Is it a myth that KJV has "archaic" English?

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

In Philadelphia, "the shambles" is a marketplace, a farmer's market.

Well thats pretty neat .

 

[Ulsterman]

"Shambles" doesn't mean a marketplace in UK or Hiberno-English.


Well, at least Hiberno-English, Bro Lamb may correct me on UK English if I am mistaken

Shamble - "a butcher's market stall, a flesh market, hence a slaughterhouse." Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. Shambles is a perfectly modern and acceptable English term.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Shamble - "a butcher's market stall, a flesh market, hence a slaughterhouse." Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. Shambles is a perfectly modern and acceptable English term.

Do you find it in common usage? Just curious - I have never heard anyone say "lets to to the shambles."

Interesting word and thoughts.

 

[HankD]

Yes, there are some "archaic" words in the current KJV's, but for the most part the modern 1611 (really most KJV's are 1769 versions) Bibles are understandable with some notable exceptions:

1 Chronicles 26

16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.
19 These are the divisions of the porters among the sons of Kore, and among the sons of Merari.​

HankD

 

[David Lamb]

Another such word is "corn". The KJV did not goof when it called wheat 'corn'. In 1604, it was a non-specific term for any grain. In fact, when Englishmen first saw maize, which we now call corn, they called it "corn" because they didn't know what else to call it! They just knew it was a grain food.

In the 1600s, God caused His word to be written in the language current for the day, understandable by any English reader, same as He still does today. I believe He keeps the old versions before us to show the preservation & continuity of His word, and NOT to be a permanent fixture that no other versions can replace for everyday use.

Here in Britain, "corn" is still the generic term for cereals/grain. "American" corn is called "maize" or "sweetcorn" (or, with the yellow "grains" still attached, "corn on the cob").

 

[David Lamb]

Shamble - "a butcher's market stall, a flesh market, hence a slaughterhouse." Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. Shambles is a perfectly modern and acceptable English term.

I don't have Chambers dictionary, but I have looked at three others, and all without exception say that the word "shambles" (in the sense of "meat market") is archaic.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Here in Britain, "corn" is still the generic term for cereals/grain. "American" corn is called "maize" or "sweetcorn" (or, with the yellow "grains" still attached, "corn on the cob").

I'm glad you posted that . I had it ready to go but figgered my "man without a country" status would make it less reliable than if one of you guys said it .

 

[Logos1560]

Bridges and Weigle observed: "An outstanding difference between British usage and American usage is that 'corn' in America means maize or Indian corn, while in British usage it is a general term for grain, including all the cereal plants and their seed" (KJB Word Book, p. 87).

At 2 Chronicles 32:28, the 1535 Coverdale's rendering "corn houses" is revised to "storehouses" in the KJV.

"Corn" at Luke 3:17 in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles was amended to "wheat" in the KJV. The rendering in the 1535 Coverdale's and 1537 Matthew’s at Joel 2:24 ["full of corn"] was revised to "full of wheat" in the Geneva and KJV. At 1 Corinthians 15:37, "corn" in all the earlier English Bibles is changed to "grain" in the KJV. The Bishops’ Bible has “corn” at Joel 2:24, which the KJV revised to “wheat.“

 

[Jerome]

From the Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. "shamble":

1. A stool, footstool. Chiefly in fig. context.

2. a. In OE., a table or counter for exposing goods for sale, counting money, etc. Obs.

b. spec. A table or stall for the sale of meat.

3. a. pl. A place where meat (or occas. fish) is sold, a flesh- or meat-market. ? Now local.

b. Construed as a singular; also in sing. form.

c. transf. and fig.

4. a. pl. The place where animals are killed for meat; a slaughter-house.

b. Construed as a singular; also in sing. form.

5. transf. and fig. a. A place of carnage or wholesale slaughter; a scene of blood. Chiefly pl. const. as sing.; rarely in sing. form.

b. pl. In more general use, a scene of disorder or devastation; a ruin; a mess. orig. U.S.
....

 

[Logos1560]

At Psalm 18:48, Coverdale’s and Matthew’s have an archaic usage of “rid” which is updated in the KJV to “delivered.“ Again Coverdale’s, Matthew‘s, and Bishops’ “rid” at Jeremiah 15:21 is updated to “deliver.“ The Bishops’ Bible had archaic usages of “rid” at several more verses (Gen. 37:21, Deut. 23:14, Deut. 25:11, Josh. 9:26, Jud. 6:9, 10:11, 1 Sam. 7:3, 14:48, 2 Sam. 12:7, 2 Chron. 32:11, 15) which are updated to “deliver” or “delivered” in the KJV. Yet the KJV retained an archaic use of "rid" at Genesis 37:22 and Exodus 6:6 from the Bishops’ while the earlier Coverdale’s and Geneva Bibles have a form of "deliver." At Genesis 37:22, Waite’s Defined KJB acknowledged that this usage is archaic and defined it as “deliver, rescue; free” (p. 54). Is this archaic usage of the one-syllable word “rid” easier or more difficult to understand than the three-syllable word “deliver?”

 

[EdSutton]

1 Cor. 10:25a
Whatsoever is sold in the market, that eat (Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Taverner's, 1568 Bishops)
Whatsoever is sold in the flesh market, that eat (1535 Coverdale's, 1539 Great Bible)
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat (1582 Rheims N.T.)

25 All thing that is sold in the butchery, eat ye, (I Cor. 10:25a - Wycliffe)

An example of an even older rendering of the Greek word "μακελλον".

Ed

 

[David Lamb]

Is this archaic usage of the one-syllable word “rid” easier or more difficult to understand than the three-syllable word “deliver?”

Not sure if your question was intended to be rhetorical, Logos1560, but I would say that "rid" (in the archaic sense) is more difficult to understand than "deliver", because in its modern sense, it has the slightly different meaning. An advert for an acne cream might say, "Get rid of spots in an hour". It doesn't mean "The cream will deliver the spots somewhere." There are no signs in the AV/KJV that mean "Watch out! Archaic use in operation here!" so it is easy to get the wrong impression, especially in cases such as "rid", "let", "prevent", and the like, where the words exist in modern English, but now mean something different.

 

[Logos1560]

I would say that "rid" (in the archaic sense) is more difficult to understand than "deliver", because in its modern sense, it has the slightly different meaning. .

I agree. A shorter but rare or archaic word is not easier for readers today to understand than a longer and more commonly used word with a known meaning. The same is true of a shorter word such as rid used with a now archaic meaning.

 

[Logos1560]

Another good example of the purpose of my question is "let."

In Galatians 5:7, Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible used "let" while the KJV updated it with "hinder." The KJV also changed the "let" in Acts 8:36 in Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, and Bishops' Bibles to "hinder." Again the KJV updated the "let" at Romans 15:22 in the early Bibles with "hinder." At 1 Peter 3:7, "let" in Tyndale's, Matthew's, and Whittingham's was changed to "hindered." The Geneva Bible had an archaic usage of “let” at Acts 11:17 where the KJV has “withstand.” Wycliffe’s had “letted” (Rom. 15:22, 1 Thess. 2:18) where the KJV has “hindered.“

Acts 8:36 doth let me to be baptized (Bishops)
doth hinder me to be baptized (KJV)

Nevertheless, the KJV retained an archaic use of "let" at Romans 1:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, and Isaiah 43:13.

 

[jshurley04]

The Core of the Debate

Since it seems pretty well established that there are archaic words in the KJV, let me throw something more controversial out there... As someone who has read the KJV for almost his entire life and up until recently has vociferously defended its superiority over modern versions; may I suggest that not only are there archaic words, but archaic speech patterns?

It's almost impossible to quantify, but when I read the KJV and compare it to modern versions (archaic words aside), it takes a lot longer to figure out what God is saying through the text of the KJV. As a random example, see Hebrews 5:12. In the KJV, it reads:

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.​

But in the NIV, it reads:

In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!​

I'm fairly familiar with archaic words in the KJV and their meaning, and yet there are countless passages where I will struggle with the meaning in the KJV only to have the NIV bring it into crystal clarity.

This is the whole argument right here! It is a combination of outdated wording and language and a negative style of writing. A friend of mine has stated on several occasions that the KJV, as good as it is, is written in Yoda speak, as in the Star Wars character Yoda. While some newer and better translations use the language of this century along with a positive style of writing, or rather, they translate it as if we were to say it for the first time today.

 

[HankD]

Good points.

When it comes to the Bible, "archaic" has to do not only with the age of the words, phrases and syntax, but common usage as well.

I love the KJV but I've been reading it for over 50 years.

HankD

 

[Ed Edwards]

I love the KJV but I've been reading it for over 50 years.

Amen, Brother HankD -- Preach it! :thumbs:

I love the KJVs for been reading them for over 55 years
(as a Saved Preson /AKA: Real Christian/ ).

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I love my KJV. I live the style, the word choice, the accuracy, the flow, etc, etc.


While there are archaic words I find myself often going back to those English words for their richness and clarity. Words like "charity," "careful," "peculiar," and "constrain" are powerful words that, IMHO, no modern English word can capture.


Alas, we do live in the 21st century however and unless you have been reading the KJV for 30-40 years like many of us have you simply are not going to understand those words and others like them .

 

[Logos1560]

Words like "charity," "careful," "peculiar," and "constrain" are powerful words that, IMHO, no modern English word can capture.

I can understand someone today liking the rendering "charity." Is "charity" really a more powerful and accurate rendering for the Greek word that the KJV itself usually translated "love?" In the 1500's, William Tyndale did not think it was.

W. E. Campbell noted the following about the use of this word: "Charity, then is the key-word of the Catholic faith; and Tyndale's object, as [Sir Thomas] More points out, was to displace it by the commoner word 'love,' and thus to make way for the key-word of Protestantism, which was faith" (Erasmus, Tyndale, and More, p. 128). Brian Moynaham pointed out: “Charity is linked in meaning to good works, and it was in the interests of the established Church--Catholic in More’s day” (God’s Best Seller, p. 106). Tyndale argued that "charity had ceased to be the name of an inward, Divine grace, and denoted only certain outward ostentatious deeds sanctioned by the ecclesiastics" (William Tindale, p. 320). Tyndale contended that "verily charity is no known English which Agape requireth" (Expositions, p. 135). Tyndale commented: “Finally, I say not, charity God, or charity your neighbour; but, love God, and love your neighbour” (Answer, p. 21). Moynaham observed: “Tyndale was justified in finding that ‘love’ was a more accurate translation of the original agape” (God’s Best Seller, p. 73). Concerning 1 Corinthians 13, A. T. Robertson wrote: "Charity (Latin caritas) is wholly inadequate" (Word Pictures, IV, p. 176). KJV defender Edward Hills identified “charity” in the KJV as an archaic rendering with its modern equivalent being “love” (Believing Bible Study, p. 84).

"Due to Latinizing influence, the second edition of the Bishops' Bible reverted to 'charity' in thirty-two instances" (May, Our English Bible In The Making, p. 27). Ronald Bridges wrote: "The advocates of Catholic Latinity had in some way gathered strength, for in the second edition of the Bishops' Bible, published in that year [1572], the word 'charity' is substituted for 'love' in 32 cases" (KJB Word Book, p. 208). E. H. Robertson observed that "the Bishops' Bible used the word 'charity' under the influence of the Latin Vulgate" (New Translations, p. 22). MacGregor confirmed that it was the Vulgate’s use of charitas that suggested “charity” (Literary History, p. 114). At 1 Corinthians 13:1 the Ryrie Study Bible maintained that the word "charity" comes from the Latin charitas and "means basically benevolence or alms-giving." MacGregor asserted that “the Vulgate use of caritas suggested ’charity’” (Literary History, p. 114).

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV did update a good number of renderings in the Bishops' Bible. On the other hand, the KJV kept some renderings from the Bishops’ Bible at places where another pre-1611 English Bible already had simpler, clearer, more up-to-date, or perhaps more accurate language. Therefore, the first rule given the KJV translators may be responsible for some of the words used with a now archaic or obscure meaning, some of the less clear or more difficult words, a couple possibly anachronistic words, or some of the archaic words that are found in the KJV. In other places the translators of the KJV often did make similar such renderings in the Bishops simpler, clearer, and more up-to-date.

Every earlier Bible that has a certain rendering is not always listed.


Gen. 1:28 fill (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Geneva) replenish (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 9:1 fill (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew‘s) replenish (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 9:13 sign (Geneva) token (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 11:4 Come (Coverdale’s) Go to (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 11:28 where he was born (Coverdale’s, Matthew‘s) of his nativity (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 14:3 valley (Coverdale’s) vale (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 16:6 dealt roughly (Geneva) dealt hardly (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 19:29 wherein (Geneva) in one of the which (Bishops’) in the which (KJV)
Gen. 21:26 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 22:1 prove (Geneva) tempt (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:5 What if (Geneva) peradventure (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:21 till he knew (Coverdale’s) to know (1599 Geneva) to wit (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:55 maid (Geneva) damsel (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:57 ask her consent (Geneva) inquire at her mouth (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:63 toward the evening (Geneva) at the eventide (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:64 lighted down from the camel (Geneva) lighted off the camel (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 25:7 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 27:28 wheat (Geneva) corn (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 29:14 a month long (Coverdale’s) space of a month (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 31:29 yesterday (Coverdale’s) yesternight (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 31:42 yesterday (Coverdale’s) yesternight (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 34:22 to (Coverdale’s) for to (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 37:14 valley (Coverdale’s) vale (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 37:22 deliver (Geneva) rid (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 39:8 knoweth (Geneva) wotteth (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 40:4 prison (Coverdale’s) ward (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 41:5 full (Coverdale’s) rank (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 41:36 provision (Geneva) store (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 41:49 wheat (Geneva) corn (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 41:54 famine (Geneva) dearth (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 42:25 wheat (Geneva) corn (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 44:15 Know (Geneva) Wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 45:6 plowing (Coverdale’s) earing (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 46:15 These are (Coverdale’s) These be (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 46:27 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 50:3 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 50:15 It may be (Geneva) peradventure (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 3:22 ask (Geneva) borrow (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 5:4 your labour (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s) your burdens (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 5:8 they are idle (Coverdale’s) they be idle (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 5:18 number of brick (Coverdale’s) tale of brick (Bishops’) tale of bricks (KJV)
Exod. 5:19 diminish (Geneva) minish (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 6:6 deliver (Geneva) rid (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 9:9 blisters (Geneva) blains (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 9:10 blisters (Geneva) blains (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 10:19 quarters of Egypt (Coverdale’s) coasts of Egypt (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 13:12 womb (Geneva) matrix (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 13:15 womb (Geneva) matrix (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 13:17 Lest (Geneva) Lest peradventure (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 13:18 armed (Geneva) harnessed (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 15:27 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 16:18 measure (Geneva) mete (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 29:2 fine wheat flour (Geneva) wheaten flour (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 29:40 tenth part (Geneva) tenth deal (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 32:1 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 32:19 near (Geneva) nigh (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 32:23 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 34:19 womb (Geneva) matrix (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 34:21 plowing (Coverdale’s) earing (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 37:9 toward the mercyseat (Geneva) to the mercy seatward (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 38:25 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 4:26 for (Coverdale’s) concerning (Geneva) as concerning (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 5:17 know (Geneva) wist (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 10:14 they are (Geneva) they be (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 12:8 turtle doves (Coverdale’s) turtles (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 15:29 turtle doves (Coverdale’s) turtles (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 19:32 gray head (Coverdale’s) hoary head (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 19:35 line (Geneva) meteyard (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 21:3 near (Geneva) nigh (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 23:5 evening (Geneva) even (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 26:16 fevers (Coverdale’s) ague (Bishops’, KJV)