Not the Bible's Authorized 'Virgin' . . .

Wicked Bible

(New York Times)

Be wary next time you pore over your King James Bible. You might be reading Exodus 20:14 in a rare copy of the 1631 Wicked Bible:

. . . a version . . . in which the unfortunate printer Robert Barker and his associate, Martin Lucas, left a "not" out of the commandment against committing adultery; both were fined. Barker was later put into debtors' prison, where he ultimately died.

If that's the punishment for inadvertently advocating adultery, imagine the consequences of actually carrying out that unfortunate commandment, verse 14 in the image above, which looks like it says, "Thou fhalt commit adultery," but that would be senseless. It really says, "Thou shalt commit adultery."

I'd heard of this Bible version, but I'd never seen the verse before a New York Times article by Edward Rothstein, "400 Years Old and Ageless" (September 29, 2011), brought the passage directly to my attention. Imagine the havoc that might have been wreaked if this particular version had not been caught in time and had thus caught on, say in America, which was being populated by English settlers around that time.

Actually, things likely wouldn't have turned out much different since that same verse in the correct version -- the one with "not" -- has been honored more in the breach than the observance.

There are other interesting "Bible Errata," the most theologically worrisome being the 1611 "Judas Bible," which confuses the antagonist for the protagonist in Matthew 24:36 by having Judas -- rather than Jesus -- advise the disciples, "Sit ye here while I go yonder and pray," leaving readers to wonder if the prayer also switches things around: "Not thy will, but mine be done"?

I don't, however, think the printers were that confused!

Center of the Bible?

King James Bible

Divinely Inspired Translation?

(Image from Wikipedia)

Recently, a friend forwarded to me an email with a message and a prayer that might be called a chain-letter prayer (for one is supposed to email ten more people). I liked the stunning images of nature, and also the accompanying music borrowed from Irish musician Enya, but felt a bit skeptical about some of the claims.

What did the message claim?

That Psalm 117 is the shortest chapter in the Bible. That Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible. That 1188 chapters make up the Bible. That Psalm 118 is the middle chapter of the Bible. That Psalm 118:8 is the middle verse of the Bible.

What does that exact verse state?

"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in men."

I thought that these coincidences sounded too good to be true, so I asked my friend about it, and she told me that she actually "thought the exact verse idea was kind of hoaky." I checked into the matter and then reported to my friend:

Yeah, it is kind of hoaky -- and too good to be true . . . so, it isn't.

Psalm 118 is not the middle chapter of the Bible; Psalm 117 is, for the Bible has 1189 chapters in all, and Psalm 117 is number 595.

Psalm 118 also does not contain the middle verse of the Bible. If we're using the King James Version, which has an even number of verses, at 31,102, then the two middle verses are Psalm 103:1-2.

That's what Wikipedia says, at any rate.

I [had been] . . . skeptical, so I searched the internet . . . though I'm usually also skeptical of Wikipedia. But there's more here, and it looks valid.

Of course, we could also ask why the King James Version is used. Is it supposed to be a sacred translation? And why use a translation? Why not the original? And which 'original'? With or without the Apocrypha? But originally, there were no chapters or verses -- these were added in the 8th or 9th centuries AD by the Jewish Masoretes.

I could go on and on . . . but I won't, and you will bless me for that.

As will my faithful readers -- and I am thankful for all my blessings.

As for the music and images, I've searched the internet for what I received by email, though without success. The same message but with less impressive images and utterly unimpressive music can be endured on You Tube.

Rowling's Bible?

King James Bible

Rowling's Bible?

(Image from Wikipedia)

I've pointed out in a recent post on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows that J.K. Rowling quotes the Bible, twice, but which Bible translation is she quoting?

Let's take a look.

Concerning Rowling's first quote, I noted in my earlier post the words on the tombstone of Kendra Dumbledore and Her Daughter Ariana:

"Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

I then identified the source as Matthew 6:21. More accurately, I should have said that the source could be either Matthew 6:21 or Luke 12:34. According to one Online Parallel Bible, the precise words "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" could be taken from a number of Bible translations. If Rowling was quoting Matthew 6:21, then she could have been using either of these two:

King James Version (KJV, 1611)
Webster's Bible Translation (WBS, 1833)

If Rowling was quoting Luke 12:34, then she could have been using any of these five:

King James Version (KJV, 1611)
American Standard Version (ASV, 1901)
English Revised Version (ERV, 1881)
Webster's Bible Translation (WBS, 1833)
World English Bible (WEB, currently in draft form)

This second, five-item list includes the first, two-item list, so Rowling could have been using any of five English translations (insofar as this Online Parallel Bible is exhaustive).

But we need to check Rowling's second quote, which -- as I noted in my earlier post -- we find on the tombstone of James and Lily Potter:

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

I then identified the source as 1 Corinthians 15:26. According to the Online Parallel Bible, the precise words "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" could be taken from only two Bible translations:

King James Version (KJV, 1611)
Webster's Bible Translation (WBS, 1833)

Assuming that the Online Parallel Bible is exhaustive (probably not), that Rowling uses the same Bible version for both quotes (probably), and that the very British Rowling is not likely to have been using an obscure American version (almost certainly), then I conclude (tentatively) that Rowling's Bible is the King James Version of 1611.

Not that anyone cares...