FSter, well known to the Addams family, responded: The English translation of the Bible published in 1611 is known to Protestants as the "King James Version" or "King James Bible" but to Anglicans (whose translation it is) as "The Authorized Version." King James did not translate it; he commissioned its translation and authorized it to be read in Anglican churches.
As a lapsed Anglican (alway much worse than a lapsed Catholic, because lapsed Anglicans are never quite clear about what they have lapsed from ), I know, as you know, that King James is to blame for the situation today, bending over backwards to pander to everyone as a Scottish import allowed in on sufferance. The end result is a succession of Archbishops of Canterbury making noises in stilted RP (!) at royal weddings and not being much heard from at other times. Delegation is okay if you are careful who you delegate to. Jim the Oneth wasn't. Therefore (IMHO, I hasten to add) the King James version of the bible is (a) wildly inaccurate in some places - camels and needles being the obvious example - and (b) a dead boring read in all places - open at any page for an example.
Shakespeare would have made all the difference - and not just for the salacious bits! Although, come to think of it, all that "begetting" in Genesis could probably have been tarted up just as effectively by Kit Marlowe on a bad day. And Shakespeare just might have managed to get them to call it "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter".
I've always fondly remembered a cartoon which had two (ancient) rabbis poring over a scroll. One says to the other, "The book reads okay, but can't you, for Heaven's sake, think of a snappier title than Leviticus?"
Now there's a thought. Maybe we could get Tom Stoppard to rewrite KJV as the QEIIAV? It could star Gwennyth Pa ... no, forget it. [/rant]
Apologies to all offended.
