Difference between revisions of "User:Dmsmith/KJV2011"

Revision as of 14:22, 22 December 2015

This page is now closed. This work was finished 5 Oct 2013 and released 15 Feb 2014.

Reporting and planning page for minor text and markup issues to improve the KJV module. This is a continuation of the work done by DM Smith in Project KJV2006.

Detection methods

The issues reported here by David Haslam were detected by a detailed comparison with the text extracted from the independently created KJV1769 e-Sword module provided by Art Dunham, as once hosted on the Spanish Reina-Valera-Gomez website and downloaded before that site was redesigned. That e-Sword module was not completely without minor errors, but the comparison proved fruitful in identifying some minor issues with both works.

The red letter markup errors had been reported or observed in the KJV ThML source file, originally downloaded from CCEL, and as used for making the KJV Go Bible. The project leader has therefore cross-checked whether similar errors are present in the KJV SWORD module, even though the source text is a different XML schema.

Text and markup issues

Translators' added words currently not displayed as italics

Due to the use of alternative transChange markup

I found 17 instances where <seg subType="x-added" type="x-transChange">...</seg> was used to mark added words. Front-end applications based on the SWORD engine do not assign italics for words marked like this. The added words are listed below.

Judges 11:3     of            note
Micah 7:12      from          note
Matthew 18:28   him           w
Matthew 21:28   certain       w
Matthew 21:31   his           w
Matthew 22:6    them          w
Matthew 23:4    themselves    w
Matthew 25:37   thee          w
Matthew 25:38   thee          w
Matthew 26:17   feast of      w
Matthew 26:45   your          w
Matthew 26:67   him           w
Mark 5:29       her           w
Mark 10:4       her           w
Luke 9:36       it            w
Luke 11:19      them          w
John 5:36       that          w

Currently OSIS does not allow transChange within notes or w elements, but it does allow seg. These should change when the schema is changed to allow for it. This was discussed on sword-devel in March 2006. --Dmsmith 21:05, 12 November 2011 (MST)

I've changed my copy of the OSIS schema to allow transChange in note. I've modified the NT verses to use type="x-split" to split the <w> element into two parts and have transChange put normally between the parts. It'll be part of the next release. --Dmsmith 10:08, 21 January 2013 (MST)

Translators' added words that incorrectly include a punctuation mark

I found 20 instances where the transChange markers for an added word also included the punctuation mark at the end of the sentence. Admittedly, displaying a full-stop or a comma in italics is of minor cosmetic significance, yet nonetheless this is structurally incorrect. For convenience here below I have used square brackets to abbreviate where the transChange markers are.

Matthew 11:27            [him.]
Matthew 13:17            [them.]
Matthew 19:12            [it.]
Matthew 22:46            [questions.]
Mark 11:14               [it.]
Mark 12:34               [any question.]
Luke 10:22               [him.]
Luke 10:24               [them.]
Luke 11:44               [of them.]
John 1:18                [him.]
John 4:26                [he.]
John 14:14               [it.]
John 19:27               [home.]
Acts 7:53                [it.]
Acts 16:13               [thither.]
Romans 13:14             [thereof.]
I Corinthians 10:13      [it.]
II Corinthians 7:16      [things.]
I Thessalonians 5:24     [it.]
Revelation of John 2:17  [it.]

These have been fixed. A while ago. Thanks. --Dmsmith 12:33, 21 July 2012 (MDT)

Translators' added words that incongruously include lemmas

There are 34 verses in which the text within the transChange element includes a lemma for a word (or words) in the original languages, Hebrew or Greek.
As the added words were additions to make the English sentence read properly, having a lemma for most of these is incongruous to say the least.

Count	Reference[s]		Added words (transChange elements with text containing lemmas)
NT:
00001	Matthew 3:15		<w lemma="strong:G2076" morph="robinson:V-PXI-3S" src="13">it to be so</w>
00001	Mark 13:4		<w lemma="strong:G3195" morph="robinson:V-PAS-3S" src="11">shall be</w>
00001	Mark 13:11		<w lemma="strong:G5209" morph="robinson:P-2AP" src="4">you</w>
00001	Luke 10:30		<w lemma="strong:G444" morph="robinson:N-NSM" src="6">man</w>
00001	Luke 21:7		<w lemma="strong:G3195" morph="robinson:V-PAS-3S" src="15">will there be</w>
00001	John 8:6		<w lemma="strong:G4364" morph="robinson:V-PNP-NSM" src="22">as though</w> he heard them <w lemma="strong:G3361" morph="robinson:PRT-N" src="21">not</w>
00001	John 9:29		as <w lemma="strong:G1161" morph="robinson:CONJ" src="9">for</w>
00001	Acts 9:37		<w lemma="strong:G846" morph="robinson:P-ASF" src="12">her</w>
00001	Acts 26:18		<w lemma="strong:G3588" morph="robinson:T-GSM" src="4">and</w>
00001	Romans 15:6		<w lemma="strong:G1722" morph="robinson:PREP" src="3"></w>and
00001	I Thessalonians 4:1	<w lemma="strong:G2443" morph="robinson:CONJ" src="24">so</w>
00001	I John 2:23		(but) <w lemma="strong:G3670" morph="robinson:V-PAP-NSM" src="11">he that acknowledgeth</w> <w lemma="strong:G3588 strong:G5207" morph="robinson:T-ASM robinson:N-ASM" src="12 13">the Son</w> <w lemma="strong:G2192" morph="robinson:V-PAI-3S" src="17">hath</w> <w lemma="strong:G3588 strong:G3962" morph="robinson:T-ASM robinson:N-ASM" src="15 16">the Father</w> <w lemma="strong:G2532" morph="robinson:CONJ" src="14">also</w>
00001	I John 3:16		<w lemma="strong:G3588 strong:G2316" morph="robinson:T-GSM robinson:N-GSM" src="6 7">of God</w>
00001	Revelation 9:11		<w lemma="strong:G846" morph="robinson:P-DSM" src="11">his</w>
00001	Revelation 9:10		<w lemma="strong:G91" morph="robinson:V-AAN" src="17" subType="x-22" type="x-split">was</w>

OT:
00001	Genesis 14:10		<w lemma="strong:H0875">was full of</w>
00002	Exodus 15:13,16		<w lemma="strong:H02098">which</w>
00001	Exodus 34:19		<w lemma="strong:H02142" morph="strongMorph:TH8735">that is male</w>
00001	Numbers 1:16		<w lemma="strong:H07148">were</w>
00001	Numbers 3:20		<w lemma="strong:H01992">are</w>
00001	Numbers 10:28		<w lemma="strong:H0428">were</w>
00001	Numbers 13:3		<w lemma="strong:H01992">were</w>
00001	Numbers 14:28		<w lemma="strong:H03808">As truly as</w>
00001	Numbers 20:13		<w lemma="strong:H01992">is</w>
00001	I Samuel 30:27		<w lemma="strong:H0834">them</w>
00001	II Kings 19:31		<w lemma="strong:H06635" morph="strongMorph:TH8675">of hosts</w>
00001	II Chronicles 10:16	<w lemma="strong:H07200" morph="strongMorph:TH8804">saw</w>
00001	Ezra 2:65		<w lemma="strong:H0428">there were</w>
00001	Psalms 17:6		<w lemma="strong:H08085" morph="strongMorph:TH8798">and hear</w>
00001	Psalms 39:3		<w lemma="strong:H0227">then</w>
00001	Jeremiah 6:14		<w lemma="strong:H01323" morph="strongMorph:TH8676">of the daughter</w>
00001	Jeremiah 28:9		<w lemma="strong:H0227">then</w>
00001	Jeremiah 51:53		<w lemma="strong:H0227">yet</w>

Note:

1. I John 2:23b is a unique case, where the small text in the 1611 AV is not really added words per se, but rather a reading found in several Greek MSS yet not in all MSS that were then known to scholars. (I have consulted the NT scholar Peter J Williams about this. See [1]). David Haslam 03:07, 16 August 2012 (MDT)

I've fixed the NT entries taking into account variants in the TR that was used to tag the KJV. My Hebrew is weak. I'll look at it later to see if I need help. --Dmsmith 17:21, 21 January 2013 (MST)

Minor typographical errors

• In Exodus 32:32, there are two hyphens after the word sin. In printed editions there is a horizontal line (or an mdash?).

Some possibilities: horizontal bar: ― or emdash: —. There are also some 2- and 3-em dashes in the Unicode pipeline.

Fixed with an mdash. A while ago. --Dmsmith 12:38, 21 July 2012 (MDT)

• In Jeremiah 50:6, Different printed editions have either restingplace, resting place or resting-place. Which one is definitive?

The reference text has one word, restingplace, as is in the module. --Dmsmith 19:29, 12 November 2011 (MST)

• In Romans 4:18, the word nations is followed by a semicolon. In printed editions there is a comma.

The reference text has a semicolon. --Dmsmith 19:29, 12 November 2011 (MST)

• In the colophon after Philemon 1:25 there is a comma after the word Onesmus which is not present in printed editions of the KJV.

The reference text has no colophons. I'll change it as you've seen it. --Dmsmith 19:29, 12 November 2011 (MST)

• In Joel 2:28,29, the word Spirit is capitalized in some printed editions of the KJV, just as it was in the original 1611.[2]. The KJV module has lowercase spirit in both verses. cf. In Acts 2:17, which cites Joel 2:28, the word Spirit is capitalized. Please check the reference text.

The reference text has lower case in Joel and upper case in Acts.--Dmsmith 07:17, 22 December 2011 (MST)

Hyphenation

• In Matthew 16:17, Bar-jona has an ndash, whereas in Acts 13:6, Bar-jesus has a plain hyphen.

I've fixed Bar-jesus to have an ndash. --Dmsmith 12:28, 21 July 2012 (MDT)

cf. With 3 exceptions, all the 250 'hyphenated' proper names in the OT have an ndash, whereas hyphenated ordinary words have a plain hyphen.
These are: 'God-ward', 'thee-ward', 'us-ward'. These three also occur in the NT, with the addition of 'joint-heirs' and 'you-ward'.

What are the other 2 exceptions? I can't find them. --Dmsmith 12:28, 21 July 2012 (MDT)

My wording was a bit ambiguous. The 3 exceptions are not proper names. They are the 3 words listed above. David Haslam 03:47, 16 August 2012 (MDT)

The question arises, therefore, as to why ever was the ndash used in place of a hyphen? To avoid clutter here, I have listed the proper names in the talk page.

When Timothy Lanfear and I were comparing texts, his text used ndashes. Some printed texts use something other than a hyphen, i.e. a longer dash. --Dmsmith 12:28, 21 July 2012 (MDT)

cf. The only 3 hyphenated words ('Beth-horon', 'Cades-Barne', 'En-gaddi') found in the Apocryphal books of the KJVA module use proper hyphens. There are none with an ndash. btw. The first name also occurs in its unhyphenated form 'Bethhoron'.David Haslam 03:56, 16 August 2012 (MDT)

Spelling differences

• In Acts 3:7 the KJV module has the spelling ancle. The comparison text has the spelling ankle. Both spellings are found in different printed editions of the KJV. ^[1]

The reference text does indeed have ankle not ancle. --Dmsmith 21:07, 12 November 2011 (MST)

1. ↑ This is a strange inconsistency. In the KJV module, the spelling ankle occurs in 4 other places in the OT.

• Arithamaea occurs four times in the NT, twice spelled like that in Mark 15:43 and Luke 23:51, and twice spelled as Arimathæa (with the grapheme æ) in Matthew 27:57 and John 19:38. There are several other similar inconsistencies. In the KJV NT, there are 96 instances of words that contain the grapheme æ.^[1] The 14 words are:

Æneas Ænon Alphæus Arimathæa Bartimæus Cæsar Cæsarea Chaldæans Galilæan Galilæans Judæa Prætorium Timæus Zacchæus.

Actually it is Arimathaea (Mk 15:42, Jn 19:38) and Arimathæa (Mt 27:57, Lk 23:51), which is as my reference text has it. Regarding the others I took great care to double check these when I updated it in 2006. I found the text to be inconsistent, but I followed it. If you can provide a verse list, I'll double check them again, but it is too tedious for me to do searches to find the references and then look them up in a hard copy. --Dmsmith 16:50, 21 July 2012 (MDT)

1. ↑ Several of these words also appear with the ae spelling variant. There are none in the OT.

Red letter markup errors

• In Matthew 8:13, the last sentence ("And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.") should not be red letters.
• In Matthew 15:28, the last sentence ("And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.") should not be red letters.
• In Matthew 15:34, the last sentence ("And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes. ") should not be red letters.
• In Matthew 22:42, the last sentence ("They say unto him, The Son of David.") should not be red letters.
• In Mark 12:37, the last sentence ("And the common people heard him gladly.") should not be red letters.
• In Luke 9:56, the last sentence ("And they went to another village.") should not be red letters.
• In Luke 23:46, the last clause ("and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.") should not be red letters.
• In John 16:17, the connecting words ("and again,", "and,") should not be red letters.

John 16:17 should have no red letter markup according to my reference text. These are words that are attributed to Christ, not him actually speaking.--Dmsmith 19:13, 12 November 2011 (MST)

Lemma markup errors

• II Corinthians 13:14 contains <w lemma="strongs:G4314" morph="robinson:PREP" src="22"></w>. Plural 'strongs' is the error.

Fixed. This was the only place it occurred. --Dmsmith 12:41, 21 July 2012 (MDT)

Omissions

Several omissions were reported in the tracker during 2009. These are listed in MOD-76. Some of these have already been fixed, but it would be sensible to double-check.

Mark 9:43 in the KJV module does not have associated the Strong's numbers with the words of the verse.
Vladimir Támara Patiño-2 has provided a fix in IMP format in an email to sword-devel.

$$$Mark 9:43
<q who="Jesus">
<w lemma="strong:G2532" morph="robinson:CONJ" src="1">And</w>
<w lemma="strong:G1437" morph="robinson:COND" src="2">if</w>
<w lemma="strong:G4571" morph="robinson:P-2AS" src="4">thy</w>
<w lemma="strong:G3588 strong:G5495" morph="robinson:T-NSF
robinson:N-NSF" src="5 6">hand</w>
<w lemma="strong:G4624" morph="robinson:V-PAS-3S" src="3">offend</w>
<w lemma="strong:G4675" morph="robinson:P-2GS" src="7">thee</w>,
<w lemma="strong:G609" morph="robinson:V-AAM-2S" src="8" subType="x-?"
type="x-split">cut</w>
<w lemma="strong:G846" morph="robinson:P-ASF" src="9">it</w>
<w lemma="strong:G609" morph="robinson:V-AAM-2S" src="8">off</w>:
<w lemma="strong:G2076" morph="robinson:V-PXI-3S" src="12">it is</w>
<w lemma="strong:G2570" morph="robinson:A-NSN" src="10">better</w>
<w lemma="strong:G4671" morph="robinson:P-2DS" src="11">for thee</w>
<w lemma="strong:G1525" morph="robinson:V-2AAN" src="17">to enter</w>
<w lemma="strong:G1519" morph="robinson:PREP" src="14">into</w>
<w lemma="strong:G3588 strong:G2222" morph="robinson:T-ASF
robinson:N-ASF" src="15 16">life</w>
<w lemma="strong:G2948" morph="robinson:A-ASM" src="13">maimed</w>
<w lemma="strong:G2228" morph="robinson:PRT" src="18">than</w>
<w lemma="strong:G2192" morph="robinson:V-PAP-ASM" src="22">having</w>
<w lemma="strong:G3588" morph="robinson:T-APF" src="19"></w>
<w lemma="strong:G1417" morph="robinson:A-NUI" src="20">two</w>
<w lemma="strong:G5495" morph="robinson:N-APF" src="21">hands</w>
<w lemma="strong:G565" morph="robinson:V-2AAN" src="23">to go</w>
<w lemma="strong:G1519" morph="robinson:PREP" src="24">into</w>
<w lemma="strong:G3588 strong:G1067" morph="robinson:T-ASF
robinson:N-ASF" src="25 26">hell</w>
<w lemma="strong:G1519" morph="robinson:PREP" src="27">into</w>
<w lemma="strong:G3588 strong:G4442" morph="robinson:T-ASN
robinson:N-ASN" src="28 29">the fire</w>
<w lemma="strong:G3588" morph="robinson:T-ASN" src="30"></w>
<transChange type="added">that</transChange>
<w lemma="strong:G762" morph="robinson:A-ASN" src="31">never shall be
quenched</w>
</q> 

This will need to be converted to OSIS XML format.

Other markup errors

• In Psalm 2:4, the word Lord should be marked with the DivineName element, and thus be rendered in small caps.

In the reference text is it not rendered in small caps. This has the Strong's number 136, which is not the tetragrammaton. The divine name markup is reserved for just a few Hebrew words: YHWH, Yah, .... --Dmsmith 07:16, 22 December 2011 (MST)

Split words

Acts 1:12 splits the word day's. Also the markup is wrong. <w src="14" lemma="strong:G4521" morph="robinson:N-GSN">a sabbath day</w>'<w src="15" lemma="strong:G2192" morph="robinson:V-PAP-ASN">s</w> --Dmsmith 11:35, 21 July 2012 (MDT)

Replace possessive ' with ’

There are numerous places where a straight apostrophe would look better with a curly apostrophe. --Dmsmith 11:35, 21 July 2012 (MDT)

The ordinary apostrophe is the correct punctuation mark for possessives. The fact that in some printed editions these look curly is a font issue or artifact. The right single quotation mark is not the correct punctuation mark. Its sole use should be for closing level-2 quotations, for which the level-1 quotations use double quotation marks. David Haslam 09:46, 6 February 2013 (MST)

I checked the Unicode standard before making the change. It is always improper to use a character merely because it looks like what is desired.

See the Unicode 6.2 standard: http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamesList.txt

In there we see the following entries:

0027	APOSTROPHE
	= apostrophe-quote (1.0)
	= APL quote
	* neutral (vertical) glyph with mixed usage
	* 2019 is preferred for apostrophe
	* preferred characters in English for paired quotation marks are 2018 & 2019
	x (modifier letter prime - 02B9)
	x (modifier letter apostrophe - 02BC)
	x (modifier letter vertical line - 02C8)
	x (combining acute accent - 0301)
	x (prime - 2032)
	x (latin small letter saltillo - A78C)
...
02BC	MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE
	= apostrophe
	* glottal stop, glottalization, ejective
	* many languages use this as a letter of their alphabets
	* used as a tone marker in Bodo, Dogri, and Maithili
	* 2019 is the preferred character for a punctuation apostrophe
	x (apostrophe - 0027)
	x (combining comma above - 0313)
	x (combining comma above right - 0315)
	x (armenian apostrophe - 055A)
	x (nko high tone apostrophe - 07F4)
	x (greek psili - 1FBF)
	x (right single quotation mark - 2019)
...
2019	RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK
	= single comma quotation mark
	* this is the preferred character to use for apostrophe
	x (apostrophe - 0027)
	x (modifier letter apostrophe - 02BC)
...
275C	HEAVY SINGLE COMMA QUOTATION MARK ORNAMENT
	x (right single quotation mark - 2019)

Note the repeated statement that the "RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK" is the preferred character to use for apostrophe. --Dmsmith 19:25, 10 February 2013 (MST)

Pilcrow signs

• In printed editions of the KJV, there is normally a space immediately after the ¶. When viewed with Xiphos, there is no such space.
  This is not an artifact of how the SWORD engine handles the OSIS markup. Example:

<verse osisID="Gen.1.6" sID="Gen.1.6"/><milestone type="x-p" marker="¶"/><w lemma="strong:H0430">And God</w> <w morph="strongMorph:TH8799" lemma="strong:H0559">said</w>, ...

Would a simple solution be to change it to marker="¶ ", i.e. with a space after the Pilcrow sign?

Yes, this is a fine solution. --Dmsmith 21:07, 12 November 2011 (MST)

Slight complication! – when the verse starts as red letters, the space is already displayed after the Pilcrow. Compare Matthew 22:11 with Matthew 22:15. David Haslam 08:28, 14 November 2011 (MST)

This is no longer the case! David Haslam 09:49, 11 September 2015 (MDT)

On second look, it would be a fine solution, but Xiphos already has special code to add the space. The change should not be made if it is disruptive to Xiphos. --Dmsmith 07:21, 17 November 2011 (MST)

Surely two spaces (where there are red letters) is preferable to not having any space after the pilcrow elsewhere? David Haslam 12:22, 28 May 2012 (MDT)

Xiphos 4.0.4 does not add any space after the ¶ so maybe that special code was never implemented? David Haslam 09:46, 11 September 2015 (MDT)

Downloads

Interim downloads of the latest development update of the KJV are available at [3].

Note

1. AV.zip and KJV.zip are the same module, but the one renamed AV permits installing it without replacing the latest release of the KJV module.

KJVA module

Notes:

1. DM does not actually maintain the deuterocanonical books or the KJVA module. It is maintained by Osk. This is a convenient place to record the problems.
2. All the above KJV corrections would also need to be applied for the KJVA module. In addition, the following errata have been reported.

Minor typographical errors

This list is not yet complete; corrections to the DC books may be deferred until someone has proofread all of them.

• 1 Esdras 1:42 – "uncleaness" should be "uncleanness"
• 1 Esdras 4:6 – "husbundry" should be "husbandry"
• 1 Esdras 5:55 – "carrs" should be "carts"
• 2 Esdras 1:1 – "sou" should be "son"
• 2 Esdras 6:23 – "tha" should be "the"
• Tobit 3:10 – "Whe" should be "When"
• Judith 7:20 – "inhibitants" should be "inhabitants"
• Judith 16:12 – "fugatives’" should be "fugitives’"
• Wisdom 2:22 – "kn ew" should be "knew"
• Wisdom 5:14 – the text reads, "For the hope of the Godly is like dust...". It should be "For the hope of the ungodly is like dust..."
• Wisdom 8:7 – "as en can" should be "as men can"
• Wisdom 11:6 – "of of" should be "of a fountain of"
• Wisdom 18:24 – "daidem" should be "diadem"
• Ecclesiasticus 14:20 – remove the spurious " ing." at the end of the verse
• Ecclesiasticus 20:32 – remove the spurious " ing" after the word "seeking"
• Ecclesiasticus 31:26 – "drunkeness" should be "drunkenness"
• Ecclesiasticus 35:2 – "goodturn" should be "good turn"
• Ecclesiasticus 45:4 – "faithfuless" should be "faithfulness"
• Ecclesiasticus 46:18 – "cf" should be "of"
• Ecclesiasticus 51:20 – "foresaken" should be "forsaken"
• Baruch 3:2 – "ar" should be "as"
• Baruch 6:72 – there is a word misspelled "then1" instead of "them"
• Prayer of Manasseh 1:1 – "iniquites" should be "iniquities"
• 1 Maccabees 2:41 – "im" should be "in"
• 1 Maccabees 14:7 – "uncleaness" should be "uncleanness"
• 2 Maccabees 4:1 – "ha" should be "had"
• 2 Maccabees 9:5 – "Isreal" should be "Israel"
• 2 Maccabees 14:8 – "aforersaid" should be "aforesaid"
• 2 Maccabees 14:14 – "ot" should be "of"

Apostrophes

Plain apostrophes are not found within any of the deuterocanonical books. The KJVA module uses the Right Single Quotation Mark (U+2019) to mark possessives. There are 295 instances of these. This is a digitization anomaly between the deuterocanonical and protocanonical books.

The KJVA module was the one with the incorrect usage! David Haslam 08:38, 19 February 2013 (MST)

I've made the same change to the canonical books. --Dmsmith 12:43, 21 July 2012 (MDT)

Why? Surely the plain apostrophes are correct, and quotation marks aren't. David Haslam 12:36, 23 January 2013 (MST)

See Apostrophe and Quotation mark David Haslam 08:32, 19 February 2013 (MST)

I think U+2019 is correct for apostrophe. From the first of the links you cite: "( ’ ) Punctuation apostrophe (or typographic apostrophe; right single quotation mark; single comma quotation mark), U+2019. Serves as both an apostrophe and closing single quotation mark. This is the preferred character to use for apostrophe according to the Unicode standard." --Osk 09:00, 19 February 2013 (MST)

How confusing! What we call an apostrophe is not an apostrophe - how & why did the Unicode consortium reach this decision?

Were it not for the fact that punctuation marks are discarded from the search index, it would surely make searching for possessives more difficult! David Haslam 09:07, 19 February 2013 (MST)

I was wrong (in part) about how search indices work. And Bible includes the apostrophes in an index, so a search using the Android keyboard to enter one does find the right words in the updated KJV version 2.5 module being prepared for release. David Haslam 12:11, 19 February 2013 (MST)

Modern English doesn't use an apostrophe with the possessive pronoun ours and yours, so the following verse should be reviewed. There is also a full-stop missing from this verse.

• 1 Maccabees 12:23 We do write back again to you, that your cattle and goods are our’s, and our’s are your’s We do command therefore our ambassadors to make report unto you on this wise.

I checked David Norton's KJV and the companion 'Textual History' volume (which lists variants). Neither acknowledge 'our's' or 'your's'. However, one of two printed KJV Apocrypha volumes I have does have the apostrophes in ours & yours. It's ABS's edition, which unfortunately has no useful publication information. (It claims to be the 1611 edition, but clearly uses modern orthography.) Checking the Chadwyck-Healey Bible in English database, the actual 1611 KJV did not exhibit apostrophes. All of them have the missing period. --Osk 08:56, 19 February 2013 (MST)

Interesting! Our modules should follow the 1769 text, as described in the conf files. And DM's policy is to refer to the Oxford University Press edition as the de facto reference for the AV text, except for the red letter markup, etc. Do you happen to remember whether Scrivener recorded anything in relation to this fine point? David Haslam 09:12, 19 February 2013 (MST)