Talk:King James Version

This article uses British English dialect and spelling. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Note: The official spelling of the formal name is correct with the -ize ending, which had been discussed in the past.

Breadth concern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ref tags

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

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

Help

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

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

KJV

GA Review

initial comments

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

My main observations on this article are:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2nd Opinion rationale

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

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

To do list

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

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

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

External Links

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

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

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

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

Spelling of the Title "Authorized" versus "Authorised"

very detailed discssion now archived.

- but simply stated, the term "Authorized Version" is a title and proper name, and as such is given a separate entry, with that spelling, in all current standard English dictionaries - Oxford, Collins, Chambers, Penguin. The fact that some publishers prefer to spell the counterpart adjective as "authorised" is irrelevant. TomHennell (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Printers

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

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

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

Italics?

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

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

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

Liars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authorship

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