Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: King James Bible published (traditional date) (2-1-1611)
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 09:29:09 +1200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <v13kve$omh9$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: r.clark@auckland.ac.nz
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 23:29:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bdc3efcf7b4b4afcc59e856cb4ec2fcf";
	logging-data="809513"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kuTebKtvjv8VSaZc4tAdp/2c0zUDXwJM="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:G17FhOlbcFOYxhtb7XshHZAJ4+0=
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.eternal-september.org:119
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2981

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.