KJV RIP?

I miss the King James Version of the Bible terribly.

I'm not a KJV-only type of Baptist, and I preach from several different translations (including my three contemporary favorites: the ESV, the HCSB, and the NKJV). And, yes, I know it is odd for a Baptist to have such affection for a translation rendered by a committee of Anglicans at the bequest of a state church.

But I grew up in a church that didn't know there was another translation, so the whole congregation could pick up on phrases immediately, knowing what they meant and from where they had come. This has been lost in an American Protestant world of a Bible translation for every man (sorry, I mean "person").

Mark Noll has a piece in the Wall Street Journal about the loss of the KJV as a formative influence on American language and culture. Noll writes:

"Because the KJV was so widely read for religious purposes, it had also become a source of public ideals. Because it was so central in the churches, and because the churches were so central to the culture, the KJV functioned also as a common reservoir for the language. Hundreds of phrases (clear as crystal, powers that be, root of the matter, a perfect Babel, two-edged sword) and thousands of words (arguments, city, conflict, humanity, legacy, network, voiceless, zeal) were in the common speech because they had first been in this translation. Or to be more precise, because they had been in the KJV or in the earlier translations, like those of John Wycliffe's followers (1390s) and William Tyndale (1520s), that King James' translators mined for their own version.

"But during the past half-century, we have come into a new situation. For believers who read the Bible because they think it is true, a welter of modern translations compete for the space once dominated by the KJV. For the public at large, the linguistic and narrative place that for more than two centuries had been occupied by the KJV is now substantially filled by the omnipresent electronic media. The domains that have been most successfully popularized by television, the movies and the Internet are sport, crime, pornography, politics, warfare, medicine and the media itself. Within these domains there is minimal place for biblical themes of any sort, much less the ancient language of the KJV."

Noll goes on to note that the passing of the KJV's dominance in American culture is, in some ways, good. He thinks, for instance, of Roman Catholics who were expected to quote from this Protestant translation in public schools. I'm not so much saddened by the loss of this common translation in the culture as in the churches, and the ways in which Bible translations now often exist to serve an ideological niche within the church (i.e., the disastrous TNIV).

It's not just the beauty and majesty of the KJV that I miss. Nor is it, I think, just nostalgia. It is the continuity between generations. There's something about the beauty, the majesty, and the continuity between generations about the KJV that is sorely missed when it is gone. I suppose that's why I preach and teach from any number of translations, but when I am sorrowful or grieving or comforting a hopeless friend I turn to the same King James Version I memorized verses from in childhood Sword Drills at Woolmarket Baptist Church. I know that I'm reading the same words my grandfather preached from fifty years ago, the same words my great-grandparents would have read through the Depression, and my great-great-great grandparents would have read in the aftermath of Reconstruction.

As we move toward the 400th anniversary of the King James Version in 2011, I realize that my children and grandchildren will probably memorize Scripture in something other than the KJV. They'll understand the Bible in a language they can grasp, and that's an important aspect of why I'm a Protestant. So I'm happy about that. But will they know what it is to hear the words, "Verily, verily I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit" (John 12:24)?

I suppose what matters is that they know the words of Jesus, rightly translated, and follow Him. Still, with Professor Noll, I know something has been lost, along with what has been gained. I guess one could say it's a two-edged sword.

Comments

[Bobby Winters]

I'm a United Methodist now, but those sword drills I learned as a Baptist fingerling have served me well.

There is nothing that sings quite the way the KJV does. I'd rather live in the house of the Lord "forever" instead of "to the end of my days" any time.

[Bill R]

In the preceding post, Dr. Hutchens commented on the lack of respect for the name of God that such terms as "godblog" evince. I think that Dr. Moore's post carries that theme forward with respect to the Scriptures themselves. As helpful as modern translations are, they seem to lack the dignity of the KJV. Could not all churches agree that one rather traditional translation be used in public readings (say, the ESV or the NKJV), but acknowledge the usefulness of many other translations for private study?

[Wonders For Oyarsa]

I'm actually a young enough evangelical to have grown up on the NIV. I'm in the middle of my first serious trip through the entire Bible as an adult and I'm using the ESV. It's absolutely amazing - I feel like it's the Bible I never knew I had. So much literary depth and the like, which had before just went right over my head.

Anyway, not to be a snob or anything, but I'd be all for trying to establish a definitive translation for public reading. ESV's my vote.

[GL]

I use the ESV for my daily prayers and devotions, with one exception -- I usually use the KJV for the Psalms. I know Anglicans have traditionally used Coverdale and the ESV translation of the Psalms is very literary, but for me, nothing can compare to the KJV for the Psalms.

Think of the great literature and speeches which were influenced by the KJV/AV. I particular think of the greatest wordsmith of our Presidents, Lincoln, whose phrasing followed the tempo and rhythm of the KJV even when he was not quoting or paraphrasing directly from it, which he often did. And let's not forget the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which gave us our wedding ceremony and our burial rite which have also been thrown overboard in recent decades. What a lose, and most Americans do not even realize it.

[James A. Altena]

Unfortunately, even more literal (one can scarcely call them "traditional"!) modern translations of Scripture such as the NKJV and ESV suffer from either one or both of two grave defects: a) the rejection of the Textus Receptus for the NT (I have always found the arguments for so doing unconvincing); and b) the loss of the crucial distinction between the singular and second person resulting from the abandonment of the "thee/thou" form. (Not to mention the loss of poetic sound and dignity that "sings", and the special intimacy and reverence of its language for addressing the Almighty, in contrast to the breezy familiarity of the the modern use of "you." Am I virtually the only person left in the English-speaking world who still uses "thee/thou" language for my private devotions as well as public worship and daily offices?).

I do think that the AV of 1885 is overall a superior translation to the KJV of the OT (but not the NT). These two, and the RSV and the 1917 OT by the Jewish Publication Society, are the only versions I bother using. And as a traditional Anglican (who used the 1662 BCP at his wedding last year) I would never agree to a substitution of any modern translation for the KJV in public reading. Claims that its Elizabethan prose is incomprehensible to a "modern" audience are rubbish (as are the similar ones made about the 1549-1928 BCP), and the occasional obscurity can be clarified by a brief aside in a sermon, Bible study, or one of several inexpensive supplemental KJV "word books" for that purpose.

I seem to be in a decided minority in being quite unimpressed with the ESV. Large stretches of it are virtually identical to the RSV, except for occasional substitutions of a synonym (usually one pitched at an audience with a reading level about two grades below the RSV). E.g., take the two versions and compare the book of Hosea line by line -- the ESV is a blatant crib of the RSV. Its attraction as a novelty for a generation raised on the NIV ("Non-Inspired Version") and other increasingly paraphrastic versions is that it is largely a literal translation rather than using the highly inaccurate, tendentious, and manipulative "dynamic equivalence" method of "translation."

[James A. Altena]

Also, here is a useful site with comparative overviews of different translations:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/

[Wonders For Oyarsa]

I don't suppose it would be well-recieved to point out that "you" and "ya'll" would make the same distinction?

Ahh well, perhaps it is true that translating the holy words from the original Arabic loses the inspiration. What religion were we talking about again?

[Matthias]

James - I'm in the Antiochian Archdiocese and use the Pocket Prayer Book for private devotions. It still uses thou/thee. And we use thou/thee in liturgy as well, and the RSV only for readings (as I believe all English speaking Orthodox do).

I'm with you on being underwhelmed by the ESV. It's okay, but does not have enough advantages over the RSV to make up for the lack of historical connection and familiarity.

[Stuart Koehl]

All you Protestants be glad that you are spared the banalities of the New American Bible, the "official" English translation of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, and the only one authorized for liturgical use in the United States.

Bad enough to be a Roman Catholic forced to listen to the awkward paraphrases and stilted colloquialisms of the NAB in a spoken service. How much the worse to be a Byzantine Catholic forced to hear these same awkward, stilted phases sung or chanted to the Eight Tones.

I am not sure which sets my teeth more on edge: the use of a dumbed down English that makes USAToday seem erudite; or the relentless didacticism of the translators, who, convinced that the readers are a bunch of morons, seem intent not on rendering an accurate translation but on imposing their interpretation of the text upon us.

Some glaring example from several recent readings: "A member of the ruling class", "the Zealot Party member", "and the upshot was".

Then there are the awful translations of the Psalms, which seem to indicate that the translators never understood that these are songs meant to be SUNG.

[Judy Warner]

Original Arabic? Was that a joke?

[Russell D. Moore]

Mr. Altena,

I appreciate your concerns about the KJV in public reading, and agree with many of them. One note, however: the ESV intentionally resembles and even duplicates the RSV. The ESV is not a new translation, but an update of the RSV. Crossway received the rights to update the RSV, a good translation but one that was never acceptable to most of us conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants for several reasons (i.e., "expiation" instead of "propitiation" in Romans and 1 John; "young woman" in Isaiah 7, etc.). The ESV leaves much of the RSV alone and that is mostly, I think, a good thing.

I can only say "Amen" (or, excuse me, "I agree" for those who can't understand KJVish language) about the loss of the KJV in wedding services, and about the NIV which has always set my teeth on edge.

[Pr. Dave Poedel]

Experiencing the NAB as a Roman Catholic,then as a young Lutheran Deacon, passing through the phase of The Good News Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible, found the NIV, dabbled in the NRSV, I am delighted to settle on the ESV as my devotional and preaching Holy Scripture.

It feels good to settle without ever having been embroiled in the KJV life that stirs such passion.

[GL]

James,

As to the ESV, I must disagree with you as to its literary qualities, which I believe exceed all 20th and 21st Century translations except the RSV and the changes to that translation pointed out by Dr. Moore outweigh any superiority the RSV has in literary quality. I do regret the decision to use "you" rather than "thee," "thou," etc.

You may want to consider the RSV-2nd Catholic Edition, a copy of which I have, but it suffers from some of the same modernizations you dislike in the ESV. I believe the long-awaited Orthodox Study Bible is to be published next year, which is based on the LXX and TR.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Original Arabic? Was that a joke?<<<

Yeah. Everyone knows the Bible was written in Slavonic.

[Bill R]

Mr.Altena, you state that the NKJV is not based on the TR, then you refer us to a website that specifically disagrees with you: "The New King James Version is a conservative revision of the King James version that does not make any alterations on the basis of a revised Greek or Hebrew text, but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie the King James version. In the New Testament, this means that the Greek text followed is the Textus Receptus of the early printed editions of the sixteenth century."

[Pr. David Poedel]

The Orthodox Study Bible on my shelf is based on the NKJV if memory serves.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The Orthodox Study Bible on my shelf is based on the NKJV if memory serves.<<< True, but only the New Testament and Psalms. An ongoing effort to produce a modern, accurate translation of the LXX was started many years ago, but seems to have foundered. Anybody know the status of the project?

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill R.,

You mis-read my post. I said that modern translations "suffer from either one or both of two grave defects." E.g., the NKJV suffers from only one (loss of thee/thou), the NIV from both.

Dear Dr. Moore,

Thanks for your additional post and its information about the relation of the RSV to the ESV. I find it puzzling in that I have had it insisted to me (by a pastor whose congregation includes one of the ESV translators) that the ESV is an independent translation, not a revision of the RSV, and that the two are quite dissimilar. (At which juncture there was no point in continuing the conversation.)

Dear GL,

I have been awaiting the promised Orthodox translation with great anticipation, and hope to cry "axios!" when it appears. As for any supposed literary qualities of the ESV, we'll have to disagree; but I'll bet that C. S. Lewis would have had more than a few tart remarks to make about its flaws in scansion, rhythm, and metre.

Dear Pr. David Poedel,

It is my understanding (perhaps wrong) that this promised complete Orthodox Bible is to be a fresh translation of the Septuagint, and not just the NJKV with Orthodox Study notes. At least, I hope so. (I have the old Benetton translation of the Septuagint and have used it with profit.)

Dear Matthias,

I have most of the Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite materials. Alas, the services of Morning and Evening Prayer in the AOC service book I have were ruined by a priest who created a mishmash by making jarring interpolations into it from the Roman Catholic daily offices (which have their own integrity and are wonderful in their own way), and then got a bishop (who, not being too familiar with the originals, didn't know any better) to give it his imprimatur without first passing it by Fr. Schnierla (who was then responsible for the Western Rite parishes, and was livid over the result). At least, FWIW, that's my unconfirmed inside scuttlebutt from a dear (and sadly deceased) AOC friend. At least Lancelot Andrewes Press is doing yeoman's work in reprinting the Monastic Diurnal and similar materials.

Dear Stuart,

Perhaps I need correction, but I'm positive that the RSV is also authorized for liturgical use in the RC Church in this country. I diden't mention the NAB (or the equally hideous Jerusalem Bible, or the NEB, etc.) by name for the sake of brevity. If memory serves me correctly, the NAB Psalter is now on its third trashing of the original text, with each new version worse than its predecessor.

"Liturgist: An affliction sent by God such that, in a time of no overt persecution, no Catholic need be denied the privilege of suffering for the faith." (I don't remember the source of this offhand, but it's a beaut!)

(And while I suppose you'll disagree, Stuart, classical catholic Anglicans are not any more Protestant than are the Eastern Orthodox -- though I don't use "Protestant" as a pejorative term, either.)

Dear Wonders of Oyarsa:

First off, it's "y'all" not "ya'll".
Second, what was the point of your post, anyway?

[Joe Long]

The decline of the KJV is not the decline of Christianity - but it bodes very ill for our civilization.

Being raised on the KJV gave me a distinct advantage in literature classes, and helps me now with nineteenth and early twentieth century historical research, almost daily; you can't fully comprehend an old American political speech or ordinary newspaper column without, not simply Biblical literacy, but KJV familiarity. It was "common culture" and more, and we are poorer for its loss.

[Wonders For Oyarsa]

James A,

I seem to be corrected when I use "y'all", but now that I've been corrected the other way around, I'll use "y'all" as it is my preference.

My point was mostly to be silly and irritating (and I do hope I've suceeded), but perhaps I'll field a serious question.

First of all, I do like the KJV - I like the poetry, the history, and the world it invokes. I also enjoy Shakespeare, for that matter. I enjoy the sound of Elizabethan middle english. I do not use it for my primary bible reading.

However, I am a graduate student from an educated family. I am rather mystified by your statement that "claims that its Elizabethan prose is incomprehensible to a 'modern' audience are rubbish". Perhaps this needs explanation/qualification? Have you really never met anyone who had serious trouble reading the KJV, to the point of despairing to understand the Bible at all? Have you never met someone coming out of a Shakespearian play saying "I didn't understand I word of it". I've met dozens. Do you think they are lying?

Allow me a personal example. In visiting a country Lutheran church in rural Illinois, I had the opportunity to attend a Bible study. The leader was discussing the first chapter of Hebrews with us (out of the KJV) of course. He focused on the phrase "sundry times", pointing out with passionate examples how it is exactly at those parched, sun-dried times that God reveals himself to us. A quick look at my NIV indicated that this word actually meant "various".

Now perhaps this man was unfit to be leading a Bible study, if he doesn't even understand such a simple archaic word. But, this train of thought, taken to its logical conclusion, seems to lead ultimately to the position that Holy Scripture should not be translated into the vernacular at all (the position of the Muslims). Against this, I must argue, that God has shown in the incarnation that he delights to condescend to the level of his creatures. He even delights to condescend lower than academia.

I mean, the sort of reasons you give against these modern translations (specifically the thee/thou distinction) are the same reasons you could give against translating at all. In English, for instance, we miss out on the nuances of Jesus' questions to Peter at the end of John. It does take additional education to understand Elizabethan middle english, so why not require a bit more and ask those who want to read Holy Scripture to learn Greek?

The above argument is logical, but it is not, in my view, faithful to the spirit of the incarnataion. Again, this is not to fault anyone for reading the KJV, or to ignore what we've lost in having a great common translation in the English-speaking world. I do think, if we want to regain some of the benefits of the KJV, we need to find ways of moving forward, rather than simply lamenting the loss of the glory days.

[James Kabala]

There is a fascinating entry on "The Bible in English" in THE CAMBRIDGE GUIDE TO LITERATURE IN ENGLISH. The anonymous author of the article is very critical of the KJV - not so much because he prefers modern translations (although he does defend their existence), but because he thinks English Protestants should never have gotten rid of the Geneva Bible! He asserts that everything beautiful in the KJV was in earlier versions, especially Geneva, whereas many awkward passages were introduced by the KJV translators for the first time. He speaks of the Geneva Bible in the rapturous tone generally associated with those who praise the KJV. I'm not saying I agree with this (since I've never read the Geneva version, I can't judge), but it is certainly a provocative article.

[Joe Long]

"I do think, if we want to regain some of the benefits of the KJV, we need to find ways of moving forward, rather than simply lamenting the loss of the glory days."

Yes, well, simple lament can be a place to start. There's an entire book of the Bible dedicated to "Lamentations"; they do have their place.

Oh - believe me, it's "y'all."

Anyway, I too have seen the KJV abused through ignorance, and it's true that many or even most folks don't understand Shakespeare, either. Simply inflicting the translation on those who don't understand it is certainly no answer; Christians need a Bible they can comprehend for daily life.

I'll be interested in any constructive suggestions anyone might have in response to your call, although I am temporamentally disposed to want ways to move "backwards" if possible, or at least shout "Stop!"; "forwards" may be no "progress". "You making haste haste on decay", as Robinson Jeffers wrote.

Anyway we can't declare, say, the NIV, to be the New Common Culture - no more than any one declared the KJV to be Common Culture in the first place, "authorized" though it was. Instead we have to adapt to an increasingly Balkanized environment - one, indeed, in which there may be no common culture at all.

And along the way, a pause for dignified lamentation is, I think, entirely in order.

[Gene Godbold]

To quote the late Rev. Dr. Lou Tarsitano (who wrote for Touchstone and taught me in seminary), "It takes more technical vocabulary to understand a football game than it does the KJV." You can explain the great majority of the unfamiliar terms in the course of a couple of Sunday School classes.

[Joe Long]

Gene - that's a thought. Are you aware, by any chance, of any existing "vocabulary for KJV appreciation" lessons? Indeed, I could even crib a few pages from "Shakespeare for Dummies" - I assume that such a book exists, and that it has a vocabulary section.

This has possibilities...a constructive suggestion for moving backwards, indeed!

[Wonders For Oyarsa]

Consider this verse:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."

Same vocabulary (besides the "ye"), but many people today would take a good while deciphering the meaning. It's more than vocabulary - sentence structure, uses of the same common words for different meanings, etc. It's easy for academics to underestimate the amount that goes into what they now know.

[Matthias]

It is sad that KJV English is dead. It was sad, too, when Western Europe forgot the refined, beautiful, elegant Greek tongue and replaced it with vulgar barbaric Latin. And it was sad again when Western Europe forgot the refined, beautiful, elegant Latin tongue and replaced it with a plethora of vulgar barbaric tongues like English.

You take my point?

It is up to us to produce elegant modern English. I would even say it is up to us to sanctify modern English. Many people are trying. Some may succeed.

[Gene Godbold]

Matthias,
A lot of people seem to be uglifying the (English)language while precious few work to improve it. It would be ridiculous (and futile) to try to stop the evolution of English. But one can still exert some (very little) effort to understand the KJV and reap benefits thereby. I appreciate Russell's lament about losing a common Biblical language. And I think devotional language should be different from "ordinary" language. You shouldn't talk to God in communal worship like you talk to your co-worker. (Okay, now I'm verging into Godblog-blog territory.)

Wonders of Oyarsa,
I think that the mental exercises that are required to understand that passage would be good for anyone. They would (I suspect) would give you at least 50 points on the verbal portion of the SAT (and probably 100 on the GRE).

Joe,
I am unfamiliar with any classes designed to prepare KJV newbs with the glories of that version. But I think I could prepare one if given a month or so. My wife and I were married with the 1549 BCP service and it took us one (or maybe two) sessions with the priest to understand precisely what was meant. (And that's when we were 21-22 years old and way too immersed in popular culture.)

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

As all good conservatives do, I too lament the loss of a soul- and culture-improving influence that was pervasive across the English-speaking world.

Yet, as ministers and evangelists, we must seek to reach those to whom the Gospel in any form is a mystery untouched and unfathomed.

I am no Bible scholar, and thus will not comment on the issues discussed so thoroughly herein, except I use the ESV and RSV interchangably for devotions and the NKJV for study. Perhaps there are better choices, and I would gladly use them if I found them.

But I will say that it pains me greatly that, to the best of my current knowledge, the Gideons, who do such hard and diligent work placing the Scriptures in hotel and motel rooms worldwide, still use the KJV for that purpose. At least, I have never found any other version in any bedside drawer anywhere I have stayed. There are probably very good copyright and reproduction-cost reasons for this, but were it up to me, I would put in a newer translation of the New Testament, Proverbs and Psalms. Why? First, because as has been stated above, the KJV gets harder for the average (and admittedly ill-educated) American to read every year.

And second, because people who are not familiar with the Bible pick it up and read it as they would read any other book -- from the first word of the first chapter on. Soon they get bogged down in begats, and put it down as an incomprehensible work.

Let's at least get them started with the Gospels, and the poetry of the Psalms, and the good advice of Proverbs. Give them a fighting chance to get to the heart of things, for the love of Christ.

For the love of Christ.

[sharon d.]

As a CCD teacher, one of my first quiet revolutions was to introduce the kids to the Bible. Unfortunately, my choice was between the Good News Version available in the classroom, or dragging two dozen NABs up to my room. I went for the latter, but found that the NAB was so full of footnotes--often the notes would occupy more than half the page--that the kids were perpetually confused about what was Scripture and what wasn't. For the few kids whose parents didn't get them their own Bible by mid-year, I bought paperback copies of the Ignatius RSV-CE, to the envy of their classmates.

For my own kids, I have successfully tracked down old Douay-Confraternity editions (with orthodox footnotes) in used bookstores and on the internet. The language really isn't difficult, especially compared to the Shakespeare and Chaucer that forms part of our curriculum.

[Douglas]

I would also recommend The Picture Bible for young children. It is in comic book format and illustrated in a realist style. It is a rigorously traditional adaptation of the key Bible stories from Creation through the Gospels and Acts, ending with Paul's martyrdom. Nothing touchy-feely or revisionist about it at all.

[Wonders For Oyarsa]

On that note, I have a question that perhaps the editors (and comment writers) of Touchstone can share their wisdom & experience on. What is the best way to introduce and nurture young children in the scriptures (my oldest is two)? Are children's bibles the way to go? Reading the stories out loud staight from the Bible? What about stories like the rape of Dinah: should we steer around certain passages 'til they are older? If so, which ones, and with which criteria?

[GL]

Stuart,

See http://www.lxx.org/ for the Orthodox Study Bible. They indicate that they hope to have it available by Pascha 2007.

Does anyone know if they have made/are making revisions to the New Testament portion or continuing to rely on on the NKJV? I hope they will produce a text only edition in addition to a study edition.

[Gene Godbold]

Dear Wonders,
In regards to reading the Bible to children, you might want to start out with kids bibles, but by the time the child is six, he can understand a KJV. (I've got seven kids with the oldest almost 14.) I wouldn't skip parts (okay, I do skip some of the genealogies and a lot of Leviticus) because this is an opportunity to illustrate for you children the moral law. (Dinah shouldn't have been raped, but Simeon and Levi shouldn't have gone off and slain the whole darn village, either.) You can point this out in a running commentary while you read.

I've been reading the KJV to my children since the oldest was seven as part of evening prayer. All those 6.5 and older participate (right now this includes the oldest four). We read the psalms appointed for the day (Coverdale psalter) and discuss the readings (which are only very loosely based on the lectionary except for during holidays.) It works for us. I think large, regular doses of scripture are an essential part of forming a follower of Jesus.

[Russell D. Moore]

Wonders,

With our two five year old boys, I have used the Kenneth Taylor's FAMILY TIME BIBLE IN PICTURES, published by Tyndale. I don't read the text in the book, but simply tell the story from memory, relate it to Christ, and apply it. The picture seems to fix their attention, and then I tell the story. I will soon begin reading to them from the text itself, probably the NKJV.

When it comes to Bible stories, I don't edit the "violent" parts of the Bible, but follow a very similar pattern to that Gene Godbold describes.

[Russell D. Moore]

Mr. Godbold,

You have a great name. Just don't let S.M. Hutchens know about it!

[Joe Long]

Wow. You all are harder-nosed than I am; I have not defined "sex", much less "rape", to my children yet. My oldest is nine, and needs some background now so he can understand more of what he reads - but the rape of Dinah at six?! Surely the moral law can be illustrated through alternate examples at that age?

I am NOT confident, Gene, that it's true as a general statement that kids can understand the KJV at six. Forgive me, but this group seems mostly to be scholars generalizing from scholars' offspring - whether genetics or environment, they're not "average" kids. Maybe it's just snobbery on my part to think my kids can handle the KJV okay but most of their peers would find it a huge barrier - but frankly, a lot of their peers seem to have trouble jumping over The Living Bible barrier. The NIV people have a "Children's NIV" version...maybe it's a cultural problem, a "bigotry of low expectations" aimed at all kids - or maybe it's another cultural problem: uneducated kids who've had their attention-spans electronically amputated.

[Gene Godbold]

Hey Joe,
Sure, a six year old isn't going to understand all the words in the KJV, but he isn't going to understand the words in any Bible worth reading. (He might grasp the NIV...but I repeat myself.) If you read to him nearly every night, and discuss the events recounted, he's going to get the details. Ask questions to see if he understands and talk to him about it. If you do this, by the time he is eight years old he's gone through the OT twice and the NT four or five times. At this point, larger and broader points can be made during discussions. You can point out the continuity between Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Jesus. Since he'll know the details involved in each story, you can "show" him how they fit together.

And again, the (slight) differences in language between the KJV and the RSV aren't going to trouble a 6 year old since the majority of the whole world of language lies in front of him, anyway.

Yes, I'm sure it helps their attention that we don't have a TV in the house. But the only skills they need to have to participate is the ability to listen as you read. Incidentally, none of my children have been early readers. They've typically grasped the concept by age 7 and they can read Harry Potter by age 9. My third one, at age 8, has been the most precocious, and he wasn't reading at six. But he now reads the (Coverdale) Psalms responsively during our family devotions.

[James A. Altena]

Dear GL,

Thanks for the web link to the new Orthodox translation.

Dear Joe Long,

While there's not a course, there are several books with titles such as "The KJV Word Book" that give brief explanations of words that are now obscure or have changed meaning.

Dear James Kabala,

I've read parts of the Geneva version, and while it has its merits the KJV is consistently superior in both translational accuracy and literary merit. Your reviewer sounds like an eccentric.

Dear Sharon,

The Douay-Rheims - Challenor (which I have) is still in print from TAN Publishers (albeit a reprint from an edition with several typos -- I have an errata sheet). There was also a modern reprint of the original Douay-Rheims from an ultra-montrane RC group (with a preface denouncing the Challenor version as "Protestant"!), but I don't know who published it or if it's still in print.

Dear Wonders,

Your post is rather illogical and off the point.

First off, I am not against any modern translation per se. What I pointed out was serious specific defects common to all modern translations. Those problems are not insoluable, but until they are solved there are sound reasons to prefer the KJV and RV as still being the most accurate translations overall, even with their imperfections.

Second, I don't know in which other solar system you dwell (on Oyarsa), but for nigh unto 50 years now whenever someone makes a defense of the KJV, that routinely is dismissed in the terms I described as being "antiquated," obscure," "too hard to understand," "not relevant to today's youth", etc. (The same attacks are of course made against the 1549-1928 Book of Common Prayer. And to defend the NT Textus Receptus is to win derision as an utter Philistine.) I've run into it personally many times, and I'll bet other readers of this site can offer personal testimony to the same as well. It is not so much a matter of lying on the part of those who make such statements as it is one of blind prejudice (e.g., ever hear the jeremiads against "dead white European males"?), and the itch to be seen as "modern" and hence sophisticated in worldly terms.

Third, the particular verse you cite is not all that hard to understand, and Gene makes an excellent point regarding it. If you want to cite something truly obscure from the KJV, try e.g. II Cor. 10:12-16, where the AV is an improvement but it only became comprehensible (for me, anyway) with the RSV. I never claimed the KJV was free from difficulties; the issues are ones of overall accuracy and literary merit of translation, and on both those counts the NIV loses hands down. (As Dr. Moore says, it sets one's teeth on edge.)

Fourth, your assertions that "the sort of reasons you give against these modern translations (specifically the thee/thou distinction) are the same reasons you could give against translating at all" and "not, in my view, faithful to the spirit of the incarnation" are logical non sequiturs, patently absurd, and suggest a seriously defective understanding of the Incarnation.

Fifth and last, the next time you feel the need to be "silly and irritating" and "hope that [you've] succeeded", try prayer instead.

[Beth]

Shakespeare and the KJV: Mostly it's a matter of familiarity. My students often hate the first Shakespeare play of a semester, when they spend at least as much time reading the footnotes as the text. By the seventh, they rarely refer to the notes and love the language of the plays. The sad thing is the loss of familiarity with that language, because it is used in so many other texts. I had a professor in grad school who told us that if we didn't know the Bible we should drop the English major. And the Bible he brought in to demonstrate was the KJV -- because it's the language of that translation that permeates literature (including speeches, historical texts, etc., not just fiction and poetry). So we cut ourselves off from a great deal by having no familiarity with it, whatever translation we may choose for primary study.

[Gene Godbold]

Addendum: Except for holidays (where I follow the lectionary in the 1928 BCP), I haven't read lots of the non-narrative parts of the Bible (excluding the Psalms and the Proverbs) to my kids. We read Genesis-Esther (skipping parts of Leviticus and much of the genaalogies and where they divide up the land in Joshua and when they count up the tribes by families, etc.). We read Daniel and Jonah and most of Proverbs (the kids like Proverbs because it's practical). In the NT, we read the Gospels and Acts a couple times a year. We also read James and John and Revelation (they love hearing about the Devil getting his butt handed to him on a platter--yes, they're boys). I've been hesitant in the past about reading the Pauline letters because I wasn't sure I understood what he was trying to say. But under the tutelage of NT Wright and others I think I'm beginning to "get" Paul's contribution to the canon.

Joe,
Kids can understand that there is right and wrong behavior. If your children experience the bad behavior as detailed in the Bible, it is experienced in the context that God has designed for it. On the other hand, if your children experience immoral behavior from TV, books, or the movies, hear it from friends (or even parents), or even see/hear it from church-going folks, you can't be sure it is in an appropriate setting. Most likely it won't be. Forewarned is forearmed. Of course, you've got to discuss it with them after you relate it to them. We've had some wonderful discussions occasioned by reading of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[James Quinby]

A company called Baronius Press is also selling the Challoner DRV. I've been very happy with mine, though I wish it had come with 2 more ribbon bookmarks so I could mark all 4 Mass readings.

[Wonders For Oyarsa]

James A.,

Fair enough - perhaps I'm being far too jocular for a place like this. Indeed, perhaps I need not wander into waters too deep for me - being much younger than I presume the average age of this board to be.

However, it seems that your response is little more than a write-off. Perhaps my arguments are illogical, patently absurd, and do indeed reflect faulty theology. But I can't be expected to learn how from your reply.

Again, if you'd rather not throw pearls before swine, I understand - and I'll cease and desist.

[luthien]

Mr. Koehl, last I heard, the complete Orthodox Study Bible ought to be ready for Pascha 2007, but I wouldn't hold my breath for its release. Do you have any idea if there's a complete septugint translation anywhere online?

"I had a professor in grad school who told us that if we didn't know the Bible we should drop the English major." He was right:) We wasted a ton of time in Shakespeare class last semester because only about 2 of us out of a class of 30 got any of the Biblical references.

Kid's bibles...wow, some of you are pretty tough. Becuase my youngest sister is 6 years younger than I am, my dad read aloud to us from a children's Bible every night when I was little, and such stories as the Rape of Dinah were omitted. My parents wouldn't even tell me what circumcision was when I asked. I did, however, read the NIV study Bible (we were PCUSA. That's what we had. I do know now how dreadful it is. The psalms positively limp.)on my own at a pertty early age, at least by 8 or so. Unsurprisingly, I did not self-censor, and *did* read Hosea, Ezekiel, the Song of Songs, and pretty mcuh everything else children are not supposed to read. It was not all that damaging. (Joe, a lot of the oft-ensored parts were over my head at the time. I did know what sex was, since the encyclopedia was on a reachably low shelf, and at 7 I probably wasn't expected to read it, but much of that was still totally bewildering. reading those parts of the Bible has not, so far as I can tell, totally destroyed my sense of modesty or decency)

Wonders, we're not all that much older than you are. I'm in college; how old *are* you?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Perhaps I need correction, but I'm positive that the RSV is also authorized for liturgical use in the RC Church in this country.<<<

The RSV "Catholic Version" is authorized for personal use, but the lectionaries approved by the USCCB are all from the NAB. This doesn't work out very well for the Eastern Catholics in this country because our liturgical texts all assume the Greek Textus Receptus (either in Greek or the Slavonic translation), while the Old Testament is definitely the LXX, not only with the different numbering of the Psalms, but also the LXX's unique rendering of many key phrases, which is not paralleled by the NAB's use of the Masoretic Old Testament (and various recensions of New Testament texts). Thus, in many cases, the readings do not actually support the theological propositions laid out in the troparia and kontakia of various feasts.

[Patty in WA]

I have one offspring whom I am teaching at home. One of the more interesting things I have learned in doing this is that he derives a great deal of benefit from listening to beautiful language and big ideas, whether or not understanding is complete. When he was 6, he begged me to read to him what I was reading, which happened to be Isaiah. He was *thrilled* by the pictures drawn by rich language. The next night, I was reading "The Making of the Atomic Bomb"--same thing--"Read it to me!". I did, and he was *thrilled* by the biographical portion of Neils Bohr, who never managed to take notes for himself--his mother did it for him through college, and then his wife took over. (Somehow, that resonated with a 6 year old struggling with penmanship...) We have read a wide variety of beautiful writing over the years, including the Bible, the Greek myths, Shakespeare, and other old-timey works.

Think about the following point, which I believe was made here on MereComments a while back, but it might have been made by Andrew Kern of CIRCE Institute:

Take John 1:1-5. Put it into simple sentences. "In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God. The Word was God. He was in the beginning with God..." and so on. THERE. NOW do you understand? Of course not. It takes a lifetime to understand...and imperfectly then. But it is much easier to *remember*, to meditate on, to ponder beautiful language. (True story, borne out in studies...)

I did not see fruit of this labor immediately. My son is now almost 11. Yesterday, as we read "Prince Caspian" aloud, he noted that in the scene where a wild bear attacks the children, Susan was a lot like Artemis, who although she was the goddess of hunting and bore a bow and arrow, did not like the killing of animals. We read that at least 4 years ago. And shortly after, when Lucy hears the voice of one she loves, he noted that it was like Samuel, who heard the voice of God, three times, just as Lucy hears the voice of Aslan three times. We read that story at least 3 years ago.

Who knew he understood? It didn't seem so at the time.

Read the beautiful language to the children. Don't worry about the understanding. They will get more than you know...maybe, more than YOU know!

(And just for the record, I am a slacker in reading of Scripture and beautiful language compared to some people I know...)

[firinnteine]

I read Song of Solomon numerous times as a kid and thought it was amazing; I loved the poetry and (believe it or not) the way it had different people talking to each other, like in a play. (I was reading the Good News Bible. Song of Solomon was still good, in spite of it.) There was plenty of it I didn't understand, but my parents gave me the Bible, marked good verses they hoped I would study and memorize, and pretty much let me loose as soon as I could read (which was pretty young). I was also reading Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges -- those were great stories! I don't think I was permanently scarred....

Recognizing that the KJV is probably the most beautiful language of any available English translation, I nevertheless prefer something easier to read and follow for ordinary use and study (although I admit the older English for the liturgy, which originally I was inclined against, has grown on me). The ESV is decent. I like the NKJV as well... I read it for many years as a teenager. Actually, I really enjoyed the NASB for study; you don't want it for beautiful language, but it is extremely literal, and notes every time it departs in any way from the literal translation. Since I have no Hebrew and little Greek, this is very useful to me from time to time....

Wonders for Oyarsa -- you're not the only one of us young 'uns hanging around and gleaning wisdom. :)

[Luthien]

"I read Song of Solomon numerous times as a kid and thought it was amazing" Wow! You must have been rather precocious. I thought some of the language was beautiful, even in the NIV, but it was over my head. The one thing I really regret about my childhood Bible reading is having avoided memorization. I was supposed to for Sunday school, but despite having the best attendance record in class, I never quite managed to get the memory verses learned, and while my mom also periodically tried to enforce poem and scripture memoraization at home, I never really complied. The net result is that I know the Bible fairly well, but can never remember where a specific verse, (except for a rew really obvious ones) is from. Not so good when discussing issues:) My children *will* do their memory work, or else. The NKJV is good, but even so its Psalms can't match the KJV's. the RSV really bothers me; that's what I have in the dorm with me (it's the only Bible I have which has the deuterocanonical books; actually it's the only copy I own. Our NKJV Orthodox study NT and Psalms are my parents), and the Psalms in particular are dreadful. I can't wait for the complete Orthodox Study Bible. Unfortunately, Pascha 2007 probably means "sometime before the next World Cup, hopefully."

[Ranee Mueller]

Directed at Joe:

I do not think it is a matter of scholarly parents/home so much as exposing children to words, books and literature on a consistent basis. Our school aged boys, nearly eight and six, can read far above their grade level, and we made no special effort to train them for reading. The only thing we did was to read stories to them that used real words, and to get rid of our television. We have read part of the Chronicles of Narnia, Little Men, Charlotte's Web, and are nearing the end of the Little House series with them, along with reading shorter, simpler books.

Their teachers were surprised at how articulate they were (Dominic's kindergarten teacher made a point to tell both of us how surprised she was to hear him say that he thought that he should perservere when she said he could move on if he was having trouble), but all nodded and seemed unsurprised when they heard that mostly it was because we don't have television on in our home.

I do not assume that the kids get all that is going on in the stories we read, and we stop or pause to explain terms or phrases they don't know, but it exposes them to the English language in a way that they are, sadly, not going to see in most schools.

It is because of this, and not because they are super-brainy kids (they still do stupid kid things all the time), that they actually enjoyed watching the BBC's version of Pride and Prejudice, even our younger children.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It is because of this, and not because they are super-brainy kids (they still do stupid kid things all the time), that they actually enjoyed watching the BBC's version of Pride and Prejudice, even our younger children.<<<

Don't confuse dumb with stupid. My kids are both in "gifted and talented" (AKA GT, AKA "Gotta Talk") schools, and they and their friends, brainy as they may be, do really dumb things all the time.

As for Pride and Prejudice, my older daughter read it cover to cover when she was eleven, and discovered Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy soon thereafter. Thanks to the miracle of DVD technology, she can play her favorite parts over and over. I'm surprised the scene of Mr. Darcy cooling off with a dunk in the pond hasn't been totally burned through by now.

[Joe Long]

Always good comments here. Thank you.

I was reading my kids "The Wind in the Willows" the other night - made me reflect (again) how children's literature used to be written on what is, today, the college level. Perhaps writers took it for granted that hearing beautiful language they didn't quite understand was more important to children, than complete comprehension. I have assumed that the kids' education level was simply higher in Days of Yore - I'm sure it generally was, actually - but Ranee's evaluation may be more important: the kids sat and soaked up language they didn't completely understand.

Sometimes that's what I do myself with Scripture, really, though it isn't a matter of vocabulary...

Luthien and Firinnteine, I wasn't permanently scarred by the naughty or horrifying parts of the OT either, but I may have scarred my Mom permanently by inquiring about them! My kids will find them on their own, also. Poor Mom probably still remembers my questions about David's "bride-price" for Saul's daughter: a pile of Phillistine foreskins. She eventually deflected them with an explanation that it was "sort of like scalping", which I suppose it was.

[Jeremy Abel]

Does anybody know anything about The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible? It sounds like an excellent update of the KJV. I also see that it will be available in an affordable Penguin Classics edition later this year.

[sharon d.]

Joe,

You address 2 issues regarding children and the Bible: first, the level of language; second, the appropriate level of content.

Regarding the first, I'm on the same prudish page as you; I steer clear of the R-rated passages for a long time (I explain "adultery" as a daddy's or mommy's decision to love someone other than the person they married--a horror that even small, over-protected homeschooled children are familiar with through their friends, alas).

Regarding the second, we have always worked from the theory that, since young children are constantly dealing with language above their total comprehension abilities, there's no reason to stop. We read (e.g.) the Kingfisher Treasury of Shakespeare's Verse when they are still too little to understand much (except that there are fairies and flowers and lots of words and phrases they don't understand), sing Robin Hood ballads with their archaic language, and read to them turn-of-the-century children's books that take "thou" and "quoth" for granted.

Note that, while this practice simply continues the toddler experience they're used to, it flies in the face of the enlightened educational practice of ensuring all vocabulary is "age-appropriate" (please see Mr. Esolen's entry of June 29 for more on that). In my experience, while a 10-year-old who has been raised on age-appropriate reading matter is completely at sea with KJV language, a 6-year-old is not at all fazed by having to elide--for now--over an unfamiliar word or sentence, and is still quite practiced at picking up the overall meaning, and determining specifics from context and repeated exposure.

So I would advise the same practice for Scripture that we have followed for Chaucer and Shakespeare: combine books of stories (Lamb's Shakespeare, the Golden Press Chaucer) with generous short helpings of the original. (Older children's literature collections, like the early editions of Olive Miller's Book House, would interweave fragments of the original texts with their re-tellings, achieving both at once. Later editions uniformly excised all traces of archaic English.) Use a good book of Bible stories for children, in combination with Bible verses straight from the KJV or Douay, and never let your children lose the experience of encountering English "too tough" for them. At the risk of parental bragging, I have a 10-year-old now cruising through Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, undeterred by "Sithen the sege and the assaut watz sesed at Troye," because it has never been allowed to occur to her that there wasn't a "next level up" in reading English.

Of course, as we homeschoolers say, Your Mileage May Vary. Forgive the lengthy post.

[An Anglican]

To expand on Sharon D's post, we do appear to be conflating our dismay over changes in the English language with our dismay over the decline in Biblical accuracy in translations or Biblical literacy among the people.

On a related point, and for my fellow Anglicans on the board, is it an irony that we defend the use of the KJV if it is “not understanded of the people” as some on this blog have suggested?

Article XXIV

Of speaking in the Congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth

It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.

[Joe Long]

Sharon - thanks. We've taken a literary approach not too different from yours at home...this thread has me planning a transition to the KJV for the kids, in the coming school year.

I wonder, though, what the Sunday School approach ought to be...my kids get tired of the same dozen Bible stories in simplified language, year after year, but that may be the only level on which many of their peers can be engaged. The KJV is becoming academic-elite territory.

[Wonders For Oyarsa]

Luthien,

I'm a grad student in my 20's.

[sharon d.]

"we do appear to be conflating our dismay over changes in the English language with our dismay over the decline in Biblical accuracy in translations or Biblical literacy among the people."

An Anglican,

To be sure, there are distinguishable issues here; but I'm not sure they are genuinely distinct. The decline in the sort of literacy we're discussing here (the ability to read archaic English with comprehension) and the eagerness for inadequate translations in the name of modernness and readability are both, I would argue, artifacts of an enforced change in English, whereby a "high" (formal, ceremonial, Scriptural, liturgical) manner of speaking and writing has been deliberately banished from materials intended for children at all ages.

And this in a very short space of time. Compare these parallel excerpts "Chanticleer and Partlet: Retold From the Nun's Priest's Tale By Chaucer" from Up One Pair of Stairs: My Book House (Olive Beaupre Miller), in the 1928 and 1965 editions. Same series, same story, same illustrations:

1928
"For shame!" Dame Partlet cried. "How dare you say unto your love that anything can make you feel afeared! Have you no manlike heart, and yet you have a beard? What means a dream? Why nothing, certainly." Her words bring shame to Chanticleer. He heeds his dream no more but cries: "My lady Partlet fair, I have such bliss when that I see the beauty of your face, you are so scarlet red about the eye, it maketh all my fear to die."

1965
"Afraid!" Dame Partlet cried. "You, the greatest cock on earth, afraid! Never have I seen you afraid of anything. With your sharp eyes, you spy out foes. And how you fight to guard us hens and our small chicks! No beast can seize you while you keep your sharp eyes open." Then Partlet's faith in Chanticleer made him feel that he was truly the greatest cock on earth. "I fear no beast," he said. "My eyes are always open."

Notice that in the second, there is no sign of Chaucer's original verse, and all archaic language is gone. There is still stripping-down to come; You don't see modern books for that age level containing "cock," "foes," or "faith" (these would now be "rooster," "enemies," and "belief").

I just don't believe that English has changed that quickly, without assistance from specialists, and so I don't believe that modern Bible versions are just facing the fact that language has changed and Scripture must simplify with the times.

[sharon d.]

To add: I could produce dozens of similar examples from children's books, readers, and magazines showing the swift descent of children's literature. Mr. Esolen posted earlier about a children's encyclopedia that was forthright in its editorial choice to reduce the language. The question is, is it too late to ratchet back up? And can our churches be part of this process?

[Ranee Mueller]

Stuart wrote:

Don't confuse dumb with stupid. My kids are both in "gifted and talented" (AKA GT, AKA "Gotta Talk") schools, and they and their friends, brainy as they may be, do really dumb things all the time.

Point taken, and true!

As for Pride and Prejudice, my older daughter read it cover to cover when she was eleven, and discovered Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy soon thereafter.

One thing I thank my mother for was that during summer break from the time I was in third grade on, I was assigned books to read, everything from Jane Eyre to Huck Finn to Pride & Prejudice and even The Good Earth (my fifth grade reading teacher didn't believe me that I'd read it). What I was not glad for was that she assigned me summary writing of them. However, it well prepared me for my English and literature classes, and ensured that much of what I would learn as an adolescent would be at a deeper level, since I had already done a surface "study" of the book at a young age.

Anyway, I fell in love with Darcy in the fourth grade. I don't even know how many times I've read the book, but it is my favorite. Evidently, though, I would begin reading it every time I had a little crush on some boy. So consistent was this, that one night my mother asked me what his name was when she saw me settling down with the book.

Rich, my husband, heard this story and immediately forbade me to read the book again. ;) Actually, he understands that it is simply an indication of my renewal of feeling for him, and that he is the only man who has ever measured up to Darcy.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Wonders,

Yesterday I wrote and thought I posted a lengthy reply to your latest (and also a lot of material regarding English translations of the Septuagint -- at least two new ones are coming out this year), but it apparently never made it to this site. As my foster mother has just died this morning, and I have much to attend to as a result, I cannot visit this site for the next several days and must bow out of further discussion here.

To one an all, please pray for the soul of Elizabeth, departed.

[James A. Altena]

In haste, information on English language versions of the Septuagint --

The 19th c. translation by L. C. L. Brenton is still in print and easily available. Try "Septuagint" as a search term from your favorite source.

Oxford is issuing a new translation of the Septuagint, called the "New English Translation of the Septuagint".

Another new translation of the Septuagint if called the "The Apostolic Bible Polyglot".

Try a Google search using "Septuagint" and English" to find these. I believe my previous post was deleted becuase it contained a link to a commercial web site for purchasing books.

[Matthias]

Sharon - interesting example. I don't at all mind the modernization of the language in the 1965 edition, but the changes in content are striking - all references to love and manliness are gone. This has nothing to do with updating language as such. One wonders if the editors feared exposing children to such a terribly controversial idea as manliness, or worse, a connection between manliness and courage.

[Russell D. Moore]

Mr. Altena,
I don't think your post was deleted by the editors. I think Typepad "raptured" several posts and perhaps comments from yesterday. I lost an entire post off the site.

[sharon d.]

Matthias,

Shame is also banished in favor of building self-esteem; and gone with Chaucer's language is the absurd humor of Chanticleer's lofty, courtly language contrasted with Lady Partlet's red-rimmed chicken-eye. There is no subtlety, nor faith that a child may be capable of grasping literary subtlety along with a more challenging style of English.

[GL]

In response to two unrelated issues, it was fairly common in the 19th century for libraries to make available to minors only expurgated Bibles, which excluded some of the sex and violence.  Mark Twain, when asked to aid in opposing efforts to ban Huckleberry Finn from a public library, said:

It always distresses me when I find that boys and girls have been allowed access to . . . [Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn].  The mind that became soiled in youth can never be washed clean. . . .  To this day I cherish an unappeasable bitterness against the unfaithful guardians of my young life, who not only permitted but compelled me to read an unexpurgated Bible through before I was 15.

As to English versions of the LXX, a private individual is working on a translation, with portions available at his web site http://www.peterpapoutsis.com/.  I can neither recommend nor disapprove of his efforts.

[GL]

Jeremy,

I have not yet obtained a copy of The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, but I do have a copy of the Third Millennium Bible, which is a slight updating of the 1611 KJV/AV, the same edition which is updated in The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. It is also in paragraph format. I find it a very readable and quality update. The publisher purports to update only words which no longer are used or which have meanings today which would mislead a reader as to the intended meaning in 1611. I highly recommend it.

Has anyone compared these two editions?

[James A. Altena]

In great haste, as I prepare to travel --

Dr. Moore, thanks for your not about "raptured" posts. No way to recover those, I suppose?

Dear GL,

I haven't seen the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, but I'm not enthusiastic about the Third Millenium Bible. It's quite useable, of course, and unlike the NKJV and similar efforts includes the Deuterocanonical books. But none of the "editors" has any real qualifications for the task (the highest credential for any of them being an M. A. in English, the major source book cited being a Webster's Dictionary, no-one with any knowledge of the original languages, etc.). Thus nothing was done to retranslate and improve passages in the KJV where the original text is corrupted and the KJV translators did not have the modern scholarly apparatus (multiple early manuscripts, etc.) to capture the most likely meaning. (The end of Hosea 4:18, and Deborah's song in Judges 5 are good examples.) Also, while you may differ with me on this, I find its constant fussing with typography -- italicizing all the words of Jesus, formatting different prose and peotic styles or quotations in different font styles and type sizes, etc. -- incredibly distracting and a prime example of someone going ape with a word processor.

In my (perhaps very idiosyncratic) view, what we need is a very conservative revision of the KJV such as the 1885 RV OT, but with a NT using the Textus Receptus closer to the KJV than was the RV. (About the only flaw in the RV OT is its prudish Victorian substitution of "cut off every male member of the tribe" for "cut off him that pisseth against the wall", a violaton of its avowed ain to be as literal a translation as possible, that consistently uses the same English word to translate a given Hebrew or English word -- a policy that greatly faciliates cross-referencing of passages for theological thematic study.)

[James A. Altena]

To try to re-post links lost from my earlier "raptured" message:

The Brenton translation of the Septuagint online:

http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/

Another web site with the same:

http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/

The new "Apostolic Bible Polyglot" Septuagint interlinear translation web site:

http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/

The Oxford "New English Translation of the Septuagint" (NETS) site:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/

A couple of web sites with useful background information, including the upcoming new Orthodox translation:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/septuagi.htm

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/index.htm

Finally, an evangelical Protestant minister named Paul W. Esposito apparently has published (through one "Stauros Press") his own "updated" version of the Brenton translation. (The updating appears to be modernization of English along the same lines as the NKJV or NASB for the KJV; I would be leery as to its quality, but the text is online for comparision):

http://www.apostlesbible.com/

[GL]

James,

I agree with your criticism of the TMB, but do believe it is very useful. I have read good reviews of the NCPB, but have not personally reviewed it. Its editor has much better qualifications, but I personally favor a team approach.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Anyway, I fell in love with Darcy in the fourth grade. <<<

For the record, my daughter, now 16, finally read Wuthering Heights. Her assessment: "Heathcliffe is a dork" (this marks him one step up from her assessment of Holden Caufield, by the way).

[GL]

I am not a big fan of the HCSB, but it does have a couple of attributes that I find appealing: (1) it tranliterates "Hallelujah!" rather than translates it as "Praise the LORD!"; (2) it uses "Yahweh" rather than "the LORD" when the textual reference is to the name of God.  My preferences would be for "Praise the LORD!" to be rendered "Alleluia!", but "Hallelujah!" is fine.  I would also prefer footnotes indicating the transliteration of the various names of God throughout the text, with a definition of the meaning included, while retaining the traditional English translations in the text.  I do think it is ashame that the HCSB was ever produced, however, as I believe it takes sales away from the ESV and NKJV which are, in my view, both far superior overall.

What we really need is one translation which all can agree on.  We never have had that in English.  (Catholics never accepted the KJV/AV as the best English translation and the Orthodox prefer translations of the Old Testament based on the LXX.)  I believe we see so many modern translations for two reasons: (1) money and (2) translations designed to favor the translating committee's or individual translator's doctrinal bias.  We can all see the problems with the former motivation.  The latter exposes a serious flaw in Sola Scriptura as it tends to demonstrate to the thoughtful that their is no absolutely agreement as to which manuscripts are the most reliable and closest to the original and that there is no absolutely agreement as to how various words and passages are best translated.  Both identifying the best manuscripts and providing the single most accurate translation are essential in interpretation and development of doctrine.  These two problems are added to the already centuries old dispute as to which books belong in the Canon.  The thoughtful cannot help but ponder how Sola Scriptura is suppose to be sufficient when their is no agreement as to precisely what constitutes Scripture among those who espouse this doctrine.  Given how all this undermines one of the key doctrines of Protestants, it is amazing that Protestants would keep churning out so many new translations.

Imagine how liberal judges would respond to those who assert that the Constitution should be interpreted based on original intent if the latter group consisted of sub-groups which asserted the superiority of various manuscripts of the Constitution, each of which varied slightly from all others and if it had been written in a language other than English and several dozen translations existed, each of which had proponents who asserted that their preferred one was the most accurate.  They would add to their already existing objections to original intent arguments the questions of which manuscript and which translation they should consult to best discern original intent, only to hear a chaotic response from the sea of advocates each arguing for the manuscripts and translations therefrom which best supported their view of what the founders intended (or which supported the outcome they sought in the case or cases about which they most cared).

What we have created with our disputes over manuscripts and translations is a scandal which gives further aid and comfort to the Enemy.

[Bill R]

Mr. Koehl, when your daughter concludes that "Heathcliffe is the epitome of evil," you'll know you've succeeded in your child's Christian education. "Dork" is far too kind. I can only conclude that movie versions that try to turn Heathcliffe into a romantic hero were adapted by writers who never read (or at least never understood) the book.

[Bill R]

GL, what you describe may be a difficulty with sola scriptura, but it is hardly a "flaw." The Pope encounters a similar problem whenever his encyclicals are translated from Latin to another tongue.

Indeed, since I am a lawyer, I can tell you that the problems you describe exist in American Constitutional law despite the fact that the Constitution is written in relatively modern English and all Constitutional lawyers speak that tongue.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Mr. Koehl, when your daughter concludes that "Heathcliffe is the epitome of evil," you'll know you've succeeded in your child's Christian education.<<<

Educated enough in both history and theology to realize the depths of real evil, my daughter would never consider Heathcliffe the "epitome" of anything except insipid, adolescent narcissism. Which may be an isidious form of evil, but one that pales to insignificance next to what man has wrought only in the last hundred years.

[GL]

Bill R,

"Difficulty" is probably the better word.  And the more difficult problem for Sola Scriptura is probably the disputes over which manuscripts are to be given precedence.  That is a problem not applicable to papal encyclicals (at least more modern ones -- I have no idea as to whether multiple manuscripts exist as to early encyclicals).  As to constitutional interpretation, the problems are not based on disputes over either the exact primary source from which to work or the translation of a foreign language, but a refusal to adhere to the text (the big problem) and, in some case, determining what the founders intended or would have intended when applied to unforeseeable facts. (If only the latter were the only problem. ;-) )

[Bill R]

Stuart, I think you misunderstood my comment about Heathcliffe. An epitome is nothing more than a representative example, and that’s what I consider Heathcliffe—not that he’s the worst possible evil. But I think he represents more than “insipid, adolescent narcissism,” which would not have made Bronte’s book the classic that it is. Heathcliffe is more like Madame Bovary—a study in how small evils, uncorrected, lead to greater evils, and ultimately to one’s damnation. The chilling last chapters of “Wuthering Heights” reveal a man calling damnation not only on those about him, but on himself. Heathcliffe’s sin may have begun in narcissism, but it didn’t stay there.

[Bill R]

GL, can you think of a single church-splitting dispute that was based on a disputed reading of the manuscripts? I can’t. And if that’s the case, isn’t this issue merely theoretical? And if it were a real possibility, wouldn’t the difficulty have surfaced after 2000 years?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>tuart, I think you misunderstood my comment about Heathcliffe. An epitome is nothing more than a representative example, and that’s what I consider Heathcliffe—not that he’s the worst possible evil. But I think he represents more than “insipid, adolescent narcissism,” which would not have made Bronte’s book the classic that it is. Heathcliffe is more like Madame Bovary—a study in how small evils, uncorrected, lead to greater evils, and ultimately to one’s damnation. The chilling last chapters of “Wuthering Heights” reveal a man calling damnation not only on those about him, but on himself. Heathcliffe’s sin may have begun in narcissism, but it didn’t stay there.<<<

Point taken. Small evils open the door to bigger ones, and if Arendt postulated a banality of evil, it's corollary must be the evil of banality--which summarizes Heathcliffe to a T.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That is a problem not applicable to papal encyclicals (at least more modern ones -- I have no idea as to whether multiple manuscripts exist as to early encyclicals).<<<

The problem of variant manuscripts of both the Fathers and the acts of the early Councils is immense and critical. In the first place, most of these early texts were written in Greek, and were translated to Latin for use in the Western Church. This led to a variety of problems in interpretation, the natural tendency of any translator being to choose one that matches his own pre-established positions (as a good example, see how the use of the Latin "in quo" for the Greek "eph ho" in Roman 5:12 led to very different understanding of the effects of original sin between East and West).

Beyond that, as manuscripts proliferated over the ages, scribal errors crept in, occasionally supplemented by deliberate omissions and distortions of the text in pursuit of one polemical position or another. The Greeks, holding the original texts, were less likely to do this, but sometimes their translations of Latin documents are as defective as translations of the Greek into Latin. In many cases, we can only determine the content of the original by going to Coptic or Syriac editions. The increased availability of these confirmatory texts is revolutionizing the study of Church history, particularly in regard to a number of issues of ecumenical concern, not the least being the understanding and exercise of Papal prerogatives in the first millennium.

[Julia]

I like the ESV it easy to read but true to scripture, and I just found it for free online in a Bible software program. You can get it free at www.bible-explorer.com.

[Sue Gilmore]

I did not grow up with the Bible--any Bible. I grew up in a Roman Catholic home where the Bible was only a picture book or a place to record significant family events (i.e. births, deaths). I didn't start to read the Bible for myself until I was a teenager. My first pick was the King James Version because that's what everyone seemed to be reading at my new church. But so many passages contained archaic words, difficult sentence construction (especially Paul's letters). And because I had no background in the Scriptures, I had more questions than answers at what the Bible was trying to say.
Imagine my surprise when I learned the King James Version was originally written in order to provide the Scriptures in the common language of the people--back in 1611. It was probably much easier to read for the 17th century literate man and woman. But, as we all know, language is dynamic; it is constantly changing. And if we want to ignite a desire to love God's Word and live by it, I believe it's important to provide other versions that will aid us in that process.
I have gone through a journey in reading the Bible. I first turned to a Phillips' translation of the New Testament; that truly changed my life. But wanting to read the entire plan of salvation--from Genesis to Revelation, I turned to the Revised Standard, the New American Standard, the NIV, and finally, my favorite--the New King James Version.
All of them have their strengths and weaknesses, even the KJV does. If we could all read the original languages--in Greek and Hebrew--we would be closer to the original message of the inspired pen-men of the Lord. But as a seminary professor once told me, if you can't read these languages, the next best thing is to compare several dynamic versions (not paraphrases) and you will have a better idea of what God is truly saying.
For that reason, I am thankful that God has provided a version to meet the varied needs and reading levels of people everywhere. And whatever version we choose to study, we have the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit would 'teach us all things' (John 14:26) and lead us into 'all truth' (John 16:13). If we desire to know God's will in order to follow Him with a pure heart, He will teach us. The important thing is to study, with an open mind and heart.

[Sue Gilmore]

I did not grow up with the Bible--any Bible. I grew up in a Roman Catholic home where the Bible was only a picture book or a place to record significant family events (i.e. births, deaths). I didn't start to read the Bible for myself until I was a teenager. My first pick was the King James Version because that's what everyone seemed to be reading at my new church. But so many passages contained archaic words, difficult sentence construction (especially Paul's letters). And because I had no background in the Scriptures, I had more questions than answers at what the Bible was trying to say.
Imagine my surprise when I learned the King James Version was originally written in order to provide the Scriptures in the common language of the people--back in 1611. It was probably much easier to read for the 17th century literate man and woman. But, as we all know, language is dynamic; it is constantly changing. And if we want to ignite a desire to love God's Word and live by it, I believe it's important to provide other versions that will aid us in that process.
I have gone through a journey in reading the Bible. I first turned to a Phillips' translation of the New Testament; that truly changed my life. But wanting to read the entire plan of salvation--from Genesis to Revelation, I turned to the Revised Standard, the New American Standard, the NIV, and finally, my favorite--the New King James Version.
All of them have their strengths and weaknesses, even the KJV does. If we could all read the original languages--in Greek and Hebrew--we would be closer to the original message of the inspired pen-men of the Lord. But as a seminary professor once told me, if you can't read these languages, the next best thing is to compare several dynamic versions (not paraphrases) and you will have a better idea of what God is truly saying.
For that reason, I am thankful that God has provided a version to meet the varied needs and reading levels of people everywhere. And whatever version we choose to study, we have the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit would 'teach us all things' (John 14:26) and lead us into 'all truth' (John 16:13). If we desire to know God's will in order to follow Him with a pure heart, He will teach us. The important thing is to study, with an open mind and heart.

[Drsanford77]

For more information on the history and significance of the 1611 King James Version Bible, be sure to visit the brand-new http://www.credocommunications.net/1611KJVLeafBook website. The authors have compiled a worldwide census of extant copies of the original first printing of the 1611 King James Version (sometimes referred to as the "He" Bible). For decades, many authorities have estimated only around 50 copies of that first printing exist. The real number is quite different! The authors also have discovered how much the first KJV Bibles sold for back in 1611. For more information, you're invited to contact Donald L. Brake, Sr., PhD, 10920 NE 113th St., Vancouver, WA 98662 USA, [email protected] or one of his colleagues, David Sanford, [email protected] .