In part 1, I pointed out that part of the support for the KJV Bible is founded on the argument that the Textus Receptus is a special text that God protected. The English Anglicans then translated that text, thus preserving God’s true word. Behind the argument concerning the transmission of the Textus Receptus is the implied idea that all other textual traditions contain some mistakes. Some textual traditions contain more mistakes, and some, like the Majority Text, contain fewer mistakes. But anything other than the Textus Receptus is an inaccurate Bible.
It was but a short step from this claim to the claim that the use of critical studies on the Old and New Testament texts is an example of sinful corruption. After all, we have the correct text in the KJV. Thus, any eclectic text is not only ipso facto wrong but also an example of deliberate human sinfulness. The critical method does have its problems, and they are not minor.1 That is a subject for another post. So, the Doctrine of Preservation became an anti-critical studies doctrine. No critical studies of any type were to be countenanced, especially if the weight of the evidence brought into question the Textus Receptus. Thus, to the person committed to the Doctrine of Preservation that the story of the woman caught in adultery is not found in any early edition of the Gospel of John means that only deficient early versions of the manuscripts survived. Early copies of the true version did not survive, but the true version was passed on nonetheless.2
Here, we switch over to the language used. This is not an argument about the KJV text but rather about the translation itself. In order to support the idea that the KJV was a special God-given translation, the English language, grammar, and phonaesthetics used in the KJV also became regarded as special over the last four centuries by the supporters of the KJV. Thus, an article found online claims:
- The King James Bible contains God’s Built-in Dictionary, defining each word, in its context, using the very words of the Webster’s and Oxford English Dictionaries!
- The King James Bible has a vocabulary and reading level which slowly builds progressively from Genesis to Revelation.
- The King James Bible uses words with the appropriate sound symbolism. It has a vocabulary that phonaesthetically fulfills the Bible’s own description of itself as “powerful”.
- The King James Bible is the only extant access we have to the pure language lexicons of the 16th and 17th centuries.
- The King James Bible gives a transparent view of the Greek and Hebrew vocabulary, grammar and syntax.
- The King James Bible has internationally recognizable vocabulary and spelling.
- The King James Bible uses literary devices which enhance doctrinally important concepts and memorability.
- The King James Bible has a sentence structure which enhances accurate doctrinal interpretation.
- The King James Bible’s words and sentences are patterned and woven through its fabric so as to provide a consistency of form and content.
- The King James Bible has the precision and longevity of the legal document that it is. (To be equitable all English speaking persons must be judged by the same criteria.)3
As you can read, the argument is no longer about the Hebrew and Greek texts used. Over the last four centuries, the claim began to be made and grew into a claim that the very translators were inspired in a special way so that the English they used went beyond itself to create a new English masterpiece. The second set of arguments that develops is about the translation choices made by the English translators, choices which allegedly not only were guided by the Holy Spirit but also led them to create a new almost-dialect of English perfect for communicating the truths of God’s Word. To repeat, we have moved from the Hebrew and Greek text of the KJV. The argument is no longer about the Textus Receptus. The argument has now become an argument about the English used in the translation. It is a new and perfect English for the Bible.4
Originally, there was no such argument about the KJV English. It was merely regarded as a translation that was especially fine. As the language changed, revised editions of the KJV were issued to bring the language used up to the current usage. So, as the language changed, “and it came to paffe in thofe dayes,” was changed to, “and it came to pass in those days.” The acknowledged last edition was either in 1762 or in the very early 1800s.5
Editions of the KJV stopped until 2016, once Bibles that were no longer pure Textus Receptus Bibles began to be produced. However, in 2016, a new edition of the KJV was published after a pause of two and a half centuries (assuming 1762 to be the last edition). This version is called the KJV 2016.6 The KJV 2016 is based on the same Textus Receptus used for the original KJV. However, it is notable in that it does not use revised Elizabethan English but current Modern English. Thus, it returns to the tradition of using current English to translate the Textus Receptus, which was the norm up through 1762.
The final question: what about the use of Elizabethan English in worship texts? Note that this is not a question about the KJV. We are past the KJV. Now, the question changes to the use of revised Elizabethan English in writing worship texts. The answer is rather interesting. The same English who produced the KJV also produced The Book of Common Prayer for the Church of England. So, of course, it was written in the language of the day, which was Elizabethan English. Eventually, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer became the standard prayer book of the Church of England. It holds that status to this day. All the Modern English of the Church of England editions are considered to be “alternative forms.”7 It may be of interest to the reader that in many parts of the Anglican Communion, the 1662 is still recognized as official. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer of The Episcopal Church USA still had the option of Rite I, which is basically the 1662 rite.
The American Puritans also had a hand in the use of revised Elizabethan English in worship. The use of the Geneva Psalter as the hymnbook of their churches and records of their prayers and sermons show a deep and devotional use of revised Elizabethan English. So deep was the impact of their prayers and writings that their writings are still read to this day. “The Reformed Pastor” by Richard Baxter, a Nonconformist English Puritan who never left England, is a book still recommended to this day in many seminaries.8
Thus, the language of prayer in the English Empire, and even in America, became revised Elizabethan English. But why do some refuse to use Modern English in their prayerbooks? Do some of your looking up on the web. You will find that there are still articles being published on how reformed Elizabethan English is better. The arguments range from “it makes me feel better to use it (paraphrased)” to “Modern English has done away with the difference between the second person singular and plural, therefore minimizing the intimacy of talks with God (paraphrased).” The OCA had an interesting reply to the revised Elizabethan English question, and it is worth reading:
In recent years, the transition to a more contemporary English seems to be taking place. New texts issued by the OCA, St. Vladimir’s Seminary, and elsewhere seem to abandon the use of Thee and Thou while retaining a certain elegance of style.
So I would say that we are in somewhat of a period of transition right now with the following considerations at hand:
Despite the presence of an official Liturgy translation, parishes and clergy are not forced to employ it, and a wide variety of translations are in use in various places. [Perhaps the parish you attend is not, in fact, using the official translation, since you mention that Elizabethan style is employed there and the offical translation, while based on the RSV translation, is not Elizabethan.]9
So, there is no conundrum for the OCA, as mentioned in part 1. Rather, there is a certain amount of flexibility in approaching worship texts, though most parishes would lean toward revised Elizabethanism. The GOA has changed to Modern English, though I believe some of their less frequently issued prayer books are still found in revised Elizabethan English. The OCA article mentions that there was a committee of inter-jurisdictional bishops formed a couple of decades ago whose purpose was to prepare a joint liturgical approach. As mentioned in the article, nothing more has been heard from that committee. The AOC is firmly in the revised Elizabethan camp and no Modern English.
My ideal would be more of the OCA approach. If we are going to become one jurisdiction in the USA and Canada, we are going to need to allow variety, with local parishes deciding whether to use reformed Elizabethan or current Modern English. At larger-than-the-local-parish meetings, the bishop would decide. I think the conundrum mentioned in part 1 need not be a conundrum if we recognize that there is already widespread use of both revised Elizabethan and current Modern English.
- Epp, Eldon Jay. “The Eclectic Method in New Testament Textual Criticism: Solution or Symptom?” The Harvard Theological Review 69, no. 3/4 (1976): 211–57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509033. [↩]
- Please note that there is additional complexities to the arguments back and forth. This is merely a short summary. [↩]
- https://avpublications.com/product/the-language-of-the-king-james-bible/ [↩]
- Notice that no claim is being made about what language to use in worship, only about what English orthography was used in the KJV itself. [↩]
- The edition of 1762 is acknowledged by everyone. There are claims of American orthographical corrections in the early to mid-1800s, but I have not been able to fully corroborate that. [↩]
- https://kjv2016.textusreceptusbibles.com/ [↩]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer [↩]
- Baxter Richard and William Brown. 1974. The Reformed Pastor. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. [↩]
- https://www.oca.org/questions/parishlife/archaic-english [↩]
Worth also consulting this article: https://www.academia.edu/19001582/The_KJV_in_Orthodox_Perpsective
It is a good article, particularly since Met. Kallistos (of Blessed Memory) was a Greek Orthodox hierarch in the British Isles. Therefore, it is all the more interesting that it is the GOA that composes half of all practicing Orthodox in the USA and uses current Modern English. Notice I said practicing Orthodox not merely claiming to be Orthodox. So, what was true back in 1967 when then Archimandrite Kallistos and Mother Mary wrote is no longer true in the USA jurisdiction of the Church from which they came. Their archaizing argument is no longer held to be true by their own group.
The GOA is not exactly “their own group,” since the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain is entirely independent of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, although both are constituent parts of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. For the past twenty years, Thyateira uses translations by (or based on) Archimandrite Ephrem Lash of blessed memory, who many (including me) consider the gold standard in the world of English-language translation of Orthodox liturgical texts. Although I believe the Thyateira translations are of much higher quality than those used by the GOA, Thyateira is like the GOA in one respect: they also use Modern English. The translations by Metropolitan Kallistos and Mother Mary are highly regarded and continue to be widely used, but their arguments for Early Modern English are not heeded by their own Archdiocese of Thyateira.
However, I think that Dr Crisp’s article helps flesh out the role and influence of the King James Bible (and the Book of Common Prayer) on English-language Orthodox worship. I think he demonstrates that the role and influence of the KJV is considerably broader and deeper than the peculiar theology of the KJV-onlyist sects.
Agree that the KJV and the BCP had incredibly strong influence. Sadly, in my jurisdiction I have heard clergy making the argument for KJV English being a special language equivalent to Church Slavonic and Classical Greek. The GOA uses both Narthex Press and the Digital Chant Stand. The texts put out by Narthex are pedestrian. The texts put out by the Digital Chant Stand are much more poetic.
I’m always interested in current language usage, and liturgical language should be “loftier” than everyday language. I think that elevation of language can be accomplished with current usage. However, I do prefer “Thee and Thou” not for loftiness, but because it distinguishes between the second person singular and plural, and in Scripture and liturgical language that’s an important distinction.
Dana
I have no problem with personal preference. But, I do have a problem with the claims that the KJV was a specially developed language when what we actually use is language from an edition of the KJV published over 150 years after the original KJV because people had trouble understanding the original KJV.
The underlying issue is that the original Koine Greek text of the NT was written in ‘street’
Greek of the 1st Century A.D. — that is ‘Koine,’ ‘common.’ SS. Paul, Peter, John, etc., were using the common language of the eastern Mediterranean of the era to proclaim the Good News, and not the Greek of Plato or Herodotus..
ISTM that ‘loftiness’ can be manifested in our usual Spanish and English — look to e.e.cummings poem “i thank You God for this most amazing day…” for an example.
That is an excellent point! Why are we using rarified English when the New Testament was written in very common English?
I have recently learned that the OCA doesn’t really use Early Modern English*. Instead, their liturgical texts give an option for the use of the second-person singular (2sg) pronoun (“Thou”) _with reference to God alone._ So, God is addressed as “Thou,” but the Mother of God is addressed as “You.” And, other than the conjugation of “Thou,” all the grammar of OCA texts follows Modern English grammatical conventions– not Early Modern.
This is noteworthy. In Biblical Greek (and Hebrew), the 2sg pronoun differs from the 2pl pronoun strictly in terms of how many people it references. If you speak to one person, you say “thou.” If you speak to multiple people, you say “you.” BUT, in many modern Indo-European languages– including French, German, Russian, and Early Modern English– the 2sg pronoun is used ONLY with reference to a person whose status is lower than, or equal to, that of the speaker. In other words, “thou” indicates either familiarity or contempt, in addition to singularity. When speaking to a single person of higher status than the speaker, the 2pl pronoun (“you”) is used.
This is NOT the practice of the King James Bible. Strictly following the grammar of the original Greek and Hebrew, the KJV always translates the 2sg pronoun as “thou,” and the 2pl pronoun as “you.” In other words, when God is called “thou” in the KJV the reason is ONLY because God is one– the usage does NOT indicate familiarity or contempt on the part of the speaker.
HOWEVER, speakers of Modern French, German, Russian, and Early Modern English, when they hear “thou” being used for God, imagine that it carries all of the connotations that the 2sg pronoun carries in their language. Contempt is ruled out, so they imagine that “thou” indicates familiarity or intimacy. The king at the palace is called “you,” but the King of the Universe is known intimately, as “thou.” There is a lot of folk theology constructed around this usage. But all of that folk theology is based on misunderstanding, because the Biblical Greek and Hebrew usage of “thou” does not at all suggest intimacy or familiarity. It just means that God is one. That’s all.
The OCA usage of “thou” for God and God alone suggests strongly that this folk theology (“thou” is a special, intimate usage) has been carried over into their otherwise-Modern-English texts.
*(“Early Modern” is a better designation than “Elizabethan” because the King James Bible– it’s right there in the title– was composed during the Jacobean era, not during the Elizabethan era. Because many of Shakespeare’s texts were composed during Elizabeth’s reign, his literature is often called “Elizabethan,” but the dialect in which he wrote both pre- and post-dates the Elizabethan era.)
The OCA does have a You/Your version which does actually address God in that way. In passing, Castilian Spanish in Spain (unlike Latin American Spanish) retains both singular and plural second persons in both formal and informal modes. So the plural formal is “ustedes” (or even Ustedes) while the informal plural is “vosotros.” Vosotros can be a putdown of a stranger or a positive relational term if addressed to family or to fellow club members or fellow soldiers, you get the idea. Here is a variation you might find interesting. When addressing the King or Queen it is “Vuestra Majestad” a plural familiar second person with a formal title. It is addressing Majesty with the royal we (except second person). The equivalent term in Shakespearean English is indeed, Your Majesty, since “you” is the second person plural from that time.
Isn’t the hybrid RSV grammer (in which “Thou” is used only for God) dying out in the OCA? My parish switched to consistent usage of “Thou” for any singular reference long ago, and all the new liturgical books published by St. Tikhon’s do this. As do the “thee-thou” liturgical texts posted on the OCA website. I think only parishes using outdated photocopies at the kliros are still using the hybrid form.
The traditional language form should certainly not be used to imply folk theology, but to be grammatically specific in singular vs. plural, and to be consistent with the general style and sound that liturgical English has had for 500 years.
The thee-thou version survives very strongly in the OCA. I am at an OCA mission whose members insisted on the Thee-Thou version even after I requested they change to the You-Your version.
The whole bible translation discussion here is a red herring. The liturgical form of English was well established with the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, six decades before the KJV, and has remained reasonably consistent since then. And it was never the contemporary spoken style of English. Malory’s Morte d’Arthur, completed in 1470, reads more like modern English than the KJV from 1611.
English has always used a distinct form for liturgy. That’s one of the many things that make English an especially rich language. We have so many different styles in which we can speak or write, each with its own connotations and appropriate context. Consider how African-American women have two or more very different forms of English they speak depending on context. Here in South Carolina, the black folks converse with each other in a dialect unintelligible to me, but in church they use the King’s English so correctly that even the sermon has thee’s and thou’s. Meanwhile, lawyers submitting official court documents write in a form of English even more archaic than the KJV. None of these forms of English are wrong or old-fashioned. They’re each the correct current form for their context.
In my opinion, anyone who liturgizes in vernacular English is simply not using the fullness of the English language correctly.
Father bless,
I do not think that it is because of any peculiarity of the KJV in and of itself that many Orthodox Christians in America prefer “archaic” English. I think St. Sophrony’s argument that the language we use in prayer must be different from the way we normally speak it is experientially powerful (you will see this principle carried out in books that are published by the monastery in Essex, where speech addressed to God is always rendered hieratically), regardless of any intellectual and rational arguments to be made on either side of the language issue. I also think that people are not aware of the association between the adoption of contemporary English and the emergence of the political movements of the 60s (see the book ‘Neither Archaic Nor Obsolete: The Language of Common Prayer and Public Worship’ by Peter Toon and Louis R. Tarsitano), when powerful academic forces arbitrarily decided that the hieratic register of English that had been developing for centuries was suddenly out of fashion and “archaic. The fact remains that every language will over time develop religious registers that are not the spoken everyday version that people commonly use. This has especially been the case in the history of the Church. The Orthodox Church has been careful, by God’s providence, to not fall into a kind of Latin-onlyism nor to react so strongly against it that it doesn’t recognize the place of hieratic registers in language. I do not think that this “issue” is something to get worked up over. It is best to wait and see what hieratic English is going to look like in the coming centuries. But that there will be a hieratic English is certain, and it will not look like the common register, because this has been the consistent experience of the Church for the past 2 millennia across space and time.
The problem with St. Sophrony’s argument is that the Greek of the New Testament is koine Greek, not classical Greek. The Our Father is written in common Greek of the type that would be understood by the person on the street and would not need specialized training to understand. In the same way, so were the Beatitudes written and the Magnificat, etc. It seems odd to argue for an “archaic” and “lofty” English when no such thing was used by the writers of the New Testament.
In another perspective on your koine rational one should remember that they weren’t aware of the teachings of the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, or Chalcedon either. True not a one to one relationship but…….. I think, but may be mistaken on this, that the Antiochians have stuck with the much more eloquent hieratical English of Toon and Tarasano.