Why no KJV with Coverdale Psalms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Enceladus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Enceladus

Guest
Hello All,

I had a question for any High Church Anglicans that might be about, or anyone really who might know the answer to this. I’ve recently been getting into the Anglican Ordinariates within the Catholic Church. I picked up the St. Gregory Prayerbook and have loved praying with the selection of psalms they have from the Coverdale Psalter.

As I’ve dug deeper into the Anglican Tradition I’ve learned that both the KJV and the Coverdale Psalter seem to be critical to the Anglican Patrimony. In fact it seems that the while the KJV was used extensively in liturgy, the KJV psalms don’t ever seem to have displaced the older Coverdale Psalter, at least in liturgy. Given this, I’m wondering why there don’t appear to be any KJV bibles that have the Coverdale Psalter instead of the KJV psalms? I mean, I have seen a few KJV editions that include the Book of Common Prayer in an appendix at the back of the volume, but even these print both the KJV Psalms within the Biblical Section, and the then the Coverdale Psalter in the BCP section, and this despite the fact that apparently in the BCP section, whenever Bible passages are to be read, the BCP section refers back to the biblical section, except for the Psalms, why?

Within the Catholic Church, for example, we have the Catholic Truth Society’s edition of the Jerusalem Bible that replaces the Jerusalem Bible Psalms with the Grail Psalter because outside of the USA in most english speaking areas they use the Jerusalem Bible and the Grail Psalms in liturgy. I’m just wondering why there isn’t an equivalent edition in the Anglican Tradition. Is there a historical or theological reason that this isn’t done? Really curious!
 
I can think of a few possibilities:
  1. In the UK, the copyright to both the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer is vested in the Crown. It is likely that the Crown (or its patentee, Cambridge University Press) does not permit the Coverdale Psalms to appear as part of the KJV Bible. Indeed, the KJV Bible is called the Authorized Version. Presumably if part of it were to be substituted with an alternate translation, it would no longer be authorized.
  2. Lack of necessity: the only occasions on which the Coverdale Psalms are used liturgically are precisely the occasions on which the Book of Common Prayer would be used. Since the Coverdale Psalms appear in the Book of Common Prayer, there is no need to have them printed in the Bible.
  3. Literary and historical coherence and integrity: the Coverdale Psalms are not part of the KJV. The KJV has its own translation of the Psalms, which should be preserved as part of the KJV. The KJV is one of the most important works of literature in the English language. It would be strange to remove part of it and replace it with another translation.
 
A simple answer is that the BCP was created some 50 years before the KJV translation was made. The BCP contained the Coverdale Psalms; later came the KJV, a complete Bible translation.

The king’s instructions were that the translators should rely on the Bishops’ Bible, referring to other versions, such as Tyndale’s or Wycliffe’s or Coverdale’s, only where necessary.
 
It’s interesting (to me, anyway) that the KJV retained a form of English that was already out of date. The old verbal forms -est and -eth and the pronominal/denominal forms thou, thee, thy, thine had largely gone from everyday English by 1611, but they were retained as a kind of high sacred language in the KJV.

This high form remained of course as the language for the poetic until the C19th, and for the sacred it is still being used today.
 
Last edited:
I second this answer. It’s the simplest and most straightforward.

If you put out a KJV with Coverdale psalms, you would be mixing two translations.
 
Hi, I’m not sure whether you’re actually seeing these replies, as you don’t seem to have been back, but I would add:

If the copyright issue is a factor, which I suspect it is, you have to consider that this would have implications beyond the formal legal jurisdiction of British law. For one thing, there would be little point publishing an Anglican Bible that could not be sold in the UK. For another thing, Anglican provinces throughout the world are likely still to have some kind of deference toward the Church of England and the Crown. I imagine that if TEC threatened to butcher the King James Bible, representations would be made behind the scenes from Lambeth Palace, if not Buckingham Palace, to the effect that they would really rather that the Bible and Prayer Book were left alone.

However, this is unlikely to be an issue because there really is no need for a KJV with Coverdale Psalms. Anglicans do not really need a customized liturgical Bible. Also, the comparison with the Jerusalem Bible/Grail Psalter only goes so far. The KJV is genuinely one of the most important books ever published. It’s literary and historical impact are immense. It’s not to be vandalized lightly.

Oh, another point that occurs to me: non-Anglican Protestants likely would not use a KJV with Coverdale Psalms, as many consider the KJV to be the best English translation, and I’m not just talking about the KJV-Only types. Those who have no cultural connection with the Coverdale Psalter would be baffled to find the wrong Psalms in their Bible.
 
Hey all,

Just wanted to respond to do_justly_love_mercy and confirm that I have been reading these replies. I’m grateful for all the thoughtful responses.

Honestly the point that seemed the most salient to me was the fact that non-Anglican Protestants would likely be scandalized by a KJV bible that had a different psalter. Based on the reactions I’ve seen to things like NKJV, the Third Millennium Bible, and David Norton’s refresh of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (the latter two being very light revisions of the classic KJV text, that I own and enjoy) that seems like a very likely scenario.

Nonetheless, I would personally find an edition of the KJV with the Coverdale psalter to be an attractive proposition, but as I am not a member of this tradition, I will differ to those within it who are in a position to know better.

Thanks again all!
 
I’m a member of that tradition. I wouldn’t mind a KJV with both translations of the psalter, parallel columns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top