Many Christians today don't use Bible versions that have archaic words such as 'thou', 'thee', 'thine', 'thy', 'ye'.
I've heard preachers ridicule such language as if using such language is so out of fashion that no church (or person) should be caught dead using it.
Before going on, I should make clear that I'm not trying to argue that we should go back to the King James Version (KJV) as it was in AD1611 or AD1769. For a number of reasons the Church probably cannot do that.
However, many were brought up on the KJV and its rhythms are still alive for them. In my case, after deserting it for translation after translation I've now come to view it with much more respect.
The populist bandwagon of getting rid of the KJV altogether has only led to a succession of translations which makes for reasonable uniformity and a stable text for memorisation almost impossible.
Let's consider a few well-known Bible texts and see how a knowledge of the KJV's language clarifies rather than obscures certain passages.
In fact in these same passages, the obscurity occurs in some of the last century translations.
However, when the above verses are examined one will find that Satan desired to have all of the apostles because in AD1611 (and 1769) 'you' was used in the KJV for the plural form of 'you' and meant the equivalent of 'you-all'. 'Thee', 'thy' and 'thou' denoted the singular. (See Table 1 below.)
Hence Jesus was saying that Satan desired to sift as wheat all of the apostles-not just Simon-however Jesus has prayed specifically for Simon that his faith not lead to his ruin.
By the way, these differences in these pronouns were found in the Greek text the translators were translating. Hence, the translators deliberately used these more archaic forms (according to here) to overcome the diminishing social use of thee, thy, thou, ye, etc.
In fact, I found a number of more recent translations over the last 100 years that note this difference in their translations; the NIV (1985) notes the plural in the margin and in 2011 version it is in the translation itself (a better option).
The difficulty is that modern English does not use a different word for 'you' singular and 'you' plural but to get a right understanding of Luke 22.31-32 one needs to realise that we have an ambiguity with the English 'you' which isn't found in the KJV and some older translations too.**
So unfortunately, if my recollection is accurate, we just weren't taught correctly the meaning of 'thee' and 'ye'.
Although the first pronoun is directed to Nicodemus, the second is plural and means 'you-all', presumably all the Jewish leaders and Jewish people including Nicodemus. (See Table 1 below.)
Some translations do translate so as to make a difference as the KJV does such as the ASV, Darby's Translation, the ESV, JB Phillips NT, and others. Others make a marginal note about the issue. Others don't translate this important nuance at all such as the Amplified Bible, The Message, NASB, NKJV, RSV, and The Voice.
* Other translators don't bother to do this but the KJV translators had such reverence for the Word of God written that they believed that the reader was entitled to know what they had altered.
**Interestingly, other modern languages such as French, Spanish and Italian have two forms for 'you' so it's easy to distinguish between the singular (you) and the plural (you-all). Also, some older translations mentioned above do translate this verse in the same way as the KJV.
I've heard preachers ridicule such language as if using such language is so out of fashion that no church (or person) should be caught dead using it.
Before going on, I should make clear that I'm not trying to argue that we should go back to the King James Version (KJV) as it was in AD1611 or AD1769. For a number of reasons the Church probably cannot do that.
However, many were brought up on the KJV and its rhythms are still alive for them. In my case, after deserting it for translation after translation I've now come to view it with much more respect.
The populist bandwagon of getting rid of the KJV altogether has only led to a succession of translations which makes for reasonable uniformity and a stable text for memorisation almost impossible.
Let's consider a few well-known Bible texts and see how a knowledge of the KJV's language clarifies rather than obscures certain passages.
In fact in these same passages, the obscurity occurs in some of the last century translations.
'Luke 22.31-32'
In the 'old-fashioned' KJV this Lukan passage reads,And the Lord said to Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren [italics indicate words that the KJV translators added*].We might think we understand this text and when we will look it up in some-not all-modern translations we would conclude that Simon's (Peter) welfare is the focus throughout; that is, that you = thee = thy!
However, when the above verses are examined one will find that Satan desired to have all of the apostles because in AD1611 (and 1769) 'you' was used in the KJV for the plural form of 'you' and meant the equivalent of 'you-all'. 'Thee', 'thy' and 'thou' denoted the singular. (See Table 1 below.)
Hence Jesus was saying that Satan desired to sift as wheat all of the apostles-not just Simon-however Jesus has prayed specifically for Simon that his faith not lead to his ruin.
By the way, these differences in these pronouns were found in the Greek text the translators were translating. Hence, the translators deliberately used these more archaic forms (according to here) to overcome the diminishing social use of thee, thy, thou, ye, etc.
In fact, I found a number of more recent translations over the last 100 years that note this difference in their translations; the NIV (1985) notes the plural in the margin and in 2011 version it is in the translation itself (a better option).
The difficulty is that modern English does not use a different word for 'you' singular and 'you' plural but to get a right understanding of Luke 22.31-32 one needs to realise that we have an ambiguity with the English 'you' which isn't found in the KJV and some older translations too.**
'John 3.7'
Marvel not that I say unto thee, Ye must be born again.I first heard this classic text emphasised in the local Brethren Sunday School my sisters and I attended early in our lives. We even had a chorus that made it quite clear that Jesus was speaking primarily to Nicodemus. It contained the two English pronouns, 'thee' and 'Ye' in the KJV which our chorus appeared simply to equate.
So unfortunately, if my recollection is accurate, we just weren't taught correctly the meaning of 'thee' and 'ye'.
Although the first pronoun is directed to Nicodemus, the second is plural and means 'you-all', presumably all the Jewish leaders and Jewish people including Nicodemus. (See Table 1 below.)
Some translations do translate so as to make a difference as the KJV does such as the ASV, Darby's Translation, the ESV, JB Phillips NT, and others. Others make a marginal note about the issue. Others don't translate this important nuance at all such as the Amplified Bible, The Message, NASB, NKJV, RSV, and The Voice.
Other Scriptures
A large number of texts can be produced which suffer at the hands of some modern translations because if the you/you-all distinction is ignored the passages become ambiguous. For some examples of this point, see Exod 4.15; 29.42; 2 Sam 7.23; Matt 24.64; Luke 5.24; Jn 3.11; 14.9; 1 Cor 8.9-12.
More can be adduced towards the end of this site from which the following Table is used with thanks.
More can be adduced towards the end of this site from which the following Table is used with thanks.
Table 1. Personal Pronouns and Their Cases
Nominative
|
Objective
|
Possessive
|
||
| First Person | singular |
I
|
Me
|
My (or mine)
|
| plural |
We
|
Us
|
Our (or ours)
|
|
| Second Person | singular |
Thou
|
Thee
|
Thy (or thine)
|
| plural |
Ye
|
You
|
Your (or yours)
|
|
| Third Person | singular |
He/She/It
|
Him/Her/It
|
His/Hers/Its
|
| plural |
They
|
Them
|
Their (or theirs)
|
* Other translators don't bother to do this but the KJV translators had such reverence for the Word of God written that they believed that the reader was entitled to know what they had altered.
**Interestingly, other modern languages such as French, Spanish and Italian have two forms for 'you' so it's easy to distinguish between the singular (you) and the plural (you-all). Also, some older translations mentioned above do translate this verse in the same way as the KJV.
Comments