Talk:King James Version/Archive 1

1;HK2PR04MB0881;3:4soKAK0p+BeAz3DjGJENH88Kk4lXpyr1187Pl/bustJihn8qTg7kkwEuDfSLv2HMbpXe1gVf/yTl5sMQC+Ea5ipTCzrCYTwrXw10feXo73yLSwtTdKagn6ZxK9urGb5ilUymtGD1owlhR5oqvSIHcJIA0b9HzN2ijKBldyv+hCHBWHuBqOsXx6lh/0FvFrbmlLBgdfB+ah7/98Im6aTHzLQRwJB+xBP+kOrx7PMOD1fsVn3h25QapYvaigRjUnUHTft55ilGpJZngWgAM9SEOALw+qZiWPqZ0hHAj4BXj+ppuI35pzqZ4skbWlkM0gCiEB23crSkky6hGISHa3RwFRucMzzZYPGcD9WE3vLkW3nfkUftruLJrVWEgCMu3AiUoqJ5rrJQp1072TfAsTeReblxfaktgteFpt +lYuO99FEtQg/7scnws0mpsr47ud51ixzfcjtu2rputdeozrk4k6lbhoph8jawfwadl9spmzom=;25:B6ZjRMhFuxLLDy30gu/1b+cZlQ54QcOWLS2gN1eZZsjAwsWKP7xPmDnoWdNwGCsLtOlSTfOA7WPdhqMx54RLpX3iha3WIpfhBLJApP+pxhRvvC8pyT221eY1FDNasiPA4RI+sJB50jA6LFNtS8Bf9cKJEXxCCD97i6N242eq7vCTZQcXWBytK9PfY6xXeO9hu7r3c60chyPxLy0PzzyXS7rXaYH8bUiAv1sTXNaoDS7C5/pguX+doXEUnn5v+TXBiJ0pZk0JxXBpv1hiERygYYk4X/XTvCNYTL7BgqtfoKm88KE6mqr0nsRpco2Uyx5ydoNbLuaGJcR/3H/W8Ahst8Xw4QxFa6FxBh5uVz/aV+4=

King James

Does anyone know what King James this translation was named after?

--63.65.45.102 23:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a trivial exercise to discover this from the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It was King James I of England (VI of Scotland)

Best books?

The KJV is called the greatest work in the English language. From the point of view of literature, could anybody recommend which are the best books to read in the KJV?

Original language

Christians who don't know that the Bible was orginally in Greek and Hebrew and doubt that there are many of them.

Its popularity is such that sometimes people refer to the text of the King James Version as the "original English", possibly because such people are unaware that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and that there were at least three older English language translations of the Bible. One of these older editions, the Geneva Bible, was the Bible of choice for the Puritans and was brought over on the Mayflower to America.

I have run into Christians who were unaware that the Bible was not originally written in English. It's a fair guess that this is a small percentage, it just stands out when you meet people who believe that it was originally in English. More often, I have met people who were confused by the language, for example, I had a youth group leader who, when he read about a passage that talked about earthquakes in "divers places", he thought it referred to underwater earthquakes, when the reality was that "divers" is just an archaic spelling of "diverse".--RLent 21:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Authorized Version

Isn't the KJV also sometimes referred to as the Authorised Version (at least in Britain)? That might be worth referring to somewhere in the article. I'm assuming it's because it was officially sanctioned, and for a long time was the standard translation used in the Church of England etc. Magnus 16:54 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Bartleby's link

Would an external link to the Bartleby's King James Bible (or another King James Bible) be appropriate? john 04:20 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Done. hoshie

Copyright status in Great Britain

Could someone add the details of the copyright status of the KJV in Great Britain? It is mentioned that it has "special status", but I would like to know more.

Translations that preceded the King James Version were also made from the Greek and Hebrew. I have changed some words that could be taken to mean that the KJV was the first direct translation into English.

It is also worth noting that the KJV is more frank than modern translations. Those who want to find out how much more frank can look up the passages for themselves! M. Glass

Copy vio

The text I just removed, by reversion, appears to also be a copyright violation [1]. Andy Mabbett 10:48, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This has come up in the new article History of Bible translation. This was originally a public domain text from a book published in 1912, and I suspect that User:Jesus Saves!'s additions to the article were also from the same or a similar source. They will need heavy editing in order to make them encyclopedia material, but other than that they aren't much different from the stuff found in other old reference works in many other articles. If someone can confirm that this is in fact the actual source of the additions, I will revert or re-add them. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:40, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Confusing

This article is fairly confusing. From 2nd paragraph, "It is no longer in copyright". It refers to conference, or to Hampton Court, or to Bible? Kyk 06:56, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

New King James Version

Does this article mention the "New King James Version"? Rmhermen 21:05, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

So far it does not. AFAIK, from what I have heard of the "New King James Version," it strikes me as yet another modern translation that goes far beyond a light revision of the KJV. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:40, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I've read the New King James Version, and it's indeed another modern one.Pourfemme 03:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Perpetual Copyright? What?

There is a claim made on this page that the King James Bible is under perpetual copyright protection in the UK. Where does this claim come from? There is only one published work I know of that has extraordinary provisions inserted into legislation, and that is Peter Pan. According to the Act, the following applies to that work:

" 1.—(1) In this Schedule—

"the Hospital" means The Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London,

"the trustees" means the special trustees appointed for the Hospital under the [1977 c. 49.] National Health Service Act 1977; and

"the work" means the play "Peter Pan" by Sir James Matthew Barrie.

(2) Expressions used in this Schedule which are defined for the purposes of Part I of this Act (copyright) have the same meaning as in that Part.

Entitlement to royalty 2.—(1) The trustees are entitled, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, to a royalty in respect of any public performance, commercial publication, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of the whole or any substantial part of the work or an adaptation of it.

(2) Where the trustees are or would be entitled to a royalty, another form of remuneration may be agreed."

Crown copyright of published works last 50 YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION. So, applying normal standards to the KJ Bible, its copyright would have expired long ago. Never mind the fact that it was published about 100 years before copyright even existed as a legal entity and concept!

So, until and unless someone can come up with a quotation from a legal text or statute I would regard the claim that perpetual copyright exists as completely bogus to say the least. David Newton 17:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As an American, I don't have easy access to resources for researching UK law. However, the claim about the perpetual crown copyright status of the KJV is mentioned in the Oxford Companion to the Bible (ISBN 0195046455) and I assumed that they know better than I. This FAQ from a UK library also repeats the claim that the KJV is perpetual crown copyright in the UK. Smerdis of Tlön 20:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is another legal publication that mentions the perpetual crown copyright status of the KJV in the UK: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/conf/dac/en/sterling/sterling.html Smerdis of Tlön 21:35, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recently I emailed Jim Black. Black is a person who resells the Online Bible, a Microsoft Windows/Macintosh Bible app written by Canadian programmer Larry Pierce and American programmer Ken Hamel. Black told me that the KJV is under a Letters patent. That is, anyone who wants to print the KJV in the UK has to get the Crown's permission. In my Usian mind, that is as close to a copyright as you can get (IANAL). Besides Black, I have other sources.

According to Thomas Cassidy:

The Cum Privilegio was issued in the form of a "Patent" which is very much like our copyright. However, the King realized that patent (copyright) law stated that a patent or copyright was only good for the life of the person holding the copyright, plus 50 years, so, instead of placing the patent in his name, or the names of the translation committee members, he issued the patent in the name of the Crown (a "Royal Letters Patent in Perpetuity"). In this way, he was able to secure the patent for the duration of the British Crown, plus 50 years. This means that it will never come into the public domain unless HM the Queen or one of her successors releases the patent.

Catholic Apologetics has scans of KJVs published in the UK that have this notice:

"All rights in respect of the Authorized (King James) Version of the Holy Bible are vested in the Crown in the United Kingdom and controlled by Royal Letters Patent. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without written permission."

(The emphasis is mine.)

In April 1998, a "Betty Jo" posted a message to USENET offering the the KJV text via Anonymous FTP. In this e-text of the Gospel of John, "Betty Jo" wrote:

This etext contains a part of the King James Version of the Bible. The King James Version of the Bible is in the public domain in the United States. You may download, copy, and read this etext freely in the United States.

The King James Version of the Bible is copyrighted in the U.K. Do not download, copy, or read this etext in the U.K. In other countries, follow the applicable laws governing those countries.

(The emphasis is mine.)

It's clear from the above that "Betty Jo" realized the fact about the Letters Patent/Copyright and included this note in her etext in John.

Craig Rairdin is a programmer who was behind QuickVerse is now works at a startup he founded called Laridian, a firm that programs software for the Palm OS and Windows CE. He had this to say on the KJV's status:

Contrary to popular belief, the KJV is copyrighted but only in the UK. The copyright is held by the Queen and is administered by Cambridge. Companies publishing KJV Bibles for sale in the UK are required to hold a license from the Queen, though it's not clear that the rule is enforced to any great degree.

Doug Kutilek has an article that goes into the Letters Patent/Copyright at http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/king_james_copy.htm.

This concern over the KJV and the Letters Patent/Copyright even raised concern within Debian in 2002 since someone placed the KJV in Debian as a package!

In closing, the KJV letters patent/copyright is real, very real. Jim Black told me in his message,

THe patent, I can assure you is enforced. (sic in original)

With all of this evidence, I believe that the line about the KJV and copyright should stay. --iHoshie 10:36, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of evidence I was looking for. Having the copyright enforced by Letters Patent is just about the only thing that would mean it could be legal, since it is not in the main legislation controlling copyright. So, I'd say that we need to amend the page to say that it is Letters Patent that control the copyright.

However, on the internet I would have to say that the Letters Patent are effectively useless. It is one thing stopping people publishing books in the UK. It's quite another trying to stop people downloading material at all. That's the problem with copyright laws that are different lengths in the different countries when applied to material on the internet. Nonetheless, it is the law in the UK. David Newton 12:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On Christian ambitions for world domination

this article presents an entirely promotional view of the king james bible. It ignores the history of hte Jacobite kings, and the role the King James bible was designed for, to bring the non-Christian world under Jacobite rule.

Until the evangelical dictates, and the genocidal history of the old testament is refleced in this article, I feel I must respectully point out that it is in no way neutral, and is patently offensive to much of the world's population.

You seem a little biased yourself, if you don't mind my saying so. I don't believe the KJV was intended to bring the non-Christian world under "Jacobite rule". This article is not about the Old Testament, whatever we may think of its record concerning non-Jews. This is about one version of the Bible, and I think you're severely overplaying its so-caled racist tendencies. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Jwrosenzweig 18:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not only do I not believe the allegations, I don't believe that any substantial number of people believe them. Even if the Bible were being used as a blueprint for world domination, the KJV is just a translation. Lets start with the most basic of supporting evidence; can we name two people who believe this, or two publications of any kind where this view is advanced? DJ Clayworth 19:00, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. From the reading i've done of KJV history, the version was done to bring peace among the religious groups of 1600's England. It appears that the anon user is confusing King James Only people with the people who used the KJV in the 1600's. -- iHoshie 22:50, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

(Incidentally, User:David Newton has been targetted by Bird/Love of Money/etc; I don't think its concidence that this stuff was added straight after he edited this article). DJ Clayworth 19:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Based on the hasty reverts of efforts here to explain the social impact of the King James publication, I take it this so called open source encyclopedia is a place where fables and fairy tales are repeated but where people are not allowed to honestly discuss the killing and oppression that has marked human history. -- Anonymous editor

By all means start discussing. If you can demonstrate the racist passages and show that they are unique to the King James version of the Bible, then they'll find a place in the article. However, most old religious texts are racist to some extent and at the moment I don't believe that the King James version is worse than any other version of the Bible. Please take the time to prove me wrong. -- Derek Ross

Coronation service

The original printing of the King James Version included some books of the Apocrypha (also called "Deuterocanonical books"). They began to be omitted in approximately 1769, and the most common printings of the modern day rarely include them. However the '''coronation service''' requires, or required, an "unmutilated" edition.

I assume that this refers to a ceremony involving British monarchs, but as an American I am not certain of this. It needs to be clarified. --Yath 07:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure it refers to British coronations, but doubt that it is correct. The idea that a specific Bible edition is required needs to be sourced, as it's rather doubtful. The coronations are not all that unchanging, and there tends to be a little improvisation, as people alive often do not remember the previous coronation. I'll take this assertion out until someone can cite a source other than, say, the "King James Only" web-page: e.g., a source related to coronations. And if it was ever "required" and is not now, as the statement suggests, we should be able to determine when that "requirement" was dropped. - Nunh-huh 07:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---
Hi Folks, Another potential correction on the apocypha section.
" They began to be omitted in approximately 1769"

It appears clear that as early as 1629 there was a Tanach and NT edition without the apocrypha.
http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/responsetomelton.htm
"...In 1629, one edition of the Authorized Version actually appeared without the Apocrypha..."

I found many references to this (no pictures, though, yet) and the biggest counterpoint was a Catholic apologist, but he did not deny that as early as 1629 there was a non-Apoc edition.

He made a big point that at times there were NT-only editions, but of course that is essentially irrelevant, since it is a publishing/space/cost issue to have only the NT and not the OT, while the Apoc is just a fraction of space of the OT.

Other references are to a 1690 edition without the apoc. Apparently from 1629 on the Apoc was reduced in frequency, I have seen various references in the 1600s, at any rate the statement of 1769 needs correction. 24.193.219.212 02:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Shalom, Steven Avevy schmuel@nyc.rr.com

Re inclusion of Apocrypha. The definitive study of the printing record of the English Bible is Herbert's Historical Catalogue, which I have added to the article's References section. Herbert says an edition of 1640 (his #545) was the first in which the Apocrypha were deliberately omitted. The Apocrypha seem to have become gradually of less interest in the Church of England, but editions including them were still being printed in the nineteenth century. Note also that when Bibles were re-bound, the Apocrypha might be omitted even though still listed in the contents list.EEye 22:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

KJV Copyright, Pt. 2

Recently I sent an email to Cambridge in regards to the Letters Patent issue. In my message, I sent my contact a link to this article. He wrote back:

The article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Copyright_status. is misleading in that it links the concept of the copyright status of the KJV with the established church, the Church of England.

He told me:

• The LP is vaild thoughout GB (No word on NI).
• Cambridge does printings in England & Wales.
• The Scottish Bible Board does printings in Scotland.

The article currently refects this. - iHoshie 18:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ref copyright - I too had been told that Northern Ireland was not covered - another site I saw suggested that the commonwealth may have been covered in the past.

I note that the first section of the article refers to the United Kingdom and the section about copyright mentions Ireland. Should we change this?--PeterR 23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"hopefully"

In the section "Starting the project": "At the Hampton Court conference, King James proposed that a new translation be commissioned to settle the controversies, and hopefully..." Not to get into whether this particular use of "hopefully" has, in the last couple of decades, become acceptable English, who exactly is supposed to have been hoping? -- Jmabel|Talk 08:25, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Bunyan and Milton

The article now credits the KJV with an influence on Bunyan and Milton. My understanding is that both men used the Geneva Bible rather than the KJV. In early editions, all of the quotations in Pilgrim's Progress are from Geneva, rather than KJV, when there is a difference; some later editions may have conformed them to the Bible more widely available. An influence on Walt Whitman might be more pertinent. Specific influences on Bunyan from the Geneva woodcut illustrations have been identified. [2] The KJV did not use them. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can anybody cite reliable sources for the contention that Bunyan and Milton, respectively, were influenced by the KJV? The only sources that I can find are derivative and seem anecdotal. Encyclopedia Britannica is the most authoritative of these derivative sources. Perhaps someone could check a copy of Norton, 'A History of the English Bible as Literature', Cambridge: 2000. --Theo (Talk) 18:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The source is McAfee, if I'm not mistaken. There's quite a bunch of text to dig through, but it's linked to in the references section. Johnleemk | Talk 18:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can see that McAfee makes an explicit assertion of Milton's use of the KJV. The argument regarding Bunyan's version is more implicit, however. Essentially, McAfee argues that used Biblical language and appears to assume that this must have been the KJV because that version was published in Bunyan's lifetime. This hardly refutes Ihcoc's assertion above; given that there is a widely held view that Bunyan learnt his bible by heart and is unlikely to have used more than one version (in my opinion). --Theo (Talk) 20:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shakespeare More Popular?

I think asserting that more people read Shakespeare than read the KJV needs some supporting evidence. This claim seems as spurious to me as John Lennon claiming the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. -- airship 12:55, 04 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can find no source to support the claim that Shakespeare is/has been more widely read than the KJV. I would prefer a statement to the effect that is one of the most widely read books of all time. --Theo 19:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be removed as well. It is patently ridiculous on the face of it. Shakespeare has neither sold as well, or been quoted as much. --Busterdog 23:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Theo 09:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I think this revision is misguided. The KJV was hugely influentional and widely read historically but has been almost entirely replaced now by modern translations of the bible from different sources. Ergo most people today are far more likely to have read or been taught some part(s) of Shakespeare than any part of the KJV - even if far more have studied some version of the bible.Alci12 18:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alci12. Shakespeare is required reading in almost every English-language school, plus a huge number of non-English schools, either in the original English or in translation. (For example, Shakespeare was on the curriculum of my grandfather's school in Budapest.) In comparison, very few English-language schools, with the exception of church-run ones, require study of the KJV. I doubt any foreign schools, even religious ones, have KJV on the curriculum. It's therefore quite easy to believe that, both in English-speaking regions and globally, more people have read Shakespeare than the KJV. —Psychonaut 13:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted copyright statement

Just FYI the KJV is public domain in America, still has a copy right in the UK so its both yes and no I deleted the following statement, because it is false:

The likely reason for the New International Version's use of complicated wording is due to copyright concerns — if too much similarity exists between it and another literary work such as the King James Version, it is treated as a derivative work, and thus not copyrightable.

This is not only false in fact but doesn't even make sense in theory, because derivative works of public domain works are copyrightable, even if there's almost no change at all! You don't acquire copyright to unmodified pieces, but there have been court rulings determining that even the simple organization of public domain works can be copyrighted. In short, this sounds like more ill-informed modern translation bashing with no references cited to me. Deco 08:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um, the KJV isn't public domain. It's under crown copyright, a bugaboo that doesn't make any logical sense under modern copyright law (so I've been told). As a result, the KJV is most clearly not public domain. I don't know about the rest, but one thing I'm sure about is that the KJV is indeed under crown copyright. It is public domain in the rest of the world, but it would make sense if the NIV's publishers decided they didn't want to risk losing the sizeable market of the whole United Kingdom. Johnleemk | Talk 08:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking about the rest of the world. This is somewhat an odd case, since a work can be very similar to an existing work and not be a derivative work if they were both derived in a similar manner from a common public domain source — similarity alone isn't enough in this case. Modern translations are in some sense derivative works of the KJV, since there's no doubt it was a familiar source text to the translators, but whether to such an extent that a court might rule portions of it are derivative work is questionable. In any case I wouldn't venture to say this unless the NIV people actually made a recorded statement to this effect. Deco 19:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I find it odd how so many fundy KJV-only activists mention this; perhaps this could be reincluded in the article appropriately clarified as a common view taken by KJV-only Christians. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, it just isn't true that a derivative work from a public domain source can't be copyrighted. If this were true, then no one could claim copyright in a movie based on the Bible. Of course, what's original to the movie can be copyrighted; the public domain source only means that someone else can make another movie about the Bible, so long as all its similarities are based on the public domain source. (What they needed to do was to trademark the Bible characters. That way, people would still have to pay royalties to use them. . . .) Smerdis of Tlön 22:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Translation

Concerning "pascha" being translated "easter" rather than "passover" (as if the translators got it wrong), consider the following. What is the context of the passage (in Acts)? What is the chronology in light of the following. If you look up where the passover came from in the Old Testament (it is in Exodus) you see that the actual passover sacrifice comes before the week of unleaved bread. If you follow the facts the "king james" Authorized Version is not wrong. To imply or assert a word can only have one meaning is like saying the word "mouth" as used in the following examples can have only one meaning. Example 1: I talk with my mouth. Example 2. A lion could enter the mouth of a cave.

Wrong. Easter was not a term in use at that time. There was a dual festival of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Translating "pascha" as "easter" is patently incorrect. Additionally, I would think that linking to Jack Chick's website to backup the argument is more than a little disingenuous. 70.60.152.14 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. "Easter" is used in Acts 12:4 in several pre-KJV bibles including the Tyndale Bible of 1525 (ester), the Cranmer Bible of 1539 (Ester), and the first Geneva New Testament of 1557 (Easter). Also the Oxford English Dictionary gives a secondary definition of "Easter" as "The Jewish Passover" which is now obsolete, but was used as late as the early 17th century. No mystery at all. The words were often used interchangably in early Modern English. And, in fact, today children in Scotland still look for "Paske eggs" on Easter Sunday.

-- KJV is old English == I disagree with the statement at the head of the article: The King James Version, despite its age, is largely comprehensible to the average reader today.

Well, for very well educated native speakers of the 21st century perhaps yes, but not for most Americans, or even Brit-speakers.

The English of the King James Bible is nearly 400 years old (2011 is coming up). This is the distance from Homer's Greek to Sophocles's Greek, about 400 years, and there was an enormous change in the language: in fact it became another language which we all know and love as Classical Greek.

Most conversos have no understanding of Elizabethan English. So, if one wants them to be born again, one has to give them a bible they can understand.

I am of the last generation that grew up with the KJV in church. We actually remember how we switched in the early 60s to the RSV. It was the bible that was read in church.

Shakespeare as author

I have restored the deleted paragraph about the claim that Shakespeare had a hand in the translation. I do not see this as "irrelevant celebrity trivia" as described in the edit summary of the deletion. Shakespeare was the preeminent author of the time and the widely advocated suggestion that he participated is a significant part of the book's history. The fact that the story of his hidden signature seems absurd does not merit its deletion and I feel that it deserves the explanation that it receives. — Theo (Talk) 16:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Theo, it is also widely advocated that the KJV bible itself is responsible in "forming" Shakespeare via its ancestors especially Tyndale's translation. THAT also "deserves the explanation that it receives", both here and other relevant WP subjects.Unisgned at 17:52, 19 July 2005 by User:80.200.139.228

You are right about the English translations of the Bible affecting Shakespeare's use of the language. I can find no reference to this in the KJV article, however. Have I missed it? Or are you wittily suggesting that this is too trivial to mention? Please clarify for this rather dim bulb. Thanks. —Theo (Talk) 00:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Assuming the only evidence is Psalm 46, and this can be clearly shown (by the referenced web article and many others) to have had its current wording in the KJV's predecessor translations well before Shakespeare was even born, it is clear that this is nothing more than an urban legend and has no place in this Wikipedia article. In any case it is perfectly adequately covered at Shakespearean_authorship. I am therefore removing it.--PeterR 11:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation

I have found nothing to support the claim the KJV's translators "bypassed" the Latin Vulgate. Were and how could I verify this claim. Is not the King James Version of the Bible no more than a copy of a cpoy?

It was more than just a copy. It was a fresh translation. All those men were three years engaged in translation. So it was not just a copy.

There is nothing, that I am aware of, to support the contention that they "bypassed" the Latin Vulgate. It is said, but cannot be supported. Just as it is said that the 1609 Douay is based on the Vulgate. --ClemMcGann 12:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The idea is that the base underlying text is the Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus. The Latin Vulgate only had an auxiliary role in both sections. I can understand an objection to the word 'bypassed', but the idea in the article is sensible.

btw, even today I have dealt with folks (scholars, even, after a fashion) who have claimed that the Tanach (OT) was translated from the Greek or from the Latin, and occasionally the claim the NT was heavily from the Latin. Correcting this type of misunderstanding supports having the statement at the beginning of the article about what is in fact the base underlying texts. 24.193.219.212 02:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Shalom, Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com

Re: "The Project" Section

I'll research this when I get around to it. Heh. But I thought I'd post this just in case anyone else already knows ...

"The Project" section could use a paragraph regarding the editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts that the KJV translators used. It's my understanding that they used Stephen's edition of the Greek New Testament, but I'm unaware what edition of the Hebrew text they used for the Old Testament. Or what role the Septuagint (LXX) played in their translation of the OT -- of interest due to the fact some NT citations of the OT in the Stephen's text, and hence in the KJV translation, are from the LXX. ô¿ô 22:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I agree the editions would be helpful, however it is a bit involved. Scrivener did a lot of work on that in the late 1800's and even reverse engineered an almost matching Greek TR text. Apparently the Stephanus and Bezae texts were the closest to the King James Bible NT, but not identical. On the Hebrew it is generally said that they used the Ben Hayim edition of the Masoretic Text. The Greek OT (LXX) issues are separate, there are lots of problems in claiming that the NT authors used the Greek OT, but that is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion as it is clear that the KJB was using the Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic Text for the Tanach and not the Greek OT. 24.193.219.212 02:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com

Hi. While the heritage from Tyndale to all Received Text English Bibles should be highlighted, the statement .. "At least 80% of the King James New Testament is unaltered from Tyndale's translation." is one of those loosey-goosey statistics that gets thrown around. There is no standard measurement between translations, and it is hard to find a single verse that is *exactly* the same, even discounting spelling. Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com Praxeus 10:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My quibble with this section is that the statement:

Eventually four different editions of the King James Version were produced in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. It is the 1769 edition which is most commonly cited as the King James Version (KJV).

might better fit in the section called Subsequent History.

Also, to me the Shakespeare/numerology material is 1) irrelevant (the piece even defeats its own thesis) and 2) ill-placed. If someone can make a better argument for the Bard's involvement, they should, but this information seems inadequate. bkm, pdx, oregon, usa, scabland@gmail.com

Foundations for KJV

The KJV was based on Erasmus's Textus Receptus and the NASB, NIV, etc were based on minority texts represented mostly by Textus Siniaticus, Textus Alexandrius, and Textus Vaticanus. The NASB or any other version is not a revision of the KJV. Only the NKJV would be a revision since it is also based on the Textus Receptus. The NIV was a completely new translation which didn't get any inspiration from the KJV. In fact, NIV translators wanted to fix certain things which they seen as errors. Such as numerical discrepances between Cronicles and Kings with horses and chariots and various other issues like the Easter/Passover issue in Acts.

looking for original text

I am looking for a digital copy of the 1611 text. Is it at all possible that it is not online?? Look at Image:KJV Psalm 23 1 2.jpg for an example (psalm 23),

A Psalme of Dauid. The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures : he leadeth mee beside the still waters.

-- all google hits I get for this portion are short excerpts, e.g. [3] [4]. How is it possible that this text hasn't been uploaded to the internet, anywhere? This would be a very urgent wikisource project in my book (the wikisource link given in the article being broken at the moment); if you do have a copy of the original 1611 text somewhere, please do upload it! 83.76.218.123 20:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I found at least the text of the NT here, split into columns together with earlier translations; I could extract the individual columns and upload them; that will still leave us without the OT though :( 83.76.218.123 20:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks, this should be your KJB 1611 online .. oops, its not digital, but it is relevant to the article, and may be used on the links http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1 24.193.219.212 02:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Shalom,
Steven Avery
schmuel@nyc.rr.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

thankyou -- it's very nice, although it still leaves without an etext of the OT. dab (ᛏ) 19:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

fact

from the intro,

It is considered to be an instrumental founding block of Early Modern English

The KJV is? seeing that EME runs from 1470 to 1650, 1611 comes a tad late to be a 'founding block'. Arguably, the KJV can be regarded as a 'founding block' of Modern English (not 'Early' in particular), but even that would need citation; the KJV seems artificially archaizing even for its day, and I am not sure it really had the same impact on Standard English as Luther's bible had on Standard German. 83.79.180.249 19:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew - Aramaic Expertise

Hi folks, I see a major problem with the following.

"Hebrew scholarship by non-Jews was not as developed in the early 17th century as it is now, and it is unclear how well the translators grasped the language (snip Pascha example which is offbase) .. there is very little such material in Ancient Hebrew, and probably not even this little was known to the translators at the time."

'Hebrew in the Church' by Pinchas Lapide shows that the era of Christian Hebraism was in full swing. And Oxford and Cambridge were a center of such activity, and there were about a dozen semitic language scholars on the committees. They were very familiar with the technical issues, such as from Kimchi's (Radaq) Hebrew grammar, which remains highly esteemed today. This comes through on specific footnotes such as Psalm 12:7 and Isaiah 53:9 where they give what you might call the technical Hebrew grammatical detail in a footnote, while giving the smoother translational sense in the text. Radaq's work would be augmented by various rabbinical commentaries and writings, as in the Mikraot Gadalot.

In addition there were familiar with both the Latin and Greek translations of the Hebrew, and the Vulgate from 400 A.D., translated in Israel to Latin by Jerome working with the Jews is especially a very helpful source for any difficult Hebrew words. I am not sure if the Peshitta was in use in the west at that time, while the Targumim likely was in use.

Ask your Christian translators today (those of the oh so wonderful computer lexicon expertise) of the modern versions how much study they have of the classic Hebrew grammars and if they live and breathe and study the language in the manner of a Lancelot Andrews, and also their depth of familiarity with the Mikraot Gadalot (Risto Santala seems to be the only Christian scholar today who is very familiar with same).

Ok, I took this to soapbox level, but I hope you understand the point.

You might want to also look at the Jewish Publication Society 1917 edition, the statement about the King James Bible, which they essentially used as their base text.

24.193.219.212 02:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Steven Avery Queens, NY schmuel@nyc.rr.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Removed disambiguation

I removed this disambiguation at the top of the article: This page is about the version of the Bible; for the Harvey Danger album, see King James Version (album). The reason for this is that, according to disam. guidelines, "Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion."[5] In addition, since this album is named after this version of the Bible and is not that well known, the link should not be placed here.--Alabamaboy 17:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It is still possible that someone might come to this article looking for the album. In such a case wouldn't it be nice for the reader to have a disambig link to the latter? Some clueless Harvey Danger fan might not know the origin of the album title... -- Rmrfstar 20:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

For the rest of this discussion please see Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_9#"Other use" notice for King James Version. -- Rmrfstar 20:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I have a problem with the first sentence of the article. To me, it should read something like... The KJV is an English language translation of certain Judeo-Christian scriptures. To some, depending on faith, the KJV comprises their bible.--CorvetteZ51 10:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Page move

User:Alabamaboy made a great new disambiguation page at the end of December 2005. However since then, it looks like someone moved this page to King James Version of the Bible without discussing it here. Anyone interested in opposing moving it back to King James Version (which is now a redirect)? I won't move it unilaterally as I think it may be controversial --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The second complete translation of the Bible into English?

The second complete translation of the Bible into English? What about the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Wyclif's Bible? By my count, it is at least the fifth - probably more.

You are indeed correct. There is also the Great Bible and Matthew's Bible, so that puts KJV at least at #7. I fixed that as well as another inaccurate addition about all earlier English Bible translations warranting a death sentence, which was certainly not the case with the Great Bible or Bishops' Bibles which were both commissioned or sanctioned by royal decree. Yahnatan 02:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The KJV was the ninth into Modern English, although Tyndale did not complete his version of the Old Testament. Look at Early Modern English Bible translations and its linked articles. Before these there was the Wyclif translation of the whole Bible into Middle English, with a revision by Purvey et al. There were no other complete translations before Wyclif. However, parts of the Bible were translated from time to time into Old English (e.g. Lindisfarne Gospels) or Middle English, as well as in Modern English versions not counted in the nine that ended with the KJV.EEye 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal and Replace

The section headed, "Criticism by Bible Scholars" has been replaced. Edit or reword as you see fit, but it is a significant piece of information about the KJV and should recieve some mention.

I was just looking at how many times this section has been deleted/replaced. I agree that if some Bible scholars are critical of the KJV, then it should be mentioned. However, the paragraph only spouts a whole bunch of names. There is not one single reference to a statement or written work by any of the named scholars to support the idea that they are critical of the KJV. Personally, I think that if there is no supporting external evidence, the section should go.

If you're taking Greek from the guy who is considered the go-to guy for the book of Matthew and generally talking about Bible translations and his response to "so is the King James a good translation of Greek?" Is a derisive laugh, should that derisive laugh be cited as: Professor Greek, Class Discussion, Saint Widget's School of Theology, March 2003? I realize there is no way of establishing provenance here, but are we to quote things in that way if we're in the field? Are we to make sure that we point to a text rather than a lecture, even if the origin of the citation is a class discussion?MerricMaker 00:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If it is a fact that the named people criticise the KJV, and if it's also a fact that the said people are recognised as Bible scholars, then there seems to be nothing wrong with the section. --Quadalpha 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you this: Is this page meant to be useful only for people who are already well-versed Bible scholars? For example, I might say that Richard Stallman believes that proprietary software is the worst thing to ever happen to humankind. That statement may even be based on something I heard him say at a lecture. However, someone who is not an active part of the free software community doesn't know Richard Stallman from Adam. Furthermore, Richard Stallman has many written works to his name that I can point to as evidence of his opinion. Thus, if you have a statement made by Professor So-and-so, then that is fine. But if they have no written works to which you can point as evidence of what they believe/think/say, I would argue that they are not much of a scholar and that the quotation likely does not have a place in this article. In particular, I say that because this section is about purported Bible scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Cubano (talk • contribs)

If the person in question has a PhD or equivalent (TH.D. or whatever) in the area of Old or New Testament; is a full professor at Princeton/Oxford/Georgetown, and has contributed to current study editions of the Bible, they can be cited in this manner. So long as it is under the proviso that they do have writings that address the matter (even if what is cited is from a lecture). Further, as long as their own article is available (ex. Rudolf Bultmann) so that the casual reader can have access to that if they like then things should be in the article. The trick is to make sure that ancillary material is clearly pointed to so that the article does not tumble into blind citations that go nowhere. This is the risk Wikipedia runs by having no editorial board, it is up to us to provide a foundation for articles, and any old schmo can do it. So a discussion like this one is precisely what is needed to keep ourselves honest. MerricMaker 17:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Born again Jewish Rabbi"?

The sentence: "Abraham Ben Chayyim was a Masoretic scribe and a born again Jewish Rabbi" is very confusing. I believe the meaning is that he was a Jewish rabbi who converted to Christianity. The expression "Born-again Christian" is relatively recent, the Oxford English Dictionary online does not record its use before 1961 [6] and would certainly not have been used by early 17th Century Anglicans. It is never used in Judaism. Would someone who has more information about this person please reword this. Thank you. Rockhopper10r 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

---

A better choice might be “Completed Jew” or slightly less inflammatory and more accepted “Messianic Jew” Although this may not have been in use in 1611 they are in common use today. Jbloodwo 13:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Style - Flesch-Kincaid Data

There is no site for the Flesch-Kincaid Data in the artcle, but according to Amazon.com's analysis, King james scores 11.0 as compared to New International's 13.5. 11 is a far way off from 5th grade level. Even if you don't accept the validity of the metric, the statement is suspiciously partisan.

Could someone provide a reference to support (It should be noted that Flesch-Kincaid measures length of words and does not take into consideration readability due to age and use of the word. Most charts list the KJV as at a 12th grade reading level.)? This was recently added. While there is a reference for the lower grade level assignment (D.A. Waite's book), there is no such reference for the higher grade level assignment. El Cubano 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Criticism by Bible Scholars" Section

This statement caught my attention: "Futhermore, it is a translation of a translation, rather than a re-examination of all available fragments of scripture used to produce a translation that is closer to the original languages of the Bible." Now, every single King James Bible I have ever seen has the following somewhere in the front matter: "TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES AND WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED". Now, maybe it's just me, but "out of the original tongues" seems to me to mean that the KJV is not a translation of a translation. As a result, I have removed the statement. Unless there is a good source to support the "translation of a translation" argument, I am inclined to think that it should stay gone. El Cubano 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK you are correct. The KJV did make reference and use of the Vulgate, Septuagint, Luther's Bible, etc., but the vast majority was conformable to the Hebrew and Greek original. Yahnatan 13:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, because the 'original tongues' in KJV referred to Greek inter alia; and that makes it translation of a translation.Bridesmill 02:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Greek is the "original tongue" for the NT. And unless you have a reference to disagree with the statement in the second paragraph of the intro, the OT was translated from Hebrew and not the Vulgate as were many other English translations of the time. There's no support for the "translation of a translation" assertion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Original language for the written versions, sure - but they didn't start out in Greek. And the Greek version KJV was translated from was not the original Greek either (even the first para of this article states that) Bridesmill 03:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus certainly preached in Aramaic for the most part, but he must have spoken Greek much of the time as well, any time he wanted to talk to someone who wasn't a local. It was the standard commercial language of the time. It can probably be assumed he was speaking Greek whenever he spoke to a Gentile or to a mixed crowd. But it's absurd to ask for a translation of a text in a language where it wasn't recorded. For the books that were translated, Greek was the language in which they were written.

By this rather absurd standard, much of the OT is a translation of a translation no matter which rescension is used as the original. Surely Moses didn't converse with Pharaoh in Hebrew, but in Egyptian. Nor did Nebuchadnezzar speak Hebrew as recorded, but Akkadian.

The claim isn't "original text" (which we don't have anyway) but "original tongues". The variations of texts are another topic entirely, but no one in his right mind would call a variant a "translation" in any meaningful sense of the word. (And you meant the second paragraph.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And based on that logical leap you are going to argue that KJV is the best translation there is? Given that TR was a mess, and given that there is absolutley no way of knowing whether Jesus spoke Greek or not (that would be an 'assumption'), and given that nothing was written (that survived, if it was) for some generations, and given that our understanding of the original written languages is considerably stronger now than it was when KJV was done, I'd say that's QED, unless the argument is "KJV is the best because it says it is".Bridesmill 14:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't argue that at all and I have no idea why you think I did. The question, quite independent of the issue of quality of the translation, is whether the KJV is a "translation of a translation". It isn't. Period.

Incidentally, Jesus certainly spoke Greek. In his position, both as a preacher to the masses and in his earlier life as a tradesman working near a cosmopolitan center (Nazareth wasn't, but other places nearby were) Greek would have been absolutely essential. That's even if the Gospels didn't record him as speaking to people who we have little reason to believe understood the local language. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper nouns

Where did the proper nouns in the KJV come from? Many of them are rather bizarre, such as "Eve" for Hebrew /xava/, the persistent use of <b> for Hebrew /v/, and so forth. It seems, for the most part, to bear the mark of ancient Latinization to me. For instance, <ו> vav was in ancient times pronounced /w/, but by the time of the KJV it had mostly shifted to /v/, the same as <ב> (sans dagesh). Yet <ב> is always transliterated <b>, with or without dagesh (e.g., Abraham), while <ו> is consistently transliterated <v> (e.g., David). This makes sense in the context of Latin transliterating ancient Hebrew: there's no /v/ sound in Latin, so <b> is as close as you could get; <v>, on the other hand, is pronounced /w/, just like ancient <ו>. Similarly, <j> was pronounced /dʒ/ rather than /j/ in English ever since the Norman Conquest, but it's used in the KJV for Hebrew /j/.

So where did the proper-noun transliterations come from? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was a mark of ancient Hellenization followed by a more recent Latinization and Anglicization on top of that. It's a miracle they resemble the Hebrew at all, really. (Since the KJV referenced the Hebrew directly, it could have introduced closer adaptations, but the names were already familiar to the readers.) Added: The KJV originally used "i" and not "j". "J" spellings are later "corrections", but it was probably what was meant anyway. The pronunciation adapted to the new rules in English without changing spellings to adjust. Thus we also have words like "landscape", where the "sc" was originally pronounced /ʃ/ -- and now that word actually makes sense, doesn't it? But thus we get /dʒeɪkəb/ instead of /jɑːkov/ and other oddness. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So what Latin version was it based on, the Vulgate? And what Greek version was that based on, the Septuagint? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

By Latinization and Anglicization I meant the path by which these names entered the English language, not how they came to the KJV. Many of the proper nouns were already familiar to the English reader and commonly given to people, and the translators simply used these familiar forms. (Even where they were inconsistent, such as OT "Jacob"/NT "James".) The source text for the KJV's NT was the Textus Receptus, Erasmus' edition of the Byzantine text type (Greek), although his available examples were less than satisfactory as Bridesmill correctly points out above. The Greek source used by the KJV translators was therefore flawed. For modern translations, critical editions of the Byzantine Majority and the Alexandrian types are mainly used instead. The KJV's OT was based on the Masoretic. Both NT and OT certainly owe much to ealrier translations (which were based on the Vulgate) but a strong effort was made to correct them against the "Original Tongues". TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted the clause marked in italics: "Modern English Bibles such as the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version deprecate the Textus Receptus in favor of more reliable critical editions of the Byzantine Majority or earlier Egyptian Minority texts." I don't think it's right. According to both Metzger and Aland, the Textus Receptus was put together from Byzantine minuscle manuscripts, which are the majority greek text. So, "Textus Receptus" and "Byzantine Majority" is basically synonymous. So it makes no sense to put T.R. and B.M. as opposites. As the footnote rightly notes, the basis of the modern critical editions are the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (א). Gschadow 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits since Featured Article status

Most have been unwise. Compare the "Literary attributes" section with that of Feb 4, 2005. I will revert that section back to that date unless good reasons are given not to. Srnec 17:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I second this proposal. Johnleemk | Talk 05:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It was done a while ago. [7] TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that explains why it so resembles the earlier section. Johnleemk | Talk 07:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources and references

I understand that there is a references section to this article, but I cannot figure out how they are cited. I was confused to see the "criticism" section singled out, when it appears that it is no different than the whole article. I do not see how an article that doesn't use any method at all of citing sources (cite.php, MLA, Harvard, whatever) can be listed as a FA. I'd propose down grading this to a GA and then tagging the whole article (not just the criticism section) as lacking citations. Am I missing anything?--Andrew c 20:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly that it was tagged as an FA a rather long time ago, and perhaps footnotes weren't considered so vital then. You don't commonly find them in a print encyclopedia, for example, which generally will only list a bibliography at the end of the article as is done here -- and many times not even that. The only reason Wikipedia might have for preferring footnotes these days is a credibility boost. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that it achieved FA status back in November of 2004 [8] and the article as it stood at the time was not footnoted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is consensus that we should not defeature articles with references but lacking footnotes. Even the act of defeaturing articles with no references at all but were featured before the requirement was implemented remained very controversial until recently. Johnleemk | Talk 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Apocrypha; Council of Carthage

The section that discusses the Apocrypha still needs some PoV overhaul, I think. The text there still currently seems to assume that accepting the Apocrypha as scripture ought to be the norm.

Also, what is the Council of Carthage? It does not appear in the list at our artice about ecumenical councils, and we don't have an article about it. If it made a decision of this importance, we should, I think. Smerdis of Tlön 14:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Apocrypha was the norm until the decision of the British and Foreign Bible Society to remove it. That was in 1827. ClemMcGann 15:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We should say why the Apocrypha was separated, unlike the Catholic Douai. It was in obedience to 2 Esdras 14:45c-48 the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it: But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people: For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge. And I did so. The Douai placed this book in an appendix as a "commentary on the scriptures"

For now, I'll just move your date to 1827. If you can identify some KJ Bibles without the Apocrypha prior to that, and they must be in some library, somewhere, feel free to reverse. ClemMcGann 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In Christianity, accepting the Apocrypha is the norm. Only a minority of Christians omit them. Actually, "Apocrypha" is itself a POV term, but in the other direction. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And the Council of Carthage was a local council of the African Church. There were several of them, called to deal with a variety of subjects, but among other topics they considered (in the Third Council of Carthage, I believe [9]) the question of canonical scripture. (This is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article for some reason.) Although these were not ecumenical councils, they were still of singular importance in Church history, and it's a little surprising there's no article on them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the word Apocrypha has become a POV term. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to use the term in this context because that is the word used in the KJAV. The number recognising the Apocrypha today is not really the issue. It is that the Apocrypha was always included from 1611 until 1827 (other than the 1629) and is still included by many today. As the 1611 preface says: the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. Indeed, even the British and Foreign Bible Society revised their ban on printing the Apocrypha in 1966. Smerdis of Tlön has a point. We do need to revise this section ClemMcGann 21:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That was really just a side comment -- but these books were labelled "Apocrypha" by the Reformers specifically to express their POV on them. Most Christians do no so regard them.

However, I agree with your basic point that the real issue is that as far as the KJV is concerned, including these books between the covers has been the historical norm. But "many"? The only edition I know of available in the US that includes them is the "1611", which is really a photoreproduction of the edition reset into Roman type in 1614 if I'm not mistaken. The KJV "Apocrypha" is readily available bound separately, though. But I don't understand why that section needs to be revised. It seems well-balanced to me. Unless you're saying that it ought to be mentioned that they were placed into their own section rather than integrated with the rest of the OT. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

By “many”, I mean just about every edition from 1611 until 1827. By “the 1611”, do you mean the Thomas Nelson 1611. I have one beside me. It doesn’t mention 1614. It is standard print. It is not a photo reproduction. Personally, I prefer the “Oxford Worlds Classics” edition ISBN 0-190283525, good value at £11 (and it has the Apocrypha)

As to the section; It is worth saying why the books are ordered differently than in the Douai. I fail to see the relevance of the 39 Articles. The Articles said that the Apocrypha are for example and instruction rather than doctrine. They said nothing about omitting them. Nor, afaik, were any omitted in 1563. It would be more appropriate to mention the 1827 decision, which was definite and effective. The Cornerstone edition is mentioned. Either drop this specific mention or include the Nelson, Cambridge and Oxford. The phrase “The Septuagint's emendations” is awkward. Remember that the translators defended “the translation of the seventy” ClemMcGann 23:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's from Hendrickson, I believe, although I do not have my copy to hand at the moment. It cannot be a reproduction of the actual 1611 imprint, which was set in blackletter type, and from the look of it it was not reset recently. The blurb here -- hxxp://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=631609&netp_id=316580&event=HPT&item_code=WW -- says it was reset in the 19th century, so I was indeed wrong that it was not the 1614 edition. There's nothing wrong with photoreproductions; the vast majority of books nowadays are set by photographic processes and not with type.

I see what you mean now about that section, and I agree with your points re the Septuagint. But you had said "still included by many today", which is I don't (regrettably) see at all. 1827 is not "today" by any reasonable stretch. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Today, included by only a small minority. ClemMcGann 02:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, reference to the Thirty-nine Articles explains why these texts were treated this way in the original printing. The Articles also defined the canon of Scripture for the Church of England. Smerdis of Tlön 18:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The 39 articles do not explain why the Apocrypha was separated out. Nor did they provide a basis for their later exclusion. They were separated in obedience to 2 Esdras 14:45c-48 (quoted above)

The 39 articles only said that these books should not be used to establish doctrine, but they were to be read; therefore it was not a call for their exclusion.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine;

In short, they are scripture, but not canonical scripture. They are to be read.

However the preface of the 1611, defends the “translation of the seventy”. I am unaware of any evidence that the translators of the 1611 shared the view of the 39 articles. Their preface indicates otherwise.

Recently I was at the funeral of the father of an Anglican friend. The book of Wisdom was read. ClemMcGann 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section restored

Claiming that the KJV is a "very accurate, literal translation of the Bible" is not only false, but it certainly is not sufficient reason to remove an entire section. The KJV is inaccurate; the most gross mistranslation I can give as example is the commandment in the KJV "Thou shalt not kill." The original Hebrew is "לא תרצח" (Lo Tirtzach), which literally reads "You shall [implied] not murder". That's quite a big difference, and one that warrants being pointed out. The reader can decide for himself; it is not up to the article to elevate one viewpoint over another. Sandwich 08:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it really a mistranslation? I'm wondering because I find in the OED that "murder", even as far back as OE, denotes an unlawful killing. Therefore, a law forbidding "murder" as such seems a tautology. (As opposed to various kinds of killings which are defined as murder and therefore criminal.) I wonder if you could expand on what exactly is included in the definition of the Hebrew word used in this place? My (possibly mistaken) idea is that this may be more an archaism than a mistranslation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The kill v murder debate has been ongoing for some time and is unlikely to be resolved here. Can we say something along the lines of it was accurate for its time? It was definitely more accurate than Tyndale or Geneva. Then we can quote the 1870 Convocation of Canterbury, which accepted that the Greek text at the base of the KJAV was ‘more remote from the original text than the text of other manuscripts’. (The result was the 1881/1885 RV, which was never really accepted) ClemMcGann 10:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the presence of the criticism, though I think it needs citations. Being vehemently KJV-only, I think the criticisms are completely misguided. That, however, does not change the fact the there are people out there purporting to be scholars who actually hold those opinions. It is sad, really. El Cubano 13:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The scholars quoted dislike the KJV because of the underlying manuscripts, the Traditional Text, or Textus Receptus for the New Testament in particular. No majority of scholarly opinion (not even close) has ever claimed that the KJV was not a literal and accurate translation (and a rather brilliantly accurate one) of the the Word of God. All modern translations are still judged against it. It's actually a point of propaganda by the sales departments of modern versions to say the KJV is not an accurate translation, and it only goes over on people with the most shallow acquaintence with the subject overall. The paragraph doesn't belong in there any more than a Boston Red Sox fan statement that the Yankees are a horrible baseball franchise. Christaan T. 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not there is criticism. It should be acknowledged and discussed. It is not a solution to just delete all criticism. I hace suggested a reference to the 1870 Convocation of Canterbury. So let's not just delete. That is the source of edit wars. Lets talk instead. I have made my suggestion. Are there any other proposals? ClemMcGann 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! – it looks like Christaan T deleted while I was posting! On Wikipedia, we are not so concerned with what is right and what is wrong. Rather we are concerned with what can be verified. The piece you deleted did quote scholars. Admittedly they were biased scholars, but published scholars nonetheless. As such on Wikipedia they carry more weight. I suggest, that even though you do not agree with the paragraph, that you restore it. Then consider how to amend it, in a manner that would have wider acceptance. (and it would be preferable that you rather than I or anyone else reverse it) ClemMcGann 15:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Though having never restored a previous edit is there some wikipedia way to do it? If someone else does it it's the same as me since I'm asking someone to do it... Christaan T. 15:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did it myself. Christaan T. 15:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, - now let's improve it ClemMcGann 16:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but it seems to me the entire section is wrong because really those scholars have more of a problem with the KJV due to manuscript issues than translation issues. I mean, as I said before, even people who prefer the modern versions know and state the KJV is an accurate translation. For a general criticism section it would seem to me that if translation type criticism were going to be talked about then the archaic language of the KJV, and words that may have changed meaning, and things like that some see, would be the proper subject. I actually don't think the very liberal scholars named even need to be named to present that general criticism. Those scholars are very liberal, in some cases. Borg doesn't even believe in the resurrection. N. T. Wright is on a career-long attack against the central doctrine of justification by faith alone. Crossan probably thinks folktales are just as inspired as Scripture. Christaan T. 16:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the section is wrong. I suggest that the way to approach this is to first say that it was the best in its day. I reckon that all could accept that. But it would be no harm to quote a few scholars. Perhaps use the arguments in the 1611 preface. Even though they don’t name the editions, Tyndale mistranslated words, the Douai used words that could not be understood, the Geneva had more notes than scripture. Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.

Then say that there was later criticism – my suggestion is the convocation, and its unfortunate RV.

Finally come to modern times give the existing list of critical scholars and balance it with another list of supporting scholars.

(I haven’t a copy to hand, but a good recent book is “God’s Secretaries”)

Good editing ClemMcGann 16:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Questionable paragraph

Here is the paragraph in question:

According to the Flesch-Kincaid grade-level formula, the King James Version is at an American fifth-grader's (11-year old student's) level of reading. By comparison, the version largely used today, the New International Version, is rated at the eighth-grader's (14-year old student's) reading level by the same method.[citation needed] One example given of easier wording in the King James Version is in Ephesians 4, where the King James Version uses the word "joint", whilst the New International Version uses the phrase "supporting ligament". The likely reason for the New International Version's use of complicated wording is due to copyright concerns — if too much similarity exists between it and another literary work such as the King James Version, it is treated as a derivative work, and thus not copyrightable.[citation needed].

This is completely misusing the Flesch-Kincaid formula. See for yourself, all it does is compare total words to total sentences, and total syllables to total words. It was never intended to compare modern English to Elizabethan English. We could put Chaucer through the equation and have it claim its on a 6th grade level, when clearly Chaucer was written in a very different English that would be difficult for 6th graders to understand. I do not feel that this bit of information adds anything to the article (and the manner in which it is presented now is very POV and deceptive). Next, I am not sure how long the fact tag has been on the second half of the article, so I was wondering if we've given it enough time to remove that claim, or if someone had a cite for it. The claim is made here, but that is not a reliable source (if the Comic Sans didn't give it away).--Andrew c 22:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Broadly I agree whith your point. Howere there is a truth behind the claim in the article. The KJAV quite deliberately avoided the mistake of the Douai. The Douai used a larger vocabulary. They even invented new words (from Latin) when they couldn't make a precise translation. This is why the Douai became known as a "translation needing translation". The KJAV deliberately used a limited vocabulary so that the ordinary person could understand it. In short, the claim is right, but it is very badly expressed. Further the talk about copyright concerns does not make sense. I quoted earlier from the 1611 preface, so once more: we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar. ClemMcGann 00:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's been 2 weeks since I brought this up, and citation needed tags were added to the paragraph, yet nothing has happened. I think ClemMcGann brings up a point that the KJV was written for the common people of the time (1611), so it was easier to read than other translations at the time. However, the "Flesch-Kincaid grade-level formula" cannot be employed accurately because of the Elizabethian English used. I propose removing that paragraph and replacing it with a sentence or two discussing these points. Anyone want to take this on? Any more discussion or suggestions?--Andrew c 02:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No objections to removing Flesch-Kincaid. --Quadalpha 03:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the points mentioned in the 1611 preface, quoted above are made. The article speaks of “lofty language”. It may sound lofty today, but did it sound lofty then? This runs counter to the intention that that it may be understood even of the very vulgar. There were consequences to this limited vocabulary in terms of accuracy, as some perceive it today. Consider the words from the Douai criticised if the quote above. There are those who criticise the KJAV for using the term ‘Easter’ before the resurrection, the first Easter. However if Easter is considered as a time of the year then they were correct. More would understand ‘Easter’ than ‘Pasche’ as used by the Douai. On the other hand, consider the criticism in the 1611 Preface to the term ‘rational’. The Douai calls the outfit worn by the high priest as a ‘rational’. It had a device for making decisions. Even today, I’m not adequately explaining it. However the KJAV uses the term ‘breastplate’. Breastplate implies an item of armour. The best one can say is that people will think that they understand and move on. However it was not a breastplate as understood then or now. In short I remain unhappy with our current description. Let’s try again. Let’s start with the intention as expressed in the 1611 preface. ClemMcGann 08:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes "dignified and formal" is better than "lofty", but we still miss the point that that it may be understood even of the very vulgar. ClemMcGann 10:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was lofty even for the time. Compare it with Shakespeare, for example; the difference is obvious.

A better translation of "Pasche" would be "Passover". The words for the Jewish Passover and the Christian Easter are the same in Greek, so which is meant must be deduced from context. The incorrect "Easter" in the KJV was from Acts 12:4, where Acts 12:3 makes it clear that the Jewish Passover was meant. (There are no indications at this time of an annual Christian commeration of the Passion and Resurrection.)

Rational -- this is incorrect in Douai because it created a misleading identity between an OT High Priestly and Roman Catholic vestment, where the correspondence is really only symbolic at best. "Breastplate" or "breastpiece" is more correct. [10] (The RC vestment is now more often spelled "rationale" and is not very commonly used. See vestment.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I’m learning something new. I never knew that this word “rational”, criticised in the 1611 preface for “obscuring the scriptures” was also used to describe a Catholic vestment. However it does make sense if you say that a rational is worn by a priest. Nonetheless I doubt that this rational had an Urim or a Thummim. By the same token, the word “breastplate” does not imply that either.

I accept the difference between Shakespeare and the KJAV, and reckon that "dignified and formal" is about right.

Yet, still are we missing the point, have we conveyed that it may be understood even of the very vulgar? ClemMcGann 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

External link (King James Bible, formatted)

There are no external links featuring formatted/more readable text. I think the online bible link I added is relevant and a good addition to the KJV page. It is a non-commercial, non-advertising, non-distracting site. Does anyone disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollhondallo (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what this site looked like when it was first inserted, and I know that google ads are subtle. However, there are google ads at the bottom of each page I looked at, at the top of most books, and a bible shop from which to purchase bibles. Additionally, google reports no backward links and msn reports 25 links that are not wikipedia(&wikipedia mirrors) or the site itself - so I would remove it since there already is a fully ad free version including the apocrypha that shows slightly more links(381) --Trödel 13:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

69.218.x.x. inserted

*[http://www.SwordBible.org King James Bibles] - Online distributor of King James Bibles

I am not at all sure that Wikipedia should have adverts for online distributors/publishers. I imagine a special case was made for CUP as they hold the letters patent. Any opinions? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

KJV, Tanach, and Septuagint compared

long essay moved to User talk:206.68.117.82 --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the post and length

I just wanted to point out that there are some issues with how the KJV text reads. And that I think you need more than just this version to get at what GOD means.

KJV version (Liberty Study Bible version) Isaiah 32:19. When it shall hail, coming down on the forest; and the city shall be low in a low place. [a note in the KJV interprets this way: [the city] will be brought low in humiliation]

Tanach version (Artscroll Stone version) Isaiah 32:19 Hail will come down on the forest and the city will extend down to the valley. [note from Tanach on this verse: God will protect the peace of the populated areas by letting hail fall only on the forests and by making the people so secure that houses will be built even in vulnerable lowlands (Ibn Ezra)]

Septuagint version (Brenton translation) Isaiah 32:19 And if the hail should come down, it shall not come upon you; and they that dwell in the forests shall be in confidence, as those in the plains country. [no notes]

KJV version (as above) Isaiah 49:9 That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places. [notes: They shall feed along the roads, and their pastures shall be in all desolate heights]

Tanach version (as above) Isaiah 49:9 ...to say to prisoners 'Go out' and to those in the darkness, 'Be revealed'; they will graze along the roads, and upon all the hilltops will be their pasture. [note: ( this note is actually on next two verses but it refers back to 49:9)when the exiles return, they will find ample provisions; highlands and lowlands along the way will be leveled and easily traversed]

Septuagint version (as above) Isaiah 49:9 ...saying to them that are in bonds, Go forth; and bidding them that are in darkness shew themselves. They shall be fed in all the ways, and in all the paths shall be their pasture. [no notes]

These differences may seem minor. It does seem to me though, that the KJV is implying both these verses are a curse whereas both the Tanach and the Septuagint consider them blessings. Under Septuagint, I have also pointed out other more important differences.

"Pascha"

The third paragraph under "Translation" isn't all that well-constructed, but in any case the bit about "Pascha" isn't correct. The problem is that "Pascha" means both "Passover" and "Easter" (as it does in many languages). We've come to the point where we need cites for these kinds of statements. Mangoe 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

++ COMMITTEES++ In my view, the setion listing the committees is too detailed for an encyclopedia Johncmullen1960 05:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition

An article should start with the subject's definition. The Good Samaritan 21:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Percentage paraphrased

I'm referring to the 2% figure in the infobox. What does it mean? How is it calculated (maybe a wikilink would be useful)? Junes 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Influence of the Douay-Rheims Bible

I have weakened a statement about the influence of the Rheims NT. Discussion on the Douay-Rheims Bible article has shown that some statements about the alleged influence do not stand up to close examination. If anyone wants to strengthen the revised statement in the KJV article, first check the KJV against all the other translations used by the KJV translators, as listed in the article, and double-check in the Oxford English Dictionary – then perhaps put the list of influences into this discussion. The general consensus is that the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible had most influence, and the others came rather far behind. EEye 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

the section is question is not about the translation (for which your summary above is indeed correct) but about the style. There is no question but that the Geneva Bible had most influence on the translation - but I believe that a range of studies show the distinctive influence of the Rheims vocabulary "on every page" (W.F. Moulton: History of the English Bible 1911) However, the weaker assertion as you have left it, wouldn't appear wrong to me. TomHennell 01:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah

The word YHWH appears quite a few times in the Bible right? So why were only a few of them translated to Jehovah and the rest as LORD?

the translators of the King James version invariably apply the terms LORD (in capitals) or GOD for the Hebrew YHWH. This accords with standard Jewish practice (where the name of God is unpronounced, and the term "the Lord" is substituted), and also with Christian tradidion, following the Greek "Kurios" of the LXX. There are two exceptions; in Exodus 6:3, which appears to demand the specific divine name, the King James translators use "IEHOVAH" - following Tyndale - and the same in Psalm 83: 18, for similar reasons. The name "IEHOVAH" is also found in two places in Isaiah - Is 12:2 and Is 26:4 - but there translates the element "YH" in the composite deisgination "YH YHWH", which the KVJV translators render as "LORD IEHOVAH" TomHennell 09:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Name

I have a suggestion. Maybe this page should be called Authorized King James Version? It is what Oxford World Classics uses and considering that this concerns a British subject, maybe then it should be called what it is most commonly called in Britain. Reginmund 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and did the re-name. The suggestion makes sense - especially on the grounds of NPOV. I followed Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Renaming / Moving. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is King James now in lower case? This has to be fixed. -- SECisek 05:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The lower case is part of the WP naming convention: Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles. Of course, the fact that a proper noun and title are involved is probably a good excuse but I'm wary of the Wiki sticklers. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

James needs to be uppercase, there is no convention that would suppercede this. -- SECisek 05:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant just Authorized King James Version. That's the title used by Oxford. Well, I guess I'll take it up with a sysop. It has to be moved anyway because it is a proper noun. Reginmund 07:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The guidance states: "In general, each word in titles of books, films, and other works take an initial capital". That would imply, Authorized King James Version as the article title TomHennell 09:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks better to my eye. -- SECisek 09:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

GA status

If anyone wants to take this to Good article candidate review, it'll need to pass the What is a good article? critieria. This would include in-line citations. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources

The article as it is now links almost no references to a particular thought. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for WP policy and preference for in-line citations. All of these references are orphaned from the text. Some look dubious. Some look excellent. We need to attach a source to a specific point in the text. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Bobrick, Benson (2001). The Making of The English Bible. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-297-60772-3
• Daiches, David (1941) The King James Version of the English Bible; an account of the development and sources of the English Bible of 1611 with special reference to the Hebrew tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, . Reprinted 1968.
• Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. Yale. ISBN 0-300-09930-4.
• Farstad, Arthur (2003). The New King James Version: In The Great Tradition. Nelson Reference. ISBN 0-7852-5175-8.
• Forbes, Dennis (1992). Did the Almighty intend His book to be copyrighted?, European Christian Bookstore Journal, April 1992
• The Geneva Bible 1599 (L. L. Brown, 1991) ISBN 0-9629888-0-4
• A. S. Herbert, Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525–1961, London: British and Foreign Bible Society; New York: American Bible Society, 1968. SBN 564-00130-9.

I put this one in, and it is not orphaned. There are references to different editions of the KJV that use the numbers in Herbert. EEye 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Holladay, William (2002). Unbound by Time: Isaiah Still Speaks. Cowley Publications. ISBN 1-56101-204-1.
• The Holy Bible: 1611 Edition (Thos. Nelson, 1993) ISBN 0-8407-0028-8.
  • While the Nelson facsimile edition is out of print, the same facsimile is currently published by Hendrickson Publishers, ISBN 1-56563-160-9. Both of these Bibles reprint a Roman-type facsimile originally published by the University of Oxford in 1833.
• McAfee, Cleland Boyd (1912). The Influence of the King James Version on English Literature. Retrieved 22 November 2004.
• McGrath, Alister (2002). In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How it Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture. Anchor/Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-72216-8
• Nicolson, Adam (2003) God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible ISBN 0-06-018516-3. UK edition has title Power and Glory: Jacobean England and the Making of the King James Bible ISBN 0-00-710893-1 .
• Scrivener, F.H.A (1884) The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), pp. 243-62
• Spurgeon, Charles (1899). The Last Words of Christ on the Cross.

Further reading

According to Wikipedia policy a good article is broad in its coverage, focused without going into unnecessary details - see Wikipedia:What is a good article. Perhaps the top 5 articles or books that would lead the interested reader further into the topic would suffice. As it is, the list of Further readings looks more appropriately appended to someone's PhD thesis, rather than an encyclopedia article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See Also

The "See Also" section should conform to WP policy: see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The "See also". The relevant bits of text are:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article or link to pages that do not exist. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.

and

There may be a "See also" section which can include:

• Terms which can be confused with Title, for example New Market and Newmarket
• Likely misspellings of Title, for example Belmont, Belmonte and Bellmont

The "See Also" section should have links that can not possibly be fit into the text of the article but that may cause a reader confusion. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Authorised or Authorized

The article itself admits that "Authorized Version" is the most common name for this particular version in the United Kingdom, while "King James Version" is most common in the United States.

In light of that, I personally don't think it is appropriate to refer to the "Authorized Version" with a 'z'. I believe it should be referred to in the article as the "Authorised Version", reflecting the spelling standards of the place where the term is most commonly used.

--Revolution 9 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed - at the end of the day this is a version produced and first published in England, and UK spelling should certainly be used in the title, if not the whole article, especially as it is never called the "Authorised Version" in the US. Johnbod 15:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed - British spelling should be used per National varieties of English which says:

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation

Cleary, if 'Authorised' is not used in the U.S. but in the U.K., then 'Authorised' it is. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

wrong way round Wassupwestcoast - "Authorized" is the English Spelling TomHennell 16:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. In my keeness not to offend, I'm confused. I thought the editor above said it was the 's' version is the U.K. version. According to my U.S. spellcheck in Word 2003, Authorized with a 'z' is the U.S. spelling and with an 's' is the U.K.- English spelling. Spelling Bee champions, we need you! Which is it? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have checked my dictionaries and commentaries - English versions - and "Authorized Version" is almost universal. Only exception is Peake's Commentary which used "Authorised Version". In particular Scrivener (1884) uses "authorized" (p.s. I must put him back in the refernce list) - as does the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. TomHennell 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: My Encarta Dictionary says explicitly Authorized Version on page 113. My Oxford Illustrated Dictionary says explicitly Authorized Version on page 61. The title of my Oxford World's Classics edition says explicitly on the cover The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. All of them with a z. However, I haven't bought any of these in the UK and don't live in the UK! This is hardly definitive. So, TomHennell, I am shifting sides to yours. I think the best compromise (or is it compromize?) is to leave the title with an s and the text with a z. That way everyone will hate it equally. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the definitive situation from a UK citizen and a professional copy editor. Both "-ize" and "-ise" spellings are normal in the UK: it's a matter of personal preference. As it happens, there is no rationally based argument (e.g. on etymological grounds) for either spelling. When I write, I use "-ise" because I am making a statement against the people who think the "-ize" spellings have a rational basis. Many UK publishers require "-ize", so as a copy editor I have to make authors' work conform to that rule. The Oxford English Dictionary (as it takes great pains to insist, in spite of what most people believe) is a descriptive not a prescriptive dictionary. However, it follows the house standard and prints "-ize" spellings first. And, by the way, "-yze" spellings as in "analyze", etc., have no rational basis whatever and are not accepted by most UK publishers. As a publisher of sorts, perhaps Wikipedia should follow UK publishers and use "-ize", but I suspect that the average literate UK citizen would write "-ise". EEye 23:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The "y" in "analyze" is there for the same reason most English spellings are the way they are: it's a trace left by its etymological origins. "Analysis" comes from the Greek ανάλυσης, the "y" transliterating the "υ". "Analyze/se" itself is a back-formation by analogy with "-ize/-ise" but retaining the transliterated Greek vowel. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My point was about the "z" in "analyze". There is a weak argument that "z" is right for "-ize" spellings because it goes back to a ζ in Greek – at least in a few words such as "ostracize". This is also a dangerous argument: why should we not be required to write "ostrakize"? (Yes, I know the answers to that question.) But large numbers of "-ize" words, e.g. "realize", were created much later from Latin roots and/or came into English from French, and did not necessarily ever have a "z". (French dithered between "z" and "s" in these words, but has settled on "s". French, unlike English, does have a prescriptive authority for spellings.) Other words, e.g. "transistorize", were invented quite recently in English. The "-lyze" spellings go back to a vowel-stem verb that never had a ζ: that is why UK publishers require "-lyse". EEye 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I'm sorry, but did I miss the discussion this move surely merited? Because I would have objected. No one calls this version of the Bible by this name. The title as it stands is apparently an attempt at a compromise, but it ends up as one that will be used to look up the article by exactly no one. Far better to give it a useful title even if someone's feelings get hurt. Titles other than that actually used can be redirects. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The alternate titles already are redirects!. And it isn't true that Authorised King James Version is used by no one. The eminent Oxford University Press uses exactly that title: see . The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192835254. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

the actual title is "The Holy Bible"; whereas that of the Geneva Version is "The Bible, and Holy Scripture"; and the Bishop's Bible was "The holie Bible". The most usual designation in academic texts in England seems to be "Authorized (King James) Version" where "Authorized Version" is not used on its own. But as Wassupwestcoast says - the form in the new title does correspond to that in the Oxford World's Classics edition - and has the virtue of being unambiguous http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-Authorized-Version-Oxford-Classics/dp/0192835254/ref=sr_1_1/026-2302285-0084414?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188775049&sr=8-1 TomHennell 23:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was unaware of this quirk in the Oxford edition's name, but the name of one edition, no matter how prestigious the publisher (unless their edition turns out the be enormously popular, and this one isn't) can scarcely be said to weigh more than the literal hundreds that use either "Authorized" or "King James". It's silly. These are not alternate titles to the present one; it's the other way around. I would expect a long-winded compromise title to obtain in academic circles, but this is not an academic translation, and those who actually use the book for devotional readings and worship simply do not call it this.

I know well what the title page says, so there's no need for pedantry. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, TCC, I don't see your concern about located this article: it has plenty of redirects. And the Oxford University Press' pedigree regarding this particular translation is very good indeed. Oxford University was one of the three scholarly institutions assigned to translate. It and Cambridge University Press hold the Crown Copyright to publish the bible. Plus, the title is non-sectarian. I suspect - my opinion only - that is why the title was chosen. And, I don't need to tell anyone about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This title is probably the best compromise. While all all flavours of Christians use the bible in their devotions, agnostics and atheists - for example Christopher Hill - read and study and know it well, also. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot but plead guilty to the charge of pedantry - but this is not necessarily such a vice in Wikipedia. The problem with the term; "King James Version" is its ambiguity - does it include the Apocrypha or not? Most editions that use "King James" in their title omit the Apocrypha (often silently), as do many printings that use the term "Authorized", (though generally these latter offer the option of either form). But that is not a debate for this article. The Bible of 1611 included the Apocrypha, and so too must the Wikipedia article that refers to that book. TomHennell 10:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Apocrypha must be included...but I can't see how it could be argued otherwise? (What really needs to be included in this article are in-line citations.) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you talking about the Deuterocanoncials? That's neither here nor there with regard to the article title. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. (What really needs to be included in this article are in-line citations.) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I also object to the move. The King James Bible was never authorised: of the three "official" Reformation translations, only the Great Bible was authorised. The new situation is completely unreasonable, and the redirection should be the other way round, i.e. the main article should be King James Bible, and there should be redirects from Authorised Version, etc. That title "Authorized King James ..." is not normal anyway: over the centuries, the book has usually just been called "The Holy Bible", because there was only one version that mattered to most people. EEye 23:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't about it being authorised. The issue is about what it is most commonly called. Hence its name is "Authorized King James Version". Reginmund 23:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Most commonly where? Not in the UK, where the popular name is just "The Authorised Version". And taking North America into account, it is likely that "KJV" is more common overall than "AV". "AKJV" is not in regular use anywhere. EEye 00:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The very first time I ever laid eyes on "Authorized King James Version" was when this article was moved. No one calls it that, and no one has in the nearly 400 years it's been in existence. It's merely the title chosen by the editors of that Oxford edition. Why that single edition should override centuries of usage on both sides of the Atlantic I have no idea.

I really don't care whether the article is King James Version with redirects at Authorised Version and Authorized Version or some other permutation of that arrangement. What I would like is for the article to be titled under a name actually used for the thing by a good chunk of the English-speaking, Bible-reading world, and not some ridiculously hypertrophied scholastic pseudo-compromise. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. EEye 21:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not only called "Authorized King James Version" by Oxford but by Canon, and Everyman's Library. I'm sure that the full title isn't prevelant in common parlance but not all book titles are like that such as The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman and The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling. Does anyone really say the name out in common parlance? Reginmund 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done a quick search at Amazon.co.uk on the title "Authorized King James" - in quotes so exact phrase - and received back a list of 452 possible editions. As Reginmund correctly points out, editions by Oxford, Pocket Canon and Everyman's Library are represented. Others are by Cambridge, Collins and Longman's. I suspect the title is chosen to reflect the two common uses- Authorized and King James - on both sides of the Atlantic. However, Authorized King James is the title of this bible version used by the major publishers to distinguish it from all the other versions. The name is pretty close to being official as both Oxford and Cambridge University Presses use it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You did not find "452 possible editions" because I just did that same search and it returns not only the exact hits where that really is the name of the edition, but hits on all of them regardless of the actual name. It seems some pedant at amazon.co.uk attached "Authorized King James" to every listing regardless of what the publisher put on the cover. F'r instance, the Everyman's Library Classics Edition of the New Testament says "The Authorized or King James Version" on the cover -- alternative nomenclature -- but "Authorized King James" in the listing. Here's one that says "King James's Bible" on the cover, but -- again -- "Authorized King James Version" in the listing. And again and again and again. When I see revisionist Amazon listings I begin to suspect a large-scale academic effort on the east side of the Atlantic to impose a prescriptive usage here, and I don't see why Wikipedia should participate. Especially since the KJV is PD everywhere but the UK (or wherever else the Crown Copyright might still be honored). Here in the US there are no licensed publishers of it because anyone who wants to publish it can. And without anyone at all forcing the issue, it's called the "King James Version" by nearly everyone. As far as "major publishers" go, the two largest Bible publishing houses in the US (world?) are Thomas Nelson (publisher) and Zondervan. Neither of them use "Authorized King James". TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "prescriptive". I don't know what ulterior motive they would have to prescribe us the name. My personal poinion is that we use the most dominant name of the largest and most prestigious printing companies use in the United Kingdom. Is there any other name that comes to mind? Reginmund 04:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming disputes seem to be a blood sport on Wikipedia. The various 'policy' statements relating to article names emphasize that the name should be descriptive, objective, in common usage, not be offensive, not imply a point of view, not be U.S. - centric, and respect originating cultures. The various bible publishers have tried the same technique in naming this version 'Authorized King James Version'. The originating culture is the U.K. - specifically the Church of England - and they overwhelmingly call the version the 'Authorized Version'. The U.S. has come to call this version 'King James'. Within their spheres of influence, both names are common. Thus, concatenating the two - no doubt - has come to be the preferred method to avoid giving offense and to avoid denigrating the originating culture while acknowledging the dominant culture. Wikipedia in its policy tries not to be U.S.-centric. Respected publishers commonly use ‘Authorized King James Version’ as a name for this version so it is not a neologism of Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if we call this page "King James Version", "King James Bible", "King James Version of the Bible", "Authorized Version", "Authorised Version", or "Authorised Version of the Bible", or whatever, as long as it's something someone actually uses. Sure maybe some politically correct publishers use "Authorized King James Version", but no normal person, American, Canadian, British, or Australian does. Can we just have a quick vote between "King James Version" and "Authorised Version" or something to get this over with? Or even better, just revert the name to whatever it was before this? QVanillaQ 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My vote is "King James Version." But there should be redirects for any possible name someone could use. From what I understand of the history of the name -- it was always called the "Authorised Version" until the "English Revised Version" was made. After that, the "King James Version" name got coined and started to grow in use. Further, every Bible software tool I've ever seen uses the acronym "KJV" for this version. Also, I've never once heard the expression, "Authorised Version only-ism." Tim 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote "King James Version" but it is a waste to quibble over it. -- SECisek 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Rather than quibble about names, the best thing that could happen to Authorized King James Version is a diligent editor who invests their time and expertise to improve it:say, by the Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter project. At this stage, the text won't pass a Good Article nomination - Wikipedia:What is a good article?- or Feature Article nomination - Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

From time to time I revisit the article and its discussion page to see if common sense has prevailed in the matter of the title of the article. Still no luck.

The titles of the articles about the other eight 16th/17th-century English Bible translations (as listed in the navbox) do not match the title pages of the original editions. Those original title pages simply said "The [Holy] Bible" or "The New Testament": they did not say "The Geneva Bible", "The Rheims New Testament" or whatever. A few recent KJB editions may carry "Authorized King James Version" on their title pages. However, what makes a KJB a KJB is the translation of the text, not what the publisher happens to put on the title page. (And the same applies equally to any other version.) Wikipedia’s practice should be consistent across the range of translations. This requires that the article should have a title such as "King James Bible", which is generic and covers all the editions of the KJ translation over the last four centuries.

The question of whether "AKJV" or "KJV" indicates the inclusion of the Apocrypha is irrelevant. Bibles in the Reformation period normally included the Apocrypha, but at any later re-binding the Apocrypha might be omitted even though they were included in the contents list. The first edition of the KJB also included substantial prefaces, 34 pages of genealogical diagrams, other illustrations, a list of psalms and lessons for the whole year, a calendar and an almanac for the years following publication, a table for calculating the date of Easter, and marginal notes throughout (nothing like as extensive as those in the Geneva Bible, although the translators' preface insists on their importance). All these "extras" were more or less rapidly dropped in subsequent editions. On the other hand, a few later editions added the Geneva Bible notes, and illustrations of various kinds appear in more recent editions. In the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it was also common practice to bind a Book of Common Prayer and/or a book of metrical psalms with the Bible. The actual content of the KJB editions has therefore varied hugely. Once again, the KJB is defined by the translation of the main text: the presence or absence of particular items is not important.

If I knew how to re-title the article and ensure that all its accompanying baggage went with it, I would have attempted it by now. I hope someone will now make what seems to me the overwhelmingly obvious move. Although I am UK-based, I have no problem with "King James Bible" as the main title. On this side of the pond we do understand "KJV" or "KJB", and there is no evidence that the KJB was ever "authorised".EEye (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. A number of alternate titles for this bible all lead to this article. If you typed in King James Bible, you will end up here. I do not know why on Wikipedia there is an incredible obsession with naming and re-naming articles, but it is so. For illustration, see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Names. Rather than the worrying about the title, please add text with references to the actual article. One or two editors are doing an incredible job. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare

I have reverted the attached, which is entirely speculative. There would have been no possibility at all of Shakespeare being invited to participate in the work of translating Scripture. TomHennell 01:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Although there is no evidence to support the fact that William Shakespeare was on any of the committee's, it is possible since at the time of publication, 1611, Shakespeare was at the height of his career as a poet and dramatist. An interesting fact may be noted when looking at Psalm 46 in the book of Psalms, considered by many to be the heart of poetic verse in the Bible. If 46 words are counted from the beginning of the Psalm the reader will find the word "Shake." Likewise, counting 46 words in from the end of the Psalm, discounting the word "Selah," a word that does not translate from Hebrew to English and serves mainly as a poetic placeholder, the reader will find the word "spear." Considering the face that Shakespeare was 46 years old at the time of publication, this makes and interesting case for the invlovement of Shakespeare in the creation of the King James Bible.

As you say yourself: "There is no evidence", "it is possible", "considered by many to be the heart of poetic verse". Also having to remove the word "Selah" is rather clumsy and makes the unsourced speculation even less impressive. Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

While anything is possible but as TomHennell (talk · contribs) points out there would have been no possibility at all of Shakespeare participating in the project. We know who - more or less - did participate. Shakespeare held no position in either the Church of England or in any of the Universities. One should also point out that the translators sought an archaic style of English - being about fifty years behind the times - while Shakespeare sought a voice that was very modern indeed. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Famously Ben Jonson dismissed Shakespeare's "small Latin and less Greek". The evidence suugests that Shakespeare could read Latin if he had to, but that where an author was available in a good English translation - as for instance Ovid - Shakespeare consulted the English version in preference to the original. But there is no evidence that he could compose in Latin, or undertake a discussion in the language. King James translators (by contrast) were, above all, Latinists; and very proud of their Latinity. Their discussions were conducted in Latin (and minuted in Latin). The consulted a range of versions in ancient languages Greek, Aramaic, Syriac and Hebrew - but in each case these were provided with interlinear Latin glosses. It takes an effort of will for a mid-20th century English person (like myself) to imagine a world in which "The Bible" does not refer predominantly to the text of of the Authorized Version - but for the AV transplators, "The Bible", as such, referred to Vulgate. Just as I will tend to think of a biblical quotation initially in the AV text, so the same quotation would be most familiar to any 17th century Reformed Protestant divine in the Vulgate Latin. But not Shakespeare, who consistently quotes the Bible either in the Prayer Book lectionary versions (Bishops Bible or Great Bible), or in the Geneva Version.

Added to which, of course, is that the translation project was - at least initially - promoted as an ecumenical exercise; and indeed a number of the translators were decidedly Puritan in their sympathies. Any involvement from a secular poet and playwright would have been wholly unacceptable. TomHennell (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I was looking for a citation for this: The Authorized Version was translated by 47 scholars (although 54 were originally contracted)[citation needed] - I could only find this [11] which is a HTML document from University of Glasgow ((Faculty of Arts) will this do, didn't want to add it in case it's not good enough? Sue Wallace (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is good enough. Actually, the next time I go to the library, I ought to borrow a couple of books on the topic. There are plenty to be had. Of course, I intend to do many things. Thank you for finding the needed citations. This is an article where much of the text is OK but just needs to be referenced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for my welcome earlier, I hope I can be of help to you. Sue Wallace (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have re-read Scrivener to attach page references for in-line citations - will do so over Crimbo. I also have Daniell, for the bulk of citations (though I suspect many others have as well) TomHennell (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like some help from someone with better understanding of such matters as to how to add in-text citations after the pattern adopted in the article: The Book of Common Prayer. Thanks TomHennell (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll help! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)