Why King James?

[Laudo]

I would like for memoria press to move away from the King James Version for everything. My husband has an M.Div. and I have a Masters in exegetical theology and a B.A. in theological languages. I tell people I can understand the Greek better than the KJV Bible. I'm half kidding and half serious. My husband and I both agree that when it comes to Holy Scripture, understanding is more important than "beautiful language." Also, we do not believe that the KJV is the most theologically accurate, so there's no point in using it. I think the KJV needs to be shelved--permanently. Some modern translations have very nicely portrayed the poetry in Scripture, without using vocabulary words that are long ago extinct. Besides, if you've read the OT poetry in the Hebrew, it obviously sounds nothing like the KJV, so why prefer one English form of poetry over another translation? I would prefer that my son understand what he is reading, and then look at more poetic translations only as an enrichment activity. But everything memoria press puts out is in KJV; the Biblical studies and the copy books. There needs to be balance between "beautiful language" and the ability to really understand what one is reading. I would really appreciate it if the Scripture portions of the copy book were written in a modern translation.

[Pam]

I like the KJV. Not that my vote counts for much... but it is my choice.

[Mungo]

It's not just that the language of the KJV is beautiful, but that it has had a profound influence on subsequent literature in English. To have the cadences of the KJV in one's ear allows a reader to pick up on the many allusions to the Bible that later writers made. As far as I understand, that is the logic behind Memoria Press's choice of the KJV for its materials. Perhaps someone from the press will elaborate - and correct me if I'm wrong. :)

The KJV remains the preferred translation for a significant number of Protestants as well as some Orthodox jurisdictions in the U.S. That said, while I do read the KJV to my daughter and expect her to memorize some of the better-known passages (Psalm 23, etc.), we also use the translations that she will hear in church. For what it's worth, she's 5 and has had no difficulty understanding the KJV text when read aloud. I do check her comprehension and point out places where the meaning of a word has changed with time; the edition I use has footnotes on this sort of thing. I also know parents who have observed that children who hear the KJV from an early age are nonplussed by Shakespeare and Bunyan.

I do find it somewhat difficult to use the KJV for copywork because the punctuation varies from today's standards. But that is the only area that has been problematic for us. I know some parents who use MP materials but have their children copy/memorize verses from another translation - the Douay-Rheims, for example. As always, people need to do what works best for their families.

[Laudo]

Those are some good comments--and of course your vote counts, Pam. :)
I guess as far as learning old-style poetry and cadence, I would prefer to stick to non-Scriptural writings. For example, Shakespeare is very edifying and enriching, but we do not use Shakespeare as a rule and guide for life, nor is our salvation dependent upon understanding Shakespeare. Our salvation is dependent on knowing what Holy Scripture says. And even if the language is beautiful, I do believe the KJV has a number of translation errors which have been corrected in more modern translations. And then you have the added challenge of teaching children what it means in "real" English. If Memoria Press has a lot of customers who are satisfied with the KJV, I just wish they would put out additional choices for those of us who prefer clarity over aesthetics when it comes to learning Scripture.

[Pam]

Could you research and print out the translation of choice to coincide with your weeks lessons? I have had to do this in reverse, from some translation to KJV. I know it is more work (like we don't have enough to do, eh?).... but it may be a means of using MP stuff...... Just a thought.

[crblomquist]

I am Catholic, so I do not use the KJV for our catechetical studies or for simple reading, but I grew up a conservative Protestant. As a child, I attended a Christian school that required a lot of memorization in the KJV. I also did some memorizing later in a different school that didn't require the KJV. The verses I remember today are the ones I learned in the KJV. It is by far, in my opinion, the easiest to memorize, because of its poetic cadences, so I totally understand and support MP's decision to use the KJV for memorization. Plus, as MP assserts, you just can't beat some of the KJV passages for beauty. Read the nativity story in Luke in the KJV and then in some other translation; they just don't compare. The theology doesn't bother me for the purpose of memorizing, because I do not choose passages that conflict with Catholic doctrine in the KJV (although I really didn't realize there were any passages that presented doctrine any differently from other translations; I just thought the KJV left out the deuterocanonical books). I choose things like the verses on the fruits of the spirit or John 3:16 or Romans 3:23, etc. The KJV doesn't conflict with passages like these; it's just archaic. I do agree, though, that it is not the best translation for copywork, because of the different punctuation standards. I would prefer that MP used the KJV but updated the punctuation, so that my kids imitate the correct usage. I also think that it would be great if MP offered two different translations, so that parents can make the choice. Though I strongly suggest using the KJV for memorizing, no matter what denomination (or religion) you are, I respect the fact that some families have moral qualms about the KJV, such as many Catholics. Perhaps MP could even make a completely secular copybook for non-Christian families, though it seems good to me to memorize some scripture that coincides with a purely classical studies approach to the Bible, even if one is not Christian.

[martin]

Laudo,

Sorry for taking so long to respond to your post. We have been busy with our new online courses and are a little behind.

Thank you for your well-stated comments about the King James Version of the Bible. I would like to give you several reasons why Memoria Press uses the King James Version in its materials. We are certainly not close-minded about this issue, and yet we have some definite opinions about the superiority of this translation for our particular purposes. Let me take them one by one:

1. The King James Version (KJV) still has wide acceptance among both Catholics and protestants. This is important to us because our audience is a mixed audience in this regard, as is our staff. The theology behind our approach to Christian education could fairly be characterized in C. S. Lewis's phrase, "mere Christianity". We believe that whatever our theological differences are that cause us to be members of different denominations (and some of these are important and significant), we can join forces in our educational endeavors. We try to construct all of our materials in this light.

2. The King James Version is superior to most other translations in its English expression. In other words, it is better literature. We understand that there may be other translations in which the rendering is more technically accurate, but we do not believe that technical accuracy is the sum and summation of a good translation. If you are working on a technical, theological level, it is obviously a good idea to consult various translations, if not the original languages themselves. And even where the KJV is less technically accurate than another, it seldom involves a significant theological issue.

3. The reading of the King James Version inculcates a poetic sense in the reader. The tendency in modern thought is to think that prose is superior to poetry, or that prose expression is somehow a more "accurate" way to relate ideas. We simply disagree with this. Poetic expression of ideas is, in many cases, the best way to express them. The New Testament clearly assumes this, and Jesus used poetic expression often. The parables are one example of this; so is his repeated use of metaphors: "I am the bread of life", "I am the true vine", etc. Many modern translations seem to assume the prose-centric view of language and evacuate the text of all poetry in the name of technical accuracy. We wonder whether some of the meaning is lost in this process.

I recently heard a sermon in which the minister was preaching on I Peter 1 out of another version of the Bible. Verse 13 of that version says, "Therefore, prepare your minds for action..." The version he was using was a well-known and widely used modern version that is often said to be more "accurate" than the KJV. The first thing to note about it is that is not more, but less faithful to the original words, which, sticking closely to the Greek, say, "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind..." The translators apparently made the judgment that less poetic words would express the thought of Peter more clearly, and so they changed them to, "prepare your minds for action." They probably also felt that translating it this way would be clearer to the modern reader. Peter was using a particular concrete metaphor to express his thought. The translators took this metaphor out, and replaced it with what they considered to be a clearer prose expression.

These judgments may be right or wrong, but there is no question that they take us further away from the actual words of the original text. And it is certainly not obvious that taking away Peter's metaphor better communicates all the implications of his thought. In fact, it was interesting what the minister then did with the verse. In order to explain the full meaning of Peter's expression, he went back to the KJV's original language, and talked for ten full minutes about Peter's metaphor of an ancient soldier preparing for battle, as if the use of the metaphor was helpful in understanding the thought, not detrimental to it, as the translators seemed to have judged.

We should also point out that if understandability for the modern reader is to be a chief criterion in translation, then we should probably change expressions like "I am the true vine" as well, since many modern people now live in a technological, not agrarian age, and would be better appealed to with a more modern metaphor--or with purely prose words. And yet, it seems that we would lose something in that process, doesn't it? Modern readers are unfamiliar with certain classical forms of expression simply because they have not been made familiar with them. But part of the purpose of classical education (and of using the KJV) is to make them familiar with such forms of expression. In other words, some of the reasons for using modern translations simply don't apply to children who have been classically educated.

4. The extent of the King James Version's influence on English literature makes it the preferred translation in an educational curriculum. If you are presuming to teach children classic literature, then you will be more attracted to a version of the Bible that has contributed to and that informs much of that literature. The KJV has had a greater and more lasting influence on English literature than any other version of the Bible. In fact, in terms of its influence on our language and learning, it may not only be the most influential version of the Bible, but the most influence book, period. One of the books we use in our Classical Rhetoric program is "Figures of Speech," by Arthur Quinn. It is not an accident that the two most often quoted sources in his book on creative English expression are Shakespeare and the King James Bible.

These are some of our reasons for using the King James Version, and we think they are good ones. We recognize that for other purposes, another version of the Bible may be preferable. But we can only work to serve our purpose, which is to pass on the cultural heritage of the Christian West to the next generation. And we believe the King James Version suits this purpose well.

[crblomquist]

Mr. Cothran--
Thank you for your detailed defense of KJV usage in classical studies. I appreciated and agreed with much of what you said, except for the first item. I have been Catholic for five years and have not yet heard of any Catholic using the KJV or even accepting it. In fact, I don't think it has ever been smiled upon by the Catholic community. I like it but only because I grew up with it and appreciate its beauty and poetry. However, I do think it is still the best translation for your purposes. The one request I would make (pretty please?) is that you revise the copybooks to update the punctuation of the KJV. There are glaring mechanical errors in the KJV, and although I will continue to use the copybooks, these errors make me uncomfortable, because my kids are copying these errors. I have decided not to let it stop me from using them, but sometimes I have to go back and explain the mistakes or just hope my child won't internalize them. I would rather not have to do this.

[NMValle]

I, for one, am very happy that Memoria Press uses the King James Version and might not buy their materials if they used a more modern translation. I went to a Lutheran grade school and had eight years of memorization of KJV Bible passages, as well as hymns, prayers, and parts of Luther's Small Catechism. Now my children are using the same Memory Book and love the beauty of the language. They have no trouble understanding it and can't see why people think it's difficult. Even though our church Sunday School and catechism class use the NIV, my children recite in the KJV. I have talked to a number of parents whose children have difficulty memorizing more modern translations, and it's clearly easier to memorize poetic language than a paragraph of modern prose. When one is undertaking Bible study, then using other translations for comparison is very important, but not simply when one wants to hold these beautiful words of our Lord in our hearts and minds. Even more modern writers have been strongly influenced by the poetic language and cadence of the KJV. My 20-year-old daughter pointed me several years ago to this quotation by Eudora Welty: "How many of us, the south's writers-to-be of my generation, were blessed in one way or another, if not blessed alike, in not having gone deprived of the King James Version of the Bible. Its cadence entered into our ears and our memories for good. The evidence, or the ghost of it, lingers in all our books. 'In the beginning was the Word'"(One Writer's Beginnings)