“The Kingdom of God Is Within You”

Readers of the King James Version will be familiar with the saying, “the kingdom of God is within you,” a literal rendering of the words ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν spoken by Christ in Luke 17:21. Several modern versions have instead “the kingdom of God is in the midst of you,” for theological reasons.

The new rendering is used only because the translators think it is theologically impossible that Jesus would say that the Kingdom of God is “within” people. But there is no clear attestation for such a meaning as “among” or “in the midst” for the adverb ἐντὸς in any ancient Greek source. It is indisputable that “within” is the ordinary meaning, and the immediate context here also seems to favor this meaning. Here Christ is obviously contrasting the outward appearance (μετὰ παρατηρήσεως “with observation,” v. 20) with the inner spiritual reality of God’s rule. It was understood thus by the translators of all the ancient versions, and by all the Church fathers. Moreover, as S.C. Carpenter explains, “For ‘among’ S. Luke would have said ἐν μέσῳ, which occurs seven times in his Gospel (see especially xxii. 27) and four times in Acts.” (Christianity according to S. Luke [London: S.P.C.K., 1919], p. 103.) See also the more recent discussion in Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1965), pp. 61-3. A thorough review of the linguistic evidence is given in an article published online: Ilaria Ramelli, “Luke 17:21: ‘The Kingdom of God is inside you.’ The Ancient Syriac Versions in Support of the Correct Translation,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 12/2 (Summer 2009), pp. 259-286. The circumstance that in Luke’s narrative these words are addressed to unbelieving Jews does not make any difference, because as Olshausen says, “The expression ἐντὸς ὑμῶν does not make the Pharisees members of the kingdom of God, but only sets before them the possibility of their being received into it, inasmuch as an internal and spiritual manifestation is made its universal criterion.”

After reviewing all the linguistic evidence presented by Ramelli, and weighing the arguments of commentators, I must agree with the translators of the KJV and with Olshausen, whose comments I reproduce below. The “in the midst” rendering does not accurately represent what Luke wrote here; it represents an interpretation of the phrase, which belongs not in the text but in the margin. If Luke had meant to convey this interpretation of the dominical saying, he would not have used the word ἐντὸς.

---

Olshausen on Luke 17:20-21.

Excerpt from Biblical Commentary on the New Testament by Dr. Hermann Olshausen … Translated from the German for Clark’s Foreign and Theological Library. First American Edition. Revised after the Fourth German Edition, by A.C. Kendrick. Vol. 2 (New York: Sheldon & Co., 1860), pp. 88-9.

Ver. 20, 21.—Without particularly explaining the occasion, the Evangelist opens his narrative with a remark that the Pharisees had enquired of Jesus as to the time (πότε, when), of the coming of the kingdom. (Whether it was in the village itself, ver. 12, or in what other place, is not said.) The Saviour first deals with the curious and proud enquirers, and then subjoins (at ver. 22) instructions addressed to the disciples. Hence the brevity of Christ’s remark (as Schleiermacher rightly says, loc. cit.) has here its genuine significancy. For the question “When cometh the kingdom of God?” (πότε ἔρχεται ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ), obviously expresses not merely the superficial views of the Pharisees, but their self-complacent ignorance (xviii. 9). Themselves they regarded as sufficiently, by birth and theocratic position, constituted the legitimate subjects of the expected kingdom. And it therefore merely concerned them to ascertain the opinion of Jesus as to the time of its appearance. In opposition therefore to these materialistic views and hopes of the Pharisees, was to be brought forward the spiritual aspect of the kingdom of God. This our Lord does by annihilating, in the first place, their expectations of a splendid manifestation. All of outward glory which the Pharisees had conceived as combined in the rearing of an earthly Messianic kingdom, is comprehensively expressed by the term παρατήρησις, observation. (The expression is in the New Testament found only here; it denotes literally the act of perceiving, of observing; and then, secondarily, every thing that excites observation. At Exod. xii. 42, Aquila has rendered שמרים by παρατηρήσεις.) In the second place, the Saviour withdraws the kingdom of God wholly from the local and phenomenal world,—οὐδὲ ἐροῦσιν, ἰδοὺ ὧδε, ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ, nor shall they say, lo here, lo there, and transfers it, finally, to the world of spirit (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν, is within you.) The expression ἐντὸς ὑμῶν does not make the Pharisees members of the kingdom of God, but only sets before them the possibility of their being received into it, inasmuch as an internal and spiritual manifestation is made its universal criterion. The explanation of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν by “among you,” which has been adopted not only by [Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob] Paulus, [Ferdinand Florens] Fleck, [Friedrich Wilhelm Bernhard] Bornemann, but also by [Wilhelm Martin Leberecht] De Wette, must be utterly rejected for this reason, that the clause so understood forms no contrast to the antecedent “lo here.” The ἐστι, is, is no farther significant, than as indicating that the kingdom was at that moment existing in some of them. It may seem, however, that this ideal view of the kingdom of God is in contradiction to the following discourse (addressed to the disciples), in which the “day of the Son of Man,” is referred to in such terms as represent it as an outward fact producing outward effects. These effects, it is true, in so far as they wear an aspect of terror, form a counterpart to the “observation” anticipated by the Pharisees, and the coming of the Son of Man is represented as an instantaneous and overwhelming phenomenon, in contrast to the ὧδε, here, and ἐκεῖ, there (ver. 21). Still, however, it remains true that the kingdom is here represented as external, while at ver. 21 it is styled within you. (Still more definitely do Matth. xxiv. and Luke xxi. represent the appearance of the kingdom as an external one.) Yet this twofold conception and portraiture of the manifested kingdom of God (see on Matth. iii. 2), present it under those two aspects which mutually complete each other. The kingdom of God shews itself as purely spiritual in its origin, and also external in its perfection. It appeared in its spiritual form, while Christ was present in his humiliation. And for this reason does the Saviour bring before the Pharisees that aspect of it, in regard to which they were wholly mistaken. In its external manifestation shall the kingdom of God reveal itself, when Christ comes in his glory, and in this form does the Saviour particularly set it forth at Matth. xxiv. and Luke xxi. Here he brings forward the future revelation of the kingdom only in connexion with the fact, that periods of suffering must precede it, and that the appearance of the Son of God himself will bring dismay upon a world entangled in the sensual pursuits of life. By this means would the disciples, on the one hand, be comforted amidst their approaching struggles, and aroused to watchfulness, that they might encounter them in faith; while, on the other side, the Pharisees would be impressed with the conviction that the manifestation of the kingdom did not necessarily carry with it any thing of a joyful nature to them; but, on the contrary, would bring upon them destruction (as happened to those living in the time of Noah and Lot), unless they were enabled to acknowledge and embrace the kingdom of God in its spiritual and internal revelation, as it presented itself in the appearance of the suffering Son of Man.

Internet Resources on the Anglo-Saxon Versions

During the month of October I have been working on some web resources for the study of the (medieval) Anglo-Saxon Versions. I have added two new pages to the “Anglo Saxon” section, and I have collected a few links to other resources on the web:

• General: The Anglo-Saxon Versions. Collection of articles on the Anglo Saxon versions by Michael Marlowe.
• Wessex Gospels:
  • Bright’s editions: The Gospel of Saint Matthew in West-Saxon (1904); The Gospel of Saint Mark in West-Saxon (1905); The Gospel of Saint Luke in Anglo-Saxon (1893); The Gospel of Saint John in West-Saxon (1906); and see also the extracts from other texts included in Bright’s Anglo-Saxon Reader.
  • Foxe: The Gospels of the Fower Euangelistes: translated in the olde Saxons tyme out of Latin in the vulgare toung of the Saxons, newly collected out of auncient monumentes of the sayd Saxons, and now published for testimonie of the same (1571).
  • Thorpe: Ða Halgan Godspel on Englisc: the Anglo-Saxon Version of the Holy Gospels, edited from the Original Manuscripts, by Benjamin Thorpe (London: Rivington, 1842).
  • Bosworth and Waring: Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in Parallel Columns with the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale (1874, also here).
  • The Polyglot Bible. By Mark Davies at Brigham Young University. This resource includes the Gospel of Luke in Anglo-Saxon.
• West Saxon Psalms (Paris Psalter):
  • Thorpe’s edition: Libri Psalmorum Versio Antiqua Latina; cum Paraphrasi Anglo-Saxonica, partim soluta oratione, partim metrice composita (1835, also here).
  • Bright and Ramsay: Liber Psalmorum: The West-Saxon Psalms, being the Prose Portion, or the first fifty, of the so-called Paris Psalter, edited by Bright and Ramsay (1907, also here).
  • Richard Stracke’s online edition: An edition of the Latin and Old English of the first fifty psalms in the Paris Psalter (ms. bibliothèque nationale fonds latin 8824), with introduction, notes, and glossary.
• Vespasian Psalter:
  • Sweet’s transcription, in The Oldest English Texts, edited with Introductions and a Glossary by Henry Sweet (London: Early English Text Society, 1885).
• Cædmon:
  • Thorpe’s edition: Cædmon’s Metrical Paraphrase of Parts of the Holy Scriptures in Anglo-Saxon; with an English Translation, Notes, and a Verbal Index (1832, also here).
  • The Cædmon Manuscript: parts of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel in Old English verse, illustrated with Anglo-Saxon drawings, c. A.D. 1000. From the Early Manuscripts at Oxford University. Extremely large (3-4 megabyte) digital facsimiles of complete manuscripts, scanned directly from the originals.
  • A transcription of the Cædmon Manuscript (Codex Junius 11) and of the Paris Psalter are online at the Labyrinth Library of Old English Literature.
  • Modern English translation of the Cædmon manuscript (Codex Junius 11). By George W. Kennedy, The Caedmon Poems (New York, 1916). Provided by the Online Medieval and Classical Library.
  • The Complete Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Poetry has electronic texts of many Anglo-Saxon works, including the text of the Caedmon poems and the Paris Psalter.
• Northumbrian and Mercian Glosses:
  • The Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels (Durham: Surtees Society, 1854, 1861, 1863, 1865): part 1 (Matthew); part 2 (Mark); part 3 (Luke); part 4 (John).
  • Walter Skeat’s Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions, Synoptically Arranged: Matthew; Mark; Luke; John.
• Ælfric’s Heptateuch:
  • Crawford’s edition of Ælfric: The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, Aelfric’s Treatise on the Old and New Testament and his Preface to Genesis, edited from all the existing mss. and fragments with an introduction and three appendices, together with a reprint of “A Saxon treatise concerning the Old and New Testament: now first published in print with English of our times by William L’Isle of Wilburgham (1623)” and the Vulgate text of the Heptateuch, by S.J. Crawford (London: Early English Text Society, 1922). Also here and here.
  • Michel van der Hoek’s Anglo-Saxon Bible website offers transcriptions of Ælfric’s Heptateuch and the Wessex Gospels.
  • Cotton MS Claudius B IV from the 11th century, containing Ælfric’s version (imperfect).
  • Images of some parts of an 11th century MS. of Ælfric’s version of the Heptateuch (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud. Misc. 509) are available on Luna at the Bodleian Library.
  • C.W.M. Grein, ed., Älfrik de Vetere et Novo Testamento, Pentateuch, Josua, Buch der Richter und Job (Cassel & Goettingen: Wigand, 1872, also here).
  • Edward Thwaites, ed., Heptateuchus, Liber Job, et Evangelium Nicodemi; Anglo-Saxonice (Oxford, 1698, also here).
• Related matter:
  • Sermons of Ælfric: Benjamin Thorpe, ed., The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: The First Part, Containing the Sermones Catholici, Or Homilies of Ælfric (London: Ælfric Society, 1844).

The Three Bells

“And the little congregation prayed for guidance from above … ”

I’m old enough to remember this song on the radio. It reached no. 1 on the Billboard chart in 1959, and was often played on the radio during the 60's, when I was growing up. Do you young people know what this country used to be? Listen to the words of this song.

Translation of the Tetragrammaton

My new article on the Tetragrammaton is now online. As usual, I find it hard to stop revising and adding information to a new article, but I will leave it alone for a while now. This is an interesting and complicated subject, and I hope I've treated it in a helpful way.

Dead Sea Scrolls Now Available Online

The Israel Museum in Jerusalem has now made high-resolution images of the Dead Sea Scrolls available online at its website here.

“Developed in partnership with Google, the new website gives users access to searchable, fast-loading, high-resolution images of the scrolls, as well as short explanatory videos and background information on the texts and their history.”

“The five Dead Sea Scrolls that have been digitized thus far include the Great Isaiah Scroll, the Community Rule Scroll, the Commentary on Habakkuk Scroll, the Temple Scroll, and the War Scroll … All five scrolls can be magnified so that users may examine texts in exacting detail.”

The ESV Committee at Work

The ESV committee, filmed in 2010 at a meeting at Tyndale House in Cambridge, as they debate how to translate words referring to slaves in the Bible. The debate includes Peter Williams, Gordon Wenham, Jack Collins, Wayne Grudem and Paul House. The decision made here resulted in a change in the ESV.

Leland Ryken on Bible Readers

(Excerpt from Understanding English Bible Translation, pp. 91-95.)

How Dynamic Equivalence Views Bible Readers

In an earlier chapter I noted that the elevation of the reader to the status of a "major player" in the translation enterprise, even to the extent of determining how the Bible is translated, is a contribution of the dynamic equivalent movement. I will not retread that territory here. My concern rather is the specific picture of the Bible reader that dynamic equivalent translators assume as they sit around the committee table and write the prefaces to their translations.

The overall picture that emerges from the prefaces is a reader with decidedly limited reading abilities. We can see this, for example, in what is loosely called "reading level," which depends on a combination of vocabulary and syntax. One preface speaks of limiting its vocabulary to three thousand words (SEB). Another preface claims that the translators aimed to reach "a junior high school student" (NLT). The chief translator for the Good News Bible claimed that the translation was aimed at the elementary-school reading level.

Along with the assumption of a grade-school reading level we find references to the difficulty modern readers have with theological vocabulary and concepts. One preface claims that in an effort to produce a translation "that can be understood by everyone, especially by those who have never read the Bible," the translators avoided using certain traditional theological terms (SEB). Another translation is similarly committed to "avoidance of traditionally theological language and biblical words" (CEV). Prefaces like these paint a picture of a Bible reader handicapped in dealing with theological language.

There is no need to belabor this point. The prefaces to "easy reading" Bibles present a united front in regard to their assumed readers. Other sections of my book discuss further types of assumed impairment in Bible readers, and I will avoid duplication here. These additional assumptions include the inability of readers to understand figurative language and references to foreign customs in the world of the biblical text, and the need for short sentences. While leaving those topics untouched here, I nonetheless wish to draw two additional inferences.

First, the prefaces I have quoted make an assumption (never stated) that readers cannot advance beyond their current level of reading and comprehension. Readers are permanently fixed at a grade-school reading level. The irony of this is that even if readers do advance beyond a grade-school level (as all of them do), their advance will do them no good when it comes to dynamic equivalent translations, because those translations have been permanently rendered at a grade-school level.

Second, dynamic equivalent proponents overwhelmingly assert that the difficulties posed by the original biblical text are either unique to modern readers or especially acute for them. Prefaces regularly use such formulas as "to modern readers" (NCV), "by the contemporary reader" (NLT), and "most readers today" (NJV). The effect is to isolate modern readers as a "special needs" group, and the whole dynamic equivalent enterprise can be viewed as an attempt to meet the special needs of impaired modern readers.

The Response of Essentially Literal Translators

It is possible to infer how essentially literal translators would respond to the assumptions that dynamic equivalent translators make about Bible readers, but before we tease out those infer­ ences, we need again to note an argument from silence. The prefaces to essentially literal translations assert no presuppositions about modern Bible readers. It is a fair inference that the translators do not believe that the difficulties of the biblical text are insurmountable for educated adult readers, though surely these translators also acknowledge that any text coming to us from the ancient past contains much that requires explanation to a modern reader.

The first assumption that advocates of essentially literal translation would dispute is that a grade-schooler should serve as the norm for reading ability and comprehension. In what other areas of life do we accept a grade-school level of expression and comprehension as the norm and "cap" for society as a whole? There is no sphere in which our society operates permanently at a sixth- or seventh-grade level. The preface to the New Living Translation equates "the average reader" with "a junior high student," but the equation is false: the average reader in our society is not a junior high student. Most English Bible readers have received at least some education beyond the high school level. The dynamic equivalent experiment actually expects less from Bible readers than our society expects in other areas.

A second point of dispute is the degree to which we can and should educate Bible readers as they confront the difficulties of the biblical text. The dynamic equivalent movement is a massive experiment in capitulation to low levels of reading ability and comprehension.

Proponents of essentially literal translations are unwilling to make that capitulation. Instead, they are ready to shoulder the task of educating modern readers. They stand in the line of William Tyndale, who actually added words like intercession and atonement to the English language in an attempt to transmit the content of the Bible. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Bible translation was a leading contributor to the rise of literacy in England. Essentially literal translations have as an unstated motto Paul's command "do not be children in your thinking" (1 Cor. 14:20).

Finally, essentially literal translators do not generally agree with dynamic equivalent translators that modern readers constitute a special case when compared to earlier readers. This is not to say that the customs and idiomatic expressions of the ancient world do not pose difficulties. But the original readers of the Bible were not as exempt from these difficulties as some translators claim. As one writer on the subject asks rhetorically, "Did the average speaker of koine Greek find no difficulty in 2 Peter 2:4-9 or Romans 2: 14-21? ... Did all the congregation of the Galatian church grasp the whole of Paul's letter to them when it was first read?'"

In a similar vein, translator E. V. Rieu stated the view that "there is good reason for thinking that the original audience of the Gospels found them just as difficult as we do; and if therefore we paraphrase or lower our standard of English in order to make things crystal clear to the so-called man in the street, we're going beyond our jobs as translators." We need to remember, too, that one of the "difficulties" that some modern translations wish to remove from the text is figurative language, and we know that figurative language was present in the Bible from the beginning.

Summary: Bible Readers

The opposed views of Bible readers that the two Bible translation camps hold are one of the most unbridgeable points of disagreement. Once dynamic equivalent translators created their image of modern Bible readers as low-level readers, and then additionally when they committed themselves to slant their translation toward this assumed reader, their methods of translation were inevitable. Essentially literal translators never accepted as accurate or desirable the assumed audience of dynamic equivalent translators, and in that refusal lay an equally inevitable methodology for translation.

Bible Translators

It would be easy to assimilate what I have said about biblical authors and readers without realizing that rival views of the translator permeate the attitudes I have surveyed. Let me begin on a positive note in regard to dynamic equivalent translators: they are extremely eager to please their readers and give them what they want. Of course there are major problems with that eagerness to please, but I want to credit dynamic equivalent translators with being allies of Bible readers as they confront the difficulties that the Bible often poses.

_____________________

Leland Ryken, Understanding English Bible Translation (Crossway Books, 2009), pp. 91-95.