"Authorized Version" makes no sense in the USA, except as authorized by a particular non-governmental body. The Jefferson Bible was published by the GPO in 1904, but this was not an authorization. The term Authorized Version does work in the UK. According to the Wikipedia article you cite, it was probably authorized for public use by the Privy Council and its text was authorized for use in the readings in the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer later by Act of Parliament.
Larry -- Laurence S. Creider Interim Head Archives and Special Collections Dept. University Library New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-4756 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Thu, May 16, 2013 9:09 am, Kevin M Randall wrote: > 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 > k...@northwestern.edu > (847) 491-2939 > > Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! >
