As you know, it is the basis of the 1611 KJV. I can't for the life of me figure out how or why this would be difficult to put in logos. Thanks!
Please vote => KJV precursor - 1568 Bishops' Bible (12 votes)
Awesome would be 1568 Bishops' Bible with Reverse Interlinear.
Caveat: new Feedback website needs a separate login so please vote => Add the feedback website to the Faithlife SSO system that has 58 votes (planned).
Keep Smiling [:)]
That's always seemed a 'Biblical Mystery'. When FL produced the English Bibles Collection, they were careful to include some really obstruse versions (obviously NOT Julia Smith's), but left out some obvious ones (Bishops being the link between Geneva and KJV.) I'm guessing they selected already texted.
The site below has a hefty fee. But the notes are interesting (free) reading. Ah, yes, the famous 'olde ulcer':
"The treatment of the Geneva version was an ‘olde ulcer’ in the 1572 Second Admonition to Parliament; Frere, W. H. and Douglas, C. E., eds, Puritan Manifestoes (London, 1907), pp. 83–4".
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-church-history/article/abs/bishops-bible-illustrations/A6B728A87DECB80EB49B4D7D0E1E9BFB
From Archive.org, a B/B illustration of how Daniel appears totally unconcerned:
In addition to the Bishops' link, I've also posted a request for the Great Bible and Matthew (or Matthew's) Bible, should it be also of interest:
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/205283.aspx
I'm doing a paper in seminary on Archbishop Matthew Parker, and I was surprised that I could not find the Bishops' Bible anywhere in the Logos store. (I had expected not to find Parker's original prefaces, since those are usually omitted in later editions of the work, but to not find this edition of the Bible at all was unexpected.) Seems like quite an oversight; much of Anglican ecclesial identity seems to be owed to the work of Matthew Parker under Queen Elizabeth.
I wish.
The closest Logos came at least on the Matthew Bible was https://www.logos.com/product/226194/the-october-testament
Not quite.
