Another post against using faux-archaic language

Before I get into this discussion, I want to clarify that I am not advocating for using a less formal register of English. While archaism has been popular for at least the last 500 years as a method of lending a faux formality to texts in the English language, it is by no means necessary when putting a text into a formal register. cf Sir Thomas More ripping on Tyndale for trying to use the archaic distinction between yes/yea and no/nay and getting it wrong - and Sir Thomas More himself got it wrong! The NRSV is a fully modern biblical translation and I do not think anybody would accuse it of being too informal for any setting (criticism of it is based on certain decisions in the translation, not the register). The Message, however, is a fully modern translation that is far too colloquial for liturgical use. The degree of formality of a text is not related to its level of archaism. Using "you" instead of "thou" does not make a text informal.

Main point: reading aloud in an intelligible manner, even for very intelligent and very literate native speakers of English, can be a challenge. Hearing and processing a read text is also tricky, but nowhere near as hard. However, an archaic translation does not make this any easier. An archaic, and especially a faux-archaic text, is going to be harder for even a literate native speaker to read. Here is a selection from the Coverdale Psalter:

The trees of the LORD also are full of sap; * even the cedars of Lebanon which he hath planted;
Wherein the birds make their nests; * and the firtrees are a dwelling for the stork.
The high hills are a refuge for the wild goats; * and so are the stony rocks for the conies.
He appointed the moon for certain seasons, * and the sun knoweth his going down.
Thou makest darkness that it may be night; * wherein all the beasts of the forest do move.
The lions, roaring after their prey, * do seek their meat from God.

Conies are rabbits, by the way (cf Samwise wanting to cook a "brace of coneys"). This is a truly archaic translation from the 16th century. There are a couple things that may cause a reader to stumble here: odd verb endings, a few uncommon words, some odd syntax. Here is a selection from a faux-archaic translation, I believe it is the Jordanville translation:

The trees of the plain shall be satisfied, the cedars of Lebanon, which Thou hast planted. There will the sparrows make their nests; the house of the heron is chief among them. The high mountains are a refuge for the harts, and so is the rock for the hares. He hath made the moon for seasons; the sun knoweth his going down. Thou appointedst the darkness, and there was the night, wherein all the beasts of the forest will go abroad. Young lions roaring after their prey, and seeking their food from God. The sun ariseth, and they are gathered together, and they lay them down in their dens.

Paying no attention to differences in the text, there are many more things to "snag" on: more unfamiliar verb endings, a few positively clunky words ("appointedst"), and awkward syntax. If this text is placed in front of a reader, I would give good odds that the reader will stumble. Here is a thoroughly modern Orthodox translation from Archimandrite Ephrem:

The trees of the plain will be satisfied, the cedars of Lebanon that you planted. There the sparrows will build their nests; the heron’s dwelling is at their head. The high mountains are for the deer; rocks a refuge for hares. He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knew the hour of its setting. You appointed darkness, and it was night, in which all the beasts of the forest will prowl; young lions roaring to plunder and to seek their food from God. The sun rose and they were gathered together and they will lie down in their dens.

I would not rate this as completely free of any awkwardness, but I do not see anything a reader would trip on in the first pass. A+. His translations are very good, generally.

Certainly, I have by no means proven that a reader would stumble on these things, but I have observed time and time again literate and intelligent native speakers stumbling when reading aloud faux archaic texts just like this. They even stumble a little on "normal" texts, but nowhere near as much. If native speakers are stumbling, the people hearing are probably having comprehension difficulties, too.

Here is the real problem: every parish I have been in has had a substantial population of non-native speakers. Reading aloud is a difficult task, but it is perhaps manageable with a reasonable text. Using a faux archaic text makes it that much more difficult. Choosing a faux archaic text means that, when given a choice to use a wholly adequate text that more of the congregation could read aloud and which more of the congregation will understand more of when read aloud, you instead chose an obscure text. This is bad.