Talk:King James Version

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
November 29, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
July 31, 2006 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Authorized (sic) Version[edit]

Why the (sic). That implies a term or word being misused, but seeing as it's a name that doesn't really apply. Can someone justify this? If not it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on King James Version. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Vulgate influence[edit]

IP user 58.176.187.112 has repeatedly been removing the phrase "some readings derived from the Vulgate" from the infobox. I've pointed him at the more detailed discussion in the text, but he appears to fixate on John 10:16. I've reverted twice so can't do more (WP:3RR). I asked for the status quo to be respected and the discussion brought to the talk page. He has replied on my talk page instead and reverted me yet again, so I'm copying it here. We need to establish: (1) has he any citation for the change, and (2) are there no readings in the whole NT derived from the Vulgate, because if not then there must be some? Bible scholars please enter the fray!

"The translators of KJV were seeking to get the original meaning from Hebrew and Greek. Fold and Flock in that passage means the same thing. It is just a literary style of the translator of not repeating the same word twice. The reader gets it (anybody with basic knowledge of English) that the the author is trying to convey the same meaning.

"And what other evidence is that the NT in KJV uses Vulgate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.176.187.112 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)"

Regards Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

see: https://archive.org/details/cu31924029268708 Appendix E at page 262.
the issue is not 'evidence' for the claim; it's the claims citation from Scrivener; who states explicitly that there are a small number of New Testament readings (of which flock and fold are among the instances he quotes) which in his 'opinion' derive from the Vulgate Latin; and not from any published Greek edition. It matters not at all whether Scrivener's opinion is justified in the 'evidence' (though it is, flock and fold are totally different English and Greek terms); what concerns Wikipedia is published authoritative opinions. On this matter Scrivener's opinions (though old) are still authoritative, while mine and yours are not. Evidence and facts have no place in Wikipedia, as they constitute original research; Wikipedia is concerened solely with authoritative opinions in published references. TomHennell (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinion should not be put in the infobox. Only facts(evidence). And my standard of evidence can easily be extracted. Show me any verse in the New Testament where KJV deviates from Greek reading that follows Latin Vulgate. I have read that link and Scrivener is unable to prove any verse reading that exclusively can only be found in Latin Vulgate. A few times he found a reading that deviates from majority Greek text but still cite a lone greek manuscript and Latin Vulgate AND THEN conclude that Latin Vulgate is the authority. For Scrivener to cite a lone greek manuscript is evidence a particular verse reading can still be derived without looking at the Latin Vulgate. The reader can see the opinion of Scrivener in the article itself. There is no need to put opinion in the infobox.(58.176.187.112)

Wrong way round I'm afraid, 58.176.187.112; published 'opinions' are the only valid content for a Wikipedia article, and hence for an infobox attached to that article. Anything that is not a published opionion is to be removed. 'Evidence' as such is not allowed in Wikipedia; as any evaluation of evidence by a Wikipedia editor (and unsupported in a published source) must constitute original research, which is not allowed to be included in any article - on which see Wikipedia:No original research "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Please note; 'facts' as such are cannnot be included in Wikipedia articles, nor can your 'standard of evidence' whether easily extracted or not - since such 'extraction' will always be original research. If you wish to dispute the inclusion of Screvener's published opionions, you are more than welcome to cite published studies by notable scholars in the field which maintain the assertion that you propose should be included in the article. But nothing can be included inthe article that cannot be found in authoritative published sources; and nothing should be removed from the article that is found in a notable published source, unless that removal can be supported from a contrary authoritative published source. If you find difficulty with these rules; perhaps you might find a different on-line encyclopedia more congenial to your views? TomHennell (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Tom, that puts flesh on the bones of what I was saying. Can you or someone else revert the last change, as I mentioned above I'd be getting too close to 3RR. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I've protected the page so discussion on the talk page can continue without disruption. Any other admin should feel free to change this as circumstances require. Tom Harrison Talk 14:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Latin Vulgate influence compromise revision[edit]

Upon further investigation, it is the other party that slightly misunderstood Scrivener position and I was not alert enough to catch it earlier. I believe we can reach a reasonable conclusion now that that the rules are being followed.

The sentence by TomHennell [which in his 'opinion' derive from the Vulgate Latin; and not from any published Greek edition] implies that Scrivener thinks that New Testament in KJV has a verse that contradict Greek reading to follow Latin Vulgate. That is not the position of Scrivener. I have read the link you gave very carefully.

You mentioned this rule [This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. ] By your own rule, you are making conclusion not stated by Scrivener. Here is what Scrivener would describe it in his own word "In some places the Authorized Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate". So John 10:16 would fall under this description of "correspond but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate"

Scrivener's statement above his list of most likely 'Vulgate' readings is; "Passages wherein the text of the Authorized Bible seems to follow the Latin Vulgate". His methodology is explained in page 60 of the linked monograph; he has checked 252 readings where the standard Greek editions of the 16th century were known to have varied to a degree sufficient to be apparent in English translation; and then checked which published edition was most commonly followed by the King James editors. He found 113 readings that followed the Greek of Beza, 59 that followed the Greek of Stephanus; and 80 that followed neither. Almost all the latter showed agreement with the corresponding Vulgate reading; but mostly also agreed with one or another early 16th century Greek edition; Erasmus or the Complutensian. So the passages listed on page 262-3 of Scrivener are the subset of the 80 where the KJV reading does not agree exactly with any 16th century published Greek edition - though he regarded it as most likely that those otherwise corresponding with the Complutensian Greek alone were actually derived directly from the Vulgate. Some Complutenisian readings (as indeed some of Erasumus) are believed to have been back-translated from the Vulgate, not being found in any surviving Greek manuscript.
The KJV editors state explicitly in their Preface (which Scrivener reproduces as Appendix F), that they consulted the Vulgate for some of their readings. See his page 298 where they justify taking selected readings from ancient versions - "Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin". Their 'Latin' text here can be identified as the Vulgate; the KJV editors did not have access to any other ancient Latin version. From their notes and the minutes of their discussions; we know that the KJV editors did not consult Greek or Hebrew manuscripts directly - the only manuscript that is noted being their source text for II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses - and, while they generally followed Beza's published Greek text, they (wisely) did not consider him to be altogether reliable. Hence their presumption that, in places, the original reading may have been transmitted though the Vulgate. 10:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC) TomHennell (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Since the party that wants to preserve the status quo wants to cite Scrivener as authoritative source, why don't we exactly quote what he said.


For the purpose of avoiding making conclusion not stated by the source. We should change the sentence of

"some readings derived from the Vulgate"

in the infobox to

"In some places the Authorized Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate"


The New Testament in the original Greek, according to the text followed in the Authorized Version by Scrivener, p. ix

https://archive.org/details/newtestamentinor00scri

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.176.187.112 (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC) 
rephrasing the note is a good suggestion 58.176.187.112; though I would tend to think your suggestion is a little long winded for the infobox. Perhaps "Occasional New Testament readings follow the Latin Vulgate text". But what wording would other editors favour? TomHennell (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks both for finally using the talk pages to try to improve the article. The requirement to use the status quo is not because it is better or correct, but because in instances of dispute it should be left until consensus on the talk page is achieved. Editors should not go back and change postings on the talk page (except for trivial matters like spelling errors), but instead allow the conversation to develop. It makes it much harder to understand the discussion if it a reply is to an earlier version. Please also remebers to always sign your edits on the talk page with ~~~~

Still on a technical point; the infobox needs to summarise the detailed discussion on the article. You need to ensure that ¶ 3.1.2 "New Testament" in § "Literary attributes" is agreed first, then ensure the infobox reflects the contents of this paragraph.

More positively, have a look at John Bois and also the DNB entry at s:Bois, John (DNB00). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


So the passages listed on page 262-3 of Scrivener are the subset of the 80 where the KJV reading does not agree exactly with any 16th century published Greek edition

Here is Scrivener's exact quote on page 60 about the 80 readings - [with the Complutensian, Erasmus or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in 80]. Statement like "does not agree exactly with any of the published Greek text" can be misunderstood that KJV has a New Testament verse that cannot be found in any Greek reading.

The KJV editors state explicitly in their Preface (which Scrivener reproduces as Appendix F), that they consulted the Vulgate for some of their readings. See his page 298 where they justify taking selected readings from ancient versions - "Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin". Their 'Latin' text here can be identified as the Vulgate; the KJV editors did not have access to any other ancient Latin version. 

The exact quote of Scrivener on page 298 [Neither did we think much to consult the translator or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin; no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian or Dutch]. On page 298, you would see the '1' reference at the end of the word Dutch, it would take you to page 140. Consulting translators mean that the KJV editors want to understand how other Bible language translations were translated, how the original tongues were translated to these various languages. Page 298 does not mention anything about "taking selected reading" nor is it about KJV translators justifying their decision about taking readings from other language. KJV editors were consulting 'translator' not the 'manuscript' itself. A subtle difference that could misrepresent reality. Because in our English vernacular in regards to Bible translation: 'consulting manuscript' means the editor regards the manuscript to be authoritative. 'consulting translator' means the editor seek the views of the translator.

From their notes and the minutes of their discussions; we know that the KJV editors did not consult Greek or Hebrew manuscripts directly 

So you have this opinion based on KJV editors omission of statement in the "The Translators to the Readers" declaring "we consulted Greek or Hebrew manuscripts directly"? How about the fact that in the 6th rule of Hampton Court Conference directive [No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without some circumlocution so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text] is understood that the editors should seek translation from the original tongue (Hebrew and Greek). How about the statement by the editors in page 296-297

O let thy Scruptures be my pure delight; let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them. In this confidence, and with this devotion, did they assemble together; not too many, lest one should trouble another; and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them. If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, wherethrough the olive brances themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original, tongues. The same Saint Hierome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put into his decree, That as the credit of the old books (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes; so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth by the original Greek. If truth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a translation be made, but out of them?

Here is the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that the editors 'consult' directly.

http://testimony-magazine.org/back/jun2011/burke.pdf

They did not have to make that obvious declaration in the "The Translators to the Readers" because it is already open knowledge?

You need to ensure that ¶ 3.1.2 "New Testament" in § "Literary attributes" is agreed first, then ensure the infobox reflects the contents of this paragraph.

I want to add a subsection under 'literary attributes'. That is 'Translation Rules'. Put it between 'Translation' and 'Old Testament'. Translation Rules established by the authority given to the editors for the KJV translation

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.
2. The names of the prophets, and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz.: as the word ‘Church’ not to be translated ‘Congregation’ etc.
4. When a word hath diverse significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the Analogy of Faith.
5. The division of the chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without some circumlocution so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for fit reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself where he think good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.
9. As one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful for this point.
10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any place, to send them word thereof, note the place and withal send their reasons, to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
11. When any place of especial obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgement of such a place.
12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skilful in the tongues have taken pains in that kind, to send his particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge or Oxford.
13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester for that place, and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew and Greek in each University.
14. These translations to be used where they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible -> (Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva)
15. Besides the said directors before mentioned, three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities not employed in the translating, to be assigned by the Vice Chancellors, upon conference with the rest of the heads, to be overseers of the translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule above specified.

page 7-8 (pdf page 21-22) http://www.gracelifebiblechurch.com/kjb/atextualhistoryofthekingjamesbible.pdf

Also, the content of New Testament under the Literary Attributes need to be changed from

For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[126] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[127] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[128] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[129]

to

For the New Testament, the earliest Greek texts available in the time of the KJV translators were very varied in both age and quality. Like modern Bible translators, the KJV translators used several existing critical New Testament texts: the Textus Receptus of Robert Estienne (Latin name ‘Stephanus’), the critical text of Theodore Beza (a revised version of the Textus Receptus), and the third edition of the Novum Instrumentum omne by Desidirius Erasmus, a Catholic priest and Humanist scholar. The relationship of these sources is complex. The text edited by Estienne, known as the Textus Receptus, was an eclectic critical text known originally as the Editio Regia (the ‘Royal Edition’). Estienne drew on the Complutensian Polyglot as well as on a range of Greek texts.
F.H.A. Scrivener checked 252 readings where the standard Greek editions of the 16th century were known to have varied to a degree sufficient to be apparent in English translation; and then checked which published edition was most commonly followed by the King James editors. He found 113 readings that followed the Greek of Beza, 59 that followed the Greek of Stephanus; and 80 that followed Complutensian, Erasmus or the Vulgate. Scrivener observed that in some places the Authorized Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate. For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη).
John 10:16 KJV 1611
And other sheepe I haue, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall heare my voyce; and there shall be one fold, and one shepheard
John 10:16 Bishop Bible
And other sheepe I haue, which are not of this folde: them also must I bryng, & they shall heare my voyce, and there shalbe one folde, and one sheepehearde 
In John 10:16, the KJV reading correspond loosely to the Greek to exactly follow the Bishop Bible which was translated from Latin Vulgate; so as to comply the rule no 1 of the translation which establish that [The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.] 


For the first paragraph, same source http://testimony-magazine.org/back/jun2011/burke.pdf

rephrasing the note is a good suggestion 58.176.187.112; though I would tend to think your suggestion is a little long winded for the infobox. Perhaps "Occasional New Testament readings follow the Latin Vulgate text". But what wording would other editors favour?

How about "Occasional readings depart from Textus Receptus to follow Complutensian, Erasmus or the Vulgate"

58.176.187.112 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You appear to have put in a lot of work there 58.176.187.112; but unfortunately you do not seem to have fully understood your sources. The general principle in Wikipedia is that editors should use only their own words; but only their sources opinions. Quotations should be kept to a minimum - even for works that are out of copyright - while reusing the words of a source in an article without attribution is not allowed. This is indeed a counsel of perfection, and none of us are able to keep it up consistently; but I guess that you are fairly new to the exercise, and your proposed wording falls seriously short of the ideal. In most cases, I read your proposed edits as summarising your opinions utilising wording from your sources; not the other way round.
A couple of points of clarification on your cited sources though.
- You cite Scrivener's edition of the underlying Greek text to the KJV, but you appear to have conflated his key distinction. When he says "..in some places the Authorised Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate" he is referring to a subset of the 190 readings where his reconstructed Greek source text differs from that of Beza. But those 190 changes do not include those readings where there is no published Greek text that supports the KJV reading at all; Scrivener lists these readings at the end of his Appendix at page 657 with a contrasting note; 'In the following places these Latin Vulgate appears to be the authority adopted in preference to Beza". As Scrivener has no Greek authority for these readings, he has retained Beza's text in the body of his edition. So at John 10:16, Scrivener's Greek reads 'one flock' (with Beza); not 'one fold' (with the Vulgate and KJV).
- You cite an article by Jonathan Burke from Testimony Magazine in support of the assertion that the KJV translators consulted Hebrew and Greek manuscripts 'directly'. But Burke does not say this at all; instead he maintains that the KJV translators had access at second hand to manuscript sources, in so far as the Greek and Hebrew editions they used were based on manuscript readings - in particular in the form of the manuscript citations in Stephanus's third edition of the New Testament in 1550. But although Stephanus cited manuscript readings in this edition; he did not use them for his main text. His third edition text is almost identical to that of his second edition and first editions; which in turn are almost entirely derived from various editions of Erasmus (the second more than the first, and the third more than the second). Scrivener's study of the Editio Regia shows that there are over 100 Erasmus readings in Stephanus's second edition that are not supported by any of his third edition manuscript citations; but that in his third edition text, Stephanus consistently follows Erasmus not his cited manuscripts. "the text is perpetually at variance with the majority of these (manuscripts), and at 119 places with them all." https://archive.org/stream/plainintroduct00scri#page/388/mode/2up But in any case, there are Wikipedia articles on both the Textus Receptus and the Editio Regia. Jonathan Burke's article (if it is considered notable) properly belongs there, not here. TomHennell (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


To make discussion simpler and more efficient. Let's address potential disagreement one by one first. First thing first, the current wording in the infobox of "some readings derived from the Vulgate" is misleading. It implies that there is reading in New Testament of KJV that contradicts all the Greek reading to follow the Latin Vulgate. It should be changed to "Occasional readings depart from Textus Receptus to follow Complutensian, Erasmus or the Vulgate" to reflect Scrivener's observation in page 60 of "The authorized edition of the English Bible (1611)".


This is his exact quote in page 60 [Out of the 252 passages examined in Appendix E, wherein the differences between the texts of these books is sufficient to affect, however slightly, the language of the version, our Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113 places, with Stephen against Beza in 59, with the Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in 80.] In page 60, Scrivener listed 252 readings that has textual disagreement in NT KJV. He gave a complete breakdown out of the 252, how many were following certain particular source. Scrivener is making an exact observation in page 60. He did not mention any reading that follow ONLY the Vulgate.

But those 190 changes do not include those readings where there is no published Greek text that supports the KJV reading at all; Scrivener lists these readings at the end of his Appendix at page 657 with a contrasting note; 'In the following places these Latin Vulgate appears to be the authority adopted in preference to Beza"

I have looked into page 657 of "The New Testament in the original Greek, according to the text followed in the Autnorized Version" Let's quote the the more complete text in page 657 instead of quoting a passage out of context

In the following places the Latin Vulgate appears to have been the authority adopted in preference to Beza. The present list is probably quote incomplete, and a few cases seem precarious. It is possible that some of the readings from which Compl. Vulg. have been cited above, were derived from Vulg. rather than from Compl.

Scrivener observed at least there is a Greek reading(Compl.) to support verses in KJV. It was never Latin alone. Page 657 did not describe there are readings in KJV that can only be found in Latin alone as what you implied.


The sentence [with the Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in 80] means that 1)Complutensian and Erasmus OR 2)the Vulgate fills-in the gap to explain the origin of readings in NT KJV that cannot be found in Stephan and Beza.

May you show me where did Scrivener exactly mentioned 190 readings? 58.176.187.112 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to read Scrivener again 58.176.187.112. Scrivener provides two separate lists in the Appendix to his reconstructed underlying Greek text for the KJV; one at pages 648 to 657, the other at page 658. In the passage you quote from page 657 he makes a distinction between the readings above (which are the 190 changes that he has made to Beza's 1598 Greek text); and the following places, which are those readings listed on his page 658 where he has retained the text of Beza's 1598 Greek edition unchanged, even though that Greek does not correspond to the English printed in the 1611 KJV.
"The Text of Beza 1598 has been left unchanged where the variation from it made in the Authorised Version is not countenanced in any earlier edition of the Greek. In the following places the Latin Vulgate appears to have been the authority adopted in preference to Beza. The present list is probably quite incomplete, and a few cases seem precarious. It is possible that some of the readings from which Compl. Vulg. have been cited above, were derived from Vulg. rather than from Compl."
Scrivener accepts that his present list of 'following places' is likely incomplete; in that some of the readings 'above' are precarious (that is; a few of those 190 readings where he has printed the Greek text from the Complutensian Polyglot might rather have been in the 'present list' of those where the KJV translators followed the Vulgate). But the fact (for Scrivener) that in some of his 190 changes, the English reading in the KJV corresponds more closely to the Vulgate Latin than to any published Greek text, only imputes uncertainty in the list of 190 readings. For Scrivener, the present list on page 658 is not precarious at all; he has tried in these places to find a corresponding Greek text if he possibly could, so these remaining variant readings (which all correspond closely to the Vulgate Latin) cannot have been derived from any Greek authority. On principle however, Scrivener will not back-translate from the Latin to a supposed Greek original, so he has (in these places) retained Greek readings from Beza that do not correspond with the KJV English. As you can easily tell by cross checking Scrivener's text with any copy of the KJV.
I am afraid your proposed wording only partially represents what Scrivener has done - and what he consequently asserts of the sources for the KJV text. He would certainly agree that "Occasional readings depart from Textus Receptus to follow the Complutensian (....) or the Vulgate"; but would add that "further occasional readings appear to follow the Vulgate alone". (Though you should note for information that for Scrivener, as for critical scholarship in general, the Textus Receptus is always primarily an Erasmus text, so the KJV cannot be said to depart from the one to follow the other). It is the second point above that is reflected both in the current infobox, and the body of the article. So far you have cited no published authority that maintains the contrary.
Which brings us back to the basic issue; content in the article should represent the published opinions of cited notable authorities, not the opinions of current editors. In your contributions so far you appear rather to have tried to find a construction of the words of notable authorities that might support your own opinions. But Scrivener's opinions can be well understood in a straightforward reading of what he says; and that this straightforward reading is correct,can be readily inferred by looking at how he has applied those opinions in his reconstructed Greek text. Had Scrivener found Greek authorities for all readings in the KJV New Testament (as you supppose) he would have printed them, as that was the entire purpose of his work. The fact that in occasional places (listed following his page 657) Scrivene has had to print Greek readings differing from the KJV English readings, establishes that the understanding of Scrivener's words that I offer above is correct; while the contrary construction you have tried to put on those words, I'm afraid, is not. TomHennell (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Apocyrpha and Deuterocanon[edit]

I have reverted the unsourced edit from the lead "The books of the King James Version include the 39 books of the Old Testament, an intertestamental section containing 14 books of the Apocrypha (aka Deuterocanonical books in Catholic/Orthodox parlance), and the 27 books of the New Testament" and returned to the former text. There are a number of Wikipedia articles (arguably too many) summarising scholarship on the Biblical Canons of the various Christian traditions. The (very complex) interrelationships of the canons of the KJV, Vulgate, Septuagint, Ethiopic, etc are fully discussed in those. But the text above cannot stand in this article; as the Apocrypha of the KJV is not at all the same as the 'Deuterocanonical books' (whether of the Vulgate or Septuagint). So texts that are classed as protocanonical in the Septuagint (such as the Rest of Esther) are classed with the Apocrypha in the KJV. Conversely other texts classed with Apocrypha in the KJV (such as II Esdras) are not considered deuterocanonical in either the Vulgate or Septuagint. And there are several 'deuterocanonical' texts that are not in the KJV Apocrypha or Old Testament(such as the Septuagint Psalm 151). Moreover, in neither the Vulgate nor the Septuagint are the books of the Deuterocanon clearly distinguished from those of the Old Testament, as they are in the KJV. On all this see the article on Apocrypha in the Oxford Companion to the Bible. TomHennell (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This shows a clear Protestant bias. The deuterocanonical books which are accepted by the vast majority of Christians (1.5 billion of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world accept them.) Are in the KJV Apocrypha section.

I will edit this article nonstop until you let the fact that they are called Deuterocanon and not apocrypha by the vast majority of Christians in the world stand.

I think my last edit was very fair and if you have a problem with it I think we may need to involve wiki administrators to arbitrate for us.

God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonWikis (talkcontribs) 15:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry JasonWikis; you still have not cited any published authority for your proposed insertion. If you cannot, it may have to be reverted again. You may note that published sources are unified in counting the Catholic Deuterocanon as seven books - as specifically defined by the Council of Trent. Indeed, if you cross-refer to the article Deuterocanonical books you will find the plain statement "There is a great deal of overlap between the Apocrypha section of the original 1611 King James Bible and the Catholic deuterocanon, but the two are distinct." No other Christian tradition recognises a set of Deuterocanonical books identical to those printed in the KJV Apocrypha. TomHennell (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@JasonWiki:, The KJV is specifically "an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England" (see the first sentence of the lead). Ergo, it is of course Protestant in outlook and terminology. Be very careful how you proceed. Comments such as "I will edit this article nonstop until ..." could well be seen as a declaration of edit warring and that leads to all sorts of unpleasantness such as topic or absolute bans. Having said which, your parenthesised explanation seems a reasonable compromise, what does Tom think? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no issue with the parenthisis in general if the count of 9 books in the Deuterocanon can be sourced. Otherwise, perhaps reworded as: (most of which correspond to books in the Vulgate Deuterocanon). I wouild not support more detail than this in the lead para though; if specific listing of which books are considered 'Apocrypha' in the Vulgate tradition, and which are considered 'Apocrypha' in KJV (and Reformed Protestantism); then that should be in the Apocrypha section of the main article. Arguably, there should be a revised notice in that section anyway, likely sourced from the Apocrypha article in the Oxford Companion. In my view. TomHennell (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield and TomHennell: I'm happy we've reached a compromise. The current way it's worded is perfect and conveys exactly what I wanted it to - that the King James with Apocrypha contains the full Catholic Biblical Canon - therefore it's practical and useful for Catholics. As for the source that Catholics have those 9 books as a Deuterocanon, check out [1] - the number you usually see from Catholics is 7 - we have 7 books in our Deuterocanon - Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch. However, those are only complete books - there are also additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. In the KJV Apocrypha, the additions to Esther constitute 1 separate book "The rest of Esther". The additions to Daniel constitute 3 separate books in the KJV Apocrypha - the "Song of the Three Children", "The Story of Susanna", "The Idol Bel, and the Dragon" - so actually by KJV Apocrypha numbering, the Catholic Deuterocanon consists of 11 books.

So to recap: the official Catholic number of Deuterocanon is 7 books plus additions to two books. The number I indicated on the KJV page was 9 because I included the additions to Esther and Daniel as two additional books. Judging by the KJV Apocrypha itself, it would actually consist of 11 separate books.

So even with a Wiki page talking about Biblical canon, we see various ways of counting books - it's no wonder that the reckoning of books and numbers of books in canons has been such a controversial, dynamic, and debated subject over the millennia! 15:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Jason WikiP (talk)

 : Thanks for the reference JasonWikis; but it does say 'seven' not 'nine' - which is how the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate dueterocanon is commonly reckoned in published sources. While I understand how you have worked out 'nine' (and eleven); those remain your working and hence 'OR' in the arcana of Wikipedia. In general, readers should not expect to find a number quoted in an article (especially in the lead para) that is clearly at variance with that in published sources. So 'fourteen' is the expected count of the Apocrypha, and 'seven' of the deuterocanon. But would you have any objection to my proposed reformulation (or a rewording of it), which loses any confusing numbers; but I think picks up your point (which looks to have value) that the 'Apocrypha' of the KJV includes all books and texts of the Tridentine dueterocanon (plus some)? I should add that 'Catholic' is always a slippery term in Wikipedia use; and hence the more exact specification 'Vulgate' would avoid this. TomHennell (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@TomHennell: I would be okay with your edit if you would slightly alter to read thus: (most of which correspond to books in the Vulgate Deuterocanon adhered to by Roman Catholics) It's important to me that in the first paragraph it is noted that the KJV contain the full Catholic Canon as I believe the KJV has been neglected by my fellow English speaking Catholics - it is one of the best English Bible translations available and I like to promote it as a solid Bible to be read by Catholics. Jason WikiP (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead.TomHennell (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@TomHennell: the relevant sentence in the main article now reads an intertestamental section containing 14 books of the Apocrypha (most of which correspond to books in the Vulgate Deuterocanon adhered to by Roman Catholics)

I am happy we reached an adequate consensus. Jason WikiP (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both. I was worried at one point that this was getting too heated but both of you have followed the best traditions of Wikipedia and come to a sensible compromise. I don't claim to be a biblical scholar (much less to Tom's standard), but have a particular interest in the KJV, for historical, linguistic, literary and family reasons. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)