# Weird KJV Grammar



## BibleCyst (Sep 19, 2011)

I'm using the KJV almost exclusively now. The one thing that I cannot get used to is the weird wording in certain sentences! The two most recent examples I have come across are listed below. I find these all over. I was wondering if somebody could shed some light on this?

Luke 15:1 - Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners *for to* hear him.

Acts 1:16 - Men and brethren, this scripture *must needs* have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.


----------



## Galatians220 (Sep 19, 2011)

Many secular classic novels and other prose have this kind of wording. It was in, for example, my grandparents' textbooks, some of which I have in my basement. I actually recall my great-grandmother saying something to me like, "I'm going to the store now for to get some bread." She was born in Wisconsin in 1872, but everyone else in her birth family was born in Ireland. In other words,, this might be the result of the UK origin of the KJV, and that's fine. Many phrases in the KJV (and I've been using the KJV exclusively since 1997) are the result of revisions of word order or prepositions, articles, etc. from even more archaic phrasing, but they're not changes in meanings. Some of them have only been out of fashion for 100 years or so.


----------



## JennyG (Sep 19, 2011)

You don't have to get into a seventeenth century mindset to understand most of the oddities - within living memory you'd have found most of them alive and well, as Margaret says! Shakespeare can be much harder to understand, and uses much weirder vocabulary, I would say. Sometimes the word order is a little strange, but I think that's from the translators' sticking as close as possible to the original text. In fact I love that, for the sense it gives of getting right inside ancient thought patterns.

I can only think of one idiom in the KJV that I've never been able to get an intuitive grasp on, though I know intellectually what it means, and which I never remember seeing in Shakespeare or anywhere else at all. That's when in 1 Cor 4 v 4 Paul says "I know nothing *by* myself", meaning "I am conscious of nothing *against* myself (ie no guilt).
That *is* weird.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 19, 2011)

While there are certainly a good number of genuine archaic words and usages in the KJV, I agree with Margaret that some of what is considered archaic in the KJV is only a generation or two out of common usage. And not a little of it is simply a lack of literacy on the part of the reader. Some of these alleged archaisms can still be found in contemporary writing. 

On Facebook I'm in the group "Read the KJV in 2011." For a while we were posting strange or uncommon words and phrases that we came across. But some of what was posted as unfamiliar words or phrases by people with more degrees than me were words I had either read in books or magazines in recent years or are expressions I have heard my parents use. They were born in the 1940's. They may not have all been common expressions at the time but many of them were probably words and sayings that their parents and grandparents used. I can't think of many specific examples right now, but I'll likely think of more later. I recall that I found at least one of them to be astounding. 

Interesting isn't it, that the KJV is usually listed as being at a 12th Grade reading level. Yet we have people with post-graduate degrees who profess to not be able to understand it. (I have to confess that I usually read the Cliff's Notes in High School instead of the Shakespeare plays we were assigned and evidently in general I've read a lot more than most.) Not wanting to wrestle with it when we allegedly have better translations is one thing. But ignorance of it among educated people is another. Dr. Daniel Wallace is no fan of the KJV by any stretch and is a staunch eclectic/critical text advocate. But he says that everyone should be familiar with the KJV due to the impact that it has had, etc. 

I am thinking that 2 or 3 generations who have frequently spent hours upon end in front of the television (including video games) instead of reading has contributed mightily to this, along with widespread abandonment of the KJV in favor of bland versions like the NIV. Now we are falsely told by publishers that every generation (30 years) must have a contemporary translation. Is it such a bad thing to occasionally come across a word that is new to us and to have to look it up? That's learning! WOW! If people are too lazy to do that, do we think they will put in the effort to regularly read their Bible, no matter how easy it is to read? I doubt it, in many cases. I don't doubt that one reason (among many) that homeschooled kids on average perform much better than their public school counterparts is that they have grown up in homes that either had no television or else were raised in a home in which television use tended to be very limited. I could only wish that I had the time back that I've spent in front of the TV, especially the time spent playing games. 

I have profited greatly from my NKJV in recent years, a version that many would still consider to be archaic in some respects by those who think the Bible ought to read like the newspaper. I'm not looking to force the KJV on anyone. But having said all the above, perhaps I should take a dose of my own medicine and carry on with the KJV for a while after (hopefully) reading it through this year!

Note: None of this should be taken as belittling the author of the OP. What was posted simply set me off!


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 19, 2011)

BibleCyst said:


> Luke 15:1 - Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.



That one has a logical structure that we modern English speakers have abandoned. The form "to hear" is an infinitive. In other languages, like French, it is common to have a preposition before an infinitive. (BTW, English borrows a lot of its structure from French). 

Nowadays we either drop the preposition before the infinitive or substitute the present participle (in this case, "hearing") in place of the infinitive and keep the participle.

So you might see a phrase, "they came near for hearing."

Or the alternative, "they came near to hear."

But there is nothing structurally wrong with "for to hear." It just is something we quit doing in the past century or so.

As for "must needs," the word "needs" is simply acting as an adverb. We've abandoned that as well and have adopted "necessarily" in its place. To our ear, "must necessarily" sounds right, but certainly "must needs" is more economical and perfectly proper.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 19, 2011)

VictorBravo said:


> BibleCyst said:
> 
> 
> > Luke 15:1 - Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
> ...



Vic, 

This is very helpful. I couldn't have come up with this without some serious study.

I can spell with the best of them but I'm no grammarian by any stretch of the imagination. I have a friend who is a country boy who always had very poor grammar. But later in life he was converted and eventually became engaged in mission work among Hispanic people. He told me he basically had to learn English all over again before he could learn Spanish. With regard to grammar and syntax, I might have to do that too if I were ever to study Greek or Hebrew or perhaps any foreign language.


----------



## KMK (Sep 19, 2011)

VictorBravo said:


> BibleCyst said:
> 
> 
> > Luke 15:1 - Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
> ...



My wife speaks fluent Spanish. She often places the English preposition before an infinitive. In fact, most languages do so. If anything is 'weird', it is 'modern' English.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 19, 2011)

Occasionally, the KJV wording is meant to convey a particular underlying Greek construction. The translators weren't shy about using whatever English _word_ they thought best for the sake of meaning; but in my estimation they sought to preserve something of the case-structure in translation, even though the target language does not rely on a case-system. I have not seen as much of this in modern translations.


----------

