# If we lose the KJV we’ll lose access to the Puritans



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 14, 2018)

I slowly began to use the KJV often, now primarily. It occurs to me often as I read that a lack of familiarity with its words and style, among other things, will make the writings of the Puritans inaccessible to people. I’m thankful there are those who maintain the KJV’s cause and importance. This is not a thread to debate its merits, I just wanted to point this out and say that I think every Christian family should train their children to read, understand, and appreciate the KJV, for important historical reasons if nothing else (though better if it’s for other good reasons as well). It seems to me to be an indispensible element of good Christian training in the English-speaking world.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 2


----------



## Edward (Apr 14, 2018)

You could largely accomplish the same results by studying Shakespeare.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 14, 2018)

I agree with you, Jeri. 

Your observation reminded me of an atheist English professor I knew who said familiarity with the King James Bible was essential to understanding English literature and culture. He was dismayed at the sudden fall in Biblical literacy.

It seems odd that a liberal non-believer can see things we might miss, but there it is.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 14, 2018)

I think you have a good point. It’s like schools not teaching cursive. Soon people won’t be able to read the Constitution.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 14, 2018)

Edward said:


> You could largely accomplish the same results by studying Shakespeare.


Why be satisfied with ‘largely accomplishing’ by way of a godless source, when you could fully accomplish with God’s word? Anyway, I’m not sure you’re right; I’d think that the theological ramifications of thoughts expressed with unfamiliar wording wouldn’t be made clear by familiarity with Will.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 14, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> I think you have a good point. It’s like schools not teaching cursive. Soon people won’t be able to read the Constitution.


It is like that. Not only the Constitution but many other original documents from historical times.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Apr 14, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’d think that the theological ramifications of thoughts expressed with unfamiliar wording wouldn’t be made clear by familiarity with Will.



That's a good bit beyond your original 



Jeri Tanner said:


> words and style



and 



Jeri Tanner said:


> important historical reasons if nothing else



although you left yourself a bit of an opening with your 



Jeri Tanner said:


> among other things

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 14, 2018)

It helps to have a KJV out when reading people like G Vos too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Apr 14, 2018)

In my family, we do our reading from a more modern translation. My wife and I made that decision not so much so that the kids could understand the Bible readings (for a 400-year-old translation, the KJV is remarkably easy to understand), but to show that God's Word comes in everyday speech. We didn't want to leave the false impression that the truths of God are removed from ordinary life and use some obscure, sacred way of speaking.

But we have tried to instill some appreciation and familiarity with the KJV also, for the sort of reasons Jeri mentioned. It's good to be in touch with those spiritual roots and to feel comfortable interacting with those forebears and their way of speaking. Occasionally, I will read the day's passage in the newer translation first and then read it again in the KJV. The kids find it interesting and kind of fun. I sometimes read a few thoughts from an old commentator, which means there's KJV in the commentary text. Or if I come across a verse I remember in the KJV from childhood, I will recite it and we might talk about how it sounds different—often how beautiful it sounds in the old style, occasionally how odd it sounds to us today.

My kids like Shakespeare too. Maybe there's some connection. For sure, we are language geeks.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Apr 14, 2018)

I love the KJV just as much as the next guy. it is has become the translation I have been using for daily reading for about 4 months now. That being said, I usually take me ESV or CSB to Church because for many people in my circles the language is a stumbling block. This is why I think the answer to preserving the Puritans is not the KJV but rather simply updating the language of the Puritans. Right now the English language is changing so rapidly that with in the next century the language of the puritans will be almost unrecognizable to the average reader. As much as I LOVE the archaic writings of the Puritans, it is a big stumbling block to most readers in the 21st century. 

Just my

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 14, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> I love the KJV just as much as the next guy. it is has become the translation I have been using for daily reading for about 4 months now. That being said, I usually take me ESV or CSB to Church because for many people in my circles the language is a stumbling block. This is why I think the answer to preserving the Puritans is not the KJV but rather simply updating the language of the Puritans. Right now the English language is changing so rapidly that with in the next century the language of the puritans will be almost unrecognizable to the average reader. As much as I LOVE the archaic writings of the Puritans, it is a big stumbling block to most readers in the 21st century.
> 
> Just my


I understand that the argument is to update everything. But it’s not updated yet! And I had rather read the Puritans as they wrote, and keep in touch with our historical roots, as Jack mentioned.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 14, 2018)

Edward said:


> That's a good bit beyond your original
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for acknowledging my opening.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Apr 14, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I understand that the argument is to update everything. But it’s not updated yet! And I had rather read the Puritans as they wrote, and keep in touch with our historical roots, as Jack mentioned.


 I agree. I mean I would also prefer to read Paul as he wrote but I haven't learned ancient Greek yet.  A For many today Middle English is a foreign language. So although my preference would be to read them the way they wrote, I also realize that that is almost impossible for most people in the current era.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 14, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> updating the language of the Puritans.



I am helped when someone updates the more difficult Puritan writers, most notably Owen, who was a great thinker but a weak writer in English. Walter Marshall's_ The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification_ also comes to mind.

The better writers among the Puritans need no updating yet, and may last for several centuries to come. For example, I am constantly amazed at how Thomas Watson's writing remains crisp, easy to follow, and wonderfully quotable today.

The lesson: Write plainly and directly, using short sentences and common words.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 14, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> I love the KJV just as much as the next guy. it is has become the translation I have been using for daily reading for about 4 months now. That being said, I usually take me ESV or CSB to Church because for many people in my circles the language is a stumbling block. This is why I think the answer to preserving the Puritans is not the KJV but rather simply updating the language of the Puritans. Right now the English language is changing so rapidly that with in the next century the language of the puritans will be almost unrecognizable to the average reader. As much as I LOVE the archaic writings of the Puritans, it is a big stumbling block to most readers in the 21st century.
> 
> Just my


The reasons to update things such as Confessions and Puritans would be the same reason why we have modern translations. We should update the English style to reflect current expression of speech as they are now being used and understood.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 14, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I slowly began to use the KJV often, now primarily. It occurs to me often as I read that a lack of familiarity with its words and style, among other things, will make the writings of the Puritans inaccessible to people. I’m thankful there are those who maintain the KJV’s cause and importance. This is not a thread to debate its merits, I just wanted to point this out and say that I think every Christian family should train their children to read, understand, and appreciate the KJV, for important historical reasons if nothing else (though better if it’s for other good reasons as well). It seems to me to be an indispensible element of good Christian training in the English-speaking world.


All Christians should have and at least once in a while use the KJV, for it is the single most important English translation ever made, and the most influential version ever published.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> update things such as Confessions



Now you've done it!!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 14, 2018)

Jack K said:


> Now you've done it!!


Done what?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> ...even if there are some better modern versions now available of the Bible.


No inflammatory claims in this thread, please!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2018)

The thesis of the OP is not true. I have not read the KJV regularly for 14 years, yet I read the Puritans all the time. Since I am reading books by old theologians, I do not mind that fact that they use old language. Conversely, I have no desire to read the Bible in anything other than modern English. You may as well argue that we need to be familiar with the LXX to read the Eastern Fathers or with the Latin Vulgate in order to read Thomas Aquinas.

Besides, it is interesting that even Reformation Heritage Books has a series of short modernised Puritan writings in order to make them more accessible to people in the contemporary world. It is also significant that the Davenant Foundation has started translating (yes, that is what they call it) Richard Hooker's _Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity_ out of olde English and into modern English. Reading stuff in olde English is fine for scholars and antiquarians, but probably not for the average man on the street - at least not when they are starting out their theological reading.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2018)

Jack K said:


> The better writers among the Puritans need no updating yet, and may last for several centuries to come. For example, I am constantly amazed at how Thomas Watson's writing remains crisp, easy to follow, and wonderfully quotable today.
> 
> The lesson: Write plainly and directly, using short sentences and common words.



Amen to that sentiment. The point of writing is to be understood, not simply to write loads. My friend and John Owen biographer, Professor Crawford Gribben argues that Owen learned to develop a much more simple style as he matured. He knows because he read Owen's writings in chronological order, and that also seems to conform with my (more superficial) knowledge of his works. One lesson that I have learned as I have got older is that less is often more.


----------



## Von (Apr 14, 2018)

I thought most of the Puritans preferred the Geneva translation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 14, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The thesis of the OP is not true. I have not read the KJV regularly for 14 years, yet I read the Puritans all the time.


Did you read the KJV regularly 15 years ago?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 14, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Conversely, I have no desire to read the Bible in anything other than modern English.


The KJV is in modern English. I realize it contains words unfamiliar to us now, or that have changed in meaning, and some sentence structures that are unusual. Thus the hope that Christian families will teach their children to read it. As an adult, it’s pretty easy to figure out any passage with a difficulty along those lines.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2018)

Von said:


> I thought most of the Puritans preferred the Geneva translation.



From what I can gather, that is a bit of myth. Surely the Westminster divines referred to the AV in the footnotes of the standards.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The KJV is in modern English. I realize it contains words unfamiliar to us now, or that have changed in meaning, and some sentence structures that are unusual.



In which case, it is not modern English. I have never heard or read anyone in the modern world speak or write in a similar language to the AV. Besides, I go to a church with a lot of international students. If you were to ask them whether or not they recognised the AV as modern English, I think you can guess what answer they would give you.



Jeri Tanner said:


> Did you read the KJV regularly 15 years ago?



I did, but if your thesis is true then I should have lost the ability to read the Puritans as well. If you want to keep using the AV, I am not stopping you or discouraging you from reading it. I just don't think that this argument holds water.

Reactions: Praying 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Apr 14, 2018)

I read the Puritans before using the KJV. Google can be a good helper with old English.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Apr 14, 2018)

As for cursive, I'm not too sure why we need it anyway. It's the same English, just written in a less legible way typically.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 14, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> In which case, it is not modern English.


Not modern in the modern sense; it was translated in the Modern English
era.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English 


Reformed Covenanter said:


> If you want to keep using the AV, I am not stopping you or discouraging you from reading it.


Thanks!


----------



## JimmyH (Apr 14, 2018)

Edward said:


> You could largely accomplish the same results by studying Shakespeare.


Funny thing, my older sister had a copy of Hamlet laying around when I was a kid. I tried to go through it but quickly lost interest. Then PBS played the 1939 academy award winning film of Hamlet with Lawrence Olivier. This stimulated my interest and I bought an Annotated Shakespeare. Wasn't long before I could read him fairly well.
When I began reading the Bible, at 36 years old, is was the KJV, with the NIV as a backup if I got stuck. I've introduced various English translations of the Scriptures into my reading but the KJV is still the main source.
Reminds me of a quote from Merle Miller's Plain Speaking, An Oral Biography of Harry S Truman. Miller asked the former president what he thought of the new translations of the Bible, and President Truman replied, "They took the poetry out of it." That is not why we read the KJV, but it is a wonderful asset to our studies. Praise the Lord for William Tyndale.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Not modern in the modern sense; it was translated in the Modern English
> era.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English



In which case it is early modern English; when I use the term "modern English", I obviously mean late modern.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 14, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> As for cursive, I'm not too sure why we need it anyway. It's the same English, just written in a less legible way typically.


Heh. I just create a font from my own handwriting and then go from there.

https://www.calligraphr.com/en/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 14, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> No inflammatory claims in this thread, please!


No offense intended, will go back to edit my post.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 14, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The KJV is in modern English. I realize it contains words unfamiliar to us now, or that have changed in meaning, and some sentence structures that are unusual. Thus the hope that Christian families will teach their children to read it. As an adult, it’s pretty easy to figure out any passage with a difficulty along those lines.


I would consider Elizabethan English though as exactly being the same as our modern English though.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 14, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> I think you have a good point. It’s like schools not teaching cursive. Soon people won’t be able to read the Constitution.



Not to worry. The Constitution has been in print for many years.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 14, 2018)

The King James Bible is easier to read than many today would recognize. For some people, the antiquated language is an obstacle, but I honestly think that if they sat down and tried, they'd have little trouble. I read the KJV with my wife, whose first language is not even English, and she is able to understand without much difficulty.

I have also found that reading the King James Bible fits well with singing from the Scottish Psalter, as they are not very far removed from each other.

Further, studying the King James Bible and books of the period has made reading Shakespeare a breeze. I intend to raise my son principally on the KJV, though I'll have other versions around for reference.


A side note:

Old English (Anglo-Saxon) = _Beowulf_
Middle English = _The Canterbury Tales_, Wyclif's Bible
Early Modern English = _Hamlet_, the King James Bible

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 14, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> As for cursive, I'm not too sure why we need it anyway. It's the same English, just written in a less legible way typically.



Cursive should be quicker and easier to write. That's the idea, anyway. And, properly done, it's meant to be beautiful.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 14, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The thesis of the OP is not true. I have not read the KJV regularly for 14 years, yet I read the Puritans all the time.



I agree with this. I've never used the KJV and have little trouble reading the Puritans. If anything, we moderns probably stumble over the 17th-century grammar and syntax more than over the vocabulary. Familiarity with the KJV is not necessary to understand the Puritans.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2018)

You could say because I regularly read the AV for 5 years that I had an advantage over other readers of the Puritans, but I am not convinced. We also need to avoid speaking of the Puritans in monolithic terms. Some are very easy to read; others are more of a chore. The difficulty in reading them has little or nothing to do with familiarity with the AV.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Apr 14, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Heh. I just create a font from my own handwriting and then go from there.
> 
> https://www.calligraphr.com/en/


Ha. I think I would be embarrassed to show mine to anyone.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 15, 2018)

I appreciate the pushback as well as the agreement on this. I think I’ve been corrected somewhat on what I said. I could have been clearer in the OP that:

I wasn’t saying that if you leave off reading the KJV, after having read it in prior years, that you’ll lose the ability to understand the Puritans.

I wasn’t saying that a person can’t read the Puritans if they don’t read the KJV.

By “losing the KJV” I meant to convey what will happen if churches and Christian parents don’t teach their children to read and appreciate the it; the use of it to coming generations will be in danger of being lost.

By losing access to the Puritans I did initially mean losing the ability to read and follow the language they used; but as Edward pointed out, I “left an opening” for other ways and reasons, and I think it turns out they’re more key.

One point to clarify is that the “we” I had in mind in the OP isn’t the type of people who are members of the Puritanboard. Those kinds of people are generally strong readers, and have a theological and historical understanding of the events of the Reformation and the times of the Puritans. The people I have in mind are those inside and outside the confessional tradition who are drifting away from historical moorings. They see the KJV as hopelessly antiquated and tend to put the Reformers and Puritans in the same category. These aren’t just mainline denominational people and SBC people and charismatics, but are also PCA people and other Reformed denominations.

I still think there’s a vital connection between continued familiarity in families and churches with the Authorized version, and church history and thought from the reformation onward. I wonder if where the KJV is despised and neglected, Puritan doctrines and confessions become less consequential. More of an ecclesiastical issue than mere language, I think. Those who disdain that connection may be more beholden to it than they realize.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 15, 2018)

Jeri,

While I appreciate much about the KJV and think familiarity with it is a good part of understanding our heritage, I think the cause-and-effect you suggest may be a bit overstated. I suspect that if we want to keep people interested in Puritan writings, the best way to do that will be to keep them interested in godliness, theology, and church history. If they are interested in these things, they will eventually seek out Puritan writings.

The people I know who read the Puritans don't generally use the KJV as their go-to translation. But they are committed believers who love getting to know Christ better. They crave deep teaching and want to be moored in a solid Christian heritage. If we keep _that_ alive in our churches, the Puritan witness with flourish.

(Many of those people will like the KJV too, and for some of the same reasons.)


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 15, 2018)

Jack K said:


> Jeri,
> 
> While I appreciate much about the KJV and think familiarity with it is a good part of understanding our heritage, I think the cause-and-effect you suggest may be a bit overstated. I suspect that if we want to keep people interested in Puritan writings, the best way to do that will be to keep them interested in godliness, theology, and church history. If they are interested in these things, they will eventually seek out Puritan writings.
> 
> ...


Jack, I don’t know if I was speaking correctly as far as cause and effect, but I still will maintain the intertwining and connection is possible, and I think likely. I concede to some of the pushback received; I appreciate it, as I don’t want to think or speak wrongly about this. 

We’re all the beneficiaries of generations of church men who held an ecclesiastical view of the KJV, and so maintained its use in their churches and families. Its use only began to be abandoned in the late 1880’s, and then not by everyone, by any means. I would think that many Reformed denominations, especially, would have held out for a good while (some still do such as the FC(C), and individual ministers still use it in the pulpit). So it may be too early to tell the full impact of its abandonment. 

So those who read and love the Puritans but protest any necessary connection with the KJV might consider they’re standing on the shoulders of those generations referred to above. I wonder if it can be likened to a people whose freedom to protest their military came from that military’s preservations of those freedoms. Their protests succeeded and they weakened it down to a shadow of its former self, then they were overrun, and in a couple of generations had forgotten their former heritage. It may not be the best analogy but maybe something to it?

Again, you and many on the board are going to know a lot of theologically literate people; but those are a small minority compared to the many, many believers in the kinds of churches I’ve been in, who retain absolutely no familiarity with or appreciation of either the KJV or Puritan doctrine. Is there no link there? I guess it’s impossible to prove or disprove. Anecdotally though, coming from the confused and confusing church situations I’ve been in, the loss of the two definitely appear together, and from people who should know better. It’s the ESV and new Calvinist authors all the way for them.


----------



## Alex Foo (Apr 15, 2018)

don't worry, over here for the Chinese, we have some Puritan work translated to Chinese.... think about transferable content... i myself use NKJV and love the rhythm-ic style (though not very word-for-word as per NASB)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Apr 15, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Jack, I don’t know if I was speaking correctly as far as cause and effect, but I still will maintain the intertwining and connection is possible, and I think likely. I concede to some of the pushback received; I appreciate it, as I don’t want to think or speak wrongly about this.
> 
> We’re all the beneficiaries of generations of church men who held an ecclesiastical view of the KJV, and so maintained its use in their churches and families. Its use only began to be abandoned in the late 1880’s, and then not by everyone, by any means. I would think that many Reformed denominations, especially, would have held out for a good while (some still do such as the FC(C), and individual ministers still use it in the pulpit). So it may be too early to tell the full impact of its abandonment.
> 
> ...


I can only speak from limited experience, but out of all the people I know who read the Puritans, none read the KJV as their primary translation. I think it comes down to an interest in theology; hence, those in evangelical, gospel-lite churches, or charismatic churches, do not care for the Puritans.

Furthermore, some who love the KJV - fundamentalist Baptists - have zero time for the Puritans.

In my mind this whole idea is flawed; and I believe that, in many ways, the insistence on using the KJV is actually a stumbling block to getting those who don't read the Puritans to read them. You're asking them to climb two mountains instead of one.

This is coming from a confessed antiquarian who nearly always prefers the old to the new.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Apr 15, 2018)

I have six children and have no interest in reading to them from any translation other than the AV. Most of them have their own AV Bibles and their own Scottish Metrical Psalter.

Some people forget there are still denominations that require the use of the AV for preaching. Forget reading the Puritans for a moment, my children need to understand the preaching and singing of the word each week!

Some may dismiss this next reason as utter foolishness, but I also use the AV exclusively for preaching, reading, family, and personal worship because it correctly addresses the Lord using the second-person-singular pronoun in English. This is also how we pray. If Christ taught us to pray, "Hallowed be thy name," (Matt. 6:9), I believe we should maintain the nearest approximation of that we can in our own language. I do not believe that using "you" for God the Father in translation or prayer is _wrong_. Of course it isn't wrong, because that's how we all speak. However, "you" simply does not contain as much _information_ as using "thou" (per the original languages). I see any loss of information, when preventable, as a thing to be avoided.

When I was in Australia, someone tried to tell me that "thee" and "thou" are not part of the English language anymore. I found that implausible, since every session of the Australian Parliament is still commenced with the AV version of the Lord's Prayer.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Username3000 (Apr 15, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> I have six children and have no interest in reading to them from any translation other than the AV. Most of them have their own AV Bibles and their own Scottish Metrical Psalter.
> 
> Some people forget there are still denominations that require the use of the AV for preaching. Forget reading the Puritans for a moment, my children need to understand the preaching and singing of the word each week!
> 
> ...


I am glad that works for you, brother. But most of us are not in the situation where the KJV is required reading.


----------



## JimmyH (Apr 15, 2018)

This has been an informative thread for me. I'm surprised at how many eschew the KJV. I could see using a 'modern' English translation primarily, especially since many congregations do not use the AV, but surprised that some don't read it at all.

Maybe it is because of my age, pushing 70, and years ago the KJV was _the_ Bible, or maybe it is the beauty of the text, but I can't stop reading it. I do supplement it with other English translations. 

For instance, in the M'Cheyne 1 year plan I've finished the Book of Proverbs just a couple of days ago. I found that following my reading the KJV translation I'd pick up the NIV or NASB, and I would find I didn't completely understand the import of my reading in the KJV. This probably says more about me than the KJV, but that is my story and I'm sticking to it.

I read the Puritans and whether familiarity with the KJV helps or not I cannot say, but it certainly doesn't hurt. After all, it was the Bible that most of them were reading when they wrote their tomes. The first Puritan I began with was Richard Baxter and I have delved into John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, Richard Sibbes, Anthony Burgess, Samuel Rutherford and Thomas Boston among others. I have to thank this board for pointing me in that direction. 

I wouldn't want to read a modernized version of any of them, I even prefer reading facsimile editions when available. I never could understand someone reading Charles & Mary Lamb's adaptations of Shakespeare when they could have the real thing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 15, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> I wouldn't want to read a modernized version of any of them, I even prefer reading facsimile editions when available.



Neither would I if I could avoid it; I try to read as much of the originals as I can on archive.org or Google Books if I do not own hard copies. Still, a lot of people find the facsimiles too intimidating and it is better they read modernised editions than not read them at all. The purists might want everyone to read the originals, but the realists are content that people are reading edifying material in a format that they find accessible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

