Readability Tests: The Facts

What to make of the shocking (shocking to most people who have actually compared the KJV to any of the current translations, that is) KJVO claims that the KJV is more readable? Or perhaps "claims" is too weak a word, given the "23 pages of irrefutable evidence proving the King James Bible is far easier to understand and read," that literacy scholar, reading specialist, language researcher misguided crusader, Gail Riplinger, provides in her infamous New Age Bible Versions.

In her own, pseudo-grammatical, words, the KJV is scientifically or statistically more readable, due to the following:

• less [sic] syllables per word
• less [sic] letters per word
• less [sic] words per sentence

Here we see the gaping hole in the logic: Readability tests do a lot of counting. Fewer words, shorter syllables, easier to read -- or so the argument goes. Therefore, 1) this phrase 2) would be considered more readable than this phrase. There is some obvious merit to this on the surface, and even some support for it when analysis of actual texts is performed -- analysis that necessarily compares the results of the readability formulae with other criteria. Criteria like ... whether people actually find the texts more or less difficult to read. However, consider the following two sentences:

1. I want you to bring me all of the books that are over there.
   
2. Fetch the sum of yon tomes.

The first sentence has a calculated readability lower than the second -- because it contains more words -- though most people would say that it is easier to read. Another pair:

1. Complicated decisions require patience and consideration.
2. Slow think and wait to choose the right but not smooth path.
   

At read-able.com (comparing scores from several readability tests), the first sentence receives a grade level of "about 20," versus the 4th-grade level of the second sentence! A final example:

1. Don't forget to write! (Eight- or nine-year-old level)
   
2. Hoy tay gu po ni! (Supposedly appropriate reading for four- or five-year-old children)
   

Reading, in these tests, is defined in terms of factors such as time needed to utter the words and sentences, and number of different vocabulary words used, regardless of whether the reader knows the vocabulary or can make sense of the grammar. These are not the only factors, but these are what help cherry-picked sections of the KJV achieve ridiculously low grade-level recommendations. By contrast, and in addition to factors such as ease of pronunciation or time needed to finish moving your eyes over all the letters of the text, a realistic decision of readability should include analysis of comprehension, including whether the vocabulary is actually known to the reader.

Let's consider some examples from different translations, and compare the readability score with how readable the King James actually is:

1. "He shutteth his eyes to devise froward things: moving his lips he bringeth evil to pass" (Proverbs 16:30, KJV). "He whose eyes are shut is a man of twisted purposes, and he who keeps his lips shut tight makes evil come about" (Proverbs 16:30, Bible in Basic English, supposedly one grade level higher than the KJV -- though easier for actual English-speakers to understand).
2. "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead" (Romans 7:8, KJV). "But sin used this command to arouse all kinds of covetous desires within me! If there were no law, sin would not have that power" (Romans 7:8, New Living Translation, two to three grade levels easier than the KJV). 
3. "Then went Samson to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto her" (Judges 16:1, KJV, fourth grade). "One day Samson went to Gaza, where he saw a prostitute. He went in to spend the night with her" (Judges 16:1, NIV, also grade four, although it follows normal a/an/the grammar rules and lacks the Yoda sentence patterns that are so common in the KJV).
   
4. Jude (King James, grade 12). Jude (NIV, grade 11).
   

There may be shorter sentences in the KJV, but that doesn't necessarily make it easier to read. Longer sentences might actually serve to make the translation of the grammar more clear. There may be fewer unique words overall in the KJV, but that doesn't help if a relatively high percentage of them are archaic. Readability is not merely a matter of "words and syllables." 

Is the King James version historically significant? Of course. Does it contain examples of beautiful and poetic language? Of course. Is it really more readable, more understandable, for children or for anyone? Perhaps, but ask an elementary school teacher or someone else who teaches reading. 

(The formulae for the Flesch-Kincaid readability tests, for example, are available here. Test your own text or website samples here.)