A Critique of

The Authorized Version

or the King James Version

The Spirit is Still Speaking

First

Humanity has two sources of empowerment, love and fear. Love is a difficult emotion to master. She can take a lifetime to cultivate, and is ever ready to wilt when the roots are broken. Fear is far more troubling, though, because people will act badly when they are afraid. I would pose that fear is actually a form of love in crisis. After all, who is more frightening than a mother protecting her cubs? Who is more glorious than a queen with nothing left to lose except the song in his heart?

In the Days of ZarathUshtra Priests and Lords oppressed people with fear. Those who had the power used that fear to exploit those not in power to gain them more wealth. These people in power are afraid, terribly afraid. Death will come to them, and yet they hope that if they have enough, and no one else has any, they will survive. ZarathUshtra — probably the first religious and political revolutionary to pursue SatyaGraha — Abolished the puppet gods and placed the responsibility for enlightenment squarely on the shoulders of the individual.

It is true what the Bible says, someone inspires that scripture and worthy of study. One can approach this inspiration and subsequent infallibility in two basic ways.

On one hand there is the fundamentalist, Literal approach. For these folk, the basic literal truth, inerrancy and divine origin of holy scriptures, is found in the ink on the paper. One must follow those scriptures to be right. It ignores hermeneutics, evolution in language and thought, and the possibility that the path of inspiration was necessarily as direct as advertized. More importantly, it ignores the possibility that those who are reading such scriptures are themselves uninspired and quite possibly faulty.

Then we have a more reserved approach to such possibilities; the historic-critical. Basically, this method asks one to take into account the history of the script, the time in which they wrote it, and so coax the spirit of the words out of them. Such people continue to maintain their belief in the basic truth, inerrancy and divine origin of holy scriptures. The inspiration is not in the ink or the paper, or in the wishful thinking of those who are in power. This method prefers an understanding of hermeneutics, evolution in language and thought, and the possibility that the path of inspiration was not necessarily as direct as advertized. More importantly, it acknowledges that those who are reading such scriptures are themselves very likely uninspired and quite faulty.

There are some who lay claim to a script as the final authority, then abuse that authority by using it as a Hammer on other people. The will abuse and distort any source for their faith so that one wonders if they have read what they claim is their source. No matter that, there is no reason why the rest of us must reject that source as a useful guide.

Personally, I have found more value in the Scripts of the Hebrews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus (just to name a few) by not requiring them to be accurate historic accounts. Don’t get me wrong on this, I expect a fair portion of the history in these fine testaments are historic accounts, especially those found in the Hebrew Canons. The authors would still tell history through the paradigm of their day and need. Yet, their value is more in the story, rather than the history. As Voltaire observed, “What would constitute useful history? That which should teach us our duties and our rights, without appearing to teach them.”

I have found more value as a Satanic Pagan, Existentialist, and as a Gnostic in those scriptures than I ever did as a Christian Literalist. What does it matter if there was a real person who was the Christ, if Christians continue to crucify him with their actions? That only shows that this sort of Christian agrees with Arthur Desmond [1893] who said, “Behold the crucifix; what does it symbolize? Pallid incompetence hanging on a tree.” What really matters is that the reborn or resurrected god is found within our own souls. Great is the discovery of personal knowledge through one’s struggle to exist. What use are expressions, vocabulary, and other means of expressing this knowledge except to those who use them? We may accept these expressions as veils, if we know that they convey the same sort of spirit we have discovered. What does it matter if they are just dressed a little differently? Many a Satanist, Pagan, and Gnostic hold to a divine being, then we see that being as immanent and accessible to any who wish to know. We don’t believe in gods, we know them. Sometimes, truths are too fragile for language, and are veiled in rites and ceremonies, and must be discovered through epiphany. So, when selecting a story to either get a hint or some form of expression, we must be careful what we select. If a translation is involved, we must be careful who we trust.

This writer does not appeal to the so called “Authorized Version.” This is not because of the Sexual proclivities of King James I of England, as that has no interest to me. I know that some Fundamentalist Christians have rejected this translation — which he simply authorized, not write — because they say that he had a raging love affair with other men. They already published most of the Authorized Version in the Bishop’s Bible, only refined to met the standards of his day.

As a professional student — as a logician — I find one of the fastest ways to kill an argument is to appeal to a poor authority for any premise. I sometimes appeal to the Hebrew, Christian canons, and to documents that did not make the cut for whatever reason, for reference in the spiritual experience. As a professional I am rather careful when selecting any authority upon which to build an argument. My knowledge of Hebrew is limited, and I have even less skill in Greek, Latin, and other “biblical” languages. I have been reared with American English and over forty-years of practice has improved my skill in this language quite nicely. So, when I look for a translation I prefer those that come from academic level sources.

Problems with Translations in general:

One problem with the English Bible is that it is a translation. The reliability of that translation is founded upon the quality of the translators, and with the history of the document being translated. The Authorized Version is largely drawn from the Wycliffe and Tyndale translations, which in turn are drawn from Latin and German sources, which in turn is drawn from Greek sources. They had canonized the Latin Bible (from Hebrew קנן Rule, guide) for Flavius Valerius Constantinus in the fourth century C. E. He was in a hurry and so the delegates who were choosing what sources and authorities to include made choices based more on passionate, rather than academic reasons. Add to this that the reason for Constantin’s conversion was political power, and had nothing to do with Christ or Mithras themselves, one can see why they made some choices in translation and inclusion.

About a millennium earlier the Hebrew fathers at Alexandria where canonizing the Greek translation of the Hebrew testament. This also was done in an atmosphere of power brokerage. Do note, those in power do not willingly give any of it up.

Those authors that the delegates approved of, such as Luke, got in, while authors they disapproved of, such as S^t Thomas, where excluded and soon forgotten. It may be that sources not written in the Greek of the scholars where also ignored. Had the Manichaeist, Valetinian, or Simonian Christians been included in the Delegation, we might be reading the Gospels of S^t James and S^t Peter in Sunday school, and Christianity might be a different less violent animal today. Many Gnostic and Eastern Christian groups rejected the centralizing movement of the Bishops of Rome. The Gospel of S^t Thomas would have been an indictment to the Catholic Church and her Protestant children.

Jesus said: “If those who lead you say to you, ‘See, the Kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. Yet if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.” [“Gospel of S^t Thomas, saying 3,” The Other Bible.]

The second problem on this score is with translating the languages themselves. Even today, with the academic integrity of translators appealing to the oldest copies, much of the spirit of a word can still be lost. Often they translate the Hebrew word “Sheol” as hell, a place of torment and punishment. Rather, we could better translate it as the Grave, a place for formerly living bodies to dwell. Also, many Hebrew allegories, idioms, and puns are lost on Greek and English listeners. I will appeal to the “Murder of ‘Abel” (Genesis 4.1 - 16) to illustrate this. ‘Abel’s [Heb. הבל] name can mean “to become vain, meaningless” is murdered by Cain [Heb. קין] whose name means either “to chant a dirge” or “sharp, pointed weapon.” This distinction and use of a pun to illustrate an idea has been lost when we transliterate the names. We then hallow the depth of the story to be only a murder mystery.

Finally, Hebrew has an odd tradition. Should one pick up a scroll from the bema at a Hebrew shule, observation would oblige one to remark about the absence of vowels in the work. What does this really mean? First, should one change the vowels, one could actually change the meaning of that word. If we did this in English, would “crtn” mean curtain or certain? I suppose some unsupervised Jewish children have had loads of fun with this, because rather than have David stand erect before Saul, they could have David stand with an erection before Saul. And did David love Jonathan, or make love with Jonathan? Without the traditions or the help of the Masorym, we will never really know.

Morphology in Languages:

In the days of Queen Elizabeth calling a young girl “Homely” would have been quite a complement. It meant she was the sort of girl to whom you wanted to come home. Today, it is one of the worst insults to hurtle at her, for it means she is the sort you want to hide at home.

Many terms and idioms of Elizabethan English are lost, even on the modern ears of the Englishman. I chuckle to myself when in the Harry Potter books, she gives Hagrid the expletive, “Cod Swalup!” In Elizabeth’s Day, even in Mark Twain’s day, the cod referred to that fishy male appendage that is ever in search of a dark cave to live in. In fact, a Cod Piece is that piece of fabric used to cover that same member when the technology of the pant-seam had yet to be invented. Okay, stop giggling, I suppose that never occurred to JK Rowling, or she would never have placed it in a story meant for eleven-year-old children.

We no longer distinguish the formal “thou” from the informal “you” when addressing a second person. We have now rejected many things that we would permit, such as extraordinarily long sentences, as confusing. To complicate this, English really had no spelling rules until about a couple of centuries ago. To think this has not happed to Latin or Greek — which both mutate in spelling to fit grammar rules — may be a form of ignorance. One need only survey the variety of dialects within each to see that they, too, evolve.

Finally: each reader and group of readers are divergent, both in their scholarship, and in their dialect. One need only live in my native California to note that listeners need a great deal of flexibility when communicating to others. It is best, when selecting a translation of any scripture, to assess the quality of the translators. What is their experience with languages that may, sometimes, no longer be in use? When these translators are struggling with what word to choose, how biased are they in their selections? Which leads us to my final objection to the so called, “Authorized Version.”

Bias in the Translators:

This author (your host) has approached the task of translating the Hebrew testament from the Masoretic Texts available to him. I have used an inexpensive Hebrew-English dictionary, a “501 Hebrew Verbs,” and a very limited experience with the language. As honorable as my efforts have been, I am sure my choices are sometimes inaccurate. There are nuances of grammar that are beyond me at this time, and beyond the scope of my resources. I did gain an appreciation of the efforts of professional translators from this effort. Often we can best translate a Hebrew word between two words. Shalom [Heb שלם] is often rendered as “peace.” It could just as easily be rendered as “complete, perfect,” or some place between the two. Other words, such as יהוה are impossible to render in English, mostly because of differences in grammar.

Sometimes events forced the translators of the Hebrew and Greek testaments with the daunting task of choosing between two words that in English might be nothing more different from the flavor of the thought they convey. In Genesis 2.17 the English tells Adam he will “die” if he eats the fruit. We could also have rendered the Hebrew word “cease to live” with better results. We have often encountered souls who live as if they are already dead. Translator biases and errors are numerous in the Authorized Version, and often transmitted into new translations. Nephesh [נפש] in Hebrew is spirit, breath, or soul. Translators inconsistently rendered this word as “soul” for humans and “breath” or “spirit” for animals. Also, it would be more accurate to see the “Witch of Endor” as a necromancer. Finally, the Luminaries and stars of Genesis 1.14 -19 would be as much for enlightenment as they are for light.

Some of these biases have had deadly results. The Mitzvah against allowing a Witch to live (Ex 22.18) has been justification for so much murder. We could better render the Hebrew as female sorcerer (and begs the question, does a male sorcerer get to live, then?). Another meaning of Sorcerer is “Drug User” or “Poisoner.” Yet, the sorcerer is the remnant of the old Shaman, who often used potions of hallucinatory substances to assist their work. So, even calling them “Drug User” or “Poisoner” may be a prejudicial rendering. It is rumored that his broken heart motivated King James when some Witch had stolen the heart of his male lover. (It is only a roomer.)

Conclusions:

In the end the reader must make the choice of appealing to some scripture as a premise for an opinion. Few Pagans would appeal to the Bible because of the abuse that it represents. If we make the choice, however, then the logician must choose to become very familiar with either the original languages and texts, or with the trust worthiness of the translators. I would even go as far as to say this would be an obligation, whether appealing to the Tarot, I Ching, Tobit, or Isaiah. To do any less would weaken the logician’s argument, especially where the translation is questionable.

Having said this, I would posit that most who appeal to the Authorized Version do so either from ignorance, habit, or laziness. In either case, careful and patient “cultivation” on our part is the better part of honor. In the end, the Pagan is morally answerable to the dictates of his or her consciousness. We must afford the Christian the same standard, even if we disagree with the premises the Christian is appealing to. I believe that familiarity on our part with these premises will help keep the argument civil and honorable; or give the Christian cause for shame when she or he fails to act with equal honor.

Wiccan Fundamentalism is not better than
Satanic Fundamentalism is not better than
Christian fundamentalism is not better than
Islamic Fundamentalism is not better than
Buddhist Fundamentalism is not better than
ZarathUshtri Fundamentalism is not better than …

Thomas Potter, Warlock; ReiKi;
First Church of Satan; DarkSide Coven; Universal Life Church.