The waters have recently been stirred in conservative circles regarding the modernization of the King James Version. The discussion, when seen more broadly, is really a consideration of what is gained and what is lost. To view the selection of newer and/or simpler English words as the only relevant aspect of the discussion is to flatten the issue. To argue against any modernization as near-heresy is likewise unproductive and fails to communicate what is at issue. Permit me to make a few observations regarding the fuller discussion that needs to take place.

The proponents of modernization essentially argue that Christianity is less effective when the Bible lacks “up to date” words. In their estimation, the very revelation of God is obscured by difficult vocabulary or sentence structure. The plowboy – that is to say, the common man – cannot understand the Scripture. And what is to be said of his growth, yea even his salvation, if he cannot discern the meaning of the text? At best, people are left in ignorance or with – as one in recent days has loved to teach – a false sense of knowledge. Readers don’t know what they don’t know. At worst, there are a few who are lost eternally for inability to grasp the truth of the gospel. (Please correct or clarify any failings in my attempt to summarize this view.)

These brethren (proponents of simplified English) may be maligned by a variety of accusations, likely ranging from compromise and division to over-reach and deceit.  One must be careful of broad stroke accusations and assumptions of motive. (An accusation may have merit in individual cases, but even this can’t be known without addressing the issue itself instead of the personality.) The substance of the issue must be dealt with, and this is not a small task, nor can it be accomplished in a short conversation.

The maligning is not one-sided, though. It would be incorrect to broadly label those who resist modernization of the English as implicitly “Ruckmanite” or as ignorant, deceptive, or merely “afraid of change.” There actually are those who would hold to the “old King James” for specific, substantive reasons:

1. They may feel that a rush to loose from the harbor of a known, reliable, high-quality translation may set them adrift on a continually changing sea of newer translations. However compelling the desire to reach more people may be, those who resist the change may sense a need to research more, to understand the issue in more depth before committing to such a significant change.

2. They may feel that the translation can never be responsibly changed if one doesn’t first comprehend the underlying issue of original-language texts. In truth, the “translation issue” is secondary to the “textual issue.” The underlying texts are, in reality, a choice between two completely different perspectives of the text and its transmission (and some would argue of God Himself). In the rush to modern translations, it is likely that few have considered the underlying “textual tradition” which they have unwittingly adopted. By choosing a different fruit, they have sometimes chosen a wholly different tree. Though a call to modernization may be a compelling start to the conversation, it would be irresponsible to make any change without first having a healthy understanding of the “textual debate.”

3. They may feel that the King James is superior for specific qualitative reasons.  Some may cite the scholarship of the translators, the nature of Early Modern English to convey more than Present-Day English, the seeming understanding of Hebrew parallelism by the translators, etc. These cannot be dismissed wholesale if an even-handed discussion is desired. It may be that many people readily recognize the alleged weakness of the KJV (“archaisms”) but have not considered why the KJV is so loved by believers and even lauded by unbelievers. In other words, both perceived strengths and liabilities need to be weighed and compared to the strengths and liabilities of another translation before departing from a long-used and trusted text.

4. They may believe that – on a practical level – there is a unity (and even greater effectiveness) when using a single translation in a corporate setting.  Furthermore, there is a stability (or maybe the word should be simplicity or efficiency) in memorizing Scripture from a single translation.

5. They may feel that too much is left unsaid in the push to modernize. Too many questions are unanswered by making the decision too quickly, including (but not limited to):

a. Is the issue that is assumed (that the “plowboy” cannot understand the Scripture) even true? Is the question being begged? Is Present-Day English truly a different language than Early Modern English?

b. Similarly, should the reading level of the most uneducated in society be the gauge of the acceptability of a translation?

c. Can we even approximate what tangible difference will be made in the spiritual lives of people if they read newer words? Can we reasonably expect a visible improvement in evangelism and/or a noticeable increase in Bible reading and study by God’s people? (Wouldn’t it be fair to expect some noticeable improvement if the situation is as dire as it sounds?)

d. Are the “archaic words” really the reason why the plowboy isn’t reading (or understanding) the Bible? What amount of his ignorance is due to his spiritual condition (i.e. having quenched the Spirit or being unregenerate and thus without the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit)? How much of Scripture will still be difficult to understand even when read in Present-Day English?

e. Are we laying too much (in terms of our expectation) at the feet of a translation when we expect it to remove the need for explanation or clarification? Will inserting more common words eliminate the need for study? If not, then what degree of clarification are we shooting for? What is the standard of “enough clarification” when one advocates for modernized English? And who gets to decide?

f. Does it matter which modern-English translation one chooses? There are a host of them on the market. Is the endgame merely a simplified English?  If not, then what are the qualities of a high-quality translation? (Similarly, what if simpler English translations differ from one another in substance and/or rendering? Which one should be perceived as the most acceptable or trustworthy, and why?)

g. How long might it be before another newer or simpler-English translation may be required (especially considering some concerning statistics related to literacy in the U.S. [source 1, source 2] )? In other words, “If I change my translation today, how long will it be before I have to change again?”

On the other side, proponents of the King James Version should give thoughtful reasons as to why they do not want to (or believe that they shouldn’t) change. And, for my part, don’t give vague allusions to the miracle of the virgin conception as a parallel to the KJV translators. Don’t insult our intelligence by claiming that the King James is the “incorruptible seed,” without which one cannot be saved. Please, treat people’s intellect with enough respect to offer a Biblically reasonable consideration. Proponents of the KJV will have to grapple with questions like these:

• Did God really inspire the KJV writers? (And the quick answer is, “No.  That’s ridiculous.”)

• And here’s a big one: Could the King James ever be updated? If not, is it an issue of scholarship, alleged degradation of language, “people actually do understand the archaisms,” or what?  (After all, the 1611 underwent a number of updates between its initial publication and the Blayney 1769 revision, which is the translation used by most, if not all, KJV adherents).

• Furthermore, can we truly pin the “preservation of God’s Word in English” to the KJV? If so, what does that even mean? Can other languages claim this for one of their translations? (For instance, can Latin people claim that the Reina Valera is “God’s preserved Word for the Spanish-speaking people”?) Is it enough to say that the KJV is a high-quality translation of the Traditional Text?

• Is there a benefit to having a “standard English translation”? Or stated conversely, are there liabilities of having multiplied English translations?

It will help if those who are concerned about the Traditional Text understand the history of its transmission. They should avoid oversimplification of their own views.

• Both positions deal with “textual variants” – the Eclectic Text introducing exponentially more to the process. What assumptions should guide the process of textual criticism? On what grounds can the text critic have confidence that he actually has the words of God?

• Could various words or passages in the KJV be rendered differently and still be accurate/faithful?

• What do you do if you believe that a rendering in the KJV reflects a translator bias or a limitation imposed upon the translators (as in the word baptism instead of immersion)?

And finally, both sides should be clear about their definition and use of the word “preservation.” (For my part, I prefer to reserve the term for a more technical discussion of the original-language manuscripts. However, when someone uses it to simply express a confidence that we do indeed “have the Word of God in English,” I understand.)

Some will tolerate more conversation than others, but few people will tolerate a shallow, mean-spirited, or illogical conversation with someone who disagrees. The issue of the modernizing/simplifying of the King James English is a big issue. Hopefully, the recent revival of the discussion will stir us to study, to understand the issue in more depth, and to discuss it with clarity and charity in search of the full truth, that we “might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:10).