“Improving” the King James Bible
[NOTE: This is a post that originally appeared in 2008. I came across it today while responding to a comment, and I thought it worth repeating.]
As a child who loved poetry, I memorized it almost without intending to. Just a few readings of a poem I liked and its cadences seemed to stick in my brain. Lines and phrases came to me at odd times and repeated themselves, the way song lyrics often do.
The best of them had a strange and hypnotic power. As I got older they took on meanings and subtleties I hadn’t understood as a child. But I had always understood the beauty of the words and the way they fit together, sound complementing sense.
The same was true of certain prayers and Bible passages—the Psalms, for instance, which I knew were also poems, although they didn’t rhyme.
Their language was archaic. I learned the King James Version, even though I didn’t know at the time that it was called that. But it was easy to understand, not hard at all. And to me, all those “thys” and “thous” and “eths” and “ests” made it seem as though the psalms came not from the olden days, but from a place beyond and outside of time.
Then I went to a service that used a revised and modernized version of the Bible. I could still recognize the prayers and psalms, but now they had a jarring pedestrian quality, almost like a Dick and Jane reader. I was still relatively young, but even then I felt the tug of nostalgia for the beautiful language of the past, despite the fact that I couldn’t articulate what was missing or why I minded so much.
Well, maybe now I can articulate it. Here’s the 23rd Psalm in the King James Version:
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
And here’s the same 23rd Psalm in the New American Standard version, written in 1971 with the twin goals of translational accuracy and modernization of the language.
It’s not necessarily identical with the first new version I encountered. But it’s typical of versions that make changes that are relatively minimal and yet still seem to me to represent a loss, however slight, of something very beautiful that was part of what made the earlier version so compelling. Is that loss compensated for by any gain in accessibility? You be the judge:
The LORD is my shepherd,
I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside quiet waters.
He restores my soul;
He guides me in the paths of righteousness
For His name’s sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil, for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You have anointed my head with oil;
My cup overflows.
Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.
It doesn’t take too many liberties with the older version, not really. Mostly it clears out the “thous,” and substitutes the modern “you,” in addition to removing the archaic endings from the verbs. So it oughtn’t to be so bad, right? And yet, and yet…it feels so much flatter, although you may disagree.
The revisers have made a few other changes that seem to me to be gratuitous, although I imagine they have something to do with translating more literally and correctly from the original Hebrew (of which I understand only a few words, although I’ve heard it’s the very best way of all to appreciate the splendor and poetry of the work, as well as its meaning).
There are a couple of changes that jump out at me in jarring fashion. I feel something akin to a pang at the missing words and phrases, and come close to wincing at the additions.
Why oh why, in line 4 (corresponding to line 2 in the older version), are the waters described as “quiet” instead of “still?” Surely the phrases indicate close to the same thing in English, but “still” has the added virtue of conjuring up other references such as “still waters run deep,” as well as the repetitive “s” sound that harmonically resonates with the “s” at the end of the word “waters” and the one in the middle of “beside.” That’s poetry.
Then there’s the worst offense of all, at least to my ears: the omission of the word “Yea” in line 4 of the old version (it would be line 8 in the new). “Yea” was a great change of pace, a dramatic stopping point where the rhythmic variation of the unstressed and stressed syllables stood still for a moment, like a rest in music, before charging forward again. It worked as wonderful emphasis: yes, indeed; hear hear!
The substitution of “Even though” for “Yea, though” not only fails to serve this rhythmic function, it doesn’t even have the same meaning. “Yea” is an affirmation and an emphasis, underlining the thought to follow. The “even” is weak, tentative: “despite the fact that I walk through the valley….”
I can’t imagine anyone caring quite the same way about the newer version as the older one. It’s hard to imagine anyone wanting to memorize it for the sheer beauty of it, although some of the poetry still comes through. Perhaps there’s even someone who prefers it, just as there are people who prefer frozen french fries to the real thing. But that someone isn’t me.
The changes for the sake of accuracy seem so minimal that I can’t believe they make much of a difference, although in some other parts of the Bible they may be more important. I say keep the important ones and ditch the rest.
I challenge anyone to prefer an even newer version, though, one that departs far more from King James. It’s called the Contemporary English Version, written in 1995 with the purpose of simplicity and ease of reading:
You, LORD, are my shepherd.
I will never be in need.
You let me rest in fields
of green grass.
You lead me to streams
of peaceful water,
and you refresh my life.
You are true to your name,
and you lead me
along the right paths.
I may walk through valleys
as dark as death,
but I won’t be afraid.
You are with me,
and your shepherd’s rod makes me feel safe.
You treat me to a feast,
while my enemies watch.
You honor me as your guest,
and you fill my cup
until it overflows.
Your kindness and love
will always be with me
each day of my life,
and I will live forever
in your house, LORD.
One might just as well call it the Hallmark greeting card version and be done with it. Or maybe it’s the “You Light Up My Life” version.
This version simplifies to the point of boredom. Nearly all the things that make the first (and even the second, to a certain extent) version uniquely vivid are blanded out. I have no idea why the water is now “peaceful,” for example, but it’s certainly the most dull choice of the three.
But perhaps the worst offense in the passage is totally eliminating the specificity of the image of anointing the speaker’s head with oil, substituting instead the generic and soporific (big yawn) “You honor me as your guest.” Yes, I get the reason: the meaning of the ritual, along with all its rich associations, has been lost. But I don’t think it’s that difficult to guess at in context or to teach, even for a child. For what shall it profit a religious text, if it shall gain a small modicum of enhanced comprehensibility, and lose its own power?
The King James Bible was once new and modern, I suppose, back in the early 1600s when it was first written. But there’s a reason why it’s so popular and has stood the test of time: it’s a masterpiece (and wonder of wonders, it’s a masterpiece produced by a committee).
And yet the urge to improve on the King James Version is nearly irresistible, it seems. There are no fewer than twenty other English-language versions listed at the BibleGateway site, and no doubt there are more on the way. That’s progress for you.
Thank you for this post, Neo. I would venture to guess that if we could ask William Shakespeare (1564-1616) for an opinion, he would (1) be appalled at both of your examples of ‘modern’ translations and (2) affirm that the English language was at its pinnacle of richness and beauty when the King James Bible was written (begun in 1604 and completed in 1611).
The new versions lack rhythm and sound poorly. That makes them mediocre prose whereas the King James’ versions are poetry.
“all the good epic poets speak all their fine poems not from art but by being inspired and possessed, and it is the same for the good lyric poets.” – Socrates (Plato’s Ion)
The stars, planets, and galaxies are all small parts of a great void. It’s the small parts that give it meaning and make us wonder and make us simultaneously insignificant and magnificent.
I was more than a little perturbed when Vatican II had all but done away with the Latin Mass. I’d learned the altar boy’s Latin responses to the priest and thought Latin nearly as significant as the Mass itself. Latin, the dead language had itself been resurrected along with Jesus. Latin was yet another type of the Christ. I had, way back then developed an adversarial disposition to ‘change’ and hope (for the best).
The King James Bible is a masterpiece of language.
The muckers and enablers of dumbing down ought be hanged.
George Pal:
On the other hand, when the modern state of Israel was coming into being, they resurrected a “dead” spoken language that had only been used for liturgy for ages.
A unique state of affairs:
Religion used to ask something of its folllowers. It was different from everyday language and customs because it made you think. It asked you to step aside from everyday and look further to find truth and meaning.
As this changed, people no longer saw much reason for following it.
File under “Dumbing Jesus Down”
The psalms do rhyme. How about this from the Catholic Lectionary, i.e., the version specifically for liturgical use:
“You spread the table before me
in the sight of my foes;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.”
Good beat, nice lyrics– you can dance to it. The valley of the shadow of death becomes merely the “dark valley,” and we end with this extremely pedestrian sentiment:
“I shall dwell in the house of the LORD
for years to come.”
For years to come! None of that eternity stuff for us!
And speaking of “still,” in the Lectionary Elijah no longer hears a “small, still voice,” he hears “a tiny whispering sound.”
I’ve memorized some Bible verses in my life. As a child, we learned the King James Version. I like it better for memorization. I still remember almost all of the passage of Luke about Christ’s birth. Learned that when I was 8 or 9. Stuck with me all these years.
You are right. The Psalms are so much more melodic in King James. Modern versions suck the life out of it.
roc scssrs:
Boy, that’s some bad verse you got there.
All very interesting, but don’t forget that the Tenach was wriiten in Hebrew and a bit in Aramaic. Later (post KJV) English translations were done for a variety of reasons, one of them being that in some places the KJV could have been more fauthful to the original meaning of the text (now I’ll have the King James Only fanatics on my case, I suppose). But trust me on this, when you read Psalm 23 in Hebrew, it iis substantially more poetic and beautiful than any translation. For example, the first few verses:
Adonai ro’i, lo echsar
Binot deshe yarbitzayni
Al mai minuchot yinachalayni
Nafshi yishovev
Yanchayni b’ma’aglay tzedek l’ma’an shmo
But that does not do justice to it, and it probably doesn’t ring all that poetic in the ears of non-Hebrew speakers.
Personally, I prefer the NASB of all the English translations, in a general sense. I think it’s more accurate than the KJV, but not as sterile and bland as other modern translations. But they are all, when ot comes down to it, translations. A friend once said to me that he heard someone say, “Reading the Bible in translation is like kissing a woman through a veil.”
Laura beat me to it!
Neo, the poetry of Psalms in the original Hebrew is hard to beat. It’s unfortunate that the beauty of the original requires the hard work of learning Hebrew to truly appreciate… but believe me, it’s worth the work.
For example, the well-known phrase you quote: “yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death” — is, believe it or not, clunky and awkward compared to the Hebrew original. There’s no doubt there — you ARE walking through the valley, which is described by a single word, to the best of my knowledge not to be found elsewhere. (In English it might look something like “through the valley Deathshadow” — two words crammed together, but with no doubt as to where they came from.)
If you have the chance, by all means, read the words of King David in the original. (If you doubt your ability to do so, check out James Michener’s “The Source”, in particular the story in which the archaeologist is asked to read Deuteronomy five times. Come to think of it, that story has a lot to say about your original point, Neo!)
The “Standard American” version makes the Lord sound bossy – lie down in the green pasture etc. The “Contempo” version is too wishy washy; the Lord is allows things and distributes “treats.”
Neither version has the poetry and depth of feeling of the King James version. I’ll stick with King James, not because it’s “old,” and “traditional,” nor because I’m “unwilling to adapt,” but because it conveys the meaning of the words and the Word most effectively.
I agree with you on KJV versus [any new version] for the poetic portions (Psalms , Isaiah, etc.)
But you also hit points that cover “modern” poetry.
Keep it up!
I was confirmed in the Catholic church earlier this year. I have been to precisely one Latin mass and was completely lost. I was raised on the King James Version and if I’m going to quote something, odds are it’s going to come out in King James’ English rather than the modern.
I joined the choir once I was confirmed, and I do like chant which we mostly do in English, and the hymns are pretty good. I bring this up because we did the 23rd Psalm one Sunday and I think this version is pretty darned good and fairly true to the King James Version: http://gospelsonglyrics.org/songs/shepherd_me_o_god.html
BTW, the current American-use Catholic bible translation is just dreadful. The Lord’s prayer is this mess:
Father, hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins,
for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.
And do not bring us to the time of trial.
Compared to:
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread
and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
I don’t know how it happens but what we say in mass at my parish is a lot closer to the King James than that awful modern version.
I don’t know how it happens but what we say in mass at my parish is a lot closer to the King James than that awful modern version.
A few of the more well-known prayers were adapted into the English-language Catholic Church direct from the Anglicans (the Our Father and the Hail Mary in particular). As a convert from Anglicanism, though, I still find it a bit jarring to find “For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory, for ever and ever” changed into “For the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory are Yours, now and forever,” even if it is separated off from the rest of the Our Father.
Incidentally, the Psalms in the BCP are from an earlier translation of the Bible than the King James. (I think they’re from the Bishops’ Bible of Henry VIII’s time, although I can’t remember for definite ATM. It’s in the front matter of the BCP anyway if you want to check.)
Speaking of Psalms, I thought some of you might appreciate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fddjml4bTTg
Mostly BCP translations, a couple of Latin, and one modern English, but fortunately the music for that one is so beautiful you won’t mind.
I don’t trust things that are “translated” if I lack access to the original version or are unable to translate it myself.
That probably goes double for things of a Divine Level of import.
Daniel, thanks for the “Deathshadow” comment.
I’ve ALWAYS had a problem with the “valley of the shadow of death” reference. From that phrase, I’ve always inferred that that valley is where a heck of a lot of dying had gone on, and I concluded that only a fool would walk through it.
Referring to the valley as one of “deepest darkness” or “death-shade” to me means that the valley is just plain dark, and danger might, or might not, lurk there, as opposed to that valley of the shadow of death that you know is just plain dangerous.
Other than that, I think the King James Version is WONDERFUL. I used it as my short speech in college speech class.
Thanks, neo-neocon, for the great topic.
Missing one thing:
Back in the day, we used to say, “Yea, though I walk through the Valley of The Shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil. For I am the meanest MFer [so to speak] in the Valley.”
It was comforting.
How they gonna fix that one up?
Do you know of the poet Alan Sullivan’s translation of the Psalms?
http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/showthread.php?t=11777
The translation I have, instead of “the valley of the shadow of death”, has “a gloomy valley”.
Compare the KIng James “my cup runneth over” to the modern “my cup overflows.” The former conjures up a feeling of unconstrained joy; the latter sounds like water flowing over a dam during a heavy rainfall. I’ve been told that all religions in all cultures use a special, elevated language when dealing with sacred matters. The people who render the Bible in flat, prosaic language apparently have forgotten what emotions a holy text is intended to elicit.
I have never been a churchgoer. Nonetheless, my immediate reaction to walking by the black slabs of the Vietnam Memorial was a flashback to the 23rd Psalm: the valley of the shadow of death.
Re Daniel of Brookline’s comment about the poor translation of “valley of the shadow of death,” this phrase has always evoked in me a canyon near sunset, where the canyon is increasingly enveloped in darkness. Brookline doesn’t have such canyons. 🙂 You need to travel further west.
In my cursory readings of the Bible, while I will agree that the King James version is more poetic, I have also read other versions to get a better understanding of what is being said.
I’m another one who prefers the archaic and poetic language of the King James version … the Bible just doesn’t sound right to me in the modern dumbed-down versions.
Being a little pedantic here: the version of Psalm 23 you quoted is not from the 1971 edition but from the 1995 updated edition. The 1971 edition still had all the Thees, Thous, and Thys. and corresponding verb forms in direct address to God, especially, of course in the Psalms and the later Prophets.
The NASB is the version I’ve used since I was converted to Christ in college. It is often dismissed as too formal and wooden, yet I find it far more memorable than any of the other modern translations. Yet, to prove your point, there are many passages that I have memorized in the King James even though I have never owned or read a King James Bible–and I am not even an aural learner. The King James just has literary force.
I should have said “1971 edition of the NASB”
I wonder if it is an issue with the modern English language and how it converts thoughts. Perhaps people have lost a lot of the meaning and emotional context of these events, so when they use English to describe it, they don’t feel anything so it doesn’t mean anything when put into words.
It’s not that English lacks the tools to describe these things, it is that the user may not have the same experiences any more. They have lost it.
If it was good enough for Jesus and King James, it’s good enough for me.
Admittedly, it does leave out the part about “We have always been at war with Eastasia”, though.
Just an FYI about the origin of the King James Bible, in case anyone missed it.