Talk:King James Version/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Criticism section

There should be a section in criticism of the KJV. As a basic there is nothing here about the translation of Revelation which was done from the commentaries because the Latin vulgate for Revelation was not available. This article is not very academically sound given even this most basic critique of the KJV cannot even be found here! 120.29.44.195 (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

here’s a reference! “In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been” (https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today by Professor Daniel Wallace) 120.29.44.195 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I fear you are confusing one version with another here, 120.29.44.195. Erasmus's problems in sourcing a Greek text for Revelation relates to his Greek edition of 1516, which became known as the Textus Receptus; and is discussed in that article. You will be welcome to contribute observations there, sourced to published notable scholarship. This subject of this article is the 1611 English KJV translation. This did indeed take a later edition of the Textus Receptus as its Greek text (as too did almost all New Testament versions of the Reformation era, translated from the Greek). but I am not aware that any of the KJV readings in the final six verses of Revelation still maintain Erasmus's botched reverse translations from the Vulgate; a counter-example has sometimes been asserted at 22:19 - 'book of life' for 'tree of life' - but has notable pre-Vulgate patristic support. TomHennell (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Paragraphs

In the article, paragraph headed "Printing", last sentence reads: "Pilcrow marks are used to indicate the beginnings of paragraphs except after the book of Acts.[citation needed]"

Citation: In all likelihood, the first edition of the King James Bible was hurried through the press before the translators had fully completed their work. One of the casualties of this hurry was the paragraphing. It emerged rough and incomplete: for instance, there are no paragraph breaks marked in the New Testament after Acts 20.

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION, x, in The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, with the Apocrypha: King James Version Edited by David Norton, Cambridge University Press, 2011

(Pilcrow: "¶", but looks more like a capital "C" in the 1611 Gothic type.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agbneill (talk • contribs) 08:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Agbneill: I added your ref. Veverve (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

1629 1st Revision Cambridge King James Version introduces the Letter J

The original King Iames Version did not use the letter J. J first appeared in the 1629 Cambridge King James Authorized Bible which is considered the 1st Revision. Hence, the 26-letter modern English Alphabet was established. 73.85.201.21 (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source for that claim? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Stating that the 1611 version contains no letter J and that the 1629 version does does not need secondary sourcing (so long as there is no further discussion or analysis beyond the straightforward facts). If differences between editions are already a topic within the article, primary sources for facts that are as obvious as this are perfectly fine, imo. (Unless you mean for the "hence the 26 letter alphabet was established" claim; which I think is dubious regardless, source or not XD) Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The claim that "Hence, the 26-letter ..." is unsupported and looks like supposition, not even OR. I've removed it. The bland statement of fact can easily be checked and should stand. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

On further thought, should this whole section be removed? Under §2.4 "Printing" the typography is discussed, including the absence of "J" (except as a flourish in roman numerals). Thoughts? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

King Iames Bible 1611 is clearly the correct spelling - there's no debate. There is no other written record of the Letter J before the 1629 Cambridge Revised King James Version. The written English language and English Alphabet was led by the English Bible in 1611 & 1629. After the 1629 KJV established the letter J, the modern English 26-letter Alphabet, and Simple6,74 English7,74 Gematria8,74, it's been intact ever since. If you want to argue with that, come up with some contrary evidence. 2607:FB91:19F2:D056:9C77:A10D:3624:34E9 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed 'King Iames Bible' from the lead. Whatever the truth about the introduction of the letter J, the name "King James Bible", "King Iames Bible", "King James Version" or similar does not appear anywhere in the book; these are names first applied in the late 18th or early 19th centuries. I can find no source that uses "King Iames Bible", and there is no validity in applying the orthography of one period to a name not coined until centuries later and claiming that is "clearly the correct spelling". TSP (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

References

This page needs a synopsis section

I was born in 2001 and was raised an atheist. I don't know how many people reading this come from non-Western countries, but certainly in the West there are teens and young adults who don't know what this document says. The KJV is the most important work in the English language and it NEEDS a synopsis! 2603:7000:D03A:5895:F507:553F:D386:B485 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect the core argument against a KJV specific synopsis is that any synopsis of the Bible is inherently a synopsis of, well, the BIBLE. The only things truly necessary to spell out separate from the synopsis that appears on the page for the Bible as a work in and of itself would be the places where the KJV differs from prior translations, or errors made in the translation that further scholarship can verify. The KJV on its own doesn't warrant a separate synopsis, it's just not all that terribly distinct or unique from other Bibles. 63.149.209.2 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)