KJV with Apocrypha - /lit/ (#24460835) [Archived: 1063 hours ago]

Anonymous
6/12/2025, 9:37:24 AM No.24460835
IMG_2497
IMG_2497
md5: 63be4b827e13cdcdf5d2b14df31f3af6🔍
Where can I buy a 1769 revision, no-nonsense King James Version with the Apocrypha?
Not the 1611 edition, not with the translation notes hypocritically missing from the Apocrypha, not with a pseudo-old-style English Third Book of the Maccabees that was never in King James Version and was cooked up for copyright reasons.
Just a KJV with Apocrypha that has the same spelling that every other KJV has.
Is it really that hard?
Replies: >>24460840 >>24460860 >>24461615 >>24462790 >>24463492 >>24463508 >>24465208
Anonymous
6/12/2025, 9:39:37 AM No.24460840
8e65b152e4d097fe9137bbcd6656cb2c
8e65b152e4d097fe9137bbcd6656cb2c
md5: 9501b22c90c8736a4eeb8d3fe9d5df8a🔍
>>24460835 (OP)
Yes
Anonymous
6/12/2025, 9:59:58 AM No.24460860
>>24460835 (OP)
>Where can I buy a 1769 revision, no-nonsense King James Version with the Apocrypha?
>Not the 1611 edition, not with the translation notes hypocritically missing from the Apocrypha, not with a pseudo-old-style English Third Book of the Maccabees that was never in King James Version and was cooked up for copyright reasons.
>Just a KJV with Apocrypha that has the same spelling that every other KJV has.
>Is it really that hard?

The KJV Store (specialty Cambridge editions with Apocrypha)
They offer Cambridge University Press versions of the KJV with Apocrypha—using the authentic Blayney 1769 text and complete 14-book Apocrypha—without pseudo‑materials. For example, see a “KJV New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with Apocrypha” and other premium Cambridge “with Apocrypha” editions . These are printed with the standard 1769 spelling and include only the canonical Apocrypha.
Replies: >>24460871
Anonymous
6/12/2025, 10:08:08 AM No.24460871
>>24460860
Do they ship to Australia?
However, I think the Paragraph Bible has self-pronouncing text, which I really don’t like.
Anonymous
6/12/2025, 10:59:49 AM No.24460909
The King James I committee didn't even translate the Aprocrypha. What you'll be reading is the KJV with the "Catholic part" appended. OP asking for one is just papist nonsense.
Replies: >>24460915 >>24461061
Anonymous
6/12/2025, 11:04:48 AM No.24460915
>>24460909
I think they did assign some staff to the translation of the apocrypha of 1611. But it never received the same level of attention as the Old Testament and New Testament, either in the original translation work, in the original marginal notes, or by future revisors (for the purposes of issues like correction of spelling mistakes). By 1637 if not earlier, they were already printing copies without the apocrypha. That's my understanding of what happened.
Anonymous
6/12/2025, 1:30:40 PM No.24461061
>>24460909
Post proof.
Anonymous
6/12/2025, 5:02:02 PM No.24461392
IMG_1802
IMG_1802
md5: d1bf53c4542ef3b498331d931384b85f🔍
AHEM
Anonymous
6/12/2025, 6:46:01 PM No.24461615
NLT-CE
NLT-CE
md5: 7b318a9a735f71290655e2662d39553d🔍
>>24460835 (OP)
*WOMP*
Replies: >>24462591
Anonymous
6/13/2025, 3:32:28 AM No.24462591
>>24461615
But it doesn’t have 1 and 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Mannaseh.
Anonymous
6/13/2025, 6:24:29 AM No.24462790
>>24460835 (OP)
1769 is not sold any more. Get the Cambridge Cameo with Apocrypha. Poorfags can get Oxford's (textually inferior) paperback version without the references and translation notes.
Replies: >>24462898
Anonymous
6/13/2025, 8:12:02 AM No.24462898
>>24462790
By “1769 edition”, I mean KJVs that don’t spell Jesus as “Iesus” &c.
Replies: >>24462967
Anonymous
6/13/2025, 9:12:39 AM No.24462967
>>24462898
The 1769 edition is the last major revision, but there were a few more small revisions to the KJV text in the 19th century, mostly by Cambridge University. Those further revisions mostly consisted of fixing a few typos that were left behind in the 1769 edition. Because of this, the default format that most KJV Bibles have followed, since some time around the year 1900 (so pretty much every King James Bible you're likely to find unless you specifically look for old copies) is the 1900 KJV text, or slightly modified forms of it. This is almost the same as the 1769 edition, and is based on it, but it has a few minor typos and spellings corrected, compared to the original 1769 printing. That text can also be found here for example: https://biblia.com/books/kjv1900/

A couple examples of typographical errors in the 1769 edition just to prove what I'm talking about:
–In Deuteronomy 32:8, the word "most" is capitalized (Most) in the 1769 edition, but the word should be lower case as it is everywhere else the phrase "most High" appears.
–In Psalm 102:27, the phrase "wit's end" is written with the apostrophe placed incorrectly in the original 1769 edition. It should be "wits' end" and was corrected to this in later editions.
–The parentheses in Ephesians 6:2 are incorrectly removed in the 1769 edition, but later revisors restored the parentheses in this verse.

Also it should be noted, the letter 'J' was correctly included in KJV editions as early as the year 1629, which was the first time Cambridge University printed it. There were a number of format changes and corrections to the different typos over the years, some which were accrued by revisions and others that were inherited from the first edition. The editions of 1762 and 1769 represent the two most thorough revisions of the KJV that were ever made to the presentation of the text (which made it much more readable), but they were not the first or the last. As far as I am aware, the KJV reached essentially the exact form it has today, with all of the spellings and so forth being fixed in place around the year 1900. There do not appear to have been any further important revisions done since the earliest part of the 20th century, as the various printers all seem to have used that source text, other than accidents like typos in individual printings.
Replies: >>24464877
Anonymous
6/13/2025, 9:59:29 AM No.24463008
1611 or bust. Everything else is of the spirit of antichrist.
Replies: >>24463157
Anonymous
6/13/2025, 12:26:25 PM No.24463157
>>24463008
What about the Tyndale, Great, and Bishops Bibles? They were extensively referred to by the translators of the King James Bible and the latter two were used in the liturgy of the Church of England, the Church which commissioned the KJV and named it the Authorized Version, for they had the authority to do so.
I can see that you’re a very staunch Protestant. So, I could surmise your thoughts on the Douay-Rheims and perhaps even the Wycliffe Bible, but I would like to know your thoughts on the Geneva Bible, the Calvinist Bible (as per the notes) that the pilgrims to America used.
Replies: >>24463159 >>24463922
Anonymous
6/13/2025, 12:27:25 PM No.24463159
>>24463157
These are all Bibles that are older than the KJV, by the way.
Anonymous
6/13/2025, 4:58:04 PM No.24463492
28b1c617268b053c34fed549effa4eb6
28b1c617268b053c34fed549effa4eb6
md5: 5ddba5b573be3c6859bdb27589dcf9fa🔍
>>24460835 (OP)
Anonymous
6/13/2025, 5:07:18 PM No.24463508
1ddfc640d700a9da65d2269ddce3bc8a
1ddfc640d700a9da65d2269ddce3bc8a
md5: d1e94668f5ebb55cd41134f0f532e595🔍
>>24460835 (OP)
Anonymous
6/13/2025, 8:57:51 PM No.24463922
Beza4
Beza4
md5: a6a52c198454e430520196e6de8f8c77🔍
>>24463157
The Geneva Bible was probably the most accurate translation of its time and the King James translators borrowed language from it more than they were supposed to, since according to the rules at least, were supposed to follow the Bishops' Bible primarily except where it differed from the Greek manuscripts.

The Geneva translation of 1560 was an English translation based on the best manuscripts that were available at the time, which had been gathered to the city of Geneva. Coincidentally, several major figures in British history like John Knox were exiled to this city in Switzerland due to the infamous reign of Mary I. The translators of the 1560 translation were William Whittingham, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson, Christopher Goodman, William Cole, John Knox, Laurence Tomson and Miles Coverdale. This translation committee apparently had access to Greek manuscripts that had not yet been put into printed form by 1560, but whose readings would soon afterward appear in Theodore Beza's editions of the Textus Receptus, which the King James translators also referred to in a selection of New Testament readings.

The question of where this manuscript collection came from is an interesting one. It seems to have been the work of Beza and Henri Estienne scouring the libraries of Europe and adding to the already extensive set of manuscripts that Robert Estienne had gathered for his New Testament editions in the 1540s and 50s. Their sources appear in some ways to surpass our own, since we find these men occasionally referring to manuscripts that we do not have access to today.

Also of note is the fact that some of their manuscripts for the New Testament could have come from the Vaudois, a group of churches and communities who lived in an isolated set of valleys in Piedmont in Northern Italy. Beza's mention of them in his book on the history of France suggests this possibility. Some men from the Vaudois made the journey to Geneva in the 16th century after hearing about the Reformation. According to documents recovered by Samuel Moreland and others, these churches had practiced believer's baptism and apparently withstood the pressure of the medieval Inquisition for centuries due to their geographical isolation. According to written sources from the time, they were believed to have never adopted the customs and practices of Roman Catholicism, which was first imposed on the area after the Albigensian crusade and establishment of the Inquisition immediately after. It's possible that some of the Geneva manuscripts were theirs, and these sources later influenced the Geneva Bible, which was the first translation of the entire Bible from the original languages to English, and later the KJV.
Replies: >>24464877
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 5:07:05 AM No.24464877
>>24463922
You’re not the anon I was replying to, right? It’s hard to keep track without IDs. No matter; I’m not disappointed.
Tell me, wasn’t the original Geneva Bible in French. Considering such, what would the influence be from French to English if any. This might be comparable to the Jerusalem Bible, of which the notes were translated from French to English and other languages.
>>24462967
Interesting. Could you tell me about other pre-1769, post-1611 spelling changes? What about the “hee” and “bee”, initial Us always being Vs, non-initial Vs always being Us, and adding E to the end of potentially nearly any word and doubling the consonants before that to allow it, among other things?
Replies: >>24464921 >>24464924
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 5:40:45 AM No.24464921
>>24464877
>Tell me, wasn’t the original Geneva Bible in French.
There was another line of French bible translations that was started by Pierre Robert Olivétan in 1535, so post-Tyndale and Luther, but pre-Geneva. That was reprinted in 1553 by R. Stephanus, then revised by Calvin in 1560 (separate from the English translation), and revised later by other people in 1588, 1696, 1707 and 1744. Starting with the 1560 edition, these translations/revisions are referred to as the French Geneva Bible (or Bible de Genève) translations. Later, this was revised into more modern language by Louis Segond in 1880.

The French Geneva Bible was likely produced using many of the same manuscripts as the English one, but I am not aware of any direct influence between them. They were translated by people who spoke their languages natively, so not by the same people. The English Geneva Bible was influenced more in its use of language by Tyndale's translation and its subsequent revisions. But in addition to borrowing lots of the language choices of Tyndale, the Geneva and KJV translators also were careful to use better and more manuscripts in making the translation (Tyndale had used an early TR edition of Erasmus for his original translation). You could still call the reformation-era translations as cousin translations, since they were all derived from editions of the Greek Textus Receptus or TR – and the more advanced ones were also based on the Hebrew Old Testament, primarily the 1525 Bomberg edition of the Old Testament, but there were other accurate sources for the OT text as well. Cont'd below.
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 5:42:19 AM No.24464924
>>24464877
>Could you tell me about other pre-1769, post-1611 spelling changes?
Sure, so from 1611 to 1628, one person held a monopoly on the rights to print the KJV, which he did for a profit. He didn't do a fantastic job at eliminating typos in his printing press, but he did try. There were various printings made in those first years, all by the same person. Some amount of effort was apparently made to fix the typographical errors made in the first edition, but sometimes new ones appeared elsewhere.

In 1628, Cambridge University was given permission to print the Authorized translation of 1611 (also known as the KJV), and they did a much better job at correcting typos and making it more readable. Although they also printed the Bible in other years, they made two major revisions to the KJV in 1629 and 1638. It is known that they hired several of the original translators to help with proofreading the 1638 edition. These Cambridge editions helped improve the reputation of the KJV from its early editions, which were disliked for being riddled with typographical errors. It wasn't until after the English Civil War, sometime around 1650, that puritans gradually started using the KJV instead of the Geneva Bible, due to its slowly improving reputation as a high quality work.

The 1629 edition used U, V, and J normally, added apostrophes and overhauled some of the italicized text to make it more consistent. There were some significant errors that were not corrected until 1629, such as the phrase "and yet he shall not find it" that was missing in Ecclesiastes 8:17, which was probably the worst mistake of the pre-1629 editions. Most likely, the phrase had been in the master copy that the translators gave to the printer in 1611, but he just failed to copy it into the printing plates. Most changes were very minor, like the word "mountain" in Song of Solomon 4:6 having been misprinted as "mountains" until 1629. Looking at the older English translations like the Geneva Bible, we see that it had always been "mountain." Similarly for "Gideon" misspelled as "Gedeon" in Hebrews 11:32. Numerous minor errors like this were corrected in the 1629 edition.

Similar for the 1638 edition. A few noteworthy corrections include "take thee balances" in Ezekiel 5:1 (instead of the erroneous "take the balances"), and "he ran" in Mark 5:6 (instead of "he came," another likely printing error). As usual, the Geneva Bible had already been correct in these places, indicating that the master copy of the 1611 translation probably had these readings, but they became messed up in the printing plates of the first edition. Fortunately, the later revisors caught errors like these.

Apart from the two Cambridge revisions of 1629 and 1638, many minor errors were corrected and subtle changes to things like punctuation in other editions that were printed throughout the 17th century. Most of this was eventually rolled into the 1769 edition.
Replies: >>24464935 >>24465008
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 5:53:57 AM No.24464935
>>24464924
>Similarly for "Gideon" misspelled as "Gedeon" in Hebrews 11:32.
Got this one backwards actually. The spelling "Gedeon" was chosen here to closely mirror the Greek spelling, «Γεδεών». For a while it was spelled "Gideon" until the 1629 edition. Again, not a huge difference.
Replies: >>24465008
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 7:03:05 AM No.24465008
>>24464924
>>24464935
Very good.
Might I ask what’s your profession? Are you a career Bible scholar by any chance?
My parents and my grandparents are always saying I should get a job, but I’ve never been good with my hands, so academics my suit me better.
Replies: >>24465189
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 9:23:09 AM No.24465189
>>24465008
I do STEM-related work for a living, but this subject has always been an enthusiasm.
Replies: >>24465394
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 9:38:42 AM No.24465208
>>24460835 (OP)
The Oxford World's Classics edition is exactly what you're asking for. 1769 with Apocrypha, includes the essay To The Reader, no added footnotes.
Replies: >>24465394
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 12:56:01 PM No.24465394
>>24465189
Fair enough.
>>24465208
I watched a review to see if it’s good. My two biggest complaints are the modernist heretical notes and the paperback, but - other than that - it’s exactly what I’m looking for. I’ll consider it.