Wednesday, March 21, 2012

A bible for the 21st Century

The 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (copyright 1994) is not a "new translation," but rather a careful updating; specifically, in their own words, "words which are either obsolete or archaic, and are no longer understood by literate Bible readers, have been replaced by carefully selected current equivalents... The updaters have used as their principal authority in matters of English usage the greatest and most complete of all American dictionaries, namely, Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged, published by the G&C Merriam Co.*, and in print from 1933 to 1967."
That's the SECOND edition, folks.  The one written in 1934, and significantly superseded by the infamous Third Edition, written in 1961.  So to make a 21st century bible at the end of the 20th Century, they picked as their most appropriate dictionary one that had become obsolete thirty years earlier, having being written 30 years before that.

Now, to be fair, they do have a rationale-- for example, they were extremely impressed by the Second's overblown and unwieldy size and heavy use of the original King James Bible as source for illustrative quotes. Still, if your stated purpose is to make your version accessible and understandable by modern audiences, maybe you should use, I dunno, a current dictionary?  Just a thought.

*Now known as Merriam-Webster, Inc, aka the people who pay my tasty, tasty salaries, for those not keeping track at home.

3 comments:

  1. My first reaction was Bible? understandable?

    On second thought, do any of the revisions outsell the original King Jimmie?
    I believe that a number of the fundamentalist sects still use it, as do English Departments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the Association for Christian Retail (formerly Christian Booksellers Association)'s list for 2010, the King James bible has slipped to number 2, behind the New International Version.

      Also, it's not like the Torah is much better, so you can't really blame the Christians for that one.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I don't think making it accessible was the goal. More likely making it slightly less inaccessible while still giving the impression that it must be too deep for you to comprehend.

      Delete