As a TBM there are a surprising number of issues dealing with religion where I have some agreement with Richard Dawkins, and one of them is that the King James Version is the best version of the Bible.
When I say “best,” I don’t mean “most accurately conveys the oldest documents.” I know there are older arguments that try to argue something along these lines (J. Reuben Clark wrote a booklet about it, but when I was in Stephen Robinson’s class at BYU he didn’t seem to think his arguments held much water), but I have no reason to doubt the idea that newer translations rely on older texts and have less mistranslations.
Still, when choosing a translation that is not the only criteria. The creation of the King James Version really was lightning in a bottle that will probably never be repeated. The most learned people in the land coming together as the English language was coming into its own and at its most lyrical. (It’s been a while, but the book Fire in the Bones: William Tyndale, Martyr, Father of the English Bible by BYU Religion Professor Michael Wilcox does an excellent job describing all of this).
The English language predecessors they relied on such as Tyndale had enough of a handle on the cadence of the English language to really make it sing, while having enough authority in their own right that they could simply create their own English words or phrases when the perfect word didn’t exist such as “Jehovah” in the case of Tyndale, for Coverdale “tender mercies,” “respecter of persons,” “lovingkindness,” “the valley of the shadow of the death,” “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,” etc.
Tyndale’s importation of the Hebraism of denoting possession by saying X of Y, for example “The House of God,” (a Hebraism which, by the way, is 100% accurately conveyed in the Book of Mormon; in which I don’t believe there’s a single instance of an apostrophe s-possession) lends the KJV worldview more formal grandeur.
Technically precise translations that strip the beauty from the text is one of the reasons why for me most attempts to read the scripture of other traditions in translation land a little flat. Why wouldn’t it? If I read the beginning to the 23rd Psalm as “The Lord is my Shepherd, I lack nothing” (NIV), I would wonder what the big screaming deal is about the 23rd Psalm. (Maybe there’s a King James Version of the Quran or Vedas where I can access the lyrical qualities of the Arabic/Sanskrit original without actually dedicating years of one’s life to learning the languages well enough to pick up on the beauty of the original.)
Not that all modern translations trade beauty for technical precision. Robert Alter, for example, tries to preserve the beauty and poetry of the Bible without getting caught up in the technical precision but without sacrificing it either. Still, the more accurate translations that the KJV is juxtaposed against often do just that. And sure, the KJV’s euphemisms can become annoying at times (I think I was in my 20s before I realized what the “time of the woman” meant, and don’t even get me started on the Song of Solomon).
Still, for a sacred text the ideal balance point between technical precision and beauty is not necessarily all the way on the precision side of things. While I am appreciative of Biblical translations that do take that approach when I want to get to the skinny of a particular passage, it’s not going to be my day-to-day source of spiritual nourishment.
The Latter-day Saint perspective adds another layer to this discussion. We sometimes say that English is the language of the restoration, but more specifically it’s King James English. Official Declaration 1 is the only one written in 19th century English, and “…press dispatches have been sent for political purposes from Salt Lake City” doesn’t exactly give me the same spiritual chills as “Oh God, where art thou, and where is the pavilion that covers thy hiding place?” God chose the King James English as the language of the restoration, and I’m convinced that the KJV in particular was used in the BoM translation process as part of “studying it out in [his] mind” (which would explain why KJV errors made it into the BoM, but does not explain cases, like, 2 Nephi 12:16’s “all the ships of the sea” where the BoM improves on the KJV). The specific language of the KJV was used either as a template or placeholder in modern-day revelations in D&C. Even if the KJV or even the original documents they are based on aren’t authentic, their inclusion in modern day revelation gives them the divine imprimatur as scripture after the fact.
I think if you would phrase this “the KJV is the most beautiful translation” instead of “best” that might be easier to agree with and more what you are actually meaning? The downside is that the English is so archaic that most English speakers today do not understand it.
Sorry, but the King James Version is not the best translation for English speakers today. Not only is it less accurate and more difficult to understand than modern translations, but it is also unnecessarily off-putting for people who did not grow up with it—which is the vast majority of English speakers. Latter-day Saints who praise its beauty tend not to know the Bible well, and they pay much less attention to its contents than other devout Christians, who virtually all use modern translations because they truly care about what the Bible teaches (and not just a few favorite passages like the 23rd Psalm or the Christmas story in Luke 2). Partly this is because Church members give more heed to Restoration scriptures and the teachings of modern prophets and apostles, so, for example, they have never felt the need to really try to understand what Paul is saying. Indeed, most Latter-day Saints do not realize what outliers they are in this regard. Here in North Carolina, our next-door neighbor—a very conservative Baptist who sent both her children to Liberty University—was shocked to hear that we still use the King James Version. “Seriously?” she asked, “Like hillbilly Baptists?” Aesthetics can be a factor in choosing a Bible, and I prefer the NRSV over the NIV partly because it retains many of the terms and cadences that made the KJV great, but holding on to archaic diction because it sounds vaguely “scriptural” is a mistake. (Also, the paragraphing and the poetic formatting for Hebrew poetry in modern translations is a vast improvement over the KJV.) People who say that accuracy and comprehension don’t matter that much, because they like the way familiar phrases make them feel, are saying they don’t really care about what the word of God actually says.
Our Restoration scriptures reflect the language of the KJV, which was the language of common scripture 200 years ago, but that same language can be a liability today, especially for young people and investigators. It can make the Bible, and Restoration scriptures, seem distant, difficult, and irrelevant to their everyday lives. Fortunately, Christians believe that linguistic style, and even language, is not integral to God’s word. Otherwise, we would still be reading the New Testament in Greek, much as Orthodox and Conservative Jews still read the Tanakh in Hebrew in their worship services. If some people have a hard time feeling the Spirit or finding spiritual nourishment when reading the scriptures in respectful, competent modern translations, that’s a reception problem, or linguistic prejudice, or simply a matter of habit. It would not be hard to modernize the language of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants into something like the NKJV, or even translate them into modern English in a way that reflects the scriptural phrasing of the NRSV (which was itself an updated revision of the KJV). After all, we have translated the Book of Mormon into more than a hundred different languages, and Latter-day Saints around the world who use those translations can still learn about prophets and miracles, understand sound doctrine, feel the Spirit, and come to Christ. I don’t know why we are so set on making things more difficult for English speakers, apart from the traditions of our fathers.
By the way, there are 84 examples of apostrophe s-possession in the Book of Mormon, such as “the king’s flocks” (Alma 18:3), according to Royal Skousen’s History of the Text of the Book of Mormon: Grammatical Variation, 2:676. He provides a list of all of them.
@ Grant Hardy: Thanks for correcting me on the apostrophe s-possession. I recall hearing that and flipping through the BoM to see if it had face validity, but I should have dug a little deeper before stating that “I don’t believe there’s a single instance of an apostrophe s-possession.”
I agree that the poetic formatting that we see in newer versions is very much an objective improvement (and I appreciate you doing the same for the Book of Mormon!)
Grant didn’t quite say this, but he could have:
People who say that accuracy and comprehension don’t matter that much, because they like [to respond correctly to Jeopardy clues (which are KJV only)], are saying they don’t really care about what the word of God actually says.
Ouch.
The paramount problem we face is that language is changing all the time. Even in our day we keep changing what words and terms mean from their original source which leads to us saying the original scripture had errors.
Also, why should all scripture be beautiful or lilting or full of well-turned phrases? That’s the appetite of those who don’t know Mark or Revelation or Paul at all. Their Greek is cramped or faltering or a dialectical equivalent of someone from a Louisiana swamp or a Boston townie or, in Paul’s case, the equivalent of a guy who needs a filter, an editor, and several more years of training in logic and rhetoric before attempting to sound so (self)important. We should translate and read accordingly, if we cared about how those writers were experiencing God, Jesus Christ, and the bizarre, backwater religious movement centered on a person executed among a local insurgency scare whose body went missing.
Hi Stephen C: I asked Claude (since ChatGPT was down) to speak to some underlying reasons for why you might hold your view of the KJV being the best translation.
Prompt: “How do Latter-day Saints interpret the prophecies in the Book of Mormon that in a future day the text would emerge with a voice that “shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit” (2 Ne. 26:16). Is related to how the language of the Book of Mormon, in their view, resonates with the language of the Bible? How is this perception connected with the theory that the Book of Mormon was translated into Early Modern English centuries before it was published by Joseph Smith, given that the King James translation of the Bible was also initially done in Early Modern English?”
Response: “This is an interesting question that touches on several aspects of Latter-day Saint (LDS) beliefs and scholarship regarding the Book of Mormon. Let me break this down into a few key points:
1. Interpretation of “familiar spirit” prophecy:
Latter-day Saints generally interpret the phrase “as one that hath a familiar spirit” in 2 Nephi 26:16 as referring to the way the Book of Mormon would come forth and be received. The term “familiar spirit” is often understood to mean something recognizable or relatable, rather than its occult connotations.
2. Resonance with Biblical language:
Many LDS members and scholars do see a connection between this prophecy and the Book of Mormon’s linguistic similarity to the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. They often argue that this familiarity in language style helps the Book of Mormon feel more scripture-like and accessible to readers already acquainted with the Bible.
3. Early Modern English theory:
Some LDS scholars, notably Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack, have proposed that the original text of the Book of Mormon was not just similar to KJV English, but was actually in a form of Early Modern English (EModE) that predates the KJV. This theory suggests that the language of the Book of Mormon is not simply an imitation of KJV English, but represents an authentic older form of English.
4. Connection between EModE theory and “familiar spirit”:
Proponents of the EModE theory might argue that this unexpected linguistic feature fulfills the prophecy of a “familiar spirit” in a unique way. The language feels familiar due to its similarity to the KJV, yet it also contains archaic elements that give it a distinct voice.
5. Implications for translation:
This theory challenges traditional understandings of how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. Instead of translating directly into his 19th-century English, this view suggests a more complex process where an older form of English was revealed to him.
6. Ongoing debate:
It’s important to note that while this EModE theory has gained traction among some LDS scholars, it’s not universally accepted within LDS academic circles or officially endorsed by the LDS Church. There’s ongoing debate about the nature and extent of the Book of Mormon’s linguistic features.
7. Alternative interpretations:
Some Latter-day Saints interpret the “familiar spirit” prophecy more broadly, focusing on the book’s spiritual message rather than its linguistic features. They might argue that the familiarity comes from the book’s teachings, which resonate with biblical truths.
In conclusion, while many Latter-day Saints see a connection between the “familiar spirit” prophecy and the Book of Mormon’s linguistic similarities to the KJV Bible, the specific EModE theory represents a more recent and specialized interpretation. This theory attempts to explain both the familiar and the unexpected elements of the Book of Mormon’s language, potentially offering a new perspective on how the prophecy might be fulfilled. However, interpretations vary among LDS members and scholars, and this remains an area of active discussion and research within LDS studies.”
A translation! A translation! We have got a translation!
It seems to me that a large proportion of our members do not know the Bible in depth, we stick to the edifying and devotional stories and the domains of seminary scriptures. Personally, when I study Paul, I feel that I need to go too deep to really understand what he wanted to say. It seems that I must trust too much in others to interpret things for me, because when I read, the truth is that I do not enjoy it very much. And I feel that when I look in the direction of better understanding the text, I find barriers established by the Church, for example, there are no in-depth studies on the language, the historical context, and one must resort to studies that are not from the Church… there I ask myself again… is it that we do not have so many in-depth treatises on the Bible?
Just a note for others looking for a more refined translation of the New Testament that preserves much of the KJV language while still trying to gain a better understanding of the meaning underlying the text — BYU Professor Thomas Wayment has a wonderful translation of the New Testament that I have loved studying from. Available at https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Translation-Latter-day-Revised/dp/1589587863.
I’m nearly 50, have read the Bible through perhaps 8-10 times in my life, and finally decided that this was the time I was really going to understand what Paul was saying. So I got a biography by NT Wright, which was a game changer. And then I’m also reading the epistles with BibleHub.com’s dozens of available translations, which has also really helped a lot. And I finally feel like I’m kind of getting it.
I will say that from my perspective after reading the rest of the Bible with these translations in front of me, the KJV is mostly intelligible and consistent with newer translations throughout, if archaic, except for a certain books/authors—Paul (again) and some of the OT prophets are bewildering to me in parts without these translations. I just don’t think the KJV translators knew what these authors were trying to say so they went for the most direct translation, in which actual meaning was lost.
But I’d still use the KJV for all the reasons noted in the OP. I just incorporate other translations to help me when I can’t figure out what the KJV is trying to say. To each his own, I suppose.
Finally, I’d mention that every translator has biases; Wright talks about this at length. It’s hard not to translate language to say what they think an author was supposed to be saying. And of all of those biases, I think I’d take the KJV’s translators’. Just because I know what they were and can compensate for them.
The KJV is often pure poetry. Count me among those who love the language. But I study the scriptures to understand the gospel, so I don’t use the KJV there. As just one example, I think that a significant number of readers do not understand why a virtuous woman is such a blessing. Hint: when the woman with the issue of blood touches Jesus’ hem, it simply wouldn’t make sense that he felt sexual purity leave his body.
The Book of Mormon settles a lot of doctrinal questions that the NT makes ambiguous.
I am a fan of the King James Version. But I am also glad that sites like biblehub make other translations easily available.