The King James' Bible

In the October newsletter it was suggested that we should read from the KJB for the rest of the year; there have been no dissenting voices. The GoodNews Bible was originally intended as a simple clear text for the benefit of those who had English as a second language. Do we need to provide this? Should we follow Mr. Bragg's advice and return to the KJB?

MORE THOUGHTS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE

Everyone is reading the King James Bible. I don’t know if the complete text was read aloud anywhere except the Globe Theatre at Easter, but much of it was read in May to mark the Festival in Hay-on-Wye. There have been radio and television programmes and lectures. Melvyn Bragg gave a talk at the British Library and also made a television programme. Lectures at the Globe have been given by Professor Graham Holderness of the University of Hertfordshire, and Professor David Crystal of Bangor University.

Much has been said about the language of the KJB, also about the ideas expressed and their effects. There have also been reports – and speculation – about the way the text was produced, as commissioned and instructed by King James. There has been a suggestion that the text could not have been completed by a committee. Both Graham Holderness and Melvyn Bragg have referred to the story based on clues found in Psalm 46. Have a look at this psalm; count 46 words from the beginning, then from the end; note the repetition of a key phrase in the penultimate verse. It’s not exactly evidence, but it’s an interesting idea.

Melvyn Bragg’s television programme explores the possible effects on the development of democracy. Charles I claimed biblical authority for royal privilege, but the bible was also cited to reduce the power of a monarch to the power of any man; Charles was defeated and executed. Thomas Paine, born in England but influential across America, was a non-believer but aware of the persuasive power of the KJB; in his pamphlet Common Sense his quotations from the books of Samuel and Judges were uncompromising in their condemnation of royal authority, and they had biblical authority. These ideas were woven into the Declaration of Independence in 1776; Bragg asserts that ‘history changed course in that declaration, and the King James Bible was the navigational compass.’ Bragg also considers the varying uses of the KJB regarding the slave trade: there were many, including Christians, who wanted to keep the slave trade and found biblical sanctions; there were the abolitionists, who declared that slavery was incompatible with Christianity and that all were equal in the sight of Christ; and there were the slaves themselves, who organised resistance, finding inspiration in the bible and expressing it in the singing of spirituals.

Bragg is a strong supporter of the KJB. In an interview in April 2011, promoting the publication of his book about the KJB, The Book of Books, he accepted but regretted that many people use modern translations: ‘I think it’s a shame. I think people would use it (the KJB) if the Church insisted it was still used. I think it’s an abnegation of responsibility. I mean, Shakespeare is difficult but we have people to explain it. We don’t get some young playwright from the Royal Court to rewrite it for us; that would be unthinkable… I just disagree with you when you say it’s difficult… I mean, it’s in English, it’s full of monosyllables. What’s difficult about that? It does seem to me that the decline of the Anglican Church has coincided with the abandonment of the KJB and maybe the two are related. It was their book. And you put aside your book at your peril.’