RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Ward, Mark. Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Version. Lexham.
I'm nervous about this post. I fear what is about to happen. On the other hand, this is a good book on the nature of communication and understanding. One other thing: this does not get into the philosophy of manuscript history.
This is not an attack upon the King James Version. Ward probably spends more time praising and defending it. What it is, however, is a defense of the idea of translating, since our target language is always a moving target.
The KJV should be revered. As Ward notes, this version, like many older hymns, “binds generations together.” No one would dream of reading Psalm 23 at a graveside in any translation other than the KJV. We might as well anticipate one objection: is the KJV easier to memorize? No. Because it was a force of cultural osmosis, the KJV was reinforced through all media for centuries. That is why it “seems” easier.
The real difficulty with the KJV is not the obsolete words. You can pick up a book and figure it out. The true danger is in “false friends,” words that we use today but have changed in meaning. Ward lists several:
“How long halt ye between two opinions” (1 Kgs 18:21).
We use the word “halt” today. It means stop. That really does not make sense in Elijah’s speech, but we can still get the essence of what he means. At this point, we still have communication between the two languages. Halt, however, did not mean stop in this context. It means “limp,” as other translations note.
“God commendeth his love.”
We use the word “commend” today. Is that what Paul means in this passage? Is God putting forth his love as a good idea? Maybe. It kind of works. Is that what the word actually meant then, though? Not really. “Commendeth,” as noted by John Milton in 1644, is “to set off to advantage…to adorn.” That makes more sense.
Not only are the words misleading, but so is the punctuation. Elizabethan punctuation was not as defined as ours today. That is a very good point. Ward does not bring this part out, but have you read places in Jonathan Edwards where there seem to be “random” commas? Edwards is not guilty of comma splices. A few hundred years ago, commas often signaled “breathing spaces.”
“But fornication, and all uncleanness….is not convenient” (Eph. 5:3-4).
Does Paul really think that people think that filthiness is “convenient?” If you avoid fornication and the like because it is inconvenient, that is still a good life choice, but that is a rather odd reason for it. “Convenient,” obviously, means something else.
“Remove not thy neighbor’s landmark.”
Is God telling his people not to take away the boundary marker in their neighbor’s field? In a sense, yes. That is not quite what “remove” means. God is not saying, “Do not take it and get rid of it.” He is saying “Do not move it.” Do not change the property line. That makes more sense.
There are probably more “false friends” out there, but Ward establishes his point.
Is the KJV on a Fifth Grade Level?
No, it is not for the simple reason that what we call “a fifth grade level” is a moving target. As Ward notes, “Reading level assumes contemporary language.: No one, no matter how educated, and certainly no fifth grader, uses “besom when broom is available.”
Ward interacts with Joel Beeke’s otherwise excellent article on why one should use the KJV. Beeke has one comment that deserves some mention. Should we accommodate dumbed down English? Should we not strive for better? I like the idea. The problem is that such a standard means that C. S. Lewis, probably the finest prose stylist of the 20th century, wrote in a degenerated English. I am not willing to go that far.
At the end of the day, communication requires at least two things: understanding between you and me. The KJV, arguably the finest relic in the English language, does not always ensure understanding in communication.
I'm nervous about this post. I fear what is about to happen. On the other hand, this is a good book on the nature of communication and understanding. One other thing: this does not get into the philosophy of manuscript history.
This is not an attack upon the King James Version. Ward probably spends more time praising and defending it. What it is, however, is a defense of the idea of translating, since our target language is always a moving target.
The KJV should be revered. As Ward notes, this version, like many older hymns, “binds generations together.” No one would dream of reading Psalm 23 at a graveside in any translation other than the KJV. We might as well anticipate one objection: is the KJV easier to memorize? No. Because it was a force of cultural osmosis, the KJV was reinforced through all media for centuries. That is why it “seems” easier.
The real difficulty with the KJV is not the obsolete words. You can pick up a book and figure it out. The true danger is in “false friends,” words that we use today but have changed in meaning. Ward lists several:
“How long halt ye between two opinions” (1 Kgs 18:21).
We use the word “halt” today. It means stop. That really does not make sense in Elijah’s speech, but we can still get the essence of what he means. At this point, we still have communication between the two languages. Halt, however, did not mean stop in this context. It means “limp,” as other translations note.
“God commendeth his love.”
We use the word “commend” today. Is that what Paul means in this passage? Is God putting forth his love as a good idea? Maybe. It kind of works. Is that what the word actually meant then, though? Not really. “Commendeth,” as noted by John Milton in 1644, is “to set off to advantage…to adorn.” That makes more sense.
Not only are the words misleading, but so is the punctuation. Elizabethan punctuation was not as defined as ours today. That is a very good point. Ward does not bring this part out, but have you read places in Jonathan Edwards where there seem to be “random” commas? Edwards is not guilty of comma splices. A few hundred years ago, commas often signaled “breathing spaces.”
“But fornication, and all uncleanness….is not convenient” (Eph. 5:3-4).
Does Paul really think that people think that filthiness is “convenient?” If you avoid fornication and the like because it is inconvenient, that is still a good life choice, but that is a rather odd reason for it. “Convenient,” obviously, means something else.
“Remove not thy neighbor’s landmark.”
Is God telling his people not to take away the boundary marker in their neighbor’s field? In a sense, yes. That is not quite what “remove” means. God is not saying, “Do not take it and get rid of it.” He is saying “Do not move it.” Do not change the property line. That makes more sense.
There are probably more “false friends” out there, but Ward establishes his point.
Is the KJV on a Fifth Grade Level?
No, it is not for the simple reason that what we call “a fifth grade level” is a moving target. As Ward notes, “Reading level assumes contemporary language.: No one, no matter how educated, and certainly no fifth grader, uses “besom when broom is available.”
Ward interacts with Joel Beeke’s otherwise excellent article on why one should use the KJV. Beeke has one comment that deserves some mention. Should we accommodate dumbed down English? Should we not strive for better? I like the idea. The problem is that such a standard means that C. S. Lewis, probably the finest prose stylist of the 20th century, wrote in a degenerated English. I am not willing to go that far.
At the end of the day, communication requires at least two things: understanding between you and me. The KJV, arguably the finest relic in the English language, does not always ensure understanding in communication.
