Did Winston Churchill say this?
“Must everything in our age be predigested? Does the Bible have to be reduced to pablum? I refuse to believe that modern man, who split the atom and is exploring space, is unable to cope with the grandeur and glory of the King James Version.”
Who says he said it?
Here are a couple of examples.
- Interesting Bible Stuff For Bible Believers, Another Helpful Handbook, 1997, James L. Melton (published by Bible Baptist Church, Sharon, Tennessee)
- Letter #21, assorted quotes assembled and/or posted by Samuel C. Gipp (Al Hughes in Al’s Quotes and Quips gives Is Our English Bible Inspired by Samuel Gipp as his source)
Probably primarily, though, this is a quick quote that gets passed around on Facebook and Twitter.
Who said it?
However, Churchill did not make that statement. I contacted both the International Churchill Society and the Churchill Archive Centre. Representatives from both bodies found no source for such a quote by Winston Churchill. Katharine Thomson, an Archivist at the Churchill Archive Centre, replied that “it doesn’t come up in any of our quote books. Frankly, it looks unlikely: ‘predigested’ and ‘pablum’ really aren’t words you’d expect Churchill to use, though he certainly quoted from the Bible a great deal.” So, I began to search for an answer.
Inez Robb wrote it. Robb was an author and syndicated newspaper columnist. The statement appeared in her column in October of 1962 (mostly on the 12th). It was variously titled, according to the newspaper in which it appeared, for example, “Let’s Keep King James: Modernistic Pablum in New Bible Output” (San Angelo Standard-Times), “See the Bible—Can You Read It” (Detroit Free Press), “There’s a Continuous Itch to Modern the Holy Book” (Albuquerque Tribune), “They’re Diluting the Bible” (Chicago Daily News), “Those Bible Translations” (Los Angeles Evening Citizen-News), What Goes On Here?” (Rutland Daily Herald), “Why Tamper with the Bible” (Fort Myers News-Press), etc.
Among other things, Robb questioned the modern “comprehension” problem, and mentioned Winston Churchill’s connection to the King James Bible.
“Why, in the 20th century, has it suddenly become so difficult even for adults to read the old versions of the Bible, on which their far less educated forebears cut their religious and intellectual teeth? Many a great writer and orator, including Winston Churchill, has owed the elegance of his style and the grace of language to the King James Version. It has been, in the past, a university for countless men.”
In summarizing her thoughts, Inez Robb concludes: “Must everything in our age be predigested? Does the Bible have to be reduced to pablum? I refuse to believe that modern man, who split the atom and is exploring space, is unable to cope with the grandeur and the glory of the King James Version.”
Summary
It so happens that in 1962, author and syndicated columnist Inez Robb wrote a column about the 20th century “continuous itch” to retranslate the Bible (see below). In the column, she made a reference to Winston Churchill. Later she summarized her own thoughts, writing what has come to be associated with Churchill, “Must everything in our age be predigested? Does the Bible have to be reduced to pablum? I refuse to believe that modern man, who split the atom and is exploring space, is unable to cope with the grandeur and glory of the King James Version.” It can be seen that this column was later referred to, correctly, by different writers (see example below from The Walterboro Press and Standard), mentioning Churchill but correctly crediting the statement itself to the column author. Apparently, at some point someone misread, mistook what Robb said for something Churchill said. Hopefully and likely this came about inadvertently and not deliberately or maliciously. (Obviously, the name Winston Churchill is important and instantly recognizable to many. The name Inez Robb, not so much.)
I like the quote and agree with it. However, we should credit it to its true source, and not to Winston Churchill. It is important that those who profess to hold the truth not spread untruths. I hope this post might help “bust” this “Christian urban myth” before it gets enduringly ensconced on the World Wide Web.
“Let Bible’s Beauty Be Unchanged,” Birmingham Post-Herald (Birmingham, AL), Friday, October 12, 1962, page 14
“Those Different Bible Versions; Is King James Better?” The Press and Standard (Walterboro, SC), Thursday, November 4, 1975, page 1C
No comments:
Post a Comment