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

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)

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".

Stationers' Register may tell us nothing, but we do have considerable
documentation about the printers who worked on it.
This brings to mind an a.u.e. discussion in 2017 where I found the
following:

"The original printing of the Authorized Version was published by Robert
Barker, the King's Printer, in 1611 as a complete folio Bible....Robert
Barker invested very large sums in printing the new edition, and
consequently ran into serious debt, such that he was compelled to
sub-lease the privilege to two rival London printers, Bonham Norton and
John Bill.
It appears that it was initially intended that each printer would print
a portion of the text, share printed sheets with the others, and split
the proceeds. Bitter financial disputes broke out, as Barker accused
Norton and Bill of concealing their profits, while Norton and Bill
accused Barker of selling sheets properly due to them as partial Bibles
for ready money. There followed decades of continual litigation, and
consequent imprisonment for debt for members of the Barker and Norton
printing dynasties, while each issued rival editions of the whole Bible....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

I'll stick with the mythical-traditional date.