King James English and Orthodox Worship

Fr. John Whiteford's News, Comments, & Reflections ^ | 09-09-2016 | Fr. John Whiteford

[NRx]

King James English and Orthodox Worship

One doesn't usually look to Orthodox Jewish sources for guidance on the kind of English that is best suited for worship, but years ago I stumbled across some very telling comments in the preface to the book "To Pray as a Jew," by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin. Commenting on his translations of the prayers his book would discuss, he says:

"I have decided to retain the use of "Thou," "Thee," and "Thy" in all passages that address themselves directly to God. The more contemporary "You" and "Your," which I had at first considered using, made me uncomfortable in some instances, although I find it difficult to explain why this should be so. The Hebrew atah (and the Yiddish du) reflect the familiar and the intimate approach to God with which I am comfortable. Still, English seems to demand, at least in some places, the more reverent "Thou" and "Thy." (To Pray as a Jew: A Guide to the Prayer book and the Synagogue Service, (New York: Basic Books [Harper Collins], 1980), p. xx.).

I would argue that Rabbi Donin was right in his gut, but wrong in his explanation. It makes no sense to limit the use of "Thee" and "Thou" to God, and so he correctly senses the inconsistency of his translation choices here. He is correct, however, that in English there is a need to use more traditional language when praying because we sense that the sacredness of the act requires a more reverent form of the language. Traditional English also has the added advantage of being more precise, because it allows for a distinction between the second-person singular pronoun ("thou"), and the plural ("you"), which is present in both Hebrew and Greek, and often this distinction is very important to the meaning of a text.

From time to time we hear some in the Orthodox Church arguing that English-speaking Orthodox Christians should abandon the use of "King James English" and simply use contemporary English in our translations of the Scriptures and the services. This is, however, a fairly recent phenomenon. From the time that the first modern English-speaking Orthodox Christians began translating the services (the earliest known example being in 1760), up until the 1960's, it never seems to have even occurred to anyone that they should translate the services into anything other than the traditional style of English that we find in the King James Version, and the pre-1980's editions of the Book of Common Prayer.

Even non-native English speakers followed this pattern. Nicholas Orloff, who translated a number of texts at the end of the 19th century did so, though these texts are notoriously clunky, and no longer in common use. Likewise Fr. Seraphim Nassar, published a compendium of liturgical texts in 1938 (affectionately known as the "Nassar Five Pounder") that used traditional English, and this text is still in use today, In 1906, Isabel Hapgood first published her Service Book, which was blessed by the Hieromartyr Tikhon of Moscow, and funded by the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II (who spoke English in the home with the Tsarina Alexandra (who was raised by Queen Victoria), and their children). She was an Anglican, and she clearly modeled her translation on the style of the Book of Common Prayer. This text is likewise still in use today, and was highly influential on subsequent translations of the services. More recently, the Lenten Triodion translated by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) and Mother Mary is probably one of the most standard English texts in use in the Orthodox Church today, being in use in the vast majority of parishes that use English. The fact is, one cannot find a complete set of service books in English that are not in traditional English, and the obvious reason for this is because this how the English speaking Orthodox Christians generally think it ought to be, and this has been true for more than 250 years.

But some might object that this is just due to Protestant influence. The fact that this is not true is shown by the oldest Catholic translation of the Bible in English, the Douay Rheims Bible, as well as the text of the "Hail Mary" that is still in general use:

"Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

The Orthodox approach to translation has generally been a conservative one. Slavonic was never the street language of Slavic speakers. It was a high form of Slavic language, with a huge amount of created terms, using Slavic root words, and putting them together in the same way Greek theological terms were constructed. The end result was a highly elevated language which was within reach of Slavic speaking people, but was not the language of the street.

When the services were translated into Chinese and Japanese, for example, the style used was that which was used in traditional Chinese and Japanese religious practice... which was an older form of these languages.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, the Greek of the New Testament was not really "street Greek." It is certainly in a form of Koine Greek, but it is in a Semitic style that it full of Hebraisms rooted in the Old Testament, both the Hebrew original, and the Greek Septuagint (which likewise is full of Hebraisms, see The Semitic Style of the New Testament, and Was the Bible Written in ‘Street Language’?, by Michael D. Marlowe). Furthermore, even in the Hebrew Old Testament, you find the use of intentional archaisms, not to mention the fact that Jews continued to use the Hebrew text of the Old Testament long after Hebrew ceased to be the spoken language of the people (and in fact, they continue to use it to this day).

The Orthodox Church has always taken the position that the language used in our services and translations of Scripture should be within reach of the people (which is why Christians did not just continue to use the Hebrew Old Testament, and why we have always had so many different liturgical languages in use), but the Church has not felt the need to use the language of the street, or to regularly update our translations.

This does not mean that we should never update our translations. While I would argue that when it come to the text of Scripture we should begin with the text of the King James version, I would not argue that there is no need to correct the KJV or to update it when changes to English have rendered a particular text very difficult for the average person to properly understand. One does have to learn some vocabulary and get use to some older grammatical forms, but for the most part, these are not difficult.

Traditional English is also not a dead language. It is simply a form of English used in worship and in other solemn contexts. People use this language every day in prayer, and they do so naturally. Even among those who pray extemporaneously, they are able to pray in this manner without any difficulty, nor is what they say difficult to comprehend. For an example, I would refer people to one of the many extemporaneous prayers Billy Graham gave at his evangelistic rallies: https://youtu.be/X1eHJDJWx3Q?t=1m4s

I think we should take to heart the comments of Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol, Cyprus to Dr. Kyriakos Markides:

“We must avoid addressing ourselves to God in a superficial casual way. For this reason Elder Sophrony goes so far as to say that the language we use in prayer must be different from the ordinary language of everyday usage. That is why he insisted that the language of the liturgy should not be translated into the contemporary spoken vernacular.”

“A lot of people today would strongly object to that suggestion,” I pointed out. “They demand that church services be conducted in the spoken ordinary language so that they can understand what is being said. Why did Elder Sophrony hold to such a position?”

“Elder Sophrony claimed that when we conduct the liturgy using everyday language, we lower the level of our communication with God.”

“How is that so?” I asked.

“He believed that ordinary language carries meanings and images from our daily reality that usually lack the element of holiness and purity. On the other hand, when we address ourselves to God in a language that has, as it were, an exclusive usage within the boundaries of the Ecclesia, the very words and sounds of that language evoke sacred feelings and images that facilitate communication with God. A special language that offers precise and exclusive meanings can automatically be experienced as the language of the Ecclesia. It carries greater spiritual force” (Markides, Kyriakos C., Gifts of the Desert: The Forgotten Path of Christian Spirituality, Random House-Doubleday, NY, 2005, quoted by Nun Nectaria (McLees), in an interview with the journal "Road to Emmaus').

For more information:

An Orthodox Look at English Translations of the Bible, By Fr. John Whiteford

Liturgical Languages and Living Tradition: an Interview with Nun Nectaria (McLees)

A Linguistic Bridge to Orthodoxy In Memoriam Isabel Florence Hapgood, by Marina Ledkovsky

You can watch a pretty good documentary about the history of the King James Bible:



For more from the narrator, Adam Nicolson, see his excellent book on the subject: God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2003).

Here also is a lecture on the subject by Adam Nicolson:

[NRx]

Two videos are linked at the bottom of the original post.

[seowulf]

English up until about the 18th century retained the you/you, thee/thou forms. They are equivalent to the French vous/tu forms of address, where the vous form is communication between a superior to an inferior or between equals on a formal basis. The tu form is between intimate friends, relative, etc. Many languages have this feature that English has lost.

My French teacher told me a story about when she was a student in France living with a French family and she made one of the children cry when she used the vous form with her. The girl thought my teacher was angry with her.

So, it is appropriate to use the thee/thou form when speaking to God because you are the inferior speaking to your superior.

[ColdSteelTalon]

I will be a King James man until death. I do not trust modern translations. Too many Alexandrians in today’s mix of scholars.

[NRx]

There similar distinctions in Castilian Spanish. However that level of formality has largely disappeared from the Spanish spoken in the Americas.

[seowulf]

I will be a King James man until death. I do not trust modern translations. Too many Alexandrians in today’s mix of scholars.

I am too.

The closer to the original source the better. If I could read Greek and Hebrew, I would.

Besides that, the KJV is considered one the the very best examples of English alliterative poetry. It's very interesting to read some passages out loud like rhythmic poetry.

[seowulf]

Many languages are like that, and not just the romance languages. Slavic languages have a formal/informal address too.

[Lonely Bull]

The rabbi quoted at the beginning:

The Hebrew atah (and the Yiddish du) reflect the familiar and the intimate approach to God with which I am comfortable. Still, English seems to demand, at least in some places, the more reverent "Thou" and "Thy."

I'm wondering if he never noticed that "du" looks and sounds like "thou." Obviously etymology and history don't constrain what words may mean in different languages as they diverge and develop. Certainly many English speakers think of "thou," "thee," and "thy" in prayer as distancing (for good, for ill, or maybe some of both). Even so, I like to think of the use of "thou" in prayer as a familiarity that doesn't breed contempt.

One point that I didn't see very clearly in this piece is a comparison to other languages that have at least two "living" different levels for the English "you." (It's called the "T-V distinction.") I did reload this thread as I was writing this post and have seen that others have mentioned it.

I've seen something--most likely a set of translations of the Lord's Prayer--and noticed that a number of major European languages with such a distinction use the more familiar form there. I don't know how the use of this language affects how Christians using these texts think of God (and I'm not a native speaker of any language with a vigorous T-V distinction), but I'd been really expecting to see the other forms.

[unlearner]

William Tyndale gave his life to make the Bible available to English speakers in simple, every day, vocabulary.

While it is reasonable to demand that modern translations are accurate ones, it is not reasonable to insist that the KJV is more precise or more sacred.

You vs thou does NOT make singular vs plural more clear to the average reader, including those who have read the KJV for decades (e.g. me).

In the south we say “you” for singular and “ya’ll” for plural. In the north we say “you guys” for plural. But allow me to suggest that the best way to communicate this in a translation is to simply use a translators’ note, explain it in the preface, and perhaps use bold, italic, or a similar demarcation to distinguish the two.

The whole point is to make the Bible both understandable and accessible. If not, then why was there ever a fight with the Roman Catholic Church to switch from Latin in the first place? Why did Tyndale need to be burned at the stake to give us the English language Bible?

[Albion Wilde]

bump

[kalee]

for later

[imardmd1]

The use of the second person singular in the Authorized version connotes neither holiness nor familiarity. To explain it this way is not correct.

The purpose of using the appropriate terns in the King's English was the method which the translators rigorously enforced in translation so that the correct grammar of the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek could be immediately known to the reader.

Thus, when in the Revelation, the Lord says "Thou hast left thy first love" it is clear that he was speaking to that particular person who was then the "angel" = message-giver = preacher appointed at that time from the elders of that particular church. Jesus was not (as is often preached today) saying that the whole church had left its first love.

If you read the context, you will see that the letter was written/addressed to the attention of the "angel" but sent to the church (and in fact copies for all the seven churches) for them to know which one of them was being admonished (Rev. 1:11; 2:1; cf verses 2:8,12,18 and 3:1,7,14). Obviously, the were also being warned to skirt the preacher's short-comings if his messages were leading them away from the love o Jesus.

On the other hand, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 is translated by the King James revisers:

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy
Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not
your own?
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in
your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

Almost universally, and incorrectly, this is preached as an admonition to the individual constituent, that the human's individual flesh body is, not yhe as in the Greek, but a temple of the Holy Ghost.

Parsing this correctly, the you, your, yours pronouns are a plurality of members of a singular corpus, which refers to the number of believers assembling together as the spiritual body, the church of humans. The application is in the line of the behavior of the church as a whole unit, whereas the similar passage earlier found in 3:15-16 deals with discipline of the erring individual who by personal behavior, like Achan of Joshua 7, has marred the whole church in its relationship to God.

This interpretation is what the grammar demands, and it draws a narrow but absolutely clear line between incorrect and correct doctrine regarding the sense of these verses.

And this is why the thorough grammatical discipline of the translator/revisers must be observed to correctly understand and apply the Scripture as it was given.

Too often the modern versions, not making any distinction between singular and plural, invites the reader to draw a wrong conclusion as to the interpretation, and hence the application, leading to incensed arguments that divide.

Again, this "Thee versus You" issue is only about grammar and correct grammatical interpretation, not mistaking the thees and thous and thines as some kind of special prayer language, or of a family intimacy denied to the stranger, or some kind of cultish holiness jargon.

Addressing The God as "You" in public or private prayer is not wrong, when everyone knows to Whom you are speaking. But using "Thou" when quoting a verse from the Authorized Version in prayer or preaching is the correct and approved use.

[Claud]

I’m from Philly where we have “youse” for the 2nd person plural. I have nothing but love for our local dialect, to the extent that I even wrote a book about it.

But I don’t want to see “youse” in a Bible.

By the way, Bede and others made English translations centuries before Tyndale. But most people couldn’t read, and a manuscript Bible cost about as much as a house, so a fat lot of good an English Bible would have done them anyway. If someone *was* taught to read, they were generally taught to read Latin, because that was the language of the educated. Sort of like how today how scholarly papers are always in standard English and never in “Ah ain’t no ways tahred, y’all.”

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Right at the end he mentions (he really *has* to mention), Martin Buber’s book Ich und Du “I and Thou”. He has to mention, because when this thin book came out, it had an explosive impact in theological circles around the world.

And the vast majority of them mouthed how brilliant it was, without really getting it. And promptly forgot it.

Martin Buber was regarded as one of the most learned Jewish philosophers of the 20th Century. His other works are extraordinarily complex and detailed, some of the most advanced Jewish religious thinking out there.

But I and Thou was something else. On the surface it is an easy read. Just brief, easy to grasp sentences. But every sentence is packed with knowledge, and might take days or weeks of contemplation to unwind all the subtlety within a single sentence.

The book can be read in an hour or two. To fully understand it is hard even for experts with a lifetime of study in Jewish theology.

It is mostly about pronouns, like “I” , “you” and “Thou”.

Even a religious layman can learn a lot from it if he takes his time, and slowly ponders it, a little at a time. But you are lucky if the light dawns that there is a lot more there than meets the eye.

[SES1066]

bookmark

[Salvation]

That’s funny. The first translation and the one to trust is the Vulgate.

First translation printed by Gutenberg Press.

The KJV is more of a modern translation although they did keep much of the reverent English. Douay-Rheims has the whole Bible that way.......KJV doesn’t even have the entire Bible!

[RegulatorCountry]

Are you speaking of the Challoner Douay-Rheims, which is largely based upon the King James Version, to the point of being word for word in many instances? The King James Version has the “entire” Bible, it just puts the books deemed edifying to read but not divinely inspired in the back.

[ColdSteelTalon]

If you are referring to the Apocrypha then I would disagree. those books were never verified as canon. Your position is a Catholic one.

The Catholic Church did not want a version of the Bible translated into the common language of the people, mainly because they were interested in maintaining their hold on the people. The Catholic Church did everything they could to prevent the KJB from being created.

And I will confess that I do not have any love for the Catholic Church it has shed too much blood in the name of Christ. And that's aside from its doctrinal issues.

[Rashputin]

So for nearly eighteen hundred years the Holy Spirit allowed all copies of the Bible to include books that shouldn't have been included, right ? That is, the Holy Spirit aided and abetted the spreading of the delusion that books were inspired when they actually weren't.

Well, there goes the Trinity because if the Holy Spirit isn't perfect the Holy Spirit isn't a part of the Trinity. So, either those books are inspired and part of the canon or the Holy Spirit is imperfect and there is no Trinity.

In fact, given that the Holy Spirit, according to your view, would have aided and abetted Satan by allowing Christians to believe books which weren't inspired actually were, your version of the Holy Spirit is that the Holy Spirit aids Satan by helping lead Christians astray.

Thanks for clearing up several things. You've let us know that there's no Trinity, that Christ lied when He said the Holy Spirit would be our comforter since comforting Christians can't possibly include helping Satan lead them astray and, last but not least, that Christ is a liar and therefore not the Son of God our perfect Savior.

Very helpful of you.

[seowulf]

Interesting. The rule of using you/thou (vous/tu)would still hold grammatically though. The use is not just formal/informal, superior/inferior. I did not mention that the you/vous form is also used for addressing more than one person or an audience, and that is an important distinction that modern English has lost.

I am really just an interested, amateur student of language though.

[Lonely Bull]

They are equivalent to the French vous/tu forms of address, where the vous form is communication between a superior to an inferior or between equals on a formal basis. The tu form is between intimate friends, relative, etc. Many languages have this feature that English has lost.

My French teacher told me a story about when she was a student in France living with a French family and she made one of the children cry when she used the vous form with her. The girl thought my teacher was angry with her.

So, it is appropriate to use the thee/thou form when speaking to God because you are the inferior speaking to your superior.

I don't know much about French religious pronoun use (I've looked for a few texts and looked at a few Bible translations), but it appears to me that addressing God tends towards the familiar "tu" forms.