Dante Alighieri illustrated by Gustave Dore

The following is taken in part from my book, Critique of Pure Education: A Philosophy for the Christian Home Educator

From a literary and cultural point of view, the Holy Bible of 1611 stands supreme. The superiority of the Authorized Version is attested to the fact that this book remains the standard by which every new translation of the Scriptures is forced to be measured. New translations have come and gone: Revised Version, American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version are just a few. Of course, it is very possible that the expiration of the copyrights might have led to the demise of these versions. In order to keep the money coming in, the publishers introduced a New American Standard Version and a New Revised Standard Version. If history is a reliable indication of the future, then Christians can expect an Improved New International Version several years from now.

Not only is the Authorized Version still the standard for all Bibles, but this book also continues to have the presumption as being the best of all Bibles available today. Even the editors at Zondervan remark in the NIV / KJV Parallel Bible that the Authorized Version will remain a blessing at the present time and in the future because of its elevated English style.

However, there are other compelling reasons read the Authorized Version. This Bible was not a translation from scratch. Technically, the Authorized Version is a revision of William Tyndale’s New Testament and Myles Coverdale’s Old Testament. The Matthew, Great, Bishop, and Geneva Bibles were refinements of the Tyndale-Coverdale’s Bible, which the Authorized Version finalized eighty-six years later. During these years, England became “the people of a book.” Tyndale provided the vision at the cost of his life; the other men provided enrichment and harmony to Tyndale’s words. The fifty-four scholars of the Authorized Version were divided into three committees for a total of six companies, which were responsible for different portions of the Scriptures. Each scholar would work independently on his assignment, comparing other translations and offering his own translation only if deemed necessary. The company would then meet to discuss the relative merits of the various passages. Only after there was a consensus to the English words did the panel approve the selection. At this point, the work was reviewed by the other companies. With all of these scholars reviewing the work, the Authorized Version lacks the peculiarities of the previous versions of the Bible. Because no single piece of literature can claim a more wondrous story than the development of the Authorized Version, the student should become acquainted with the history of the English Bible. The lessons taught about devotion, sacrifice, and courage are without equal.

Not only is the Authorized Version the product of very careful scholarship, but the version is also the easiest Bible to understand. Modern publishers claim that their versions are easier to read and to understand than the Authorized Version. Yet how “Negev,” “Magi,” and “miraculous signs” are easier to understand than “the south,” “wise men,” and “miracles” exceeds the reader’s credulity.

Perhaps the biggest complaint against the Authorized Version is the use of thou and ye. In the introduction of an early edition of the New International Version, the committee makes a point to justify its exclusion of these “archaisms,” which gives pause for wondering why justification for removing any antiquated and inapplicable words is necessary at all. According to the scholars, Thou as a specific pronoun for God does not exist in the ancient languages. Also, the scholars insist the forms of thou and ye do not clarify anything today, even though these expressions apparently were a part of everyday conversion in the seventeenth century.

The NIV translators committed several errors here. First, while the ancient languages did not use particular pronouns for divinity, neither does the English in the Authorized Version. The so-called special pronouns are used in the same manner for both God and men. Therefore, violation of accuracy is not a concern. Second, a present-day version would be indeed “enhanced” by the English of 1611. Otherwise, why is the note for John 3:7 (NIV) necessary for the reader to know that this pronoun is plural? The word ye would have made the note unnecessary. And last, those living in England in 1611 did not use the familiar form of the second person on a daily basis.

As a matter of fact, the familiar forms of the second person are used primarily in poetry, which means the Authorized Version is written in an elevated language, the mark of all great literature. The familiar forms of second person pronouns are the singular thou (thee, thy) and the plural ye (you, your). Thou connotes an intimate relationship. The formal forms of the word you (you, your) in the second person was an address used to express a distant respect. The formal and familiar forms of the second person are not unique in English; they appear also in Spanish with the formal usted and ustedes and the familiar tú and vosotros.

By employing exclusively the second person in its familiar form, the scholars of the Authorized Version clarified the understanding of the Scriptures. Anyone who reads the Ten Commandments in the New International Version could wonder whether the commandments are to the reader personally or to the collective. The reason why there is no doubt about the commandments being individually applied is because the Authorized Version has already helped the other Bible out. A good example of real confusion is in the rendering of the NIV passage of John 3:1–15. Jesus switches from speaking with Nicodemus to addressing several listeners. But without the English familiar forms, the reader would never have known this.

Interestingly, in the dedication to the king, the translators address King James as “you.” As mentioned already, you means a distant respect; thou shows a close intimacy. While we should develop a relationship of respect for God, it is more important to cultivate a special intimacy with our heavenly Father. Thou is the better address. If the scholarship of the NIV translators is such that they completely misunderstood the use of the English familiar form of the second person as it applied to the Authorized Version, one should wonder if these many scholars were careless or ignorant elsewhere.

Those with any literary taste whatsoever recognize the Authorized Version as the greatest literary work in the English language, and many have even argued it is the best in the world. On the other hand, the modern versions cannot claim to be part of the belles-lettres, because they either did not or have not yet survived the test of time, and they all fail to use an elevated language and a superior crafting of words to express ideas. Not only has the Authorized Version endured the test of time, but it has also withstood innumerable criticisms beginning with Hugh Broughton, a scholar who was not invited to join the translators due to his arrogance and self-pride. In 1611, after reviewing the Authorized Version, Broughton wrote, “The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt.” Broughton died in 1612.

Not only do the current versions lack the test of time, but also modern translators are too concerned with the sense of the words and not with the sound of them. The moment translators become more concerned about pedantry and about putting the Scriptures into the language of the street, they have automatically doomed their version to obscurity along with all other cheap literature. While abundant evidence exists today for the deterioration of the English language, the times of Queen Elizabeth and King James were immersed in poetry. Edmund Spenser, Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe, John Donne, and William Shakespeare were household names. From the meanest to the highest stations in life, everyone was thinking, speaking, and writing poetically.

To the English poet, sounds, syntax, and stress are paramount. Not being poets, modern translators fail to appreciate these qualities. For example, in the New International Version, one finds, “I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit” (Romans 9:1). The words speak, conscience, confirms, and Spirit overload the verse with too many harsh sounds. Even though the beginning of the verse with three iambs is admirable, the translators merely borrowed the syntax and rhythm from the Authorized Version. The phrase I am not lying is insipid and fails to provide any emphasis, which Paul intends in the passage.

However, the Authorized Version states, “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.” Here the verse is softened with the long vowel sounds of say, lie, me, and Holy Ghost. Regarding its rhythm, the verse begins with three iambs, and the clause “I lie not,” because of its syntax, requires a stress on all three words, which provides the desired emphasis on all three syllables. Notice also the assonance of “Christ, I lie.”

Every line of the Authorized Version has these rhythms and wordsmanship. The anapests and iambs found in Romans 6:23 and the anapests used in Isaiah 53:1 are not the result of an accident. Lancelot Andrews, a personal friend of Edmund Spenser, is credited with much of the cadence found in the Authorized Version. It is the cadence that aids in public reading and with memorization of the Scriptures. This attention to sounds, syntax, and rhythm in the Authorized Version makes the entire work not one of prose but rather one of poetry, known as free verse. Arguably, it was the scholars of the Authorized Version who originated free verse, not Walt Whitman, who is often credited with creating the form. Like Whitman, if the modern versions happen to have a good rhythm or syntax, it is because the words and cadence were borrowed from the Authorized Version.

Another mark of great literature is that the work lends itself to rereading, because the message is timeless, appealing to all generations, young and old. With each rereading, the reader always learns something new. This is true because the reader has experienced more of life with each subsequent reading. How so very true this is regarding the Holy Bible, which millions of souls have searched daily to find comfort, joy, and peace. Promises are found and claimed, and instruction in righteousness is received. All great literature elevates the soul. How much more can the soul be elevated than to be blessed “with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3)?

What is the conclusion of the matter? In short, time has proven that modern Christians in America have never needed a “new” Bible. For over a hundred years, ignoble attempts accompanied by massive advertising have been made to replace the Authorized Version. In reality, American “Bibles” are not translations at all, because the editors do not offer a word-for-word translation of the original languages. They prefer getting the “gist of the idea.” Thus, what the market is flooded with are interpretations, not translations. How a passage is interpreted is the prerogative between the reader and the Holy Spirit of God, and no one else.

Therefore, scholars, committees, and publishers have been unable to improve upon the Authorized Version—and they never will. The decline in the appreciation of the English language ensures their failure. The Authorized Version becomes historically significant, because it represents the single book that ended the foundational stage of modern English by preserving the best of the English language. The language needed a vehicle to standardize the spellings and structures found in English. It was the reading of the Holy Bible of 1611 by the light of millions of candles and fireplaces that educated the young and the old, promoted the ideas of liberty, lead thousands of missionaries around the world, and established the unique American institution of the Christian liberal arts college. The beginning of this Bible was baptized in the blood of William Tyndale and ended with the poetic genius of scholars who were second to none during their lifetime—or since then. As more Americans lightly toss aside the Authorized Version as irrelevant, the nation will continue to experience consequences disastrous not only to the hearts of its students but to the heritage of its citizens as well.… (mehr)