Talk:King James Version/Archive 2

Source Editions of the Apocrypha

The general intro says that the Textus Receptus was used for the New Testament, the Masorah for the Old Testament, and the Septuagint for the apocrypha. I have two questions and comment about this

• Question. What edition of the Septuagint was used?
• Question. What edition was used for the Latin 2 Esdras? It obviously wasn't any edition of the Septuagint. Was it Stephanus' Vulgate?
• Comment. Does this technical issue really belong in the general intro? There is a translation section in the body of the article.

Rwflammang (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The intro section must summarize the entire body of an article according to WP:LEAD, so something about the 'apocrypha' should appear in the lead. The other parts of your questions fall into the category of 'inadequate in-line citations'. The article needs to cite its sources for everything. Your questions are readily answered by the many excellent reference works on the Authorized Version and Bible translations, in general. One day Wikipedia will catch up. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All of these are dealt with by Scrivener; I will chase up the copy in the Rylands and insert the page refs.

- the Septuagint edition used was chiefly the Antwerp Polyglot, with reference to the Sistine (i.e. Vaticanus)

Scrivener specualtes that the Latin source must have been an unidentified manuscript.

Yes it should be in the intro, in my view; if only to emphasize that the the Authorized version did and does include the apocrypha. TomHennell (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been researching this version of the Bible and have been confused by references from Scrivener attributing the Complutensian Polyglot to Erasmus. Upon reading the wiki page on Erasmus, it is clear he published a Greek New Testament in competition with the Complutensian Polyglot, as well as referring to Erasmus' work as Textus Receptus, which the Authorized King James Version wiki page attributes to Stephanus. The inaccuracies may be on any of these pages, and I have yet to get a copy of Scrivener to check the source, and more or less was bring this "error?" to light --Iwantdan (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Scrivener certainly does not attribute the Complutensian Polyglot to Erasmus, nor does this page. We possibly ought to change the TR reference in the article to Beza, rather than Stephanus, though the AV translators used both; but basically the TR is due to Erasmus, and those editions that descend from his. A complication is that Scrivener's detailed collation used the Complutensian Polyglot text one of his Greek standards - when the Apocrypha team appear to have used the Antwerp Polyglot - but since their Greek texts are identical in the LXX (other than for the correction of a few misprints) this should not matter. You can download the text of Scrivener (which is out of copyright) here: http://www.archive.org/details/authorizedbible00scriuoft

" The texts from which the Apocryphal books were trans lated can be determined with more precision than in the case of the Old Testament, and were not the same for them all. The second book of Esdras, though the style is redolent of a Hebrew or Aramaic origin, exists only in the common Latin version and in Junius paraphrase, which is cited for the reading in ch. xiii. 2, 13. In this book some excellent Latin manuscripts to which they had access (ch. iv. 51 marg.), as also the Bishops Bible, must have had great weight with its revisers. The Prayer of Manasses had to be drawn from the same source, for the Greek was first published in Walton s Polyglott (1657) as it appears in the Codex Alexandrinus, the earliest that contains it, which did not reach England before 1628. The first book of Esdras ( O tepet>? as the Greeks call it), is not in the Complutensian Polyglott (1517), so that Aldus s Greek Bible (1518) was primarily resorted to, as is evident from the margin of ch. ii. 12, the typographical error there de scribed being that of Aldus (7rape&o6r)<Tav a /Sacro-apto for TrapeSo tf?; Sava/iWo-apw), which had misled the Bishops Bible. Besides this edition, our Translators had before them the Roman Septuagint of I586 1 , to which they refer, with out as yet naming it, in ch. v. 25; viii. 2. For the remainder of the Apocrypha they had access also to the Compluten sian, which in the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus seems almost a copy of Cod. Vatican. 346 (Cod. 248 of Parsons) 1 , but they used with it the Aldine and Roman editions 2 : the latter "copy" they cite by name Tobit xiv. 5, 10; i Mace. ix. 9; xii. 37, as they also do "the Latin interpreters" in 2 Mace. vi. i. By means of these Greek authorities they were enabled to clear the text of Tobit of the accretions brought into the Old Latin version, which had been over-hastily revised by Jerome. As a small in stalment of what remains to be done for the criticism of that noble work, two passages in Ecclesiasticus (i. 7; xvii. 5) are inclosed within brackets in the books of 1611. The former is found in no Greek text our Translators knew of, but only in the Latin and Bishops Bible: the latter occurs complete only in some late manuscripts, though the Complutensian and Cod. 248 have the last two lines of the triplet. These preliminary statements will enable the reader to understand the marginal notes in the Apocrypha which treat of various readings. They are no less than 156 in number, besides 13 of latter date. TomHennell (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

these are Scriveners comments on the New Testament and TR:

In Appendix E has been brought together all that can throw light on the critical resources at the command of our

Translators in the prosecution of their version of the New Testament. That these were very scanty is sufficiently well known, and, if for this cause only, a formal revision of their work has become a matter of necessity, after the lapse of so long a period. None of the most ancient Greek manuscripts had then been collated, and though Codex Beza (D) had been for many years deposited in England, little use had been made of it, and that single document, from its very peculiar character, would have been more likely to mislead than to instruct in inexperienced hands. It would be unjust to allege that the Translators failed to take advantage of the materials which were readily acces sible, nor did they lack care or discernment in the application of them. Doubtless they rested mainly on the later editions of Beza s Greek Testament, whereof his fourth (1589) was somewhat more highly esteemed than his fifth (1598), the production of his extreme old age. But besides these, the Complutensian Polyglott, together with the several editions of Erasmus, and Stephen s of 1550, were constantly resorted to. Out of the 252 passages examined in Appendix E, wherein the differences between the texts of these books is sufficient to affect, however slightly, the language of the version, our Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113 places, with Stephen against Beza in 59, with the Com plutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in 80. The influence of Beza is just as per ceptible in the cases of their choice between the various readings which have been collected above (p. 58) : the form approved by him is set in the text, the alternative is mostly banished to the margin. On certain occasions, it may be, the Translators yielded too much to Beza s some what arbitrary decisions; but they lived at a time when his name was the very highest among Reformed theologians, when means for arriving at an independent judgment were few and scattered, and when the first principles of textual criticism had yet to be gathered from a long process of painful induction. His most obvious and glaring errors their good sense easily enabled them to avoid (cf. Matt. i. 23; John, xviii. 20). TomHennell (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to Bible Downloads

This article tends to accumulate links to bible download and online sites. I have removed those that effectively duplicate what is there already. The Wikisource link gives the standard 1769 text. There is also a link to a site providing the 1611 text plus apocrypha, and another giving page images. This would appear to cover all eventualities. As a further consideration, Wikipedia should not, I believe, link to sites offering a partial text (i.e. the KJV minus the apocrypha), as this is potentially misleading; especially as such sites rarely acknowledge that the text they offer is incomplete. TomHennell (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with TomHennell. I also don’t think links to sites that offer partial texts should be included as it will cause some confusion. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

British English ( -ized, -ised)

At the top of this discussion page, it says the article comes under the jurisdiction of British English, so I have changed all the "Authorized"s to "Authorised". (GowsiPowsi (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

I have checked today the latest editions of the following dictionaries : OED, Chambers, Collins, Penguin - plus the Oxford Companion to the Bible, and the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian church - and the variant "Authorised Version" is nowhere accepted as correct British English. All recognize only the form "Authorized Version". So I will restore the article to the correct British English form. TomHennell (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The concise OED says "ise" ("ize" is also acceptable). GowsiPowsi (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

perhaps for "authorize" as a verb, - but not, I think you will find for "The Authorized Version" as a title. TomHennell (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of re-igniting debate, I will summarise what I see to be the current position. All dictionaries and reference works published in the UK that give a distinct entry to "The Authorized Version" as a proper noun, spell it as above.

There is, however, an unresolved division within the various branches of modern English as to the correct general spelling for verbs ending in the forms '-ise/-ize'. American English favours the form "-ize"; while Australian English strongly favours the form "-ise" (and consequently, I believe, Oxford Dictionaries sold in Australia prioritize the verb form as spelled "authorise" - though not as the proper noun for a Bible). International agencies and scientific bodies (e.g. WHO) universally favour -ize (on the grounds that this is a better indicator of the correct pronunciation).

In British English both -ise and -ize forms are regarded as acceptable for most such words, though the Oxford University Press and the "Times" newspaper have generally preferred -ize forms. However over the 20th Century, the -ise forms have come to predominate in popular and educated British usage (in part because -ize may be incorrectly considered to be an Americanism; and in part because of the influence of writers and critics born in Australia or New Zealand). Fowler's "Modern English Usage" discussed the issue in 1926, and the debate continues in more recent usage guides. A few verbs in English have to take the form -ize (e.g. prize, capsize); while a rather longer list have to take the form -ise (advertise, advise). The general rule is that those words that are French borrowings in origin must take the -ise form - since -ize is not known in that language; but that those verbs that entered English directly from the Greek or Latin, should generally take the form -ize (from the Greek suffix "-izo"). But that does not help with the spelling of new coinages in the form -ise/-ize (though most style guides agree that there are too many of these anyway). Style guides for most UK publishers and media outlets (e.g. The Guardian newspaper) now recommend -ise - on the grounds that there then are fewer exceptions to remember - while nevertheless allowing that the -ize form is still acceptable as British English.

The verb "authorize" is not found in the Bible, but is otherwise instanced in English as far back as the 14th century; and tends overwhelmingly in Early Modern English to take the -ize ending - as it is indeed of late Latin origin: auctorizare. In the Oxford Standard edition of 1769, the practice adopted is that those biblical words of classical derivation tend consistently to take the -ize form (baptize); whereas those that are French loan words take the -ise form (circumcise).

Hope this helps TomHennell (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave a definitive statement of British English practice earlier, but it has now fallen into the archives. In brief, both -ise and -ize are accepted. Most UK publishers insist on -ize (I should know, I work for them). The Oxford University Press is among them, and I have never seen an Oxford dictionary for the UK that did not give the -ize form first. Etymological arguments in favour of one spelling or the other are specious, and TomHennell's comments are therefore misleading or wrong. Publishers regularise the spellings and take no account of the origins of individual words. EEye (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised that this discussion has lasted as long as it has. Revolution 9 (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The King's English

Since the KJV is literally the King's bible, meaning English, should it not be at Authorised King James Version with Authorized King James Version redirecting there? • VigilancePrime • • • 11:07 (UTC) 23 Feb '08

Especially considering the "This article uses British English dialect and spelling." tag at the head of this talk page? • VigilancePrime • • • 11:08 (UTC) 23 Feb '08

see above TomHennell (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gotit. MyBad. I think it was REALLY late at night and so I missed that (my brain had already shut off?); apologies. • VigilancePrime • • • 02:09 (UTC) 24 Feb '08 actually, it was really early in the morning

Who changed all capital letters in "the Law" in the Authorized King James Version to small "the law"?

"The Law" stands for commandments of God,but "the law" stands for the law of Moses. In order to distinguish the differences, you must have an authentic 1611 Authorized King James Version printed by Hendrickson Publishers. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Donkang (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)]] comment added by Donkang (talk • contribs) 02:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is this old, archaic, translation still used today? The article needs to address this.

From reading the Web, I get the impression there is significant proportion of Christians (presumably in America) who still use KJV even today. I find this baffling: I have absolutely no idea why this old translation would be so popular.

I read this article hoping this would be clarified. But the issue is not mentioned! There is no reference to how popular the book still is today, or why.

I think this article should mention quite early on (possibly in the opening paragraph) the fact that the KJV is still popular with many Christians today — despite being hundreds of years out of date, inaccurate, extremely difficult to read, and (in parts) impossible to understand by a modern English speaker. This means the translation is almost useless as a source of preaching, or spreading the Gospel to non-Christians, since no one can understand it.

I am a committed Christian — fully familiar with Biblical terminology — and I should mention, I come from a region of England where archaic pronouns are still in use (e.g., 'thou' and 'thee'). And yet I find KJV extremely difficult to understand.

Every single year, more is discovered about the ancient cultures and languages, and the meaning of the original texts is better understood, so it seems contrary to common sense to want to refer to a translation that is hundreds of years out of date.

I mean no disrespect to those Christians who do favour this translation; I would simply like to understand why. Presumably, there is some "good reason" to favour KJV, despite all its obvious disadvantages? I hope that someone will address this issue in the article.

With love and respect, Grand Dizzy (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you honestly find the KJV so hard to read, I would have to consider you barely fluent in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.163.172 (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is largely answered at King-James-Only Movement. --Secisek (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Secisek. I have added a short paragraph in the introduction explaining the current social context of the book (which I believe is extremely important and relevant to the article), in which I have linked to the King James Only Movement. I think it's useful to have that link in the intro. Grand Dizzy (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed this paragraph from the lead. It is unsourced and reads like opinion.

The translation is still widely read today, and highly regarded among many Christian groups. Some groups (known collectively as the King-James-Only Movement) even go as far as to reject all modern translations, believing the KJV to be the only reliable English Bible translation. This is despite the translation being almost 400 years old, criticisms of its accuracy, and the fact that it is written in Early Modern English (making it difficult for many modern English speakers to read, or even understand).

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am totally confused why anyone would think my paragraph read like an "opinion".

Everything I said in my paragraph (both for and against the translation) is backed up in the link (King-James-Only Movement). People DO still read the book today. It IS very popular. It IS nearly 400 years old. It IS difficult to read. Its accuracy HAS recieved widespread criticism. These are all facts. If you dispute any of these facts, edit them out of the "King-James-Only-Movement" page. Grand Dizzy (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Internal linking to a Wikipedia article is not a source. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

But nothing else in the introductory paragraphs quote any sources. It's just obviously a bunch of true facts (that would be removed if there was any doubt about them). Sources are only needed when there is something controversial, or disputable, or something that can't easily be verified. The fact that the King James Version is extremely popular is not something that needs proving. The fact that it was published nearly 400 years ago is verified by the first paragraph of the article. Many Wikipedia articles begin by saying things like "This TV show was extremely popular because", without quoting sources. Are they wrong?

I really don't understand why anyone would object to my paragraph. The people who support the KJV would obviously welcome a paragraph noting that the book is still popular today, while people who oppose the King-James-Only groups would be glad that the issue was raised. Surely both sides of the argument would welcome any attention being drawn to the argument. Therefore, removal of my prargraph can have nothing to do with bias. In fact, if anyone thought it was biased, they could just have redressed the balance by adding information. (I thought it was particularly neutral personally.) Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Formal Equivalence

I am not convicned that this categorisation is appropriate for the KJV - as we now know that it deliberately avoids word-for-word equivalence in many passages; tending to prefer a range of English words to translate the same Greek, Hebrew or Latin. I am aware that the mid 20th century theorists of translation practice tended retrospectively to find formal equivalence in the work of the KJV translators, but now that various working papers and discussion notes have been evaluated, I think it is clear that this retrospective reading was wrong. The RV and NASB are consitently formal equivalence versions, the KJV very much less so. TomHennell (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you people are understanding the concept of equivalence fully. There is no distinct, definitive categorisation between 'formal' and 'dynamic' equivalency — it is a matter of how dynamic the translation is, since all translations must employ a certain degree of dynamism (the KJV is no exception).

However, the KJV is regarded as one of the most formal translations there is, if not the most formal. Please have a look at this link, which has scientifically compared 20 translations, and rated KJV as the most formal and the least dynamic: http://www.participatorystudyseries.com/versioncomp.php

I believe every other version of the Bible on Wikipedia has been categorised as 'formal' or 'dynamic' (or somewhere inbetween). If you are to remove this categorisation from what is considered the most formal, then you are accepting that the categorisation of all Bibles is meaningless, and shouldn't you remove it from them all?

Grand Dizzy (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide sources. (I think we do understand the issue.) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if something funny is going on here. There can be no argument for removing the categorisation field, since all the other Bibles have it. IS there something special about KJV that makes it an exception to the categorisation? I could understand if you felt the categorisation of all Bibles was flawed, and wanted to remove it from all the Bibles. But just wanting to remove it from one Bible, a Bible that is known to be firmly in one category — that seems very odd to me.

If you want sources/references saying that the KJV is formal equivalence — no problem at all. Wikipedia itself says so here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_version_debate and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence And if you Google it, I don't think you will find any disagreement. Certainly, there is probably a lot more disagreement about the categorisation of other Bible translations, and which category they fall under. Whereas KJV is quite clearly in the "formal" category, since it's the most formal translation. Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Grand Dizzy, you are mistaken. The distinction formal/dynamic equivalence is one that operates in the field of contemporary Bible translations. None of Wikipedia entries for other 16th and 17th century versions have this category - Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Geneva, Bishops' - it simply is not a meaningful distinction to apply to Early Modern texts. There was, in the 17th Century, a lively debate amongst translators as to the degree of word-for-word equivalence that was proper for Scripture. Hugh Broughton's essays in translation stood at one end of this spectrum (i.e. is most literal); and the KJV stands at the other (i.e. is least literal). Geneva stands inbetween. Of course any 16th or 17th century version is likely to appear to have more literal features than a modern language version, simply because academic English of that date retained many classical idioms and forms that have since dropped out of contemporary usage. But to call the KJV a "formal equivalence" translation is to clothe the translators' aspirations in anachronistic terminology. In my view. TomHennell (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes made to opening paragraph

Here is one link for citation: http://www.laurelstreetchurchofchrist.com/bibleorigin.htm Very little searching is needed to produce further evidence on the KJV's lineage. 71.197.235.155 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

71.197.235.155, I have reverted your changes to the opening para. There is no need to summarise detailed issues on the lineage of the KJV in the intro - as it is already well summarised in the main sections of the article. TomHennell (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The article discusses the history of the translation quite well and is well sourced. The lead is a summary or over view of the article and ought to omit unnecessary detail. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The way the paragraph was is inacurate. The King James VERSION is NOT a translation. That is a very definite sticking point with the words "Version" and "Translation" having significantly different meanings. Translations go directly from a foriegn language into a new language. The KJV does not do that and this is why it is a VERSION as opposed to translations such as Tyndales or the New World Translation. The entire last half of the paragraph was entirely incorrect with the KJV authors being instructed to stick as close as possible to the Bishop's Bible. The authors did not translate from any of the sources previously mentioned.

71.197.235.155 (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, you have a unique understanding. The bible was indeed translated and the construction then compared to extant translations. Note that the sources support this understanding. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Note "... that the flyleaves of most printings of the King James Bible observe that the text had been "translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised ..." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.conservapedia.com/King_James_Bible links to this statement:

"The King James translators described it as "Newly Translated out of the Original tongues."[1] The King James Version of the Old Testament was based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, codified in the Middle Ages. The New Testament was primarily based on Greek texts predating the Latin Vulgate. The translators explicitly acknowledged making use of previous English translations, however, and the Catholic Encyclopedia describes it as being essentially the Bishops' Bible, corrected by comparison with the Hebrew and Greek texts.[2]. F. H. A. Scrivener, however, notes many passages which correspond to the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek.[3]" 71.197.235.155 (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your point. The translators translated and then compared. The translation was quite conservative and anachronistic but the translators did translate. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is simple. Here it is again: King James' third rule was that the Bishops' Bible was to be the basis of the translation and it was to be corrected only to bring it into greater conformity to the meaning of the original languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.235.155 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And, how was it to be corrected? By comparison to the fresh translation. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Note that the translators probably had a very poor knowledge of the extant English translations. They didn't use them. Church of England clergy at their educational level (Oxford and Cambridge) knew the bible in latin. Preaching to the king was still in part in Latin. They all knew latin and greek very well. Several were fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac. Translating was not difficult at all. After they translated, they had a meeting where they would compare their construed versions and then double check against the 'authorized' version - the Bishop's bible. Of course, there has been suspicion they compared also against other extant English translations. The documentary evidence is weak. But direct text to text comparisons - like a plagiarizing detection program - make it evident that they must have. However, we do have actual ‘meeting notes’ demonstrating that translation did occur. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Errors

Should there be a section pointing out specific errors in the King James Bible. For example, I want to add a section on how the KJV mistranslates the 6th commandment. It says "Thou shalt not kill.", but the original Hebrew is more correctly translated to "Thou shalt not murder." From a legal standpoint, there is a difference between the two words. Kill means to take a life (plant, animal, human, bacteria, etc.) regardless of outside circumstances, and murder means to intentionally kill an innocent human, usually with malice, which leaves exceptions for a time of war, self-defense, and capital punishment. If any more errors are found, maybe a list should be added somewhere. Before anyone asks where I learned this, it was http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html Emperor001 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

First, you need a much better source. Second, the text already discusses corrections and we don't want to give undue weight to these so-called 'errors'. The problem here is that nuances in translation are not errors as commonly understood. In the example of kill/murder, obviously a political point is being made that is tangential to an article about the AV/KJV. My suggestion would be to create a new article if this point is notable and well sourced enough. I suspect that it actually is. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Milton

Unless anyone has objections, I'm going to remove the bit about Milton, as it is simply untrue that he used the AV. As a Puritan, he would have relied on the Geneva Bible, the Protestant Latin translation (Junius-Tremellius) or the original Hebrew and Greek, which he could read.

The quote from Lycidas is irrelevant- it only shows that he was influenced by the Bible, and not any particular translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.163.172 (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on Milton is not sourced. So if you wish, you can delete it. If you have a source / citation, it would be better to add a footnote to the article saying something like "Milton relied on the Geneva Bible according to scholar John Doe." This prevents editing wars. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've radically pruned the 'Literary influence' section. It is almost completely unsourced and tangential to the topic. Quite a bit of the text looks suspiciously WP:OR. Even it is the standard understanding of a literarcy figure, the comments must be sourced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status

While I don't doubt that the info is correct, it is completely unsourced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this for the body. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status

The universities of Cambridge and Oxford hold the exclusive right to print the Authorized Version in England, and continue to exercise this right today.

In most of the world the Authorized Version has passed out of copyright and is freely reproduced. This is not the case in the United Kingdom.

In the United Kingdom, the rights to the Authorized Version are held by the British Crown. The rights fall outside the scope of copyright as defined in statute law. Instead they fall under the purview of the Royal Prerogative and as such they are perpetual in subsistence. Publishers are licensed to reproduce the Authorized Version under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for many years, with the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the Queen's Printer is Cambridge University Press (CUP). CUP inherited the right of being Queen's Printer when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in the late 20th century. Eyre & Spottiswoode had been Queen's Printer since 1901.

Other letters patent of similar antiquity grant Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press the right to produce the Authorized Version independently of the Queen's Printer. In Scotland the Authorized Version is published by Collins under license from the Scottish Bible Board, but in recent years the publisher Canongate were allowed to produce a series of individual books of the Bible under the series title "The Pocket Canons".

The terms of the letters patent prohibit those other than the holders, or those authorized by the holders from printing, publishing or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom. The protection that the Authorized Version, and also the Book of Common Prayer, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.

This protection should not be confused with Crown copyright, or copyright in works of the United Kingdom's government; that is part of modern UK copyright law. Like other copyrights, Crown copyright is time-limited and potentially enforceable worldwide. The non-copyright Royal Prerogative is perpetual, but applies only to the UK; though many other Royal Prerogatives also apply to the other Commonwealth realms, this one does not.

It is a common misconception that the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) holds letters patent for being Queen's Printer. The Controller of HMSO holds a separate set of letters patent which cover the office Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament. The Scotland Act 1998 defines the position of Queen's Printer for Scotland as also being held by the Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament. The position of Government Printer for Northern Ireland is also held by the Controller of HMSO.

Breadth concern

I'm not [t]he GA reviewer, but when I saw this nominated I got pretty excited. I don't think that the Literary significance section adequately covers things, though. This book has had more influence on English literature than any other work besides Shakespeare, and even that is debatable. Wrad (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is pinning the 'literary influences' to reputable sources: much, too much, is speculation. Obviously, like Shakespeare, the AV has had a huge influence. I think a spin out article is probably the best thing and keep this article focused on the bible itself if possible. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. There are plenty of reputable, academic sources that would back me up. It is not speculation at all. If the article ignores the enormous influence this book has had on English literature, then I don't think it meets the breadth criteria for GA. Wrad (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's just one source of many listing the linguistic and literary influence of the KJV. Wrad (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe we are at cross purposes. The article does have a literary influences section. The ref that you supplied says the same thing. My point is about individual writers. In the aggregrate, yes: the specific, hard to pin down. Was Milton influenced by the AV or by the Geneva Bible? Which did he own? Which did he read? These sort of arguments get quite contentious. But, yes, the AV was influential and the article does say that. I'm not so sure it needs to be expanded for GA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, since this is something I'm interested in, I might add stuff on my own. (The source says a lot more than the section does, by the way.) Scholars study which bibles influenced who very intensely, so it ain't speculation at all. There are definitive answers to your questions. Wrad (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Milton used the Geneva Bible. (So did Shakespeare, most scholars think). Wrad (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do! I'm not owning this article. Perhaps I was a bit defensive 'cause I deleted maybe a thousand unsourced words on the literary influence of the AV which was full of platitudes! I also deleted about two or three hundred words on the copyright status: completely unsourced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me that people would add unsourced junk there... sigh. Wrad (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniell has a couple of chapters on cultural influence in the 18th and 19th centuries respectively - focussing on Pope, Handel, Blake and Holman Hunt. And another chapter on 18th century Psalms and Hymns. Would you want these summarised and cited? TomHennell (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes! if you don't mind. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ref tags

Is it alright if I put ref tags around things? Wrad (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

Long have I put off helping here. If I can help during the GA nom in any way let me know. I have many sources that could be of help. -- Secisek (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! We shall see what sort of problems we encounter. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

KJV

GA Review

initial comments

I imagine that several editors have worked on this article, so the “you” I refer to is a collective term. Before I say anything else let me say that I fully appreciate the careful work and scholarship behind this article, and my criticisms should not be seen as given in any hostile spirit. On the contrary, I would very much like to see the article eventually regain its FA status.

My main observations on this article are:-

• Its length. At more than 10,000 words it is far above the maximum recommended length for a Wikipedia article. The impression I got was of considerable over-elaboration of detail. I found the prose quite turgid at times, which made concentration difficult. I can’t help thinking that several of the sections could be reduced, without any loss of coherence.
• It is not very reader-friendly. An encyclopedia article is for a general rather than a specialist reader, so the use of words like “diglot” rather than bilingual, and “exegesis” for explanation, seems like unnecessary elitism. Unexplained phrases such as “medieval Rabbinical exegesis” will bewilder most general readers. I found the general tone more in line with an address to scholars than a general article.

In addition to these two major reservations I found various detailed points:-

• You generally refer, throughout the article, to the “Authorized Version”. Occasionally you say “King James Version” or “King James version”, on one occasion “King James”, and late in the article you start using “AV”. It’s usually clear what you’re talking about, but perhaps some consistency would be better. I’d make much more use of the abbreviation throughout the article, if I were you.
• You are a bit undisciplined in the use of commas – usually having too many. You need a punctuation expert to excise some of the surplus ones.
• You appear to have ignored completely Wikipedia style guides on the used of dashes and hyphens. I haven’t fully checked other style issues but there may be other violations. Absolute adherence to MoS is not mandatory for GA status, but this will obviously be an issue should you want to take the article further.
• The sentence in the lead beginning: “King James did not personally…” sounds a bit facetious, even a bit patronising. Out of place, I feel, in this article.
• The last sentence of the lead could be prefaced by: "Apart from its scriptural function…" or words to that effect.
• In the first sentence in the Background section, “and as such was made..” would be better: “and as such would be made…”
• “Mary I herself..” sounds clumsy. Mary I, or Mary herself, OK
• Elizabeth I became queen in 1558 not 1559
• The Rainolds quote beginning “First, Galatians…” needs closing.
• The statement: James believed – with good reason – etc needs a citation
• The subsection you have called “Committees” ceases to be about committees after the first text paragraph, and is more concerned with early print history.
• “12° New Testament” needs explaining.
• Criticism, revision and defence section, approx. 1300-1400 words, is mainly about post AV versions and is surely a ripe candidate for some editorial scissoring.

There are perhaps other points of a fairly trivial nature that I may raise later, but for the present I would like to hear your comments on what I’ve said so far. Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent:. I agree with your review so far. I think six thousand words could be cut with out prejudice; perhaps by focusing on the topic and not drifting into tangential territory. Obviously, there are many possible spinout articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Length: Text = 10, 730 words. Lead = 280 words. Size = 82,076 bytes. Without a doubt Wikipedia:Article size suggests that the article needs to be reduced in size: an upper word limit is about 6 000 words. To quote; "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words..." I think we should aim between 3, 000 and 5, 000 words. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Large portions of this deal with bibles before or after the KJV. I will begin cutting material not directly covering the subject. This article is close to GA. -- Secisek (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Secisek. You've done yeoman's work! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

More to come I hope. -- Secisek (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'Background' section has been reduced from its bloated 1,400 words to about 450 words! Progress is being made. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that I would also like to see things cut to eliminate the tangent articles to leave us with the main focus.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see there has been lots of activity on the article. Will the main editors indicate when they think it is stable enough for me to look at it again re GA?

Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is stable in that there have not been massive additions or controversial subtractions. The article has been improved since the inital GA comments, but I would not say it is unstable. -- Secisek (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean the editors want me to review the article for GA as it now stands? Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement are most welcome and will be turned around in timely fashion. -- Secisek (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The text is now at 6,500 words and the lead is at 450 words. This is now within appropriate guidelines. Unsourced text has been removed. The text has been tightened up with tangential topics excised. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd Opinion rationale

Due to a computer glitch my reasons for seeking a second opinion on this article were not posted yesterday, nor was the status changed on the GAN page. I do apologise for this, but I've only just noticed, thanks to a message on my talk page.

I acknowledge that many changes to the article have been made in accordance with my suggestions, and I have no doubt that on the grounds of intellectual worth we have a GA here. It is still the readability issue, however, that bothers me. Although the earlier parts of the article are now perfectly accessible to the general reader, the mixture of exclusive language and over-detail is still prevalent in the sections after the committe lists. I am seeking a second opinion on this issue alone. With regard to the other GA criteria I have no problems, though I think it would have been wise to make a better attempt to meet wikipedia style in regards to dashes, hyphens, etc, and I still have small niggles with the text. But these are not decisive. In a nutshell, if another reader is satisfied on the readability issue, and doesn't raise other problems, then all will be well. Again I apologise that this was not immediately clear. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To do list

• Its length. At more than 10,000 words it is far above the maximum recommended length for a Wikipedia article. The impression I got was of considerable over-elaboration of detail. I found the prose quite turgid at times, which made concentration difficult. I can’t help thinking that several of the sections could be reduced, without any loss of coherence.
• It is not very reader-friendly. An encyclopedia article is for a general rather than a specialist reader, so the use of words like “diglot” rather than bilingual, and “exegesis” for explanation, seems like unnecessary elitism. Unexplained phrases such as “medieval Rabbinical exegesis” will bewilder most general readers. I found the general tone more in line with an address to scholars than a general article.

• You generally refer, throughout the article, to the “Authorized Version”. Occasionally you say “King James Version” or “King James version”, on one occasion “King James”, and late in the article you start using “AV”. It’s usually clear what you’re talking about, but perhaps some consistency would be better. I’d make much more use of the abbreviation throughout the article, if I were you.
• You are a bit undisciplined in the use of commas – usually having too many. You need a punctuation expert to excise some of the surplus ones.
• You appear to have ignored completely Wikipedia style guides on the used of dashes and hyphens. I haven’t fully checked other style issues but there may be other violations. Absolute adherence to MoS is not mandatory for GA status, but this will obviously be an issue should you want to take the article further.
• The sentence in the lead beginning: “King James did not personally…” sounds a bit facetious, even a bit patronising. Out of place, I feel, in this article.
• The last sentence of the lead could be prefaced by: "Apart from its scriptural function…" or words to that effect.
• Remove the words "To be continued." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.22.231 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• In the first sentence in the Background section, “and as such was made..” would be better: “and as such would be made…”
• “Mary I herself..” sounds clumsy. Mary I, or Mary herself, OK
• Elizabeth I became queen in 1558 not 1559
• The Rainolds quote beginning “First, Galatians…” needs closing.
• The statement: James believed – with good reason – etc needs a citation
• The subsection you have called “Committees” ceases to be about committees after the first text paragraph, and is more concerned with early print history.
• “12° New Testament” needs explaining.
• Criticism, revision and defence section, approx. 1300-1400 words, is mainly about post AV versions and is surely a ripe candidate for some editorial scissoring.

Most of the suggestions have been implemented. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links

(note that this is not a catalogue of Bible Downloads) I think it should include a link to a separate wikipedia page where people can list their bible downloads ad nauseum. Thoughts? Rogerdpack (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No! See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a directory. Whether a separate page or within this page, such an attempt at a directory would be speedy deleted. There is a style guideline Wikipedia:External links that helps to understand external linking. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I made an edit which linked to the 1769 text, and you deleted it saying it was a duplicate. However, there were NO OTHER LINKS to this text. It's the King James text most people know, and would expect to find in such an article. There was a reference to a publisher that produces a hard copy, but the site I linked to has it for free in an online form. Why did you make that edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.12.156 (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

the full 1769 Oxford Text is provided as Wikisource (see the reference here). In general, for copyright reasons, if a text is available as Wikisource there should be no other link to other sites with the same text. Wikipedia is not a directory of web links. Futhermore, you may not have noticed that the particular link you provided does not access the full King James text, as it omits the Apocrypha (a common problem with Biblical sites, and one that can potentially be very misleading, as they very rarely make it clear to the casual browser that they are only providing a partial text). TomHennell (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted a series of links to sites promoting the King James Bible. We already have a link to the King James Bible Trust (which appears to be the 'official' site in respect of promoting the forthcoming 1611 anniversary celebrations). But if we link to this site, then we should not link to any other promotional site, on the principle that the total of links should be minimised, and multiple duplicate links should be avoided. Wikipedia is not a directory. TomHennell (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of the Title "Authorized" versus "Authorised"

very detailed disc[u]ssion now archived.

- but simply stated, the term "Authorized Version" is a title and proper name, and as such is given a separate entry, with that spelling, in all current standard dictionaries of British English - Oxford, Collins, Chambers, Penguin. It is consequently beside the point that British publishers vary in their preference between '-se' and '-ze' for word endings in general; with many preferring the form 'authorised' as their current house-style for the counterpart adjective. TomHennell (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Printers

Can someone check what the article says: that the universities & Collins are authorized to print the Bible? My understanding is that the authorization is to the universities & the Queen's printers, & that Collins are the QP for Scotland. Last I heard, QP for England were Eyre & Spottiswoode, & they had the printing rights in England. Peter jackson (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just looked up the article on Queen's Printer. It says CUP are QP for England now, & the Scottish rights are execised by the Scottish Bible Board. If so, the article is wrong in a different way from what I thought. Peter jackson (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For now, I've put QP in the lead, which will save it from having to be updated every time a licence changes hands (tho' the details are still in the body of the article, which I see answers the questions I had about the lead). Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Italics?

I don't think it's normal practice in the real world to italicize Authorized Version, as is consistently done in the article. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I understood that it was Wikipedia standard to put book titles in italics; and the term Authorized Version undoubtedly functions as a title in normal writing. Can you sugggest an alternative, (and would it be better)? TomHennell (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think AV functions as a book title. The book title is The Bible or The Holy Bible. AV is a subtitle. It's correct to italicize it when it appears as part of the full title: The Bible: Authorized Version &c. But it's not standard practice to italicize separated subtitles, or indeed to use them that way (with rare exceptions: Don Giovanni is actually the subtitle of Mozart's opera, but it's always used as the title). Normal practice is just to write Authorized Version (roman, capitalized), as far as I know. Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Liars

The main article seems to pass over in silence deliberate false translations in the Authorised Version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.155 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Who says they're false? Who says they're deliberate? Wikipedia policy is to follow expert opinion (see WP:V & WP:NPOV), not decide for itself (WP:OR). If there are recognized experts who say such things, their opinions can be mentioned in the article, along with those who disagree. Peter jackson (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What might these "deliberate false translations" be? Kona1611 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your openness to suggestion here, but don't hold your breath.Tim (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See 1 Cor.7.9 and Hebrews 11.21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

very interesting, please expand to show that the Authorized Version translators adopted a reading that they knew to be false. TomHennell (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the textual notes in the Comprehensive New Testament, these are the textbase differences and translation mappings for those two verses:

1 Corinthians 7:9 Alx/Byz[it is better to marry], Min[it is better to get married (JNT, MRD, NJB, REB)]. Hebrews 11:21 No differences.

I also just did a visual comparison of the King James and other versions. "Contain" for "endure" and "assay" for "attempt" are simply Elizabethan verses modern syntax. And, finally, I looked at the Greek. There's nothing out of the ordinary with the King James there.Tim (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In 1 Cor. 7.9, the Greek enkrateuontai is translated as "they cannot contain" in the

AV, althought it means " they do not contain". The phrase "leaning upon" appears in the AV

in Hebrews 11.21, with no corresponding Greek. See 1 Cor. 11.27. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just checked 16 other common translations, and half render it the same way. Is it "do not contain"? Sure. But languages are not codes. There is no exact correspondence in the sense of a sentence. "If but not they do contain, they must marry. More good for is to marry or to burn." Well -- that's just not good English, is it?

And for Hebrews 11:21 "and worshipped on the top of the staff of him" isn't good English either. The King James translators weren't mechanics. They were translators -- and they were taking something that was good Greek and turning it into good English.

The English Revised Version, in contrast, was once described by Charles Haddon Spurgeon as "strong in Greek, but weak in English." In other words, it wasn't a full translation into English. It's neat for reference, but lousy to read.Tim (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"cannot" in 1 Cor. 7.9 comes from Tyndale, (the Vulgate has "do not"), but is then found in all subsequent 16th century translations.

"leaning" in Hebrews 11:21 comes from the Geneva version. The Vulgate had "worshipped the top of his staff". "leaning" here is a supplied word, rather than a paraphrase, but strikes me as good a rendering of the Greek as any other. TomHennell (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on previous usage, Tom. In the flurry of Greek we sometimes forget that the King James was a revision of earlier works -- just as modern translations are. Even the New International Version, supposedly a completely new translation and not a revision, contains a host of Byzantinisms that can only be explained by influence from previous translations. Sometimes it is methodical and deliverate, as the KJV->ERV->ASV->RSV. And sometimes it is not, as the NIV. But unfluences are real, nonetheless.Tim (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So what is the supposed problem in the KJV in 1 Cor. 7:9? Is it the word "contain" being so-called archaic or something? Who has never said or heard something like, "My kids were so excited hearing we were going to Disneyland they could hardly contain themselves." Or closer to this verse, "These hookers on the corner are so gorgeous and enticing, I can hardly contain myself." Kona1611 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (edited: didn't realize I wasn't logged in before when I posted).

Your missive probably shouldn't contain that last example...Tim (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, I guarentee the congregation will be riveted. You'll never see such rapt attention. 169.232.242.111 (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the last example is a (hypothetically) practical example of the wording of the verse in context. Kona1611 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah -- but who's actually ATTRACTED to the subjects in question? Anyhow, we're meandering. I think that the examples given are normal within the range of variation not only of translations, but even transmissions of Greek texts. "worshipped leaning on top" vs "worshipped on top" or the other example "cannot" vs. "do not" are all over the place in Greek manuscript variations. Granted -- they aren't in THIS particular place. But 1 Corinthians has a variation between indicative and subjunctive...1Cor 7:33 Alx[how to please his wife], Byz[how he may please his wife]. I got that just one page over on a Comprehensive New Testament footnote. And in this case the CNT maps 11 out of 20 translations following the Byzantine variation, even though only two of them claim to follow the textus receptus. To call the KJV a lying translation is simply not justified.Tim (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In 1 Cor.11.27, the Greek " e pinei" is translated "and drink", wrongly, in the AV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.155 (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

a much better call that 'unsigned'; "or drink" is the greek and the Vulgate, and is also the reading in Tyndale and in Rheims. "..and drink" is found in Miles Coverdale, and all subsequent English translations in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions - Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, Geneva Bible. I presume it represents an occasion where the KJV translators were constrained by established "ecclesiastical" usage - as the reading "and" might appear more congruent with Protestant eucharistic practice. TomHennell (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"and drink" is also the rendering of this verse in the exhortations in the 1559 Prayer Book. If the translators had proposed "or drink", I think it is a fair bet that the Archbishop would have changed it to the ecclesiastically preferred form (and indeed he may have done so, we don't know which were the changes of this nature he insisted on). TomHennell (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found Greek variants with "and", but the Peshitta (Aramaic) has "and drink" here. Murdock's translation follows suit. But, again, this is very minor -- and could simply be a variation in English style. One could make these same criticisms for any translation. And any translation that did NOT have these kinds of variations would be unreadable.Tim (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It might also be added that the Greek and Latin "or" never carries the specific English force, "either the one or the other" - but is more precisely rendered as "and/or". Logicians distinguish "or" (exclusive or) from "vel" (and/or). TomHennell (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Also, in the Greek, one COULD adopt a different breathing for "or" and get "who" -- "whoever eats the bread, who drinks the cup." If one did so, "and" would be smoother English.Tim (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Authorship

I don't know the rules of using Wikipedia, so I don't know if this is the appropriate place to comment.

1. If the rules are that nothing can be posted that contradicts something else in what is already there, then contradictory viewpoints cannot be aired, and whomever controls the site has editorial control. This problem is accute for example on the Shakespeare site where there has been a century long debate over who was the author "William Shakespeare." Opinions that contradict establishment opinion are aired under appropriate sections.

The whole idea that something as complex as this can be simply "proved" is naive. This is not a scientific experiment. It is a collection of data to find the most likely explanation. And the explanation for the KJV is that a single genius wrote it, not a collection of clerics, but there has never been a search for that genius. The only one available, but the man attached to that name in the establishment view was the man from Stratford, who was unlikely to Shakespeare, and more unlikely to be the creator of the KJV.

2. Always calling for editorial support from authorities prevents new discoveries from being aired, because there is no editorial support. In short, a discovery that contradicted previous beliefs could not be aired, as is the case with the discovery that Oxford is the creator of the King James Bible.

3. One has to be very careful about relying on scholars of the Elizabethan era concerning the Virgin Queen, Shakespeare and now the King James Bible. Generally, they have a point of view and then arrange the information to fit that point of view. Shakespeare was an expert in Latin. Grammar schools taught Latin. Stratford-upon-Avon had a grammar school. Therefore, Shakespeare learned his excellent Latin at the Stratford-upon-Avon Grammar school. Note there is not a shred of evidence that the town had a school, or that Shakspere went to that school, or that the school did in fact teach Latin.

In the same way, the scholars of the KJV, make conjecture into fact. Here is Olga Opfell, but at least she is honest in her assessment.

"The first Westminster group reportedly met in the famous Jerusalem Chamber, which was part of the original Abbey House and used for meetings of the dean and chapter…. The Abbey library has been suggested as a likely meeting site although it may not have been properly fitted up at the time…. Here he lived the greater part of the time, and perhaps the scholars held some meetings within its rooms."

The same goes for a lot of the supposed evidence of the scholars. Even if it were true, there are only about five supporting points, and yet there were over forty scholars working on this enormous project. That seems unlikely.

Gustavus S. Paine tries to dismiss the issue with following in The Learned Men: "But are there any other such notes about the making of a true world masterpiece? Why should these have survived when we have nothing comparable from Shakespeare?"

Well, there are no such notes from the man from Stratford because he did not write anything, and there are no notes from Oxford for a different set of reasons. But what I am pointing out that the lack of documentation in a project involving so many people is astounding.

4. This whole site place down the liteary importance of the KJV. Because if it does that means there must be a strong literary person, and none of the scholars and bishops apparently had any. There is no evidence that any of them wrote one line of poetry, or at least none of the KJV scholars I have read mention it.

"How did this come to be? How to explain that sixty or more men, none a genius, none even as great a writer as Marlowe or Ben Jonson, together produced writing to be compared with (and confused with) the words of Shakespeare?" Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men

Well the answer to this is that Shakespeare did create it. I might also point out that write and translate is not exactly the words to use. What he did was similar to what he did with Ovid's Metamorphoses, where he took a prose history piece and turned it into his own creation of 10,000 rhymed lines, or something like that. It was more than editing, but less than starting from scratch with a new translation. It should be pointed out that Oxford spoke Italian, Latin and Greek, and some think knew some Hebrew.

5. The impact of the Bible and Shakespeare was greater than is mentioned in this article on the KJV. These works our the foundation of our Anglo-American Civilization.

Any help anyone can give me is appreciated on how to post, discuss issues. My email is earlofoxford@optonline.net and the website for my book is www.oxfordinstitutepress.com.

Thanks, Paul Streitz 69.120.118.156 (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for responding on the talk page Paul. I realise that some of the conventions of Wikipedia may be a little off-putting; though the most important is always to be polite, and you already have that. If you establish yourself a Wikipedia:username, then you will find that useful guidance is sent to you anyway.

The basic principles are: verifiability (assertions should be backed with references to published sources), neutral point of view (an article should not argue a particular case), and no original research (publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal first, don't post them on Wikipedia).

On the points you raise, it is important to realise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for debate. It follows that factual assertions made in articles must be backed up by evidence. As it happens, this particular article has recently been through a thorough assessment process (in the course of which about half its bulk was removed), which aimed to ensure that all statements are backed up by scholarly references. This does not mean that only one academic opinion is allowed on any point of contoversy, but it does mean that statements of fact cannot be made in one part of the article, that are contradicted in another part. Hence, if you aware of more recent research that casts doubt on the references that lie behind assertions of fact in the article, then you should raise your concerns on the discussion page first. Then it should be possible for an agreed form of words to be devised that reflects the current range of academic views.

In this case the key "facts" are the findings of Ward Allen from 1969 onwards, relating to three previously unpublished sources; the surviving annotated Bishops' Bible in the Bodleian; the transcripts of John Bois's notes of the meetings of the review committe at Stationers' Hall; and Lambeth manuscript 98, one of the circulating fair copies of the proposed translation of the Epistles committee - before submission to the wider circle of contributing scholars. These physical items are "brute facts" - in that they can clearly be demonstrated to be preliminary to the KJV text that was published in 1611. It was common to assert in the early 20th century (for instance in Gustavus Paine) that no records survived of the actual procedures adopted by the translators, and until Ward Allen published his researches, that was broadly true. But now the case has changed, and any theory of authorship now has to accommodate the brute facts of these objects - either by the interpretation put on them by Ward Allen, or some other. We cannot simply ignore them. Did you assess Ward Allen's researches for your book on Oxford and Shakespeare - if so, it would be most useful to know what alternative conclusions you suggested.

On some of the specific points you make:

"One single genius wrote it". You assert this as an obvious truth, but there is nothing to back you up on this. It is true that Martin Luther single-handedly translated the Bible into German, but he took thirteen years over it, and used no more than half a dozen sources. The KJV was completed in less than five years, and draws on over twenty sources that have been identified. Moreover, the original text showed considerable variation between the sections allocated to the different companies (most of these subsequently disappeared in the 1769 revised text). This is most apparent in the marginal notes where the format adopted by the Apocrypha company was very different from the others. In addition,, where the New Testament scholars provided cross-references to the Psalms, they adopted the Psalm numbers and versification of the Vulgate, whereas the Old Testament companies adopted the Geneva numbers and versification. In general the New Testament companies made much more use of the Vulgate than did the Old Testament companies.

"There must be a strong literary person" Indeed, the literary quality of the KJV is for the most part, far higher than that of the Bishops' Bible. But there was one literary genius amongst the translators, Lancelot Andrewes; who was, at the time, universally acknowledged as the finest prose stylist in the English language. It is true that his sermons adopt a very consciously "witty" form of address (with dense wordplay, and many untranslated Greek, Latin and Italian phrases); but that was how the court preferred it. He could be just as eloquent in plain English. TomHennell (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I'll add to that. The Wikipedia process is a slow one, but it gets there. Basically, a view has to be notable and verifiable. It doesn't have to necessarily be right. If new information comes out, it may be harder to dig up the sources at first, but in our day and age they become available quickly enough. The only problem is if you are yourself the producer of the new information. Even if you were notable and verifiable -- someone else would have to cite you.Ben Asher (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole article needs removed or revamped or PROOVED. It cites zero refrences and ends in the words "To be continued." This is a dictionary article, not Jurrasic Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.22.231 (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been several edits from PFS seeking to include a section on alternative theories of Authorship. I have reverted them here for discussion - they should not be re-instated into the main article until the outstanding issues are resolved.

The key problem is that the second para of the proposed section clearly contradicts a para already in the article:

"They all had completed their sections by 1608: the Apocrypha committee finishing first. From January 1609, a General Committee of Review met at Stationers' Hall, London to review the completed marked texts from each of the six companies. The committee included John Bois, Andrew Downes, John Harmar, and others known only by their initials, including "AL" (who may be Arthur Lake) and were paid for their attendance by the Stationers' Company. John Bois prepared a note of their deliberations (in Latin) - which has partly survived in two later transcripts. Also surviving are a bound-together set of marked-up corrections to one of the forty Bishops' Bibles - covering the Old Testament and Gospels, and also a manuscript translation of the text of the Epistles, excepting those verses where no change was being recommended to the readings in the Bishops' Bible. Archbishop Bancroft insisted on having a final say, making fourteen changes; of which one was the term "bishopricke" at Acts 1:20."

If these several surviving sets of working papers are genuine (and I think that is the consensus view of all scholars who have examined them), then there really can be no question of who the general authors were (albeit that the exact composition of the translating companies may well have been more fluid than the official account might indicate). There are also a number of surviving accounts from the translators concerning their labours, including the report that they made to the Synod of Dort which inspired the equivalent Dutch "Authorized Version"; and of course the section "From the Translators to the Reader" (which is linked at the bottom of the article). And there are also published attacks on the translators from their contemporary critics - who would scarcely have failed to note if the work had been done by one who would have been (by the standards of seventeenth century scholarship, deeply unqualified.

Other problems with this section are; that it seems to be more about Shakespeare than about the Bible; that it appears to rely on original research; and that it otherwise conflicts with Wikipedia principles in arguing a point of view. TomHennell (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The proposed authorship section is below

Authorship

The King James Bible presents an authorship problem similar to the controversy over who was "Shakespeare." There are many dissenters to the established theory of William Shakspere (Christening name) of Stratford. Several candidates have been offered including Francis Bacon and Christopher Marlowe, among others. Currently the leading candidate is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. He was a known playwright, poet and theatrical producer but no plays have survived bearing his name. The plays attributed to "William Shakespeare" or published without attribution. Skeptics of the man from Stratford say he is disqualified because he did not have the classical knowledge, had never travelled to Italy and had never been inside an Elizabethan court. Critics of this position maintain that this is aristocratic snobbery among those who cannot believe a common man could be such a genius.

The King James Bible presents similar problems. The established view is that it was created by fifty-four scholars assigned to the task by King James I. Each scholar was to revise a particular portion of the Bible. However, there are no records of any communication between these scholars, as might be expected. There are no notes or records of the Bible going to the printer. Nor, is there any record of these scholars meeting to discuss and edit their revisions.

In addition, the King James Version of the Bible was written by a single hand of particular literary skill. Comments have been made over the centuries that that the KJV is the second greatest literary work of the English language, the first being the works of Shakespeare. Nevertheless, no established scholar has ever attributed the KJV to the man from Stratford-upon-Avon.

A new book, Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I, Paul Streitz, advocates that the Earl of Oxford as the author known as William Shakespeare. The book goes beyond conventional history and makes several startling claims. First, that the Earl of Oxford was the son of Princess Elizabeth Tudor and her step-father, Thomas Seymour. It claims that Oxford was born in July 1548 in Cheshunt, England. Second, that the Queen had six children during her lifetime. Finally, the book concludes that Oxford did not die in 1604 but was abducted and kept on the Isle of Mersea. It claims that while exiled on the island Oxford wrote, Shakes-peares Sonnets, The Tempest and the King James Version of the Bible. The KJV was then published after three years after Oxford’s death in 1608.

Oxford owned a Geneva version of the Bible, which is now kept in the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C. This Bible has the boar crest of the Earl of Oxford. Scholarly work done on this Bible by Dr. Roger Stritmatter, The marginalia of Edward De Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential discovery, literary reasoning, and historical consequence, shows correspondences between the under linings in this Bible and the most used Biblical phrases of the works of Shakespeare.

The mystery of authorship and to Shakespeare has not gone unnoticed by Biblical scholars.

“Perhaps the greatest of literary mysteries lies in the unanswered question of how fifty-four translators managed to infuse their work with a unity of effect which seems the result of one inspired imagination. The mystery will never be solved; but the perfect choice throughout of current English words, the rhythmic fall of phrase and clause, the unfailing escape from the heavy and sometimes pompous renderings of the older translations, remain.” Mary Ellen Chase, The Bible and the Common Reader

“How did this come to be? How to explain that sixty or more men, none a genius, none even as great a writer as Marlowe or Ben Jonson, together produced writing to be compared with (and confused with) the words of Shakespeare?” Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men

The argument for Oxford as the author is the process of elimination. First, there is no evidence that any of scholars assigned to work on the Bible in fact did so. Second, that only one person had the literary skill and knowledge to write such a masterpiece, Oxford/Shakespeare. Finally, that the argument the Oxford could not have written this because he died in 1604 is not corroborated and the first mention of Oxford as deceased does not occur until January 1608. Therefore, Oxford becomes the only plausible candidate for creating the King James Version of the Bible.

(It seems that someone is summarily removing this section. This is a censoring of scholarship and a rather closed-mind as to answering the question of KJV authorship. It would seem more appropriate to write a counter argument against the ideas advanced in this section. If there are questions, I can be reached at earlofoxford-at-optonline.net, or the website is www.oxfordinstitutepress.com. Thank you. PFS)

if you propose that assertions should be added to the article that directly contradict statements of fact made in the the existing text, you MUST justify the proposed inclusion here. The article is not a place for debate - that is the proper function of this discussion page.

So far as I can tell, the text proposed to be added makes the following assertions that appear unsubstantiated or plain wrong:

"Nor, is there any record of these scholars meeting to discuss and edit their revisions." Several members of the translation companies record their attendance at meetings in their correspondence, either at the time or in recollection. The letters of Lancelot Andrewes are particularly informative. In addition, the General Committee or Review met in Stationers Hall from January to September 1609. and we have records of the payments made to attendees (30 shilllings a week), and part of the notes of their proceedings made by John Bois. Then we have a surviving Bishops' Bible, "marked up" with the text as proposed by the the translation companies for Old Testament and Gospels, and a mancuscript version of recommended readings from the company responsible for the Epistles. In addition, we have the detailed discussion of the translation methods provide by Miles Smith in "the Translators to the Reader"; and also the detailed Latin account of the whole scheme provided by Samuel Ward to the Synod of Dort."

"the unanswered question of how fifty-four translators managed to infuse their work with a unity of effect which seems the result of one inspired imagination." David Daniell suggests an answer to this point - the unity of effect arises from the consistent reliance of the translators on Tyndale - in the whole of the New Testament, and in the first half of the Old Testament. Other scholars emphasize the debt also owed to Miles Coverdale (not a scholar of the original tongues, but a master in rendering poetic passages into singable English).

"How to explain that sixty or more men, none a genius, none even as great a writer as Marlowe or Ben Jonson, together produced writing to be compared with (and confused with) the words of Shakespeare?” This is a bizarre assertion, as it totally ignores the dominant presence amongst the translators of Lancelot Andrewes himself. Andrewes's Christmas sermon of 1622 stands as one of the peerless masterpieces of English religous prose " A cold comming they had of it, at this time of the yeare; just, the worst time of the yeare, to take a jouney, ans specially a long journey, in. The waies deep, the weather sharp, the daies short, the sunn farthest off in solstitio brumali. the very dead of Winter. Andrewes Good Friday sermon of 1604,, though a lot knottier and full of untranslated Greek and Latin phrases, has one of the great perorations in English literature; "This Day therefore, whatsoever our businesse be, to lay them aside a little; whatsoever our haste, yet to stay a little, and to spend a few thoughts in calling to minde and taking to Regard , what this day the Sonne of God did and suffered for us: and all for this end, tht what he was then, wee might not be; and what he is now, we might be for ever". Nothing in Jonson or Marlowe comes anything close to suppleness of this prose style; and in poetry, the only comparable figure is John Donne.

"Therefore, Oxford becomes the only plausible candidate for creating the King James Version of the Bible." I cannot comment on the discussion fo the date of Oxford's death. What I can point out is that the undertaking of a biblical translation is a very public affair. There were only three or four libraries in the country conataining all the relevant books (especially in relation to the Old Testament). Not only did the translators need copies of all 16th century versions (in English, French, and German); they also used a good half dozen different latin versions (including the constant reference to the Vulgate); and then the ancient verisons provided in the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, as well as the Bomberg rabbinic bibles, and four different editions of the Textus Receptus in Greek. Oxford may well have owned a copy of the Geneva Bible (but that was true of every literate man in the country). But a sixteenth century translation required a very large table with all relevant books open on it, and a committee each looking at the same text in a different version. This is a wholly different intellectual exercise from writing a play (if Oxford did write the plays).

And finally, why? James had 60 scholars eminently capable of translating scripture (and very jealous of one anothers learning and latinity), He had placed a great deal of personal prestige into the project (though not very much money). But why give the job to Oxford? TomHennell (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Childbirth

I have one comment to make concerning authorship. Consider just one verse:

And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. (Rev. 12:2)

Would a man, even a learned man, have known what that felt like and been able to express it in such beautiful words? 97.115.99.122 (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

the simple answer is 'yes' - the verse as it stands in the KJV is almost unchanged that of Tyndale's New Testament of 1526. All 16th century versions in English exactly reproduced Tyndale's wording; the KJV made two small changes "being with child" rather than "was with child", and "pained to be delivered" rather than the (more accurate) "pained, ready to be delivered". Both changes adjust the rhythm of the read text, rather than the sense or force of vocabulary. TomHennell (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Author Theory

If you want me to put up an alternative author theory, based on my book Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I, please let me know. There is a paper of several pages on www.oxfordinstitutepress.com which explains why Oxford is the better choice than the fify scholars theory that is commonly accepted. If you wish this to be done, please contact me at earlofoxford@optonline.net I don't intent to make submissions and have them quickly erased.

I should point out that my work, published in 2001 is not accepted theory, but I should point out that Darwin, evolution, tectonic plates, and the ciruculation of blood were also not accepted at the time. Max Plancx (sp?) once said that old scientists do not change their theories, they die first. And as I have pointed out the current fifty authors theory lacks substantive historical proof, (somehow, although fifty scholars presumably worked on it, there does not seem to be the voluminous correspondence one would expect, no one ever took credit for the KJV at the time, and nobody in the group had any literary talent).

Contact me if you like.

Cheers, paul streitz

Word-for-word Hebrew section

I have reverted this section, partly because it duplicates a point made elsewhere in the article (that the KJV/AV does not adopt word-for-word equivalence); and partly because it relates to an entirely unrelated version (and should be included in that Wikipedia entry). I might add that there have been plenty of English interlinear translations of the Hebrew Bible that are necessarily word-for-word, dating to long before the 1999; though I cannot vouch for their accuracy compared to that of Howshua Amariel TomHennell (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"The translation of these biblical texts are considered to be a dynamic equivalence or an interpretated translation of the original Hebrew texts. However the first formal equivalence (or word-for-word) translation of the Ancient Hebrew Bible into of English was not done until 1999 by Rabbi Howshua Amariel in a book entitled “THIS REPORT: The Hebrew/Phoenician History called the Bible” and was placed in the Library of Congress ."

First Ancient Hebrew Formal Equivalence translations

No the state was accurate that was posted before because it this is verified by both the Library of Congress and Guiness as the first formal equivalence translation of the Ancient Hebrew Bible into English. The translations that you were refering to are actually a balence between dynamic and formal equivalence translations. View an example of the text online at http://tcprayer.bravehost.com/torah1.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saverx (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing the point about the version you mention - I am arguing that it has nothing whatever to do with the King James Version. TomHennell (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Censorship

(section inserted into the article in error, copied here)

Someone has been removing the alternative hyposthesis that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, was the creator of the King James Version between his abduction from London in 1604 until his death in January 1608. Oxford is proposed by many, including this author, to be the writer known as William Shakespeare. Thus, the literary problem of the King James Version is solved. That is, the KJV was written with one highly skilled artistic hand and that hand was Shakespeare/Oxford.

As with the story of the man from Stratford (William Shakspere) being the author under the pen name William Shakespeare, the evidence that the KJV is rather limited. The only notes from the fifty some scholars working on the project at notes by Johin Bois and they are second hand recordings, not of someone present at any alleged meetings. Also, as with Shakespeare, those recording this orthodox history of the KJV tend to say things like, "they undoutedly met several times." When in fact that is doubt that any meeting took place. Or, phrases like "it is logical to conclude." In other words, the narrative is composed of conjecture presented as fact, that then hardens into accepted fact.

It is worth noting that Oxford had a Geneva Bible as the family Bible with records of its purchase by him. This Bible contains underlings and notes and these notes correspond to the frequent Biblical passages of Shakespeare. Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I gives a full explanation of why Oxford should be considered the creator of the KJV. It is recommened to broaden the outlook of whomever is serving as censor.

Whoever is erasing these additions to Wikipedia on this issue is being deliberately destructive, not within the framework of the creation of Wikipedia and its open source contributions. Such deletitions also show a marked insecurity with the attribution of authorship to a group of scholars. Otherwise, the thoughts presented here could have been easily refuted. But they cannot.

I don't expect this post to last very long. But it is not worth the effort to engage in a posting contest. As Shakespeare says, the truth will out, and eventually the authorship of Oxford of the works of Shakespeare and the KJV will be recognized.

Please note debate is for the discussion page, not the article itself TomHennell (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The surviving notes by Bois are first hand account of the discussions of the final stage of the translation, the review committee meetings of 1609 - they minute the statements (in Latin) of those present - who are identified by initials.

From the beginning of the process, we have a letter of Lancelot Andrewes dated November 1604 to Mr Hartwell - secretary to the Society of Antiquaries. "But that this afternoon is our translation time, and most of our company is negligent, I would have seen you; but no translation shall hinder me, if once I may understand I shall commit no error in coming". Andrewes has arranged a first meeting (as Director of the first Westminster Company) but most of his fellow translators have presented apologies. If nobody else actually turns up, he will come to see Hartwell instead.

From the middle of the process, there is a letter from William Eyre to James Ussher of 5th December 1608. Eyre was a fellow of Emmanuel College Cambridge, ,and Ussher then the Chancellor of St Patrick's Dublin. Eyre has sent one of a number of "circulating" fair copies of the translation of one of the companies (we don't know which one) to Ussher, for him to obtain the views of D. Daniel (again we do not know any more about this scholar) on some specific points of translation, but now needs the copy back as soon as possible, because it also contains marginal notes by another scholar that had yet to be copied into the official record of the counsultation.

I fear you have misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. It is not a forum for speculation, but to record published scholarly findings and opinions, that conform to the current range of academic knowledge and explanation. The various letters and notes mentioned above remained unpublished until the 1970s, so it is not surprising that, before that date, writers with an imaginative bent might attempt to fill the gap in the evidence with an alternative narrative. But now the letters and notes are published, they must be acknowledged as established facts, and theories that do not take these findings into account have no place in Wikipedia. TomHennell (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

One might mention it in the page, that "it was once speculated that..." and then give the knowledge now current that refutes that speculation.

tooMuchData

08:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

Why? If the former speculation represented at one time the dominant scholarly view, there might be a point. But discussion of alternative authorship was always a minority taste in the case of the AV. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue of all opinions ever held on a subject - there has to be a considerable degree of selection; and frankly, past speculations that can now be seen to have been inconsistent with the subsequent discoveries, do not make the cut. TomHennell (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is reference to Robert Barker, printer and financer of this work?

I find it curious that Robert Barker, who according to H.Plomer's book "A Short History of English Printing" not only printed the KJV, but funded the first edition out of his own pocket for little personal financial gain, and ultimately ended up dying in prison isnt mentioned at all in this article. I have posted an article Robert Barker (printer) and would like to add reference to him in this article if there is no reasonable argument to keeping him excluded.Mrrealtime (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I recall there was quite an extensive section on the printing of the AV - but it got chopped when the article was trimmed to length. Perhaps the excised material ought to have been put into a separate article anyway - so it is good you have done so. I think, a section on the early printers will might also to mention Bonham Norton and John Bill; there is much in the relevant chapter (36) of Daniell's book. TomHennell (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the info on the printers should be in separate articles. As it is, the AV article is very long. It is best to keep the focus tight and the periphery allow to flow into separate articles. Maybe later this fall, I will once again launch a GA push for the AV article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think simply stating "first printed by Robert Barker in 1611" insignficantly adds to the length - if that indeed is a concern - so I'm going to add it. The Church of England did not pay for or physically print the work, so I dont know what constituted "publishing" or why it deserves credit at the top. If the original manuscript was commissioned by the Church, THAT should be a seperate article, as this is about the final book that made it to the public. Robert Barker is credited IN THE BIBLE ITSELF right on the frontis, and is the only specific contemporary human being mentioned anywhere on the actual work. The bible itself does not credit the church of england. His story and progeny is certainly less than "divine" or "authoritative" so its clear why people would be motivated to keep him out of the historical record, but that kind of revisionism has no place in Wikipedia.Mrrealtime (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the opening reference to "Published by the Church of England" as there is no reference proving this, the frontis itself only credits Robert Barker, and gives no credit anywhere to the Church of England except that the Church is the intended audience for the work. The work was commissioned by King James who was the technical head of the Church, but this is already stated in the opening paragraph. It was published (funded) and actually physically printed by Barker.Mrrealtime (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Apocrypha

I note that Wassupwestcoast re-added that the Apocrypha was dropped to save printing costs. I haven't the book cited. Nevertheless, I would have thought that the withdrawal of subsidies or even that people just didn't like it to be more credible. However this is not my field ClemMcGann (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The section that was re-added has a citation: Daniell, David (2003), The Bible in English: its history and influence, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.page 600 (ISBN 0300099304) . Generally, editors who delete cited information without an explanation in the edit summary nor provide a counter citation are presumed to be vandalizing the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you access to the cited book? can you please confirm the citation?

I'm tempted to substitute: {{cite book|title=The Bible, Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha|editor=Robert Carroll; Stephen Prickett|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0-190283525-4|page=386}}In the 1820s, at a time when Protestant ideology seemed threatened by Catholic emancipation, in what became known as 'the Apocrypha affair', the British and Foreign Bible Society came under pressure to drop the Apocrypha, and the printing and distribution of Bibles without it became a common practice ClemMcGann (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Daniell is a very good source and widely available. Rather than substituting the text, why not add your cited source to it. Wikipedia would be better off with more cited info than less. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniell documents the Bible expolosion in 19th century America - which he predominantly associates with the spectacular reduction in unit printing costs achieved through stereotype printing, and the sale of Bibles ready-bound (before the 19th century, bibles - like books in general - were predominantly sold as loose sheets to be bound by booksellers). These stereotype bound editions almost always omitted the Apocryphal books and all other forms of explanatory notes and comments - whereas 18th century American printings had tended to include these - largely because that was the preference of non-Anglican protestant purchasers; and the economics of large scale printing militated against multiple printing product lines. In effect, the printed text on these bibles was standard, the differentiation of price for de-luxe editions being achieved by varying the quality of binding. However, the BFBS practice was a contributory factor - in so far as it was they who originally commissioned the production of stereotype plates for the Amercian market, contributing £500 towards their cost; and successfully seeking to have the US customs waive import duties on them. But the actual publisher of these low-cost bound editions was the American Bible Society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomHennell (talk • contribs)

Thanks Tom, Thanks Was, Although I will wait a while before doing anything ClemMcGann (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The BFBS was founded in 1804, but as Daniell recounts it, delayed instigating large scale bible printing for a year until the sterotype process had been fully developed and proved. Their first full bible came out in 1806, and by 1816 they had produced 480,000 English New Testaments; and 430,000 "full" bibles, all of these without the Apocrypha. The BFBS committee was, however, divided between those who supported this decision primarily in order to reduce prices to levels affordable to the poorest; and those who further rejected the Apocrypha on absolute principle. The matter came to a head in respect of BFBS support for editions of vernacular bibles in the languages of Catholic countries - as the standard bible versions of the Reformed tradition; Olivetan, Reina-Valera, Diodata, all included the apocrypha. After a prolonged struggle, the absolutist faction won, and hence the adoption in 1826 (followed by the ABS in 1827)of the formal policy not to support any printing that included the Apocrypha, with the consequential break with existing Protestant churches in Europe. TomHennell (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2008

(UTC)

I have reverted the following text from the article, "though not regarded as scripture by the protestant church. The King James Version thus placed the apocrypha in between the Old and the New Testaments for "recommended reading" (note:http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_34.asp )." ; firstly, becuase it its factually incorrect in that Old Testaments readings from the Apocrypha are specified in the lectionary, and secondly because the remark appears to belong to the article Biblical Canon not here. TomHennell (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ehrman comments

I have reverted the exchange of views below, which are essentially POV discussion; together with the quote from Ehrman that they refer to. In my view, this exchange refers to the quality of the Textus Receptus New Testament, rather than to the KJV. Nobody disputes (I think) that the KJV is quite an accurate translation of the Textus Receptus. Whether the Textus Receptus is a good text of the New Testament, is the subject of a different article TomHennell (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Some suggest that its value lies in its poetic language at the cost of accuracy in translation, while other scholars firmly disagree with these claims. For example, New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman has written:

“ The Authorized Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us. ”

If one is ready to accept Bart D. Ehrman's comments on the Bible they need to understand that his statements are grossly wrong. The Authorized text was taken from the corrected Erasmus text coming along 5 editions since Erasmus' first edition. Even though the King James translators did not have access to the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrian texts, these three for the basis for the Westcott-Hort text, the problems that exist in these three exist in all other Greek manuscripts. And all these Greek manuscripts were the same as the Textus Receptus. All this debate about Ehrman's comments rests upon Ehrman's opinion that the errors of the Greek text are theological errors, or at least that what he implies. Consequently the 1,800 and some errors are all typographical and not theological. Something that Ehrman's does not want you to know."

Shoe never dropped

I looked over the article expecting it to say somewhere why the KJV is considered so important, yet that moment never came.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well...what sort of thing were you expecting? The article does say that the version became the dominant translation for quite some time. I agree that the article should make this clearer as the point is buried within a couple of sections. Perhaps be bold and insert well sourced text: and feel free to copy edit. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Authorized or Authorised?

Was 'authorized' the standard English spelling in those days? Or should it be 'authorised' as the current British-English spelling is? Zestos (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

By "those days" I assume you mean 1611. It wasn't called the Authorized Version, or the King James Version, until the 19th century. The terms authorized bible and king james bible have been found in 17th century documents (Norton, Textual History of the King James Bible, Cambridge University Press, page 47), but I couldn't give you the exact spellings right now. It's pretty irrelevant anyway, as spelling was pretty random in those days. Shakespeare didn't even spell his own name consistently. The traditional spelling of the Bible and Shakespeare was standardized in the 18th century. Completely illogical to use neither original nor modern spelling, but there you are. Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We have been round this one several times. As a general othographic rule, "-ize" endings are standard in American English, "-ise" endings are standard in Australian English; whereas the international standard is "-ize". British English allows both - though most British publisher style books prefer "-ise", while OUP (who publish a lot of bibles) prefer "ize". However "The Authorized Version" functions now as a proper name - and is so distinguished in pretty well any English dictionary of more than pocket size. All that I have consulted, specify the proper name as "Authorized ... ", and that is also standard in almost all critical works of biblical reference - e.g. Scrivener, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. TomHennell (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. I'd just add that Cambridge University Press (which also publishes a lot of bibles)regards ize/ise as optional in its British English books (it uses the curious term Cambridge English for these, International English for American). Peter jackson (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As a Brit, I can tell you that the use of American spellings (-ize) in the UK is considered 'sloppy' by most people. In my experience, only uneducated British people use American spellings in the UK. That's not a jibe at Americans, by the way. I can tell you now that '-ise' is the 'correct' (widely accepted) spelling in British-English. Zestos (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I happen to be British too. I don't claim to know what "most people" think, but, having worked for Cambridge University Press for 20 years, I know their style convention. And somebody above cites Oxford as actually preferring ize. Dr Johnson, anybody? Peter jackson (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

An American, I favor the use of "authorised" in this article. It is rarely called "authorized" in the United States, but rather "the King James Version." Even if it was never "authorised" by Parliament or Convocation, it is often regarded as the "authorised version" in the United Kingdom. If the title of the article is to include both "King James" and "authorized," I see no reason why the latter term should not bear the British spelling. Finn Froding (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is never, to my knowledge, referred to as the 'authorised version' in the UK; but rather as the "Authorized Version" - the capitals indicating a title and a proper noun. As noted above, that is how the book is denoted in every major UK dictionary. TomHennell (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My Oxford Bible with Apocrypha reads on the title page "Authorized King James Version." I assumed it was spelled that way because it was printed for the American market, but I believe you're right. Finn Froding (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

How accurate is the King James Bible with the original text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.25.188 (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, no one has seen the 'original' text of the Bible since bible times. Bart Ehrman has written a popular account of textural variants in his book, Misquoting Jesus. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Title Page image

I corrected "ſecit" to "fecit" in the caption to the title page image; the letter in question is definitely printed as an "f," to make the Latin word "fecit" (roughly "made it" or "did this") 65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Spam

Just removed a link that looks like a commercial site someone recently added as possible spam. Put back a site which seems more credible and doesn't have pop up ads trying to sell you things like the other one.98.232.158.24 (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The studylight site isn't spam, and has in fact been linked on this article pretty much from the off. I agree the pop-ups are a pain, and if we could find something less brash it would be a good idea. However your suggested alternative, though at first sight more credible, is not adaquate. Firstly, in that it misses out the books of the apocrapha, secondly in that the only text it gives is the that of the 1769 Oxford edition; whereas the Studylight site also gives the 1611 first edition. But if you can find another site that includes the complete King James Bible, with both the 1611 and 1769 texts, by all means switch the link over. TomHennell (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked out the Studylight link and it does not appear to be the 1611 edition. It is the 1769 Oxford just like all others I see online. See for yourself- someone did a comparison of the versions and what the text should read like: http://rickbeckman.org/kjv-1611-vs-kjv-1769/ When I pull up some of those in Studylight, it's the 1769 version. Does anyone know where the 1611 version can be found online? --Adam00 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

the Studylight link originally went direclty to the 1611 text, but was changed. However, if you consider it better that the 1611 text come up as the first option, I fully agree. I have now put it back how it was. TomHennell (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I found a site that looks promising- doesn't have spammy ads and seems to have the 1611 text and apocrypha- not sure if its the same one I found before: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-1/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam00 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good find, and a lot nicer to use; but I'm afraid I still can't find the apocrypha. Is there someparticular twist I'm missing out on? TomHennell (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, now I've found it. There is a tag at the bottom which brings up the apocrypha. Unfortunately, this is only the 1769 text; not the 1611 text, which is what we need. The 1769 apocrypha is already available as a Wikisource text anyway. In addition, the search function does not bring up apocrypha references. Pity to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar, but there you are. TomHennell (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Literary Attributes

Thanks to the authors of this article. It certainly is eclectic. I believe much more refinement is possible/necessary. In the following passage the author makes an assertion that the AV translators made adjustments to the Bomberg edition to conform to the LXX or Vulgate then proceeds to give an example of this. However, the example given is not from the LXX or Vulgate as the reader would expect but from a totally unrelated source - the JPS 1985. I strongly suggest that either the author provide an actual relevant example or that this whole passage (two sentences) be removed:

"For their Old Testament, the translators worked from editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[83] but adjusted the text to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[84] For example, the reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions [they maul] my hands and feet"[85])." Thelastroadrunner (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Click on the hyperlink for the associated Wikipedia article on this verse; the Septuagint and Vulgate texts are rendered there (Jerome produced two different translations, but that does not affect the point here). The JPS 1985 reference is to a modern translation of the Masoretic text (i.e. Bomberg for this purpose) not to the Septuagint or Vulgate; for which see the linked article. But the point stands; the literal Hebrew here makes no sense, and consequently the KJV translators in this verse retained a reading from the Bishops' Bible, derived from the standard Vulgate Psalms, which had itself been translated from the Hexaplar LXX. But in the majority of cases of uncertainty in the Hebrew, the KJV translators tended rather to turn to medieval Rabbbinic elucidations, consciously disregarding the Vulgate. TomHennell (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see now what you're trying to say. The AV reading of Ps 22:16 more closely resembles the LXX than the Masoretic and that therefore the AV translators favoured the LXX over the Masoretic text. This wasn't clear from the article text itself since you make reference to the JPS which is unrelated. I did as you said and clicked on the hyperlink for the associated Wikipedia article on this verse (Ps 22:16). That article actually somewhat supports the position that there is textual Hebrew evidence for the AV rendering. Also, with which Masoretic text are you comparing? According to the Jewish Publication Society (http://www.jewishpub.org/product.php/?id=138) the JPS is based upon the Leningrad Codex and not the Bomberg edition (as you suggested) which represent two totally differentiated Mesorah. For clarification, is it the Bomberg Mesorah or the JPS or the Leningrad Codex which you are referring to? The literal Hebrew here may indeed make no sense, as you say, but this has yet to be established. Until it is established I suggest that this passage is misleading and should be removed. Thelastroadrunner (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore you claim that the AV translator's rendering of Psalm 22:16 must have come from the Bishop's Bible but from what I can tell you are relying upon Scrivener (esp. p43) who himself does not explicitly state the matter in this way. Whilst Scrivener seems to be confident about much of what he is saying he does not assert that he knows for sure and as far as I can tell he does not provide any convincing proof. Much of Scrivener's position can be described as educated conjecture (opinion) and whilst I respect his achievements one must keep in mind that he published his book in 1884 just a couple of years after the Revised Version was published (1881) and Scrivener was a member of that revision committee. His personal opinions have to be weighed against the fact that he had a vested interest in a competing bible text. The AV translators did not favour the Bishops Bible. Unless there is a stronger basis for this assertion this passage should be removed.Thelastroadrunner (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My original criticism stands slightly altered, that the arguement which is made in this passage is strictly conjectural and constitutes original research. It is not clear that the AV translators favoured the LXX or the Vulgate over the Hebrew text. The example comparison made is not with the Bomberg Masoretic text but with the unrelated JPS/Leningrad Codex. At the very least, a comparison would need to be made between the AV and the Bomberg edition. Thelastroadrunner (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I think you're nit-picking here - but it it really worries you, the point could as easily be made with half a dozen other OT passages - Genesis 49:10 perhaps, or Job 19:25. I am reluctant to change it though, as it seems to me clear and unambiguous as it stands. Does anyone else have a problem with it? But to summarise, the observation that the AV adopts Vulgate Christological renderings in a few verses comes from Bobrick not Scrivener. The observation that the AV translators worked from the Bishop's Bible comes from Daniel. But neither of these claims is in any way contested in mainstream scholarship, and I am sure that Scrivener would have supported both. It may be that Bobrick's claim is 'opinion', but that is what Wikipedia is for: a compendium of the published opinions of scholars. Once an opinion is published in a scholarly context, it is no longer original research, and hence is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. As to Psalm 22:16, I picked the example specifically because there is an informed discussion on the readings elsewhere in Wikipedia. Not having a Bomberg bible at home, I cannot check that it corresponds with the modern MT at this point - but are you claiming the contrary? I had understood that all printed Hebrew Bibles read "like a lion" at this point, but would happily remove it if it turns out that I was mistaken. Can you check for us? TomHennell (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Upon further investigation the first sentence also requires some correction. The author sites Scrivener as having said that the AV translators worked from editions of the Bomberg text. I checked the source of this reference and it appears that Scrivener has made no such claim. I suggest that either this reference be corrected or that this sentence be removed. Thelastroadrunner (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Scrivener's discussion is on pages 42 and 43, not page 41; I have corrected the reference. Of course for the Oxford company, we know which Bomberg editions they used, as the volumes are still there on the shelves of the Bodleian; but as Scrivener says, all sixteenth century Hebrew bibles follow the original Bomberg text so closely that it is not possible to pin down a particular edition as being preferred. TomHennell (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked on pages 42 and 43. Scrivener makes no such claim on those pages either. Or perhaps I've overlooked a line. Could you perhaps tell me how many lines down the page I should count to find the lines where Scrivener makes this claim? This passage should be removed. Look, I might agree that the AV translators used the Bomberg edition but you still have to provide the evidence or else remove the passage. Thelastroadrunner (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

bottom of page 42, top of page 43. Scrivener does not specify the Bomberg editions by name; but does state that the translators used one or another of the standard 16th century Hebrew editions (though which one he cannot tell). But since all of these derive from the Bomberg text, the point is made. He is contrasting here the position with reference to the New Testament, where he can identify a preference for Beza's editions of the Textus Receptus over those of Stephens or Erasmus. What is excluded is that the translators used a Hebrew manuscript source. Of course, there was also a Hebrew text contained within each of the various polyglot bibles available to the translators (Complutensian, Antwerp); but they must have used a Rabbinic Bible for preference, as otherwise they would not have been able to access Rabbinic annotations in their marginal notes, and in the readings adopted in their text. I believe that David Daiches lists the Hebrew editions from the Bodleian catalogue, which would have been available to the Oxford companies, but I don't have that work to hand. TomHennell (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Article name

What is the basis for having "Authorized" in the name? Usually it is just referred to as the "King James Version" or sometimes the "Authorized Version" (the traditional name), but rarely is it called the "Authorized King James Version". Using the g-hit test, "Authorized Version" bible gets 531K hits, "King James Version" bible gets 3.28 million, "King James bible" gets 788K, and "Authorized King James Version" gets only 97K. --B (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As you may have guessed, this question has been much debated over a long period, and the current title is something of a compromise. For most of its history, the version hasn't had a specific title - it was simply the 'Holy Bible' in the standard form known to users of the English Language. Both the title 'Authorized Version' and the title 'King James Version' are late coinages (though Thomas Hobbes does refer to "the English translation made in the beginning of the reign of King James"). There is really no good reason to prefer the one over the other - KJV is more common in the US (where the version is more widely used), AV is much better known in the UK (where the version originated). The title "Authorized King James Version" has the virtue of being unambiguous for all users.

A further complication is that most editions that call themselves "King James Version" lack the Apocrypha - very often, and most confusingly, all the while claiming to be 'complete'. I suspect the vast majority of your 3.28 million KJV hits refer this shorter text; and indeed that many generators of these hits would firmly deny that the Apocrypha forms part of the KJV at all. It is therefore a help to any enquirer who may not be aware of the arcane complexity of protestnat debate over the biblical canon that "Authorized King James Version" is the title chosen in the most widely available scholarly edition of the complete standard text - in the Oxford World's Classics series. This not only includes all the books of the Apocrypha, but also the preface "To the Reader". By using this current title, we can make it clear exactly which text forms the subject of the article TomHennell (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that explanation makes sense, but I don't know that compromising to something that is clearly a wrong title is the right answer. It is either the Authorized Version or the King James Version, but there's no such thing as the Authorized King James Version. --B (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that "AV is much better known in the UK"? A Google search restricted to .uk domains finds 37,400 hits for "King James Version", 4,810 for "Authorized Version" and 5,170 for "Authorised Version". And some of the "Authori{s|z}ed Version" hits weren't about the Bible. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "AV is much more widely known in the UK". KJV tends to be an applellation in the UK favoured by persons with conservative evengelical tendancies; in particuilar as exemplified within the title "New King James Version". But my local bible bookshop, which has a substantial section for the NKJV, still shelves the Oxford Standard text under "Authorized Version". And AV is the form that is standard in works of biblical, literary and linguistic reference. But my other point still stands; what proportion of the googled KJV references point to the full text, rather than the shorter text? TomHennell (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

as a test of this latter point, I searched for the phrase "the apocrypha in the King James Version", and found only two .uk hits; whereas the same phrase worded as "the apocrypha in the Authorized Version" recorded 61 hits. TomHennell (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see the relevance of the inclusion of the Apocrypha. I would wager that most publications of _any_ translation of the Bible lack the Apocrypha. Probably most translations claiming to be the "Authorized Version" lack it. Why should that have anything to do with the title of their Wikipedia articles? Grover cleveland (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The terms KJV/AV are used confusingly to denote two different texts; a long text which includes the apocryphal books and which dates back to 1611; and a short text which excludes the apocryphal books and which came into existence in the late 18th century, but which rapidly became the text most commonly printed. If I go into my local bible bookshop (in the UK) and ask for a "King James Bible", the version I will be given will be the short text. If I want the long text I have to ask for the "Authorized King James Version"; in which case I will be directed to a different shelf on which will be found the Oxford World Classics edition (which has that specific title); and also the Penguin edition of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible (entitled simply "The Bible"). It would be possible I suppose to split this Wikipedia article into two - one called "King James Bible" recounting the history in this version of the books in the short text; and another called "Apocrypha in the Authorized Version" giving a separate account of the apocryphal Books in this version. But while that would no doubt please "King James Only" enthusiasts, it would be immensely confusing for anyone coming fresh to the subject, and would be inconsistent with the text provided in Wikisource. In my view, and I seem to recall those of most previous editors discussing the matter, it is better that this article should take as its subject the long text; while explaining within it the history and popularity of the short text. But if so, applying a title to the article of, "King James Bible", or "King James Version" would be misleading, as most users of those two terms would understand them as denoting a different text to that which is the subject of the article. In the UK, at least, a bible that includes the Apocrypha is not called a "King James Bible" TomHennell (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Here is a reprint actually titled "Authorized King James Version": http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Authorized-James-Version-Apocrypha/dp/0192835254 Grover cleveland (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's known (informally) as the 'Authorized' version because it was the first Protestant bible in English that was officially sanctioned (authorised) by the British crown, i.e., King James. In other words, one couldn't be burnt at the stake for reading it, unlike with previous English editions such as Wycliffe's/Tyndale's or the Geneva edition.

BTW, the Apocrypha was originally included in all KJB editions by law, and it was only when it was being produced for various overseas bible missions that it was later left out to reduce the final cost of the book. So the full 'proper' KJB does include the Apocrypha, but some later printings for export overseas had it removed.

BTW, there's an interesting programme on the KJB on YouTube here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Just added a new reference I was surprised wasn't there before. I found another online too, through a basic Google search. It should round off this entry a little better with more resources. Thanks for this page- overall good info. --66.213.13.51 (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Anachronistic Wording

I noticed that the King James uses "corn" in place of "wheat" and other agricultural products, despite corn not being found in Europe and Asia until it was brought over from the Americas. Also, I have heard that it often uses the word "brass" in place of other metals such as "copper" and "bronze". Haven't these mistakes been thoroughly documented, and shouldn't somethibng be said about it in the article? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are not mistakes. "Corn" was (and still is) a generic British term for grain. Only Americans would mistake corn for a word used for maize only (still today, the German equivalent "Korn" has the same broad meaning as "corn" in British English). Also, brass was understood as a generic term for metals in earlier centuries. Clearly no "anachronistic wording" or mistakes, but simply old, respectively British expressions. --188.194.99.60 (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Organization and Layout

This article strikes me as poorly laid out. Currently, sections like Interpolations, Apocrypha, Standard text, look like interpolations, stuck into the article any old place they might fit.

The article I see now is laid out as follows:

• Name
• Earlier English translations of the Bible
• Considerations for a new version of the English Bible
  • Committees
• Apocrypha
• Authorized Version
• Interpolations
• Copyright status
• Printing
• Literary attributes
  • Translation
  • Style and criticism
• Standard text of 1769
• See also
• Notes
• References
• Further reading
• External links

I propose to re-arrange things to look more like:

• Name
• History
  • Earlier English translations of the Bible
  • Considerations for a new version of the English Bible
  • Committees
  • Printing
  • Authorized Version
  • Standard text of 1769
• Literary attributes
  • Translation
  • Style and criticism
  • Interpolations
• Influence
  • Copyright status
  • Apocrypha
• See also
• Notes
• References
• Further reading
• External links

In my first pass at re-orginization, I intend to delete no actual text, just move it all around.

Comments?

Rwflammang (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good - go for it. Wdford (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me too. It would be neat to see someone take it to FA. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

FA

Well, the reorganization was an easy low-risk first step towards FA, but now we need to to deal with the juvenile prose, the diversions, and the tangents to make progress. No part of this article is entirely free of these, but I think they are most harmful in the intro. Practically everything stated in the intro is stated in more detail elsewhere, and so the intro can be greatly improved by de-cluttering. I guess I'll take a ruthless stab at it, and then debate with my critics afterwards. Rwflammang (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that intros on Wikipedia are supposed to summarize the content of the article. Everything in the intro should indeed be stated in more detail elsewhere. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

But I'm not complaining! Carry on... Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Apocrypha

I pruned down the Apocrypha section quite a bit. What it needs is a date a reference for the archbishop's requirement that the Apocrypha be included in the printing, and the date and reference for the first editions to appear without apocrypha. I'll try to dig up something. Rwflammang (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

NAB history of English translations mentions the Long Parliament forbidding the reading of apocrypha in Church. Rwflammang (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Have to be a bit careful during the Civil War as a lot of things were forbidden and then re-instated: the Book of Common Prayer and Christmas being two such examples :-) Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In the Directory of Public Worship (1645) the two parliaments - English and Scottish - approved regulations on the reading of scripture in worship; "All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of those which are commonly called Apocrypha) shall be publickly read in the vulgar tongue, out of the best allowed translation, distinctly, that all may hear and understand.". This concerned only public reading however, it is assumed that an English Bible would normally contain the books of the Apocrypha. The Long Parliament also established a commission to examine the petition of some puritan groups that a new and better translation should be made. The main point at issue was not the inclusion of the apocrypha, but the absence of exegetical notes in the Authorized Version; in general, it appears that puritans of the 1640s tended to prefer the text of AV to that of Geneva (at least as far as can be determined from quotations and allusions), but much preferred the Geneva notes. But of course, any decision to include explanatory notes would lead to dispute over whose views should be included in them; and the parliamentary commission found that they could only hope to satisfy all demands with annotations that would be several times more bulking than the scriptural text itself. The commission concluded that the AV, as it stood, was the best English Bible that could be achieved. TomHennell (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflating fonts and orthography

Seventeenth century print fonts. In the quotation from the 1611 Bible, 'have' is spelt 'haue', which makes a nonsense of it. The font used for the letter 'v' resembles a modern 'u', but it was nevertheless 'v' and should be shown as such in a modern font. In the same way that we transcibe 's' as 's' even though it looks like 'f' with a shortened cross-bar, and a capital 'F' as 'F', even though it looks like 'ff'. I don't mind using an image of the original typeset, but if we are to use modern fonts, they must represent the intended letters. Katbun (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point and well made. Rwflammang (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is right. The modern distinction between the vowel "u" and consonant "v" simply did not exist in 1611. Some texts used "v" word-initially and "u" elsewhere: others simply used "u" everywhere. To change the original orthography to our modern idea of what should be a "u" and what should be a "v" is to alter the text. It's pretty standard practice in scholarly reprintings of Early Modern English texts to retain the original "u"s and "v"s. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There certainly was a distinction made between the vowel and the consonant, although this distinction was not uniformly represented by the selection of the two glyphs that represented one single letter. However, since U and V were one letter in those days, that presents us with two reasonable alternatives:

• We drop V (or U) and just use one letter throughout the quotes.
• We use the modern two letters as they were meant to be used: U for vowels and V for consonants.

Mixing and matching letters from a modern font based on their superficial resemblance to two glyphs from an obsolete font does not strike me as a good idea. It is inaccurate and misleading, and it makes about as much sense as substituting numeral Ones for all the lower case Ells and numeral Zeroes for all the upper case Os. Rwflammang (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Referencing formatting

I think the formatting had gone wrong following the addition of a reference which I have tried to redo. Hope is OK - sorry if I have made a mess. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

The Authorized Version maintained its effective dominance...

Should not this entry be in the Influences section? I think it has been suggested before, but I thought I would bring it up again.Fotoguzzi (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing when editing the article. Be bold and make the change! YLee (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with this question

which word is labeled 776,392 times in the King James Bible? Please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.164.87 (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Indented line

Hello, I don't know where that figure comes from, but perhaps they meant the total number of words in the Bible. And most common word in the King James version is 'AND' used 28,364 times. Source: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Popular-Bible-Words.php --Adam00 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Recommend updating external references

I see the Study Light website is the only website listed for the 1611 KJV, but it: 1. Has popup spam, 2. Hard to navigate. 3. Is missing books. For example, it doesn't seem to have the entire apocrypha which was released in the 1611 version, such as 1 and 2 Esdras. It's also missing other random parts of the Bible like Psalm 69. The page is blank: http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Wisdom+of+Solomon+7&section=0&translation=kja&oq=wis%25207&new=1&nb=ps&ngt=Go+To%3A&ng=69&ncc=7 This other site has the whole thing along with the original introduction and is searchable: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/ Anyone opposed to updating? I don't think any other site online that has it. It might also be nice to link to some of the 400th anniversary sites, as events occur. I see the Bible trust is one that's linked to, which is good. --Adam00 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I haven't heard any other opinions, I will proceed to update the external reference. If anyone contests it, an objective view clearly shows the existing site is not ideal: missing books, has blank pages, and and occasional popup ads, whereas the other is complete. --Adam00 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Now updated. I know people tend to freak out if an external link is updated, but seriously, if you know of a different website that is a better resource, put it in. It clearly isn't the Study Light one. There's other links that need updating too, as I've been doing a lot of research on the 400th year Bible facts. Will probably update apocrypha info next. --Adam00 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Good find Adam00; it is certainly better without the pop-ups and commercial guff; and it is more complete. It still isn't ideal though, the 'search' facilty doesn't find verses in the Apocrypha for instance, and some of the texts (for example the Prayer of Mannasseh) have been badly scanned in. But then Studylight didn't have PoM at all. TomHennell (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Updated Apocrypha section

The page number 337 was wrong on the quote reference, it's actually 341. The capitalization was inconsistent with the original document as well, so I revised what was intended to be a quote. http://books.google.com/books?id=I0uuAAAAMAAJ&ots=bsYF3Df1s5&dq=A%20History%20of%20the%20British%20and%20Foreign%20Bible%20Society&pg=PA341#v=onepage&q&f=false --Adam00 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

When was the original King James version printed?

Anyone know? One website claims May 2, 1611 as when it was first published, but I see no evidence for it yet. The Bible trust website seems vague. Another site thought it may have actually been published in 1612, instead of 1611, but that's when it was in process. Any thoughts would be helpful- wondering what date the actual 400 year anniversary is?

Came here to ask this. Lots of people say May 2, but an exhibition at the University of Cambridge claims (http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/exhibitions/KJV/1611.html) that the exact date is not known, as do several other people around the web. I assume someone picked 2 May as a good a date as any for a commemoration, at which point others picked up on it and assumed it was the actual anniversary date. Perhaps someone with more knowledge, or an academic source, can confirm this and update the article accordingly? Colin S (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Campbell in 'Bible' published in 2010 discusses the point briefly. Because the King James Bible was considered to be revision (of the Bishop's Bible), rather than a wholly new version; it has no separate dated entry into the Stationers' Register for 1611, and accordingly no publication date as such. I will make this, and other, corrections to article on the basis of Cambell's book; which is in many respects the most reliable general history of the version that I have found. TomHennell (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

David Norton, The King James Bible, A Short History from Tyndale to Today (Cambridge 2011), page 133, says, "If the appearance of the KJB sometime between March 1611 and February 1612 was marked in any special way, all record was lost. We do not even know if the King was pleased." Elsewhere Norton justifies the dates -- there is a library accession record, recording the price paid, dated February 1611/12. (See Old Style and New Style dates to understand why the printer would have put 1611 on the title page if he had printed it in January or February 1612, or most of March, for that matter.) I will have to reread this little book to cite the pages where he sets out his arguments for this. When I do, I will put "between Mar 1611 and Feb 1612" in the article (the lede perhaps?).

Update: I found it. Norton, KJB, p. 93n, where he cites Herbert, General Catalogue, p. 133 for the date 6 Feb 1611/12. — Solo Owl (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, does Norton's much longer book Textual History also deal with this? It would be a better reference, since the book I have is more "popular". — Solo Owl (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Biblical literacy

I have reverted the section below; as it appears from the citation that Douglas Jacobsen was merely being quoted in a passing comment; not from a published work of scholarship. In any case; this is only peripherally about the KJV; rather than on the Bible in general. Moreover, persistent literary misquotation is a well known cultural phenomenonon (e.g. Rick Blaine and "Play it again Sam") without any need to posit a variant translation effect.

Douglas Jacobsen, a church history and theology professor of Messiah College, said that when the King James Bible was the sole Protestant translation in wide use in United States society, people could easily determine if a purported quote from the Bible was genuine or not genuine, as there was one text of reference. By 2011 many Protestant Bible translations proliferated and the King James Bible lost its dominance. Jacobsen says that because there are many translations and texts of reference, people do not easily tell whether a purported quote from the Bible is genuine or not, so many false Bible quotes are taken at face value.

TomHennell (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Just a few questions.

• Why is a book that is alternatively titled the Authorised Version, or the King James Bible, under the bizarre amalgamated title 'Authorized King James Version' which a) is so unconventional it isn't even used in the header, and b) utterly fails WP:UCN?
• Why is the American spelling used on an article describing a English book published by the Church of England under the auspices of an English king? Clearly, a book referred to by the name of King James with significant links to the established church in England and English history meets WP:ENGVAR's criteria about national ties?

  Edit: I now notice the note in the header. Could someone kindly point me to the previous discussions? I am eager to learn what an 'official spelling' is.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

extended discussions on both these points; which you will find in the archive.

Briefly;

The book is widely referred to either as 'The Authorized Version' or as 'The King James Bible'; with the latter form gaining popularity recently, in the context of the 400th anniversary celebrations. Most scholarly works published in the UK in the last 150 years or so, use the form "The Authorized Version". The only widely available edition, however, that includes the full 'standard text'; that is the 1769 Oxford text including the Apocrypha and the Preface to the Reader, is that in the Oxford World Classics series; and that is entitled 'Authorized King James Version'. It is unfortunate that most editions that claim on their title page to provide a complete 'King James Bible' or 'Authorized Version', do not in fact include the full text; and it is clearly better for Wikipedia to be unambiguous on the specific text that is being discussed.

The form 'Authorized Version'(with a 'z') is so given as a proper name in all standard dictionaries published in the UK - Oxford, Collins, Chambers, Penguin; the form with an 's' is not found - even in those dictionaries that allow the corresponding word to be spelt, 'authorised'.

It is not strictly relevant, but for the sake of accuracy you may note that the 's' spelling is not the preferred English Form "The primary rule is that all words of the type authorize/authorise may legitimately be spelt with either -ize or -ise throughout the English-speaking world except in America, where -ize is compulsory." (Fowler's Modern English Usage; 3rd edn by R.W.Burchfield 1996) TomHennell (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A very neat summary of this issue. Thank you. Rwflammang (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, "New edition" (1972) gives specifically and uniquely "Authorised Version". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)