The "Archaic Language" flap

This was brought up in the Moorman-White debate. White gave a list of some of the archaic terms. These are words in the KJV nobody today recognizes, he said.

Of course this is supposed to be a slam at the KJV, but I couldn't help thinking that although language does change over time and there would be nothing wrong with a judicious choice of alternatives for what is really a very short list, perhaps instead we should lament the very fact that the words are no longer recognized, as this is simply because the KJV was eclipsed by the 1881 desecration of the Bible. Martyn Lloyd-Jones points out that its English was to be credited with raising the standard of the language in general, including for the common people. But no longer. Now we have the dumbed-down versions.

I know I have to get around to documenting this better than I have so far, can't just go on declaring it, have to give examples. It involves tedious comparisons so I put it off.

I did make comparisons with the first part of Psalm 91, and posted on them in this blog. This isn't an example of dumbing-down, however, but in fact an example of the use of mystifying technical language, but off the top of my head I'd point to the ridiculous substitution of the unfamiliar term "pinions" for the simple English term "feathers" in the KJV. I have to admit that all by itself the choice of that term makes the NASB a horror to me -- an experience that is repeated the more I read in that version.

However, there is nothing in principle against updating the KJV. It should be done with GREAT care by the RIGHT people, that's the thing, and that may be impossible. That's why whenever I acknowledge that it can, maybe even should, be done, I vacillate. What we have at the moment is so many manglings of the Bible I hate to suggest that we could improve things in any way with another revision. But in principle, yes, a VERY CAUTIOUS updating SHOULD be done.

Caution is certainly required, EXTREME caution. Even KJV supporters are sometimes unable to cope with its archaic language, but this can go way beyond the clearly archaic terms. I know of some who are unable to cope with even ordinary words. I know of one who doesn't know that "dumb" means "unable to speak," but imposes a modern slang understanding on the term. He also has NO idea what the word "mirth" means, having never encountered it anywhere before apparently. This sort of thing makes me cringe, and really, it just speaks to the current level of illiteracy more than to anything to do with the Bible itself. I certainly don't want the Bible dumbed down (in the modern slang sense) to his level, I'd like to see him brought up to its level.

So deciding just what constitutes an archaic term that really truly does need to be updated is already a problem that needs to be addressed. As Jack Moorman pointed out in the debate today, some of the KJV terms capture the original meaning of the Greek and Hebrew better than any term we might substitute for them today. In that case, they should be retained and people should be educated up to their standard.

Then there is the general complaint that the language of the KJV is somehow hifalutin while the Greek of the New Testament was in the language of the common people, justifying the abominable English of some of today's versions. This was James White's answer to Jack Moorman in the debate today, as Moorman had noted that the KJV doesn't read "like the morning paper" but "sounds like the Bible."

THIS DOES NOT MEAN KJV ENGLISH IS grandiose or over the common person's head. Moorman did try to say that "Bible language" doesn't mean that, but in fact the KJV has always been known for its simplicity of expression, yet that its simplicity is appropriate for conveying the majesty of its subject. I agree. I think it takes a literary dead ear to prefer modern cadences and expressions suitable for the morning paper. That is NOT the sense in which the koine Greek was the common man's Greek. And the KJV translators themselves affirmed the importance of writing in a manner so that the Bible would be "understanded of the people." (That's in the Martyn Lloyd-Jones quote I posted on earlier in this blog -- which I now see imputes that quote not to the KJV translators but to the Protestant Reformers. My mistake. Here's that post.)

The fact that this sort of problem becomes big in people's minds unfortunately does not bode well for an intelligent updating of the KJV in our time, much as it might be desirable.