Talk:King James Version

Best books?

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

Original language

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

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

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

Authorized Version

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

Bartleby's link

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

Done. hoshie

Copyright status in Great Britain

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

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

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

Copy vio

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

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

Confusing

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

New King James Version

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

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

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

Perpetual Copyright? What?

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

" 1.—(1) In this Schedule—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Thomas Cassidy:

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

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

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

(The emphasis is mine.)

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

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

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

(The emphasis is mine.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Christian ambitions for world domination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coronation service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KJV Copyright, Pt. 2

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

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

He told me:

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

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

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

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

"hopefully"

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

Bunyan and Milton

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

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

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

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

Shakespeare More Popular?

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted copyright statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Translation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shakespeare as author

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

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

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

Translation

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "The Project" Section

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

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

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

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

My quibble with this section is that the statement:

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

might better fit in the section called Subsequent History.

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

Foundations for KJV

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

looking for original text

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Tpl

from the intro,

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

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

Hebrew - Aramaic Expertise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24.193.219.212 02:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Steven Avery Queens, NY [email protected] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Removed disambiguation

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

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

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

---

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

The second complete translation of the Bible into English?

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

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

Removal and Replace

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Born again Jewish Rabbi"?

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

---

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

Style - Flesch-Kincaid Data

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

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

Re: "Criticism by Bible Scholars" Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proper nouns

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

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

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

Edits since Featured Article status

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

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

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

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