Verily, Forsooth, and Fa-la-la-la-la, yo!

I grew up hearing and reading the King James Version of the Bible, and even though the language was sometimes archaic and difficult to understand, its sentences were beautifully constructed. Poetic and flowing. Rhythmic and pleasing.

The KJV was first published in 1611, so in the late 20th century it might have been time to consider whether that translation was still meaningful to worshippers.

Many Bible translations were already in existence, but for us rural folk, the KJV seemed good enough. No one knows the exact number of English Bible translations in use today.

Some estimate as many as 900, but this number also includes paraphrased editions and not just translations. In the 1970s, The Living Bible, a paraphrased version, made its way into our Sunday School and youth group in Hospers.

The only person I recall having an issue with any change from the KJV was my grandfather who insisted that said translation was God’s Word and nothing else would do. As if God was American and white and spoke English.

All these Bible translations aim to get at a more accurate interpretation of the original texts, and paraphrases are meant to make Scripture more understandable, but we don’t touch Shakespeare.

Well, OK, it’s not the same, is it? Shakespeare can be hard to understand, but it was written in English — Early Modern English — to be exact, so it’s not like we need to translate it from a completely foreign source.

Centuries later, the plays still have the power to speak to us today, but that doesn’t mean people haven’t tried to breathe new life into them. Shakespeare’s works have been reimagined using modern settings and dress.

Sometimes his plays serve as the skeleton for modern interpretations, as when Karen McCullah Lutz and Kirsten Smith wrote the script for “Ten Things I Hate About You” in the 1990s, which is based on “The Taming of the Shrew.”

Interesting then that we haven’t seen the need to rewrite the lyrics of Christmas carols, even though some of the language is far removed from our current store of words.

Take “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing.” No one really says, “Hark!” for example, and if someone were to update that, what would they say?

“Hey” or “Yo”?

“Herald” could also be problematic. Those of a certain age will recognize that “herald” is often the name given to a newspaper like the Carroll Times Herald or The Chicago Times-Herald. A herald is another old-timey word that means “messenger.”

If, and I mean IF, one were to update that first line of the lyrics, how might it go?

“Hey, the newsy angels sing”?

While it would make literal sense to someone my age, it’s so pedestrian. It doesn’t “sing.” And besides, younger people might not “cotton to it.”  (See what I did there?)

Well, what about, “Yo, the yapping angels sing”?  

Proving that it’s best to leave this old carol untouched. One can take some context clues and figure out the meaning, even if some of the words seem strange.

After all, these words are not the maddening “skibidi” and “6-7” that grade schoolers and teens throw about like they have any meaning.

I got news for ya, kids. Somebody made up words long before you thunk up stuff for the Urban Dictionary. In “Jabberwocky” Lewis Carroll gave us slithy toves that gyred and gimbled in the wabe.

It was delightful nonsense that was awfully fun to say and yet one could also figure out what was happening in the poem. Read it! You can find it free online.

Rappers like Aceyalone and Jesse Dangerously have used Carroll’s poem in their work, not that I would know who they are.

But wow. Awesome.

For young people, allow me to translate: “I was, like, OMG, gobsmacked and, like, shook.”

I also know “rizz,” “flex,” and “spill the tea,” not that I always use them correctly in a sentence, but I’m trying to keep up. In the spirit of reciprocity, I hope you found time to sing an old carol or two.

And, yo! Have a brillig New Year, if you get my meaning.

Joan Zwagerman hopes your “mome raths outgrabe” all year long.