, but if the Second Rabbinic Bible and most editions do not have the Tetragram I would be skeptical of his conjecture.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Concerning Malachi 1:12, James D. Price asserted that “the MT and all Hebrew MSS read ‘the table of the Lord’” (King James Onlyism, p. 288).

James Price makes blunders all the time and defines words away from scholarship definitions. I have warned you about this time and again.

KJVToday tells us that the Ben Chayyim has Table of the LORD.
http://www.kjvtoday.net/home/reliable-hebrew-text/

In fact, the NKJV of James Prices says so as well.
https://books.google.com/books?id=EmAgJ6BIRrQC&pg=PA2200
The table of the LORDb is defiled;
b Following Bomberg, Masoretic Text reads Lord

Bomberg is the 2nd Rabbinic Bible, a Masoretic Text printed edition, and should represent at least some Masoretic Text manuscripts.

Nothing James Prices says on the issue of Masoretic Text manuscripts or support can be accepted as real scholarship. He plays his readers for fools.

And this ends all your fanciful conjecture about Greek, Latin or Spanish editions.
All junk.
 

Shoonra

Active member
I assume that the KJVToday article, cited by Avery, reference to Rudolf Kittel really means the current Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which is the text of the Leningrad Codex. This was first used in the Biblia Hebraica edition of 1939 by Paul Kahl; Kittel, who died in 1929, had produced two editions of the Biblia Hebraica based on the Second Rabbinic Bible of 1525 edited by Ben-Chayyim and published by Bomberg of Venice.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Concerning Malachi 1:12, James D. Price asserted that “the MT and all Hebrew MSS read ‘the table of the Lord’” (King James Onlyism, p. 288). The Masoretic Text in The Interlinear Bible that was printed from the 1866 edition of the British and Foreign Bible Society has “Adonai” [Lord] at Malachi 1:12. If the name translated Jehovah or “LORD” is not found in Hebrew manuscripts at Malachi 1:12, was it put into the Bomberg edition mistakenly by the printer, from a mistake in a previous printed edition, or as an inconsistent editing decision?

That “if” is almost surely wrong. We saw how badly James Price blundered on Joshua 21:36-37, falsely claiming the verses lacked Masoretic Text support, when the verses are supported by hundreds of MT manuscripts, a majority reading, So your conjecturing “if” based on his bogus claims is worthless conjecture.

It becomes clear that James Price does not actually make his statements based on Masoretic Text collations, like those of Kennicott or Ginsburg. You have defended his unscholarly shenanigans, and it will always lead you into absurdities and blunders and errors, and worthless conjectures.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I assume that the KJVToday article, cited by Avery, reference to Rudolf Kittel really means the current Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which is the text of the Leningrad Codex. This was first used in the Biblia Hebraica edition of 1939 by Paul Kahl; Kittel, who died in 1929, had produced two editions of the Biblia Hebraica based on the Second Rabbinic Bible of 1525 edited by Ben-Chayyim and published by Bomberg of Venice.

Yes, that sounds right, and I will pass it on. I may check a bit first.
Thanks.

KJVToday may have been influenced by some AV literature that focuses on Kittel.
In my experience, KJVToday is always looking to improve his scholarship.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Yes, that sounds right, and I will pass it on. I may check a bit first.
Thanks.

KJVToday may have been influenced by some AV literature that focuses on Kittel.
In my experience, KJVToday is always looking to improve his scholarship.

KJVToday thanked me for the information and plans some updates to the site later in the fall.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You also ignore the fact that a different edition of the Masoretic text (one printed in the 1700's) was used in making the changes to the 1769. Was that 1705 Hebrew text edition identical to the one used by the KJV translators and has it ever been completely collated and compared to the 1525 Ben Chayyim edition and why were the additional sources used in the making of the KJV ignored? One unidentified person in the1800's did the comparing, and this one person's unverified decisions are being blindly trusted and followed by later printers.

You should give your sources for your various claims here.

And it is funny and sad that you accuse me of ignoring "facts" without sources. (Which is a type of plagiarism, again.)

Who made the claim about what 1705 Hebrew text edition?
What specific edition was referenced?
Where do we read about the "unidentified person in the 1800s" (no apostrophe)
Where do we read about a comparison of the 1525 to the 1705 in the 1800s? (which could not affect the 1769)

You need to do honest scholarship and give these sources. for proper evaluation.
Plagiarized second-hand claims are not worth researching.

So come clean, and give your sources.
You may be coming to your own conclusions, right or wrong, but then you need to give the source material.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
No false accusation was made against you. You make the false accusation.

I made very specific TRUE accusations against a book author who is NOT a forum member. One phrase was toned done by moderation, quite understandably, probably because it might imply criminality and theoretically could be a fulcrum for a claimed libel, however unlikely.

Similarly, I once has a book author on the heavenly witnesses verse put out some legal threats, but cooler heads prevailed, no legal nuttin, and we are on reasonable terms today :).

The CARM rules clearly make a distinction between personal attacks on forum members and attacks on those not here, whether it be Charles Darwin or Margaret Sanger or Alfred Kinsey or Bart Ehrman or James Price or Anthony Fauci. So I can say that Fauci contributed to the death of thousands and also crippling injuries by pushing dangerous jabs and mandates. You might disagree, and run to get more boosters, but it is all within the free speech realm.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
You should give your sources for your various claims here.


Who made the claim about what 1705 Hebrew text edition?
What edition was referenced?
Where do we read about the "unidentified person in the 1800s" (no apostrophe)
Where do we read about a comparison of the 1525 to the 1705 in the 1800s? (which could not affect the 1769)
The source was given (in the last paragraph of post 65 above). You demonstrate that you failed to read what I posted before you jumped to wrong conclusions and made your bogus accusations. What I put in bold is found in my earlier post that you evidently did not read.

Concerning these LORD/Lord variations, Sir Robert H. Inglis, member of Parliament for Oxford University, stated the following in 1837: “In the year 1832, a gentleman of the University, of competent knowledge in the Hebrew language, was engaged to examine all passages in the Hebrew Bible (I believe by Vander Hooght) in which the word ’Lord’ occurs, and to mark those which in the original signified ’Jehovah,’ and the University standard has been corrected by this marked edition” (Reports from Committees, Vol. XIII, p. 48).

Did this unidentified person know exactly which edition of the Hebrew Bible that the KJV translators followed so that the same exact edition was used?

The statement by Inglis indicated that an edition of the Hebrew text printed by Vander Hooght at Amsterdam (likely the 1705 one) was used instead of any actual edition used by the KJV translators.

Was this 1705 Hebrew text edition identical to the one used by the KJV translators and has it ever been completely collated and compared to the 1525 Ben Chayyim edition? I did not say that a collation and comparison was made of the 1525 to the 1705 edition. Since no collation is known to have been made, it is not known whether that 1705 edition may differ from the ones used in the making of the KJV.

This member of Parliament for Oxford University in effect indicates that the other sources used in the making of the KJV's Old Testament were not considered in this marking of an edition of the KJV.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
I made very specific TRUE accusations against a book author who is NOT a forum member.

You did not make true accusations against a book author. You likely have not even read his entire book. You take out-of-context statements and misrepresent or twist them, ignoring the statements where James D. Price stated how he was accurately using his terms. Dr. Price had defined his terms, and he was using them in the same way as the KJV-only author D. A. Waite had used them.

James D. Price's statement "Emendations in the Old Testament are regarded as departures from the Bomberg second edition, edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, the Old Testament Textus Receptus" (King James Onlyism, p. 280) could easily be understood to be derived from D. A. Waite's own two statements [that were in agreement with other similar assertions by Waite that have been accurately quoted in other posts in the thread where you make the same incorrect accusations], and it would be using the noun "emendations" in the same sense as Waite clearly used the verb "emend". Waite accused other English Bible translations of emending or making emendations to the traditional Masoretic text in the 2nd Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayyim, and James D. Price shows that the makers of the KJV in effect did the same thing, exposing the error in Waite's allegations.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Concerning these LORD/Lord variations, Sir Robert H. Inglis, member of Parliament for Oxford University, stated the following in 1837: “In the year 1832, a gentleman of the University, of competent knowledge in the Hebrew language, was engaged to examine all passages in the Hebrew Bible (I believe by Vander Hooght) in which the word ’Lord’ occurs, and to mark those which in the original signified ’Jehovah,’ and the University standard has been corrected by this marked edition” (Reports from Committees, Vol. XIII, p. 48). Did this unidentified person know exactly which edition of the Hebrew Bible that the KJV translators followed so that the same exact edition was used? The statement by Inglis indicated that an edition of the Hebrew text printed by Vander Hooght at Amsterdam (likely the 1705 one) was used instead of any actual edition used by the KJV translators. Was this 1705 Hebrew text edition identical to the one used by the KJV translators and has it ever been completely collated and compared to the 1525 Ben Chayyim edition? Could this 1705 Hebrew text edition be considered a different textual authority than the one used by the KJV translators? Was one person aware of other evidence or reasons as to why the 1611, the 1769, or other KJV editions may have had “LORD” in some cases? Was this person aware of the evidence from the Massorah, which the KJV translators consulted and sometimes followed? Is the Hebrew word that would underlie “LORD” in the 1769 Oxford KJV the exact, same Hebrew word as that would underlie “Lord” in many present KJV editions?

Since we have no idea what editions this research influenced, or what is meant about "the original" it is all quite incomplete. Did it even have any effect on the Cambridge tradition?

My apologies for using the word plagiarism about what is in this paragraph.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Since we have no idea what editions this research influenced, or what is meant about "the original" it is all quite incomplete. Did it even have any effect on the Cambridge tradition?

My examination of over 500 editions of the KJV demonstrated that this 1832 marking influenced Oxford editions beginning at least in 1835. One Oxford edition in 1829 makes some of the same changes, indicating the possibility that another person may have started doing a comparison before the one documented in 1832. Perhaps that person did his on a voluntary basis, and it was what caused Oxford University Press to engage someone in 1832 to check that possible earlier comparison. Cambridge KJV editions soon picked up these same changes.


1 Kings 3:10
the LORD (1675, 1679, 1709, 1713, 1715, 1720, 1722, 1729, 1737, 1743, 1747, 1749, 1754, 1758, 1760, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1782, 1784, 1787, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1795e, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1804, 1808, 1810, 1812, 1813, 1816, 1819, 1821, 1823, 1828, 1830, 1831 Oxford)
[1629, 1635, 1637, 1648, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1775, 1778, 1783, 1790, 1792, 1794, 1795, 1800, 1812, 1816, 1817, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1833 Cambridge]
{1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1648, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1698, 1703, 1705, 1706, 1711, 1712, 1723, 1741, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1767, 1772, 1813, 1814, 1816, 1817, 1818, 1820, 1824, 1825, 1827, 1828, 1831, 1838, 1851, 1853 London}
(1755 Oxon) (1637, 1638, 1712, 1714, 1715, 1716, 1722, 1726, 1729, 1756, 1758, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1806, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1834, 1842, 1843, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1741, 1743, 1762, 1782, 1801, 1809 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1696, 1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Bristol) (1776 Birmingham) (1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1782 Aitken) (1784 Piguenit) (1785 Wilson) (1791, 1816 Collins) (1791, 1841 Thomas) (1796 Bowyer) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813, 1815 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1804 Gower) (1804, 1807, 1813 Johnson) (1790, 1804, 1808, 1828, 1833 MH) (1809, 1810, 1813, 1818, 1826, 1828, 1836 Boston) (1811 Hewlett) (1810, 1814, 1822, 1831, 1832, 1835, 1839 Scott) (1810 Woodward) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1816, 1832, 1836, 1844, 1848 Hartford) (1816 Mercein) (1817, 1843 Clarke) (1818 Holbrook) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1838, 1840, 1843, 1845, 1847, 1849, 1851, 1954, 1956, 1984 ABS) (1821, 1831, 1859 Brown) (1823, 1827 Smith) (1824, 1826 Bagster) (1832 PSE) (1832 Wilbur) (1834 Coit) (1835 Towar) (1836 Stebbing) (1837 Knight) (1840 Roby) (1842 Girdlestone) (1843, 1850, 1856 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Benson) (1846 Coldstream) (1846 Portland) (1847 Jenks) (1848 IFB) (1853 Butler) (1839, 1845, 1854, 1857, 1876 Harding) (1855 Perry) (1857 More) (1859, 1868 RTS) (1873 Cooke) (1895, 1958 NPC) (1905, 1945, 1954 World) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1940, 1979-1, 1996 Holman) (1942 UBBH) (1947 SP) (1952 Judson) (1959 Little) (1961, 1975, 1978, 2008 GID) (1961 NBP) (1965, 1968 Royal) (1966 SC) (1970, 1972, 1989, 1991, 2003 TN) (1974 MBI) (1975 CBP) (1975 Collins) (1975, 1985 Open) (1976 BH) (1976 Holman) (WMCRB) (KJRLB) (CB) (1985 VB) (1987 Dugan) (1987 PSI) (JVIPB) (Dake’s) (1991 AMG) (KJVCB) (2003 EB) (2006 PP) (CNB) (2010 BEAMS) (2011 AMP) (2011 PJB) (HMSB) (2013 CC) (2015 KAPPA) (2016 Barbour) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)

the Lord (1768, 1829, 1835 Oxford, SRB) [1638 Cambridge, DKJB]
 
Last edited:
Top