Vulgar A.V.

[Glenn Ferrell]

I have no desire to reopen the discussion of a recent thread as far too many posts strayed from the original question, “Does the KJV qualify as ‘vulgar language’ as required by WCF I:8?” However, other responsibilities prevented me from getting back to the thread to consider the many replies and respond before the discussion was closed.

A few afterthoughts:

1) The AV was not standard English when it was fresh. It gave us a sort of Hebraicized English with its formal equivalent style of translation. This style did not make the text beyond understanding; and left ambiguities of the original as ambiguities rather than force a particular interpretation into the translation.

2) That said, the wide circulation and use of the AV and Shakespeare did much to standardize the English language, much as the Quran did for Arabic and Cervantes did for Spanish. I dispute the contention English has changed more in the last four hundred years than any equivalent time before. There is far greater difference between the Chaucer’s English and the AV than between the AV and today. Canterbury Tales to the AV was approximately 220 years.

3) “Vulgar” may mean “common” much the same as “koine.” Koine was the common international language of the Greco-Hellenistic world. Paul wrote the Romans in Koine, not Latin. The AV is common to English speaking peoples. One will find churches in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, India, and North America using the AV and understanding it. The AV is a truly “common” translation of the scriptures. For the same reason, the 1650 Scottish Psalter is the “common” Psalter of the English language.

4) 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.

5) Having read and considered the previous thread, I will continue to read the AV in public worship, when necessary providing a brief preface of obscure words, phrases or grammar, the same way I might explain some strange Hebrew cultural or historical reference in the text. I do the same when we regularly sing from the 1650 Psalter. I do so without any concern I may be violating the intent of WCF I:8. It is important we read, hear, sing, pray and preach with understanding. If the AV is not understandable, neither are the Westminster Standards.

BTW, here in the Treasure Valley of Idaho, where one often encounters KJV-Only cultists and Mormons, the AV is more readily accepted by them as authoritative.

Also, I can’t tolerate “churchy” language, practice or piety; but, dignity and reverence in public worship is not the same. When unbelievers dare enter the precincts of mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, the general assembly and church of the firstborn, they might expect it to look and sound different than the world. So, they have to stain a little to here the accents of Sion; I have to do that when I’m in New Jersey, Boston, Glasgow or London. Doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate those fine places or would not visit them again, even though many of the inhabitants don't speak a vulgar English.

 

[Christusregnat]

2) That said, the wide circulation and use of the AV and Shakespeare did much to standardize the English language, much as the Quran did for Arabic and Cervantes did for Spanish. I dispute the contention English has changed more in the last four hundred years than any equivalent time before. There is far greater difference between the Chaucer’s English and the AV than between the AV and today. Canterbury Tales to the AV was approximately 220 years.

My wife and I were having a conversation the other day as we're getting an Authorized Version for our 3-year-old's birthday. My wife thought a modern version would be better, but we agreed that English was hammered out on the anvil of the AV and Shakespeare.

Also, the point about Chaucer is an excellent one. I had thought of Wycliff as well, and Tyndale's translation in the light of the radical changes in English from the 14th to the 16th Centuries.

Cheers,

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

..we agreed that English was hammered out on the anvil of the AV and Shakespeare.

Also, the point about Chaucer is an excellent one. I had thought of Wycliff as well, and Tyndale's translation in the light of the radical changes in English from the 14th to the 16th Centuries.

Told my wife when we met, “We look enough alike we might be distant relatives.”

She asked, “Is this need to marry a cousin some sort of hillbilly thing?”

Come to find out, Chaucer was her 15th great-grandfather, and my 18th great-grandfather.

Of course, almost everyone who had western European ancestors in the American British colonies is related in multiple ways.

 

[Christusregnat]

...we agreed that English was hammered out on the anvil of the AV and Shakespeare.

Also, the point about Chaucer is an excellent one. I had thought of Wycliff as well, and Tyndale's translation in the light of the radical changes in English from the 14th to the 16th Centuries.

Told my wife when we met, “We look enough alike we might be distant relatives.”

She asked, “Is this need to marry a cousin some sort of hillbilly thing?”

Come to find out, Chaucer was her 15th great-grandfather, and my 18th great-grandfather.

Of course, almost everyone who had western European ancestors in the American British colonies is related in multiple ways.

I can't say that I have Chaucer, but I've got a line of Sir Knight Murray's in my past, tracing all the way to Freskin of Moravia:

FRESKIN DE MORAVIA

In our line are rebels against the English (praise the Lord), as well as ardent supporters of the Reformation (one smote the duke of Argyl on the cheek when he was cheeky about the reformation).

Cheers,

 

[bookslover]

Nevertheless, the English of the KJV is no longer the English of ordinary people today, and hasn't been for a very long time.

If you use a good modern translation (NASB, ESV), you won't need to spend valuable time explaining obsolete or obscure words.

 

[rbcbob]

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?

 

[Prufrock]

Accepting that Whitaker's Disputations were highly influential with respect to WCF Chapter 1, two segments from his work merit attention. The first, where he answers the Popish argument against vulgar scriptures that "languages are changed every age":

For, in the first place, it is false that languages change every age; since the primary tongues, the Hebrew, Greek and Latin, have not undergone such frequent alterations. Secondly, there is never in Christian churches a lack of some sufficient interpreters, able to translate the scriptures and render their genuine meaning in the vulgar tongue. Thirdy, no inconvenience will follow if interpretations or versions of scripture, when they have become obsolete and ceased to be easily intelligible, be afterwards changed and corrected. (Disputations, 232)​

Points:
1.) It is fitting that the vulgar translations be updated when they have "become obsolete and ceased to be easily intelligible."
2.) The linguistic changes of which he speaks are not minute and generational, but large-scale, and in such a sense that it can be claimed that neither Hebrew, Greek nor Latin have undergone such frequent alterations. For further elucidation of what Whitaker intended by this, I submit the following.

On pp. 213-216 he deals with the reading of the Old Testament in Hebrew among the Jews at the time of Christ. Whitaker confesses that the language spoken by the common man was not the Hebrew contained in the scriptures which Christ commanded them to search; this Hebrew, he claims, was only able to be spoken by the 'better educated;' it could, nevertheless, be understood by all, though it was not their common tongue. What mattered to Whitaker's definition of the vulgar tongue was not the form of language which was commonly spoken by the people, but that which is intelligible and understandable to hearing; not what they speak, but which they can know. He opposes vulgar not to older or different forms of the language, but to entirely different and unintelligible languages. This should play a large part in our understanding of the phrase "vulgar tongue" as used by the Confession.

If we adopt this definition, I think it should certainly be granted that our older translations would count as the vulgar tongue, objectively speaking; at the very least, only a minute handful of words would require updating (at the most) for it to be considered vulgar by any in accordance with the above reading; for, regarding words such as thou and thee, or the -eth and -est endings, even though we do not speak with them in our current idiom, they are plainly intelligible to all in hearing.

 

[KMK]

Nevertheless, the English of the KJV is no longer the English of ordinary people today, and hasn't been for a very long time.

If you use a good modern translation (NASB, ESV), you won't need to spend valuable time explaining obsolete or obscure words.

This would only be true if you were addressing an audience that had never heard the KJ before. But in a church where the KJ is used it is not necessary.

Besides, 'valuable time' would be wasted as well explaining things in modern versions such as whether 'you' is plural or singular.

Also, a word is not 'obsolete' because moderns do not use it. A word can only be 'obsolete' when a different word is more readily used that has the exact same meaning. The problem is that 'modern' English has not come up with satisfactory replacements for all of the valuable words she despises.

 

[JOwen]

Great post! It gave me food for thought, and a great idea for a paper.

 

[ChariotsofFire]

Nevertheless, the English of the KJV is no longer the English of ordinary people today, and hasn't been for a very long time.

If you use a good modern translation (NASB, ESV), you won't need to spend valuable time explaining obsolete or obscure words.

This would only be true if you were addressing an audience that had never heard the KJ before. But in a church where the KJ is used it is not necessary.

Besides, 'valuable time' would be wasted as well explaining things in modern versions such as whether 'you' is plural or singular.

Also, a word is not 'obsolete' because moderns do not use it. A word can only be 'obsolete' when a different word is more readily used that has the exact same meaning. The problem is that 'modern' English has not come up with satisfactory replacements for all of the valuable words she despises.

I guess the KJ works in churches where you don't plan on having any visitors. Or if your church doesn't have anyone like me who have read Old English and have read the KJ, but it takes twice as long to figure out what it's saying. I prefer to read the Bible in a language I can understand.

 

[KMK]

Nevertheless, the English of the KJV is no longer the English of ordinary people today, and hasn't been for a very long time.

If you use a good modern translation (NASB, ESV), you won't need to spend valuable time explaining obsolete or obscure words.

This would only be true if you were addressing an audience that had never heard the KJ before. But in a church where the KJ is used it is not necessary.

Besides, 'valuable time' would be wasted as well explaining things in modern versions such as whether 'you' is plural or singular.

Also, a word is not 'obsolete' because moderns do not use it. A word can only be 'obsolete' when a different word is more readily used that has the exact same meaning. The problem is that 'modern' English has not come up with satisfactory replacements for all of the valuable words she despises.

I guess the KJ works in churches where you don't plan on having any visitors. Or if your church doesn't have anyone like me who have read Old English and have read the KJ, but it takes twice as long to figure out what it's saying. I prefer to read the Bible in a language I can understand.

The attitude that we must preach to the lowest possible denominator in case a totally unchurched visitor happens by is what led to Purpose Driven. I don't think the unchurched visitor should be allowed to dictate which version we use.

That said, I agree you should read a Bible you can understand. That is what 1:8 is all about.

 

[bookslover]

The problem is that 'modern' English has not come up with satisfactory replacements for all of the valuable words she despises.

And what, pray tell, is so valuable about a word like "wist," a word no longer used by ordinary English speakers?

English has changed a lot and, I dare say, it will change even more in the next 400 years, making the KJV even more of a museum piece than it is now.

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 12:33:44 EST-----

For, in the first place, it is false that languages change every age; since the primary tongues, the Hebrew, Greek and Latin, have not undergone such frequent alterations. Secondly, there is never in Christian churches a lack of some sufficient interpreters, able to translate the scriptures and render their genuine meaning in the vulgar tongue. (Disputations, 232)

First, it is true that languages "change every age." Any dictionary editor or English grammarian will tell you that. The ways in which English has changed over the centuries are easily demonstrable by competent authorities.

Second, if one uses a competent modern translation, one doesn't need "interpreters" to render the old language into the current language the book should have been published in, in the first place. That sentence was more applicable in Whitaker's day than ours, fortunately.

I once heard a sermon tape by Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He as a KJV man, and read from that text. During the course of the sermon, however, he had to change and/or correct the KJV text no fewer than five times - time he could have spent interpreting the passage or applying the text. When a preacher has to spend a significant amount of his sermon time translating the English Bible into English, something's wrong...

 

[Claudiu]

Second, if one uses a competent modern translation, one doesn't need "interpreters" to render the old language into the current language the book should have been published in, in the first place. That sentence was more applicable in Whitaker's day than ours, fortunately.

I once heard a sermon tape by Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He as a KJV man, and read from that text. During the course of the sermon, however, he had to change and/or correct the KJV text no fewer than five times - time he could have spent interpreting the passage or applying the text. When a preacher has to spend a significant amount of his sermon time translating the English Bible into English, something's wrong...

Even using a modern version, there still has to be translation, maybe not as much as the KJV, but it still does. This of course is implied if the preacher really cares and wants the audience to really understand what is being preached from the Bible.

 

[ChariotsofFire]

This would only be true if you were addressing an audience that had never heard the KJ before. But in a church where the KJ is used it is not necessary.

Besides, 'valuable time' would be wasted as well explaining things in modern versions such as whether 'you' is plural or singular.

Also, a word is not 'obsolete' because moderns do not use it. A word can only be 'obsolete' when a different word is more readily used that has the exact same meaning. The problem is that 'modern' English has not come up with satisfactory replacements for all of the valuable words she despises.

I guess the KJ works in churches where you don't plan on having any visitors. Or if your church doesn't have anyone like me who have read Old English and have read the KJ, but it takes twice as long to figure out what it's saying. I prefer to read the Bible in a language I can understand.

The attitude that we must preach to the lowest possible denominator in case a totally unchurched visitor happens by is what led to Purpose Driven. I don't think the unchurched visitor should be allowed to dictate which version we use.

That said, I agree you should read a Bible you can understand. That is what 1:8 is all about.

That is true that we can't conform to the world's standards. We use big words like justifcation and sanctification, and visitors may have trouble understanding that. I guess it comes down to that these words are apart of modern vocabulary, while the KJV uses words that are no longer apart of our vocabulary. Also, I am sorry for being harsh in my former post. I read what I wrote again, and I believe I was not being very kind in the tone that I used. I wrote that post in haste. Please forgive me.

 

[MW]

The objections to the AV amount to this -- people need to become more familiar with the Bible.

 

[KMK]

I guess the KJ works in churches where you don't plan on having any visitors. Or if your church doesn't have anyone like me who have read Old English and have read the KJ, but it takes twice as long to figure out what it's saying. I prefer to read the Bible in a language I can understand.

The attitude that we must preach to the lowest possible denominator in case a totally unchurched visitor happens by is what led to Purpose Driven. I don't think the unchurched visitor should be allowed to dictate which version we use.

That said, I agree you should read a Bible you can understand. That is what 1:8 is all about.

That is true that we can't conform to the world's standards. We use big words like justifcation and sanctification, and visitors may have trouble understanding that. I guess it comes down to that these words are apart of modern vocabulary, while the KJV uses words that are no longer apart of our vocabulary. Also, I am sorry for being harsh in my former post. I read what I wrote again, and I believe I was not being very kind in the tone that I used. I wrote that post in haste. Please forgive me.

No need for forgiveness if no offense was taken.

It is true that the KJV uses words that are no longer in the vocabulary of most English speakers. But this was also true in 1611. In their wisdom, the KJV translators chose accuracy over readability, majesty over modern vocabulary.

I do not disagree with the assertion that the KJV is harder to read than modern versions. I do disagree with the assertion that readability is the most important criteria in a Bible.

 

[fredtgreco]

The objections to the AV amount to this -- people need to become more familiar with the Bible.

Actually, no.

They amount to far more than the objections to Tydale's, or the Geneva Bible, that created the AV in the first place.

 

[Christusregnat]

During the course of the sermon, however, he had to change and/or correct the KJV text no fewer than five times - time he could have spent interpreting the passage or applying the text. When a preacher has to spend a significant amount of his sermon time translating the English Bible into English, something's wrong...

I've heard the same thing done with the NKJV and the New American Standard; this is more of an argument against English because it is not Greek or Hebrew.

Cheers,

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 10:39:42 EST-----

The objections to the AV amount to this -- people need to become more familiar with the Bible.

Actually, no.

They amount to far more than the objections to Tydale's, or the Geneva Bible, that created the AV in the first place.

Speaking of which, my wife and I read through the 1599 Geneva Bible in family worship (the whole thing, and the notes), and I can't recall more than two or three words we had to look up. We're currently reading through Tyndale, and the only thing that struck us as odd (but we could understand nonetheless) was "avoutry" rather than adultery.

Long story short: Tyndale and the 1599 Geneva are both intelligible. As is the AV. As is John Owen, even though the first time I read "Death of Death" I had to keep a vocabulary list of words to look up. And guess what? My vocabulary improved as a result.

Cheers,

 

[fredtgreco]

The objections to the AV amount to this -- people need to become more familiar with the Bible.

Actually, no.

They amount to far more than the objections to Tydale's, or the Geneva Bible, that created the AV in the first place.

Speaking of which, my wife and I read through the 1599 Geneva Bible in family worship (the whole thing, and the notes), and I can't recall more than two or three words we had to look up. We're currently reading through Tyndale, and the only thing that struck us as odd (but we could understand nonetheless) was "avoutry" rather than adultery.

Long story short: Tyndale and the 1599 Geneva are both intelligible. As is the AV. As is John Owen, even though the first time I read "Death of Death" I had to keep a vocabulary list of words to look up. And guess what? My vocabulary improved as a result.

Cheers,

Agreed. The point is that if you apply the same standard to the AV that AV advocates want to use with the NKJV, NASB or ESV, there should not have been any AV at all!

 

[KMK]

The problem is that 'modern' English has not come up with satisfactory replacements for all of the valuable words she despises.

And what, pray tell, is so valuable about a word like "wist," a word no longer used by ordinary English speakers?

I would not object to a version that changed 'wist not' to 'knew not'. However, I do not agree that the Bible MUST be 'ordinary' English.

 

[Christusregnat]

Agreed. The point is that if you apply the same standard to the AV that AV advocates want to use with the NKJV, NASB or ESV, there should not have been any AV at all!

Rev. Greco,

Not being an AV advocate, what standard do such apply? I'm unfamiliar

Cheers,

 

[fredtgreco]

Agreed. The point is that if you apply the same standard to the AV that AV advocates want to use with the NKJV, NASB or ESV, there should not have been any AV at all!

Rev. Greco,

Not being an AV advocate, what standard do such apply? I'm unfamiliar

Cheers,

My point is that one is free to use a modern translation for ease of use. It is not required that an existing version simply be "possibly understandable." Whenever the ESV/NASB/etc is put forward, the AV user counters with "there is no need for that, because the AV is understandable. People can simply learn the vocabulary"

My point is that the user of the Geneva Bible could make that exact same argument to say that the AV should never have been composed.

 

[Christusregnat]

My point is that one is free to use a modern translation for ease of use. It is not required that an existing version simply be "possibly understandable." Whenever the ESV/NASB/etc is put forward, the AV user counters with "there is no need for that, because the AV is understandable. People can simply learn the vocabulary"

My point is that the user of the Geneva Bible could make that exact same argument to say that the AV should never have been composed.

Thanks for the insight!

I think the AV was translated for political reasons more than anything, but since the AV eventually became the more popular of the two, it is somewhat of a moot point. However, I see the logic behind what you're saying.

The only problem is that the Geneva Bible contains for more "common" language than the AV does. 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.

Cheers,

 

[fredtgreco]

My point is that one is free to use a modern translation for ease of use. It is not required that an existing version simply be "possibly understandable." Whenever the ESV/NASB/etc is put forward, the AV user counters with "there is no need for that, because the AV is understandable. People can simply learn the vocabulary"

My point is that the user of the Geneva Bible could make that exact same argument to say that the AV should never have been composed.

Thanks for the insight!

I think the AV was translated for political reasons more than anything, but since the AV eventually became the more popular of the two, it is somewhat of a moot point. However, I see the logic behind what you're saying.

The only problem is that the Geneva Bible contains for more "common" language than the AV does. 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.

Cheers,

Exactly!

And let me say again, I think that it is a pastoral decision for a Session to decide whether to use the AV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, etc.

 

[KMK]

Agreed. The point is that if you apply the same standard to the AV that AV advocates want to use with the NKJV, NASB or ESV, there should not have been any AV at all!

Rev. Greco,

Not being an AV advocate, what standard do such apply? I'm unfamiliar

Cheers,

My point is that one is free to use a modern translation for ease of use. It is not required that an existing version simply be "possibly understandable." Whenever the ESV/NASB/etc is put forward, the AV user counters with "there is no need for that, because the AV is understandable. People can simply learn the vocabulary"

My point is that the user of the Geneva Bible could make that exact same argument to say that the AV should never have been composed.

No doubt some did!

 

[Prufrock]

Also, to Pastor Greco and others: lest any ambiguity be in my post, the purpose of the citing Whitaker was not to claim that the AV is vulgar and therefore a new or different translation should not be used or made; but rather, to simply point out that it (among others) does probably fit the WCF's definition of "vulgar tongue," and that it is therefore not counter-confessional to use it.

 

[rbcbob]

Agreed. The point is that if you apply the same standard to the AV that AV advocates want to use with the NKJV, NASB or ESV, there should not have been any AV at all!

Rev. Greco,

Not being an AV advocate, what standard do such apply? I'm unfamiliar

Cheers,

My point is that one is free to use a modern translation for ease of use. It is not required that an existing version simply be "possibly understandable." Whenever the ESV/NASB/etc is put forward, the AV user counters with "there is no need for that, because the AV is understandable. People can simply learn the vocabulary"

My point is that the user of the Geneva Bible could make that exact same argument to say that the AV should never have been composed.

Glenn,

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

Fred, I raised a question (above) for Glenn early in this thread and he hasn’t been able to get to it. Perhaps you could provide some helpful comments.

I believe that the translator is obligated to give us the best English (in our case) rendering possible in keeping with the meaning of the original word (formal equivalence).

 

[Thomas2007]

My point is that one is free to use a modern translation for ease of use. It is not required that an existing version simply be "possibly understandable." Whenever the ESV/NASB/etc is put forward, the AV user counters with "there is no need for that, because the AV is understandable. People can simply learn the vocabulary"

My point is that the user of the Geneva Bible could make that exact same argument to say that the AV should never have been composed.

When the ESV &c are brought forward a person needs to become an expert in text critical matters, your conclusion is an apples and oranges comparison, is not related to this issue.

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 06:27:06 EST-----

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?

 

[fredtgreco]

My point is that one is free to use a modern translation for ease of use. It is not required that an existing version simply be "possibly understandable." Whenever the ESV/NASB/etc is put forward, the AV user counters with "there is no need for that, because the AV is understandable. People can simply learn the vocabulary"

My point is that the user of the Geneva Bible could make that exact same argument to say that the AV should never have been composed.

When the ESV &c are brought forward a person needs to become an expert in text critical matters, your conclusion is an apples and oranges comparison, is not related to this issue.

Whenever any translation is brought forward, textual issues are brought to the fore - and that was also true of the creation of the AV. Your point is a non sequitor.

 

[MW]

Agreed. The point is that if you apply the same standard to the AV that AV advocates want to use with the NKJV, NASB or ESV, there should not have been any AV at all!

This suggests that AV advocates oppose modern versions on the basis that there should be no new translations, which is false.