Re: King James Bible published (traditional date) (2-1-1611)

 Ar an ceathrú lá de mí Bealtaine, scríobh Ross Clark:

 > Why "traditional date"?
 >
 > Because the KJV was classified as a revision rather than a fresh
 > translation, it does not appear in the registry of new books known as the
 > Stationers' Register....we are left without any knowledge of when in 1611
 > the KJV began to be sold.... - Gordon Campbell, _Bible: The Story of the
 > King James Version 1611-2011_ (quoted by Crystal)
 >
 > It was not a fresh translation because it often continues earlier
 > translations such as that of Tyndale and Coverdale (see 20 January).
 >
 > But we are left without any knowledge of the whence and by whom of the May 2
 > "myth".

I take it the second of January (or the first of February) of the subject line
was not intended?

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)