top of page
Writer's pictureBrent Madaris

Readability of the King James Version And The Revision Fury. According to Scholarship, Is This Significant?




I do a great deal of writing, and one of my venues is newspapers. I have been writing religious columns in newspapers since around 2005. I have always been told by the editors to write for a 5th to 6th grade reading level.


Legitimate readability statistics are available related to the King James Version (KJV). Though opinions vary on how "unreadable" the KJV really is for modern readers, various tests have been applied to measure the readability of the KJV. Methods like the Flesch-Kincaid readability test and others have been employed. What do these measures show? Here’s an overview:


1. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level

The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level is a readability test that measures the complexity of text based on sentence length and syllable count per word, then assigns a grade level corresponding to American school grades. According to this test: The KJV has a reading level that often falls around 12th grade or slightly higher. This indicates that it is relatively advanced in terms of complexity, requiring a senior high school or early college-level reading comprehension.


2. Gunning Fog Index

The Gunning Fog Index is another readability measure that calculates the years of education required to understand a piece of text after a first reading. The index takes into account complex words (those with three or more syllables) and sentence length: The KJV tends to score around 11-12 on the Gunning Fog scale. This means it is challenging, but not overly complex for adults with a high school education.


3. Dale-Chall Readability Formula

The Dale-Chall Readability Formula compares the text against a list of commonly known words to determine complexity. A score is then assigned based on the percentage of “difficult” words found: For the KJV, the Dale-Chall score indicates a reading level of 9th-10th grade, meaning it is challenging but manageable for high school students.


John R. Kohlenberger III made the following statement..."The criticisms of the King James Version often miss the point that readability is not the only, or even the highest, criterion for a Bible translation... Its literary excellence makes the Bible memorable, and that is what has allowed it to endure."

  • Source: Kohlenberger III, John R. The NIV Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Zondervan, 1990, Preface.


Readability is being used today, on the part of some, as a major push to encourage the editing, or even the revision, of the King James Version. Although our highest appeal should be to biblical authority, it is interesting to observe what Biblical scholars have to say about this.


Although this statement is probably not necessary, I will state it nonetheless. I do not necessarily agree with these scholars on various levels, but I am using them to highlight their views on readability and the contemporary push by some to replace/update/modernize the KJV based on readability.


I want to first share some data on the various scholars and their general theological positions:


Leland Ryken - Conservative - Ryken is a literary scholar and a professor emeritus of English at Wheaton College, an evangelical institution. His theological perspective leans toward a conservative or traditional view, particularly in his defense of the King James Version (KJV) and his belief in maintaining formal equivalence in Bible translation. He is a staunch defender of preserving the language and dignity of older translations, which often aligns with conservative Christian views.


Gordon Campbell - Moderate - Gordon Campbell, as a scholar of Renaissance literature and early modern culture, tends to be more neutral in theological debates. He approaches the KJV from a historical and literary perspective rather than from a purely theological one. His work tends to fall into the moderate category since he appreciates the historical and cultural significance of the KJV while also recognizing the value of modern translations.


Adam Nicolson - Moderate - Nicolson, a British author and historian, approaches the KJV primarily as a cultural and historical document. His view is often seen as moderate. While he admires the beauty and significance of the KJV, he does not argue from a conservative theological standpoint. Instead, his appreciation is based on its impact on English literature and society, not necessarily from a doctrinal perspective.


David Daniell - Moderate to Conservative - David Daniell, best known for his work on William Tyndale and the English Bible, takes a moderate to conservative stance. His defense of older translations like Tyndale’s and the KJV shows a deep appreciation for their linguistic power and historical importance. Daniell is concerned with the readability of modern translations and the preservation of biblical accuracy, which places him closer to the conservative side.


Alister McGrath - Moderate to Conservative - Alister McGrath, a prominent theologian, historian, and scholar of science and religion, occupies a moderate to conservative position in theological discussions. While McGrath is a committed Christian and holds orthodox views on many theological issues, his scholarly approach is nuanced and careful. He often engages with both conservative and liberal scholarship, making his work accessible to a broad audience.


In his writings on the history of the Bible and translations, such as his book In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture, McGrath appreciates the KJV’s profound impact on English-speaking Christianity and culture. However, he doesn't argue dogmatically for the exclusive use of the KJV. Instead, he balances his admiration for the KJV with a recognition of the benefits that modern translations can bring, showing him to be moderate in his approach, though respectful of traditional values.


David Norton - David is primarily known for his work as a literary scholar, particularly for his expertise on the King James Bible. His most famous contributions include his role in editing the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible and his extensive research on the history and development of the KJV. Norton’s work focuses largely on the textual and historical aspects of the KJV, rather than offering strong theological positions or engaging in modern doctrinal debates.


Some general points can help frame his theological posture:

  1. Focus on Textual Integrity: Norton is deeply committed to understanding and preserving the accuracy and beauty of the King James Bible. His work emphasizes historical authenticity and precision in how the KJV is understood and presented, which aligns more with conservative sensibilities when it comes to preserving tradition and historical texts.

  2. Neutral Stance on Modern Translations: While Norton is a strong advocate for the KJV and its importance, he does not express overt opposition to modern translations in the same way that more conservative scholars might. He acknowledges the importance of the KJV in its time but remains somewhat neutral on whether it should be replaced or superseded in modern times, showing a more moderate approach.

  3. Literary and Cultural Emphasis: Norton’s approach often highlights the literary merit and cultural significance of the KJV, rather than making a theological case for its exclusive use. This literary focus tends to attract both liberal and moderate scholars, though his admiration for the KJV's textual tradition might appeal more to conservative readers who value its heritage.




Now, let's look at some of their statements on the readability of the KJV.


David Daniell

David has commented that the literary power of the KJV is unparalleled and that its influence extends far beyond religion into culture and language. He has argued that the KJV's language, while more challenging, offers a depth and poetic resonance not easily replicated in modern translations.


Here are some quotes from Daniell regarding the readability and cultural significance of the King James Bible:


  • Quote: “The King James Bible is often derided for being ‘too difficult’ or ‘out of date,’ but much of this criticism overlooks the fact that its language has a resonant beauty and power. The supposed difficulties are more often than not an invitation to deeper engagement with the text.”

    • Source: Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. Yale University Press, 2003, p. 448.


  • Quote: “The language of the King James Bible may seem archaic to modern ears, but it is not beyond understanding. The rhythm, majesty, and cadence of its prose have deeply shaped the English language and continue to communicate profound truths.”

    • Source: Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence, p. 452.


  • Quote: "Claims that the KJV must be replaced because of readability issues are overstated. The ‘difficulty’ often attributed to it is less about the language itself and more about modern readers’ unfamiliarity with the biblical narrative."

    • Source: Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence, p. 458.


Daniell's defense of the King James Bible highlights its linguistic beauty, cultural impact, and ability to engage readers. He suggests that the difficulty in readability, often cited, is not reason enough to replace it. He values the rich tradition and spiritual depth embedded in its prose.



Alister McGrath

In his work on the history of the KJV, he has acknowledged the value of modern translations but has also pointed out that the KJV remains a powerful, enduring text. He has suggested that part of the KJV's continued relevance lies in its formal language, which elevates the experience of reading Scripture.


Here are some quotes by Alister McGrath


  • Quote: "The language of the King James Version retains a resonance, a cadence, and a beauty that newer translations, no matter how accurate or clear, simply do not capture."

    • Source: McGrath, Alister. In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How it Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture. Anchor Books, 2001, p. 234.


  • Quote: "It is anachronistic to insist that every biblical translation must sound like today's language. The King James Bible speaks with a sense of gravity and authority that modern translations rarely achieve."

    • Source: McGrath, Alister. In the Beginning, p. 248.



Gordon Campbell

Campbell has emphasized that while the KJV contains archaic language, much of it is still widely understood, and the unfamiliar words are relatively few. He highlights that the KJV's grandeur and poetic nature contribute to its lasting appeal, making it more than just a functional translation of the Bible.


The following quotes are offered for Campbell's thoughts concerning the readability issue.


  • Quote: "The archaisms of the KJV are overstated. While the language may be older, it is still intelligible to modern readers, especially when the Bible is read aloud, as it so often is."

    • Source: Campbell, Gordon. Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 300.


  • Quote: "There is a dignity to the language of the KJV that more contemporary translations, while clearer, often fail to achieve. The KJV was written to be read aloud, and its sonorous, rhythmic prose resonates in a way that modern versions cannot duplicate."

    • Source: Campbell, Gordon. Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011, p. 257.


Campbell acknowledges that while some archaisms exist, they do not make the KJV unreadable, and he emphasizes the literary and oral qualities that have helped the KJV endure for centuries.



Adam Nicolson

In his book God’s Secretaries, Nicholson argues that the KJV was designed with a certain majesty and spiritual seriousness in mind, which sets it apart from more utilitarian modern translations. He questions whether readability alone should be the deciding factor in judging a translation’s value.


Nicolson provides thoughtful insights into the enduring value and readability of the KJV. He defends its language as meaningful, not obsolete, and argues against the idea that the KJV needs to be replaced. Here are some quotes:


  • Quote: “The King James Bible is not just a work of English prose, but a religious and cultural monument. It has depth and resonance that go far beyond mere ease of comprehension.”

    • Source: Nicolson, Adam. God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. HarperCollins, 2003, p. 252.


  • Quote: "To remove the grandeur and complexity of the King James Bible for the sake of ease is to lose much of its meaning... The argument for replacing it is based on a misunderstanding of what sacred text should be. It should challenge, uplift, and, at times, mystify.”

    • Source: Nicolson, Adam. God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible, p. 274.


  • Quote: “The language of the King James Bible, far from being an obstacle, serves to elevate the reader. It connects us to a larger, more eternal sense of reality. It demands attention, but that demand is part of its purpose and its power.”

    • Source: Nicolson, Adam. God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible, p. 189.


Nicolson argues that the KJV’s language may require effort but rewards the reader with depth, cultural resonance, and spiritual significance, emphasizing that ease of readability should not be the sole criterion for evaluating the Bible.



Leland Ryken -

Leland Ryken has opposed the idea that the King James Version must be replaced based on readability. He has argued that claims made by modern translators about the superiority of new versions over the KJV are not necessarily supported by the outcomes seen in biblical knowledge among contemporary readers. Ryken's criticism highlights that despite the availability of modern translations, biblical literacy has not seen a significant improvement, calling into question whether replacing the KJV is truly necessary.


  • Quote: "The charge of archaic language in the King James Bible has been exaggerated and misunderstood. The KJV’s archaisms are more a matter of formality than incomprehensibility... The high style of the KJV is an asset, not a liability, since biblical texts are not designed to be colloquial."

    • Source: Ryken, Leland. The Legacy of the King James Bible: Celebrating 400 Years of the Most Influential English Translation. Crossway, 2011, p. 121.


  • Quote: "Claims by modern translators and Bible scholars that the Christian public is fortunate to have been delivered from the archaisms and occasional inaccuracies of the KJV turn out to be hollow. If Bible knowledge in our day has declined across the board, where is the alleged gain from modern translations?"

    • Source: Ryken, Leland. The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation. Crossway, 2002, p. 47.



David Norton -

Here are some quotes from Norton that highlight his thoughts about readability.

  • Quote: "The King James Bible is clear enough that it has retained its central place in English-speaking Christianity for 400 years... its language may be old, but it remains understandable, especially with minimal guidance."

    • Source: Norton, David. A Textual History of the King James Bible. Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 23.


  • Quote: "What people often call 'archaic' is often simply a more formal or majestic style... the Bible was never meant to be reduced to the lowest common denominator of readability."

    • Source: Norton, David. The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today. Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 102.


These scholars emphasize the KJV's unique literary and spiritual impact and argue that its language—though sometimes archaic—contributes to its enduring power and significance. The critiques suggest that readability, while important, is not the only or most important factor when considering the value of a Bible translation.

38 views0 comments

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
bottom of page