[sword-devel] KJV Beta issue

[David Haslam]

I suppose some of the unfanfared differences in KJV editions are due to the
fact the there are so many publishers, and that the book has been published
for nearly 400 years since 1611, the principle definitive edition being the
one in 1769, that DM refers to, which is what most people really mean when
they talk about the KJV, even if they anachronistically associate it with
the 1611 date.

In the UK and in some Commonwealth realms, the KJV is not public domain, but
comes under a form of Crown Copyright, which in the UK (at least) is known
as Letters Patent.  See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright this
article  in Wikipedia.

Elsewhere in the world, and especially in the USA, the KJV has long been
public domain.  Nevertheless, the fact that users within the UK can download
electronic copies from outside the UK poses a subtle legal point, in regard
to copyright licensing and usage. The authority delegated to pursue this in
the UK is Cambridge University Press.

Two of the authorised publishers for the KJV in England are Cambridge
University Press and Oxford University Press. I suspect that there are even
some subtle differences between the Oxford and Cambridge editions, and I
don't just mean in typography. These could include spelling differences, for
example.

As a spot check (for all you good folks who own a printed copy), how does
the KJV spell the word "ankle"?
Is it "ankle" or "ancle" ?  You can use any SWORD front end to find the only
two verses containing this word.

-- David



DM Smith-5 wrote:
> 
> Chris Little wrote:
>> David Haslam wrote:
>>> Has anyone checked what the 
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Paragraph_Bible Cambridge 
>>> Paragraph
>>> Bible  (2005) does?
>>>
>>> There is now a paperback edition (2006) of this modern textual 
>>> recension by
>>> David Norton.
>>>
>>> -- David
>>
>> As the name would suggest (and I believe Ryan is implying), the 
>> Cambridge Paragraph Bible uses paragraph layout in lieu of pilcrows. 
>> This is probably one in a long list of reasons why certain individuals 
>> consider the CPB to not be the *true* KJV (such individuals having 
>> also not read its companion volume). 
> The KJV we have attempts to be an accurate e-text of the 1769 edition of 
> the Authorized Version (aka KJV).
> 
> In doing research for the fixes and changes I made, I was unable to find 
> an electronic photocopy of it and I settled on the "Old Scofield" KJV. 
> This was felt by many to be the accurate representation of the 1769, 
> especially in the "KJV-only" camp. I haven't checked David's reference 
> to editorial changes in the KJV, but it would be a useful work for 
> further proofing.
> 
> What I did find was that most of the KJV Bibles produced by different 
> publishers differ from each other in the actual text. It appears that 
> changes to the KJV are done without much fanfare. I'm amazed by this and 
> a bit cynical as to why. (Do publishers do it to fingerprint their 
> copy?) I'm not a KJV fanboy, but the KJV is often peoples first 
> impression of CrossWire/SWORD. So, I'm kind of picky about getting it
> right.
> 
> I worked with Tim Lanfear to get the paragraphing correct. I found that 
> there were way too many paragraphs in the 2003 edition. (I've retained 
> those in the OSIS file as milestones)
> 
> In Christ's Service,
>     DM
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/KJV-Beta-issue-tp23962991p23987245.html
Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.