Is the Most Famous Bible Translation Really All That Good

Is the Most Famous Bible Translation Really All That Good? ![rw-book-cover](https://readwise-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/images/article1.be68295a7e40.png) 🔗 **Source:** [Is the Most Famous Bible Translation Really All That Good?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVcV__ZuiR8) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical-studies, bible-translation, textual-criticism, kjv, translation-philosophy] > author: Dan McClellan > source: Dan McClellan (YouTube) > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVcV__ZuiR8 > date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} > > # 🏷️ Title: Is the most famous Bible translation really all that good? >  ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - Burke, Kutsko, Towner (eds.), *The King James Version at 400: Assessing Its Genius as Bible Translation and Its Literary Influence* (2011) - Seth Lerer, "The King James Version and the Rapid Growth of English in the Elizabethan and Jacobean Era" - David Norton, *The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today* - Hamlin & Jones (eds.), *The King James Bible after 400 Years: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences* - Robert Alter, *Pen of Iron: American Prose and the King James Bible*; *The Art of Bible Translation* ## 📝 Summary - McClellan, a scholar of Bible and religion, argues the King James Version (KJV) actively gets in the way of understanding what the biblical authors meant, for three reasons: textual, linguistic, and translation-philosophy. - It matters because the KJV's cultural prestige leads readers to treat it as the most authoritative or highest-quality English Bible when, by scholarly measures, it is none of those things. - Stakeholders: lay Bible readers, KJV-only communities, translation committees, biblical-studies and English-literature scholars. - Risks and tradeoffs: dismissing the KJV ignores its real literary and historical influence; McClellan concedes style is the one legitimate reason to keep using it. - Bottom line: if you want to grasp the source meaning, use a recent translation (he recommends the updated NRSV); keep the KJV only for its style. ## 📖 Main Content - **Textual reliability.** The KJV rests on later, less reliable Greek manuscripts. Modern translations reconstruct an earlier, better-attested source text from manuscripts discovered or collated since 1611, so they correct additions and alterations the KJV inherited. - **Linguistic currency.** The KJV's English was already archaic at publication. McClellan cites that it "was criticized for already being out of date in 1611" — its `-eth` third-person endings and grammatical gendering ("if the salt have lost his savor") did not match everyday spoken usage even then. - **Translation philosophy.** The KJV is overly literal — it follows the *form* of the Greek so closely that the English becomes impenetrable. His example, 2 Corinthians 2:5 ("but if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part that I may not overcharge you all"), illustrates form-driven literalism producing unreadable English. - **It is a revision, not a fresh translation.** The KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible (1602 edition); translators "scribble[d] changes into the margins" of handed-out Bibles, which were then compiled. He stresses it's a compilation/revision of Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops', and even Rheims. - **Why it survives: an accident of style.** Its reputation as a literary high-water mark is, he argues, "a product of a historical accident" — chiefly the first and second Great Awakenings. He marshals scholarship (Lerer, Norton, Hamlin & Jones) showing it was *not* well received in 1611, that the Geneva Bible stayed more popular for decades, and that "avolatry" (Norton's coinage for near-worship of the KJV) only took hold from the 19th century. - **Contested point.** The claim that the KJV "gets in the way" is strong; many would argue a literary, idiom-rich translation can aid devotional understanding even where it diverges from technical accuracy. McClellan's frame defines "understanding" narrowly as recovering authorial intent. ### 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVcV__ZuiR8&t=0) Thesis and three-part case - Opens with the hook: "the King James version is not for you" if you want to understand the biblical authors. - Three reasons: textual reliability, linguistic currency, translation philosophy. - Textual: KJV based on later manuscripts; modern translations reconstruct a more reliable source text. #### ⏱️ [00:01:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVcV__ZuiR8&t=60) Archaism and impenetrable literalism - "Nobody spoke like that when the King James version was published"; criticized as out of date in 1611. - 2 Corinthians 2:5 cited as impenetrable English caused by following the Greek form too closely. #### ⏱️ [00:02:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVcV__ZuiR8&t=150) Just a revision of the Bishops' Bible - KJV is a revision of the 1602 Bishops' Bible; translators marked changes in margins. - Not high-quality, not up-to-date, not textually reliable — the only draw is style. #### ⏱️ [00:04:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVcV__ZuiR8&t=240) Style as historical accident; recommendation - Reputation tied to the first and second Great Awakenings, not intrinsic merit. - Recommends the updated edition of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). #### ⏱️ [00:05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVcV__ZuiR8&t=300) Scholarship walk-through (Lerer, Norton, Hamlin & Jones) - Lerer: KJV vernacular "cobbled together out of earlier translations," already perceived as old-fashioned; some archaic words (avenge, laden, ponder, unwittingly, warfare) re-entered usage in the mid-19th century. - Contemporary critics: Hugh Broughton ("ill done"), John Selden (excellent literally, unidiomatic style — "English words rather than English phrases"). - Norton: "avolatry" — near-worship of the KJV emerges in the 19th century; the literary-revision myth is a back-formation. - Hamlin & Jones: translators aimed at accuracy, not literary style; intent was "to make a good one better," a compilation of the best prior versions. - Geneva Bible remained more popular; KJV only asserted as *the* Bible after the 1660 Restoration of Charles II. #### ⏱️ [00:11:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVcV__ZuiR8&t=660) Further reading and sign-off - Recommends Daniell, *The Bible in English*; Crystal, *Begat*; Alter, *Pen of Iron* and *The Art of Bible Translation*; Norton's textual history. - Restates the thesis; closes with a running bit ("the fit for this video has been Wolverine and the Hulk"). ## 📚 References - [Dan McClellan — YouTube channel](https://www.youtube.com/@maklelan) - [The King James Version at 400 (SBL Press)](https://www.sbl-site.org/) - [David Crystal, *Begat: The King James Bible and the English Language*](https://global.oup.com/) - [Robert Alter, *The Art of Bible Translation* (Princeton UP)](https://press.princeton.edu/) - [New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition (NRSVue)](https://www.friendshippress.org/nrsvue) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - If your goal is to recover what the biblical authors meant, the KJV is the wrong tool: its base text is later and less reliable, its language was already dated in 1611, and its literalism often produces unreadable English. A modern translation reconstructs a better source text and reads more clearly. - The KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles, not a fresh scholarly translation, and its prestige is a 19th-century cultural accident driven by the Great Awakenings rather than any intrinsic superiority. Style is the only honest reason to keep using it; for understanding, reach for the updated NRSV. ## 📰 Newsletter Not applicable to this source — biblical-studies content, not WordPress. The shareable hook for a general audience: the KJV's fame is mostly a 19th-century branding accident, and three concrete weaknesses (later manuscripts, archaic-even-in-1611 English, form-bound literalism) mean it obscures rather than reveals authorial intent. Keep it for the cadence; read the NRSVue for the meaning. ## ✅ Action Items Not applicable to this source — biblical-studies content. No WordPress, DevRel, OSPO, Community, WPCC, or FAIR actions follow from a Bible-translation critique. The value is intellectual: translation philosophy, textual criticism, and reception history. ## 🧪 Hypotheses - If readers compare the KJV and NRSVue on form-bound passages like 2 Cor 2:5, comprehension scores will be measurably higher for the NRSVue. - The KJV's modern prestige correlates historically with the first and second Great Awakenings rather than with 17th-century reception. - Words flagged as obsolete in the mid-18th century (e.g., avenge, laden, ponder) re-entered English partly through 19th-century biblical-register revival. - KJV-only adherents rate the translation's *accuracy* highly while underweighting its manuscript base, indicating prestige drives the accuracy judgment, not evidence. ## 📊 Methodology - Comprehension study: present matched readers passages in KJV vs. NRSVue, measure paraphrase accuracy against scholarly glosses. - Reception-history analysis: corpus of 17th–19th-century print references to quantify when KJV praise overtakes criticism (test the "avolatry from 19th c." claim). - Lexical revival study: track the cited obsolete words across diachronic corpora (e.g., EEBO, Google Books n-grams) to date re-entry. - Survey of KJV-only communities correlating stated reasons (accuracy vs. style vs. tradition) against knowledge of manuscript traditions. ### ❓ Questions - Does "understanding the biblical authors" reduce cleanly to authorial intent, or does reception and liturgical use carry legitimate meaning the KJV preserves? - How much of modern critical-text superiority is settled versus still contested among textual critics? - Is the NRSVue the best single recommendation, or does the ideal depend on the reader's purpose (study, devotion, public reading)? ### 🔮 Future Research - A side-by-side comprehension corpus across five major English translations on the 50 most form-bound passages. - Quantitative reception mapping of "avolatry" to test Norton's periodization with hard citation counts. - Cognitive-load measures (eye-tracking) on archaic syntax versus modern renderings. ### 💡 Implications - Translation choice is an information-access decision, not merely a devotional or aesthetic one. - Cultural prestige can detach from technical quality and then masquerade as evidence of it — a general lesson beyond Bible translation. - Educators should separate literary appreciation of the KJV from claims about its accuracy or reliability. ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - Reading level estimate: Flesch-Kincaid Grade roughly 11–13 for the spoken transcript — long quoted scholarly passages (Lerer, Norton) push sentence length and lexical difficulty up; McClellan's own framing is lower, around grade 9. #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: on-screen images of a marked-up Bishops' Bible page and red-boxed quoted paragraphs from the source books. - Improve: a manuscript-stemma diagram, a KJV-vs-NRSVue parallel-text panel, a timeline of reception (1611 → 1660 → 19th-c. avolatry). #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: the video itself is narrated; clear spoken delivery. - Improve: a 2–3 minute audio recap isolating the three-reason thesis; chaptered audio. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: defines literalism by example (2 Cor 2:5); introduces and glosses "avolatry." - Improve: a short glossary (critical text, Textus Receptus, formal vs. dynamic equivalence, stemma). #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: implicit "try to parse this verse" exercise. - Improve: a hands-on parallel-Bible worksheet; pick a verse and compare four translations. #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: a clean three-premise argument with a conclusion and a conceded exception (style). - Improve: a decision tree — "what's your goal? understanding → modern translation; style → KJV." #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: positioned for comment-section discussion typical of the channel. - Improve: discussion prompts comparing translations in a study group. #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: self-contained argument viewable alone. - Improve: reflection prompts and a self-check on the three reasons. #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: none directly. - Improve: frame manuscript transmission as an ecosystem of copying, error, and selection over time. ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: spoken narration conveys the argument without relying on visuals. - Improve: on-screen book quotes and the Bishops' Bible image need descriptive captions/alt for the deaf/hard-of-hearing and for transcript readers. #### Keyboard navigation - Present: standard YouTube player controls are keyboard-reachable. - Improve: not applicable to video content beyond platform defaults. #### Contrast and readability - Present: red-box highlighting marks the quoted paragraphs. - Improve: ensure overlaid quote text meets 4.5:1 contrast and is on screen long enough to read. #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: platform captions resize. - Improve: provide the quoted passages as a linked text document so readers can resize freely. #### Media and captions - Present: auto-captions exist (this transcript shows ASR artifacts like "Mlelen," "aviolitry"). - Improve: human-corrected captions and a downloadable transcript; the ASR misspells names (McClellan, Norton's "avolatry") and book titles. #### Forms and interactions - Present: not applicable. - Improve: not applicable. #### Standards reference - Gaps map to WCAG 2.2 AA 1.2.2 (Captions), 1.2.1/1.2.3 (audio/description of on-screen text), and 1.4.3 (Contrast) for overlaid quotes. ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: engages the Anglophone Protestant tradition and its translation history specifically. - Improve: note non-English and non-Protestant translation traditions; acknowledge global communities for whom the KJV is not central. #### Inclusive language - Present: neutral, academic register; defines jargon by example. - Improve: briefly define more terms (manuscript, critical text) for newcomers. #### Neurodiversity support - Present: short runtime, clear three-part structure, consistent delivery. - Improve: on-screen section headers for the three reasons to aid tracking. #### Representation - Present: cites a range of scholars (Lerer, Norton, Hamlin, Jones, Alter). - Improve: the cited authorities skew toward a similar academic milieu; include voices that defend the KJV's value to represent the debate fairly. #### Psychological safety - Present: critiques the translation, not the people who love it; concedes the style point respectfully. - Improve: an explicit nod that KJV attachment is often devotional and identity-laden could lower defensiveness. ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive structure: three independent premises (textual, linguistic, philosophical) each support the conclusion that the KJV impedes understanding — located in the opening minute, "there are three reasons that the King James version actually mitigates your ability to understand." - Inductive/evidential: the reception-history survey (Lerer, Norton, Hamlin & Jones) is strong inductive support for the "prestige is a historical accident" claim, e.g., "the Geneva was more popular than ever" after 1611 and KJV only asserted as the Bible after 1660. - Illustrative argument by example: 2 Cor 2:5 cleanly demonstrates form-bound literalism producing impenetrable English. Could be strengthened by pairing the verse with a modern rendering on screen. #### Fallacies - Mild begging the question / loaded definition: defining the goal as "understand what the biblical authors were trying to say" at "If you would like to better understand what the authors of the Bible were trying to say, the King James version is not for you" pre-frames "understanding" as authorial-intent recovery, which guarantees the conclusion against translations chosen for other purposes. Fix: state explicitly that the verdict holds for the intent-recovery use case, not for liturgical or literary use. - Appeal-to-authority risk (weak, mostly avoided): heavy reliance on quoted scholars at "A good place to start would be the King James version at 400" approaches argument-by-citation, but he reasons from the evidence rather than from the credentials, so it largely holds. Fix: summarize the manuscript evidence directly rather than only naming books. - Hasty-generalization edge: "Nobody speaks like that anymore. In fact, nobody spoke like that when the King James version was published" uses "nobody" absolutely where the cited source says "perceived by contemporaries as unrepresentative of everyday spoken usage" — a softer claim. Fix: match the hedge in the source. #### Tone of voice - Confident, direct, lightly provocative ("What do you imagine that means? Wrong. This is impenetrable"); academic but accessible, with a closing comedic tag ("Wolverine and the Hulk"). The tone is corrective without being contemptuous toward KJV readers. ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Not applicable to this source. DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) describes a defensive manipulation pattern by an accused party. This is a scholarly critique of a text, with no accuser/accused dynamic, no denial of wrongdoing, and no victim-offender reversal. McClellan critiques the KJV's qualities and its reception, not any person defending himself against an allegation. - Deny: none — he concedes the KJV's stylistic appeal outright. - Attack: none directed at people; criticism targets the translation and the myth around it. - Reverse victim/offender: none. ## 🎯 Conclusion - Bottom line: by textual, linguistic, and translation-philosophy measures the KJV is not the most accurate, current, or reliable English Bible; its dominance is a 19th-century cultural accident, and style is the one honest reason to keep reading it. - Next steps for readers: for understanding the source, adopt a modern critical translation (he recommends the NRSVue); compare a form-bound verse like 2 Cor 2:5 across translations to feel the difference; for the history, start with Norton's short history and the *KJV at 400* volume. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — Is the most famous Bible translation really all that good? > Density: 2–5 Literature atoms (H3), 0–3 Permanent candidates (H4). > Defaults: 3 Literature, 1 Permanent. ### 📚 Literature Atoms (H3) #### [H1] KJV impedes recovery of authorial intent > [!quote] ID:rw_pending > "there are three reasons that the King James version actually mitigates your ability to understand what the biblical authors were trying to say" **Context & use**: - Opening thesis, ~00:00:15. - Frames the whole critique: textual, linguistic, and philosophical grounds against the KJV. **Tags**: #xref **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://pending)  #### [H2] KJV was already archaic at publication > [!quote] ID:rw_pending > "It was criticized for already being out of date in 1611" **Context & use**: - ~00:01:10, linguistic-currency argument. - Counters the assumption that the KJV captured the living English of its day. **Tags**: #xref **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://pending)  #### [H3] Over-literal form-following yields impenetrable English > [!quote] ID:rw_pending > "they followed too closely the form of the Greek because they were trying to be literal and it ended up being too literal" **Context & use**: - ~00:02:00, with 2 Cor 2:5 as the worked example. - Names the translation-philosophy failure mode: formal equivalence taken past readability. **Tags**: #xref **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://pending)  #### [H4] KJV prestige is a 19th-century accident > [!quote] ID:rw_pending > "that is itself a product of a historical accident and primarily the first and second great awakenings" **Context & use**: - ~00:04:10, reception-history argument backed by Norton's "avolatry." - Separates cultural prestige from intrinsic translation quality. **Tags**: #xref #articleseed **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://pending)  ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates (H4) #### [P1] Cultural prestige detaches from technical quality and then poses as evidence of it **Claim** (one sentence, Courtney's voice): A text's accumulated cultural prestige can become evidence-shaped, where people infer quality from fame even when the original reception and the technical record point the other way. **Evidence pointer**: [[#H4]] **Scope & conditions**: Holds for canonized cultural artifacts with long reception histories (the KJV, "classic" software, founding documents); breaks where prestige and measured quality actually track together. **Links**: - [[Reception history vs. intrinsic merit]] — because extends - [[Appeal to authority]] — because contrasts on {evidence vs. status} - [[Translation philosophy]] — because applies-in {Bible translation}  ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Compare 2 Cor 2:5 across KJV / NRSVue / NIV / Alter to feel form-bound literalism — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVcV__ZuiR8 #fleeting #inbox - [F2] Read Norton's short history to verify the "avolatry from 19th c." periodization #fleeting #inbox ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Pull the updated NRSV (NRSVue) as default study translation — reference #things  📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Articles/Is the Most Famous Bible Translation Really All That Good.md|Is the Most Famous Bible Translation Really All That Good? by Dan McClellan]] ## Highlights - If you would like to better understand what the authors of the Bible were trying to say, the King James version is not for you. Hey everybody, I'm Dan Mlelen. I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion. And there are three reasons that the King James version actually mitigates your ability to understand what the biblical authors were trying to say. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kw1ze4ewq8ayt0bwr73enw3d)) - Note: Thesis: the KJV impedes (not aids) recovery of authorial meaning, on three grounds — textual, linguistic, philosophical. - Tags: bible-translation, atom/literature/h1 - Nobody speaks like that anymore. In fact, nobody spoke like that when the King James version was published. It was criticized for already being out of date in 1611. And from a translation philosophy point of view, it is overly literal. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kw1ze7d9nd5afb4bgwwjz0g0)) - Note: The linguistic-currency point: the KJV's English was already archaic at publication — it never captured living English. - Tags: textual-criticism, atom/literature/h2 - This is because they followed too closely the form of the Greek because they were trying to be literal and it ended up being too literal and frequently results in impenetrable English. The King James version is not a super high quality translation. In fact, it's just a revision of the Bishop's Bible. a6002 edition of the Bishop's Bible. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kw1zea183y8p438348s1sd02)) - Note: The formal-equivalence failure mode: hewing to Greek form past readability yields impenetrable English. - Tags: translation-philosophy, atom/literature/h3 - It's not an up-to-date translation. It is not a textually reliable translation. The only reason that the King James version continues to be enjoyed by a lot of people is because of the style because they imagine that it represents some kind of literary or pros high watermark in English literature and that is itself a product of a historical accident and primarily the first and second great awakenings. If you want to better understand what the biblical authors are trying to communicate, get yourself a more recent translation. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kw1zed6spbnfcrjh2f1eks3a)) - Note: The reception-history argument: KJV prestige is a 19th-century cultural accident (the Great Awakenings), not intrinsic quality. - Tags: atom/literature/h4, reception-history ## Links - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Translation Prestige Can Outlive Translation Fitness]] — promotes the source's distinction between the KJV's cultural status and its fitness for recovering authorial meaning.