Best dictionary for Early Modern English word definitions in the King James Bible?

I'm interested in exploring the King James Bible (published in 1611) as a piece of classic literature. I've read that the English words used in the translation can have contextual differences compared to the original manuscripts. I.e., the biblical word definition of a crisping pin (mentioned in the King James Bible) is apparently an ornament, bag or purse, but some dictionaries (even older ones like Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary) define it as a curling iron.

I know there are in-depth concordances (such as Strong's Exhaustive Concordance) which can help readers uncover the deeper Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek contexts behind the English word substitutions. However, I'm only interested in the King James Bible as a piece of classic literature - not so much in uncovering the underlying context.

I'd like to sample the King James Bible as an English reader would have done in the 1600s - 1700s, but with a degree of Biblical word accuracy so I can still get the 'spirit' of the work, if that makes any sense.

Thanks for any help!

I think your example is actually the other way round: “crisping pin” is the old word for curling iron, and that’s what the translators of the KJV intended readers to understand. But they possibly got a bit carried away with the fun of Isaiah’s list of female fripperies and inserted crisping pins where there weren’t any in the Hebrew (you can imagine a roomful of bishops and doctors of theology with never a curl between them not knowing what a crisping pin was, except that it was womanly and sinful…). Later translators went for more pedantic readings like “ornament”.

The standard historical dictionary of English most people use is the OED, but that’s quite a hefty investment that might be over the top for your project.

https://www.kingjamesbibledictionary.com/ tends to be useful (when you don't end up following things up instead of reading what you expected to read).

However... reading as someone from these times is going to be almost impossible - you already know a LOT more than anyone did back then and your mind will make connections where an Early Modern mind would not have.

For Early Modern (and not specifically Bible related), https://www.lexilogos.com/english/english_modern_early.htm has a lot of useful links. I like Leme (https://leme.library.utoronto.ca/) quite a lot. The project, to quote them, "is a historical database of monolingual, bilingual, and polyglot dictionaries, lexical encyclopedias, hard-word glossaries, spelling lists, and lexically-valuable treatises surviving in print or manuscript from about 1475 to 1755."). Same warning applies though - going down rabbit holes happen a lot.

Other from that - any modern good dictionary will have at least some notes on usage in all periods (OED for example).

>1 VoicelessTorment: If I understand correctly what you'd like to do - try to get both the experience of reading the King James bible, but also get an accurate understanding of what the Greek and Latin words that were being translated meant - my suggestions is actually to read parallel translations. There are a lot of apps out there that will let you easily compare and switch between multiple translations really easily; the last time I was doing a lot of bible reading, I slotted in King James, New King James (which tries to keep the feel of the original KJV while updating language that has changed), at least one modern 'literal' translation, the Coverdale (to get an idea of how things were being translated in English *before* King James was the standard) and the Vulgate - I don't really read Latin, but seeing it in parallel with the others, I could pick out Latin words I knew, and where the translations were all dramatically different, I could usually pick out which one was sticking closest to the Latin and which wasn't (and with the help of a Latin dictionary I started picking up some Latin after awhile.)

(Reading it along with a vague attempt at half-understood Vulgate Latin probably is pretty close to how a 17th century layman would have read it anyway, Latin was a lot more present in everyday life back then.)

>2 thorold: Hello. :) If I ever was to invest in the OED - specifically for the King James Bible or 'Biblical' English words - which edition would you specifically recommend, and are there cheaper alternatives?

By the way, putting aside my project for the moment, I was originally going to use the Defined King James Bible for simple convenience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIY5JsaqAKI

It includes the King James Bible, a guide on Early Modern English usage (thou, thee, etc.) and includes some brief definitions/synonyms at the bottom of the pages.

The publishers of the Defined King James Bible also recommended I use it alongside the Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

Regarding your own knowledge of this subject, do you personally think this would be good for me?

>6 VoicelessTorment: I should think you need to experiment for yourself a bit and see what meets your needs. Check out the specific sources >3 AnnieMod: talks about first, perhaps. Is there a reference library where you could go and look at their dictionaries? You might find that you can get on well enough with something moderate-sized and you don’t need the scholarly heavy artillery. The fact that an obscure word appears in the KJV is likely to encourage lexicographers to list it.

If you do decide on the OED, the best thing is to get free access to the online version through your library or institution if you can (sometimes that’s possible for alumni as well as current staff/students). Failing that, if your eyesight is up to it, you might be able to find the shrunk version secondhand. Otherwise, online access for private individuals is about $100 a year, so it might mean giving up Netflix…

>7 thorold: So, I did a little research on the Oxford English Dictionary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G2jgcCh57g

This is the compact First Edition of the 13-volume Oxford English Dictionary (1933) with a magnifying glass, which you presumably suggested as a physical/offline source.

I read it was initially planned to include all English language vocabulary from the Early Middle English period (1150 AD) onward, which is pretty awesome. Also, I didn't know it occasionally showed words used around 1611 in dated examples, so I see why you recommend it for my purpose.

For purely physical/offline sources, I could venture to acquire the Defined King James Bible (which freely includes some synonyms and an Early Modern English guide) and use it in conjunction with a secondhand compact First Edition of the 13-volume Oxford English Dictionary. Good plan?

You might also like to read this recent history book:

God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible

if you haven’t already.

>8 VoicelessTorment: Yes, that’s the one I was talking about. I had a lot of fun with one of those when I was younger (and could do without the magnifying glass). They were often sold as introductory offers for book clubs, so there must be quite a lot out there. The second edition has a lot of updated/added entries, but the first should be adequate for your needs. As you saw, the idea is to show the ways a word has been used at different times in the history of the language.

>9 2wonderY: Seconded!

>10 thorold: From what I've seen on scanned pages of the First Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1933), the crowded formatting makes researching some definitions a little arduous.

The formatting of the Second Edition (1989) appears to make the process a little easier, so I might try to acquire a compact version of that.

>3 AnnieMod: *Air hugs.* Thanks for your help. I'm going with the OED.

>4 melannen: Very good idea! I've heard from multiple sources that the Revised English Bible: with the Apocrypha (1989) has elegant and beautiful wording, so I might look into that.

>11 VoicelessTorment:

Depending on your location, your local library might provide you with online access to the OED.

>14 lilithcat: Thanks, but I love collecting physical/offline works, so I might try to acquire a second hand compact OED. I live in London, England. ^^

Might be worth remembering that what we buy as the KJV is not the original 1611 text. Right from the start there were endless corrections and changes.The book we buy today owes a lot to the work of Benjamin Blayney in 1769 when the text became more or less fossilized. The OUP for the quatercentenary produced an edition with the original text (but a more modern typeface).
>3 AnnieMod:: Thanks for that useful link

I've heard from multiple sources that the Revised English Bible: with the Apocrypha (1989) has elegant and beautiful wording, so I might look into that.

I only wish to read to wish the Bible as a piece of literature. So far, I find the family genealogies in Genesis monumentally repetitive, tedious, and confusing:

'And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah. And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber. And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg. And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters. And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu. And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters. And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug. And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters. And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor. And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah. And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters. And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. But Sarai was barren; she had no child. And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there. And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.'

I'll try to power through it, but am I alone with this opinion?

>16 PossMan: Interesting. Care to provide a link to the edition?

>17 VoicelessTorment: A lot of the Old Testament is recording things that were originally passed down orally; they're repetitive because that made them easier to memorize! Even after they were written they would have been read aloud to many more people than ever read it themselves. Jewish people still chant the Torah; I don't know how far back the current chants are supposed to go (there are probably Jewish people on LT who know a lot more than I do) but it would almost certainly have originally been known as some sort of song, poem, or chant, like most ancient literature.

If you're interested in reading the Old Testament as literature you don't necessary have to learn how to leyn but it's a great idea to look up at least something of how the Hebrews' poetry of the time worked - it was based on repetition and parallelism more than the rhyme and rhythm we're used to in English poetry, but once you start to understand how it worked and get a feel for it, some of the more 'boring' parts of the texts start to wake up. Reading aloud, even to yourself, can change how you experience it dramatically, too. (Even the letters of Paul, millennia later, were written to be read aloud to a large audience by someone who would embellish as needed.)

>19 melannen: Thanks for the informative explanation, and I think it's wonderful that you can experience the Bible in that way. :) I do sometimes read aloud, but I don't always know how to pronounce the names correctly, and there are so many to learn.

>18 VoicelessTorment:: OUP have it (to my surprise) on their site here:-
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/king-james-bible-9780199557608?cc=gb&amp...;
But I see there a several second-hand sellers as well. The essay by Gordon Campbell is very helpful. The old spellings are retained and you have to watch your u/v and i/j. So riuer for river, seuerall for several, vnto for unto. They've kept the fancy initial letters at the start of each chapter. At the front several pages of genealogy from Adam and Eve to Jesus and a map of the Holy Land.
I bought it as a curiosity rather than as a "working" bible.

>20 VoicelessTorment: Not pronouncing the names correctly is *also* the authentic way to experience it though! :D (In mumblemumble years attending high church services I don't think I've ever heard a Bible reading where all the names were pronounced correctly, I suspect in the 1600s your odds were way worse.)

>21 PossMan: Wow! I saw some pictures of it on Google images - it's so beautiful I'd almost be afraid to touch it, haha. Thanks for the link! I might pick this up at some point. ^_^

>22 melannen: Thanks for giving me the confidence to read it out loud, haha. ^_^

NIV: 'But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgement.'

This has always deterred me from reading the Bible. In cases of sexual violence or innocent loved ones being brutally murdered, rage is nearly always unavoidable for victims - it's literally another form of trauma. It's the same as being on fire and people telling you that you're being sinful for screaming.

In the case of the KJV, I appreciate that they at least have the decency to state 'anger without a cause' (which I haven't seen in other versions I've read) - meaning even if I face judgement for hating someone who's, say, brutally raped and beaten my defenceless partner, it's less so because I have a cause.

KJV: 'But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.'

This could also be dangerous regarding cases of sexual and narcissistic abuse.

Does anyone see my point or care to offer another perspective? I'd love to experience the Bible as a piece of literature, and this kind of perceived judgement towards victims in traumatic situations has always put me off it.

>25 VoicelessTorment: Look at it as at any other piece of old literature - the times were different, people held different beliefs. You say you want to read it as literature but you also want to be convinced that it is all true somehow and to agree with all it says? Do you require that of every fiction book you read? Or alternatively look at it as a mix between history and myth. Do you never read about cultures that sacrifice people because that message is dangerous?

You either accept that it is a piece of literature (fiction or history/myth mix) and read it as such or you look at it as the sacred book of Christianity and attempt to reconcile its messaging to reality. Or you find your way in the middle.

And that’s valid for the sacred books of any religion basically. It just seems to be harder for someone educated based on the western canon to see that about the Bible I suspect.

>26 AnnieMod: Good point, thanks - I'll try to bear it in mind and power through it. *Air hugs.* I think it's also the knowledge that some people can take it too literally, you know? I've seen people in the past (not all of whom were religious) who can be heartless and judgemental towards angry victims out of ignorance - it's always been a big trigger for me in anything I watch or read, fictional or not. :(

When in doubt, buy a book! The Enigma of Anger: Essays on a Sometimes Deadly Sin looks like it might be relevant. Or, for broader coverage, pick out one of the various books on "hard sayings" of the Bible.

But, absolutely, what AnnieMod said in #26! We need an upvote button.

>28 cpg: It's a shame there isn't a LibraryThing Discord group too. I'd love to enter group calls with fellow members and share book interests.

>29 VoicelessTorment: Uh, there are a multitude of groups here to suit any interest you might have, bookish or otherwise.

>30 2wonderY: I know, and that's great - I meant voice chats in group calls. :)

>31 VoicelessTorment: Not everyone is comfortable talking (or wishes to)... or wants communication in real time. If that is your thing, feel free to look around and find a place where you can get that. LT operates a bit differently and despite that (or maybe because of it), you get one of the best places to talk about books.

Just saying :)

>29 VoicelessTorment: There's nothing stopping anyone from starting an unofficial LibraryThing discord or two and posting links here in Talk! As evidenced below there's lot of people here who *wouldn't* be interested in chatrooms, but I bet you could find a few.

>32 AnnieMod: I know, and that's totally okay - it was more just a playful idea than anything else. ^_^ I just think the people here are really cool, ha.

>33 melannen: I'm sure I could. ^_^