There is a new, and uncommonly tone-deaf "inclusive" translation of the Bible, that does once again great harm to God's word and even greater harm to the English language. Those who cannot hear its dissonances (how in the world can you take the concrete "Kingdom" and turn it into "reign" and think that you have not done violence to the meaning?) are merely too enamored of their own agendas to recognize the damage they do to scripture and to language. Of them John Donne wrote the first four lines of this:
from "UPON THE TRANSLATION OF THE PSALMS BY SIR PHILIP SIDNEY, AND THE COUNTESS OF PEMBROKE, HIS SISTER." John Donne
ETERNAL God—for whom who ever dare
Seek new expressions, do the circle square,
And thrust into straight corners of poor wit
Thee, who art cornerless and infinite—
I would but bless Thy name, not name Thee now
—And Thy gifts are as infinite as Thou—
Fix we our praises therefore on this one,
That, as thy blessed Spirit fell upon
These Psalms' first author in a cloven tongue
—For 'twas a double power by which he sung
The highest matter in the noblest form—
So thou hast cleft that Spirit, to perform
That work again, and shed it here, upon
Two, by their bloods, and by Thy Spirit one ;
A brother and a sister, made by Thee
The organ, where Thou art the harmony.
Modern translations seek to accommodate modern sensibilities, to update, renovate, and refresh what is ever new. There is a word for this--presumption.
Inclusivity need not be hideous, nor need it be so obsequious as to find fault in the word Kingdom. The Kingdom of Great Britain is ruled by a Queen--the word in itself has no gender, but the foolish rive it and find fault. (Rather like women and wymmin--or however it is "neutered.") It is also foolish to take the concrete "kingdom" and turn it into the nebulous "reign." A plot of land becomes a piece of time. This is not a matter of inclusivity--rather it is a paean to obfuscation and a grand example of what Orwell inveighed against in Politics and the English Language. This should be required reading for all who presume to improve upon past translations--they should be certain that what they do is actually an improvement, not merely an agenda. Inclusivity is NOT the issue, where the original lacks any sex or gender referent, so the modern can convey; however, it should do so gracefully, and not in a way that rends the fabric of language and meaning. Too few seem to understand the violence they do.
Greetings, Steven!
I agree with you that many translations are hard on the ear. However the example you give is a tricky one, at least in Hebrew (you don't mention whether this is a NT or an OT situation).
In Hebrew, the same word malkhot means BOTH kingdom AND reign. Its definitions also include royalty, royal power, dominion and kingship.
At least 2 other words, both from the same m-l-kh root mean kingdom, dominion, reign (mam'lakhah and mam'lakhut).
Certain ones are used more than others with certain nations, some have greater use in one sense than another.
Hebrew has a very small vocabulary, and much meaning is determined by context.
So if this is an OT example, and the word has been translated "kingdom" all these years, then we have perhaps been missing the "reign" nuances in the traditional English translations.
It is difficult to see beloved and inspiring words changed -- especially when they're changed for the worse! -- but I find that even bad translations can shed a bit of light on what the original text was trying to convey.
If I get my homework done, I may write something about this root later -- it would be interesting to see how and when each word is used.
:)
Dear Talmida,
The examples I have seen referred to "The Kingdom of God," which is usually a NT locution, though I could not say that it is not present in the OT. But thank you for the insight. I am not disinclined to modernizing, I'd like to reiterate that point. I am disinclined to modernizations that lead to painful circumlocutions in pursuit of an inclusiveness that is merely ambiguous. But I do appreciate your insights and I love your site. Thank you.
shalom,
Steven
Dear Steven,
That bit of Donne was a drink of living water!
Would you say that the mania for inclusive language is part of the modern eclipse of literary taste and style? And who would you tag as today's Cranmer or Coverdale? That is, is there anyone writing today who could produce a worthy English Bible?
Thanks -
Bill
Peace, Steven.
I appreciate your effort in this discussion, however:
1. Is the Kingdom/Reign of God more a place or a time? It seems to me the notion of territory, even scattered sanctuaries like churches, is a hefty stretch for whatever we call this reality.
2. If "kingdom," for whatever reason becomes a negative term, in the way that otherwise good words like "inclusion" or "feminism" or even "magisterium" have become, we're not talking about words as much as politics. People have, in their way, staked out their little kingdoms and reigns, and instead of banners or ensigns or such, the words we use denote who we are and where we stand.
To me, the appreciation for good language provides a potentially passionless assessment of quality, beauty, and understanding. Or it can be used as a bludgeon upon others, in the sense that a second wrong somehow adds up right.
My take is that we're piling sins against unity on top of the sins of sexism. I'd prefer to avoid that sundae, if I could.
Peace, Steven.
I appreciate your effort in this discussion, however:
1. Is the Kingdom/Reign of God more a place or a time? It seems to me the notion of territory, even scattered sanctuaries like churches, is a hefty stretch for whatever we call this reality.
2. If "kingdom," for whatever reason becomes a negative term, in the way that otherwise good words like "inclusion" or "feminism" or even "magisterium" have become, we're not talking about words as much as politics. People have, in their way, staked out their little kingdoms and reigns, and instead of banners or ensigns or such, the words we use denote who we are and where we stand.
To me, the appreciation for good language provides a potentially passionless assessment of quality, beauty, and understanding. Or it can be used as a bludgeon upon others, in the sense that a second wrong somehow adds up right.
My take is that we're piling sins against unity on top of the sins of sexism. I'd prefer to avoid that sundae, if I could.
Todd,
In this one respect we agree:
if the word is kingdom, then it is kingdom referring to a place or a plot of land;
if it is reign it refers to a period of time;
the two are not interchangeable in meaning and to do so violates the spirit of the text. It doesn't matter how well-motivated we are when we choose to do it. We may not arbitrarily substitute our preferences for what God's word says.
I suppose we also not longer have wives being submissive to your husbands because that would be offensive, even though if you know what is being said it is not.
I'll have to get the translation and see if we now have, "Wives be certain to discuss all things and come to some sort of accord regarding ordering and actions with your husband."
Sorry Todd, catering to the whims of the modern age is not one of the functions of the liturgy nor of reading the Bible. What you wrote seems to imply that is the most important consideration. We will not agree.
Peace, Steven,
It has yet to be demonstrated that the natural evolution of language is always about catering to present-day whims. Many words have changed meanings in a relatively brief period of time, and attempting to latch onto the past is a fruitless exercise, especially when the momentum of popular usage is against you.
If Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God but not as a place, then actually the right word might indeed be "reign," and the feminists would have been right all along.
I know I don't need to remind you that God's Word was never in English, or even Latin. The best we can do with the Lord's words is to consider them in Greek as handed down, and if we're seeking the truest vernacular meaning for the non-scholarly listener, those words will well change over time. The words, mind you, not the meaning.
And if for some English speakers, "kingdom" represents something negative in either a political or sexist way, and if the listeners cannot bend their perception around that, then indeed it is more accurate, not to mention more pastoral to bend ourselves and find a word that better befits the particular translated item.
The most important thing is not which community gets which words or is denied certain words, but that the discussion proceed with charity. A lot to ask, but something worthy of Christians, I believe.
Dear Todd,
I respect your irenic tendencies, but I deplore the argument that everything must be modified to suit every sensibility. In so doing you suit no sensibilities.
shalom
Steven
However, our disagreement aside, I must in the interest of full disclosure reveal that I have to withdraw my object to the particular instance if not to the principle. While the Greek word may mean both reign and kingdom, the preferred usage according the dictionary I consulted is reign.
shalom,
Steven