The Authorised King James’ version of 1611 was rather more retrained and used loftier phrases, often more ‘detached’ and in contrast to the ‘grounded’ vocabulary of the earlier Tyndale.
Of course, all organisations use ‘in’ words and their own language. The government, in recent days, has re-introduced the word ‘furlough’ back into our common parlance, whereas I grew up using that phrase to describe the ‘home-assignment’ time missionaries had every three or four years.
In one of the churches in which I’ve served there was a tradition to announce someone’s death saying something like: Mrs Jones received her home call this week. Most, but not everyone, knew what was being talked about. Indeed, one newer worshipper told me she was confused why the Church Secretary announced the minister’s visits like this – and why we only paid home pastoral calls about six times a year!
‘Saying it as it is’ has never been something the Church is particularly good at. The Authorised Version of the Bible, alongside Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer introduced a type of stately and florid language which seems to have stuck. Of course, it’s often very beautiful yet it can make faith out to be ‘other’ worldly and somewhat detached from this life. It becomes ‘spiritual’ language.
So, three cheers for Tyndale’s salty vocabulary.
I wonder how we speak of God, faith and prayer today? Perhaps many of us would say that poetry rather than prose is the most useful.
Yet it brings a dilemma and a challenge – but not one we should shy away from. In our hymns can we value both Charles Wesley and John Campbell, in our scripture both The King James’ Bible and The Message and in our prayers, both Cranmer’s BCP and Iona’s Wee Worship Book?!
It’s a worthy cause; to keep working at the language, and I’ll be spurred on in the future remembering that, the Lord was with Joseph, and Joseph was a lucky fellow.
No comments:
Post a Comment