Well the Bible in question, on which the Colonies and subsequently the Revolution
were built was the Geneva Translation. John Knox, John Calvin, John Fox and all those
other trueblue portestants, including the Puritans et al. who escaped to the new world
to avoid persecution by the King, were anything but amenable to a translation done
in the name of the King, for a denomination (Chruch of England) which was considered
anything but protestant. So it is 90% KJV but has the veneer of protestantism, about it.
It is sometimes referred to as the "breeches" Bible because it describes Adam and Eve
as sewing leaves together to make themselves breeches.
How did I come to know this? I inherited it as a family heirloom.
My copy is dated 1584 and has part of my paternal grandmother's family tree in it.
It's on loan to a specialist rare book library for proper care, use and safe keeping.
I think, Jerry, that you will especially appreciate the info on this page:
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Jerome Walsh
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: TS Eliot: "the heart of light" (by now, rather OT)

It's an interesting question, Peter, but one that's far beyond my realm of expertise.  As I may have mentioned in an earlier post, once things get later than 537 bce, they start to get fuzzy in my mind.  I an expert neither on the various early English versions nor on TSE.  I joined this list a couple of years ago to ask the folks here about a quotation I had heard attributed to him, but could not locate, since I wanted to use that quotation in a book I was writing.  I've stayed on the list ever since as a lurker because I found the badinage so quintessentially that of academe, and occasionally illuminating.

One thought occurs.  The KJV seems to have gone through several incarnations, all of which market themselves as the "KJV" (mine calls itself "conformable with" the 1611 edition), might TSE have been using the original text of the 1611, though many of us are unwittingly using a later revision that is only "conformable with" the 1611 AV?

I'll look forward to your off-list identification of NRSV solecisms.