On the King James Version of the Bible
[NOTE: Today I was going to write about the usual political brouhaha, depressing though it is. But I found myself dragging my heels – not only because the news isn’t pleasant, but also because I had to deal with some other stuff. For example, my ex has been engaged in clearing out a storage unit he’s had since our divorce close to twenty years ago, and we have a few pieces of antique furniture there that we’re trying to unload. I already knew that antique furniture is now quite unpopular, natch. But I figure it’s worth at least something to someone. So I was getting some expert advice on what to do about that.
Then a friend called, and I was happy to talk to her for far longer than I’d planned. And when I returned to my trusty computer and put up my previous post – about poetry, sparked by something commenters said in today’s open thread – I found that I still didn’t want to write about politics today.
Then I noticed a discussion in that same open thread about the King James version of the Bible, and I remembered I’d dealt with that in an older post. So here it is again, very slightly edited. It first appeared here back in 2008.]
As a child who loved poetry, I memorized it almost without intending to. Just a few readings of a poem I liked and its cadences seemed to stick in my brain. Lines and phrases came to me at odd times and repeated themselves, the way song lyrics often do.
The best of them had a strange and hypnotic power. As I got older they took on meanings and subtleties I hadn’t understood as a child. But I had always understood the beauty of the words and the way they fit together, sound complementing sense.
The same was true of certain prayers and Bible passages—the Psalms, for instance, which I knew were also poems, although they didn’t rhyme.
Their language was archaic. I learned the King James Version, even though I didn’t know at the time that it was called that. But it was easy to understand, not hard at all. And to me, all those “thys” and “thous” and “eths” and “ests” made it seem as though the psalms came not from the olden days, but from a place beyond and outside of time.
Then I went to a service that used a revised and modernized version of the Bible. I could still recognize the prayers and psalms, but now they had a jarring pedestrian quality, almost like a Dick and Jane reader. I was still relatively young, but even then I felt the tug of nostalgia for the beautiful language of the past, despite the fact that I couldn’t articulate what was missing or why I minded so much.
Well, maybe now I can articulate it. Here’s the 23rd Psalm in the King James Version:
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
And here’s the same 23rd Psalm in the New American Standard version, written in 1971 with the twin goals of translational accuracy and modernization of the language.
It’s not necessarily identical with the first new version I encountered. But it’s typical of versions that make changes that are relatively minimal and yet still seem to me to represent a loss, however slight, of something very beautiful that was part of what made the earlier version so compelling. Is that loss compensated for by any gain in accessibility or authenticity? You be the judge:
The LORD is my shepherd,
I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside quiet waters.
He restores my soul;
He guides me in the paths of righteousness
For His name’s sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil, for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You have anointed my head with oil;
My cup overflows.
Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.
It doesn’t take too many liberties with the older version, not really. Mostly it clears out the “thous,” and substitutes the modern “you,” in addition to removing the archaic endings from the verbs. So it oughtn’t to be so bad, right? And yet, and yet … it feels so much flatter, although you may disagree.
The revisers have made a few other changes that seem to me to be gratuitous, although I imagine they have something to do with translating more literally and correctly from the original Hebrew (of which I understand only a few words, although I’ve heard it’s the very best way of all to appreciate the splendor and poetry of the work, as well as its meaning).
There are a couple of changes that jump out at me in jarring fashion. I feel something akin to a pang at the missing words and phrases, and come close to wincing at the additions.
Why oh why, in line 4 (corresponding to line 2 in the older version), are the waters described as “quiet” instead of “still?” Surely the phrases indicate close to the same thing in English, but “still” has the added virtue of conjuring up other references such as “still waters run deep,” as well as the repetitive “s” sound that harmonically resonates with the “s” at the end of the word “waters” and the one in the middle of “beside.” That’s poetry.
Then there’s the worst offense of all, at least to my ears: the omission of the word “Yea” in line 4 of the old version (it would be line 8 in the new). “Yea” was a great change of pace, a dramatic stopping point where the rhythmic variation of the unstressed and stressed syllables stood still for a moment, like a rest in music, before charging forward again. It worked as wonderful emphasis: yes, indeed; hear hear!
The substitution of “Even though” for “Yea, though” not only fails to serve this rhythmic function, it doesn’t even have the same meaning. “Yea” is an affirmation and an emphasis, underlining the thought to follow. The “even” is weak, tentative: “despite the fact that I walk through the valley … ”
I can’t imagine anyone caring quite the same way about the newer version as the older one. It’s hard to imagine anyone wanting to memorize it for the sheer beauty of it, although some of the poetry still comes through. Perhaps there’s even someone who prefers it, just as there are people who prefer frozen french fries to the real thing. But that someone isn’t me.
The changes for the sake of accuracy seem so minimal that I can’t believe they make much of a difference, although in some other parts of the Bible that may be more important. I say keep the important ones and ditch the rest.
I challenge anyone to prefer an even newer version, though, one that departs far more from King James. It’s called the Contemporary English Version, written in 1995 with the purpose of simplicity and ease of reading:
You, LORD, are my shepherd.
I will never be in need.
You let me rest in fields
of green grass.
You lead me to streams
of peaceful water,
and you refresh my life.
You are true to your name,
and you lead me
along the right paths.
I may walk through valleys
as dark as death,
but I won’t be afraid.
You are with me,
and your shepherd’s rod makes me feel safe.
You treat me to a feast,
while my enemies watch.
You honor me as your guest,
and you fill my cup
until it overflows.
Your kindness and love
will always be with me
each day of my life,
and I will live forever
in your house, LORD.
One might just as well call it the Hallmark greeting card version and be done with it. Or maybe it’s the “You Light Up My Life” version.
This version simplifies to the point of boredom. Nearly all the things that make the first (and even the second, to a certain extent) version uniquely vivid are blanded out. I have no idea why the water is now “peaceful,” for example, but it’s certainly the most dull choice of the three.
But perhaps the worst offense in the passage is totally eliminating the specificity of the image of anointing the speaker’s head with oil, substituting instead the generic and soporific (big yawn) “You honor me as your guest.” Yes, I get the reason: the meaning of the ritual, along with all its rich associations, has been lost. But I don’t think it’s that difficult to guess at in context or to teach, even for a child. For what shall it profit a religious text, if it shall gain a small modicum of enhanced comprehensibility, and lose its own power?
The King James Bible was once new and modern, I suppose, back in the early 1600s when it was first written. But there’s a reason why it’s so popular and has stood the test of time: it’s a masterpiece (and wonder of wonders, it’s a masterpiece produced by a committee).
And yet the urge to improve on the King James Version is nearly irresistible, it seems. There are no fewer than twenty other English-language versions listed at the BibleGateway site, and no doubt there are more on the way. That’s progress for you.
Actually, from all I’ve read, the KJV was consciously written in what was already at the time, archaic English.
It’s also not called the “King James”, but the “Authorized Version” in England, which is actually where it’s from. It’s also not the version used in the Book of Common Prayer; that uses the earlier Coverdale translation.
This is the original Coverdale:
The Lorde is my shepherde,
I can wante nothinge.
He fedeth me in a grene pasture,
and ledeth me to a fresh water.
He quickeneth my soule,
& bringeth me forth in the waye of rightuousnes
for his names sake.
Though I shulde walke now in the valley of the shadowe of death,
yet I feare no euell, for thou art with me:
thy staffe & thy shepehoke comforte me.
1535
Over here, we’re sticking with the Good King James. There’s nothing better, and it doesn’t hurt to know where your language came from.
I was once much more of a Bible scholar than I am now. No, I was in no way an actual scholar, I was an interested lay amateur — no, I was more than a mere lay amateur, I was a *student*. Of sorts.
Anyway, the King James Bible (KJV) was and is my go-to, but my practice, when I was much more involved with Bible study, was that I’d refer to the New English Bible* (NEB) for clarification whenever the KJV wording got obscure, ambiguous, or convoluted. But even up to September 2023, I never quote the NEB: only the KJV.
* New Testament, 1961; Old Testament, 1970
It’s not that the KJV has more of an air of sacredness — which it does, due, I well suppose, to a cultural conditioning that “thee”s and “thou”s (for examples) are more sacred sounding than common “you”s:
It’s just that I do find myself concurring with neo’s critiques of the newer versions / translations: “For what shall it profit a religious text, if it shall gain a small modicum of enhanced comprehensibility, and lose its own power?”
*Very* well-put there, neo!
There is also a New King James Version (1982), which is said to have maintained the “lyrical and devotional qualities” of the original, although thee & thou were replaced with other pronouns, and various translation difficulties were resolved in light of current understanding of the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. I prefer this one.
Zondervan publishers released a 400 th anniversary edition of the KJV that had the digitally remastered original type and lettering, among other things. You will notice that what is rendered ” J” in a modern KJV, was still an ” I” in some places in the original. The type is hard to read , imo. It almost works best to skim it fast rather than concentrate on the type style.
The anniversary edition did leave out the ” deuterocanonical” books.
Holy Bible, 1611 King James Version: 400th Anniversary Edition https://a.co/d/ajNDrm8
The KJV anniversary edition I linked to earlier does not contain the ” deuterocanonical” books.
Dear Neo: You and I travel many of the same roads. My DH and I are spending this week clearing out a storage unit we have had for 14 years! That means we have spent about $14,000 saving things that nobody now wants! It is heartbreaking to not know that these lovely things will not be treasured by someone.
I grew up in an Episcopal Church in the 1950s. The minister of my church was a treasure. He was English by birth with a good education, he understood philosophy and reason and had great patience. He did craft who I would be all the years of my life. But, for me, beyond his patient and loving heart there was his command of the English language and the way the King James should sound. I sang in the choirs all those years and in my last three years we sang for two services every Sunday morning. The sound of those words still echoes in the back of my mind. Thank YOU so much for sharing your thoughts and explaining why no revision since 1972 has been right for me. That was the year they revised my prayer book. I think the bible revision was done at about the same time.
My knowledge of the Bible isn’t very good. I went to Sunday School in fourth grade, when my then-girlfriend corralled me into going. In high school I was a member of LRY- Liberal Religious Youth (Unitarian). Very liberal, but not particularly religious.
The spring of my senior year in high school, there was an assembly which featured a minister and a education bureaucrat debating whether there should be a draft or not. During the discussion period, a former classmate of mine, in Army uniform, stood and spoke up. Several months later, before graduation, we found out he was killed in Vietnam.
Decades later, I visited the Vietnam War Memorial. I looked for, and found, my classmate’s name. While walking between the walls filled with names of the dead, The 23rd Psalm came to mind: Though I walk in the Valley of the Shadow of Death…
Also, in the original KJV, ” Psalms” is spelled ” Pfalmes”.
” David ” is spelled ” Dauid”.
” Israel” is spelled ” Ifraels”.
” Jesus” is called ” Jefus” .
” Christ” is ” Chrift”.
I am not religious. When younger visiting my Cousins in farmcountry IL I would go with one family one Sunday and the other family the next Sunday. I do remember the Lord’s Prayer and the King James version is what I remember. The language is lyrical and poetic. Yes I understand that it is the language of the time. I would no more change Shakespeare to be “modern” than I would King James version.
KJ version is the only version, as far as I’m concerned. And I am a devout churchgoer.
The newer versions are not inspirational, IMO.
Whenever I search online from the Bible to quote in a comment, I too have always found myself gravitating to the King James Bible (KJV) translation. Yet I’ve never given any deep thought to examine why and now neo, thankfully you’ve done it for me.
It’s the difference between He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.”
and…
“He makes me lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside quiet waters.”
Only an insensible soul can fail to grasp the difference.
Anne, the Prayer Book was revised in 1979, and newer trial liturgies are even worse. I still worship weekly with the 1928. The language lifts my soul, unlike pedestrian modern revisions which are flat. This is the same phenomenon Neo is talking about with Bible translations. Give me the beauty of the Elizabethan and Jacobean language.
I’ve attended a few Catholic masses now and then. The Novus Ordo is flat and pedestrian, and the Bible translation they use is even worse. Why use ugly language to talk to, and about, God?
jon baker
Typography then and now. Somehow the words still mean the same thing. English to English.
The history of the English language bible is really interesting. The Gospel of John was mostly done by one man, and then incorporated by the council that was given the task to translate it. Of all the books, it is, to me, the most lyrical of the English language books. Many of the best known verses by non-believers are from John (e.g., 3:16)
I do find the CSB (Christian Standard Bible) quite readable and still not … pedestrian. I was translated in the same manner as King James (an attempt to do a word for word translation as an opposed to a meaning) with corresponding limitations of the dialects not matching up.
The Minister who preaches to us does not use the language of the KJV. His wife reads the scripture in a modern (don’t know which one) edition; and he does as well.
However, he then frequently parses passages into the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek interpretation.
(Apparently in Seminary it is required to study those languages)
This practice of his is interesting. One of the doubts that can creep into the mind of the faithful is how much of the Bible was lost, or modified, in translation.
Another interesting practice of his was to use the historical context, frequently from the Old Testament, as a framework for his message.
An aside. Would it not be beneficial if Educators, Politicians, and Influencers (I really don’t like that word, but it is now ubiquitous) would make the same effort when discussing the current scene?
I never really found the KJV, or Shakespeare for that matter, easy to read; but enjoy listening to both.
If I were sitting around wondering what theological things I could do of value–presuming I had the ability–“improving” old language would not strike me as useful.
” The LORD ” in Psalm 23:1 is some variant of the Divine name told to Moses in Exodus 3:14. It is my understanding, that when you see all caps ” LORD ” in English translations, the original Hebrew would have used some version of the Exodus 3:14 NAME. The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, copyright 1995 by Thomas Nelson Publishers ,published in Nashville, Tn, list the Psalm 23:1 ” LORD ” as ” Yehovah” , or ” Jehovah” with various pronunciation markings that I have not replicated here on the Yehovah. It is my understanding that the oldest Hebrew text did not have written vowels , which contributes to questions about pronunciation. As I told one of my uncles , who has been a King James fanatic, that the fact that our common English translations often do not attempt to replicate either the pronunciation or meaning of the Divine name , but put ” LORD” , tells me that there is no English translation that is the end all, be all of English translations. I am aware of some people who do emphasize the ” Yahweh” aspect, but have other serious theological issues. Same with the ” Jehovah Witnesses” and their deep theological errors.
The Lord will straighten this all out at the end.
The f like character is called long s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s
I haven’t read the other comments, but this subject is near and dear to me. When I was a regular church-goer and my kids were young, the church we first attended was a fundamentalist Baptist church. I had no idea at the time what that meant. But they were “KJV only,” and I found out later they thought it was the only bible that God approved of, for interesting reasons.
Anyway, I read it through maybe 15 – 20 times, listened to it on tape over and over, read by the amazing Alexander Scourby, memorized entire books, plenty of Psalms and Proverbs, etc., and even though I no longer attend church, nor do I consider the KJV to be the only God-approved bible, there’s no other version for me.
The beauty of the KJV is just unmatched, and Neo’s right about how all others that I’ve come across (a lot) are flat and just don’t sound right.
It reminds me of a author/theologian I read way back who was critiquing some new-fangled hymn (song?) or another, comparing newer ones to the great old hymns like Wonderous King All Glorious (Joachim Neander) or God Moves in a Mysterious Way (William Cowper), etc. He summed them up by saying they basically said, “God is rad, He’s my dad.”
I have a gorgeous calf-skin Cambridge KJV bible and refer to it frequently! Both my children are well-versed in the language of the KJV (and lots of Shakespeare + Latin & Greek), and they’re both very glad of it. Thank goodness for homeschooling in the 90s!
it feels so much flatter
It is flatter, the rhythm and sound are spoiled, it is no longer poetry, it is pedestrian prose. Very pedestrian. I think the King James version profits from being written at a time when the English language was richer, or at least used with a freer imagination and an ear for sound. Shakespeare was still alive when it was published in 1611. I cannot imagine Hemingway writing anything so rich. Hemingway’s prose is celery sticks, the KJV is chocolate cake.
” Lord! Open the King of England’s eyes.”
Reported last words of English Bible translator William Tyndale before his martyrdom . His English Bible translation appears to have had a strong, strong influence on the later King James Bible.
Earlier in his life , Tyndale had stated that he wanted plowboys to know more of the Bible than a church official he was arguing with. In other words, Tyndale understood that the common people should be able to read the Bible in their own language.
The KJV is poetic, and I have a few copies myself and no one is stopping anyone from reading it. Because I used it in my youth, I am fairly familiar with it. But today, we have kids that can barely read modern English, much less 400 year old English.
I co taught kid’s Bible study for almost a decade at a group foster home. Trust me, these kids coming up now , unless they were immersed in the KJV from an early age, have serious issues understanding something like the KJV.
Tyndale’s dream was that English speaking people , including lowly plowboys , could read the Bible themselves. That is why new translations must be periodically made, as the language changes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
jon baker: totally makes sense!
Recently I stumbled upon the disturbing information that in what is believed to be the oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament–the mid fourth century CE “Codex Sinaiticus”–the Gospel of Mark does not have the “Resurrection narrative” (Mark 16:9-20) which is in the authorized versions of the Bible.*
As someone who was trained as a Historian, I’ve always been troubled by the question of how do you know if the documents from the past are accurate in what they describe.
An illustration of this problem came up in a class I took in graduate school on classical Chinese.
The Chinese text we were reading was about the lineage of the transmission of the leadership within a Buddhist–Ch’an to be exact–religious community–usually signified by the retiring or dying monk giving his choice to be the new leader his begging bowl and sometimes his robe.
There was contention about which lineage was the legitimate one, so this document was very important.
What we learned in reading/looking over this document was that one key Chinese character was a variant which had not come into use until quite some time after this ancient document in question was supposed to have been written i.e someone had forged the lineage document to falsely prove that one particular line of succession was the legitimate one.
* See https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/
Jon Baker: a minor adjustment on “lowly”? Some time back in one of Neo’s historical clothing videos, it was mentioned that the “ploughman” was a respected craftsman with a somewhat demanding scope of work. Plowing smoothly and productively in a largely agricultural society, using still evolving “technology”, must have demanded some attention to detail, to the horses and their condition, the state of the plow and other equipment, etc. Perhaps even some degree of athleticism. This demanding day job probably left him little time to gain proficiency in literacy, aside from reading his Bible. But of course Tyndale was right that “even” the ploughman would be intensely interested in understanding what the Bible really meant, and how closely or not his clergy were presenting it.
For me, the first version above seems to be written as a more complete whole, while the second version struck me as just a set of stand alone phrases or sentences, thus more disjointed.
Snow…Mark 16:1-8 IS Mark’s resurrection narrative.
Sinaiticus likely reflects accurately Mark’s composition as witness literature and “ends” with the commission to go do that and yet another “failure” by Christ’s followers to get the picture and then leaves the hearer/reader to do the right thing.
Some scholars propose early church folks were uncomfortable with that truncated ending and added 16:9-20 to do a more thorough job of gospelling.
YMMV
Just a thought on translations of the Bible.
The very best translation is the one you’ll read daily and allow to shape your life.
I care about accuracy and poetry. I care more about… faith and obedience.
Apropos of the 23rd Psalm in particular: we should not overlook metrical versions of the Psalms intended to be sung in worship services. One of my favorite hymn versions of the 23rd Psalm is one written by Francis Rous (1579–1659), a lawyer who served in Parliament under Cromwell. The language echoes the KJV even though Rous obviously had to make adjustments for rhyme and meter. Here are the lyrics:
1 The LORD’s my Shepherd, I’ll not want.
He makes me down to lie
in pastures green; He leadeth me
the quiet waters by.
2 My soul He doth restore again;
and me to walk doth make
within the paths of righteousness,
e’en for his own name’s sake.
3 Yea, though I walk thro’ death’s dark vale,
yet will I fear no ill;
for Thou art with me, and Thy rod
and staff me comfort still.
4 My table Thou hast furnishéd
in presence of my foes;
my head Thou dost with oil anoint,
and my cup overflows.
5 Goodness and mercy all my life
shall surely follow me:
and in God’s house forevermore
my dwelling place shall be.
The tune most often used with Rous’ version is called “Brother James’ Air”– written by a Scot named James Leith Macbeth Bain (1860–1925), known to his close associates as Brother James. Here it is, sung by the choristers of Canterbury Cathedral:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsw1gix1CvA&ab_channel=Liberic1
I find the hymn versions of Psalms as comforting as a recitation of the basic texts; of course YMMV.
And further to the “best translation” observation…
My former professors used to hammer us with “every translation involves making interpretive choices” because both Koine Greek & Biblical Hebrew “words” have wide ranging meanings/understandings (often by context) whereas English tends to have “a word means this” sense…and sure there are exceptions…but in general…
So…whatever translation you find “best” is the result of translators making choices among the many (20,000+ and counting as archaeologists find more) manuscripts & fragments.
AND…many newer translations are (as much as it galls me) “target marketed.” And reading comprehension level is part of the “targeting.” Zondervan used to publish a translation choices chart which gave you the targeted reading-grade-level of each translation. For instance…working from memory…NIV was 12th grade & NLT was 6th. (That last one, 6th grade, is what US newspapers used to be geared toward as well)
Neo’s CEV above is likely aimed at 4th/5th graders. We used to give those to 4th graders at a local Christian school. Always told parents the kids would need a new translation by high school.
More info than you wanted at this time of day? Well…you hit a topic I know something about 😉
And of course for some interesting musical interpretations of the Psalms
https://www.youtube.com/@SonsofKorah
I’m rather fond of these guys. Not always…but most of the time they’re spot on & musically awesome.
I can’t help but think it sounds as if, consciously or not, you’re placing the King James as the ‘original.’ Many (most?) of the newer versions aren’t changes from they’re different to the KJV since none of it was originally written in English.
Well, at least in theory; the KJV is, for better or ill, recognized as the ‘default’ English translation, and commentary on various translations are destined to use it as a reference point.
And it’s worth noting that at least some of these alternate translations are motivated as ‘fixes’ to the intentionally (and unintentionally) slanted translations in the KJV, rather than ‘modernizing’ the text.
The 23rd Psalm is one of my favorite passages from the bible. That first sentence for me as a believer says it all. Because I have a Great Shepherd, I shall not want. And also, as a sheep of the flock, I can choose not to want (and not wander, avoiding all that such might entail.)
Phillip Keller shepherded a flock and wrote a book going line by line presenting the depth of meaning encompassed in this Psalm. A book worth reading time and again.
A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23 https://a.co/d/hrSr9Ty
Since I’m a Catholic, I don’t use the KJV–as mentioned above, it is missing some books that Catholics consider to be canonical–but we had a classic translation of our own, the Douay-Rheims bible. Like the KJV, the language was more powerful than that of most modern translations. Indeed, the translation used in the Mass is flat compared to the older translations.
Imagine us when the changes of Vatican II came through, when the Mass went from Latin to a particularly banal English. A recent update did improve the language of the liturgy. However, our era’s disdain for tradition tends to tear down without thinking of the consequences.
However, like J. R. R. Tolkien, I remain a Catholic because of the presence of Christ.
I have just noticed that today is the anniversary of Tolkien’s death in 1974.
Yea, verily do I fully agree with the power of the beauty of the language of KJV.
But I also recall a sad joke story: This woman was discussing her support of English Language laws “as a good Christian, I have to say, if English is good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for all immigrants.”
Being a good person in general is more important than accuracy in most details.
I guess I’m sort of an outlier in this conversation. I grew up on the KJV, but I seldom use it anymore. I graduated with honors from a conservative college with a degree in Christian education in 1972, and was runner-up for my college’s Greek Award. One of my professors was part of the group that produced the first edition of the New International Version.
For study, I use the New American Standard; my Greek professor used to keep a copy of it on his desk (the New Testament–the complete NAS Bible did not come out until a few years later). For reading, I often use The Message–not because it is a wonderful translation, but because it mostly leaves out the verse markers and flows better. No, Moses, John, Paul, and the rest did not write in chapters and verses! The chapter divisions were added in the 1200s, and the verses in the 1500s. The chapter and verse markers made possible the practice of “proof-texting”–pulling some verse out to support some current idea, while ignoring the context, sometimes stringing unrelated verses together. The classic parody of proof-texting: “And Judas went and hanged himself.” “Go thou and do likewise.”
On the accuracy of the Biblical text: the KJV NT was based on the “Textus Receptus,” compiled by the Renaissance scholar Erasmus just before the Reformation (Erasmus only had access to a few copies of the Greek New Testament). In the centuries since, scholars have found over 5000 copies of the NT in Greek from before the rise of printing. And there is a scholarly field called “textual criticism,” which analyses the copies, sorts them into families by their quirks–misspellings, missing words, and other items that indicate they were copied from the same older copy. The amazing thing is how well the text was transmitted over the centuries. Yes, there are passages here and there that got garbled or mixed up, but they are few. If you put all the disputed passages in the NT together, you would have about half a page worth–with no major doctrine affected. The old scribes really were very careful.
We have complete or nearly complete copies of the Greek NT dating from the early 300s. There are fragments that are even older, along with quotations in the earliest post-apostolic writers. For a while, liberal theologians claimed that John’s Gospel was actually written after 200 AD, compared to the traditional date of between 70-90 AD. But a papyrus scrap with verses from John’s gospel was found that has been dated to 100-150 AD; and it was found in a small backwater town in Egypt, hundreds of miles away from where John wrote it in Asia Minor (now Turkey).
No translation, in any language, is going to be absolutely perfect in every passage. There are always choices that the translators have to make, trying to balance accuracy with good reading in the translation. But remember the real purpose of the Bible: it’s not about what you do in church services; it’s about how you live, 24/7/365.
The Psalter is a subject on which I spend a fair amount of time in my capacity as a Reader and when I have to do with choir-directing matters. In the Orthodox Church, we don’t use the Hebrew Old Testament, but rather the Septuagint. There are of course lots of differences between those two in detail, but oftentimes I focus on differences in translation in Psalms that are of particular liturgical importance, Psalm 50 being one of the big ones. (This is numbered as Psalm 51 in the KJV and almost every other English translation, which is in itself an indication of the fact that said translations were sourced from the Hebrew, not the Greek.)
When I read that Psalm in English, I often check for certain things as a way to assess translations to a first approximation. For example, “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness” in the KJV makes me pause immediately, as “lovingkindness” departs from the Greek , ‘great mercy’.
Similarly later on,
“Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom,” compared to the Greek which is more like this:
“Behold, Thou hast loved truth; the unknown and secret things of Thy wisdom hast Thou made manifest unto me.”
(Looking at the Vulgate just now is interesting as well, since that has some pretty ancient roots that seem to compare favorably to the above examples. My knowledge of Latin is too weak, though, to really understand it.)
The Holy Transfiguration Monastery work from a number of years ago now is still the gold standard for an Orthodox Christian Psalter in English as far as I can see. Some find it stilted and unlovely at times, which I can understand to a certain extent, but even so, it has some lovely, very KJV-like passages. The crucial thing for me at this point is that it aligns accurately with the Septuagint and with Greek and Russian liturgy, far more than any other English translation of the Psalter that I know of.
For the Gospels, our parish priest has started recently making use of the ‘Eastern Orthodox Bible’ translation, which is, I understand, an update and revision of sorts to the Brenton LXX translation. I’ve never actually seen or held it in its entirety yet. Maybe I’m just not shopping in the right places. Unfortunately, I don’t have a volume of the Epistles from this translation to pair with the Gospel book for liturgical use, but hopefully that’s on the way.
I suppose reading the KJV may be somewhat like reading the Muir translation of Kafka – often more lyrical than the original, sometimes to the point of being a departure in flavor from it.
Not the ONLY great work produced by a committee (the Constitution was largely the work of a few men, but the end result was produced by committee consensus, including the Bill of Rights.
I remember first being exposed to the King James version in high school English. I’m a Catholic, and, at that time, the Douay-Rheims version was used.
It was taught from the perspective of literature, not religion. I immediately saw the beauty of that version (although, I still prefer the D-R version, as much because it was used throughout my childhood as because it was objectively better).
I’m amazed just how few children (and a lot of adults) have EVER heard of that version, let alone read it.
J, that’s a momentous memorial date. Next year will be 50 years, then!
Phil Hawkins, those are some interesting contributions. Thanks. (I like your Substack so far, too.)
Just to say I very much enjoyed this post, Neo. The KJV is a classic of English prose, and many literary folks have deplored more recent translations on the grounds of cultural preservation alone. Those of us for whom it’s an important element of our cultural consciousness are a passing breed, though.
For the Psalms in general I’ve become very attached to the Coverdale translation. It’s often even more vivid and passionate. Also less accurate, I suspect. But I go back to the KJV for the 23rd.
The Bible (aka, The Book) is actually two books. The Old Testament is The Torah, written in Hebrew, which is not merely a different language, such as English to German or Spanish, but a different type of writing and reading.
What is the original language of the New Testament? Aramaic? That got translated to Greek, then Latin, then Ye Olde English?
Some subtleties are going to be lost in any translation, but as Neo has noted, the KJV version is poetic and as such, easier to learn and remember (oral traditions are usually poetic.)
I understand that the KJV committee’s procedures included the subgroups reviewing each other’s work. Review included listening while the translated sections were read aloud, to be critiqued.
Perhaps that’s one reason the KJV reads so smoothly-it was written for the ear as well as the eye.
Interesting and informative comments here. One of the important reasons for preserving familiarity with the KJV, even if not for daily use, is for cultural preservation, as Mac says. KJV sentences and phrases are liberally sprinkled throughout English literature and throughout speeches and writings from generations of American leaders and scholars.
No doubt the KJV is a literary miracle. Sometimes it all comes together.
That said, my reading Bible is the Catholic New Jerusalem version because I find it has modern language and presumably greater accuracy without entirely losing the KJV’s soaring quality. For instance:
____________________________________
Yahweh is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
In grassy meadows he lets me lie. By tranquil streams he leads me
to restore my spirit. He guides me in paths of saving justice as befits his name.
Even were I to walk in a ravine as dark as death I should fear no danger, for you are at my side. Your staff and your crook are there to soothe me.
You prepare a table for me under the eyes of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup brims over.
–Psalms 23:1-5
____________________________________
Not bad. I’d still choose the KJV version,.
I will add to my previous comments that when I quote the Bible on line, I often use the KJV just to potentially avoid any copyright notification issues on newer translations.
That being said, I do not want anyone here to think I am opposed to the KJV. If that is what you are used to , go for it. That translation served a huge purpose for generations of English speakers. I am however, opposed to these KJV only preachers that try to maintain that is the only viable English translation.
Huxley, interesting that your translation does put the ” Yahweh” in Psalm 1:1. As I pointed out in an earlier quote, the proper name for God, does appear to be the proper translation.
My father was a “Holy Roller” fundamentalist preacher (you’ll notice I did not say “minister”) and KJV was to him Holy Writ! Having been subjected to that until his death in 1960, at first opportunity I began searching for truth. After somehow stumbling on Adam Nicholson’s story of the origin of the KJV (God’s Secretaries) I found a digital 1611 copy, then the Nag Hammadi Scriptures, then The Lost Gospel of Peter, then the Gnostic Gospels of Thomas, Mary, and John, then abandoned the search for greater knowledge and sank into anti organized religion as I had become disillusioned with the entire subject. Read most of Thomas Merton’s stuff. Finally gave it all up and decided I had been relying on others’ opinions, theories, and ideas and needed to talk to the Master Himself.
Engaged in much introspection, much prayer, even some deliberation before concluding that no-one really knows anything and must have Faith that who/what/when the entity we call God, Jehovah, Yeshua, Jesus exists as described. Then there’s no need for priests or preachers or go-betweens and one may speak directly to that Great Spirit.
Now at 84 years I give thanks daily for that benevolence and ask for continuance. For sure, life has had it’s challenges but they’re greatly exceeded by it’s blessings.
Charley HuaChu
I highly recommend God’s Secretaries, Adam Nicolson’s book about the KJV and its creation. It is a thorough examination of the creation of the Authorized Version and the milieu from which it came.
As noted above, the translators were trying to create a language that was slightly archaic (English as it was imagined to have been spoken three generations earlier) and therefore both elevated and familiar and capable of multiple layers of meaning. The KJV was, as it says, appointed to be read in churches. It still works.
,,,KJV sentences and phrases are liberally sprinkled throughout English literature and throughout speeches and writings from generations of American leaders and scholars. –Mac
Kate, Mac
Yes. One need not be Christian to be persuaded of the Bible’s greatness and importance, in general and to English speakers in particular.
When I was an apprentice poet in my 20s, the poet, critic and painter Kenneth Rexroth, a godfather to the Beat Poets among other things, set me straight that I needed to get a copy of the KJV and study it as literature.
I can’t find the quotes which set me on fire, but here are a few KR gems from a review Rexroth wrote in 1961, comparing the then “New English Bible” to the KJV:
_______________________________________________
Beyond questions of accuracy and lightness and grace, it is a question of tone. The King James translators believed the words of the New Testament in a way that a panel of modern scholars does not. The archetypical, hieratic grandeur of the narrative, as Toynbee has so ingeniously analyzed it, the transfigured schema of tragic drama — this had a significance for Anglican priests of the early seventeenth century that it simply does not have for a liberal scholar or theologian today..
I am afraid I took this assignment more seriously than it warrants. I gathered all the recent translations of the Bible I could obtain. I hoped to do an extensive, judicial, even scholarly comparison of them all. It is not worth the space and trouble. What is wrong with [all the new translations] is that they are not very good. The King James translators were great writers; Goodspeed, Moffat, Rieu, Philips, are not. They are pedestrian, and the New Testament may have many faults, but it is not pedestrian.
https://www.bopsecrets.org/rexroth/essays/new-english-bible.htm
_______________________________________________
Amen.
OK first I will state that the language of the Authorized version (AKA the King James) is quite beautiful. It (wisely) borrows from earlier english translations such as the Coverdale and Tyndale. As a translation in the modern sense for comprehension of the text it has several issues. Someone asked what language the New Testament was written in. It is primarily in Koine (common) Greek with rare words or phrases in Aramaic. This language not Latin was the lingua franca of the eastern parts of the Roman Empire in the first century AD and the language which many of the Jews of the Diaspora used to communicate. As noted elsewhere there is a translation of the Hebrew bible (both the five books of the Torah and the history and prophets) called the Septuagint because Koine Greek was common to the Diaspora.
The KJV has several issues
1) The greek text the translators used called the Textus Receptus is from MUCH later greek manuscripts (many with clear transcription errors) than modern translators use. Also parts of the greek texts were NOT extant or easily available to the compiler and so he back translated the Latin Vulgate to greek to fill in missing pieces.
2) The translators had limited access to good Hebrew texts and often had to lean on the Septuagint or even the Latin Vulgate for some passages, thus leaving them translating a translation (think of the game of telephone and you’ll see the problem)
3) The English of King James’ time is NOT the English of the 20th century. Think about reading Shakespeare or other contemporary English. There are footnotes for usage everywhere. There are usages of words (consider Holy Ghost, The modern usage of ghost is VERY different from early 17th century where Ghost and Spirit are essentially interchangeable). Thus if you are reading for comprehension of the message there are false cognates scattered about the text.
There are many excellent modern translations. The ESV (English Standard Version) is one that tries to stay as close as practical to the original grammatical structure and tries for a direct (almost word for word) translation. It’s English can be stilted at times but is often preferred by much of Evangelical Christianity particularly by preachers. The NIV (New International Version) tries for a more thought for thought translation. It is far easier to read than the ESV especially for reading aloud. My own favorite is the NET (New English Translation) it tries to split the difference in those two schools of translation. It is free for public use with some minor restrictions. It also has a version with footnotes noting Text critical issues (where several original texts vary, more common in new testament than in old) and with notes on WHY they translate to a particular English form. All of these are fresh translations from modern versions of the texts including 19th century finds of earlier New Testament Greek and Hebrew texts taking advantage of the 20th century finds such as the Dead Sea/ Qumran scrolls. All of these (as well as probably 30 others and ones in many other languages are available here https://www.biblegateway.com/
Tregonsee314 ,
Yes on Greek being the primary language of the New Testament, thanks to the long influence of the Greeks on the Eastern Mediterranean, pre dating the Roman incursions.
However, there was a man named Irenaeus , who was a Bishop of Lyons ( AD 180) who was a student of Polycarp who was a student of the Apostle John. He provided some background to the writings of the four gospels and claimed that Matthew was first published in the language of the Hebrews while Peter and Paul were in Rome. There is a paragraph excerpt of his description of the writings of the four gospels in the book ” The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell, in the chapter ” Is the New Testament Historically Reliable?” , page 53-54 in the hard cover copy. Copyright 1999 by Josh D. McDowell. By Thomas Nelson Publishers.The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Evidence I & II Fully Updated in One Volume To Answer The Questions Challenging Christians in the 21st Century. https://a.co/d/fMAH2Dz
Thank you all for this lovely consideration and discussion regarding that which has sustained me through life. Helping me to a greater and deeper understanding–Thank you.
rbj1 on September 2, 2023 at 11:19 am said:
“… What is the original language of the New Testament? Aramaic? That got translated to Greek, then Latin, then Ye Olde English?”
Some scholars believe the NT mirrors many themes from the OT: Jesus’s travels vs. Moses’s trials, etc.
Joseph Atwill, in Caesar’s Messiah, suggests the Gospels were written originally in Greek, led by a Roman/Flavian-Jewish-Alexandrian conspiracy, for a Hellenic audience of literate Jews to persuade the Jews to be less zealous in their resistance to Roman political rule (and as an aside (or insider) hoax, having the Jews “unknowingly” end up worshiping Titus as the son of Vespasian).
Another book that I have not yet bought or read also addresses some of this idea:
Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity [2018], by James S Valliant & Warren Fahy. [This idea is OT to the theme of English translations of the Bible, except that perhaps it was never written in Aramaic, or was later translated to Aramaic from the Greek?]
Kate on September 2, 2023 at 12:09 pm said:
“… important reasons for preserving familiarity with the KJV, … is for cultural preservation, …. KJV sentences and phrases are liberally sprinkled throughout English literature and throughout speeches and writings from generations of American leaders and scholars.”
I was reared in a non-believing household and never received any parentally endorsed religious instruction or education. But my mother, a lapsed Catholic, did suggest I should familiarize myself with the Bible as a work of literature so that I would understand the context for the types of biblical references you mention.
“What is the original language of the New Testament?”
Which part? The Four Gospels, Acts,The Epistles, Revelation. IIRC, it varies but isn’t a deep conspiracy. One of the easier questions to answer.
[Posted my prior comment before reading to the end.]
@ Huxley: I see you also received advice to study the Bible as literature (2:45pm).
While at 12:19pm, you present from the Catholic New Jerusalem version:
“Even were I to walk in a ravine as dark as death I should fear no danger, for you are at my side. Your staff and your crook are there to soothe me.”
In the early 50’s, we had to recite the Psalm and the Pledge of Allegiance, typical for that time and place. Now, as a no-Sunday-school/ no-church-attendance 6 year old, I am not sure the CNJ “ravine as dark as death” would have filled me with the same level of dread as the KJV version:
“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.”
And I often forget the phrase “of the shadow”, so the distinction here becomes ravine vs. valley. With the KJV, at age 6, I ended up with an image of dark storm clouds overhead with dark mountains on both sides, a very foreboding feeling. I don’t know if I knew what a ravine was as a 6 year old, but I now view it as a rather narrower cut through a mountain, possibly with dense vegetation to make it “dark”. In any case, I never understood how a rod and a staff (or Shepard’s crook?) were supposed to comfort me, but then I failed to appreciate the “thy” owner of each. Oh, and fearing “danger” does not seem as serious as fearing “evil”.
tregonsee314 on September 2, 2023 at 2:53 pm:
“… the New Testament was written … primarily in Koine (common) Greek with rare words or phrases in Aramaic. This language not Latin was the lingua franca of the eastern parts of the Roman Empire in the first century AD and the language which many of the Jews of the Diaspora used to communicate.”
Thank you for that clarification on the Aramaic contributions, and the rest of your comment.
Jon baker on September 2, 2023 at 5:12 pm:
Interesting comment about Irenaeus. When I went to your Amazon link for The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Evidence I & II Fully Updated in One Volume, a couple of negative reviewers said this version was not as helpful as his first book. One comment said it was too disjointed and would not help a nonbeliever.
I have been on the look out for a suitable scholarly work that might refute Atwill’s “unusual” thesis on the Roman hoax generation of the Gospels (not yet clear if Atwill has a book out on the rest of the NT, although I suppose the non-Gospel elements might have been written later by non-hoaxers). Such a scholar would have to be knowledgeable about the 1st century Roman bureaucracy responsible for managing the various religions extant throughout the empire, in part to credibly explain how the Church was always led by a Roman selected leader (except Peter?).
If anyone has a candidate book in mind, I welcome that feedback.
Some big literary writer / college professor I’ve forgotten lamented that once upon a time a professor could wade into an aspiring class of freshman English Lit students on the first day and expect they would get Biblical references in the lectures.
No, needless to say, more.
This is such a loss. Nowadays “The Simpsons” may be as close to a shared canon as we Americans get. Probably not even that.
I’m now reading Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises” (1926) again. Back then a classy literary thing was to sneak in Bible quotes for titles and epigraphs. A fine tradition. Hemingway did both immediately after the dedications:
______________________________
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth forever… The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to the place where he arose… The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to its circuits… All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come thither they return again.
–Ecclesiastes 1:4-7 (KJV)
______________________________
Good enough for Hemingway, good enough for me.
Special thanks to the many translator volunteer commentators, I’ve learned a lot from your comments. An often added bonus to Neo’s thoughtful posts.
R2L,
The whole idea that the 1 st century Roman government invented Christianity is ludicrous. I have been seeing this idea pop up online recently. The church was being persecuted by the Romans from very early on . Look up “Tacitus” and ” Pliny the Younger” and their study or interactions with the early Christians.
As for McDowell’s books, he has a whole series of books that are updates or slight differences in emphasis. They are written in outline form, like a series of lecture notes. Scattered throughout them is quotes from both Christian and non Christian writers from the first three or four centuries of Christianity. It may seem dis jointed, but it is broken down in themes.
I went thru a period more than three decades ago where I was questioning why I believed in Christianity or should I believe in something else. McDowell’s earlier book ” Evidence that Demands a Verdict” was quiet helpful. Though the more recent version is ” Evidence for Christianity.”
the valley of the shadow of death, was a real place, called hinnom or gehenna, a sacrificial pyre, hence the unpleasantness,
Wow! A lot more responses – and thoughtful ones – than I thought this post would draw….
KJV is beautiful – but the original Hebrew text is closer in tone to the ‘modern’ version in your post.
Hebrew is incredibly terse. It is based on roots of 2 or 3 consonants that are conjugated into verbs or modified into nouns and adjectives. Vocalization marks and a few added letters convey tense, person/ownership, gender, number, and intensity.
This results in very tight constructions that are easily understood – unlike English where verbs are not conjugated per se, and the order in which many ‘helper’ words are strung together is extremely important.
There is no “high” or formal version of Hebrew – other than addressing honored people in the plural, or in 2nd person – which made it particularly jarring to read the “modern” version that replaced the “He” with “You”…
There is also not the same range of vocabulary or synonyms as in English. It is much more acceptable to repeat words, where in English comp we were taught to vary the words used for the same concept…. that said, one of the major literary structures of the entire Jewish Bible is the double or triple strophe, in which a similar idea is repeated in varied phrases. Unfortunately many translators just fish around for any old synonym, when the original Hebrew is quite purposefully building towards a certain idea.
/He lays me down in pasture/
/He leads me by still water/
/He restores my soul/
Regarding ‘quiet’ or ‘still’ waters – the Hebrew original is literally ‘resting waters’ or ‘waters of rest/repose’ – from the same root as the name Noah – ‘this one shall *relieve* us of our toil’ (Genesis 5:29)
This is a great topic/conversation!
Thanks, Ben David, for your contribution. I do get the impression that some of the KJVs literary qualities emerged in the translation process.
I once fell in love with W.S. Merwin’s translations of Neruda’s poems into English. Later I realized that some of what I loved was Merwin’s style — his translations of Neruda sounded like Merwin’s own poems.
That quality was absent when other people translated Neruda.
Since everything ultimately is about French — n’est-ce pas? — I was curious to see if there were a French translation of the Bible influenced by the KJV.
Turns out the Louis Segond Bible (1910) is often sold as the French half of a bilingual Bible alongside the KJV. Supposedly, Segond was translating from original sources, but by my novice French, it sure seems that Segond was looking over his shoulder at the KJV, at least with the immortal Psalm 23.
______________________________
1 L’Eternel est mon berger: je ne manquerai de rien.
2 Il me fait reposer dans de verts pâturages, Il me dirige près des eaux paisibles.
3 Il restaure mon âme, Il me conduit dans les sentiers de la justice, A cause de son nom.
4 Quand je marche dans la vallée de l’ombre de la mort, Je ne crains aucun mal, car tu es avec moi: Ta houlette et ton bâton me rassurent.
5 Tu dresses devant moi une table, En face de mes adversaires; Tu oins d’huile ma tête, Et ma coupe déborde.
6 Oui, le bonheur et la grâce m’accompagneront Tous les jours de ma vie, Et j’habiterai dans la maison de l’Eternel Jusqu’à la fin de mes jours.
–Psalms 23:1-6 (Louis Segond Bible)
______________________________
Perhaps PA+Cat or other blog Francophones might care to comment.
Here’s the Google Translate of Segond:
___________________________
1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, He directs me beside still waters.
3 He restores my soul, He leads me in the paths of righteousness, Because of his name.
4 When I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for you are with me: Your rod and your staff comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me, before my adversaries; You anoint my head with oil, And my cup overflows.
6 Yes, happiness and grace will be with me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord until the end of my days.
___________________________
Google Translate is based on AI and it certainly trained on the KJV, but the translation does look reasonable.