This is a discussion of a monograph by J.P. Thackaway which I encountered. I greatly respect Mr. Thackaway and have listened to his sermons online. I wanted to discuss some points in this paper because they appear in many other places. (It's easier to interact with his paper, for example, than audio sermons.)
Mr. Thackaway attempts to establish the readability of the Authorized Version (AV, or in America the King James Version), and he is not alone in this, by using the Flesch Reading Ease Score. (FRES) "It measures the average sentence length in words and the average word length in syllables." I see the FRES used very often in discussions of the AV, probably because it does very well in this analysis.
First, the FRES does not analyze what makes the AV difficult for modern readers. The readability problems are not in sentence length (when the NIV makes several huge sentences in the original into a shorter sequence, that's seen as taking license with the text) or the length of words. Readability problems include obsolete grammar (parts of speech); obsolete syntax (the order of words); obsolete and rare words; and word which, although are still used in English, have changed their meaning. Unfortunately, Thackaway seems to have missed this point: "In the light of these results, one wonders what the real difficulty with the AV is. Much is made of its archaic language...pronouns...verb endingsbut might that not be very much beside the point? These have not affected its readability rating in our test." But the factors listed here are not measured by the FRES.
Second, and following from this, a computer statistical analysis is not a modern English reader, and I personally find this is the blind spot in the argument that the AV is readable. I don't recall ever seeing anyone give the AV to a modern English reader, with a college education, who is unfamiliar with the AV, and asking that reader to create a summary of a book like Galatians or Ephesians. Why is this sort of practical experiment not undertaken? All the statistics in the world don't really matter compared to whether an actual reader reading the text can understand it or not. (I would like to say that part of this is the fault of the AV editions available. I have never seen an edition that explains the pronouns, verb endings, word order, etc. which would go a long way in helping the reader. Why do no modern editions of the AV include this information?) Why not get actual readers involved? Particularly people who were not brought up with the AV and who do not already know the language.
"The AV uses significantly fewer English words..." - absolutely true, because the English language used a fluid word order with inflected endings in the early modern period of the English Bible. (And the AV's English was antique even in its 1611 time. Compare the AV to other writing from that period.) Using an earlier English is what allows the AV to translate more precisely, because English used to be much closer to the original languages than it is now. The number of words balloons when the "helping" words that preserve the rigid word order of modern English are added. (I'd like to see this analysis done with those words filtered.) English is simply more verbose now.
Perhaps: "the alleged difficulty with the AV could simply be our inevitable difficulty with divine truth" - there is truth to this. In fact, a whole lot of people have great difficulty with the gospel and correct theology even with modern Bibles which spell it out plainly. Also, many deviant theological positions use the AV and understand it very well, but twist and distort the truth. (The Word of Faith people are like this.) At the same time, I know I actively want to understand the truths of the Reformation, and I have never been granted any divine insight into the AV text. It's as opaque to me now as it was several years ago.