Hacker News Reader

Comment by hugh4 | Hacker News Reader

I don't pretend to know or especially care about accuracy, but the semi-archaic language of the King James Version gives it a certain authoritative-sounding zing that others may lack.

"Thou shalt not kill" sounds a whole lot better than "Don't kill" even though the former has two words missing from modern English.

View on HN

I agree. This is much the same as Shakespeare's plays having more impact due to their archaic language. I have seen several of his plays both in modern and original form. I thought the originals would be impossible to understand. Interestingly enough, after a few minutes, not only was I able to follow along, I enjoyed hearing my mother tongue with a strange twist. It gave the work much more impact.

Along those lines, from a literary and cultural perspective, I think most folks who want to participate in English-speaking nations would be good to have a solid literary background in the KJV. There's just too much allusion and metaphor scattered about to forgo it. There are also a bunch of second-tier texts to know, but as far as cultural impact, as far as I can see, the KSV is way out ahead of the rest.

I do not know if the same can be said of the Bhagavad Gita and Indian culture, although from what I can tell, the Koran plays a huge role in many other societies. Understanding mythical and mystical works gives interlocutors a huge common metaphorical and allegorical reserve that just isn't possible without them.

I think if you read the Sermon on the Mount (and indeed the rest of the Bible) in most languages it will carry just as much weight. The original hearers of Jesus were amazed because he taught as one who had authority, not because he used words that were "authoritative-sounding".

The message of the Bible is mind-blowing:

"Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool."

Isaiah 1:18, circa 700 years before Christ.

Several years ago, when putting together a script, we needed a biblical citation in part of it. We found the same verse, looked it up in a dozen different bibles, and found that the KJV was by far the best one to read out loud.

It's not that it's semi-archaic, I think, but rather that it was explicitly designed to be read out loud. Good text for reading out loud requires particular, natural rhythms (and pronunciation guides for those troublesome Hebrew names), and a hyper-accurate translation would favor the more accurate word choice over those that fit rhythmic flow better.

"Atheist Hitchens Praises King James Bible" http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-hitchens-praises-k...

>"Hitchens called the contemporary version "pancake-flat" and more suited for 'a basement meeting of A.A.'"

Hitchens, while an atheist, was appreciative of the KJV because of its foundational influence on English literature.

This is interesting to me mostly because my favorite translation is often criticized for being difficult to read because of archaic word choice. Though in this case, a lot of that may be the 'directness' of the translation from the source language (Latin).

I suppose there's a sweet spot between how authentic-sounding the translation is and how complex the diction is.

> This is interesting to me mostly because my favorite translation is often criticized for being difficult to read because of archaic word choice. Though in this case, a lot of that may be the 'directness' of the translation from the source language (Latin).

The only English Bible translation that I've ever heard criticized for readability because of the directness of its translation from a Latin (intermediary, obviously, as its not the original language of any of the books of the Bible) source is the original (before the mid-18th Century revision) Douay-Rheims.

Irrelevant to your comment, but I would like to get in touch with you to talk about settlement/closing software that you mentioned a few months ago. How can I reach you?

> I don't pretend to know or especially care about accuracy, but the semi-archaic language of the King James Version gives it a certain authoritative-sounding zing that others may lack.

I'd agree that that is among the more serious problems of the KJV (and others with a similar approach to English, e.g., the Douay-Rheims).

It was meant to; the language of the King James Version was archaic and formal even in its own time, and for precisely the reason you mention. Of course, it's become so ingrained in our culture that the language of the KJV sounds religious precisely because it's the language of the KJV.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com