Martin Kelleher wrote: > Personally, I'd consider 'Authorized Version' to be a relative term, and > always understood the generic, universally recognizable term for the 1611 > translation to be the King James Bible. I presume there's an academic > (and presumably C of E) understanding of 'Authorized Version' as being > the formal term for the KJB, but I doubt it's more universal than that. Still, > would you go for the formal designation, even if it's religion specific?
There's an interesting article on Wikipedia, giving the origins of the name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version Personally, I've always found the name "Authorized Version" to be very presumptuous. "Authorized" by whom? A cataloging code aiming to be universal and inclusive should probably refer to the version by a name that implies a more neutral stance. Thus I would prefer to call it the "King James Version" or "King James Bible". Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library [email protected] (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
