Spelling in the Apocrypha?

[DavidHaslam]

The file STVA.xml contains:

• 567 matches for Here but none for Heere
• 196 matches for Heren but none for Heeren

This illustrates that these books either contains systematic typos, or - more likely - that modern Dutch spelling rules had been applied such that the text is not that of the 1888 edition.

cf. The base text in STV.xml uses the spelling Heere / Heeren.

[lemtom]

The apocrypha appeared in the initial editions of the Statenvertaling. They were generally left out in later reprints. "Heere(n)" is, to my understanding, an anachronism that was maintained on purpose in protestant circles, but was probably not seen as important to the apocrypha, or done on purpose do de-emphasize them, or simply an oversight.

The selection of books and wording of verses follow the 1637 version, but with some grammatical differences mostly concerning cases and genders.

This seems to be a likely origin (or at least sharing an origin): https://books.google.be/books?id=yMpN5o4z-uYC&hl=nl&source=gbs_navlinks_s
It contains the same grammatical differences compared to the 1637 versions. It does have "Heere(n)", which makes me suspect the change happened in an applied spelling modernization (which otherwise has words like Almagtige becoming Almachtige) to fit the canonical books better.