Obsolete and archaic words

[wheatpenny]

A lot of people mistakenly call the language of the KJV 'Old English", but this is what actual Old English is like:

Hw

 

[Bro Blue]

Thomas, you said that Shakespeare wrote in modern english. What is todays english? And speaking of the poet, were his plays that we were required to read in school still in its original form, or had the language been updated for our textbooks?

 

[redgreen5]

Uh, Wycliffe lived in the 1300s and spoke and wrote in Middle English.

Um, I'm aware of all that; been aware of that since the 9th grade when I first heard Chaucer.  You, however, are not following the point I was making.

The original complaint was:

So if the bible has words that have become obsolete or has come to mean something else in modern times, why demand an updated bible just because one may be too lazy to study a little bit?

By that argument, we don't even *need* the KJV. We have Tyndale.  Or Geneva. For that matter, we have Wycliffe.  Any difficulties in reading can be overcome by "studying a little bit."

Shakespeare, on the other hand, lived in the 1500/1600s and spoke and wrote in Modern English.

Not so fast.  Shakespeare wrote in EARLY modern English.  In fact, Shakespeare is recognized as sort of the 'boundary' between Middle English and (early) Modern English.  However, any attempts to infer that Shakespearean English is equally as easy as actual modern English is just a farce.  It takes a great deal of learning and practice to do Shakespeare in original dialect. And it takes some effort to read his works of that time.

There is a huge difference between:

But only a difference of degree, but not one of kind.  You would have to work harder to understand Wycliffe, true.  But again:  so what?  A little study will overcome the problem.

You see, we're talking about a continuum of English Bible versions, ranging in far more difficulty (Wycliffe) on one end, to much less difficulty (ESV, NKJV, NIV) on the other end.

KVJOs think that the line should be drawn (conveniently enough) to exclude all the versions that are easier to read that the KJV itself. KJVOs justify this by saying "don't be lazy, just study a little bit."
OK, fine.  Then KJVOs need to explain why the line isn't drawn at Tyndale. Or Geneva. Or Wycliffe. Can't read it?  "Don't be lazy, just study a little bit more."

So this is only a difference in degree: KJVOs (and their supporters) also believe in drawing a line, (allegedly) based upon difficulty of the reading and amount of study involved.
All we're really debating is *where* to draw that line.

Shakespeare

Ah, I'm glad you decided to read some Shakespeare.  The last time we chatted, you were trying to tell me that "thee", "thou", "thy", etc. were not in common usage in 1611 when the KJV was first published.
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/104645-importance-thou-thy-thine-thee-5.html#post2081993

Originally Posted by Thomas Cassidy 
No, they were not. They passed out of common usage with Middle English around 110 years prior to the KJV.


My citations from Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and A Midsummer Night's Dream apparently convinced you otherwise.

 

[Ransom]

Shakespeare, on the other hand, lived in the 1500/1600s and spoke and wrote in Modern English. In fact Shakespeare may have been a style consultant on the KJV book of Psalms.

Not at all likely.

 

[wheatpenny]

Thomas, you said that Shakespeare wrote in modern english. What is todays english?

The form of English Shakespeare wrote in is called Early Modern English.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Thomas, you said that Shakespeare wrote in modern english. What is todays english? And speaking of the poet, were his plays that we were required to read in school still in its original form, or had the language been updated for our textbooks?

Most linguists divide English into three parts:

Old English 500 AD to 1100 AD.
Middle English 1100 AD to 1500 AD.
Modern English 1500 to the Present.

Modern English is then divided into:
Early Modern English 1500-1850.
Contemporary Modern English 1850-Present.

Shakespeare wrote in Early Modern English, but in a formal manner that was not indicative of the commonly spoken Early Modern English.

During the time of Shakespeare English was modified by many (some say as many as 30,000) neologisms (inventing, borrowing or adopting a word or a phrase from another language) many of them coming from the pen of William himself.

The popularity of Shakespeare's plays was influential in solidifying the grammar of English which, up until that time, had been quite flexible.  Of course Shakespeare was weaned on the English of  Chaucer, Spenser and Sidney so much of his writing reflected a formalism largely attributable to those great Middle English authors.

It is true that when several versions of the same play have survived they differ from each other, but that is most likely due to their having been copied from memory or the manuscripts containing copyist errors. However, for the most part (at least those I read in high school and college) were in the language penned by the Bard.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Shakespeare, on the other hand, lived in the 1500/1600s and spoke and wrote in Modern English. In fact Shakespeare may have been a style consultant on the KJV book of Psalms.

Not at all likely.

I also doubt the myth but many have written extensively on the subject and several seem to lend credence to the story.

 

[Izdaari]

The question still remains:
why should we deliberately make it hard for ordinary people to understand the Bible, just to satisfy someone's else's misplaced sense of tradition and nostalgia?

That's especially an apt question when we bear in mind that the NT was not written in dignified, majestic, precise Classical Greek, but in Koine Greek, which was the ungrammatical and coarse street vernacular, the common trade language of the Roman Empire, comparable to Pidgin English. Translations into today's street slang are actually a better representation of the impression the NT books would have given to 1st century readers.

 

[Izdaari]

Here's a translation of the Lord's Prayer into Cockney:

    Hello, Dad, up there in good ol

 

[Ransom]

I also doubt the myth but many have written extensively on the subject and several seem to lend credence to the story.

As far as I know, that urban legend is based solely on a numerical coincidence in Psalm 42.

William Shakespeare was not a scholar, of the Bible or any other subject. He had a grammar-school education, by virtue of his father being a minor nobleman. He was regarded as somewhat of an "upstart crow," as Robert Greene once called him, and a second-string wordsmith, because unlike playwrights like Greene and Marlowe, he did not attend university.  Despite his popularity, he was not widely respected as a literary genius in his own lifetime.

Also, he was an actor, and he had about the same reputation then as the Hollywood crowd has today.  Theatres were frequently shut down by the vice squad.

Although he had the king's patronage toward the end of his career, there's no reason to believe James would have commissioned him to work on a Bible.

 

[redgreen5]

The question still remains:
why should we deliberately make it hard for ordinary people to understand the Bible, just to satisfy someone's else's misplaced sense of tradition and nostalgia?

That's especially an apt question when we bear in mind that the NT was not written in dignified, majestic, precise Classical Greek, but in Koine Greek, which was the ungrammatical and coarse street vernacular, the common trade language of the Roman Empire, comparable to Pidgin English. Translations into today's street slang are actually a better representation of the impression the NT books would have given to 1st century readers.

Absolutely. The literary level at which the KJV is written is actually several octaves higher than the literary level of the source Greek NT material.  The OT is another question, however.

 

[Bro Blue]

So koine greek would be the same thing as every day language in any other country? Where then is the KJB's justification for putting it in a literary form above the common english?

 

[FSSL]

So koine greek would be the same thing as every day language in any other country? Where then is the KJB's justification for putting it in a literary form above the common english?

Because the KJV translators did not know about Koine Greek. They translated from a different approach. They thought NT Greek was more closely related to a semitic language. That is why the rabbinical traditions were strongly favored by the translators.

 

[Bro Blue]

What rabbinical traditions?

 

[Ransom]

So koine greek would be the same thing as every day language in any other country? Where then is the KJB's justification for putting it in a literary form above the common english?

First, they didn't know. Biblical Greek was assumed to be some sort of special "Holy Ghost Greek" until the late 19th century, because it was basically known only by its usage in the Bible, and the occasional inscription.  When archaeologists began to find ancient papyri that used it for everyday business, they realized it was the common language of the Greek empire, hence they called it koine (which means "common").

Second, unlike, say, the Geneva Bible, the KJV was an official translation of the church and was undertaken by clergy. A translation into "common" English that made the Bible plain to everyone, was still widely regarded as vulgar. When James I proposed a new Bible translation at the Hampton Court conference of 1601, then-Bishop of London Richard Bancroft scoffed, "If every man's humour be followed, there would be no end to translating." (And it threatened the authority of the clergy, whose job was to explain the Scriptures to the people.) The Bishops' Bible (Anglican) and Douay-Rheims Bible (Roman Catholic) were also clerical translations, and they are full of Latinisms and other ridiculous renderings.

 

[FSSL]

What rabbinical traditions?

Oops! I confused the Koine Greek with the Biblical Hebrew... I should never post before my AM coffee!
Sorry!

My point about the understanding of Koine Greek still stands that the KJV translators did not recognize it as such... Ransom followed up nicely.

 

[redgreen5]

So koine greek would be the same thing as every day language in any other country? Where then is the KJB's justification for putting it in a literary form above the common english?

They were working with the previous example of Geneva, and realized how well written it was.  However, they disliked its Calvinist overtones.  The first English version that was created to counteract the popularity of Geneva was the Bishop's Bible. The problem, however, is that Bishop's lacked the quality and the fluidity of Geneva, and everyone knew it.  So it was back to the drawing board.

They also knew full well what they were doing by creating a Bible version that they hoped would stand out from the crowd. They understood that the English words they picked and chose could potentially become favorites of the English speaking world. For that reason, they varied their language:

We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequall dealing towards a great number of good English wordes. For as it is written of a certaine great Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happie that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellowes, as good as they, lay for blockes behinde the fire: so if wee should say, as it were, unto certaine words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible alwayes, and to others of like qualitie, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, wee might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, To be partiall in our selves and judges of evill thoughts. Adde hereunto, that nicenesse in wordes was alwayes counted the next step to trifling, and so was to bee curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better patterne for elocution then God himselfe; therefore hee using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if wee will not be superstitious, may use the same libertie in our English versions out of Hebrew & Greeke, for that copie or store that he hath given us.

Of course, one of the side-effects of doing that is they created ambiguities and false differences; i.e., situations where the same Hebrew or Greek word is translated by multiple English terms, thus giving the reader the false impression that different meanings are intended.

 

[redgreen5]

A couple of other insights:

[1]
It's interesting to note that KJVOs whine about there being too many Bible versions these days - yet in the hundred years prior to the 1611 KJV, there were quite a few Bibles produced. We know there was Douay-Rheims (1610).  We also know there was Bishops (1568), since the KJV was supposed to be based on that, as much as possible. Geneva (1560) we know about, since the quality of Geneva was the impetus for Bishops - and by extension, the KJV.  Matthews, (1537) Tavener (1539), Coverdale (1534) and Great (1539) were still around.

What's that - eight different Bible versions, at a minimum, including the KJV?  And they were fast, too - starting with Coverdale in 1534, that means that all eight versions were produced within a time window of a mere 77-78 years.  And those are only the major versions; there were minor ones being produced then as well. Reminds me somewhat of the last 78 years of the 20th century, actually.

So for the KJVO complainers who think that many Bible versions is somehow the result of a massive liberal education conspiracy, or a preference for "corrupt W/H" texts - what are you going to blame the explosion of translations in the 1500s and 1600s on?


[2]
KJVOs are also frequently heard complaining - usually about the NKJV - that by changing the translation of particular verses, the NKJVO "exceeded its mandate" to merely update the language (never mind for the moment that the KJVO claim about the NKJV mandate is a strawman).  This complaint is also heard in relation to the RSV; that by using the W/H Greek text, they exceeded their mandate. Let's see how the 1611 KJV translation committee handled such situations.

The KJV was mandate was to make as few changes from the Bishop

 

[Ransom]

redgreen said:

There are hundreds of verses like this, just in Genesis alone. Verses where the KJV did not *have* to change the English in the Bishops Bible, where the meanings of the words were identical, or nearly identical. But the KJV translators did change it anyhow – thus exceeding their mandate.

And whan the LORde sawe yt the wekednesse of man was encreased apon the erth and that all the ymaginacion and toughtes of his hert was only evell continually

Three of the four "changes" you question pre-date the Bishop's Bible and originate with Tyndale, who translated at least the first seven books of the Old Testament before he died.

But whan the LORDE sawe yt the wickednes of man was increased vpon ye earth, and that all ye thought and imaginacion of their hert was but onely euell contynually

Coverdale, who began with Tyndale, changes and to but.

But God sawe that the malyce of man was greate in the erth, and all the ymaginacyon of the thoughtes of hys hert was onely euell euery daye.

The Great Bible was the first officially approved translation. It, too, was done by Miles Coverdale. The Bishops' Bible retains it verbatim.

When the Lorde sawe that the wickednesse of man was great in the earth, and all the imaginations of the thoughtes of his heart were onely euill continually

Geneva omits and or but, but retains Coverdale's original wording in the other three places.  It's thought by some that Coverdale may actually have been involved with this translation as well, which would explain the older wording. However, although he was living in exile in Europe at the time, there's no evidence he was in Geneva.

I'd say it's not so much that they exceeded their mandate, as they ignored the order to stick to the Bishops'.  Instead, they stuck closer to the "populist" track of English Bibles (Tyndale/Coverdale/Geneva) rather than the ecclesiastical track (Great/Bishops').  It was probably a good decision, as the Bishops' Bible was inferior to its predecessors, particularly Geneva.

Really the only change of your four that originates with the KJV translators themselves, is changing all the to every. I'd argue that is better English.

 

[redgreen5]

"I'd say it's not so much that they exceeded their mandate, as they ignored the order to stick to the Bishops'. "

Sticking to Bishop's was their mandate.

1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop