Talk:Bible (King James)

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Information about this edition
Edition: Benjamin Blayney, ed., Holy Bible: Standard Text, Oxford University Press, 1769. Printed by T. Wright and W. Gill, printers to the University.
Source: ?
Level of progress:
Notes: The King James Bible was first published in 1611, as a standard English Bible to be used in the services of the Church of England according to the Book of Common Prayer. It gradually supplanted all other English Bible versions, to become by the 19th century, the standard Bible text for English-speaking Protestants whether inside or outside the Anglican tradition. Almost all printings since the late 18th century have used this Oxford Standard text of 1769, which updates and standardises the spelling and printing of the original edition.

The Inter-Testament books are not now recognized as canonical by many Protestant and Para-Protestant Christian religious groups, which consider and call them "the Apocrypha". Nevertheless, they are recognized as a constituent part of the Biblical canon by the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Christian Churches, and the Oriental Christian Churches, which consider and call most of them "the deuterocanonical books"; meaning "the books from the second canon". (The Catholic definition of deuterocanonical books excludes the two books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses.) The Church of England and other churches in the Anglican tradition continue to specify readings from the Inter-Testament books in their lectionaries; and hence bibles printed for use during worship in these churches must necessarily include these books.

These books came from the Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint, the sacred text collection used by Greek-speaking Jewish communities, and by most of early and historical Christianity. They are included in the King James Bible, and all other vernacular versions of the Reformation era, but in a separate section, and clearly marked as not having canonical status. Since the early-19th century, the Inter-Testament books have tended to be rejected by Protestant churches, and most editions of the King James bible printed for personal use since then have omitted them. Israelite communities used the Greek Septuagint until about the 2nd century AD, but Orthodox Judaism does not recognize either the Inter-Testament books or the entire New Testament as part of its own sacred text collection, which is known as the Tanakh (what Christians call the Old Testament).


The King James Version is also known as the Authorized Version. In the United Kingdom it is still copyrighted and is subject to an eternal Crown copyright. Permission to publish in England and Wales can be obtained by following the guidance in A Brief Guide to Liturgical Copyright, third edition (RTF file); permission to publish in Scotland requires contacting the Scottish Bible Board. All signatories to the International Copyright Treaty are obliged to recognize each other's copyrights, so, technically speaking, the KJV is copyrighted throughout the world. However, it is unlikely that any prosecution under copyright law would succeed outside the UK.


Appointed by whom to be read in churches of what denomination?

That bit in the front matter is from when it was originally published in England. --Pmsyyz 02:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Now, I can't say for sure whether this is absolutely true, but I have heard that in the era of King James, "appointed" meant "designed", so all they are saying is that this version is "designed" to be read in churches.Fontwords 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


How about moving this to Bible, King James or King James Bible? --Pmsyyz 02:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer Oxford Standard King James Bible, as I dont like disambiguation being used in titles when a more explicit title could be used. There are template issues which would need to be sorted out before this could be renamed. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that at the top of the page, the title is Bible (King James). I was just thinking that it would be even more appropriate for the title to be The Holy Bible (King James Version).--TheThinkingRealist (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Atheists such as myself (who read the Bible to know what we don't believe) would probably describe the Bible better as holey [having holes] than Holy. What is Holy depends on one's point of view and although this isn't Wikipedia, where Neutral Point Of View is an actual policy, I think it's probably not a good idea for the name of the webpage to assert one group's point of view; this is a scholarly project after all. I like Oxford Standard King James Bible. 12:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This Edition[edit]

Does this edition of the King James Bible use italics to show words not found in the original languages? And does this edition conform its spelling to the 1611 edition or some later edition? Fontwords 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It says it is the Oxford standard. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

page scans[edit]

1611 edition (high res), and 1881 new testament (djvu). John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That second link isn't the KJV alone; instead it's a parallel of the KJV with the w:Revised Version of 1881. Note how the link says that the text is the "the official text of the New version revised 1881". I'm seen bibles like this for year; see [1] for an example. Hoshie 08:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The description of the edition for this transcription of the Bible is that it is the 1769 edition as edited by Benjamin Blayney and published by the Oxford University Press. I have found this offered for sale at one location, but I have as yet to find a source for a facsimile, which is what I think we need. Perhaps we will have to settle for something similar, like a pre-1923 reprint. I saw a modern reprint published by Oxford on Google, but this would not be suitable since it is not in the public domain. Library Guy (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

link to verses[edit]

I do not see it explicitly noted anywhere else, so I thought it might be helpful to note here that a link such as Bible (King James)/Matthew#3:16 links directly to the verse. I spent a few days thinking about it until I found a note somewhere in one of the other scriptural talk pages that showed how to do this. --Mkoyle 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is because many pages use the {{verse}} template, but it isnt always used. We do need to improve how we promote the features of wikisource texts. I doubt we want annoying banners on every page, but I think it would be appropriate to put a "this work supports verse linking" notice on the TOC of each work which has full support for verse linking. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Bible (King_James)/Numbers#35:33 works from within Wikisource but it does not seem to work from Wikipeida. I tried to link to it from w:Charles Stuart, that man of blood and it failed only linking to the start of Bible (King_James)/Numbers. I have put in a temporary fix by inserted {{section|35:33}} so that a link from wikipedia works the same way as it does from the search box on wikisource. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC) works fine, at least in my browser. I'm not sure why there would be any problems with it. How are you trying to link to from Wikipedia? Are you using the sourcetext template that I create, or a direct link? I was pretty sure that everything was working perfectly a few years back... Jude (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Because on Wikipedia the usual way to link is [[s:page-name#section]] not with a URL link You can see how I am linking this page by going to w:Charles Stuart, that man of blood and editing it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It works ok for me using IEv6. —Mike 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Syntactically, there is utterly no difference between {{verse}} and {{section}}. I'm still not sure what the problem is here? Jude (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now liked to another verse from the same Wikipedia article and the link worked without a problem, so no need to change anything -- not sure why it did not work before. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


This may seem to be a bit of a trifle, but, I believe that the italics serve a unique purpose in the King James translation -- something that this transcription is wholly devoid of. Nevertheless, I certainly understand that this would be a most laborious interpolation. -- Grammaticus 20:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree heartily. If no-one objects, maybe we could start adding them. This would make this copy a better one of the King James Version text.Fontwords 16:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I'm adding one now I just noticed. WilliamKF (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia articles[edit]

I'm a complete noob to Wikisource, so I don't know much about policy, but I always thought that a KJV version with links to wikipedia articles embedded in the text would freakin' rock. Example from 2 Chronicles:

4 Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren: return every man to his house: for this thing is done of me. And they obeyed the words of the LORD, and returned from going against Jeroboam.

5 And Rehoboam dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities for defence in Judah.

6 He built even Bethlehem, and Etam, and Tekoa,

7 And Bethzur, and Shoco, and Adullam,

I would love to see the entire Wikisoure KJV converted to this format, what do you say? Abyssal leviathin 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please feel free to "value add" by adding links to Wikipedia for any topic which isnt obvious. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello. After a while of searching the Internet for the actual text of the King James Bible, including the Apocrypha, I finally found this digital version on Wikisource, and I'm very glad that I did! I am indefinitely grateful for all of the hard work that has gone into this.

I have an idea. I think that it would be appropriate to insert the Apocrypha along with all of the other books of the Bible. Whenever there are additions to certain books, they would simply be inserted where they belong in the corresponding book. I think that this would feel even more complete. --TheThinkingRealist (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for making a comment. I have made quite a few links to the text here, quotes and so on, and I had been intending to set up a version that uses a page scan of a published print edition. The arrangement of the books could be linked by the cross referencing of a later 'critical edition' (in the public domain), how things like the Apocrypha are arranged becomes a matter of presenting it as given. Do you, or anyone else, have opinion on which edition would be good to work on? cygnis insignis 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have a suggestion. Maybe you could use the King James pew Bible from Hendrickson Publishers.--TheThinkingRealist (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Original (1611) King James Version[edit]

As there are plenty of KJVs available on the web, wouldn't it be nice to have, somewhere, an unaltered original first edition somewhere available. Same spellings, same use of italics, mistakes and all? This is a landmark of the English language and deserves to be accessible in a non-Bowlerized form. TomS TDotO (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is being worked on at Bible (Authorized Version). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


Since this is no longer the only King James translation on Wikisource, it is necessary to further disambiguate. I suggest that the page be moved to Bible (King James, 1769), but I am open to other suggestions as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Not supported (at present). Given that this is the only complete version and is extensively used for wikilinking (down to verse level), I'm reluctant to see it move at all. Before deciding on a move it must be established whether links of the format [[Bible (King James)/Matthew#5:7|Mt. v. 7]] would continue to work via the redirects. Yes, a Bot can be used to deal with all the links that are currently in place, but more will be created and therefore need to be planned around. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I can understand your reluctance to see it moved, but I think that proper disambiguation is important and I am willing to ensure it gets done thoroughly. I've tested the bibleverse redirects and they work correctly: see User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Bible/section-linker#8:23 as an example. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Not supported (at present). This Bible is apparently based on "Benjamin Blayney, ed., Holy Bible: Standard Text, Oxford University Press, 1769. Printed by T. Wright and W. Gill, printers to the University." Can anyone find a scan for this text? My IA search skills are very limited. If this text is highly linked, I think we should make sure we have a scan we're working on to back it up. We've got quite a few Bible translations/versions with no backing scan listed in Portal:The Bible. I think we should hold off on moving things around until we have reliable scans for the Bible texts we're currently presenting to the public. Outlier59 (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Bible translations without scans are not a problem. I am slowly going through them to add scans, but scans are not required for texts to be hosted here. Having a scan backing the text has nothing to do with the fact that the work title is shared with other texts also hosted on WS. In fact, this is the only KJV on Wikisource that isn't scan-backed. Adding a scan or leaving it unbacked will not change the fact that Bible (King James) is only one of three King James Bibles here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize that there are scans for The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha. Sorry, I just looked for a source tab, and it's not there of course, since the page lists three volumes. I'll work on proofing that one. Outlier59 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


Seeing as that this document is heavily linked to from Wikipedia, yet it has no source for verification, would it be a good idea to semi-protect it (to keep people from making random changes that can't be verified one way or another)? Kaldari (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)