>The Qumran (Dead Sea) version of the psalm has the nun verse, which confirmed a couple of isolated (but much later) versions that differed from the Masoretic text. The NRSV is one of the first modern translations to restore the verse, which ironically enough, is about how the “Lord is faithful in all his words.” I’ll say!

There is good reason to believe that the Qumran’s nun verse version is an interpolation, an attempt to fill an already existing gap.

Namely, because it is a restatement of the tsade verse, צַדִּיק יְהוָה, בְּכָל-דְּרָכָיו; וְחָסִיד, בְּכָל-מַעֲשָׂיו

In the case of the DSS, the nun verse reads

נֶאֶמָן יְהוָה, בְּכָל-דְּרָכָיו; וְחָסִיד, בְּכָל-מַעֲשָׂיו

It unlikely that the original text had the same verse repeated twice, with only one word differnt. That would be highly anamolous in this poem.

That’s not to say the KJV isn’t lovely. It’s got some of the most gorgeous English around

One thing that type of English does do is it obscures the differences in the text, both in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the voices of the authors.

One of the dramatic things about the Book of Mormon, is that in spite of Mormon as an editor and Joseph Smith as a scribe, over and over invididual styles and voices stick out. But I think they would stick out more if they were not obscured by the translator’s voice.

On the other hand, many Bible translations flatten the voice of the different prophets in the Bible even more.

It does make me think that the fate of the KJV place in the LDS cannon may be tied to the general demographics of the LDS faith.

As non-English speaking Mormons become not just a larger percentage of the total Church population, but a larger percentage of its intellectuals, local and church-wide leaders, faithful parents, and the Church’s prophets, there will be less and less reliance on the KJV. Indeed, the continued use of the KJV is likely to become increasingly problematic as an increasingly larger percentage of faithful and influential Mormons cease to frame their vision of LDS doctrine in KJV prose.

For now, KJV prose is deeply tied up with how I, and many practicing Mormons, conceptualize God’s word. To me, the English of the modern translations, while doctrinally and intellectually very interesting, seems very sterile and cold.

The KJV, by contrast holds a richness of language and poetry that endears it to me very much. I would never think of replacing it as my primary source of Bible study. I’m sure many of “the brethren” probably feel similarly.

But as the Church moves away from its “Utah core” this attachment will likely dwindle to the point where LDS leaders have no problem switching to a more standardized church-wide rendition of the Bible.

This is good and bad. There is a richness of tradition in Utah, with its pioneer heritage, that isn’t found in many modern communities anymore. It frustrates as often as it endears. But I’ll be the first to mourn any diminishment in the cultural uniqueness of our faith, although I recognize that more standardization of the religion is going to be necessary to take this worldwide.

Losing the KJV (and I think we, inevitably, will turn from it eventually), like losing Utah culture, will be a loss for us all. But it will also present all the opportunities as diverse world cultures and communities leave their own mark on our Church.

Of course, our very recent Spanish edition of the Book of Mormon also indulges–for reasons that are entirely beyond me–in extensive archaisms. Imagine the resulting joyful social situations, when two gringos have to sit there and explain to a native Spanish-speaking family what a Spanish scriptural text actually means!

My feeling is that we’ve been using the KJV so long, that it’s taken on a theological life of its own which may make it difficult to disentangle ourselves from it.

Seth, I think you’re right.

I have used the NRSV on occassion in teaching RS, to help clarify.

It’s interesting to note though that many other countries where English is not the first language don’t use the KJV – they use other translations!

[tragic sigh]

But I’ve been thinking. What if the very act of Joseph Smith, and all his successors, adopting the KJV as a reference point for their own teachings has added an independent quality of authoritativeness to the KJV, regardless of whether it is an accurate translation?

To break it down:

1. KJV is inaccurate in translation. Maybe even doctrinally mistaken in a couple places.

2. Joseph Smith, et al, are inspired prophets.

3. They all utilize the KJV in their own teachings. Maybe ever, gasp, the incorrectly translated portions.

Since they are prophesying, does that now make the linguistically incorrect scripture now suddenly “inspired” sheerly by prophetic endorsement of that scripture.

Or even, if we’ve got a KJV scripture that is considered doctrinally incompatible with the correctly translated scripture, is that verse now doctrinally correct via prophetic fiat?

My feeling is that we’ve been using the KJV so long, that it’s taken on a theological life of its own which may make it difficult to disentangle ourselves from it.

Thoughts?

That’s not to say the KJV isn’t lovely. It’s got some of the most gorgeous English around

Which is why I still love it.

But I’ve been reading my NET bible and really enjoying it.

If the Anchor Bible books were cheaper, I’d own more than I do, but they make a nice backstop.

One of the big issues is using quotes and excerpts and getting permissions. You can use the KJV any time, any place, and no one has to give you an approval. Quote a different bible and you’ve got permission issues.

That was one issue the NET bible was aimed at solving, btw. It is also a major barrier to the adoption of a different bible than the KJV for public discourse and a reason why the KJV survives as a heavily cited source even by people who are not otherwise using it.

With reference to the discussion of Bible translations, I’d point out that the texts in question both specifically characterize our canonical texts. So there may be good reason to apply them as a standard in evaluating Bible versions, as well.

With reference to the moral and ethical question about divergent revelatory messages, well, as Bill Clinton would say, I feel your pain. All I have to offer on that point is that I’ve never found a way to feel right about acting on anything other than the light I’ve been given. (While, of course, hoping that more light will eventually be forthcoming.)

The centripetal and the centrifugal both exert pressure on the shape of Mormonism, that much is sure.