[Dr. Sivana]

But, it wasn’t in the language of the people!

English, French and most of the others had dozens of serious variants. The earlier Catholic Bible in English, the Douay-Rheims, was published in 1589 (NT) and 1611 (OT). It had to be cerated in France due to persecutions. You can tell by comparing them that English was still very much in flux, largely because of the great flexibility of the language in adapting words from other languages.

Shakespeare is said to have written in "Middle English", and no one could really understand the Canterbury Tales or Beowulf without learning what amounts to a completely different language.

The KJV itself certainly helped chart the course of English (more German cognates/origins, fewer Latin/Romance ones). But in the Middle Ages, Europeans who could read, read Latin.

[afraidfortherepublic]

no one could really understand the Canterbury Tales or Beowulf without learning what amounts to a completely different language.

And so I thought when I studied them in high school!

[Mr Rogers]

“The earlier Catholic Bible in English, the Douay-Rheims, was published in 1589 (NT) and 1611 (OT).”

That version ceased printing around 1635. The KJV owes far more to the Tyndale and Coverdale translations from the mid 1500s. The DR Bible used today is the one largely based off the KJV, with Catholic theology added (1750).

“But in the Middle Ages, Europeans who could read, read Latin.”

Yet there was a huge demand for Bibles in English and German. How could that be, if folks only read Latin?