King James Version of the Bible

:This page is about the version of the Bible; for the Harvey Danger album, see King James Version (album).

Literary attributes

Translation

Like the earlier English translations such as Tyndale's and the Geneva Bible, the King James Version was translated from Greek and Hebrew texts, bypassing the Latin Vulgate. The King James Version's Old Testament is based on the Masoretic Text while the New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus as published by Erasmus. The King James Version is a fairly literal translation of these base sources; words implied but not actually in the original source are specially marked in most printings (either by being inside square brackets, or as italicized text).

Related Topics:
Vulgate - Old Testament - Masoretic Text - New Testament - Textus Receptus - Erasmus

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Compared to modern translations, there are some differences which are based in part on more recently discovered manuscripts, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. Some conservative fundamentalist Protestants believe that the newer versions of the Bible are based on corrupt manuscripts and that the King James Version is truer to the original languages. This preference is partially due to the fact that many modern versions often excise or marginalize certain verses deemed by modern scholarship as later additions to the original text and thus are seen by traditionalists as tampering with the text. (See King-James-Only Movement.)

Related Topics:
Dead Sea Scrolls - Fundamentalist - Bible - King-James-Only Movement

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the Old Testament, there are also a large number of differences from modern translations that are based not on manuscript differences, but on a different translation of Ancient Hebrew vocabulary or grammar by the translators. Hebrew scholarship by non-Jews was not as developed in the early 17th century as it is now, and it is unclear how well the translators grasped the language (for example, the Greek word "Pascha", a transliteration of the Hebrew word "Passover", was translated as "Easter", instead of the correct "Passover" in Acts 12:4). The New Testament is largely unaffected by this as the grasp of Ancient Greek was already quite firm in the West by the time the translation was made. The difference is partially caused by the fact that while there is a very large and diverse body of extra-biblical material extant in Ancient Greek, there is very little such material in Ancient Hebrew, and probably not even this little was known to the translators at the time. Additionally, Hebrew scholarship in modern times has been much improved by information gleaned from Aramaic (Syrian) and Arabic, two Semitic languages related to Ancient Hebrew, both of which have a continuous existence as living languages. Since these languages are still in use and have larger bodies of extant material than Ancient Hebrew (especially in the case of Arabic), many Hebrew words and Hebrew grammar phenomena can now be understood in a way not available at the time the King James Version was written.

Related Topics:
Vocabulary - Grammar - Greek - Pascha - Hebrew - Passover - Easter - Passover - Acts - Aramaic - Arabic - Semitic languages

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Style

The King James Version has traditionally been appreciated for the quality of the prose and poetry in the translation. However, the English language has changed somewhat since the time of publication, and the translators of the Bible used a version of English that is viewed by some as somewhat anachronistic and archaic today. For example, the King James Version makes liberal use of old second person singular pronouns, such as "thou". In addition, some words used in the King James Version have changed meaning in the time after the translation was made. For example, "thou" and "thee", which were then familiar second-person pronouns (compared to the formal "ye" and "you"), have instead become highly formal. As another example, "to let" is used in the translation in the sense of "to hinder" rather than the modern meaning "to allow to happen", and "even" (a word very often introduced by the translators and thus italicized) is mostly used in the sense of "namely" or "that is". Due to this, some modern readers may find the KJV more difficult to read than more recent translations (for the same reason that some find Shakespeare more difficult to read than more recent authors), and this is one justification put forth by advocators of modern translations. On the other hand, KJV supporters believe that most differences are small enough for modern readers to overcome with time and occasional reference to modern translations for some of the more confusing passages.

Related Topics:
English language - Archaic - Thou - Shakespeare

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

One odd aspect of the King James Version's style was originally due to grammatical uncertainty. At the time William Tyndale made his Bible translation, there was uncertainty in Early Modern English as to whether the older pronoun his or the neologism its was the proper genitive case of the third person singular pronoun it. Tyndale dodged the difficulty by using phrases such as the blood thereof rather than choosing between his blood or its blood. By the time the King James translators wrote, usage had settled on its, but Tyndale's style was familiar and considered a part of an appropriately Biblical style, and they chose to retain the old wording.

Related Topics:
Early Modern English - Pronoun - Neologism - Genitive case

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

One study cited by KJV supporters compared translations using the Flesch-Kincaid grade-level formula, finding that the King James Version is at an American fifth-grader's (11-year old student's) level of reading, while the New International Version, the most popular modern translation, is rated at the eighth-grader's (14-year old student's) reading level. One example given of easier wording in the King James Version is in Ephesians 4, where the King James Version uses the word "joint", whilst the New International Version uses the phrase "supporting ligament". Some KJV supporters claim that this more complicated wording exists to prevent possible infringment on the KJV's Crown Copyright within the UK, but such copyright concerns are dubious, since both are very similar to the public domain works from which they were derived.

Related Topics:
Flesch-Kincaid - New International Version - Ephesians

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In addition, because the King James Version was "appointed to be read in churches", and aimed at a particularly lofty style, it tends to flatten stylistic differences in the source text and aims instead for a uniformly elevated and "biblical" sounding prose. Here is a comparison between the KJV and the Geneva Bible's rendition of Genesis 38:27-30. First the Geneva Bible:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Now, when the time was come that she should be deliuered, beholde, there were twinnes in her wombe. And when she was in trauell, the one put out his hand: and the midwife tooke and bound a red threde about his hand, saying, This is come out first. But when he plucked his hand backe againe, loe, his brother came out, and the midwife said, How hast thou broken the breach vpon thee? and his name was called Pharez. And afterward came out his brother that had the red threde about his hande, and his name was called Zarah.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here, by contrast, is the same passage in the 1611 King James:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And it came to passe in the time of her trauaile, that beholde, twinnes were in her wombe. And it came to passe when she trauailed, that the one put out his hand, and the midwife tooke and bound vpon his hand a skarlet threed, saying, This came out first. And it came to passe as he drewe back his hand, that behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken foorth? this breach bee vpon thee: Therefore his name was called Pharez. And afterward came out his brother that had the skarlet threed vpon his hand, and his name was called Zarah.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Both passages owe a great deal to Tyndale's earlier rendition of this text. But the King James text repeats as it came to pass where Geneva has now or and when. As a result, the Genevan text seems livelier than the King James text in this passage.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some modern readers are startled by some of the words used by the King James translators, such as piss (1 Samuel 25:22 and 34), teats (Ezekiel 23:3), menstruous woman (Lamentations 1:17), or paps (Revelation 1:13). This frankness accurately conveys the sense of the original languages without euphemism, unlike some more recent renditions such as the New International Version.

Related Topics:
Piss - Samuel - Teat - Ezekiel - Menstruous woman - Lamentations - Paps - Revelation - Euphemism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here are some brief samples of text that demonstrate the King James Version's literary style:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the beginning was the Word,

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

and the Word was with God,

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

and the Word was God.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The same was in the beginning with God.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(John 1:1-5)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(John 3:16)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And they said, Some John the Baptist:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

Related Topics:
Elias - Jeremias - Prophet

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

the living God.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

for flesh and blood hath not revealed unto thee, but my

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Father which is in heaven.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(Matthew 16:13-18)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~