Talk:Bible (King James)

Appointed?
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)

Title
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. 207.65.109.10 12:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This Edition
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)


 * The intention is to markup all the words that are in italics. It's a huge task! Best not one to perform manually. There are other related tasks that could be implemented at the same time. As and when the margin notes are added, as these are styled in italics, one should bear in mind that added words and normal words within the notes are in normal text. This is known as the italics inversion rule. David Haslam (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A tip: italics inversion can most easily be accomplished with the normal template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

page scans
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 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 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
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 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 works from within Wikisource but it does not seem to work from Wikipeida. I tried to link to it from 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 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)


 * http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Numbers#14:4 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 page-name not with a URL link http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/page-name#section. You can see how I am linking this page by going to 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. &mdash;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)

Italics
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)
 * The KJV and KJVA SWORD modules available through the CrossWire Bible Society make use of the OSIS XML transChange element to mark words that were added by the translators, and which are generally styled as italics in modern printed editions. David Haslam (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Italics is a presentational format. The focus in OSIS XML is on semantic markup. David Haslam (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding the wiki markup for italics manually would be a huge task, as would adding the markup for the divine name (q.v.). Ditto for the pilcrows ¶ (q.v.). No doubt there are other features that might lend themselves to some form of semi-automation operations done off-line, with the resulting files uploaded to replace each page. David Haslam (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia articles
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:

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.

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

He built even Bethlehem, and Etam, and Tekoa,

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)


 * An update to this discussion for any newcomers: this sort of linking is covered by our WS:Annotations policy. Essentially, the topic is controversial, but links to Wikipedia and other annotations are generally okay provided that a copy of the text without these annotations is also provided. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. Any such annotations should be left to the province of a derivative work, not the principal text. David Haslam (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * How can the annotations in the Preface possibly match WS policy ? David Haslam (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Idea
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
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)

Disambiguation
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 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 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)

Semiprotection?
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)
 * The first half of the work has a source now. David Haslam (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just reverted one such unwarranted change in Matthew 12. I support the proposal for semiprotection if that's an option in wikisource. David Haslam (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing activities connected to this work
As a volunteer for the CrossWire Bible Society, along with others, I'm involved in activities related to this work. SWORD module KJV is ostensibly based on using the Blayney 1769 edition as the source text. For further details, please visit User:David Haslam/Benjamin Blayney's 1769 KJV on the SWORD developers' wiki. David Haslam (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

A few systematic spelling differences
Some words in this project are currently spelled differently to those in the source.
 * The partial list below should enable other editors to make suitable corrections.

The word 'ax' occurs just once in Baruch 6:15. David Haslam (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC) The word 'axe' occurs just once in Luke 3:9 and should not be changed to 'ax'. David Haslam (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The corrections to the listed verses have now been completed, along with several particilar locations where there were minor spelling discrepancies wrt the source text. David Haslam (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Canonical Psalm titles
The work currently omits the Canonical Psalm title for 116 of the 150 Psalms. David Haslam (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The 22 acrostic stanza titles for Psalm 119 are also missing. This long Psalm should be divided into 22 subsections. David Haslam (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Psalms should be divided into the five books as the major section divisions that we see in the KJV.
 * Book I (Psalms 1-41)
 * Book II (Psalms 42-72)
 * Book III (Psalms 73-89)
 * Book IV (Psalms 90-106)
 * Book V (Psalms 107-150)
 * David Haslam (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Made a note over at Talk:Bible (King James)/Psalms giving an example where the lack of titles impedes research/understanding. Shenme (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Source for the document
Currently, there is an online source for roughly half the document: OT books Genesis–Jeremiah. It's in the form of PDF files, one file per page, with a drop-down page selector. Finding the right page for a particular reference is currently a matter of using the successive approximation method, as there's no page index.

Anyone spending a while browsing those pages will learn that the source is far richer in terms of published features than has been digitised here in WikiSource.

We still need a suitable source for OT books Lamentations–Malachi, and for the Apocrypha and NT books. David Haslam (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A table of contents for the online source would help anyone to find the right page for the start of each book. While we only have a partial source, this would only need to have 24 entries. David Haslam (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've uploaded Index:KJV 1769 Oxford Edition, vol. 1.djvu from the source you linked to, so proofreading can proceed from there. However, since it's not complete, I'd suggest considering it a separate version of the Oxford KJV, and see whether any simpler, completed scans or PDF reprints of the Oxford KJV exist that we can use to back this particular version. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Table of contents is at Page:KJV 1769 Oxford Edition, vol. 1.djvu/21. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The ToC link is a redlink, so that doesn't get us any further. David Haslam (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a red link currently, but that's where the TOC is, it's just a matter of proofreading it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could CrossWire/SWORD be considered a verifiable publication source for the 1769 KJV? I see that it can support PDF export so we may even be able to use that project as a (much easier) basis for our hosted text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No - the CrossWire Bible Society does not consider itself to be a primary publication source for any of the content it distributes. Apart from the Bible modules KJV & KJVA, none of the SWORD modules are maintained as an in-house edited (OSIS XML) source text files subject to in-house revision control. The source for each of our modules is recorded in the module configuration file. If the third party source is changed, then subject to the normal constraints of available effort, we would simply rebuild the module from the updated source supplied by or obtained from the designated source. In some cases, we would change a source as and when a better one becomes available. The build process often includes one or more file format conversion stages prior to finally building the module using one of our Sword utilities. The fact that this Wikisource document exists actually helps the other way round. It's a further secondary means to check the SWORD module for any minor textual inaccuracies compared to the 1769 Blayney Edition. Even so, there are features in the SWORD module that would assist in improving the Wikisource document once we have reached a stage where the textual differences are reduced to zero or thereabouts. In this respect, I'm thinking more about how (e.g.) the italics markup for added words could be implemented with computer assistance and ingenious scripting. FIO. One CrossWire volunteer owns a copy of a modern reprint of the 1769 Blayney edition. We would normally check that before making any proposed textual changes to improve accuracy. For any changes in the first 24 books, then both he and I can also look at the PDF files at the Original Bibles site. btw. Should you wish to become involved as a CrossWire volunteer, you would be most welcome. David Haslam (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need to be a "primary" publication source, but I see what you mean.
 * Here are some other FULL, simply formatted KJV sources of the correct revision that I have found:, —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Where is the evidence that these are digitised copies (text only) of the Blayney 1769 Oxford Edition? They're interesting finds, but I don't see how they help to authenticate the document as a suitable source text. David Haslam (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, they claim to be digitized copies of that version, which is no worse than what we have here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is labelled as Volume II of the Oxford edition, but it seems to contain the Apocrypha and New Testament only, so I don't know where Lamentations through the minor prophets are. Volume 3 maybe? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And Index:KJV 1769 Oxford Edition, vol. 2.djvu is now up. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * One CrossWire volunteer has written a Python script to convert the Wikisource text from the Wycliffe Bible to ParaTExt/USFM format. I'm sure this script could be readily adapted for use with this and other Wikisource Bibles. One advantage of doing so would be to facilitate getting the current text into a format whereby direct comparison with non-Wikisource digital editions of the KJV could be made with a view to detecting potential errors in this project. USFM files can be readily converted to OSIS XML and thence to a SWORD module. Text can be exported from a SWORD module using one of the command line Sword utilities from CrossWire. David Haslam (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

- Check this out as a possible source... David Haslam (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments: Translated out of The Original Tongues: And with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised : By His Majesty's Special Command. Appointed to be read in Churches. – Benjamin Blayney 1769 Oxford Edition available as eBook via OCLC WorldCat, can be ordered from participating libraries.


 * Nicely found! Most of them appear to be links to subscription-only databases, but McGill links directly and openly to copies on HathiTrust... and this one appears to have the full contents and a good quality scan! If you agree that this is a suitable source for proofreading, I'll start reconstructing a DJVU file from it that we can use. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Pilcrow symbols
Currently, the document omits the pilcrow symbols ¶ used by the KJV as paragraph markers. These need to be added. David Haslam (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The order of books in the KJV Apocrypha
The order of books in the KJV Apocrypha is normally as follows:
 * • 1Esd • 2Esd • Tob • Jdt • AddEsth • Wis • Sir • Bar • PrAzar • Sus • Bel • PrMan • 1Macc • 2Macc

Currently, this Wikisource document has them in this order:
 * • 1Esd • 2Esd • Tob • Jdt • AddEsth • PrMan • Wis • Sir • Bar • PrAzar • Sus • Bel • 1Macc • 2Macc

PrMan needs to be moved to its rightful position after Bel. For brevity, I am using the OSIS book abbreviations. See KJV Apocrypha.
 * NB. This move will require edits to six pages of the document. David Haslam (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done! David Haslam (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Partial source template?
Is there any suitable Wikisource template for a document (like this one) where only part of the source is available? David Haslam (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Not really, no. It could be worth putting a migrate to djvu tag on it linking to the two source volumes we have, and make a note in the header that the source scan is incomplete. incomplete also comes to mind but it's not really appropriate here since we do have a full text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A snippet of OSIS XML from the KJV SWORD module (FIO)
Here's one verse from the KJV module OSIS XML source text:

There are many verses that are much more complicated. David Haslam (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Placement of the Table of Contents
A few books already have the ToC to the right. This is preferred as it enables the text to flow next to it. All the books with ordinary ToC placement should be similarly updated to use the right hand placement. David Haslam (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Either way is acceptable, but if you want to put it on the right on all pages go ahead. Once the text is moved to scan though, there won't be an auto-generated TOC either way. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Done for all books that previously lacked the floating TOC on the right, or lacked one completely. Please explain "scan through". David Haslam (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * scan though, as in "however, once the text is moved to scan, there won't be an auto-generated TOC." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ignore my typo, (sorry), but what does the "move to scan" entail? David Haslam (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "Move to scan", or more accurately "migration to scan", refers to replacing the content of Bible (King James) and its subpages with the directly proofread text from the source you provided, Index:KJV 1769 Oxford Edition, vol. 1.djvu and its related volumes. If you're not familiar with the process, please see Help:Beginner's guide to proofreading. Once done, it will look more or less like Bible (Webster's)/Job (same idea, different version), where the TOC is created manually for the convenience of readers, but isn't automatically generated from Wikimarkup headers. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That explanation and the link to Webster's helps a lot. Yes – that's an eminently desirable aim for the project long term. It's notable that Webster made us of chapter descriptions. Blayney did too! It's a long term aim for the KJV SWORD modules to add these eventually. David Haslam (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * TOC on the right interferes with marginNotes/sidenotes and also dropped initials. When the TOC is expanded it forces all marginal notes much farther down, disconnecting them from their associated text. Forcing marginNotes lower also then interferes with placement of Dropinitial aka di misplacing the dropped initials at start of each psalm, for example. (I haven't yet found why the notes float right sections interfere with the dropped initial float *left* sections; perhaps the 'clear' instruction?)
 * TOC on the right is bad. I'll be switching TOC for Psalms to 'notes section'of the header, as seen for Bible (King James)/Genesis Shenme (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Rendering the divine name with small caps
Currently, the document has the divine name (usually LORD, corresponding to the Tetragrammaton) rendered all in capitals. In the source text, the word was printed with small caps except for the first letter. i.e. as . The document requires this systematic improvement. David Haslam (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For the possessive form of the divine name, the correct method is  not  . David Haslam (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The first instance is in Exodus 9:29. Even so, with the typography of the Blayney edition, the sizes of the lowercase letter 's' and the small caps letter 's' are identical, so this is actually a difficult choice to make. The problem is that in modern digital fonts, the size of small caps letters are intermediate in height between lowercase letters and uppercase letters. I think it's for this reason that we see differences between modern KJV printed editions in this matter. Semantically, it makes more sense for the whole of the possessive form to be within the same markup element, rather than for the apostrophe and letter s to be outside the element. David Haslam (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, put the final 's inside the template unless the source explicitly indicates otherwise. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In theory at least, it ought to be feasible to write a bot to search the document for all instances of LORD's and LORD and replace each by the proper small caps markup. This would leave those rarer instances of transliterated words such as JAH, JEHOVAH, etc., that should also be rendered with small caps, with maybe some notable exceptions. The divine name markup should not be applied to any words in the NT nor those parts of the Apocrypha that come from the Greek LXX. David Haslam (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WS:Bot requests would be the place to make that request. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Typography
Typography in the KJV is important: These systematic changes are required to make the document more accurately reflect the source text. David Haslam (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The proper character to use in the hyphenated names in the OT is the EN DASH (U+2013)
 * The proper character to use as the apostrophe for possessives is the RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK (u+2019)
 * Why would you use an endash? Shouldn't a hyphen be transcluded as a hyphen character? Or do you have evidence of the original type set used in 1769 that indicates otherwise?
 * Also: on English Wikisource current consensus is that straight quotation marks are usually (though not always) preferred over curly ones; any apostrophe would thus be rendered as ' rather than ’ or &#x2019;. That being said, these sorts of decisions are usually made by the person doing the proofreading, so if you want to undertake to replace ' with &#x2019; go for it. But don't be surprised if a bot reverts your changes afterwards. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * An en-dash is not the right character to use for a hyphen. In the typography of the period hyphens were of varied length and replicating that here is almost impossible; and would make the text harder to read off the screen. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The single right qm as the typographical apostrophe is part of modern English typography, not merely a reflection of 18th century printing. David Haslam (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion of the hyphen character is a moot point at present, as I've just discovered that the document doesn't contain any of the hyphens in the hyphenated words in the KJV OT. The digital text used for the initial upload must have been seriously defective in this regard. David Haslam (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ligatures, etc
There are many instances of typographic ligatures in the 1769 edition. In modern typography, the only ligatures generally still found in the KJV are those used in some proper names such as Æneas and Cæsar. Some such names also appear in the soure text with "ae" instead of "æ". David Haslam (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WS:MOS states that "special characters such as accents and ligatures should be used wherever they appear in the original document, if reasonably easy to accomplish." So, if you see 'æ' in the source, type 'æ', but if you see 'ae' in the source, type 'ae'. The only ligature that is explicitly not replicated (to my recollection) is the 'ct' ligature, which was deliberately excluded from Unicode as a font variant. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It would also be preferable to avoid explicitly using the "ff", "fl", and "fi" ligatures. The fonts used here automatically kern these and the full version remains searchable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's a counted list of words with the Ææ ligature from the KJV excluding the Apocrypha: (source = SWORD module v2.9) 000002	Æneas 000001	Ænon 000002	Alphæus 000002	Arimathæa 000001	Bartimæus 000020	Cæsar 000008	Cæsar’s 000016	Cæsarea 000001	Chaldæans 000002	Galilæan 000005	Galilæans 000031	Judæa 000001	Prætorium 000001	Timæus 000003	Zacchæus David Haslam (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Through further detailed cross-checking the Blayney 1769 edition, we recently found that all these were spelled with the letter  or   rather than   or , with one exception being the name.
 * The next release of the CrossWire KJV module will include these corrections. David Haslam (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Roman numerals
The book names and chapter numbers in the 1769 Blayney Edition used Roman numerals. If we are to be a faithful representation of the source text, we should use Roman numerals in the same places as the source text. David Haslam (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that the pages for I Esdras and II Esdras already use Roman numerals in the page filenames, and that a click to 1 Esdras or 2 Esdras involves a redirect. The other books with numerically prefixed names are not like this. David Haslam (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't technically matter. Generally, using the format used in the text is preferred. However, this format is built in to some templates, including biblecontents and bibleversions, so it would be a big job. Furthermore, the books in this version are heavily linked to by other works and other sites. My last suggestion to move pages around was shot down pretty fast. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Spaced letters template?
Does Wikisource have a template for spaced letters? The Blayney 1769 edition of the KJV uses spaced lettering in most if not all book titles and in other headings. David Haslam (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You're looking for sp. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * At this response, I feel like I'm missing a Like button that we see in Facebook. David Haslam (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are there no style guidelines here, or at source discussion?
I detest the long-s Long s and the other long-s Esh (letter) and so sought information on what to do here. I peeked at first page of Genesis and no nasty characters. I peeked at scan of first page of Genesis and there's nasty s'es. So I looked at the current source page and scan has nasty s'es but not in transcription.

What're the rules here? How did they progress from scan to transcribed text? Shenme (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Shenme I take it you've found out the answer to your question about the title of Psalm 84 asked at Psalm 8 of An_Exposition_of_the_Old_and_New_Testament_(1828).


 * I like the long esses but don't think one should attempt to transcribe them - they are just esses as printed before approx. 1800 when they disappeared at most printers almost overnight (I exaggerate slightly, but as a second-hand bookseller I note they did indeed disappear very suddenly in most areas of the UK) - in my opinion they are not a different letter, just a printing style. BTW I can't work out what's going on here with the relationship between Bible (King James) and the more detailed Index:KJV 1769 Oxford Edition, vol. 1.djvu, but I've not been involved - evidently my online friend David Haslam has.  PeterR2 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * PeterR2, I did end up starting a guide at Talk:Bible_(King_James)/Psalms, it is somewhat retrospective, so that others will know what and why, without requiring agreement. It ends up being the several ways that matching the source was achieved. (The untried earlier style was 'refined' later?) It is a few of Haslam's ancient suggestions that I'm trying to accomplish.
 * As soon as I'm 'happy' with all the Psalms pages /523 thru /589 I will update the Bible (King James)/Psalms page to replace the contained text with instead transcluded pages from the newly created source. (see experiments that page by clicking 'Edit') Then we'll be realer?
 * And I'm stymied by some technical bugs, that I'll have to ask about at Scriptorium - droppedinitial's are mashed by numerous marginNote's, see Page:KJV 1769 Oxford Edition, vol. 1.djvu/556 for one. Shenme (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

On the theoretical and actual sources for this work
Though it's the most-read version of the most-sold book in English, somehow there always seems to be a slight haze over the question of exact editions of the KJV. The work hosted here is no exception. I think it might be useful to do a quick review of the history of this electronic KJV in order to help start a conversation about where things might go next.

In 2004, a user who is apparently no longer active on Wikisource dropped the base text for this project here, with a brief note that it came from "the debian bible-kjv package". This package, in turn, had it's origins in the 1980's and 90's as one of the earlier KJV's on the web. I have not succeeded in finding anything more specific about it than that it is a KJV text which has lived in various shareware packages. Unprovenanced KJV texts are extremely common -- both the KJV's circulating electronically and the KJV's circulating in print tend to be somewhat vague about where exactly their text came from.

However, any "random, normal" KJV is almost always going to be a fairly close copy of the 1769 Oxford text edited by Benjamin Blayney. Blayney was an Oxford editor who did a universally-recognized pretty good job of cleaning up the spelling, punctuation, and italicization of the KJV, and his work has been incredibly successful in the sense that almost every KJV in existence today is a variation on his work. Unfortunately, there is a misunderstanding out there that all the post-1769 KJV's are simply exact copies of Blayney's work, and so at times a modern KJV text is described as "the 1769 edition" when it isn't.

This appears to be what originally happened with this text. Like virtually all modern KJV's, it very frequently agrees with Blayney, but a quick spot-check of some passages in this text as it stood in late 2006 show readings associated with editions other than Blayney in Deuteronomy 10:2, Joshua 19:2, 2 Chronicles 4:12, Psalm 18:47, Psalm 60:4, Psalm 78:66, Zecharaiah 11:12, and John 14:6. If I can find these in an afternoon, there must be more.

Nevertheless, in 2007, a basically unexplained edit from an anonymous IP user added the words "Oxford Standard Text (1769)" to the description of this page. This was probably a well-meaning edit, but was a half-truth. In 2013, a contributor noticed that this was in fact not the 1769 text, and replaced the source given with a "source unknown" template.

In 2017, introduced a scan of of a 1769 Blayney printing for Genesis through Jeremiah, thus putting about half the project on -- at least theoretically -- a solid printed basis. For reasons that are not completely clear to me, the 1769 printing of Genesis through Jeremiah was then paired in 2018 with a 1772 printed of the Apocrypha and New Testament.

At this point, we were left with a still-incomplete composite 1769 / 1772 work. I have in my possession a facsimile of the 1769 Blayney folio printing of the 1769 Oxford Text, and I've recently uploaded its contents for Lamentations through Malachi. I'm working on producing a digital scan of the entire Genesis - Revelation work, and before making any major changes to the sourcing of this edition, I thought it might be wise to seek comment, especially with people who have previously engaged on the issue, including Beleg Tâl,, , , and. MPlasky (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I do applaud if you are willing to make such a scan, it will be really appreciated especially as nowhere on the Internet the full 1769 edition can be found (all which I saw end with Jeremiah in the Old Testament part for some reason). However, it would be its proofreading that would make it even more useful :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So far I have completed Genesis through Judges, and Lamentation through Malachi. I still need to do Ruth through Jeremiah, and then the Apocrypha and New Testament. I am not sure whether I will be able to get that completely done this weekend.


 * The other thing I need to figure out -- perhaps you can help me with this one -- is that it looks like the first two chapters of Genesis are being sort of "sucked in" to the user-facing text of this Bible. On the other hand, for the rest of the Bible, it looks like there are two copies -- one facing the users and one facing the proofreader only. I can only imagine that getting all those merged together might be very difficult.


 * I'm also a bit concerned because this Bible seems to be linked to by other Wikipedia projects. If we fill out all the marginal notes, which are a very large amount of material, would that end up breaking the embedded quotes on other projects in some way? I've read through the discussion page for this project to try to get a full picture of it, but I'm still not completely sure how all the details fit together. MPlasky (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You mention an upload of Lamentations through Malachi. Where is that?  I see Index:KJV 1769 Oxford Edition, vol. 1.djvu (Genesis to Jeremiah) and Index:KJV 1772 Oxford Edition, vol. 2.djvu (Apocrypha to Revelation).
 * As for the first two pages of Genesis being "sucked in" (see Help:Transclusion) to the user-facing text this is done with the line
 * 
 * which you will see if you click "Edit" at Bible (King James)/Genesis. PeterR2 (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello PeterR2. The upload of the scan of Lamentations through Malachi is here. I was originally thinking of just providing the sections that were currently missing from the project, but Jan suggested that I produce a single file with the whole Bible in it, which I'm working on now.
 * Right now I've got Genesis through 2nd Samuel done, in addition to Lamentations through Malachi. I still need to do 1 Kings through Jeremiah, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament, at which point I'll put them all together.
 * If it would be at all helpful to see Genesis through 2 Samuel in the meantime, I've put that up here. MPlasky (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If the work is scanbacked, the correct way is to proofread individual pages in the page namespace and then to transclude them as Peter2 has described above. Here only a few pages have been transcluded because the rest has not been proofread in the page namespace yet.
 * As for the single file, I do apologize, I was probably not clear enough: if this edition of the KJ Bible was issued in two separate volumes, then each volume can be scanned into its own file. We only should not have separate files for some chapters belonging into one of the volumes. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jan.Kamenicek: Oh, no, I think you gave very good advice about using one volume, and this folio edition is one single volume. I have Genesis through Proverbs scanned now, plus Lamentations through Malachi, and now all that's left to scan is Ecclesiastes through Jeremiah, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament, and I should have the single file. As for proofreading all individual pages in the namespace, now that could take quite a lot of time. By my rough calculations, there'll be about 900,000 words that need checked, about 35,000 italicized words that will need to be italicized, about 8,500 marginal notes that will need to be entered, plus 1300 or so chapter summaries and some other assorted things. It's quite a big project. MPlasky (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused. Why would it be good to replace Index:KJV 1769 Oxford Edition, vol. 1.djvu on which people appear to have done a huge amount of work, despite this mostly not having been formally marked as proofread?  How does what you have differ from that?  Not trying to be rude or unappreciative of what you are doing - I just literally don't understand.  Maybe I am not looking at this carefully enough. PeterR2 (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if somebody wishes to keep Index:KJV 1769 Oxford Edition, vol. 1.djvu, we can keep it alonside the one which colleague MPlasky is scanning. However, this index is very problematic, because it ends with Jeremiah, missing all the books from Lamentations to Malachi. However, MPlasky has a different edition from the same year, containing all the books, and so we agreed on making a new scan. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not been working on it so it is not personally an issue for me. I have been working on An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) for over 6 years, and probably will be for the rest of my editing life!  I just thought it would be a lot of work to do the whole of Genesis to Jeremiah again.  But if they are not the same printing it may be necessary for consistency's sake. PeterR2 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, User:PeterR2. Speaking only for myself here, I noticed that the this electronic edition of the KJV is missing Lamentations through Malachi, and so I took it upon myself to provide the text of Lamentations through Malachi as edited by Blayney in 1769, in hopes that it would be useful for the Wikisource project. Jan requested that I upload my entire edition, so I'm working on doing that. But beyond that, I'm fully content with whatever sources the Wikisource community decides to use for Bible (King James). It's part of why I have tried not to do anything unilaterally and solicited comment.
 * As for the differences between the existing Genesis through Jeremiah text, which for convenience I'll call "the existing text", and my own scan, which I'll call "the new text", the difference as far as I can tell appears to be that my text is the folio edition produced in 1769 by Oxford University, and the existing text is the first half of the Bible in the a smaller edition which is also labelled as being produced in 1769 by Oxford University. My guess is that the existing text is the first volume of the quarto edition of the same year. Beyond the differences made necessary by the smaller printing being able to hold less material per page, my impression is that the texts otherwise appear to be identical.
 * Whatever edition or combination of editions the Wikisource community settles on is fine by me. So far, as long as the existing text is being displayed as the standard for Genesis through Jeremiah, I am making sure that all my edits to books between Genesis and Jeremiah conform to the existing text. If Wikisource decides to make some use of the new text for all or part of Bible (King James), then I will edit appropriately. A secondary question is whether we want to continue using a 1772 printing of the New Testament while calling the final product "The 1769 King James Bible, as revised by Benjamin Blayney". MPlasky (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

On the massive number of marginal notes
There are at least four kinds of notes that appear regularly in the margin of the KJV as shown in the source we're currently using. One is chronological notes. These don't have a specific indicator in the text itself, but just float off to the side. Next, there are the daggered notes, which tend to give more literalistic renderings of the Hebrew or Greek wording associated with a translated phrase. Then there's the piped notes, which give alternative renderings or further explanation of wording in the text. Finally, the biggest category of notes are cross-references, which direct the reader of one verse to other verses which contain similar themes or wording.

Right now, it looks like only the first two chapters of Genesis come close to fully displaying these notes. Right now, the daggered and piped notes are being placed in the margin, while the cross-references are being treated as endnotes. If we attempt to provide full coverage of the notes, they're going to pile up hard, both in the source text as templates and such, and in the displayed text. I'm not sure how or when it was decided to put the piped and daggered notes in their original KJV format, but to convert all the cross-references to footnotes. I thought I might check in and see if that's the way people actually want them done before adding in too many of them. I've added piped and daggered notes, imitating the marginal format in Genesis 1 and 2, to the first ten chapters of Genesis. They're not too bad at present. But if I start putting in all the references, and they keep counting upward at a rate of more than thirty notes per chapter, we're eventually looking at an average of one or more four-digit references like [1234] all over the later chapters of Genesis. It could get pretty crowded.

In the source text, the references are shown as tiny little letters in the text, not nearly as distracting as a [1234] -style note would be. I'm tempted to say that it would be worthwhile to see if we can achieve something similar here, but I wouldn't want to start getting innovative on something like that without hearing what other people think first. MPlasky (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources of the Wikisource KJV Text: A Correction
Earlier this month, I said on this talk page that the base text for this electronic edition of the KJV was taken from a package called bible-kjv for Debian. This was mostly incorrect. As a matter of fact, it is only Genesis that is taken from bible-kjv. The rest of the Old Testament (the canonical books as listed by the KJV authors) and the New Testament were originally taken from the January 1992 Project Gutenberg KJV. The Apocrypha was taken from a now-defunct set of URL's at the University of Virginia website, which in turn came from Robert Kraft's 1987 KJV text. MPlasky (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

On the three printed sources available to us
Currently, according to the "Sources" page of this book, we are using two different editions of KJV published at Oxford: a 1769 "Volume 1" -- of Blayney's quarto edition -- and a 1772 "Volume 2" of something at least similar, about which more in a bit. A third text is now available, a complete reprint (correction 5/6/23 -- the correct link if here of Blayney's folio edition.

Blayney, in 1769, gave a brief explanation of his work in something called the Gentleman's Magazine, Volume 39:


 * When the Quarto Sheets, were printed off, the Forms were lengthened out in order to make up the Folio Edition; in doing the which the parts were often jumbled together, and such Confusion introduced by misplacing the References, and mistaking the Chronology, that nothing else would suffice than a fresh Collation of the whole with the Quarto copy, and a repetition of almost the same trouble and care in the revisal, and in making up the running Titles anew, as had been used before. But the Editor thinks has just reason to congratulate himself on the opportunity hereby given him of discovering and correcting some few trivial inaccuracies, which in spite of all his vigilance had escaped his notice in the Quarto Edition. So that the Folio Edition is rendered by this somewhat the more perfect of the two, and therefore more fit to be recommended for a standard copy.

In other words, the individual lines of biblical text in the Quarto and Folio texts are identical -- except where typos are corrected -- but the number of lines per page necessarily varies between the smaller quarto, with its 60 or so lines per page, and the larger folio, with 80 or so. However, this process of rearranging the pagination disrupted the marginal notes, which then had to be carefully rearranged, and were proofread again in the process.

History has borne out Blayney's judgment that the folio contains fewer mistakes -- this can be verified on page 30 of Scrivener's textual history of the KJV, and Norton, in his 2005 Textual History of the King James Bible (p. 106), quotes Harry Carter's History of Oxford University Press as claiming that the folio


 * was for many years the standard by which Oxford Bibles were corrected; that is to say, Blayney's [folio] as corrected in manuscript by many hands in course of time. The folio volume kept for reference has hardly a page, except in the Apocrypha, without a corrector's mark carefully written in ink. All but a few of these amendments are of slight significance: a capital instead of a small letter in a reference, a comma added, an English spelling modernized. (Carter, p. 358)

Unfortunately, we do not have available to us the entire Quarto, but only its Genesis through Jeremiah, while we have been supplying the New Testament and Apocrypha from a 1772 printing. The 1772 printing seems very close to Blayney's 1769 text, perhaps even identical, as it shares typos with it in Esther 11:2 and 8, Esther 12:6, and Revelation 18:22 (a quick spot-check).

Other than in the page-titles, which must necessarily vary where the pagination is different, I haven't yet noticed a different between the three sources, so it does not make any practical difference to me which of the three we use for any given passage.

However, given that Lamentations through Malachi are only present in the '69 folio, I intend to use it in proofreading Lamentations through Malachi. Hopefully no one will object to this. As far as Genesis to Jeremiah, the New Testament, and the Apocrypha, I'm not aware of any differences between the editions that matter. MPlasky (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

On the 1769 Quarto vs. Folio Printings
It is common -- even in good historical sources like Scrivener or Norton -- to lapse into speaking as if there was simply one 1769 Oxford text of the KJV. But in 1769, Blayney produced both a quarto and a folio edition. Blayney and the historians who followed him have believed that the folio was better proofread and better suited as a standard text for later printings.

This project currently seems a bit confused -- one printing is in use for the most of the OT, a second for the rest of the OT, and a third (1772!) for the Apocrypha and New Testament. Until today, this has caused no problems, but as of today, we for the first time have a distinction.

On the third page of the preface to the readers, quarto edition, in the left margin, there is written, Mihael, Theophili fil., which would be translated "Mihael, son of Theophilus." In the folio edition, one finds Michael instead of Mihael. The folio is correct: the reference is to the Byzantine Emperor Michael III.

My suggestion is that we switch to using the folio as our standard, before the differences start piling up. MPlasky (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

On Blayney's 1769 text versus the 1772 text
Currently, there is a small self-contradiction in how this text defines itself. On the one hand, it calls itself "The 1769 King James Bible, as revised by Benjamin Blayney." This is true for most of the Old Testament, but in the Apocrypha and New Testament, in practice a 1772 Oxford KJV is being used as the "scan-backed, verifiable version of this work". This mostly does not cause noticeable problems, as the Oxford 1769 text is extremely close to the Oxford 1772 text. But they are not quite the same thing. So far, I know of one instance of difference between the two. In Matthew 8:13, the 1769 text reads "selfsame", while the 1772 text hyphenates it as "self-same". Until such time as some sort of decision is made about whether this KJV is supposed to represent the 1772 text or the 1769 text, I suppose it would be best to keep a list of all the differences below, so that everything can be conformed to the correct edition whenever a decision is made.MPlasky (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) Matthew 8:13: "selfsame" (1769) "self-same" (1772).MPlasky (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)