AV or not AV: The question reconsidered 1

By J.P. Thackway

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

A critique of an article by Dr. Alan C. Clifford entitled, AV or not AV: this is the question. Why
Norwich Reformed Church uses the NKJV (with considerable sympathy for the GENEVA BIBLE also).

The three-page article mentioned above has been circulated this year and came into my hands recently. In it, Alan Clifford, minister of Norwich Reformed Church, sets out his church’s position regarding the Authorised Version. It can be summarised like this.1

1] That, while accepting the “linguistic excellence” of the AV, its exclusive use “should no longer be insisted upon … The AV is simply dated.”

2] To accept the “archaic words, verb endings and pronouns” means that we speak in seventeenth-century English. This will make God’s people to be seen “as an antiquarian society!” Therefore, to adhere to the AV is to indulge “the luxury of sentimentalism.”

3] There is no case for exclusively addressing God as “Thee, Thou,” etc.

4] That the AV is “an Anglican Version of the Bible,” commissioned by the bi-sexual James I, the unscriptural “Supreme Governor of the Church of England.” Moreover, a monarch who treated the Puritan nonconformists outrageously.

5] The AV is a “backward step” from Tyndale’s NT and the Geneva Bible. The AV reflected “politically correct establishment tendencies” and “even the Pilgrim Fathers (1620) considered that the AV contained some ‘popish’ features!”

6] “Furthermore, on grounds of accuracy, honesty demands the acknowledgement of the AV’s errors, not least where dubious theology and ecclesiastical ideas arise.” He then lists these.

a] “Easter” in Acts 12:4, which should be “Passover.”
b] “Bishop” in 1 Timothy 3:2, which should be “overseer.”
c] “Mitre” in Exodus 28:4, which should be “turban.”
d] “Righteousness” in Romans 5:8 and Revelation 19:8, which should be “righteous act(s).”
e] “Numerous other instances,” for example “Jesus” in Hebrews 4:8, which should be “Joshua,” and “Faith” in Hebrews 10:23 which should be “hope.”

7] The article concludes with a brief commendation of the Geneva Bible, which first appeared in 1560 and was preferred by the Puritan separatists.

Dr. Clifford says that those who want an older, Protestant version of the Bible should prefer the Geneva Bible to the AV. This is because “it is more accurate” and was “the Bible that established the Protestant Faith in British hearts and minds.”

The article concludes with this paragraph: “Despite its occasional defects, the New King James Version (or original RAV, 1982) is closer to the Geneva Bible than the AV, and therefore more satisfactory for modern use.”

While not reproducing every word of the article, these are its salient points and its general thrust. That it has appeared this year is presumably to coincide with the 400th Anniversary of the publication of the AV. Maybe it is a cautionary note to any who might be considering – or re- considering – the merits of the AV as their Bible of choice.

What can we say in reply to our author’s strictures upon the AV? Because the article raises many matters, this will have to be a two-part article. Let us, in this first one, take some of the above points and seek to answer them.

1. Insistence upon the exclusive use of the dated AV.
We readily agree that the AV has “linguistic excellence.” In addition, it is a remarkable tribute that this year eminent men sing its praises who do not love the truth it translates, nor are concerned to own it as the word of God. For example, Francis Watson: “The King James Version is a cultural icon representing an unsurpassable level of literary excellence.”2 Linguist David Crystal said that it,
… did something that nobody else had done, or nothing else had done in the history of the language previously. Not even Shakespeare had managed to do as much … no other text in the history of the English language has done as much as the Bible to shape our modern idiom.3

Adam Nicolson (historian and writer, an authority on the AV, who places it 3rd in his top 10 favourite books to read), says,
“.. one quality, or at least … one combination of qualities: an absolute simplicity of vocabulary set in a rhythm of the utmost stateliness and majesty … The characteristic sound of the King James Bible is … like the ideal of majesty itself … indescribably vast and yet perfectly accessible, reaching up to the sublime and down to the immediate and the concrete, without any apparent effort.”

Moreover, a BBC 4 programme on the AV, broadcast in January this year, stated concerning this translation that, “the most striking characteristic is its simplicity.” Also “its majesty, clarity, beauty, directness, deep musicality and rhythm.”

Such high praise is just. And it is ironic to have the world for once enthusing about the Bible. It is impossible to resist quoting Luke 16:8 “the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” However, in fairness, Dr. Clifford does concede this point. He is insisting that to use the AV exclusively as a Bible translation is to use one that is linguistically out of date. To this objection we must now turn.

2. Archaic words and pronouns … seventeenth century English, etc.
These charges have been around for a long time. Yet, is the English of the AV archaic – or are its apparent archaisms more an evidence of its accuracy? The AV translators in part carried on the work of William Tyndale who translated the NT and some of the OT. It is reckoned that the NT AV is about 80% and the OT 70% Tyndale.4 His NT appeared in 1526. At that time, English as a language was a curious mix. It was made up of elements of older Anglo-Saxon, was heavily Norman French, and strongly Latinate (that is, derived from Latin). Latin was the language of government, the professions and religion.

The English that Tyndale used in his translation broke that mould. He turned the original Hebrew and Greek into English equivalents remarkable for their “great clarity, economy and power.”5 Tyndale, and the AV translators that followed him, gave us unique English – one shaped by the very words of the Bible itself. Alan Clifford quotes the Tyndale scholar David Daniell in his article. However, Daniell also writes this about Tyndale’s work,

Tyndale’s gift to the English language is immeasurable. He translated into a register just above common speech, allied in its clarity to proverbs. It is a language which still speaks directly to the heart. His rhetorical aims were always accuracy and clarity. King James’s revisers adopted his style, and his words, for a good deal of their version. At a time when European scholars and professionals communicated in Latin, Tyndale insisted on being understood by ordinary people. He preferred a simple Saxon syntax of subject-verb-object. His vocabulary is predominantly Saxon, and often monosyllabic.6

Another author agrees,
One of the leading criticisms against the AV is its ‘archaic’ language, but those who make such criticisms do not understand the nature of the AV nor the issues involved. The language of the AV is not simply beautiful English prose, it is also a kind of ‘biblical English,’ and therefore timeless and unique.7

And another,
What actually made Tyndale’s New Testament what it was, and what really gave it its power to change people and governments and laws, was its truly inspired use of the English language in conveying to the reader the very word of God.8

It is remarkable that this tribute to Tyndale is virtually the same as that being given to the AV during this 400th Anniversary year. What is true of Tyndale is broadly true of the AV that he helped to shape. Tyndale’s biblical English is also that of the AV. A compelling case can be made for saying that if the English of the AV is “dated,” it is only as dated as the language of Scripture itself – which “liveth and abideth forever” (1 Peter 1:23). To move away from it to modern translations is a move away, not toward, improvement.

The same is true of the AV’s distinctive Pronouns and verb endings. The usual complaint runs like this, “The AV has old, archaic pronouns: Thee, thou, ye, etc. Not only so, but this alters the ending of verbs that follow, making sentences sound quaint and harder to understand. E.g. Psalm 50:21 ‘Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself’ – compared with, ‘You thought that I was altogether such a one as yourself.’

a] Let us take the pronouns first.
These are particularly the 2nd person pronouns, where someone is spoken to. In modern English we say “you” and “your.” And this is so, whether it is one person we are addressing or a number of people.
However, Hebrew and Greek have pronouns for when one person is addressed (singular), and for when more than one is addressed (plural). A classic example of the advantageous use the AV translators made of this is Luke 22:31,32,

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
In the first clause, our Lord, while warning Simon Peter, clearly means all the disciples (you). However, His assurance of prayer and the beneficial outcome of Peter’s fall, is for him in particular (thee … thou … thy).

Although such distinctions were already going out in 1611,9 they were there, and the AV men used them. In the AV, the receptor language had a device that could more accurately render the original and that device was helpfully employed. This is another way it became biblical English.

Said the Old Testament scholar Oswald T. Allis,
It is incorrect to claim that the thou represents the usage of the 1611 period when the AV was prepared and that that usage is out of date and should be rejected for that very reason. Such a claim misrepresents the facts. The AV usage is not Jacobean or 17th-Century English. It is Biblical English. The Greek of the New Testament like the Hebrew of the Old Testament distinguishes between the singular and the plural forms of the second person. The AV makes this distinction simply because NT Greek does so, and because that is the only way to translate the Bible correctly.10

The AV’s pronouns, therefore, are not old-fashioned but accurate.11

3. No case for addressing exclusively addressing God as “Thee,” “Thou,” etc.
Dr. Clifford seems to mean on grounds of reverence here, because he says the case is refuted by Matthew 16:16-18 (AV), where Peter said, “Thou art the Christ,” and our Lord said, “Thou art Peter.”

Now, it is often said that addressing Deity with “Thee” and “Thou” makes for greater reverence compared with the colloquial “You” and “Your.” And we can understand this. Compare, for example, Psa.65:2 (AV) “O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come” with the NKJV’s “O you who hear prayer, to you all flesh will come.” This holds good for public and private prayer also.

However, this is not really the issue. As in the point made above, it is one of accuracy. The biblical pronouns that emerge in the AV tell us when it is singular and when it is plural, and this accuracy of translation is immensely helpful in Bible study.

Such a tribute was paid recently by R.T. Beckwith of Oxford. Writing of his early days,
When, in the 1950s, I was a student at Tyndale Hall, Bristol … we were taught to use the Authorised Version for devotion and the Revised Version for study, and I have continued to do so since. But I am beginning now, late in life, to use the Authorised Version for study also. The learning of its translators and the principles on which it was produced entitle it to that degree of respect … I am coming to realise … that the Authorised Version is quite equally worthy of esteem, for study as well as for devotion.12

It is refreshing to read such words. Maybe the accuracy of the personal pronouns also lies behind Dr. Beckwith’s respect for the AV as a preferred study Bible.

4. An Anglican version of the Bible, authorised by a “bisexual” king, “Supreme Governor” of the Church of England and persecutor of Puritan nonconformists.

These are heavy charges indeed, and some are just. However, Alan Clifford writes about the historical and ecclesiastical context of the AV.

a] It is true the translators were all Anglicans.

But then, that was the predominant church of that time, thanks to the Reformation and the Glorious Revolution of 1588. They were certainly not Roman Catholic. It should be remembered that even “high church” then, while objectionable to the Puritan party, was very different from what it afterwards became through the Oxford Movement of the 19th century.

Neither was the Anglicanism of James VI’s day contaminated with the Arminianism that came later, nor with the Higher Criticism and unbelieving textual criticism that came two centuries afterwards. It was Protestant, mildly Calvinistic, and had Cranmer’s revised Book of Common Prayer of 1552. This is a great deal more than can be said for the ecclesiastical and theological contexts of many modern biblical translators.

b] It is not certain that King James was bisexual.
Historians differ on James’ morals, and there is a tendency to look at his actions through the prism of today’s obsession with these things. However, what he was like does not affect the AV. He did not raise the idea of the new Bible translation – the puritan-minded Dr. Reynolds did – James only agreed to the proposal and urged the project on. He was not even one of the translators, this he left to the six companies of 47 scholars, better men than he was. God can bring forth pure things through impure instruments, without approving the sin nor sullying His holiness (Judges 14:2; 2 Chronicles 11:4; Isaiah 10:5; 45:1,7; Matthew 1:3,5,6). If James’ being behind the AV is a problem, then so is David and his adultery being the background to some of the Psalms.

c] Puritan nonconformists suffered under James VI.
This is true, however, not like under his son Charles I. In God’s providence the AV was completed before the conflict between Church and separatists came into the open, culminating in the Great Ejection of 1662. And it would be misleading to suggest that the AV was a non-Puritan production. A number of them were among the translators, such as Laurence Chaderton their champion, Samuel Ward, and when we include John Reynolds on board, “no Puritan could claim this was not his Bible.”13

So far for this time. Certainly, 2011 is doing much to counteract the propaganda-like publicity that is given to modern Bible translations, the NKJV included. Literary experts in the secular world are extolling the virtues of the AV, and broadcasters are airing extracts over the radio and Internet. For favourable publicity, the AV has never had it so good. Perhaps this is why Dr. Clifford feels the need to add his caveat. We can be sure that if this exposure, along with the commemorative ministry of those who exclusively use the AV, leads to a return to this noble version, more good would come to the church of God than Dr. Clifford fears.

In conclusion, let us consider Alan Macgregor’s wise words, a man who has studied this subject more fully than Alan Clifford, and perhaps has earned a greater right to speak on such matters,
The AV is often dismissed as archaic and out of date, but if it were allowed to go out of print and out of use, I believe many of the gains of the Reformation would be lost. We have already seen the evidence of this among many who have embraced modern Bible versions – how they have become more tolerant of Rome and more prone to Ecumenism. We have witnessed their delight in discarding reverent forms of worship, replacing them with that which gratifies the carnal senses. And this is so even among some who claim to be Evangelical … I believe we must make a stand for the historic Reformation Texts of the Bible, and our English Authorised Version based on them.14

(To be continued)