Replies

"KJV has many conceptual errors. One, for sure is the ending of the Lord's prayer with the "from evil" vice from "the evil one." Another that comes to mind is "be therefore perfect..." vice "become [future tense] perfect..." "

I wouldn't go so far as to say "many." There are a few real doozies, to be sure. But then, there are many more doozies in most modern translations.

All in all, the KJV is probably more free of conceptual bias on the whole than are most English translations of Scripture. This is because of the atmosphere in which it was written. At that time, England was a very believing place, so the modern biases of unbelieving skepticism weren't there -- and those are significant in many translations. Also, England was divided between Protestants who basically wanted to keep things the same but not have the Pope and those who wanted a Continental-style Reformation. Both sides were scrutinizing the KJV, and the result were translators who tried to be very literal and exact in their translations, in order to try to stay above such criticisms.

"I hate to think of all the misconceptions created through KJV in the minds of people who read the NT "cold" (i.e. not in the context of the Holy Tradition)."

I don't think that this is any different from any other translation. Every translation requires a context in which it is to be interpreted. And most of the time, there are things in any translation that a priest needs to correct or explain -- either by changing the words on his own while reading it out loud, or by clarifying it in a sermon.

Right now, I think that the best translation of the first three Gospels is the text embedded in the translations of St. Theophylact's commentaries. St. John will be published soon. It is essentially the KJV, but it is corrected with great precision, since St. Theophylact comments verse by verse on the meaning and wording -- there is little doubt as to meaning, since St. Theophylact is essentially compiling the consensus of Orthodox commentary.

I hope that it will be available in other forms soon. It is a first-class work.

Priests reading the Gospel in Slavonic also, incidentally, "correct" it off the cuff when needed to prevent gross misunderstandings. They simply change words while they are reading it if there is a danger that the Slavonic word has a very misleading meaning for a modern Russian speaker, etc...

Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

Analytical-Literal Version:

Mat 6:13 'And do not lead us into temptation, _but_ deliver us from evil [or, from the evil [one]]. Because Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory into the ages [fig., forever]! So be it [Gr. amen]!'

Mat 5:47 "And if you* greet [fig., are friendly towards] your* friends only, what more do you* do [than others]? Even the tax collectors do so, do they not?
Mat 5:48 "Therefore, _you*_ will be perfect, just as your* Father, the [One] in the heavens, is perfect.

King James Version:

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Although ALT actually does give your desired literal rendering here, the average reader of KJV will quickly surmise the writer was encouraging imperfect Christians to become perfect as God is perfect. After all, if they were already perfect via their salvation, they would need no exhortation to become perfect. I think the language of the KJV actually suggests this meaning better than the modern versions.

I think there is something of reading at cross-purposes here from the Orthodox ideals to those found in Western Protestant or Baptist or evangelical churches. The difference might be surmised by a bit of writing from Gill, the writer of an old but very thorough commentary:

Mat 5:48 - Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father,.... This perfection is to be restrained to the subject Christ is upon, love to men, and not to be referred to any, or every other thing; wherefore, in Luk_6:36 it is, "be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful"; and regards not a perfection of degree in that, but objects and quality: that is to say, not that men may, or can, or ought to be as perfect in love, as to the degree of it, as God is; that is impossible: the "as" here, is not a note of equality, but of likeness: such, who profess God to be their Father, ought to imitate him, particularly in their love to men, which ought to be extended to the same objects, as the divine goodness is; that, as he shows regard in a providential way to all men, good and bad, just and unjust, and his tender mercies are over all his works; so ought they to love all men with a natural affection, and hate no man, no, not their enemies: for he that loves only his friends, and not his enemies, loves imperfectly; ...

Gill goes on a bit more as he tends to do to avoid ambiguity.

I sense that your emphasis on becoming perfect might tend somewhat closer to what some in the Wesleyan churches refer to as perfectionism, a gradual spiritual perfection God can grant to supplicants over time. At least, that seems consistent with my understanding of the Orthodox.