I’m still trying to reconcile a copyright on a 400 year old document. In my mind I understand the idea of protecting the words and their integrity. In my heart I’m wondering why the text cannot be freed and speak for itself.
Imagine if the original Greek manuscript of the New Testament were copyrighted. Each scribal error would be considered a breaking of copyright – in fact, just copying the original text would have been morally wrong.
If we had the copyright act transported back to the New Testament times there would have been very few copies available. All copies would have to have been approved by the original writers – many of whom died without explicit details given as to whether a copy could be made of their writings – although the authors did approve of circulating the original manuscripts.
Personally, I think the integrity of the KJV has withstood millions of copies being made. In fact, the mere fact that it is one of the most well known English books in the world is testament to extreme copying. My question? How many copies were prepared with the express permission of the British monarchy? Were the rest of the copies bootlegged? Should they be rounded up and burned as illegal contraband? OR . . . is there something about the message that far surpasses the matter of control of paper and ink??