Editing King James Version (section)

===Style and criticism===
A primary concern of the translators was to produce an appropriate Bible, dignified and resonant in public reading.<ref>For more, see Timothy Berg, [https://textandcanon.org/misconceptions-about-the-king-james-bible/ textandcanon.org], "Seven Common Misconceptions about the King James Bible", Text & Canon Institute (2022).</ref> Although the Authorized Version's written style is an important part of its influence on English, research has found only one verse—Hebrews 13:8—for which translators debated the wording's literary merits. While they stated in the preface that they used stylistic variation, finding multiple English words or verbal forms in places where the original language employed repetition, in practice they also did the opposite; for example, 14 different Hebrew words were translated into the single English word "prince".{{r|hunt20110209}}{{context inline|reason=the English word 'prince' is not a broad descriptor; there are no synonyms in English for prince. if Hebrew has 14b words that all would carry the meaning of prince in English, this is not a fault of the translators. This article should address this matter (what are the meanings of these 14n Hebrew words?)|date=September 2021}}

In a period of rapid linguistic change the translators avoided contemporary idioms, tending instead towards forms that were already slightly archaic, like ''verily'' and ''it came to pass''.{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=264}} The pronouns ''thou''/''thee'' and ''ye''/''you'' are consistently used as singular and plural respectively, even though by this time ''you'' was often found as the singular in general English usage, especially when addressing a social superior (as is evidenced, for example, in Shakespeare).{{sfn|Barber|1997|pp=153–54}} For the possessive of the third person pronoun, the word ''its'', first recorded in the ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]'' in 1598, is avoided.{{sfn|Barber|1997|p=150}} The older ''[[grammatical gender|his]]'' is usually employed, as for example at Matthew 5:13:<ref>{{bibleref|Matthew|5:13|KJV}}</ref> <!-- ORIGINAL SPELLING: PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE -->"if the salt have lost ''his'' savour, wherewith shall it be salted?";{{sfn|Barber|1997|p=150}} in other places ''of it'', ''thereof'' or bare ''it'' are found.{{efn|e.g. {{bibleref|Matthew|7:27|KJV}}: "great was the fall ''of it''.", {{bibleref|Matthew|2:16|KJV}}: "in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts ''thereof''", {{bibleref|Leviticus|25:5|KJV}}: "That which groweth of ''it'' owne accord of thy harvest". ({{bibleref|Leviticus|25:5|KJV}} is changed to ''its'' in many modern printings).{{sfn|Barber|1997|pp=150–51}} }} Another sign of [[linguistic conservatism]] is the invariable use of ''-eth'' for the third person singular present form of the verb, as at Matthew 2:13: "the Angel of the Lord appear''eth'' to Joseph in a dreame". The rival ending ''-(e)s'', as found in present-day English, was already widely used by this time (for example, it predominates over ''-eth'' in the plays of Shakespeare and Marlowe).{{sfn|Barber|1997|pp=166–67}} Furthermore, the translators preferred ''which'' to ''who'' or ''whom'' as the relative pronoun for persons, as in Genesis 13:5:<ref>{{bibleref|Genesis|13:5|KJV}}</ref> "And Lot also ''which'' went with Abram, had flocks and heards, & tents"{{sfn|Barber|1997|p=212}} although ''who(m)'' is also found.{{efn|e.g. at {{bibleref|Genesis|3:12|KJV}}: "The woman ''whom'' thou gavest to be with mee" }}

The Authorized Version is notably more [[Latin]]ate than previous English versions,{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=440}} especially the Geneva Bible. This results in part from the academic stylistic preferences of a number of the translators—several of whom admitted to being more comfortable writing in Latin than in English—but was also, in part, a consequence of the royal proscription against explanatory notes.{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=229}} Hence, where the Geneva Bible might use a common English word, and gloss its particular application in a marginal note, the Authorized Version tends rather to prefer a technical term, frequently in Anglicized Latin. Consequently, although the King had instructed the translators to use the Bishops' Bible as a base text, the New Testament in particular owes much stylistically to the Catholic [[Douay–Rheims Bible|Rheims]] New Testament, whose translators had also been concerned to find English equivalents for Latin terminology.{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=252}} In addition, the translators of the New Testament books transliterate names found in the Old Testament in their Greek forms rather than in the forms closer to the Old Testament Hebrew (e.g. "Elias" and "Noe" for "Elijah" and "Noah", respectively).

While the Authorized Version remains among the most widely sold, modern critical New Testament translations differ substantially from it in a number of passages, primarily because they rely on source manuscripts not then accessible to (or not then highly regarded by) early-17th-century Biblical scholarship.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=5}} In the Old Testament, there are also many differences from modern translations that are based not on manuscript differences, but on a different understanding of Ancient Hebrew [[vocabulary]] or [[grammar]] by the translators. For example, in modern translations it is clear that Job 28:1–11<ref>{{bibleref|Job|28:1–11|KJV}}</ref> is referring throughout to mining operations, which is not at all apparent from the text of the Authorized Version.{{sfn|Bruce|2002|p=145}}