I published a post yesterday on a subject that included, in passing, a comment on the insistence on the use of King James English only in Orthodox services. There are only some that insist on that, but they are a strong enough force to prevent the updating of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy into modern English in at least one jurisdiction. Unfortunately, there are some inconsistencies in that stance. I started thinking on these as a result of a comment that was made yesterday by someone who read the post. He said:
“What confuses me about using the King James Bible, is that it is a Protestant Bible, not an Orthodox one – why do the Orthodox use bibles by groups they consider heterodox? How do they manage to trust the translations?”
Actually, that is a very good question, but it is not the only one. The reason that is a good question is that the Church that translated the King James version is the Church of England, by request of King James I. It is called the Authorized Version because it was authorized by the King for use in the Church of England in all her territories and possessions. However, here is the problem. The argument of the King James only group is that God ensured that a special English liturgical language was created by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, a language that did not fully exist before and that was not merely some version of Elizabethan-like English. This brings up some interesting ecclesiological issues, if you are Orthodox
-
The English Church of the time is considered by the Orthodox to be either a heretical or an apostate Church.So, the King James person has to argue that God chose to do a very special work with something that the same person would not even consider to be a Church!
-
But, then, this brings up the whole question of whether there is One Body of Christ or One Divided Body of Christ. And, it brings up the follow-up question of whether God has done the same thing at divers times, and in divers places. That would go toward the idea that God is quite willing to work with anyone who would claim his Name and be willing to follow Him. But, then, that goes back to the idea of there being One Divided Body of Christ rather than simply One Body of Christ. You see the conundrum for those persons?
However, this brings us to the possible argument that God only guided the Church of England in their translation into the King James, but guided them in almost nothing else. If one wishes to make this argument, one runs into a very serious problem. The problem is that this is exactly the same argument made by many Protestants to argue that the Early Church only got the Holy Scriptures correct, but totally messed up on Church organization, sacraments, clergy, etc., etc. It also allows for the argument that Saint Constantine was no saint, but merely an opportunist who took over and ruined the Original Church, and that we must undo all those things that we perceive as being changes brought by him or by syncretism with existing paganism. Thus the King James only Orthodox people bring back the very same argument that they would otherwise vehemently deny.
In one sense, the arguments above about the Church of England almost assume that England is indeed a type of Camelot. One can almost hear the strains of “Jerusalem” playing through the arguments above.
“And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the Holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of Fire!I will not cease from mental fight;
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.”
It is not surprising that Americans would have a tendency to argue that there is a certain Manifest Destiny that we inherited, and that this destiny includes claims of an exceptionalism in translation that requires that we use the King James of old, the King James of Empire. More on this in a moment. It bears mentioning that this argument also tends to forget that the reason that the Orthodox have gone lightly on some of the translation arguments is that it is the Greek (or the Slavic or the Arabic) that are the real authorized texts for Liturgy. English is merely and only a translation language, not an official language for authoritative purposes. Thus, there is no requirement that a particular version of English be used.
In fact, this idea of Manifest Destiny continues in an unexpected way. The translation of the King James that we use nowadays is NOT the original King James. It is actually a tertiary translation! The original 1611 version was somewhat superseded by a 1769 version, as a result of not only scholarly studies, but also the fact that there were—by then—several versions of the 1611 King James! By the early 19th century, the revisions of the King James into then “modern” English had stabilized into two basic versions, plus a somewhat American version that excluded the very Apocrypha that Orthodox believers would say was a wrongful version. So, in order to believe in “modern” King James English, one has to posit that God continued to work to support that translation through the changes into the 19th century, but then decided to “freeze” liturgical (and Bible?) English into the 19th century form of “King James” English. This, in spite of the fact that most versions of the King James no longer contained some of the books of the Bible! Please note that the version of King James English that is favored by those who insist on only that English in liturgy is the English from the height of the British Empire—Jerusalem indeed!
The bottom line answer to the question that was originally posed by the person who commented on my blog post is that there is no sound reason for the use of King James English only in the Liturgy, and there is every sound reason to reject that form of argumentation. To argue of the King James English only is to argue for bad Orthodox ecclesiology, bad history, and bad Manifest Destiny. Our bishops should reject those arguments and feel free to update any and all English texts to a respectful scholarly modern English version which is periodically updated as the language changes.
Fr.: One must be very careful when one says “modern English.” Some versions of the language now in use could not begin to express even simple concepts. One must go to the original language for proper understanding, but very few have enough education to try to grasp concepts expressed in simple plain English. The main value of the King James (in its several versions) is that its principle translators were working toward an English that would be most effective when read aloud. This should also be an objective for Orthodox “translators.”
Philip Davis
It is true that certain dialects of English, and certain habits-of-use among certain groups, have limited vocabularies, but that has naught to do with English and everything to do with a certain failure in education. That is an insufficient reason to maintain an even less understandable English than modern English. When you have to use a dictionary to understand an old English text that is already warning that the text needs changing.
Formal English has an extensive vocabulary, and we have enough writers around that felicitous turns of phrases can certainly be part of our translations. However, you are quite correct that all too many translators are more concerned with exactitude of translation rather than with ensuring an understandable literary flow. On the other hand, translators of bibles like The Message often appeared to be more interested in shocking us with radically different wording than in ensuring clarity of understanding.
These are good points, although I do have two questions. One do you have a preferred English translation? Secondly, one of the arguments I hear for KJV is that it sounds different (some say better) than the modern English we use. Do you think we should have a Liturgical English that’s different from regular English?
Jason, I vacillate between the New King James version for the New Testament with an Orthodox translation of the Septuagint for the Old Testament, and the New International for the new with the Orthodox translation for the Old. I am fortunate enough to know enough Greek to be able to check the Greek text in case of doubt. On the other side, I do not like either The Message or Good News for Modern Man as both being way too loose with the language.
The King James was written by people who had some poetry in their soul. It does sound better at times. However, the solution is not to continue using a translation with words and phraseology that we no longer understand. The solution is to use translators who are not merely scholars but who are also wordsmiths. Nevertheless, it is also worth noting that Scripture was written in the common dialect, not in classical Greek.
I think that if we use a careful formal English in our Liturgies, rather than casual or informal English, that a lot of the issues of liturgical English could easily be solved. For instance, see some of the Greek-to-English translations of the Divine Liturgy put out by Holy Cross seminary.
Thank you for that. I’ll check out those translations.
When you speak of someone as being “King James Only”, this is usually used to describe those who believe that the King James Bible is literally the only inspired English translation, and that it has no short comings, no possible need of any revision. I don’t know of any Orthodox that take that position.
The King James Version was approved for use by the Holy Synod of the Church of Russia before the Revolution. It is generally an excellent translation, both in terms of accuracy and beauty. However, it is not perfect — there are some mistakes. I don’t know of any Orthodox English speakers advocating that it should not be revised in those places where it is very difficult to understand because of archaic word usage.
The Orthodox approach to translation has generally been a conservative one. When the services were translated into Chinese and Japanese, for example, the style used was that which was used in indigenous Chinese and Japanese religious practice… which was an older form of the services. Slavonic was never the street language of Slavic speakers. It was a high form of Slavic language, with a huge amount of created terms, using slavic root words, and putting them together in the same way Greek theological terms were constructed.
The first published English Orthodox text was the Hapgood service book, translated by an Anglican, and modeled on the style of the Book of Common Prayer. This text was funded by the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II (who spoke English in the home, by the way), and was blessed by the Hieromartyr Tikhon of Moscow.
The second text was the Nassar Five-Pounder, translated by a non-native English speaking Arab priest, and it used traditional English as well.
So did the Orloff Menaion, translated by another non-native English speaker.
So did the Lenten Triodion and the Festal Menaion, translated by Met. Kallistos and Mother Mary.
It is not just that some Orthodox English speakers have opted for traditional English. Pretty much all of them did until very recent times, and that is because there is a sense that we have generally had that this is the proper liturgical form of the English language.
Even most of our patriotic hymns in English use traditional English.
It should also be noted that the changes of the revisions you refer to were extremely minor. Mostly spelling updates, corrections to printing errors, etc. I have a photo reproduction of the 1611 KJV, and the text, aside from spelling is essentially identical. http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html
Essentially identical except for ripping out the Apocrypha? But, I will admit that maybe I overstated the changes. I will recheck my copies.
You are right that the term King James only normally refers to the use of a particular Bible. I was using it more in the way in which it is used popularly in discussions in the Antiochian Archdiocese, in which it refers to liturgical English rather than to a Bible version. Thank you for pointing out that this is a particular local usage rather than the way the term is normally used.
I do have the Hapgood and the “Five-Pounder” and the Festal Menaion, etc. They bring back good memories of studies and professors, etc. I still pull them out if I have a knotty problem or an unexpected service. But, let me point out something very important. At the time these translations were made, King James style of English was still very much in vogue in most conservative churches. Even the Triodion, published originally in the 1970’s, was translated at a time when there were serious debates about the New American Standard Bible, the Good News Bible was essentially considered semi-heretical, and the New International Bible had barely come out yet the firestorm about it had already begun. The Revised Standard Bible was considered the liberal’s bible, and any Catholic translation was suspected by the Protestants.
When Hapgood was published, there was no other acceptable Bible than the KJV, the ASV never caught on. The same would be true of the Five Pounder. In other words, the books that you cited were, by and large, translated and published at a time when culturally a KJV like English was in common use in worship. That changed over the following decades.
It is one thing to prefer KJV-like English. It is another thing to demand it. I have serious issues with those who not only demands it but seek to impose their preference on everyone else, and try to prevent hierarchs from allowing anything else.
On a separate note. If one wishes to use KJV-like English, then the translations of Holy Transfiguration Monastery are among the best, for they use the language in a way fully understandable to modern speakers, and avoid words that had one meaning back when, but a different one today. I have their Great Horologion, and it is wonderful. St. Tikhon’s also does a good job, and I have their Great Book of Needs.
In modern language, Holy Cross is very good in their translations into a modern, but appropriately formal, English, and is putting some good efforts into making sure that the rubrics match the actual practice of the Great Church, which makes sense since they are Greek. Narthex Press is awful, and consistently appears to reflect a dumbing down of the language. They oversimplify the intellectual content of the Greek texts rather than struggling with the concepts to come up with a good translation.
Nevertheless, I come back to saying that I do not believe in a Liturgical English that has been inherited. I think that was so much myth that people came up with when they saw their Bibles being modernized and a decreasing use of old English in the prayers. I do believe in good formal and intellectually rigorous translations that have been passed by a wordsmith in order to ensure readability and audibility. Just because it is is modern English does not automatically make it acceptable for liturgical use.