: Re: Is there a convention about the use of Old English in Hymns? Is it wrong to modernise the words? Although most hymns were written in earlier centuries, I notice that modern-day collections of

Different collections of hymns have significantly different editorial policies. Many modern collections will, for example, change 'we are sons' to 'we are children' so that they conform to modern sentiments about sexist language. Not many people disagree with that.

One hymn book states in its preface that it has removed references to fighting and war as symbols of Christian living. This was an editorial decision that I can see the point of, even if I'm not sure about. For example, 'Onward Christian soldiers, marching off to war ...' was ditched.

Some hymns are translations of ancient texts. These have multiple forms and they keep being retranslated so they fit contemporary language. The thinking is if it has been translated before to make it relevant, why not do it again to make it more relevant?
There is a camp that says traditional language is beautiful in a way that modern English isn't. The same people say we should continue to use the King James version of the Bible. I don't agree with this position. I think hymns (and Bible readings) should communicate clearly. For example, the phrase 'the inly blind' is part of a popular hymn and yet very few people know what 'inly' means. To me it doesn't make sense to sing words we don't understand. I have been told that this attitude is dumbing down religion and the majority of people are perfectly able to understand Elizabethan English. I beg to disagree but ...

As pointed out by DancingDino, some words are spelled as they are sung, a practice common in poetry, which song lyrics are. Look at the work of someone like Benjamin Zephaniah to see what I mean.

Finally, some traditional hymns are easily understandable to modern audiences and changing them wouldn't serve much of a purpose. For example, many of Charles Wesley's hymns may not use modern English but we aren't going to have trouble understanding them.

Load Full (0)

: Research Paper Summary: How much should be citations versus original thought? I'm finalizing a single-paragraph summary of a multi-page research paper for school and I was concerned when I noticed

@Bryan361

Load Full 2 Comments

: The problem I see is the double standard in sexualization. It seems much more acceptable nowadays for women to a have a lusty look on (attractive) men than the other way around. The cause

@Bryan361

Load Full 0 Comments

: What if a dark protagonist doesn't want to change? Dark protagonists. Heroes who are evil, pure flaws, or exhibiting only weakness or darkness, rather than strength or light. There is one basic

@Bryan361

Load Full 1 Comments

: How do I rephrase this overly long descriptive sentence? I'm trying to describe the landscape of a dystopian city but I'm getting tripped up. "The city is rather a hellish sight: the endless,

: Re: Is there a convention about the use of Old English in Hymns? Is it wrong to modernise the words? Although most hymns were written in earlier centuries, I notice that modern-day collections of

More posts by @Bryan361

: Research Paper Summary: How much should be citations versus original thought? I'm finalizing a single-paragraph summary of a multi-page research paper for school and I was concerned when I noticed

: The problem I see is the double standard in sexualization. It seems much more acceptable nowadays for women to a have a lusty look on (attractive) men than the other way around. The cause

: What if a dark protagonist doesn't want to change? Dark protagonists. Heroes who are evil, pure flaws, or exhibiting only weakness or darkness, rather than strength or light. There is one basic

: How do I rephrase this overly long descriptive sentence? I'm trying to describe the landscape of a dystopian city but I'm getting tripped up. "The city is rather a hellish sight: the endless,

Login to post a comment!

0 Comments

Back to top