Talk:King James Version/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

interpolations

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.""

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)

400th Anniversary material

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

What are u looking for?

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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)

Dashes

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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"?

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!

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)

intent of variation in the early bibles

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

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)

"Official" translations

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 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Name

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)

Requested move

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 [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0745953514/ref=rdr_ext_tmb The People's Bible: The Remarkable History of the King James Version] and [http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Story-James-Version-1611-2011/dp/B00AZ80HC8/ref=sr_1_1? 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.

Italicization consistency

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)

1911 versions

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

Cleanup

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)

Global usage

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)

Popularity missing from lead

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

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"

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)

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]

• 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". [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=king+james+bible&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aking+james+bible]. To learn about the Original King James Bible see The Holy Bible of 1611 [3] [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=the+holy+bible+1611&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Athe+holy+bible+1611]. Light10NileSands (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

1611 or 1769

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. 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". The King James Bible (KJB) might refer to the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition, 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. First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker, 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), and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568. 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, a faction within the Church of England. + 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. First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker, 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), and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568. 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, a faction within the Church of England.

− 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. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. 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. 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, 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)

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

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)

A little thing called an apostrophe

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)

Errors of translation

Currently, the Style and Criticism section makes some references to differences between the KJV and modern translations, but does not explicitly make mention of the fact that the KJV contains several actual translation errors, probably due mainly due to the translators' unfamiliarity with Koine. I think this is a deficiency and I will include some examples of errors in the S&C section. Ordinary Person (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea; though it is as well to cross-check with Scrivener and Norton on specific examples. What may appear on the face of it a translation 'error' may be a deliberate choice to prefer a reading from the Vulgate or another Latin version, over a straight rendering of the Greek. Generally, the translators had excellent Koine; mistranslations due to linguistic limitations were more common with Hebrew. TomHennell (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've kept it to a small list of those basically universally recognised as obvious clangers, eg unicorn for re'em.Ordinary Person (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"οσιος ("osios"): Holy one. In Revelation 16:5 this is translated as "and shall be", significantly altering the meaning compared to the source." Definitely not a mistranslation. The KJV source here is Beza, whose conjectural emendation of the verse in his Greek text of 1598 reads και ο εσομενος (and shalt be).

"αίών ("aion"): Age, Era, Aeon. This is translated in the Authorized Version as "world" in several places, particularly in the Book of Matthew." Definitely not a mistranslation, but a deliberate choice. 'World' is idiomatic English for αίών as in 'the world to come'; or 'the world today'; and is retained with this sense in a number of modern New Testament versions - such as J.B. Phillips.

"πασχα ("pascha"): Passover. In most cases in the Authorized Version, this is correctly translated as "Passover", but in Acts 12:4, it appears as "Easter"." Tricky. There was no other English word corresponding to πασχα (as that indeed is simply a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew). So, not wanting to use 'pask', as Wyclilffe had done, Tyndale translated πασχα consistently as 'ester' in his New Testament. But then, when he turned to the Old Testament, Tyndale saw that 'ester' would not do, and coined the English neologism 'passover'. The Bishops' Bible converted all 'esters' in the New Testament to 'passovers' - except two: this one and John 11:55. The Gospels/Acts/Revelation company of the KJV translators emended John 11:55, but not Acts 12:4. This may perhaps have been an oversight; but it is also plausible that they reasoned that the reference here is not specifically to the Jewish festival of Passover (which as Acts 12:3 makes clear, must already have happened), but to the general time period.

Hope these comments help. TomHennell (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have adjusted the section text accordingly. TomHennell (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

for is name sake

the letter J" did not exist in the time of Jesus,my question is why call him Jesus in this time should,nt we call him by is true name?If my name is john why call me Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.43.66 (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You make a fair point. You are correct. In Jesus' time, he was known as Yeshua or Yehosua, usually followed by "ben Yosef" or "son of Joseph." Many people accepted him as Joseph the carpenter's son rather than the Son of God. However, the beauty of Wikipedia is that it combines the historicity of such things with the latest advances in research. And almost as soon as J was created, this particular individual was recognized as Jesus, just as most people who believe in Jesus now accept him as the Son of God. Hope that makes sense. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

sections on cults and controversies

Usage by new religions, cults, sects and splinter groups

The King James Version was one of the earliest Bibles used by the Jehovah's Witnesses since their founding in 1879 by Charles Taze Russell. The International Bible Students Association, later known as the The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published their own edition from 1926, prior to the creation and completion of their New World Translation in 1961 since the King James Version renders the Divine Name, Jehovah in Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, Isaiah 26:4, and three times in compound place names at Genesis 22:14, Exodus 17:15 and Judges 6:24. A shortend form of the Divine Name, Jah appears in Psalms 68:4.

Christian Science uses the King James Version along with the writings of Mary Baker Eddy

It is also the official Bible version still used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints aka the Mormons in English-speaking countries worldwide in addition to the Book of Mormon since the movement began in upstate New York in the 1820's by their late founder, Joseph Smith. The adherents of the Rastafari movement which began in Jamaica in the 1930's have been known to exclusively use the King James Version. The Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, Inc.,an organization of Black Hebrew Israelites only accepts the King James Version as their Bible, No other Bible translations are allowed in their meetings or worship.

Controversy and opposing viewpoints

The King James Only movement, a faction of fundamentalist Christianity also advocates and argues the superiority and trustworthiness of the King James Version as opposed to modern bible translations which are regarded by those in the movement as untrustworthy, suspicious and worthy of scrutiny. The most extreme faction of the King James Only movement believe that the King James Version is the only divine rendition of the word of God in the English language and superseding all other versions, and even original language texts.

An example of a King James Only litmus test is the Comma Johanneum which is 1 John 5:7,"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Many modern bibles are missing this key verse because it's not based on the Textus Receptus which is the Greek Manuscript that was used in the translation of the King James Version. Many modern Bible translations are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts which King James Onlyists contend are corrupt and unreliable resulting in missing verses throughout many modern translations.

However, there are detractors that believe and claim the obsolescence of the King James Version dues to it's age and linguistic changes such as semantic meanings which have changed over the centuries for some words and archaic expressions which are no longer in popular everyday usage, e.g. "thees" and "thous" as well as what are perceived to be doctrinal errors such as the usage of the word, Easter (which is regarded by some as a Pagan holiday) in Acts 12:4 whereas other translations use the term, Passover (a Jewish Holiday).

Other examples are "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12, which is a Latin word for light-bearer while most translations use alternate words such as "Daystar", "Morning Star" or "Shining One". The word "Hell" which is used e.g. Psalms 16:10, etc. whereas other translations use the word, "Sheol" which simply means the grave and Matthew 5:29, where "hell" is substituted for "Gehenna" in other translations. "Hell" when used to describe a place of eternal torment is substituted by the word, "Hades" in other translations such as Revelation 20:14.

All this appears to me to be original research; is there published scholarship to support these assertions? TomHennell (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely remove the "Usage by new religions" section - there is nothing notable about this usage, since it has also ben used (and continues to be used) by many mainstream groups. There should be some discussion about the King James Only movement, but only a paragraph, and probably in "influence" rather than in a separate "controversy" section. StAnselm (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

many thanks TomHennell (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

First sentence is inappropriate

The first sentence of this article (on 1/12/2016), asserting that KJV is "the best, most accurate and only true English translation" of the Bible (without citation!) is jarringly inappropriate and obviously fails the test of neutrality. May I assume that the subjective words inside my quotation marks have been repeatedly removed by editors, only to be reinserted by King James exclusivists? Is there any way to fix this permanently, or are we at the mercy of a determined minority here? Can you lock the first paragraph without locking the entire article? 100.11.144.133 (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Kim de Riel 1/12/2016

Many thanks for your prompt edit. I've not encountered those words before, and I am sure they would have been gone within hours anyway, so I do not personally see this as a problem; vandalism is a continual story in commonly accessed articles, and can usually be countered by alert editors. No special measures required in my view. The more persistent problem is that of editors adding links to their own, favoured, KJV sites. I have just removed one, but they keep on returning. TomHennell (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Digital edition

A billion books have been digitalized so far. I cannot believe that the King James Bible is an exception. Unfortunately, I haven't found such an edition of the 1611 version of the Bible yet, and the link mentioned in the article doesn't function. Can anyone here provide a link that does? -- Orthographicus (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks for noticing this Orthographicus; I have updated the 'He' Bible link, and it should now work. The 1611 'She' Bible link also works for me. 16:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Luther's 1545 translation

"Luther's 1545 German translation, from the texts used by the Catholic Church". Didn't Luther use the MT, rather than the Vulgate? If I'm wrong, then why say it this way - what does the Catholic Church have to do with this point of translation - just say that his translation relied on the Latin at this point? Also, wasn't his translation from 1534? TomS TDotO (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Luther continually revised his version, especially the Old Testament, so the 1545 edition (his last) is the definitive Luther Bible, and the text accessible on the internet. Luther's Hebrew scholarship was very basic; and for the most part his German version relied much more on contemporary scholarly Latin versions than directly on the Hebrew text. But as you say, the reference to the Catholic Church here is likely excessive; the main objects of Luther's spleen were rather those humanist Christian Hebraists responsible for the crime (in Luther's terms) of translating the Hebrew Bible on its own terms, as a text of Hebrew grammar and philology; without correction from the perfect revelation offered in the New Testament. TomHennell (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Why have the references been screwed up?

I write to express my frustration. This article used to have a functional set of references: clicking on the small number in the body of the article brought up a link that, if clicked, would lead directly to the relevant page of the reference. Now half of them lead nowhere: they are divided between "References", "Footnotes" and "Citations" in a way that serves no-one. Is this the result of some obscure edit war? Ugh. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to add a section called "Shakespeare-KJV oddity", but someone deleted it, a while back

This is what I tried to add:

Shakespeare-KJV oddity

The King James Version, being published during the life and work of William Shakespeare, in 1611, contains the words "Shake" and "speare" 46 words in from the beginning of Psalm 46, and 46 words in from the end of Psalm 46, when skipping the word "Selah".

It's a bizarre "coincidence", or not one at all, and seems rather notable as an oddity or... whatever it is. Misty MH (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not a needed edit. One can find a "coincidental" inclusion of all words, and none of the others are being focused on. To me, it's either all or nothing. Either we should make an effort to include all such coincidences, or we should include none of them. As including them would make this article far too long, my vote is to leave it as it is. I would be unalterably opposed to such a "special case" change, which smacks of potential neutrality problems. Other thoughts, or can this discussion be closed? --Jgstokes (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What would be needed is professionally-published mainstream academic sources that indicate that mainstream scholarship thinks this is noteworthy at all (whether in support or because it's become a common topic to argue against). WP:No original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment and to my mind it also fails the test of relevant information, see WP:RAWDATA. — Jpacobb (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be relevant if Shakespeare were part of the construction of the KJV.... Also, This would almost seen certain to me that it cannot be a coincidence, and it may have affected the translation or meaning of the passage.... Whatever the actual relevance, it would certainly be of note to those who are interested in the AV as literature. Misty MH (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Surely the right place for this oddity to be mentioned is in the article on Psalm 46. And so it is, duly pointing out that "shake" and "speare" appeared in about the same places in much earlier editions of the Bible. 209.179.87.11 (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Authorized (sic) Version

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150724114610/https://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_II_Worship.pdf to http://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_II_Worship.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114170615/http://www.wayoflife.org/database/kjvtoodifficult.html to http://www.wayoflife.org/database/kjvtoodifficult.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

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

Vulgate influence

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 - 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)

Hello, dear editors! I was looking for the following link for minutes in Wikipedia (there are several articles about the overlapping topics): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#King_James_Version Here (the page of the KJV), under the corresponding section somewhere, it would be nice to insert this as a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.145.196 (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the assertion that the KJV apocrypha correspondes to that of the Luther Bible. It does not, as the KJV includes I and II Esdras, where Luther hadn't. TomHennell (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Addition to mistranslation

A suggestion for more to add to mistranslation. The translation committee could not properly translate the Hebrew hê·lêl, the word for "day star" or "light bear". They went to the Vulgate and used the Latin word lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. The Hebrew word was not translated to English. A Latin word was used instead which at some point became a proper name for Satan. I don't have any sources, but just a suggestion. Jatblue (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Jatblue 8/1/2018

Not clear that this is a mistranslation; in that the term in Hebrew; 'Shining Star, Son of the Dawn' is itself being applied as a metaphor for the fall of an (unnamed) king of Babylon (or maybe Assyria). It is generally considered that these words derive from a proper name for a non-Israelite divinity - leading to the assumption that this derives from a myth where this lesser divinity, hê·lêl, challenged the supreme God êl; and was cast down for his presumption. The KJV use of the proper name 'Lucifer' at this place does link into a medieval Christian interpretation of this myth as corresponding the the Fall of Satan (Luke 10:18) - which owes more to Dante and Milton - but the general function of the mythic story within a prophecy against Babylon, is much the same whatever weight is given to the name. TomHennell (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Death

where does the bible say where we go when we die — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.6.11 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Start with Luke 23:43 Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Jesus son of Joseph taught reincarnation in Matthew 11:14–15, John 8:58, etc. 2601:580:104:C542:FD03:BAF0:259F:1282 (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

KJV 1611 used 25 letters, 1st revision 1629 introduiced 26-letter Alphabet

I added... The KJV of 1611 used the 25-letter English alphabet with no letter J, thus it was the King Iames Bible with "Iesus Chriſt". It was the first revision 1629 Cambridge King James Authorized Bible that first used the modern 26-letters and "Jesus Christ". 2601:580:104:C542:FD03:BAF0:259F:1282 (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See Bible (King James Version, 1611)  – via Wikisource. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed conflicting WP bible & christianity

Greetings, WP bible had importance=top and WP christianity had importance=high. This conflict was causing errors for daily WP 1.0 bot assessment processing. The solution is to remove workgroup bible from "WP christianity".

Going forward, whenever this type of conflict is discovered in other articles, please update to remove the conflict. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

When I read that in the diff I saw "The solution is to remove the bible from christianity"! :-o Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

CE above to clarify removing "workgroup bible" not "the bible" :-) JoeHebda (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)