text:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article
King James Version | |
Abbreviation | KJV or AV |
Complete Bible published | 1611 |
Online as | King James Version at Wikisource |
Textual basis | NT: Textus Receptus, similar to the Byzantine text-type; some readings derived from the Vulgate. OT: Masoretic Text with Septuagint influence.[citation needed] Apocrypha: Septuagint and Vulgate. |
Reading level | US and Canada Grade 8 – 10[1] |
Copyright | Public domain due to age, publication restrictions in the United Kingdom (See Copyright status) |
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. |
King James Version | |
Abbreviation | KJV or AV |
Complete Bible published | 1611 |
Online as | King James Version at Wikisource |
Textual basis | NT: Textus Receptus, similar to the Byzantine text-type; some readings derived from the Vulgate. OT: Masoretic Text with Septuagint influence.[citation needed] Apocrypha: Septuagint and Vulgate. |
Reading level | US and Canada Grade 8 – 10[1] |
Copyright | Public domain due to age, publication restrictions in the United Kingdom (See Copyright status) |
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. |
The Bible in English |
The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[a] First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker, this was the third translation into English to be approved by the English Church authorities. The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII (1535), and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568.[3] In January 1604, King James VI and I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[4] a faction within the Church of England.[5]
James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[6] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[7] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.[8] By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version had become effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and Protestant churches. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English-speaking scholars. With the development of stereotype printing at the beginning of the 19th century, this version of the Bible became the most widely printed book in history, almost all such printings presenting the standard text of 1769 extensively re-edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford; and nearly always omitting the books of the Apocrypha. Today the unqualifed title 'King James Version' commonly identifies this Oxford standard text, especially in the United States.
The title of the first edition of the translation was "THE HOLY BIBLE, Containing the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties special Commandment". The title – page carries the words 'Appointed to be read in Churches'[9] and F.F. Bruce suggests it was "probably authorized by order in council" but no record of the authorization survives "because the Privy Council registers from 1600 to 1613 were destroyed by fire in January 1618/19".[10]
For many years it was common not to give the translation any specific name. In his Leviathan of 1651, Thomas Hobbes referred to it as the English Translation made in the beginning of the Reign of King James.[11] A 1761 "Brief Account of the various Translations of the Bible into English" refers to the 1611 version merely as a new, compleat, and more accurate Translation, despite referring to the Great Bible by that name, and despite using the name "Rhemish Testament" for the Douay-Rheims Bible version.[12] Similarly, a "History of England", whose fifth edition was published in 1775, writes merely that [a] new translation of the Bible, viz., that now in Use, was begun in 1607, and published in 1611.[13]
King James's Bible is used as the name for the 1611 translation (on a par with the "Genevan Bible" or the "Rhemish Testament") in Charles Butler's Horae Biblicae (first published 1797).[14] Other works from the early 19th century confirm the widespread use of this name on both sides of the Atlantic: it is found both in a "Historical sketch of the English translations of the Bible" published in Massachusetts in 1815,[15] and in an English publication from 1818, which explicitly states that the 1611 version is "generally known by the name of King James's Bible".[16] This name was also found as King James' Bible (without the final "s"): for example in a book review from 1811.[17] The phrase "King James's Bible" is used as far back as 1715, although in this case it is not clear whether this is a name or merely a description.[18]
The use of Authorized Version or Authorised Version, capitalized and used as a name, is found as early as 1814.[19] For some time before this, descriptive phrases such as "our present, and only publicly authorized version" (1783),[20] "our authorised version" (1792),[21] and "the authorized version" (1801, uncapitalized)[22] are found. The Oxford English Dictionary records a usage in 1824.[23] In Britain, the 1611 translation is generally known as the "Authorized Version" today.
As early as 1814, we find King James' version, evidently a descriptive phrase, being used.[24] "The King James Version" is found, unequivocally used as a name, in a letter from 1855.[25] The next year King James Bible, with no possessive, appears as a name in a Scottish source.[26] In the United States, the "1611 translation" (actually editions following the standard text of 1769, see below) is generally known as the King James Version today.
The followers of John Wycliffe undertook the first complete English translations of the Christian scriptures in the 15th century. These translations were banned in 1409 due to their association with the Lollards.[27] The Wycliffe Bible pre-dated the printing press but was circulated very widely in manuscript form, often inscribed with a date earlier than 1409 to avoid the legal ban. As the text translated in the various versions of the Wycliffe Bible was the Latin Vulgate, and as it contained no heterodox readings, there was in practice no way by which the ecclesiastical authorities could distinguish the banned version; consequently many Catholic commentators of the 15th and 16th centuries (such as Thomas More) took these manuscript English Bibles to represent an anonymous earlier orthodox translation.
In 1525, William Tyndale, an English contemporary of Martin Luther, undertook a translation of the New Testament.[28] Tyndale's translation was the first printed Bible in English. Over the next ten years, Tyndale revised his New Testament in the light of rapidly advancing biblical scholarship, and embarked on a translation of the Old Testament.[29] Despite some controversial translation choices, the merits of Tyndale's work and prose style made his translation the ultimate basis for all subsequent renditions into Early Modern English.[30] With these translations lightly edited and adapted by Myles Coverdale, in 1539, Tyndale's New Testament and his incomplete work on the Old Testament became the basis for the Great Bible. This was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England during the reign of King Henry VIII.[3] When Mary I succeeded to the throne in 1553, she returned the Church of England to the communion of the Roman Catholic faith and many English religious reformers fled the country,[31] some establishing an English-speaking colony at Geneva. Under the leadership of John Calvin, Geneva became the chief international centre of Reformed Protestantism and Latin biblical scholarship.[32]
These English expatriates undertook a translation that became known as the Geneva Bible.[33] This translation, dated to 1560, was a revision of Tyndale's Bible and the Great Bible on the basis of the original languages.[34] Soon after Elizabeth I took the throne in 1558, the flaws of both the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible (namely, that the Geneva Bible did not "conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy") became painfully apparent.[35] In 1568, the Church of England responded with the Bishops' Bible, a revision of the Great Bible in the light of the Geneva version.[36] While officially approved, this new version failed to displace the Geneva translation as the most popular English Bible of the age – in part because the full Bible was only printed in lectern editions of prodigious size and at a cost of several pounds.[37] Accordingly, Elizabethan lay people overwhelmingly read the Bible in the Geneva Version – small editions were available at a relatively low cost. At the same time, there was a substantial clandestine importation of the rival Douay – Rheims New Testament of 1582, undertaken by exiled Roman Catholics. This translation, though still derived from Tyndale, claimed to represent the text of the Latin Vulgate.[38]
In May 1601, King James VI of Scotland attended the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland at St Columba's Church in Burntisland, Fife, at which proposals were put forward for a new translation of the Bible into English.[39] Two years later, he ascended to the throne of England as King James I of England.[40]
The newly crowned King James convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604. That gathering proposed a new English version in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England. Three examples of problems the Puritans perceived with the Bishops and Great Bibles were:
First, Galatians iv. 25 (from the Bishops' Bible). The Greek word susoichei is not well translated as now it is, bordereth neither expressing the force of the word, nor the apostle's sense, nor the situation of the place. Secondly, psalm cv. 28 (from the Great Bible), 'They were not obedient;' the original being, 'They were not disobedient.' Thirdly, psalm cvi. 30 (also from the Great Bible), 'Then stood up Phinees and prayed,' the Hebrew hath, 'executed judgment.'[41]
Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible).[6] King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive:[42] Exodus 1:19, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives, and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah.[42] Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.[6] Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church.[6] For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation".[6] The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy.[6]
James' instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. In addition, later scholars have detected an influence on the Authorized Version from the translations of Taverner's Bible and the New Testament of the Douay–Rheims Bible.[43] It is for this reason that the flyleaf of most printings of the Authorized Version observes that the text had been "translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty's special command."
The task of translation was undertaken by 47 scholars, although 54 were originally approved.[7] All were members of the Church of England and all except Sir Henry Savile were clergy.[44] The scholars worked in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster. The committees included scholars with Puritan sympathies, as well as High Churchmen. Forty unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible were specially printed so that the agreed changes of each committee could be recorded in the margins.[45] The committees worked on certain parts separately and the drafts produced by each committee were then compared and revised for harmony with each other.[46] The scholars were not paid directly for their translation work, instead a circular letter was sent to bishops encouraging them to consider the translators for appointment to well paid livings as these fell vacant.[44] Several were supported by the various colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, while others were promoted to bishoprics, deaneries and prebends through royal patronage.
The committees started work towards the end of 1604. King James I of England, on 22 July 1604, sent a letter to Archbishop Bancroft asking him to contact all English churchmen requesting that they make donations to his project.
Right trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. Whereas we have appointed certain learned men, to the number of 4 and 50, for the translating of the Bible, and in this number, divers of them have either no ecclesiastical preferment at all, or else so very small, as the same is far unmeet for men of their deserts and yet we in ourself in any convenient time cannot well remedy it, therefor we do hereby require you, that presently you write in our name as well to the Archbishop of York, as to the rest of the bishops of the province of Cant.[erbury] signifying unto them, that we do well and straitly charge everyone of them ... that (all excuses set apart) when a prebend or parsonage ... shall next upon any occasion happen to be void ... we may commend for the same some such of the learned men, as we shall think fit to be preferred unto it ... Given unto our signet at our palace of West.[minister] on 2 and 20 July , in the 2nd year of our reign of England, France, and of Ireland, and of Scotland xxxvii."[47]
They had all completed their sections by 1608, the Apocrypha committee finishing first.[48] From January 1609, a General Committee of Review met at Stationers' Hall, London to review the completed marked texts from each of the six committees. The General Committee included John Bois, Andrew Downes and John Harmar, and others known only by their initials, including "AL" (who may be Arthur Lake), and were paid for their attendance by the Stationers' Company. John Bois prepared a note of their deliberations (in Latin) – which has partly survived in two later transcripts.[49] Also surviving is a bound-together set of marked-up corrections to one of the forty Bishops' Bibles – covering the Old Testament and Gospels,[50] and also a manuscript translation of the text of the Epistles, excepting those verses where no change was being recommended to the readings in the Bishops' Bible.[51] Archbishop Bancroft insisted on having a final say, making fourteen changes, of which one was the term "bishopricke" at Acts 1:20.[52]
The original printing of the Authorized Version was published by Robert Barker, the King's Printer, in 1611 as a complete folio Bible.[55] It was sold looseleaf for ten shillings, or bound for twelve.[56] Robert Barker's father, Christopher, had, in 1589, been granted by Elizabeth I the title of royal Printer,[57] with the perpetual Royal Privilege to print Bibles in England.[b] Robert Barker invested very large sums in printing the new edition, and consequently ran into serious debt,[58] such that he was compelled to sub-lease the privilege to two rival London printers, Bonham Norton and John Bill.[59] It appears that it was initially intended that each printer would print a portion of the text, share printed sheets with the others, and split the proceeds. Bitter financial disputes broke out, as Barker accused Norton and Bill of concealing their profits, while Norton and Bill accused Barker of selling sheets properly due to them as partial Bibles for ready money.[60] There followed decades of continual litigation, and consequent imprisonment for debt for members of the Barker and Norton printing dynasties,[60] while each issued rival editions of the whole Bible. In 1629 the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge successfully managed to assert separate and prior royal licences for Bible printing, for their own university presses – and Cambridge University took the opportunity to print revised editions of the Authorized Version in 1629,[61] and 1638.[62] The editors of these editions included John Bois and John Ward from the original translators. This did not, however, impede the commercial rivalries of the London printers, especially as the Barker family refused to allow any other printers access to the authoritative manuscript of the Authorized Version.[63]
Two editions of the whole Bible are recognized as having been produced in 1611, which may be distinguished by their rendering of Ruth 3:15; the first edition reading "he went into the city", where the second reads "she went into the city.";[64] these are known colloquially as the "He" and "She" Bibles.[65] However, Bibles in all the early editions were made up using sheets originating from several printers, and consequently there is very considerable variation[dubious ] within any one edition. It is only in 1613 that an edition is found,[66] all of whose surviving representatives have substantially the same text.[67]
The original printing was made before English spelling was standardized, and when printers, as a matter of course, expanded and contracted the spelling of the same words in different places, so as to achieve an even column of text.[68] They set v for initial u and v, and u for u and v everywhere else. They used long ſ for non-final s.[69] The glyph j occurs only after i, as in the final letter in a Roman numeral. Punctuation was relatively heavy, and differed from current practice. When space needed to be saved, the printers sometimes used ye for the, (replacing the Middle English thorn with the continental y), set ã for an or am (in the style of scribe's shorthand), and set & for and. On the contrary, on a few occasions, they appear to have inserted these words when they thought a line needed to be padded. Later printings regularized these spellings; the punctuation has also been standardized, but still varies from current usage norms.
The first printing used a black letter typeface instead of a roman typeface, which itself made a political and a religious statement. Like the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible, the Authorized Version was "appointed to be read in churches". It was a large folio volume meant for public use, not private devotion; the weight of the type mirrored the weight of establishment authority behind it.[citation needed] However, smaller editions and roman-type editions followed rapidly, e.g. quarto roman-type editions of the Bible in 1612.[70] This contrasted with the Geneva Bible, which was the first English Bible printed in a roman typeface (although black-letter editions, particularly in folio format, were issued later).
In contrast to the Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible, which had both been extensively illustrated, there were no illustrations at all in the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version, the main form of decoration being the historiated initial letters provided for books and chapters – together with the decorative title pages to the Bible itself, and to the New Testament.
The original printing of the Authorized Version used roman type to distinguish text supplied by translators, or thought needful for English grammar but not present in the Greek or Hebrew. In the first printing, the device of having different type faces to show supplied words was used sparsely and inconsistently. This is perhaps the most significant difference between the original text and the current text. When, from the later 17th century onwards, the Authorized Version began to be printed in roman type, the typeface for supplied words was changed to italics.
The original printing contained two prefatory texts; the first was a formal Epistle Dedicatory to "the most high and mighty Prince" King James. Many British printings reproduce this, while most non-British printings fail to include it.
The second preface was called Translators to the Reader, a long and learned essay that defends the undertaking of the new version. It observes the translators' stated goal, that they, "never thought from the beginning that [they] should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been [their] endeavour, that [their] mark." They also give their opinion of previous English Bible translations, stating, "We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs [Roman Catholics] of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." As with the first preface, some British printings reproduce this, while most non-British printings fail to include it. Almost every printing that includes the second preface also includes the first. The first printing contained a number of other apparatus, including a table for the reading of the Psalms at matins and evensong, and a calendar, an almanac, and a table of holy days and observances. Much of this material became obsolete with the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar by Britain and its colonies in 1752, and thus modern editions invariably omit it.
So as to make it easier to locate a particular passage, each chapter was headed by a brief precis of its contents with verse numbers. Later editors freely substituted their own chapter summaries, or omit such material entirely. Pilcrow marks are used to indicate the beginnings of paragraphs except after the book of Acts.
The Authorized Version was meant to replace the Bishops' Bible as the official version for readings in the Church of England. No record of its authorization exists; it was probably effected by an order of the Privy Council but the records for the years 1600 to 1613 were destroyed by fire in January 1618/19[10] and it is commonly known as the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom. The King's Printer issued no further editions of the Bishops' Bible,[citation needed] so necessarily the Authorized Version replaced it as the standard lectern Bible in parish church use in England.
In the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer, the text of the Authorized Version finally supplanted that of the Great Bible in the Epistle and Gospel readings[71] – though the Prayer Book Psalter nevertheless continues in the Great Bible version.[72]
The case was different in Scotland, where the Geneva Bible had long been the standard church bible. It was not until 1633 that a Scottish edition of the Authorized Version was printed – in conjunction with the Scots coronation in that year of Charles I.[73] The inclusion of illustrations in the edition raised accusations of Popery from opponents of the religious policies of Charles and William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury. However, official policy favoured the Authorized Version, and this favour returned during the Commonwealth – as London printers succeeded in re-asserting their monopoly of Bible printing with support from Oliver Cromwell – and the "New Translation" was the only edition on the market.[74] F.F. Bruce reports that the last recorded instance of a Scots parish continuing to use the "Old Translation" (i.e. Geneva) as being in 1674.[75]
The Authorized Version's acceptance by the general public took longer. The Geneva Bible continued to be popular, and large numbers were imported from Amsterdam, where printing continued up to 1644 in editions carrying a false London imprint.[76] However, few if any genuine Geneva editions appear to have been printed in London after 1616, and in 1637 Archbishop Laud prohibited their printing or importation. In the period of the English Civil War, soldiers of the New Model Army were issued a book of Geneva selections called "The Soldiers' Bible" .[77] In the first half of the 17th century the Authorized Version is most commonly referred to as "The Bible without notes", thereby distinguishing it from the Geneva "Bible with notes". There were several printings of the Authorized Version in Amsterdam – one as late as 1715 [78] which combined the Authorized Version translation text with the Geneva marginal notes;[79] one such edition was printed in London in 1649. During the Commonwealth a commission was established by Parliament to recommend a revision of the Authorized Version with acceptably Protestant explanatory notes,[76] but the project was abandoned when it became clear that these would be nearly double the bulk of the Bible text. After the English Restoration, the Geneva Bible was held to be politically suspect and a reminder of the repudiated Puritan era. Furthermore, disputes over the lucrative rights to print the Authorized Version dragged on through the 17th century, so none of the printers involved saw any commercial advantage in marketing a rival translation. The Authorized Version became the only current version circulating among English speaking people.
A small minority of critical scholars were slow to accept the latest translation. Hugh Broughton, the most highly regarded English Hebraist of his time (but who had been excluded from the panel of translators because of his utterly uncongenial temperament), issued in 1611 a total condemnation of the new version,[80] criticizing especially the translators' rejection of word-for-word equivalence and stated that "he would rather be torn in pieces by wild horses than that this abominable translation (KJV) should ever be foisted upon the English people".[81] Walton's London Polyglot of 1657 disregards the Authorized Version (and indeed the English Language) entirely.[82] Walton's reference text throughout is the Vulgate. The Vulgate Latin is also found as the standard text of scripture in Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan of 1651,[83] indeed Hobbes gives Vulgate chapter and verse numbers (e.g., Job 41:24, not Job 41:33) for his head text. In Chapter 35: 'The Signification in Scripture of Kingdom of God' , Hobbes discusses Exodus 19:5, first in his own translation of the 'Vulgar Latin' , and then subsequently as found in the versions he terms "...the English translation made in the beginning of the reign of King James", and "The Geneva French" (i.e. Olivétan). Hobbes advances detailed critical arguments why the Vulgate rendering is to be preferred. For most of the 17th century the assumption remained that, while it had been of vital importance to provide the scriptures in the vernacular for ordinary people, nevertheless for those with sufficient education to do so, Biblical study was best undertaken within the international common medium of Latin. It was only in 1700 that modern bilingual Bibles appeared in which the Authorized Version was compared with counterpart Dutch and French Protestant vernacular Bibles.[84]
In consequence of the continual disputes over printing privileges, successive printings of the Authorized Version were notably less careful than the 1611 edition had been – compositors freely varying spelling, capitalization and punctuation[85] – and also, over the years, introducing about 1,500 misprints (some of which, like the omission of "not" from the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in the "Wicked Bible",[86] became notorious). The two Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638 attempted to restore the proper text – while introducing over 200 revisions of the original translators' work, chiefly by incorporating into the main text a more literal reading originally presented as a marginal note.[87] A more thoroughly corrected edition was proposed following the Restoration, in conjunction with the revised 1662 Book of Common Prayer, but Parliament then decided against it.
By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the sole English translation in current use in Protestant churches,[8] and was so dominant that the Roman Catholic Church in England issued in 1750 a revision of the 1610 Douay-Rheims Bible by Richard Challoner that was very much closer to the Authorized Version than to the original.[88] However, general standards of spelling, punctuation, typesetting, capitalization and grammar had changed radically in the 100 years since the first edition of the Authorized Version, and all printers in the market were introducing continual piecemeal changes to their Bible texts to bring them into line with current practice – and with public expectations of standardized spelling and grammatical construction.[89]
Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Hebrew, Greek and the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars and divines, and indeed came to be regarded by some as an inspired text in itself – so much so that any challenge to its readings or textual base came to be regarded by many as an assault on Holy Scripture.[90] This has been contemptuously labelled "AVolatry", a play on the name "Authorized Version" (AV) and idolatry.[91]
By the mid-18th century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1760, the culmination of twenty-years work by Francis Sawyer Parris,[92] who died in May of that year. This 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762 [93] and in John Baskerville's fine folio edition of 1763.[94] This was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited by Benjamin Blayney ,[95] though with comparatively few changes from the 1760 edition, which became the Oxford standard text, and is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.[96] Parris and Blayney sought consistently to remove those elements of the 1611 and subsequent editions that they believed were due to the vagaries of printers, while incorporating most of the revised readings of the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and each also introducing a few improved readings of their own. They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text; although some of these updates appear to alter the ostensible sense – as when the original text of Genesis 2:21 "in stead" ("in that place") was standardized to read "instead" ("as an alternative"). In addition, Blayney and Parris thoroughly revised and greatly extended the italicization of "supplied" words not found in the original languages by cross-checking against the presumed source texts. Blayney seems to have worked from the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than the later editions of Beza that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had favoured; accordingly the current Oxford standard text alters around a dozen italicizations where Beza and Stephanus differ.[97] Like the 1611 edition, the 1769 Oxford edition included the Apocrypha, although Blayney tended to remove cross-references to the Books of the Apocrypha from the margins of their Old and New Testaments wherever these had been provided by the original translators. Altogether, Blayney's 1769 text differed from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.[98] Since that date, a few further changes have been introduced to the Oxford standard text. The Oxford University Press paperback edition of the "Authorized King James Version" provides Oxford's standard text, and also includes the prefatory section "The Translators to the Reader".[99]
The 1611 and 1769 texts of the first three verses from I Corinthians 13 are given below, respectively.
1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.
1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
In these three verses, there are eleven changes of spelling, sixteen changes of typesetting (including the changed conventions for the use of u and v), three changes of punctuation, and one variant text – where "not charity" is substituted for "no charity" in verse two, in the erroneous belief that the original reading was a misprint.
A particular verse for which Blayney's 1769 text differs from Parris's 1760 version is Matthew 5: 13, where Parris (1760) has
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be troden under foot of men.
Blayney (1769) changes 'lost his savour' to 'lost its savour', and troden to trodden.
For a period, Cambridge continued to issue Bibles using the Parris text, but the market demand for absolute standardization was now such that they eventually adapted Blayney's work, but omitted some of the idiosyncratic Oxford spellings. By the mid-19th century, almost all printings of the Authorized Version were derived from the 1769 Oxford text – increasingly without Blayney's variant notes and cross references, and commonly excluding the Apocrypha.[100] One exception to this was a scrupulous original-spelling, page-for-page, and line-for-line reprint of the 1611 edition (including all chapter headings, marginalia, and original italicization, but with Roman type substituted for the black letter of the original), published by Oxford in 1833.[c] Another important exception was the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, thoroughly revised, modernized and re-edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, who for the first time consistently identified the source texts underlying the 1611 translation and its marginal notes.[102] Scrivener, unlike Blayney, opted to revise the translation where he considered the judgement of the 1611 translators had been faulty.[103] In 2005, Cambridge University Press released its New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with Apocrypha, edited by David Norton, which followed in the spirit of Scrivener's work, attempting to bring spelling to present-day standards. Norton also innovated with the introduction of quotation marks, while returning to a hypothetical 1611 text, so far as possible, to the wording used by its translators, especially in the light of the re-emphasis on some of their draft documents.[104] This text has been issued in paperback by Penguin books.[105]
From the early nineteenth century the Authorized Version has remained almost completely unchanged – and since, due to advances in printing technology, it could now be produced in very large editions for mass sale, it established complete dominance in public and ecclesiastical use in the English-speaking Protestant world. Academic debate through that century, however, increasingly reflected concerns about the Authorized Version shared by some scholars: (a) that subsequent study in oriental languages suggested a need to revise the translation of the Hebrew Bible – both in terms of specific vocabulary, and also in distinguishing descriptive terms from proper names; (b) that the Authorized Version was unsatisfactory in translating the same Greek words and phrases into different English, especially where parallel passages are found in the synoptic gospels; and (c) in the light of subsequent ancient manuscript discoveries, the New Testament translation base of the Greek Textus Receptus could no longer be considered to be the best representation of the original text.[106]
Responding to these concerns, the Convocation of Canterbury resolved in 1870 to undertake a revision of the text of the Authorized Version, intending to retain the original text "except where in the judgement of competent scholars such a change is necessary". The resulting revision was issued as the Revised Version in 1881 (New Testament), 1885 (Old Testament) and 1894 (Apocrypha); but, although it sold widely, the revision did not find popular favour, and it was only reluctantly in 1899 that Convocation approved it for reading in churches.[107]
By the early twentieth century, editing had been completed in Cambridge's text, with at least 6 new changes since 1769, and the reversing of at least 30 of the standard Oxford readings. The distinct Cambridge text was printed in the millions, and after the Second World War "the unchanging steadiness of the KJB was a huge asset."[108] The Cambridge edition is preferred by scholars.[109]
The Authorized Version maintained its effective dominance throughout the first half of the 20th century. New translations in the second half of the 20th century displaced its 250 years of dominance (roughly 1700 to 1950),[110] but groups do exist – sometimes termed the King James Only movement – that distrust anything not in agreement with ("that changes") the Authorized Version.[111]
F. H. A. Scrivener and D. Norton have both written in detail on editorial variations which have occurred through the history of the publishing of the Authorized Version from 1611 to 1769. In the 19th century, there were effectively three main guardians of the text. Norton identified five variations among the Oxford, Cambridge and London (Eyre and Spottiswoode) texts of 1857, such as the spelling of "farther" or "further" at Matthew 26:29.[112]
In the 20th century, variations between the editions was reduced to comparing the Cambridge to the Oxford. Distinctly identified Cambridge readings included "or Sheba" (Joshua 19:2), "sin" (2 Chronicles 33:19), "clifts" (Job 30:6), "vapour" (Psalm 148:8), "flieth" (Nahum 3:16), "further" (Matthew 26:39) and a number of other references. In effect the Cambridge was considered the current text in comparison to the Oxford.[113]
Cambridge University Press introduced a change at 1 John 5:8 in 1985 reverting its longstanding tradition of having the word "spirit" in lower case to have a capital letter "S".[114] It has also done the same in some of its publications in Acts 11:12 and 11:28. These are instances where both Oxford and Cambridge have now altered away from Blayney's 1769 Edition. The distinctions between the Oxford and Cambridge editions has been a major point in the Bible version debate.[109] Differences among Cambridge editions, in the 21st century, has become a potential theological issue,[115] particularly in regard to the identification of the Pure Cambridge Edition.[116]
Like Tyndale's translation and the Geneva Bible, the Authorized Version was translated primarily from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, although with secondary reference both to the Latin Vulgate, and to more recent scholarly Latin versions; two books of the Apocrypha were translated from a Latin source. Following the example of the Geneva Bible, words implied but not actually in the original source were distinguished by being printed in distinct type (albeit inconsistently), but otherwise the translators explicitly rejected word-for-word equivalence.[117] F.F Bruce gives an example from Romans Chapter 5:[118]
2 By whom also wee have accesse by faith, into this grace wherein wee stand, and rejoyce in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not onely so, but we glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulation worketh patience:
The English terms "rejoice" and "glory" stand for the same word in the Greek original. In Tyndale, Geneva and the Bishops' Bibles, both instances are translated "rejoice". In the Douay – Rheims New Testament, both are translated "glory". Only in the Authorized Version does the translation vary between the two verses.
In obedience to their instructions, the translators provided no marginal interpretation of the text, but in some 8,500 places a marginal note offers an alternative English wording.[119] The majority of these notes offer a more literal rendering of the original (introduced as "Heb", "Chal", "Gr" or "Lat"), but others indicate a variant reading of the source text (introduced by "or"). Some of the annotated variants derive from alternative editions in the original languages, or from variant forms quoted in the fathers. More commonly, though, they indicate a difference between the original language reading and that in the translators' preferred recent Latin versions: Tremellius for the Old Testament, Junius for the Apocrypha, and Beza for the New Testament.[120] A few more extensive notes clarify Biblical names, units of measurement or currency, and in a very few places (e.g. Luke 17:36) record that a verse is absent from most Greek manuscripts. Modern reprintings rarely reproduce these annotated variants – although they are to be found in the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. In addition, there were originally some 9,000 scriptural cross-references, in which one text was related to another. Such cross-references had long been common in Latin Bibles, and most of those in the Authorized Version were copied unaltered from this Latin tradition. Consequently the early editions of the KJV retain many Vulgate verse references – e.g. in the numbering of the Psalms.[121] At the head of each chapter, the translators provided a short précis of its contents, with verse numbers; these are rarely included in complete form in modern editions.
In the Old Testament the translators render the Tetragrammaton YHWH by "the LORD" (in later editions in small capitals as LORD),[d] or "the LORD God" (for YHWH Elohim, יהוה אלהים),[e] except in four places by "IEHOVAH" (Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2 and Isaiah 26:4) and three times in a combination form. (Genesis 22:14, Exodus 17:15, Judges 6:24) However, if the Tetragrammaton occurs with the Hebrew word adonai (Lord) then it is render not as the "Lord LORD" but as the "Lord God". (Psalm 73:28,etc.) In later editions as "Lord GOD" with "GOD" in small capitals indicating to the reader that God's name appears in the original Hebrew.
For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[122] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[123] For example, the Septuagint reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my hands and feet"[124]). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text;[125] earlier versions had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places.
For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[126] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[127] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[128] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[129]
Unlike the rest of the Bible, the translators of the Apocrypha identified their source texts in their marginal notes.[130] From these it can be determined that the books of the Apocrypha were translated from the Septuagint – primarily, from the Greek Old Testament column in the Antwerp Polyglot – but with extensive reference to the counterpart Latin Vulgate text, and to Junius's Latin translation. The translators record references to the Sixtine Septuagint of 1587, which is substantially a printing of the Old Testament text from the Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, and also to the 1518 Greek Septuagint edition of Aldus Manutius. They had, however, no Greek texts for 2 Esdras, or for the Prayer of Manasses, and Scrivener found that they here used an unidentified Latin manuscript.
The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them.[131] In addition to all previous English versions (including, and contrary to their instructions,[132] the Rheimish New Testament[133] which in their preface they criticized); they made wide and eclectic use of all printed editions in the original languages then available, including the ancient Syriac New Testament printed with an interlinear Latin gloss in the Antwerp Polyglot of 1573.[134] In the preface the translators acknowledge consulting translations and commentaries in Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and German.[135]
The translators took the Bishop's Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishop's Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, as did the propensity of the King James translators to coin phrases of their own. John Bois's notes of the General Committee of Review show that they discussed readings derived from a wide variety of sources and versions, including explicitly both Henry Savile's 1610 edition of the works of John Chrysostom, and also the Rheims New Testament,[136] which was the primary source for many of the literal alternative readings provided for the marginal notes.
A number of Bible verses in the King James Version of the New Testament are not found in recent Bible translations based on modern critical texts. In the early seventeenth century printed Greek texts of the New Testament depended on manuscripts of the late Byzantine text-type and with minor variations contained what is known as the Textus Receptus.[137] With the discovery of many early manuscripts, most modern textual scholars value the evidence of manuscripts belonging to the Alexandrian family as better witnesses to the original text of the biblical authors,[138] without giving it, or any family, automatic preference.[139]
A primary concern of the translators was to produce a Bible that would be appropriate, dignified and resonant in public reading. 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".[140]
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.[141] The pronouns thou/thee and 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).[142] For the possessive of the third person pronoun, the word its, first recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1598, is avoided.[143] The older his is usually employed, as for example at Matthew 5:13: "if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?";[143] in other places of it, thereof or bare it are found.[f] Another sign of linguistic conservativism 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 appeareth 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).[145] Furthermore, the translators preferred which to who or whom as the relative pronoun for persons, as in Genesis 13:5: "And Lot also which went with Abram, had flocks and heards, & tents"[146] although who(m) is also found.[g]
The Authorized Version is notably more Latinate than previous English versions,[132] 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.[147] 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 Rheims New Testament, whose translators had also been concerned to find English equivalents for Latin terminology.[148] In addition, the translators of the New Testament books habitually quote Old Testament names in the renderings familiar from the Vulgate Latin, rather than in their Hebrew forms (e.g. "Elias", "Jeremias" for "Elijah", "Jeremiah").
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.[149] 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 is referring throughout to mining operations, which is not at all apparent from the text of the Authorized Version.[150]
Despite royal patronage and encouragement, there was never any overt mandate to use the new translation. It was not until 1661 that the Authorized Version replaced the Bishops Bible in the Epistle and Gospel lessons of the Book of Common Prayer, and it never did replace the older translation in the Psalter. In 1763 The Critical Review complained that "many false interpretations, ambiguous phrases, obsolete words and indelicate expressions...excite the derision of the scorner". Blayney's 1769 version, with its revised spelling and punctuation, helped to change the public perception of the Authorized Version to a masterpiece of the English language.[140] By the 19th century, F. W. Faber could say of the translation, "It lives on the ear, like music that can never be forgotten, like the sound of church bells, which the convert hardly knows how he can forego."[151]
The Authorized Version has been called "the most influential version of the most influential book in the world, in what is now its most influential language", "the most important book in English religion and culture", and "the most celebrated book in the English-speaking world". It has contributed 257 idioms to English, more than any other single source, including Shakespeare; examples include feet of clay and reap the whirlwind. Although the Authorized Version's former monopoly in the English-speaking world has diminished – for example, the Church of England recommends six other versions in addition to it – it is still the most popular translation in the United States, especially among Evangelicals.[140] In addition, in the Orthodox Church in America, the King James Version is used liturgically, and was made "the 'official' translation for a whole generation of American Orthodox". The later Service Book of the Antiochian Archdiocese, in vogue today, also uses the King James Version.[h]
The Authorized Version is in the public domain in most of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is a Royal prerogative and the Crown licenses publishers to reproduce it under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for centuries, the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In the 18th century all surviving interests in the monopoly were bought out by John Baskett. The Baskett rights descended through a number of printers and, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Queen's Printer is now Cambridge University Press, who inherited the right when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in 1990.[153]
Other royal charters of similar antiquity grant Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press the right to produce the Authorized Version independently of the Queen's Printer. In Scotland the Authorized Version is published by Collins under licence from the Scottish Bible Board. The terms of the letters patent prohibit any other than the holders, or those authorized by the holders, from printing, publishing or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom. The protection that the Authorized Version, and also the Book of Common Prayer, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.[153] All provisions granting copyright in perpetuity were abolished by the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, but under transitional arrangements (Schedule I, section 13(1)) these printing rights do not fully expire until 2039.
Cambridge University Press permits the reproduction of at most 500 verses for "liturgical and non-commercial educational use" if their prescribed acknowledgement is included, the quoted verses do not exceed 25% of the publication quoting them and do not include a complete Bible book.[154] For use beyond this, the Press is willing to consider permission requested on a case-by-case basis and in 2011 a spokesman said the Press generally does not charge a fee but tries to ensure that a reputable source text is used.[155][156]
English-language Protestant Bibles in the 16th century included the books of the Apocrypha – generally in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments to indicate they were not part of the Old Testament text – and there is evidence that these were widely read as popular literature, especially in Puritan circles.[157][158] However, starting in 1630, volumes of the Geneva Bible were occasionally bound with the pages of the Apocrypha section excluded. In 1644 the Long Parliament forbade the reading of the Apocrypha in Church and in 1666 the first editions of the King James Bible without the Apocrypha were bound.[159]
The standardization of the text of the Authorized Version after 1769 together with the technological development of stereotype printing made it possible to produce Bibles in large-print runs at very low unit prices. For commercial and charitable publishers, editions of the Authorized Version without the Apocrypha reduced the cost, while having increased market appeal to non-Anglican Protestant readers.[160]
With the rise of the Bible societies, most editions have omitted the whole section of Apocryphal books.[161] The British and Foreign Bible Society withdrew subsidies for bible printing and dissemination in 1826, under the following resolution:
"That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the Canonical Books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those Books and parts of Books usually termed Apocryphal;"[162]
The American Bible Society adopted a similar policy. Both societies eventually reversed these policies in light of 20th century ecumenical efforts on translations, the ABS doing so in 1964 and the BFBS in 1966.[163]
Chronological order of publication (newest first)
Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
Wikimedia Commons has media related to King James Bible. |


text:
great holes that are challenging and lots of fun to play. Some like to call this a hidden gem. - Golf Digest Website
Fall Special - greens fees $25 / $40 with cart.
Event Calendar
Copyright © 2008 Lakewood Golf Course - All Rights Reserved.Site Creation: Maine Custom Design 04/23/08

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Peachy announces that it's just one week until the premiere when "sixteen strangers" will go on the "adventure of a lifetime." Does he use this same speech every time? In this episode, we'll meet the new cast, see clips from their audition tapes, and view an "exclusive preview." I don't believe he uses the word "special" in this whole introduction, so maybe he got my point. And I guess the concept of an "exclusive preview" loses its punch when the first episode has already aired. I tried to make it, I really did, but that infernal DVD got the best of me. Peachy also says we'll hear from the men and women of the first two seasons. They'll "talk straight" and "reveal their personal secrets." I don't think I want to know Sue Hawk's personal secrets.
"First there was the island," according to a melodramatic Peachy. We see clips from Pulau Tiga. And there's Rudy! "Then there was the Outback." We see clips from Australia. And there's Rodger! "Ahead," according to Peachy, lies the "greatest adventure yet." I think I'd feel pretty slighted if I was on one of the other seasons, but then again, it is Africa.
Peachy looks like he's been on the Survivor Diet. He's all head. So this special is the "insider's guide" to "how to watch, whom to watch, and what to watch for." If I were in Africa, I'd be watching out for elephant dung, but then again, mammoth piles of shit are hard to miss. Peachy tells us that we'll get help from the people who know best that the "battle begins the very first moment." Different Survivors say the same thing different ways. We see the ship that abandoned the Pulau Tiga crew, and the plane that abandoned the Outback gang. A long-haired Gretchen tells us that her survival skills counted for nothing out there. Well, they did count for something -- her obvious competency led to a premature demise. Gervase says it's important not to piss anyone off. He doesn't say it's important to work hard, which would have been funny. Jeff Varner says that you don't need a leader, but Kimmi points out that "you don't want to be too much of a weak link," either. They're not all in the same place when they comment, but it's pieced together to make it look and sound like it's a group conversation in which none of them is listening to each other. Were they all actually in the same place, the conversation would pretty much go the same way.


text:
By Section
- Selected:
BuckeyeNation - All Sections
- Selected:
By Columnist
- Selected:
- All Columnists
- Selected:
By Insider
- Selected:
Non Insider - All Insiders
- Selected:
6 results for "kent state"
Duncan part of a talented extended family
Brad BournivalCOLUMBUS, Ohio -- Right now, Malik Duncan (Cleveland/Central Catholic) is losing the burrito battle. That could change in the coming months, however, as the 5-foot-8, 167-pound Duncan continues to blow up on the recruiting scene. A first cousin...
Blog | June 10, 2013 -
Ohio State offers 6-foot-5 wide receiver
Brad BournivalIn his words, his pursuit of the big one is over. Derek Kief (Cincinnati/La Salle) landed the big one Thursday. It came when Ohio State offered the 6-foot-5, 180-pound wide receiver, and it hit home right away for the in-state star. "It mea...
Blog | February 14, 2013 -
What if ... OSU lost Fickell and Coombs?
Brad BournivalThe "what if" scenarios regarding college football are a revolving door this time of year. Boston College, Temple, Auburn, Kent State, Wisconsin and Tennessee are just a few schools hit with coaching changes in the last few weeks. Those changes co...
Blog | December 07, 2012 -
Recruiting notebook: OSU very busy
Brad BournivalOhio State is on the road, but that doesn't mean the Buckeyes don't have a chance to impress this weekend. Inside linebacker Clifton Garrett (Plainfield, Ill./Plainfield South) is planning an unofficial trip to East Lansing, Mich. to see the Bucke...
Blog | September 27, 2012 -
Massillon duo ready for OSU football
Brad BournivalMassillon, Ohio, has always been a football crazy town, but nothing prepared Washington High juniors Nathaniel Devers and Marcus Whitfield for what they saw Saturday. On unofficial visits to Ohio State for the Buckeyes' 31-16 win over the Universi...
Blog | September 10, 2012 -
Fritts, Berger dream in scarlet and gray
Brad BournivalBrandon Fritts (Mentor, Ohio/Mentor) and his teammate Kent Berger don't want to dream just yet, but there is a gleam. Both juniors for the Cardinals, each has interest from Ohio State as they head into the mid-portion of the season, and it is inte...
Blog | September 10, 2012


text:
#F1 Fat Hippo: Sad Joke of German Courts.
Fat Hippo's Rant: I don't want to live in this country anymore
Welcome to the Federal Banana Republic of Nordschleifistan. Since late noon of August 5th Germany is officially a joke – and a bad one at that.
The rumours that Bernard Ecclestone, who can now hardly be considered anything but a career criminal, would be buying his way out of a bribery charge had been around since Friday. Despite this, there were many who believed that justice would prevail.
Alas it didn't and the 'system' was perfectly manipulated by Ecclestone to not only bribe his way out of jail, but also delivered a painful blow to Mr. Gribkowsky's nether regions. The sheer ruthlessness of this despicable individual shows in the fact that his get-out-of-jail card comes at the cost of making sure that Gribkowsky stays in it by making sure he can't appeal his own sentence.
Then again, maybe Gribkowsky deserves everything that's coming his way – and then some.
It all began with the fact that Mr. Gribkowsky was a corporate officer of BayernLB – and since BayernLB means "State Bank of Bavaria" – it means he was a state official. This was relevant to both trials because bribing a state official carries a much higher sentence than other bribery offences, up to 10 years for both parties.
Gribkowsky was given the task to sell BayernLB's shares in F1 for as high a price as possible. To find willing buyers he asked the one man who could broker such a deal – B. Ecclestone.
For his services Mr. E was paid a commission of 60.000.000 Euros, of which he kicked back 44 million to Gribkowsky in the guise of 'consultant fees' to motivate Gribkowsky to sell to CVC.
Donald McKenzies private equity firm though offered less than the shares were actually worth, yet as a buyer they were more palatable to Mr. E's taste as this would allow him to remain at the helm of F1.
Other bidders had 'sack Ecclestone' as the top item of their to-do list. As a result, CVC got the shares for 290.000.000 Euros less than what they were worth on the market. Irony of ironies, the slimy toad did not even bribe Gribkowsky with his own money – he made a 16 million profit from it!
The scandal was huge and rather uncomfortable for Bavaria's government as they own BayernLB and the whole matter came to light just prior to a parliament election. BayernLB pressed charges of corruption, accepting a bribe and breach of trust against Gribkowsky, who was later sentenced to eight and a half years in prison by the Bavarian State Court, chaired by Judge Noll.
The eight year sentence was actually the result of mitigating circumstances for Gribkowsky's full admission of guilt and the accompanying testimony.
Whenever there's a bribe, there is a 'briber' and 'bribee', so dutifully the department of public prosecution Munich, headed up by chief investigator Manfred Nötzel, pressed for charges of bribing a state official, fraud and incitement of corporate breach of trust, to be brought against Ecclestone.
The case was clear-cut. Gribkowsky had confessed and explained Ecclestone's involvement. And Gribkowsky's testimony, that Mr. E mocked him as "civil servant" made it clear that E knew of Gribkowskys official status.
Interestingly, the legal shysters of Mr. E argued that he could not know that Gribkowsky was a state official and would be eligible to answer for lower count of 'ordinary bribery'.
Further, Ecclestone's 'tricky' defense argued that Gribkowsky had ostensibly threatened Mr E that he would inform her Majesties Treasury about the short one's tax skulduggery. Poor Mr E was now a victim of ze Germans.
Mmm. Difficult to believe if one makes a deal with a high-ranking official of a state-owned bank, you cannot know that he's a state-official? If someone was so senile, he'd barely be able to navigate his way through, let's say, a revolving door.
More irony, in room 101 in Munich the Ecclestone case is heard. The prosecution's central witness – Gribkowsky – enters the fray. Suddenly, he doesn't remember that E has ever called him a "civil servant" or some such derivative insult.
Suddenly, Gibkowsky is of the opinion that the deal had in fact not been disadvantageous for the bank. In fact now, this was "a monumental deal, completely without alternative".
When a bewildered Judge asked Gribkowsky why the heck had E bothered to bribe him, the answer was, "I've never really asked myself that question."
Suddenly, Gribkowsky remembered that he had actually given hints to E that the British fiscal authorities might be interested in his business dealings and that he once had left a note about the matter on Ecclestone's desk. When Noll wanted to know what the note said, Mr. Gribkowsky's memory short-circuited.
At that point Ecclestone and his legal eagles were actually sneering, while the state prosecutor looked rather unwell.
So why did Gribkowsky make a U-turn?
Option one is that he is still getting 'consultant fees'.
Option Two is that E has sent word to him that he would have his parts gold-plated by a lovely bearded lady called Wolfgang, if his testimony didn't look a little more favourably than last time.
The third – and most likely – option is, that Gribkowsky tried helping to get E acquitted, because now the state prosecution will be forced to re-open his own bribery case. Simples… no longer is there a 'briber', so how can there be a 'bribee'.
It is certain after having the scare of his life, Mr E may look favorably on any further legal fees his ex-colleague may require.
Now the prosecution is in the proverbial doo dah. They can slog on for the chance of maybe getting E sentenced to two or three years, then suspended because of his age.
However, there was also the risk Ecclestone would be acquitted, due to crowd thrilling disappearing act of the evidence from Gribkowsky.
This would then possibly lead to Gribkowsky being acquitted on appeal, and adding insult to injury, receiving compensation for porridge time.
Backed into a corner, the prosecution took the best option available when E's snake in the grass representatives abused §153a (Suspending prosecution of a criminal offense under conditions).
So the legal system of Germany is now seen by the world to be accepting the offered 100.000.000 bribe.
The unceremonious end leaves the unsavory prospect a crime state is aware of the culprit, but he cannot be prosecuted.
When the dust settles, E was neither acquitted, nor convicted. The perception may be that he's just a criminal that the German state finds too bothersome a process to incarcerate.
Technically the deal done by E is acceptable under German law.
Paragraph 153 of the Code of criminal procedure has a purposeful functionality. Thousands of cases a year see normal people who have driven whilst drunk and damaged other cars while doing so. The state could start criminal proceedings but are unable to charge the driver unless they catch him while still behind the wheel.
Often the cars are only identified much later and the registered owner then claims someone other than they were driving.
Per German law, you don't have to incriminate family members. In such cases the trial s no starting point. The owner pays a hefty fine and must attend refresher lessons in a driving school – the crime is still there but it won't be prosecuted.
Last year nearly 150.000 trials were settled by deals according §153a. To use an #F1 analogy – the Ecclestone settlement is perfectly within the law, but light years beyond the spirit intended.
The prosecution used the cheap cop-out to make sure they don't have to acquit Ecclestone and mitigate any counter-action from Gribkowsky.
E&G – are two criminals who have sought and found each other.
Mercedes-Benz may now be in a bit of a fix. They German's have made great capital from threatening to withdraw from F1 were Ecclestone to remain in the sport when found guilty.
E has dodged that bullet, yet he was neither acquitted.
He just paid a hell of a lot of money to make the bad men go away.
The crime was done and Bernie did it.
Were Mercedes-Benz to follow their Corporate Compliance rules to the letter, they will have to seriously consider leaving Formula 1. Even though E has mitigated his position, this blot on his copybook means he cannot be considered ethical clean.
Back when all this came to light, Merc as an F1 competitor were a sorry state and so the threat to withdraw from the sport was of little consequence.
Now, F1 world domination is within their grasp for years to come, so their response maybe rather more muted.
However it is viewed, E's return to the throne of F1 is disastrous news and the sycophantic slime bags, like Lauda, will sing his praises in unison, like the Vienna boys choir performing a rendition of the hallelujah chorus.
This remains the task of the fans to voice our disapproval. Whilst CNN 'didn't have the balls to call this as it is, they quoted a a number of the thousands of F1 fans on twitter, describing this outcome as the 'irony of ironies', that sees E paying the German legal system to drop the bribery charges against him.
Yet the reality is the voice of the fans is ignored. Whiting dismissed us recently on the basis that the F1 pro's understand more properly the effect of the regulations.
So, must we now petition the grim reaper, to see justice done, and to see F1 liberated from the torment that goes by the name of Bernard Charles Ecclestone.
Sources: Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Rundschau, Strafprozeßordnung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Comment: A very disillusioned Hippo, edited by thejudge
71 Responses to "#F1 Fat Hippo: Sad Joke of German Courts."
"…sycophantic slime bags, like Lauda…" Come on! You are overly critical here, to say the least. Anyway, your anger is fully justified regarding Mr E. I believe that the trial procedure and the verdict might backfire against Bernie.
The fact that you believe in justice against the wealthy and the powerful says more about you than about the trail. I mean what did you expect. That they would say no to that amount of money. Money rules the world. ..
The fact that Fat Hippo and His Lordship both believe in the principle of fair and equal justice for all, however unrealistic that is to cynics, is why I respect them both.After travelling the world a lot, I eventually came to the conclusion that the most valid test of a society, whether primitive or advanced, is the quality of its justice system.
Because everything else derives and evolves from that.
Still strange they didn't go for 100 million euro's.
For the rest, I didn't see this coming.
Granted that we're all unhappy at the outcome, you've got to however acknowledge the canniness in which he went about it. In someways, it's hard to blame him, because had there not been the loophole within the legal system, then he would've definitely been convicted.
But in situations like this and that with his issue with HMRC, it's these gaps within the system, that people like Mr E and others have been able to use to their advantage and that's why he pays his lawyers and business adviser such vast sums yearly to exploit these for his benefit.
Sure everyone should be angry with this, but I think we should focus our anger towards the apparent rule makers. After all, only they would allow the head of the HMRC to leave and join one of the big 4 accounting and auditing firms in the world and then complain when high net worth individuals like Mr E pay little or no taxes.
If it was anyone of us in his situation and the loophole was there to be exploited, we wouldn't have hesitated to use.
It's not about loopholes, it's about different countries with different laws. My country – the Netherlands – holds (head) offices for Ikea, U2, Apple and Google, to name a few. Why? Because we want a chunk of their money. So we offer them lower fixed rate taxes and they come to us.
Other countries offer the same kind of facilities: cay man Islands, Liechtenstein etc.Tax avoidance is a necessity for any company, Bambino is no different.
Really, I don't like Bernie's division of money, extra loans, double points, DRS and sprinklers, but you don't have to be born Adolf to try to avoid taxes for your company.
Play the ball chaps, not the player.
Verstappen is correct. No laws been broken. Asocial or not, you, like he and I, vote for the morons who make the rules.
Its only a problem if you don't have the cash to hide in the first place.
Finally, Obama and Angela are two of the state heads who dislike the situation the most and for obvious reasons as they are missing out on billions in taxes.
Verstappens home is like mine. We use of the laws, legally, to allow companies to base themselves in our countries for tax reasons.
Europe is talking about tax harmonisation for corporate taxation in the future. Once that happens we'll have more wealth moving out of some countries into others. The wealthy will get wealthier and the poor will get poorer. Is that not asocial too?
If it was anyone of us in his situation and the loophole was there to be exploited, we wouldn't have hesitated to use.
So, if we were crooks, we'd be happy to get off ?
That's not exactly an earth shattering thought.
"So, if we were crooks, we'd be happy to get off ?"…..
Well wouldn't you be happy or you'd go to judge and say….
"No I committed the crime, I deserve to be locked up?"
No it's not earth shattering, but it's the reality we live in.
I wouldn't be expecting everyone's sympathy and/or acceptance.
While this case is egregious, it's hardly grounds to leave Germany.
After all, your former Chancellor took advantage of the same loophole:
"…Germany's sensational party finance scandal looks to have closed its last chapter on 2 March 2001, as former Chancellor Helmut Kohl entered a plea agreement in Bonn's Landgericht (Regional Criminal Court), requiring the legendary politician to pay a fine of DM 300,000 without having to answer the questions that lie at the heart of the 14 month criminal investigation into his acceptance of and failure to declare anonymous campaign donations. The Court resorted to an elegant procedural option that, when closely examined, raises a number of considerable concerns. In applying Section 153a of the Strafprozessordnung (German Federal Code of Criminal Procedure), the Court chose the tricky path between conviction and acquittal in a case that generated tremendous public interest and contained dramatic questions of fact and law…"
And Bavaria itself was ruled by a confirmed crook (Franz Josef Strauss) for over a decade.
We all have our national embarrassments – after all Ecclestone hails from over here.
Great article, though.
Spot on Fat hippo! F1 should be ashamed of having such a guy run it.
Guys, firstly get your facts correct, the settlement was $100m US$ and BCE paid Gribkowsky $44m, U$ again. In the UK calling someone a "civil servant" is neither confirmation nor prior knowledge that someone works for the government, its a derisory term frequently used for belittling someone's status or job status. I am fairly sure BCE has called many people he has found incompetent in his business dealings "civil servants". BCE is not the first (and will not be the last) to use this type of settlement to end something that was, even in the opinion of the prosecutor, not going anywhere. In fact BCE may have actually saved the prosecution a large omelette on their faces by agreeing to this settlement. The settlement amount was in direct proportion to BCE's wealth, not because it was BCE, and the same ratio rules would apply to a low paid worker (and frequently does in Germany). Far from this being an isolated incident, this rule was used in excess of 100,000 times, just in the last year! BCE has the same rights as others to settle matters this way. Why shouldn't he or should we make up rules that specially apply to the rich only? Now that really would be the proletariat finally winning!
As to Bayern LB being a state bank, yes that may be the technical definition and where its ultimate shareholder may be but it doesn't trade as one or indeed hide behind the state ownership in the banking world. No BLB is out there with the best doing mega deals all day long with your Barclays, HSBCs, Citi Banks and the rest of banking "A" list. To really believe the argument that Gribkowsky was state official would be to accept that your local Royal Bank of Scotland (also "state" owned) manager is a "government/state official", really guys get a life.
BLB is to all intents and purposes a "commercial" bank playing in a commercial world. After all how did they come to own the shares in the first place? The lent money (a lot of money) to company (Kirsch Media) who wanted to buy the shares and took a charge over the shares as collateral for the loan. The loan defaulted and BLB ended up with the shares.
Furthermore, long before BLB even had the shares BCE had a veto (much like Ferrari has with F1 rules) as to who could end up with the shares when they were sold, and by this I mean ALL the shares in F1. This meant he could decide who the ultimate buyer would be as long as it was for a fair market price, notwithstanding the amount of the offer. I do believe this veto is still valid today. The Constantin Media court case in London prior to this hearing already established beyond doubt that the amount paid by CVC was fair and reasonable, in fact more than fair!
As to whether justice was done or not, try reading some of Gribkowsky's own testimony where he openly admitted to taunting BCE about reporting his affairs to the tax authorities even though he had no basis or evidence to do so. He said he felt it was light-hearted and just not really serious. Please believe me if you have BCE's wealth you don't take those kind of comments light-heartedly, you start sweating and remember the last billionaire friend who had a visit from HMRC that cost many, many millions in fees and time, even though nothing was found. No, you offer him some small (yes folks in banking terms that was "small") fee to shut him up and make him go away.
This whole affair should never have happened and it was all down to incompetent investigation in the first instance.
I will also leave you with a last thought. You only have F1 today (and for the last 40 years or so) and the fact that it is the pinnacle of world motorsport, to be able to slag off people like BCE, precisely because of the efforts of BCE!
Without what he did in commercialising the sport, F1 would now most likely be a footnote in motorsport history, driven out of business by costs that could only be met by gentlemen drivers who had the funds to run a car. It would not employ upwards of 20,000 people directly and another 80,000 indirectly, and I am not even talking about the spinoff series or the people that work on the events. It would not be one of the biggest automotive employers in the UK or be responsible for some of the most notable R&D in day to day motoring. The whole carbon fibre industry today in aviation owes its existence to F1.
No, I think people should be very grateful for what BCE has done for F1 and many of the people who criticise him today should remember where their job and/or personal wealth has come from and whether or not, without BCE, they would have that job/wealth today?
My dad gets a Civil Service pension, are the government also 'belittling' his 35yesr effort. Anyone who works for a government agency is a Civil servant, I've never heard it used in a derogatory manner.
I think people should be very grateful for what BCE has done for F1
Either you have a sense of humour, you work for the man… or you are B C Ecclestone.
Just because Ecclestone made some shrewd deals several decades ago doesn't mean that the entire industry owes its continued existence to him.
Not does it mean he should get a free pass on whatever dubious dealing he decides to engage in.
Can't really argue with much of that bar the fact that it doesn't comment on some of Bernie's shady dealings over the years, and the fact that he's used slight of hands to get off.
The issue I have is that he's stacked the deck too much in his favour, and uses his tremendous wealth to get himself off the hook.
There's no checks and balances with him. No proper corporate governance. No paper trails. And that's not right, as it allows manipulation of wealth the detriment of the state, and its people.
An amount of money is required to run UK PLC. Bernie doesn't pay his portion. So the unwashed little people have to make up the balance. And that is reprehensible. And when you take into account the charade that is the bambino trust, it's fraud. And theft.
Hes a very lucky man I don't run the HMRC.
One final point. Bernie had very little to do with all the supporting industries that now make up F1 INC. They are a consequence of F1, not Bernie's vision. In fact, I'm totally certain if he could make a couple of hundred million by moving F1 INC to the middle east he'd do it in a heartbeat.
Its all about the deal with Bernie, and not the consequence of the deal unless it directly effects him.
Sorry Graham, but the aerospace carbon fiber business was developed long before F1 started using it. In fact, many teams didn't use the technology for a while concerned that the material would shatter on impact. McLaren developed a carbon chassis in 1980 and had the pieces built in the US by an aerospace company in Utah; the name slips my mind. The prepreg materials already existed and were being used to build aerospace structures such as engine nacelles, etc. Give credit where credit is due. I'm an ex aerospace composite tooling guy so I know of what I speak.
Well said (apart from the rather silly final bit on Bernie's contribution to F1)
That is the best Hippo Rant to date, nice 1 Danilo, at least someone knows how to call a spade a spade!
Welcome back FH – I have missed your rants – informative and entertaining at the same time
Very good article Danilo. Chapeau!
I was originally drawn to Tj13 by its, then, refreshing approach to reporting on F1. Compared to other sites, I found both the apparent insider knowledge and news focus to be spot on. Fast forward 16 months or so and I have to say I am now rather underwhelmed. The typographic and grammatical errors now make the stories less interesting, less trustworthy. I ask, if this is how much they care about the written piece maybe they have a similar approach to the credibility of the story, sources etc.
This has crystalised in the reporting of the Ecclestone trial.
The above article is factually incorrect on so many levels it is to be laughed at, along with the rather pathetic insults and accusations of the guilt of Mr E.
Mr E has duped the UK legal system, the German one, countless governments, HMRC and even the Daddy of all private equity behemoths, CVC – who are only allowed to make their substantial profits if they are "clean" thanks to mountains of corporate governance that they have to adhere to – all over the world.
Like it or not, the facts are the cases were not proven and there was no substantiation of guilt. Your team may not like the fact that the UK and Germany have access to some of the finest legal brains on the planet. You may not like the fact that neither jurisdiction had found Mr E guilty of anything. But these are facts. Something "journalists" find difficult to accept when they embark on stream of consciousness rant about something. Spoils the story, right?
Many of your readers lap it up as it reinforces their own perception of events – Mr E is an avaricious, greedy, slimy, etc…..
I now longer do and whilst I still find your reporting of races good, I am more than tired of the factless opinionated rants, full of typos and basic grammatical errors.
Come back, the original TJ13!


text:
The Center for Dynamic Learning USES THE NATURAL CURIOSITY OF CHILDREN TO TEACH MATH, READING, AND CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS.
We Welcome PARENTS, GRANDPARENTS, AND PROFESSIONALS INTO OUR organization FOR HELP WITH SPECIAL PROJECTS. INTERESTED?
CDL provides numerous programs across RI to bridge the educational gaps youth are facing in the arts and sciences. CDL's myriad of out of school time programs integrate literacy and communication with technical and applied learning.
"The Center for Dynamic Learning doesn't just take an out-of-the-box approach to supplemental-learning opportunities. There isn't a box made that could pigeonhole the center's program to introduce children to manufacturing and their maker selves, among many other things.The center takes the STEAM movement to heart, by giving children the opportunities to build things or put on plays, all the while connecting the dots that make up science, technology, engineering, arts and math to the real world. It is a fresh approach that deserves to be more than a modest, if vibrant, program in a small corner of Rhode Island. Just read the Fastest-Growing & Innovative Companies and you'll understand why Rhode Island can hold its head high".
Providence Business News


text:
Editors' Review
+This one-trick pony conveniently arranges the order of program tabs in the Windows Taskbar, but you'll need to go through some registration hurdles.
Taskbar Button Manager offers a tabbed, simple-to-use interface. Simply drag and drop program tabs and arrange them in an order that best suits your needs. A small window appears, nudging you to release the mouse to drop the tab in a spot.
Although it's touted as freeware, you'll need to register the program to obtain a code to use it without any restrictions. And while it's a free registration, you need to disclose your name and e-mail address. If you're willing to divulge such information, Taskbar Button Manager is a handy addition for anyone who wants some control of the Windows Taskbar.
Publisher's Description
+Taskbar Button Manager is a simple utility that helps you arrange the buttons on your Windows taskbar in any way you want by using drag and drop. Moving your task buttons is very easy, no hotkey needed. In addition to drag and drop you can also use a special program window for moving the taskbar buttons. You can hide running programs too, so they don't show on your taskbar. Version 2.3 solves a minor problem that appeared for users using the large fonts option.


text: A freight train derailed Friday on a railroad bridge in Paulsboro, N.J., that has had problems before, toppling tanker cars partially into a creek and causing a leak of hazardous gas that was blamed for sickening dozens of people, authorities said. Members of the National Transportation Safety Board arrived in New Jersey on Friday afternoon to investigate. They will try to determine whether the derailment was caused by a problem with the bridge or if the derailment was to blame for the bridge's partial collapse. One tanker containing 25,000 gallons of vinyl chloride was sliced open in the accident and some of the gas spewed into the air, while the rest turned into a solid and settled into the bottom of the tanker.


text:
Avnet Names David Bent Senior Vice President Of Information Technology. (Photo: Business Wire)
Avnet, Inc. (NYSE: AVT), a leading global technology distributor, today announced that David Bent has joined the Avnet Global Information Solutions team as a senior vice president of information technology (IT). Bent will be responsible for providing IT leadership for Avnet Electronics Marketing, a global operating group of Avnet, Inc., that distributes electronic components from leading manufacturers and provides associated design-chain and supply-chain services. As a member of both the global IT leadership team and the Avnet Electronics Marketing global leadership team, Bent will report to Steve Phillips, Avnet's chief information officer (CIO), and will work closely with Gerry Fay, global president of Avnet Electronics Marketing.
Avnet names David Bent senior vice president of information technology. (Photo: Business Wire)
"As Avnet continues to expand its global scale and scope, David's blend of international experience and deep technology knowledge will be a great asset to us," said Phillips. "He embraces the IT challenges facing businesses as they grow globally, and will help Avnet Electronics Marketing develop IT solutions that improve operational efficiency and deliver value to our customers."
"I'd like to welcome David to the Avnet Electronics Marketing team," said Fay. "I believe there are significant gains to be realized by optimizing our IT footprint globally. David's proven track record in delivering innovative IT solutions will help ensure our products and services are brought to the market in the most technologically-advanced and efficient way."
With more than 30 years of IT experience, Bent brings a wealth of international experience to his new role, having most recently served as CIO at United Stationers Inc. Prior to United Stationers Inc., Bent held leadership positions at Visteon Ford and Acterna. His international business acumen was acquired through his experiences during multiple overseas assignments, including four years in the U.K. and 11 years in Germany. Bent holds a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering from the University of Bristol, England.
Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Action Alerts PLUS
Portfolio Manager Jim Cramer and Director of Research Jack Mohr reveal their investment tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
Quant Ratings
Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.
Product Features:
- Buy, hold, or sell recommendations for over 4,300 stocks
- Unlimited research reports on your favorite stocks
- A custom stock screener
Stocks Under $10
David Peltier uncovers low dollar stocks with serious upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Dividend Stock Advisor
David Peltier identifies the best of breed dividend stocks that will pay a reliable AND significant income stream.
Product Features:
- Diversified model portfolio of dividend stocks
- Updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Trifecta Stocks
Every recommendation goes through 3 layers of intense scrutinyquantitative, fundamental and technical analysisto maximize profit potential and minimize risk.
Product Features:
- Model Portfolio
- Intra Day Trade alerts
- Access to Quant Ratings
Options Profits
Our options trading pros provide over 100 monthly option trading ideas and strategies to help you become a well-seasoned trader.
Product Features:
- Actionable options commentary and news
- Real-time trading community


text:
Search Results
Results 161-170 of 206
Dresses & Style
Best Real Wedding Hairstyles
Dresses & Style
Best Real Wedding Hairstyles
Dresses & Style
Runway Hairstyles for your Wedding Day
Aisle Say
Beauty tips from Allure.com
The Beauty 101 videos on allure.com are great for do-it-yourself hair and makeup tips. This video asks hairstylist Serge Normant how to create soft and completely wearable buns that would be perfect for your engagement party, bridal shower or even holiday party.
Read more ››- Tags
- Wedding Hairstyles
Brides Daily
How are you wearing your hair for the wedding?
- Tags
- wedding hairstyles
Dresses & Style
Wedding Hair Accessories
Brides Daily
Runway-inspired hair and makeup for your wedding day
Brides Daily
What are you doing about hair/makeup for your wedding?
Aisle Say
Top hats at Monique Lhuillier
Hats were front and center at Monique Lhuillier today. Headpieces with embellishments that included sequins, rosettes and satin bows adorned brides who floated down the runway as part of the designer's fairtytale collection.
Read more ››


text:
A series of portraits
Sign in or create an account to post a comment.
Blown away by the impact of each masterpiece! Superb as always!
Speechless on this serie! Image by image, or the all that makes the story is wonderful. Great!
Fantastic series sir! All very strong. No. 6 and 11 really stand out as very intimate.
I totally agree with the folks above. I'm loving this format as well. So wonderful and I just love seeing these images together!
#iphoneography #bw #dimitriskarathanos #dkarathanos #greece


text:
The Mixquiahuala lettersFocusing on the relationship between two fiercely independent women--Teresa, a writer, and Alicia, an artist--this epistolary novel was written as a tribute to Julio Cort zar's Hopscotch and examines Latina forms of love, gender conflict, and female friendship. Ana Castillo's groundbreaking first novel, The Mixquiahuala Letters, received an American Book Award from the Before Columbus Foundation and is widely studied as a feminist text on the nature of self-conflict. |
What people are saying - Write a review
User ratings
5 stars |
| ||
4 stars |
| ||
3 stars |
| ||
2 stars |
| ||
1 star |
Review: The Mixquiahuala Letters
User Review - Joseph De La Cruz - GoodreadsI wanted to like this book, I really did. I had to read it for my Mexican-American Literature class and the summary in the back pulled me in. I really tried. However, the fact that the book isn't in ... Read full review
Review: The Mixquiahuala Letters
User Review - Bev Wolff - GoodreadsA book written in letters. Highly lyrical language. Read full review
Common terms and phrases
Abdel Acapulco afternoon Alexis Alicia Alvaro asked baby Babylonia began believe brujo called child cigarette close Cuba Libre dance dark door dream drink Edwin and Jr eyes face father felt fingers floor friends Gallo gave grandmother gringa hair hand head heard husband Joan Baez kitchen knew laugh leave Libra live look lovers Luis marriage married Melvin Mexican Mexico City Mixquiahuala Monte Alban morning mother must've never night Oaxaca Ouija board Pedro Infante Perez poet Ponce Puerto Rico pulled remember Rodney rum and Coke sleep smile someone stared stayed stopped street summer talk tell Teresa Letter Tfo Chino thought told took tortillas turned Veracruz Vittorio voice waif waiting walked wanted watched watercolors whispered who'd wife window woman women wondered would've Yucatan Zapotec


text:
Time isn't my best friend. Therefore I would like to THANK YOU in advance
For your interest, the 's and your kind comments.
Your support means a lot to me!
With Love, Annieta
@annieta.nl All rights reserved.
My images may not be reproduced in any form without my permission
Annieta Kruisman