Sujet : Re: King James Bible published (traditional date) (2-1-1611)
De : benlizro (at) *nospam* ihug.co.nz (Ross Clark)
Groupes : sci.langDate : 04. May 2024, 10:45:01
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v15031$153cp$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
On 4/05/2024 5:42 p.m., Aidan Kehoe wrote:
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?
Oops
King James Bible published (traditional date) (2-1-1611)
Re: King James Bible published (traditional date) (2-1-1611)