iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

King James Version Is The Only Bible With Power To Unite

King James Bible

First Posted: 05/23/2011 8:04 pm Updated: 07/23/2011 5:12 am

By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service

(RNS) 1604. England. Rebellious Puritans, establishment Anglicans and Roman Catholics are (literally) at each other's throats. A new king fears his reign will combust in a powder keg of religious strife and anti-monarchical fervor.

So King James I does what any sensible monarch would do: He orders up a new translation of the Bible.

King James' Bible failed miserably as a peacekeeper -- civil war broke out in 1642 -- but enjoyed smashing success as a book. Published in 1611, the King James Version (KJV) reigned supreme over English translations for nearly three centuries, becoming the best-selling tome in history.

And there may never be another like it.

"The Bible was the cohesive framework for English and American society, and the King James Version was what people meant when they spoke of 'the Bible,"' said Leland Ryken, a professor of English at Wheaton College in Illinois.

Twentieth century advances in technology, language, biblical scholarship and niche marketing gradually dethroned the KJV, leading to a more democratic variety of competing translations.

But as the KJV marks its 400th birthday this year, some Christian scholars are hoping to spark interest in a new Bible translation capable of attaining the KJV's cultural authority, poetic power and theological depth.

Chief among them is David Lyle Jeffrey, a professor of literature and humanities at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, and an expert on the KJV.

"The celebration of the KJV has made us realize that there is a job to be done to create something of similar anchoring value for readers of the Bible in English," he said.

Most of the Bible translations crowding American bookstores lack the KJV's gravitas and spiritual substance, Jeffrey said, and their sheer variety fractures Christian unity.

The need for the KJV itself was prompted by a related situation, Jeffrey argues in a forthcoming book, "The King James Bible and the World It Made."

In King James' England, the Bishops' Bible, favored by Anglicans, prevailed in churches, while the Puritan-preferred Geneva Bible was read in homes. Dissonances between the two versions sowed theological doubts and divisions. Hoping to paper over those divides (and supersede the anti-monarchical Geneva Bible) King James seized on the idea of a new, unifying Bible.

"One could be forgiven for thinking that a similar case for a common Bible in English is far stronger now than it was then," Jeffrey writes.

Jeffrey and other scholars acknowledged, though, that such a task would be difficult.

"Another translation could be created, but it would never have the cultural uniqueness and authority that the KJV had," said Timothy Larsen, a Wheaton scholar and author of a book about the KJV's influence on the Victorian era. "Too many choices would have to be made."

Bible translation is inherently theological, Larsen said, and getting contemporary Christian camps on the same page, so to speak, would be next to impossible.

As a result, Bible use is more democratic today, with no one translation wearing the crown, which some experts say is a good thing.

"The variety of ways in which the Bible allows for different translations demonstrates that it is a living, amazingly enduring document," said Kristin Swenson, a religious studies scholar at Virginia Commonwealth University.

"It allows for people to engage with it in so many different ways," added Swenson, author of "Bible Babel: Making Sense of the Most Talked About Book of All Time."

The KJV is hardly lost in the thicket of translations, according to Robert Sanford, an executive at the Christian publishing giant Thomas Nelson. It annually ranks near the top of the company's sales.

"The KJV is still very much used by Americans today," Sanford said.

Still, some scholars lament the lack of an up-to-date English translation with the majesty and musicality of the KJV, said K. Sara-Jane Murray, a colleague of Jeffrey's at Baylor University.

If there's anyone who could pull that proposal off, it is Jeffrey, she said. "A lot of scholars and artists around the world are dying to collaborate on a project like this, and David is someone who could definitely pull those people together and help them take great joy in it," said Murray.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

By Daniel Burke Religion News Service (RNS) 1604. England. Rebellious Puritans, establishment Anglicans and Roman Catholics are (literally) at each other's throats. A new king fears his reign will...
By Daniel Burke Religion News Service (RNS) 1604. England. Rebellious Puritans, establishment Anglicans and Roman Catholics are (literally) at each other's throats. A new king fears his reign will...
Filed by Josh Fleet  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 739
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
flipacoin
Heads they win, tails we lose.
07:31 PM on 05/31/2011
The King James Version broke down the Bible into chapters and verses. Where to start or end a chapter or start and end a verse was decided at that time. Were these decided by man or by providence? Here is an interesting question. Where is the center of the Bible? If you look at the center chapter you will arrive at Psalms 118. There are 594 chapters before and 594 after that. Now...where is the center verse? Guess. It's also in Psalms 118. How's that for synchronicity? It's Psalms 118:8. Could the center verse of the Bible have a special message? After all, it's the CENTER...or something mundane? Let's see. It says,"It's best to put your trust in the Lord than in the wisdom of man." That's the center of the Bible. It's a good center for everyone's lives. By the way...594 plus 594 equals 1188...Psalms 118:8....Dumb luck or providence? The Bible states that it's words are God breathed. Could God do all this? Yes. No doubt!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:44 AM on 06/17/2011
http://www.prayerfoundation.org/not_center_verse_of_bible_118_8.htm

I doubt that either you or I have counted them, so who knows for sure - but this seems a good bit of Christian silliness to me. I don't mean to offend, but if we're looking for signs that God is active in history or in our present or future, rather than looking for this type of sign, why don't we instead surrender ourselves as instruments of his divine purpose of redemption? We'd make more progress doing what the Bible says (love, forgive, offer redemption) rather than counting verses.

I'm really not picking on you - you're certainly not the first person to say this. It just seems to me that we're looking for miracles rather than participating with God as miracles. Do you know what I mean?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
flipacoin
Heads they win, tails we lose.
03:27 PM on 06/17/2011
I have wholehearted faith in Jesus and His redemptive work. I am also a collector of proofs of His existance. I don't need proofs by no means, but the proofs are absolutely fascinating. Rent the DVD the "Signature of God" for such as what I speak of.
Your line of " It seems to me that we're looking for miracles rather than PARTICIPATING with God as miracles" is fantastic. I am a little behind on the particpating part...Thankyou Scarlette. I think God has spoken thru you more than you think!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:45 AM on 06/17/2011
Oh - just to add on - I am in no way affiliated with that site, nor do I advocate any content on it other than the page I linked to, as I have never browsed it in the past. It is merely what turned up in a google search.
photo
WheelsOnFire
Equality Crusader
01:56 PM on 05/31/2011
If the Bible is the infallible word of God, why are there so many differing versions?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andres64
Religion is a sectually transmitted disease.
02:06 PM on 05/31/2011
Doh!
02:03 AM on 05/31/2011
King James VI and I did unite Scotland and England under his crown.
photo
Deep Thinking Man
Always Remember, A Wet Bird Never Flies At Night !
11:09 PM on 05/30/2011
read the Nostic bible...King James included what he alone wanted Christians to read !!!!!
09:22 AM on 06/07/2011
It is unlikely King James had any knowledge of the Gnostic texts since those were dropped during the first centuries of Christianity. Otherwise, there were propagandistic purposes to the KJV as the article implies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBadger
03:16 PM on 05/29/2011
When it came out, 400 years ago, the King James was a "modern speech" bible and every bit as controversial as any of the new translations. People who support "King James Only should go back and read the introduction to the King James written at the time - it called for toleration and acceptance of different ways of saying things.
09:39 AM on 05/29/2011
It is the ONLY version! Harold Camping could not use any other version to perform those complex mathematical calculations to know when He is coming back, and the cure for leprosy in Leviticus 14 is just not the same in "those" versions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
raker
07:51 AM on 05/29/2011
I love the irony in the headline. It ostensibly expresses a desire to unite people, but embraces the fundamentally divisive issue in religion: knowledge of "the only way."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nancy Parris
08:31 PM on 05/28/2011
A piece of fluff with an unspoken agenda. The school in Wheaton is probably a religious school to begin with and that's hardly unbiased. "...it is a living, amazingly enduring.... " cracks me up. If we are allowed to change it then I guess one could apply the term living to it? Lot's of myths endure, not just the bible or any revision of it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
usorthem3
06:48 PM on 05/28/2011
The Bible. First and most dangerous work of fiction ever written.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:51 AM on 06/17/2011
In an attempt to seem clever, you made a statement that displays nothing but ignorance. A basic understanding of how the various texts came together and were the works of several time periods, endured redactors, and ultimately united as a "final" unit would give you the insight needed to make an educated remark. Not that I blame you - the majority of Christians do not understand this either.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:02 AM on 05/28/2011
The King James version certainly did not unite Catholics and Protestants. When I was a child in the 1950s the only bible my Catholic father allowed me to read was the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims Version. The version was translated at the English College of Douay University in France, which was a seminary for the formation English Catholic priests located in northern France since Catholicism was illegal in England, and published between 1582 to 1610. The final Challoner revision was published in 1752. This was the only official Catholic bible in English for over 300 years. We also had a copy of the Revised Standard Version in the house, because my mother was a Methodist. Even at the height of ecumenism in the 1960s Protestants and Catholics could not quite come together with the Catholic Church approving only a "Catholic Edition" of the National Council of Churches' Revised Standard Version.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nate35
12:15 PM on 05/27/2011
Why Christians would ever give up the King James version for any of the painfully pedestrian modern translations is beyond me.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/05/hitchens-201105
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:57 AM on 06/17/2011
Odd, I thought the KJV was a painful translation. :) If we're going to read scripture in a dead language (Old English) we may as well go back to the ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Otherwise, there is no reason to read a 1611 KJV over most other modern translations. I favor the NRSV.
11:30 AM on 05/27/2011
No form of religious fiction should be considered to have the power to "unite" anyone outside of the population of that religion.
10:12 AM on 05/27/2011
if the KJV Bible was good enough for the apostle Paul it's good enough for me. (sarcasm)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nabil Muhammad
03:09 PM on 05/27/2011
lol. some say, though, that this quote is attributed to Miriam. Amanda "MA" Ferguson http://bit.ly/kUr2Q9 Governor of Texas 1924. who allegedly, while holding a Bible, she explained her reason to object to the teaching of Spanish in schools, she had said "If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas schoolchildren”.
09:56 AM on 05/27/2011
Its like uniting the various terr0r groups into one A_Q.

Who cares!