Another of KJVOism's arguments is that the KJV is not copyrighted while virtually every MV is. In my quest to debunk KJVOism, I'm not really required to provide any evidence, as the burden of proof lies with those who are trying to establish the veracity of KJVO. However, we shall continue to debunk KJVO point-by-point in order to warn the new Christian not to fall for it. Now comes the time to debunk their copyright argument.
I don't see this idea advocated by anyone before Ruckman, in his 1964 book, Bible Babel.(Pgs 15-16-17-19) If you have that book, please note how wishy-washy Ruckman is on the subject!
The KJVO says the KJV is not copyrighted. Wrong! We shall now prove it IS indeed copyrighted!
In England, the principle of copyrighting was established firmly under Queen Mary 1 by 1555. Every book printed/published in England had to be reviewed by the Crown & approved for release to the public. However, once approved, the publisher had exclusive rights to print & publish that work.
The earlier English Bibles & the first edition of the Textus Receptus were all copyrighted.
Mary was seeking to ban the printing of English-language Bibles in her realm. However, after her death, QE 1 allowed English Bibles to be printed/sold again.
When the AV 1611 was completed, KJ gave the copyright to his royal printer, Sir Robert Barker. Thus, on the title page of the AV itself, and on the title page of its NT, we see the Latin words 'cum privilegio' are found.(For those who have Hendrickson repros, the words are very hard to see on the title page of the whole Bible, but are very easy to see on the bottom center of the NT's title page.)
His father, Christopher Barker, had been granted a copyright from QE1 to print English Bibles & almost all other religious books. In 1599 she had given Robert Barker the title "Queen's Printer For Life" after his father died that year.
It must be noted that during this time the work of the printers was still inspected by agents of the Crown, and Robt. Barker was once fined 300 pounds for his printer's goof that resulted in the "sinner's Bible" which read "Thou shalt commit adultery".
The Barker family held the copyright for the KJV until 1709. But that copyright did NOT expire with the end of the Barkers' holding it. It passed into the hands of other royal printers, & into the hands of both Oxford and Cambridge Universities.
Today, there are four copyright holders for the KJV in England...the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd, and Eyre & Spottiswoode. If you have an Oxford and/or Cambridge KJV edition, please look under the coat-of-arms for each university on the title page, & you'll see cum privilegio. Any KJVO doubting this, please feel free to verify the fact of those copyrights through the British Embassy.
The firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode has been one of the royal printers ever since the early 1700s. The Collins Co. is now HarperCollins & is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
The AV/KJV originated in England. Every American edition is a copy-cat. Personally, I like the idea of a copyrighted KJV or any other version, as it's an assurance that I have a genuine article and not a wildcat edition that may have been altered.
Yes, the KJV is still under copyright in the land of its origin, and I'm glad it is!
YOUR thoughts?
I don't see this idea advocated by anyone before Ruckman, in his 1964 book, Bible Babel.(Pgs 15-16-17-19) If you have that book, please note how wishy-washy Ruckman is on the subject!
The KJVO says the KJV is not copyrighted. Wrong! We shall now prove it IS indeed copyrighted!
In England, the principle of copyrighting was established firmly under Queen Mary 1 by 1555. Every book printed/published in England had to be reviewed by the Crown & approved for release to the public. However, once approved, the publisher had exclusive rights to print & publish that work.
The earlier English Bibles & the first edition of the Textus Receptus were all copyrighted.
Mary was seeking to ban the printing of English-language Bibles in her realm. However, after her death, QE 1 allowed English Bibles to be printed/sold again.
When the AV 1611 was completed, KJ gave the copyright to his royal printer, Sir Robert Barker. Thus, on the title page of the AV itself, and on the title page of its NT, we see the Latin words 'cum privilegio' are found.(For those who have Hendrickson repros, the words are very hard to see on the title page of the whole Bible, but are very easy to see on the bottom center of the NT's title page.)
His father, Christopher Barker, had been granted a copyright from QE1 to print English Bibles & almost all other religious books. In 1599 she had given Robert Barker the title "Queen's Printer For Life" after his father died that year.
It must be noted that during this time the work of the printers was still inspected by agents of the Crown, and Robt. Barker was once fined 300 pounds for his printer's goof that resulted in the "sinner's Bible" which read "Thou shalt commit adultery".
The Barker family held the copyright for the KJV until 1709. But that copyright did NOT expire with the end of the Barkers' holding it. It passed into the hands of other royal printers, & into the hands of both Oxford and Cambridge Universities.
Today, there are four copyright holders for the KJV in England...the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd, and Eyre & Spottiswoode. If you have an Oxford and/or Cambridge KJV edition, please look under the coat-of-arms for each university on the title page, & you'll see cum privilegio. Any KJVO doubting this, please feel free to verify the fact of those copyrights through the British Embassy.
The firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode has been one of the royal printers ever since the early 1700s. The Collins Co. is now HarperCollins & is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
The AV/KJV originated in England. Every American edition is a copy-cat. Personally, I like the idea of a copyrighted KJV or any other version, as it's an assurance that I have a genuine article and not a wildcat edition that may have been altered.
Yes, the KJV is still under copyright in the land of its origin, and I'm glad it is!
YOUR thoughts?
