Talk:King James Version

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Bible / Texts / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Top-importance).
 
Former featured article King James Version is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 4, 2005.

400th Anniversary material[edit]

I propose that, once 2011 'Year of the Bible' is over, all the 400th Anniversary material (links to celebratory events, bandwagon editions, etc) should be removed from the article. TomHennell (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Rwflammang (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of editions of the KJV,including many brought out for the 400th anniversary; almost all of which claim to be 'complete', but very few of which actually are. In my view the article needs to reference only three current editions of versions of the King James Bible; one the standard text (the Oxford World Classics editions); one David Norton's revised Cambridge Paragraph text (the Penguin edition); and one, if possible, a 1611 original spelling/punctuation or facsimile text. Ideally editions should be genuinely complete - including the Apocrypha - and should be in print and readily purchasable from bookshops or the internet. Can anyone recommend a candidate for an edtion of the third version? TomHennell (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
done TomHennell (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Are there any complete fascimile's (like the Zondervan book but with the Apocrypha) other than the Easton Press book? I have been looking for one but have been unable to find one. Threadnecromancer (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

interpolations[edit]

I have reverted much of the section on variations from modern editions; and removed the attached reference:

"The Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman notes that: "These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries." He adds: "And because the King James Bible is based on later manuscripts, such verses became part of the Bible tradition in English-speaking lands."[1]"

I do not have Ehrman's work, so I cannot confirm that this quotation is misapplied, but I am fairly sure it must be, as aside from 1 John 5:7, there are no variant verses in the KJV that are only found in later medievel manuscripts. The debate is about text-types not about manuscript antiquity. Moreover, in so far as variant verses may now be questioned, they are not generally considered 'interpolations' (Ehrman is in a scholarly minority here) but copyist 'accretions'; most scholars consider that copyists were simply attempting to remedy what they perceived as defects in their source manuscripts - for example by supplying material into a pericope in one gospel that was validly preserved in the text of a synoptic pericope in another gospel. TomHennell (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What are u looking for?[edit]

Matt.13:45-46 ................ the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man seeking goodly pearls. 46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, andbought it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.218.176 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bible in its various printings[edit]

I know this is not a forum, but I have some technical questions concerning this historical book.

Most 'home editions' of the KJV have around 2,000 pages and seem to have about 1,000 words a page. This would make this book some 2 million words in length, all in one volume. The print is very small, but still readable, and the pages are thinner than those of nearly all other books, but surprisingly sturdy. This would also make this, and most other editions and translations, a real marvel of 20th-century book publishing. (Albeit a marvel rather taken for granted.) Not counting any indexes and appendices, the KJV might be one of the longest books in the English language.

The very first printing of the KJV, in 1611, must have been no less a marvel. A single volume of almost two million words, carefully selected paper and lettering, an overall design to be not too large or heavy, but neither too flimsy, and still be useful and built to last. A wonder how these men did it, considering the simple tools and materials they had to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space27 (talkcontribs) 05:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The actual total (including the apocrypha) is a bit less than one million words. In technical terms, the modern bibles you describe are better termed 19th century book-publishing; as they arose from a very deliberate attempt - driven by the Bible Societies - to reduce drastically the cost of printing the Bible (and hence the purchase price), while not compromising on quality. The key elements to this were stereotype printing (casting an entire page of type at a go), elimination of textual notes, and integral binding in a range of quality options. Before the early 19th century, bibles were generally sold unbound, with the purchaser expected to pay for his own choice of binding, and the purchase price new was beyond the capacity of working households.
The original 1611 edition was also leading-edge production technology for its day; though technically less exacting than its predecessor, the Bishop's Bible, as that also had numerous illustrations and was considerably bigger. But the KJV was being produced in much larger volumes, and potential profits from a captive market were accordingly much greater. Some of the implications of this are outlined in the article; the early history of printing the KJV is a story of continual lawsuits between printers, frequent bankruptcy, industrial espionage and even deliberate sabotage (e.g. in the production of the 'Wicked Bible'). TomHennell (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I sure don't want to diminish the technical achievement of the KJV in 1611, but such achievements should be placed in context. The Gutenberg bibles were 160 years old when the KJV was published. While the KJVs were not as grand as Gutenberg's marvel, they were more convenient to use and much, much cheaper. (The Gutenberg bibles cost more than half of what it would cost to hire a scribe to write one by hand, if I recall correctly.) Later editions would improve even more on these last two features, ultimately surpassing even the Geneva bible in accessibility. Ultimately, the KJV seemed to hit a sweet spot. The quality of its prose surpassed that of the Geneva bible, and in size and price it beat the Douay-Rheims easily. It's beauty made it worth owning, and its price made ownership feasible. Even today, its competitors can't beat it on beauty and price, and strive instead to compete on the grounds of simplicity, commentary, and textual criticism. Rwflammang (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

File:KJV-King-James-Version-Bible-first-edition-title-page-1611.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:KJV-King-James-Version-Bible-first-edition-title-page-1611.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:KJV-King-James-Version-Bible-first-edition-title-page-1611.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A little thing called an apostrophe[edit]

Are we having a bit of a problem here? ""King James's", "King James' Bible", and "King James Bible". Try this: the Apostrophe Protection Society.--andreasegde (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. It's the King James Version. It's not his personal bible (which would require an apostrophe), but the version named in his honor. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Dashes[edit]

Arthur Holland is to be commended for regularizing the many dashes in this article, but his actions have raised the question in my mind. are any of these dashes necessary? Many can simply be removed, which will improve the flow of the article. Others can be replaced with a comma. Dashes are common enough when reporting the spoken word, and in POV essays they are often used for emphasis, but have you ever seen one used in an encyclopedia article? Rwflammang (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

ise/ize in this article[edit]

The article appears strange with the word "authorized" in the title appearing with a "z", but other words that can end in ise/ize using an "s". Obviously "authorized" cannot be changed as it is part of the official title. Would it make sense to change all instances of the suffixes "ise" and "isation" to "ize" and "ization" (i.e. using Oxford Spelling) to avoid the use of two different spellings of the suffix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasta3049 (talkcontribs) 17:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now modified the article to use Oxford Spelling except where an "ise" appears in a quotation. pasta3049 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Bloated Sections "See Also" & "External Links"?[edit]

These two sections seem to me to be in danger of becoming bloated (see WP:ALSO). Should there be a stand-alone list of Revisions with a single link on this page? There are also possible overlaps with the navbox. External links are covered by WP:EL and the general principle seems to be the fewer the better: any vital information found in them should be incorporated into the article.

One possible exclusion would be the Joseph Smith revision: in this case, revision means something different from the standard use in this setting where is more or less equivalent to "updating". Smith "rewrote certain passages in the light of supposed new revelations."(Hoekma, Anthony, The Four Major Cults Paternoster:1963, p.19.) Smith's work is available at [1] [2] if anyone wishes to check it. Jpacobb (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

New pic![edit]

Title page of the 1760 Cambridge edition, photographed from the first volume. Hope you like it :D Pesky (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Official" translations[edit]

User Quapawpers edited the lead section to read this was "the third official translation into English sanctioned by the Church of England." and commented: "As the official Roman Catholic English language Douay-Rheims Bible was completed in 1610 (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible), the 1610 KJV was not the third official translation into English." I take the basic point, but unfortunately only the Bishops' Bible can be said to have been sanctioned by the Church of England. (The Great Bible was imposed on the English Church by Thomas Cromwell acting as Henry VIII's vice-gerent and as stated in the section "Name" there is no record of the authorization of the "Authorized Version".) I will temporarily patch the lead to read "was the third translation to be approved by English Church authorities" and hope someone can improve on this. Jpacobb (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that the Great Bible WAS an authorized version- it might not have been authroized by the clergy, but it was given Royal approval and should be recognised as such. The AKJV was 'appointed to be read in churches' (read the title page of any modern KJV/AV Bible for reference) and as such was 'authorized,' albiet without an Act of Parliament or such like. It's worth noting that when the AKJV came out, the King's Printer ceased to issue the previous 'authorized version' (i.e. The Bishops' Bible) as per the article. The text of the AKJV supplanted those of the Great Bible in the 1662 BCP (again, as per the article) and as such could be seen to be 'Authrorized' from at least this point onwards. I would favour the original phrasing- i.e. that the AKJV was the third such authroized translation following on from the Great Bible and Bishops' Bible, and leave the hair-splitting of the D-R out of it. You have to keep in mind that whilst the D-R was approved by the RC Church, it was actually BANNED in England (as was Catholicism as a whole to varying degrees). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.153 (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The article in Wikipedia on the "Great Bible" states the following:

"The Great Bible was the first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of the Church of England. The Great Bible was prepared by Myles Coverdale, working under commission of Thomas, Lord Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General. In 1538, Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it."

The article goes on to say that the work of Myles Coverdale is very much based on Tyndale's Version. One person above is talking about the "Great Bible" not having ecclesiastical authority authorizing the translation. That may be true. The fact is that the "Great Bible" had Legal Authority in authorization from King Henry the VIII, or Royal approval as the second poster states. This William Tyndale did not have. Without legal or ecclesiastical authority William Tyndale was given the death penalty and burned at the stake in 1530. Regardless, Tyndale's dying prayer, "LORD, open the eyes of the King of England!," was answered 8 years after his death, basically using his work for the translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine (talkcontribs) 20:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

intent of variation in the early bibles[edit]

The article states, "Bibles in all the early editions were made up using sheets originating from several printers, and consequently there is very considerable variation within any one edition."

We need to clearly express what the cause of all those variations was. Was there a legitimate attempt underway to introduce error into those early copies of the King James Bible? Or were the mistakes because of sloppy typesetting? Either way, the world should've been careful with God's word and these mistakes either: 1) Were not as severe as this section makes them out to be. OR 2) Were because of bad leadership which wasn't careful in the typesetting of the Word of God! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.80.149 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The 1611 King James Bible was generally very well printed; but that did not preclude extensive variations from one edition to another (and within editions). 17th century printers didn't keep pages set-up in type; they made up a page, printed off the run of copies, broke up the type, and repeated the exercise. If they had to go back to reset the same page, then there would always be variations - bearing in mind that spelling, punctuation and contractions were largely at the discretion of the print-setter. But that was when the printers were co-operating with one another; once they were enmired in legal disputes there was a great deal of underhand action on behalf of all parties. For example, if you have ever seen a copy of the 'Wicked Bible'; the words "Thou shalt commit adultery' clearly couldn't have been set up accidentally; there must have been deliberate sabotage. TomHennell (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Rheims New Testament[edit]

I have reverted an edit which removed the explicit reference to the use of the Rheims New Testament by the KJV translators as a source. The argument of the (unnamed) editor was that the Rheims text was included in the phrase 'all previous English versions'. But the point is worth stating explicitly ; as the Translator's Preface is, to a substantial degree, an attack on the Catholic tradition of bible translation; and a disparagement of the Rheims version in particular. So the fact (as established by Ward Allen) that the KJV translators silently made extensive use of the Rheims text to support their marginal notes, is notable; and worth stating. TomHennell (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to King James Version. --BDD (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Authorized King James Version → ? – Somebody, years back, resolved the alleged Brit/US AV/KJV conflict by making up this name whose only significant justification appears to be the eccentric title of one publisher. "Authorized Version" gets 3M google hits, "King James Version" gets 12M; the current article title gets 0.39M hits. I'm willing to live with either AV or KJV as the primary title, but not this camel. Mangoe (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  • rename to King James Bible. "Authorized Version" is not acceptable, it is regional/sectarian, and conflicts with many other things that locally/sectarianally have "authorized versions" which are locally/sectarianally important. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename as King James Version, per WP:COMMONALITY. This ngram shows that KJV is by far the most common name in English overall. Compare this ngram to the one for British English. Since even the most conservative churches use a modern translation nowadays, "Authorized Version" is a misleading name. As far as the Church of England is concerned, KJV is just one of several bibles approved for use, as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely rename - I could never understand this AKJV beast. Happy with King James Version as suggested above. StAnselm (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support moving to King James Version, since that is the most common name. Definitely support moving the article away from this chimerical name in any case. But this is probably a primary topic for Authorized Version, with that capitalization, regardless of where the article is located. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment – I wrote the following to Tom Hennell a month ago:
I am contacting you because you seem to be a long-running contributor to the Authorized King James Version article and I'd like your opinion before going any further with my idea of changing the title. I see no point in starting a long-running "edit-wrangle" if the odds are stacked against a change. My basic concern is that the current title is what might be politely called a "theoretical hybrid" (it does seem to be used by one or more publishers possibly to save printing different editions for each side of the Atlantic) but standard usage seems to be either AV or KJV (largely the latter to judge from Yahoo search results). My basic concerns are that the current title is inaccurate, and therefore unencyclopaedic, and has also produced some improper linking (see for example, Middle_English_Bible_translations and Godhead_in_Christianity). You might also be interested in the following conversation User_talk:Johnbod#AV_vs_KJV which touches on this and other concerns about the article. Jpacobb (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
He replied:
On the other hand, specificity is important for encyclopaedic usage; this Bible has a 'standard' form, and that is the Oxford text originating in 1769. It is the Oxford standard text that is found in Wikisource; and that text is published by OUP with the title 'Authorized King James Version'. If you go into a bookshop, or on the internet, and search for an 'Authorized King James Version' Bible, you can be sure of getting the primary text to which the article and Wikisource refers. ... There is the added problem that if - on the contrary - you search for a complete 'King James Bible'; or 'King James Version', you almost certainly will not get the text discussed in the article. A few years ago (in pursuit of just this matter) I checked in a local Christian bookshop, and not one of the books sold as the 'King James Bible' included the books of the Apocrypha - although most of them claimed to be 'complete'. Indeed, I suspect that the vast majority of 'King James Bible' references that you find in an internet search denote this shorter text. We might perhaps have two articles; one called 'Authorized Version' for the English Bible including the Apocrypha; and one called 'King James Bible' for the English Bible without Apocrypha. But personally, I think the current arrangement is more specific, more accurate and less confusing. ... When a titling issue has been knocked around some time ago, it is often worth revisiting it, just to check whether the current solution remains valid. It is certainly the case that 'King James Bible' is increasing in usage in UK scholarship to denote this Bible. However (and checking my local bookshop again) the form 'Authorized King James Version' is also achieving wider currency. For instance, the Collins 400 anniversary edition of the 'King James Bible' has on its title page a note that the text used is that of the 'Authorised King James Version'. I found a CUP edition of the 'KJV Apocrypha' which had a similar title page note. It seems that the form 'Authorized (or Authorised) King James Version' is now becoming standard form for denoting a bible presenting the 1769 Oxford Standard Text; as distinct from other AV/KJV texts; such as that found in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible.
That seems to sum things up fairly comprehensively. I'll watch this and give a final opinion later, but don't see much point in getting involved in a long-running saga of move proposals. Jpacobb (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Support status quo per Jpacobb or, second best Authorized Version. The article has strong ties to the UK, and a British English banner at top. Strong Oppose to KJV - it just does not work, is clearly against ENGVAR, & will cause endless arguments, as was the case previously. Note that absolutely does not mean that mentions in other articles should be changed to this, as someone has done at Talk:Doubting_Thomas#Use_of_the_KJV_.2F_Authorised_Version_for_the_Bible_passage here. I notice at least one editor here who never gives WP:ENGVAR any weight at all; but that is a recipe for endless squabbles. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename King James Version, User:Jpacobb seems to be saying that AKJV is being used as a name for a particular version of this text (the 1769), which is a narrower subject than that of the article. User:Johnbod seems to be saying that KJV is an American term, but Bible: The Story of the King James Version and The People's Bible: The Remarkable History of the King James Version were both recently published in the UK. It seems that "King James Bible" may be just as popular in book titles about this Bible, and indeed an ngram reveals somewhat of a dead heat in the UK, but KJV is clearly more popular in the US, and it is certainly not unpopular in the UK. --JFH (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
For the record – I User:Jpacobb said very little on my own account eaqrlier: I have simply included Tom Hennell's reply to a question I asked him about the title of this article because it seemed to me to put the other side of the case (which I did not find that convincing!) I don't like the present title, it seems to me to be 'unencyclopaedic' but, as Imindicated above, I am far from convinced that it is worth getting involved in a long-running debate with moves and counter-moves happening every few months as the balance of active editors fluctuates. what is important is that all alternative names are covered by proper redirects. Jpacobb (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
What bothers me is that this amounts to arrogation of what the "real" name is, because the pressure is going to be to update all our articles to bypass all the redirects. Also, the fact that I brought this up is pretty much evidence that this title doesn't get rid of any long-running debate. Besides, I don't see a lot of evidence in the histories that there have been that many serious attempts to move the article. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Here is the entry on this subject in American Heritage: "King James Bible n. An English translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek published in 1611 under the auspices of James I. Also called Authorized Version, King James Version." Here is Merriam-Webster: "Authorized Version noun : a revision of the English Bishops' Bible carried out under James I, published in 1611, and widely used by Protestants —called also King James Version." Note: Neither of these dictionaries mention an "Authorized King James Version". Biblegateway and the Blue Letter Bible allow you to compare dozens of bible translations, but not anything called an "Authorized King James Version" or an AKJV. I searched The People's Bible: The Remarkable History of the King James Version and Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011, both mentioned above. Neither of these books use the phrase "Authorized King James Version" even once. Judging from this ngram, the current title is not a common usage. I think we can safely dismissed it as the two most common names as they are occasionally misremembered and mangled together. Kauffner (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:COMMONALITY only refers to things which have commonality like "pants" (US), "trousers" (UK). It doesn't refer to things which are inherently American like the Washington Monument, or inherently British like the Authorized Version.

Encyclopædia Britannica: A New Survey of Universal Knowledge -1964 "It is difficult to exaggerate the influence of this translation, which came to be known as the Authorized version because it was "Appointed to be read in Churches" (in the United States it is more commonly called the King James version)"

This isn't an American book. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Britannica has come out with several editions since 1964. The relevant article in the current edition opens, "King James Version (KJV), also called Authorized Version or King James Bible"... Kauffner (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
So what? That is an American book. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Oxford publishes this text as the Authorized King James Version. British dictionaries, including those published by Oxford, prefer Authorized Version over other names. SSR (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to King James Version or, much less preferably, King James Bible. If this exact topic refers to one specific edition of the KJV, then there may need to be a split. But the main article must be elsewhere as many, many others have already said. If no split is made, this title as well as Authorized Version (and Authorised Version?) should redirect to this article wherever it lands. Red Slash 00:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to King James Version based on the ngrams above, it's clear that KJV is the most common name overall. And while it's not the most common in British English, it's becoming a more and more accepted term. Hot Stop 16:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to Authorised Version as the most WP:COMMONNAME in the original country per WP:TIES. "Authorized King James Version" is the result of one or more publishers trying to cover both sides of the Atlantic with a single edition. And just as we shouldn't be bound by the whims of that publisher on the title, the same should apply to spelling. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to King James Version; the recent revision, which sells well, is called the New King James Version (they dropped "Revised Authorized Version"), and that proves it for me. – Fayenatic London 20:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Here is a sales ranking to support that. In the U.S., KJV is currently the No. 3 translation. NKJV is No. 4. Kauffner (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a move to either King James Version or Authorized Version. The current title just looks like we can't make up our minds. It's also redundant. Srnec (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support King James Version. I'm not convinced that this is somehow "wrong" in British English, so it's the common choice. SnowFire (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name[edit]

The article states under Names:

"In Britain, the 1611 translation is generally known as the "Authorized Version" today."

In the United States we always refer to this Version as the King James Version. We also have another Translation called the New King James Version. In the United States we also have people that are "King James Version Only" Christians, that only use this version. A brief reason of why Britain uses the name "Authorized Version" may be interesting.

My mom was visiting Britain and asked them why they called it the "Authorized Version," and not the "King James Version," of the Bible. They told her that it was disgraceful for a person to ever use the name "King James Version," and that they would never use that name. This being due to the rumors regarding the possiblity of King James having problems with sexual orientation. These matters are only rumors. As a person that uses many different Translations I think that many KJV Only people, (ok, so I am a little out of bounds here), would wet their pants if they considered this reasoning. Easeltine (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Italicization consistency[edit]

The article sometimes italicizes "King James Version" and "Authorized Version" and sometimes does not. If it is italicized in the article, the title should be italicized (WP:ITALICTITLE). --JFH (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Bible translations are generally not italicised here on Wikipedia. See, for example, New International Version. StAnselm (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find any other source italicizing these words, so I unitalicized them all. --JFH (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Global usage[edit]

I have reverted an addition that says that it is known as the King James Version "in North America". It is also known by that name in Britain - see, for example, this page from the British Library. StAnselm (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The ngrams mentioned in the recent RM as well as the two book titles I mentioned show that while AV may be more common in the UK than KJV, KJV is almost as popular. --JFH (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
In Britain, "King James Bible" plus "King James Version" is just as common as "Authorized Version" plus "Authorised Version", as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

1911 versions[edit]

There were two different 1911 versions according to here and here.   — C M B J   00:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

Fixed a few grammar problems, like a space missing in-between words- and edits to make it more understandable to the average reader. --Adam00 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Popularity missing from lead[edit]

A section should be added to the lead discussing the popularity of The KJV. And its cultural significance. I also think the lead can be made more punchy and lose some of the technical details. --Inayity (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Pocket (or pearl) Bible[edit]

I believe there is some history missing about the soldiers bible and Oliver Cromwell's last official printing in 1658. I have found a reliable source and would like to add mention of the two printings being mentioned and add an image of the inside illustration.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As soon as I can get everything together I will add the content.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1629 Revision was first to use letter J and modern 26 letter English Alphabet, i.e. "Jesus" & "James"[edit]

The original King Iames Bible 1611 does not use the letter J. It was the Oxford & Cambridge Revised KJV of 1629 that first introduced the Modern 26-Letter Alphabet and where the names "Jesus" and his brother "James" first appeared. "IESVS" appeared in Latin on the placard on Jesus' Cross on the first day of Passover: Good Friday April 7, 30 AD / 7.4.783 AUC. The Latin IESVS evolved to "Iesus" in the KJV 1611 and finally "Jesus". - Ben Franklin 75.74.180.52 (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of this fact because it was unsourced. A claim like this must be sourced to be proven true. Please provide a source and discuss it here before adding this "information" back into the article. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

1611 or 1769[edit]

I have reverted the entire edit introduced by editor User:DigDeep4Truth .

- the matter is presented as argument; and hence is appropriate for the talk page not the article itself, - much of the matter asserted in the edit has been discussed before through the talk-page, and a contrary approach agreed, - asserting the primacy of the 1769 text is tendentious; the clear predominance of scholarship is that the terms "King James Version" and "Authorized Version" refer primarily to the bible published in 1611.

Reverted edit as below. TomHennell (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The King James Version (KJV) is the name given to the revision from 1769 by Oxford University Press. It is not the same Bible as the The Holy Bible of 1611[2]. The Authorized Version (AV), the keyword is "Version", is also a later revision of the Oxford Edition marketed to those wanting something closer to the 1611 King James Bible without knowing what those differences really entail, such as spelling "jesus"(notice the 'i' dot over the 'J') as "Iefus"[3]. The King James Bible (KJB) might refer to the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition[4], but there are many variations even in the KJB due to copyright laws requiring text to be less than 70 year old to be protected from people making free copies. The The Holy Bible of 1611 is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[5] First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker,[6][7] this was the third translation into English to be approved by the English Church authorities. The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII (1535)[8], and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568.[9] In January 1604, King James VI and I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[10] a faction within the Church of England.[11] + The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[12] First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker,[13][14] this was the third translation into English to be approved by the English Church authorities. The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII (1535)[15], and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568.[9] In January 1604, King James VI and I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[10] a faction within the Church of England.[16]

− James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[17] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[18] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Deterocanon was translated from the Greek and Latin. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the King James Authorized replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.[19] By the first half of the 18th century, the Holy Bible of 1611 was effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in English churches. Over the course of the later 18th century, the King James Version out of Oxford supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars. Today, the most used edition of the King James Bible[20], and often identified as plainly the King James Version, especially in the United States, closely follows the standard text of 1769, edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford.

I agree, Tom. This revision does warrant discussion. I believe the article as it stands is well sourced and a thorough treatment on the subject. I see no merits whatsoever in the revision this other editor is supporting. And all major changes such as this should be discussed on the talk page BEFORE being implemented into the article. I am satisfied with the article as it now stands. If this editor wants to discuss specific areas for improvement or changes, that is his prerogative. I do not see that the proposed revision would be accurate, contextually or in any other way. Any other thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Jg, we do have a slight problem here in that User:DigDeep4Truth appears to have got themselves blocked for consistent breaches of Wikipedia policy - so it seems unlikely that he/she will be able to do much discussing yet awhile. So we may need to play the devils advocate a bit; unless Light10NileSands (talk) can stand in for him/her TomHennell (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Tom I like the above edit better than the current one. The current article states they are all the same. This makes it clear they are not, and I agree this truth is missing from the article. Though I would like to know more about how each differs. It still makes a good point, took me 20 years to realize none of the current names carry the books found in the Church of England's 1611 Bible or Holy Bible of 1611 as this person writes. So I know this kid is right about at least that much. I asked BibleGateway.com about the AKJV they have, "Thank you for contacting us concerning the Authorized King James Version provided to us by Cambridge University Press". I'll check with Cambridge in the near future and find out about AV, KJV, KJB, Authorized King James Version (AKJV). Will an email from the publishers be something that can be submitted to Wikipedia?
Light10NileSands, you appear to be a new editor (or a new version of an old editor), as I cannot find your user page etc. If so, may I share a few hard-earned tips about Wikipedia editing and principles. Please forgive me if I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs.
An email from the publisher certainly would not be proper for inclusion in a Wikipedia article; as it would be a classic instance of original research. Wikipedia does not exist as a forum for prinary research, nor as a platform for the personal opinions and knowledge (however accurate) of individual editors; i.e. you and me. Wikipedia exists to provide an accessible summary of current published scholarship by notable scholars in recognised academic publications. Nor is Wikipedia a democracy; what a lot of unacademic people believe is much less qualified for inclusion than what the Cambridge Regius Professor believes - even if she is alone in her belief aand her belief is wrong. A lot of editors find this difficult; as it may involve suppressing assertions that we 'know' to be true, and replacing them by better-sourced assertions that we 'know' to be false. If you are such an editor, you may find it more profitable to find another encyclopedia. TomHennell (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The KJV on biblegateway is public domain without a copy date, so I don't know which version it is but it lacks the Deutero-Canon found in the 1611 Edition or the later i to j revision. DigDeept4Truth might be right by mentioning the 1769 revision as being the KJV, because it would be public domain now. ~ I wanted to check the references in the above edit, but they did not work for me (Do they work for anyone else, I can see them on the screen but not when reading). Am I the only one? Either way the Authorized Version coming from Cambridge is clearly newer and in some way different than the KJV on biblegatway.com. So he may be right about it being a newer edit. I just don't see links telling how he knew that. So the revision is more accurate than the current article. I just want to check the facts first. Light10NileSands (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of KJV versions on the web - and their promoters repeatedly try to insert links to them in this article; which I and other editors remove. Go to Wikisource for the Oxford 1769 standard text; there are links to both the 1611 texts below the article. The term Deutero-Canon should probably be avoided here, as it begs the question of content. Better to use the term 'books called Apocrypha' as the 1611 editors did. Also note that with reference to CUP, there are a number of Cambridge texts. For the most part CUP issues the 1769 Oxford text, but they also publish the 'Cambridge Paragraph Bible', first as edited by Scrivener, and then most recently an entirely new edition by Norton (which is also published by Penguin).TomHennell (talk)
Tom said, "the terms "King James Version" and "Authorized Version" refer primarily to the bible published in 1611."? That is a false assumption some lay people make based on the title not some scholarly view. Shouldn't the article make it clear that the 1611 and later edits, had the Deutero-Canon? Entire books missing is more significant a change than a few changed words, right? So they primarily refer to something different than the 1611 and edits until the 1769, right? The 1769 may be when those books were dropped. So it would be more accurate to write, "the terms "King James Version" and "Authorized Version" refer primarily to the bible published in 1769." Do you agree?
My view was that the all questions you raise were appropriately dealt with aleady in the article; if you are finding them confusing, may I suggest that you point out the bits that are difficult so that they may be reworded? In 2011, we had a big academic and popular palaver around the "400th anniversary of the KJV". This seems to mark the point when English academic usage flipped over from favouring the term 'Authorized Version' to 'King James Version' instead. Up till then it did appear that AV (at least in England) was being used in academic discourse to refer to the 1611 text and its creators; while KJV more often denoted the 1769 text (commonly without the books of the Apocrypha). At that time this article was entitled 'Authorized King James Version" (which is indeed the title Oxford use for their standard text with Apocrypha). We have since changed the title (you may need to look at all the discussion on the archive), to reflect current usage of KJV as a general term - and not excluding the Apocryphal Books).
But the basic issue is to look for notable academic support. Putting the 1611 text as the primary subject of the article accords, as I understand it, with the approach of Scrivener, Norton and Ward Allen. Can you suggest any notable academic who supports the approach put forward by User:DigDeep4Truth ? TomHennell (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Contemporary and 2011? A few professors being too young to recall the Authorized Bibles with complete canons of the 1900's is no excuse for article ignorance. These modern notions don't really fit facts. Go to a bookstore, ask for the King James Version and it will lack the Books the Church of England called Apocryphal (Though the Greek Orthodox & Septuagint Canon always had them). Therefore it is not a reference to the The Holy Bible of 1611. It's pretty cut and dry. KJV does not have the books the King Authorized for print in 1611. -- The first Sentence is wrong. Light10NileSands (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
But still no notable support for any change I'm afraid. What may be the case in one local bookstore is not really relevant to the issue. I have made a few changes to the second para of the lead, to clarify the point that the title 'King James Version' is often understood in the USA (though not in England) as only denoting a version without the Apocrypha and conforming to the Oxford Standard Text. (In my local bookstore here as it happens, all sorts of KJV's, full and partial, sit alongside each other on the same shelf)
Key points:
- What is being proposed by you here, as I understand it, is that the current article should be split; with the bulk of it (the bits relating to the 1611 translation, with Apocrypha) renamed "Holy Bible of 1611"; while the title "King James Version" is retained for a separate article relating to the 1769 Oxford Standard Text, without Apocrypha. But we have only recently had an extended debate on the title, in which a split article was one of the options explored (by me as it happens); and the consensus ruling is represented in the current article and title. See the archive. Most of the issues you raise now, you could have raised then and didn't. As you can see, my own view was not the one that then prevailed, but I now see insufficent reason to re-open the matter if most people are happy.
- the primary subject of the article is, and has to be, the 1611 version; that much is clear from the academic and popular faldarol surrounding the '400th anniversary'. I counted some dozen academic and popular titles on the history of the 'King James Version' or 'King James Bible' in the past couple of years (slightly more the latter title than the former). All focus on the 1611 translators; in most Benjamin Blayney and the 1769 text get a footnote, if that.
- The alternataive title 'Holy Bible of 1611' (without a qualifying 'King James') is in no academic authority that I can find; and certainly is not current in leading scholarship on the subject. Nor should we multiply articles without good cause. If people want to know what has been published about the King James Bible, or King James Version; those are the titles they will look for in Wikipedia.
- Splitting off discussion of the 1769 text (however the split sections are entitled) gets into seriously tricky territory. as there is a niche cultic debate about which is the true 1769 text, or Pure Cambridge Edition (which is reflected in the article in a couple of sentences).
- Where there are multiple views amongst editors; Wikipedia should go with the leading published authorities. To give a specific authoritative example; "The Oxford Companion to the Bible", eds Bruce M. Metzger and Michael Coogan, adopts 'King James Version' and 'KJV' as denoting the 1611 translation with Apocrypha - see the article on English translations by Robert Bratcher. So far as I can see, the proposed changes are going in the opposite direction. TomHennell (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[2][edit]

  • The current sentence is false in equivalency to the 1611, only common in England, and suggests a "KJB" translation that does not exist.
  • Even the reference tag is wrong. Why is the reference here? [^ fascimile Dedicatorie: [And now at last, ...it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hope that the Church of England (sic) shall reape good fruit thereby..."] = It in no way supports the sentence, statements, or dates? Please remove it.
  • This would be more accurate: The King James Version (KJV), is an American printing name. The KJV redacted books found in the original 1611 and "Authorized Version" before this practice was made standard. The Authorized Version (AV) as it is known in England, included these books until about 1826, when the "British and Foreign Bible Society" outlined those books many Protestants "called Apocryphal" in response to the Catholic Council of Trent adoption of the Original Greek Text Canon used by the Greek & Eastern Orthodox Churches, no longer be included in standard printings used by the Church of England. -- "English Versions" by Sir Frederic G. Kenyon in the Dictionary of the Bible edited by James Hastings, and published by Charles Scribner's Sons of New York in 1909 The King James Bible (KJB) is an informal slang term for the version printed during King James's lifetime containing books called Apocryphal, to be clear there is no such translation or version as a "KJB". [3]. To learn about the Original King James Bible see The Holy Bible of 1611 [4] [5]. Light10NileSands (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Is a social media site (Twitter) considered a reliable source for books in the social media domain?[edit]

Saw the latest edit and wanted to ask a question about it before I reverted it. Is Twitter considered a reliable source for books (like the KJV) in the social media domain? A user posted a link to the social media version of the KJV on Twitter. I almost reverted it, but didn't know if it would be a justifiable revert. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If you mean King James Social Media Bible this, the page didn't exist when I looked a moment ago but is there now but no, twitter wouldn't be a reliable source. I don't know what you mean by "Social media domain". The publication is within a social media site and has no known notability or authorship. It even links back to our article in places and that is considered circular referencing.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)