Editing King James Version (section)

===Source texts===
====Old Testament====
For the Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by [[Daniel Bomberg]] (1524/5),{{sfn|Scrivener|1884|p=42}}{{Failed verification|date=February 2021}} but adjusted this to conform to the Greek [[LXX]] or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a [[Christological]] interpretation.{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=262}} For example, the [[Septuagint]] reading "[[They pierced my hands and my feet]]" was used in Psalm 22:16<ref>{{bibleref|Psalm|22:16|KJV}}</ref> (vs. the [[Masoretes]]' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my hands and feet"<ref>The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, copyright 1985</ref>). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation—especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as [[David Kimhi|Kimhi]], in elucidating obscure passages in the [[Masoretic Text]];{{sfn|Daiches|1968|p=208}} earlier versions had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places. Following the practice of the [[Geneva Bible]], the books of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras in the medieval Vulgate Old Testament were renamed '[[Book of Ezra|Ezra]]' and '[[Book of Nehemiah|Nehemiah]]'; 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras in the Apocrypha being renamed '[[1 Esdras]]' and '[[2 Esdras]]'.

====New Testament====
For the New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of [[Theodore Beza]],{{sfn|Scrivener|1884|p=60}}{{efn|name=Hills|[[Edward F. Hills]] made the following important statement in regard to the KJV and the Received Text:

{{blockquote|The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588–9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), (51) out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.|Edward F. Hills, [[iarchive:TheKingJamesVersionDefended|''The King James Version Defended'']], p. 220.}}}} which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and [[Robert Estienne|Stephanus]]'s edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F. H. A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the ''Bishops' Bible'' and other earlier English translations.{{sfn|Scrivener|1884| pp=243–263}} In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek [[Textus Receptus]] of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of [[Erasmus]], or in the [[Complutensian Polyglot]]. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.{{sfn|Scrivener|1884|p=262}} For example, at John 10:16,<ref>{{bibleref|John|10:16|KJV}}</ref> the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th-century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=448}}

====Apocrypha====
Unlike the rest of the Bible, the translators of the Apocrypha identified their source texts in their marginal notes.{{sfn|Scrivener|1884|p=47}} From these it can be determined that the books of the Apocrypha were translated from the Septuagint—primarily, from the Greek Old Testament column in the [[Antwerp Polyglot]]—but with extensive reference to the counterpart Latin Vulgate text, and to Junius's Latin translation. The translators record references to the [[Sixtine Septuagint]] of 1587, which is substantially a printing of the Old Testament text from the [[Codex Vaticanus]] Graecus 1209, and also to the 1518 Greek Septuagint edition of [[Aldus Manutius]]. They had, however, no Greek texts for [[2 Esdras]], or for the [[Prayer of Manasses]], and Scrivener found that they here used an unidentified Latin manuscript.{{sfn|Scrivener|1884|p=47}}

====Sources====
The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that—like the [[Codex Bezae]]—would have been readily available to them.{{sfn|Scrivener|1884|p=59}} In addition to all previous English versions (including, and contrary to their instructions,{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=440}} the ''[[Douay–Rheims Bible|Rheimish New Testament]]''{{sfn|Bois|Allen|Walker|1969|p=xxv}} which in their preface they criticized), they made wide and eclectic use of all printed editions in the original languages then available, including the ancient [[Peshitta|Syriac New Testament]] printed with an interlinear Latin gloss in the [[Plantin Polyglot|Antwerp Polyglot of 1573]].{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=246}} In the preface the translators acknowledge consulting translations and commentaries in Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and German.{{sfn|KJV Translators to the Reader|1611|}}

The translators took the Bishops' Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishops' Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, as did the propensity of the King James translators to coin phrases of their own. John Bois's notes of the General Committee of Review show that they discussed readings derived from a wide variety of versions and [[patristic]] sources, including explicitly both [[Henry Savile (Bible translator)|Henry Savile]]'s 1610 edition of the works of [[John Chrysostom]] and the Rheims New Testament,{{sfn|Bois|Allen|Walker|1969|p=118}} which was the primary source for many of the literal alternative readings provided for the marginal notes.