Vulgar A.V.

[Christusregnat]

So, really, the argument would have been in the opposite direction: why make a new, less common translation than the old one? The answer: King James didn't like the anti-tyrannical notes in the Geneva Bible.

How would you, then, explain why the Puritans were pushing for a new translation, why a bill was already extant in Parliament under Queen Elizabeth to engage it, when James took the throne and addressed it?

If what you are saying is true, why did it take so long for the AV to overtake the Geneva Bible's popularity? Why did the Puritans use the Geneva Bible?

Perhaps some citations would be helpful.

Cheers,

 

[bookslover]

I do not agree that the Bible MUST be 'ordinary' English.

Of course the Bible must be in ordinary English - that's the language ordinary English-speakers speak. When the OT authors wrote in Hebrew, they wrote in the ordinary Hebrew of the day. When the NT authors wrote in Greek, they wrote in koine, the ordinary Greek of the first-century (as opposed to Attic Greek). And, I'd bet that when a French translation is made, ordinary modern French is used. So, why should Bible translators today not use ordinary English when translating the Bible?

An English Bible translation should strive for both accuracy and readability. The talk one sometimes hears about the alleged "majesty" of the KJV's language is just a figleaf to cover its obscurity. Because of the kind of book the Bible is - God's revealed Word to us - accuracy and readability must trump beauty or "majesty" of language every time. If one can translate a passage both accurately and beautifully, fine. But the former must take precedence over the latter. Due to the passage of time, the KJV fails this test.

Since it is vitally necessary that people be able to understand God's message to us, then an English translation (as well as a French one, etc.) MUST be done in ordinary language. That, after all, is really the only kind of language there is (aside from technical language).

Accurate communication is key. Hoping that modern people (especially modern young people) are going to dive head-first into 400 year old English, merely because previous generations have used it - is a hope too far.

 

[MW]

Of course the Bible must be in ordinary English - that's the language ordinary English-speakers speak. When the OT authors wrote in Hebrew, they wrote in the ordinary Hebrew of the day. When the NT authors wrote in Greek, they wrote in koine, the ordinary Greek of the first-century (as opposed to Attic Greek).

This is nonsense. The Bible is in written not spoken language, and this writing or literature incorporates many contexts about which the common people were not ordinarily conversant.

 

[KMK]

Accurate communication is key.

What do we do if a person's 'ordinary' language is not accurate in and of itself? What if the 'ordinary' language does not distinguish, as most do, between second person singular and second person plural? What do missionaries do when trying to communicate the Bible to tribes without a sophisticated language system? Aren't we required in those situations to supply an 'extraordinary' word to accurately communicate?

And as far as the younger generation goes, according to university professors they need less coddling and more rigor in English Language Arts anyway.

 

[bookslover]

Accurate communication is key.

What do we do if a person's 'ordinary' language is not accurate in and of itself? What if the 'ordinary' language does not distinguish, as most do, between second person singular and second person plural? What do missionaries do when trying to communicate the Bible to tribes without a sophisticated language system? Aren't we required in those situations to supply an 'extraordinary' word to accurately communicate?[/QUOTE]

If a person's ordinary English is not accurate in and of itself, then a well-translated Bible is a good step (along with other well-written literature) to correcting that. Forcing someone whose English skills are already bad to deal with 400-year-old English will not help.

As for the second-person singulars and plurals - context is everything. The context of the passage will usually tell you what you need to know.

As for those missionaries: all peoples with a spoken language have a sophisticated language system, or they wouldn't be able to communicate with each other. It may not be sophisticated in the same way that English is, but, within its own system, it's sophisticated enough to make communication possible. All languages do exactly the same things; they just do them in different ways. A missionary will only make his job that much harder by imposing non-modern English on such people.

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:34:00 EST-----

Of course the Bible must be in ordinary English - that's the language ordinary English-speakers speak. When the OT authors wrote in Hebrew, they wrote in the ordinary Hebrew of the day. When the NT authors wrote in Greek, they wrote in koine, the ordinary Greek of the first-century (as opposed to Attic Greek).

This is nonsense. The Bible is in written not spoken language, and this writing or literature incorporates many contexts about which the common people were not ordinarily conversant.

It's not nonsense. Written language may be more formally laid-out than spoken language, but it's still understandable language that communicates meaning. Paul wrote in koine Greek precisely because it was the ordinary language of the people at that time. If he had writen in the Attic dialect, he would have been communicating to a much smaller audience, thereby defeating the whole purpose of writing his books of the NT in the first place.

As for obscure contexts, clear and accurate ordinary language helps make them less obscure. Besides, there are places in the Bible that are difficult to understand (Peter, call your office) no matter how clear the language is. Framing them in Elizabethan/Jacobean English certainly doesn't help.

 

[KMK]

If a person's ordinary English is not accurate in and of itself, then a well-translated Bible is a good step (along with other well-written literature) to correcting that.

I agree.

Forcing someone whose English skills are already bad to deal with 400-year-old English will not help.

Perhaps their English skills would not be so bad if they had to deal with 400 year old English. Besides, I don't think anyone is arguing that the Bible must only be translated by English that is 400 years.

As for the second-person singulars and plurals - context is everything. The context of the passage will usually tell you what you need to know.

The same could be said for the word 'wist'.

A missionary will only make his job that much harder by imposing non-modern English on such people.

I agree. A missionary should be preaching and translating in their 'vulgar' language as per 1:8.

 

[MW]

As for the second-person singulars and plurals - context is everything. The context of the passage will usually tell you what you need to know.

There are multiple places where the context gives no idea that there is a change in person, and the failure to detect it leads to a blatant misunderstanding of the text. The most notorious case is John 3:7, which as a result of modern versions is continually misrepresented.

 

[MW]

It's not nonsense. Written language may be more formally laid-out than spoken language, but it's still understandable language that communicates meaning.

Yes, it is nonsense. Literature includes numerous elements of structure and symbolism which do not work in verbal communication for the simple reason that literature is read more than once and can be analysed in varying degrees of unit. One of the noteworthy features of literature is the deliberate use of archaism, which biblical scholars generally recognise as being abundantly present in the New Testament Scriptures.

 

[TimV]

What do we do if a person's 'ordinary' language is not accurate in and of itself? What if the 'ordinary' language does not distinguish, as most do, between second person singular and second person plural? What do missionaries do when trying to communicate the Bible to tribes without a sophisticated language system? Aren't we required in those situations to supply an 'extraordinary' word to accurately communicate?

Ken, there are no tribes without a sophisticated language system. One of the first things you learn when studying this stuff is that tribal languages are typically more complex than English. Your arguments aren't doing much to further your case, to be frank.

 

[JennyG]

This is a very interesting thread. It's amazing what strong feelings the whole question of the AV stirs up. I'm hesitant to join in but I would really like to know if anyone thinks as I do?
I love the AV, surely one of God's most inestimable gifts to the English-speaking world. Its beauty and depth thrill me more and more as I get older. it's many times easier to understand than Shakespeare (will there ever be a campaign to modernise his language I wonder?!) and many times surpasses him in glory, majesty, poetry. That's even without considering the content, which of course remains the same in any accurate version, but I feel as if nothing but the most beautiful possible language is good enough to wrap it in, at least for my personal use. If it's not stylistically the same language I encounter in the newspaper, so much the better - that's only fitting.
I understand that's a personal preference, and there's no way we can go back to exclusive-AV days.
But does no-one mourn the loss of that blessing held in common, when the AV was the only version, and a part of the cultural consciousness that even the unconverted were thoroughly familiar with?
There's another thread running, discussing someone's dictum that the modern versions are the work of Satan, and a fair amount of ridicule has been applied, which is perhaps no more than such a hasty and intemperate claim deserves. I will say this though:
Energy going into discussion, disagreement, thoughtless denunciation and ridicule wouldn't even have been a temptation before there were all the modern versions! so maybe Satan has at least a finger in it somewhere...

 

[KMK]

There's another thread running, discussing someone's dictum that the modern versions are the work of Satan,

Are you referring to a thread here on PB? Never mind, I see it now.

 

[KMK]

What do we do if a person's 'ordinary' language is not accurate in and of itself? What if the 'ordinary' language does not distinguish, as most do, between second person singular and second person plural? What do missionaries do when trying to communicate the Bible to tribes without a sophisticated language system? Aren't we required in those situations to supply an 'extraordinary' word to accurately communicate?

Ken, there are no tribes without a sophisticated language system. One of the first things you learn when studying this stuff is that tribal languages are typically more complex than English. Your arguments aren't doing much to further your case, to be frank.

I am willing to concede upon the testimony of a man who speaks Zulu! Thanks for the correction.

 

[LawrenceU]

The simplification of language as it develops over time is a well known fact in linguistics. It is almost unheard of that a language maintains its preciseness as a culture develops.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Interesting observation, Lawrence:

The simplification of language as it develops over time is a well known fact in linguistics. It is almost unheard of that a language maintains its preciseness as a culture develops.​

Thanks for sharing it.

As a poet and writer I see this as I observe the everyday speech in my country. The implications of this are significant. In the world of the unregenerate - from which most language emanates - there is a deterioration of morals, heart, and understanding, and this is reflected in the language, even among the "learned" and communicators. As the knowledge of God and things pertaining to His kingdom diminishes from the culture, a death enters into the language; though it be "lively" it has a dark leaven in it.

The church must be ware lest it be uncritical in its use of the common language.

 

[Claudiu]

The simplification of language as it develops over time is a well known fact in linguistics. It is almost unheard of that a language maintains its preciseness as a culture develops.

Reminds me of 1984 by George Orwell!

Hope we don't get that far though :*(

 

[Grymir]

The simplification of language as it develops over time is a well known fact in linguistics. It is almost unheard of that a language maintains its preciseness as a culture develops.

That's a great point!

 

[KMK]

The simplification of language as it develops over time is a well known fact in linguistics. It is almost unheard of that a language maintains its preciseness as a culture develops.

Interesting observation, Lawrence:

The simplification of language as it develops over time is a well known fact in linguistics. It is almost unheard of that a language maintains its preciseness as a culture develops.​

Thanks for sharing it.

As a poet and writer I see this as I observe the everyday speech in my country. The implications of this are significant. In the world of the unregenerate - from which most language emanates - there is a deterioration of morals, heart, and understanding, and this is reflected in the language, even among the "learned" and communicators. As the knowledge of God and things pertaining to His kingdom diminishes from the culture, a death enters into the language; though it be "lively" it has a dark leaven in it.

The church must be ware lest it be uncritical in its use of the common language.

Would an example of this be the verb 'love'? In Webster's 1828 there are only two definitions. In Mirriam Webster online there are 4, including this one:

2 a: to feel a lover's passion, devotion, or tenderness for b (1): caress (2): to fondle amorously (3): to copulate with

Webster's 1828 does not have anything like this under the verb 'love', but it does under the verb 'lust'. Has 'modern' English hijacked the word 'love' to make the concept of 'lust' sound a little less wicked?

 

[LawrenceU]

That would be a part of the issue. But, what I was addressing was the condensing/combining of conjugatory forms in verbs and declensions in nouns.

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

Glenn,

The subject of manuscript transmission and translation is one that I find very interesting. You said:

While I’m not opposed to the use of different translations of the Bible or Psalter, and would favor a modern, international, ecclesiastical, Reformed translation of the Bible based upon the TR, we don’t have such.

I mentioned in another thread recently that I am very pleased with my New King James Bible but that I have been watching and am willing to consider something else that comes along if it (1) employs a formal equivalence translation method, and (2) produces an English text superior to the NKJB. I have been waiting for over twenty years but have not seen such.

I assume that you prefer the AV to the NKJB. If that is the case what shortcomings have you encountered in the NKJB?

Thirty years ago, I would have argued for use of a translation in the most current English available and translated from the critical text.

Somewhere in there, about twenty years ago, I settled into using the NKJV. However, over time, I became frustrated where this translation replaces ambiguities with interpretation rather than leaving the interpretation to reader and expositor.

Malcolm Watts, for TBS, offers a helpful critique of the NKJV:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A123.pdf

Several years ago, I reverted to use of the AV in my personal devotions. I found I had little trouble understanding the text, occasionally had opportunity to expand my vocabulary by looking up a more archaic word (which sometimes cast new light on the intent of the translator), and also presented God’s Word with a dignity that left me with a sense of “This is God’s Word, not the words of men.”

About two years ago, I started using the AV exclusively in public worship. I expected some objections, but found none. Rather, I begin to notice the congregants bringing nice copies of AV Bibles with them, newly purchased or pulled from storage I have not determined. I received several positive comments, but no complaints. I also read from a large pulpit Bible, make the reading of no less than two Scriptures a distinct element of worship, take at least one of the readings a portion of Scripture we’re reading consecutively, noting the reading of Scripture has value in itself and needs little comment from me, other than a couple sentences preface to provide the setting and point out any obscure phrases (sometimes historical or cultural context rather than archaic words) that we may hear with understanding.

If the NKJV had done what it proposed to do, give us a more readable rendering of the AV, simply updating the archaic words, better translations of words like unicorn, dragon and Easter, and smoothing out word order when it was truly awkward, that would have been helpful.

I have some suspicions when a translation project is done by a publishing company with market motives rather than an ecclesiastically mandated group of scholars attempting to produce a better version of God’s Word for the Church.

But, the purpose of this thread was not to argue translations or texts; but, to point out the use of the AV for reading in public worship is not a violation of WCF I:8, which I believe has been satisfactorily done. There was no intent to be critical of those who use other translations for good reasons.