New Bible Translation: Good as New

[John Reece]

:nc:

TESTING THE FAITH
New Bible translation promotes fornication
Archbishop of Canterbury praises version for 'extraordinary power'

Posted: June 24, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A brand-new translation of the Bible – praised by Britain's archbishop of Canterbury, that nation’s senior Christian voice – flatly contradicts traditional core Christian beliefs on sex and morality.

Titled "Good as New," the new Bible is translated by former Baptist minister John Henson for the "One" organization, to produce what the group calls a "new, fresh and adventurous" translation of the Christian scriptures.

The 104th archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams – leader of the Church of England – describes it is a book of "extraordinary power," but admitted many would be startled by its content.

"Instead of condemning fornicators, adulterers and 'abusers of themselves with mankind'," says Ruth Gledhill, the London Times religious affairs correspondent, "the new version of his first letter to Corinth has St. Paul advising Christians not to go without sex for too long in case they get 'frustrated.'"

"The new version, which Dr. Williams says he hopes will spread 'in epidemic profusion through religious and irreligious alike', turns St. Paul's strictures against fornication on their head," adds the Times.

The One organization that produced the new Bible translation is dedicated to "establish[ing] peace, justice, dignity and rights for all." It is also focused on "sustainable use of the earth's resources," challenging "oppression, injustice, exclusion and discrimination" as well as accepting "one another, valuing their diversity and experience."

According to Ekklesia, a London-based "theological think tank" that supports the "One" translation:

The translation is pioneering in its accessibility, and changes the original Greek and Hebrew nomenclature into modern nicknames. St. Peter becomes "Rocky," Mary Magdalene becomes "Maggie," Aaron becomes "Ron," Andronicus becomes "Andy" and Barabbas becomes "Barry."

In keeping with the times, translator Henson deftly translates "demon possession" as "mental illness" and "Son of Man," the expression Jesus frequently used to describe himself, as "the Complete Person." In addition, parables are rendered as "riddles," baptize is to "dip" in water, salvation becomes "healing" or "completeness" and Heaven becomes "the world beyond time and space."

Here's how Williams, the top Anglican archbishop, describes the new Bible: "Instead of being taken into a specialized religious frame of reference – as happens even with the most conscientious of formal modern translations – and being given a gospel addressed to specialized concerns … we have here a vehicle for thinking and worshipping that is fully earthed, recognizably about our humanity."

In addition, notes Ekklesia, the archbishop praises Henson's translation for eliminating "the stale, the technical, the unconsciously exclusive words and policies" in other translations.

Here, according to the London Times, are a few sample passages:

Mark 1:4

Authorized version: "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

New: "John, nicknamed 'The Dipper,' was 'The Voice.' He was in the desert, inviting people to be dipped, to show they were determined to change their ways and wanted to be forgiven."

Mark 1:10-11

Authorized version: "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him. And there came a voice from the heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

New: "As he was climbing up the bank again, the sun shone through a gap in the clouds. At the same time a pigeon flew down and perched on him. Jesus took this as a sign that God's spirit was with him. A voice from overhead was heard saying, 'That's my boy! You're doing fine!'"

Matthew 23:25

Authorized version: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"

New version: "Take a running jump, Holy Joes, humbugs!"

Matthew 26:69-70

Authorized version: "Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, 'Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.' But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest."

New: "Meanwhile Rocky was still sitting in the courtyard. A woman came up to him and said: 'Haven't I seen you with Jesus, the hero from Galilee?" Rocky shook his head and said: 'I don't know what the hell you're talking about!'"

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

KJV: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

New: "Some of you think the best way to cope with sex is for men and women to keep right away from each other. That is more likely to lead to sexual offences. My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner."

1 Corinthians 7:8-7

KJV: "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

New: "If you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39114

:nc:

[yxboom]

:shifty:

[Solly]

Another view:


http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_040623cmmts.shtml
New Testament scholar defends radical translation of Bible -23/6/04

A New Testament scholar and associate of the theological thinktank Ekklesia has defended a translation of the New Testament against comments carried today in the Times newspaper and other media.

The radical translation of the New Testament released with the personal backing of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and aimed at the those disillusioned with institutional religion, has been met by many in the mainstream media with implicit criticism and a focus on a small number of biblical passages that relate to sexual ethics.

The translation by John Henson from the organisation “One” aims at a "new, fresh and adventurous" translation of the early Christian scriptures. It is designed both for mature Christians and for those who have limited experience of traditional Christianity or "may have found it a barrier to an appreciation of Jesus".

Ruth Gledhill, the Times religious correspondent has however suggested that the new translation “turns St Paul’s strictures against fornication on their head”.

Writing in today’s Times she reports that "St Paul’s notorious condemnations of gay sex" are "deleted and Christians are told to go out and have more sex."

"Instead of condemning fornicators, adulterers and 'abusers of themselves with mankind'," she says "the new version of his first letter to Corinth has St Paul advising Christians not to go without sex for too long in case they get 'frustrated'."

Her comments have however been challenged by Dr Lloyd Pietersen, a lecturer in New Testament, who is independent from the Bible translation work and the One organisation.

“Ruth Gledhill does not appear to be in touch with contemporary Pauline scholarship”; he said.

“Most Pauline scholars accept that, in 1 Corinthians, Paul quotes opposing views and then refutes them. The quote from 1 Corinthians 7 ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman’ is widely accepted as being one of these occasions. So, far from being the words of Paul, it represents an opposing view. The One Translation renders this passage in keeping with the consensus view of critical Pauline scholarship.”

Dr Pietersen continued; “Ruth Gledhill’s comment about ‘St Paul’s notorious condemnations of gay sex’ also fails to engage with the complex critical debate that is taking place within New Testament scholarship as to (a) what Paul actually meant in these passages and (b) how we theologically and pastorally appropriate these passages in our contemporary context.”

He concluded; “Any rendering of ancient texts into contemporary English will inevitably raise eyebrows at certain points. I personally do not like the translation of “baptise” as “dip” or “demonisation” (“demon possession” is not a term used in the Greek) as “mental illness”. Nevertheless, the enterprise as a whole is welcome.”

“The original language of the NT is by and large written in vernacular Greek. Some texts are written in a more literary style (Luke-Acts). Luke T Johnson states, with reference to Luke-Acts: “[Its readers] could read a rather higher level of Greek than that found in most other early Christian writings” (‘The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation’ [London: SCM, 1986], pp. 198-99). Consequently, any attempt to render the NT text in vernacular English should be welcomed if it results in making the text more accessible.”

[dizzle]

New: "As he was climbing up the bank again, the sun shone through a gap in the clouds. At the same time a pigeon flew down and perched on him. Jesus took this as a sign that God's spirit was with him. A voice from overhead was heard saying, 'That's my boy! You're doing fine!'"

:barf:

Sorry. A pigeon????


also "a regular partner"!!!

Sheesh, just when I thought that humanistic pervesity in the church couldn't get any worse

[Augustine2004]

In keeping with the times, translator Henson deftly translates "demon possession" as "mental illness."Isn't that 'daftly'? Anyway, I would say he is demon-possessed.

[Ananel]

snipI may have my opinions on the translation of arsenokoites, but that's just bullshit. God, I think I wanted to hurl the instant I heard "New and adventurous!" ...You don't change the text in your translations. You work with what is there. This translation seems to be warping the passages to the point of inanity.

Besides, this hip cat talk is hardly "new and adventurous." It almost sounds like they're trying to sell books more than preach God's Word. I wonder if their hermeneutic relied upon the english translations, similar to the Good News Bible, or if they actually bothered to use the greek, hebrew and aramaic.

[JB]

Someone please reassure me that this travesty of textual havoc is a mere prank, a tale fabricated by a twisted mind?

[Kelp(p)]

That is just plain sick and wrong....what has the Anglican Church come to that they would let such a fruitcake be an Archbishop. The whiole deal.....arghhhhh

[Thinking Madly]

Yes, I was appalled at that part, too. I think this is not much less than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That, to me, was the most offensive translation I viewed.

I shudder to think how they butchered the passage in which Jesus states that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven.

[George Blaisdell]

:nc:

TESTING THE FAITH

New Bible translation promotes fornication

:nc:

You do well to have that tape X'ed over your mouth, John...

This abomination gets the Urine, Feces and Vomit Award...

The demons finally got enough brass to do their own "version"...

And their own are licking it down into their souls...

Arsenios

[Howie]

I have been so busy that I have not taken the time to post. However, this thread peaked my interest – so, thank you, John.

This “translation” is just another in a long series of misrepresentations of the words of scripture… perhaps starting as far back as the Vulgate. There is evidence that the Greek Fathers may have been as outraged with the Latin translation of the Vulgate as we today are with this. Entire schools of biblical thought have been constructed based on the exegesis of men (Augustine for example) who could not read the scriptures in their original language. This is no different… except that it may lead to some intriguing denominational designation: “Rockettes” might be the name of the followers of Simon “Rocky” Peter who disagree with “Calvinists”… or what about “Dipsters”, followers of “John the Dipster”. who might take issue with “Lutherans”.

This preposterous translation should give us pause that we may look at how we Christians got here. This did not happen all at once. It may have had its beginnings when the message of Jesus was first usurped by earthly leaders to consolidate their earthly power. It is interesting to note that of the three major western religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) only one founder was not a military and political leader: Jesus. His was clear that his Kingdom is not of this world. How is it that earthly empires have been built, wars waged and peoples conquered in His name? How is Saint Peter’s Cathedral any different than The Dome of The Rock? We today stand on translations of Scripture given us by men with blood on their hands and we arrogantly display outrage and indignation at another whose sin has as its foundation our own.

Events such as these are opportunities to spout in outrage or to examine where we too, for our own personal reasons, miss the mark.

All the best.

[casaba]

Just to have one supporting voice: Other than a couple apparently uncalled for vulgarities (e.g. "what the hell"), I think most of the quoted changes are interesting, and often clarifying. It seems that the translators have chosen to allow the reader more interpretation--as opposed to being force fed one view: that of the previous translators!

The idea that they use 'mental-illness' does not preclude the possibility that it was a demon-possesion, it simply states what we would say today if we saw the same occurances (some mental-illnesses today may well be due to demon-possession; it is for each of us to judge and guess at the truth). The same goes for the pigeon (which by the way, is a type of dove). So, Jesus saw a bird and took it to be a sign. The 'authorized' (I won't even go into who did the authorizing) version forces a spirit into the form of a bird; it seems clear that what Jesus saw was a bird (perhaps containing a spirit) and he claimed it to be a sign. Isn't that the important bit? The first quote from a reviewer, claiming it 'encouraged fornication', does not match the translation below. Again, the translation doesn't really change anything but semantics: regular partner = husband and wife. Is this so shocking?

[Tercel]

Wow, I'm somewhat surprised at the opposition this bible version is receiving from you guys in this thread. I can see both good and bad in this version, so since you guys seem to see only bad, allow me to try and provide a counter-voice to balance your views out...

Paraphrase translations have been around for a while now, and extreme paraphrases such as The Message seem quite popular. It seems to me that such versions have a great role to play in bringing the bible to the average person, presenting the text of the bible using the language and phrases that the modern reader themselves would have used to express the ideas being expressed. Sure, this paraphrase seems to be of quite a "liberal" bent, but no surprises there given it's being produced by Anglicans and approved of by Rowan Williams. I don't see there's anything inherently wrong with having liberals produce their own paraphrase, since historically most bible translations have been done by those of a conservative bent. The sample extracts from the translation look fine to me... the interpreter has used creative license to re-contextualise the meaning in terms and phrases easily comprehensible to his target audience.

I don't really see what all the fuss is about. The originally linked article seems to be extremely worried about the issue of "fornication" which from a bible-scholar point of view I find quite amusing, since the traditional translation of "fornication" that many of our bibles use is not actually a very good one. The term in the Greek refers to sexual abnormality of any kind and not sex before marriage. So getting paranoid that this translation is omitting implications from these passages that are not actually in the original Greek strikes me as quite amusing.

Sorry. A pigeon????:lol: You're amusing. Have an education:
"In general parlance the terms "dove" and "pigeon" are used somewhat interchangeably. In ornithological practice there is a tendency for "dove" to be used for smaller species and "pigeon" for larger ones, but this is in no way consistently applied, and historically the common names for these birds involve much variation between "dove" and "pigeon"." - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon)

Furthermore, I would remind you that the type of bird concerned is actually recorded in the bible as a Greek word, and that translation of Greek names for animals into modern English equivalents is far from a precise science. There's no need to go bonkers just cos a translation departs from the King James' beloved "dove".
Also, in my part of the world, everyone knows what "pigeons" are, and sees them on a regular basis, whereas the word "dove" would have most people I know say "what's a dove exactly?" So it makes sense to use "pigeon"! Obviously, if you knew your audience used "dove" rather than "pigeon" you'd use "dove".

also "a regular partner"!!!Care to explain why you think that is a worse translation for the Greek word concerned than "Wife"? Most people I talk to call their wives their "partner", it's just how they use English, so it seems to me to make sense to translate it like that in line with standard modern terminology. Perhaps you use words differently in your part of the world, and hence a different translation would be more appropriate.

translator Henson deftly translates "demon possession" as "mental illness."Nothing new there. Liberal scholars have been saying this for a few hundred years. Surely it's pretty obvious that people in certain conditions that are diagnosed in modern times with mental illnesses would have been diagnosed in ancient times with demon possession? You don't have to be Einstein to spot that since modern medicene doesn't believe in demon possession it will diagnose all mental/behavioural abnormalities of certain types as "mental illnesses" and since ancient cultures had not much clue about modern medicene, they would dianose all such people as "demon possessed". Of course, that says nothing about which culture is correct in its diagnoses, only observes that people view and interpret the world based on their social customs and institutions. In terms of a translation, it seems to me accurate to say that what the average person back then described as demon possession that the average person today would describe as mental illness and that hence such a translation is appropriate.

Translations of this type, where different understandings of the world mean that the best English translations are non-literal equivalents of the Greek, are actually very common in even conservative and literal translations already for a variety of phrases (eg "evil eye", "moon-struck", "bowels" etc tend to get creatively translated in ways that hides the non-equivalence between the underlying ancient understanding of the world and our modern scientific view).

[dizzle]

Tercel, thank you for the pigeon information, that was unknown to me. In my area, and many areas, pigeons are considered to be very filthy gross creatures.

However, I am not going to go down in the mud with you once again as since our last exchange and my particular opinions of your approach (mutual I am sure), I have decided it is an extraordinarily poor use of my time. I wanted to acknowledge the helpful pigeon information and now I am placing you on ignore.

Why am I telling you that I am? To remove the temptation from you to think you need to swagger so that I will see. I will not see it. Why do I do it? To remove the temptation I have to shoot off some strutting to you. Instead, I am going to do what I do with many such posters - remove the temptation from both of us for a season, and each time I see your name come up as an ignored post, I will pray for you to have God's blessing. That is much more productive use of my energies.

[Howie]

Hi Tercel,

Hope all is well.

All one has to do is read many of the posts on this forum to see how the “paraphrasing” of Jesus’ words (as well as the mistranslating done under the guise of clarifying) has led to severe mutilation of Jesus’ message.

Take the simple example of Mathew 23:25 which the article cites. The Greek term ouai is rendered as “Take a running jump…” as opposed to “Woe [unto you]…” The original Greek which Jesus spoke does not connote Jesus dismissing the scribes and Pharisees, but rather informing them of the consequences of their actions and beliefs. This Greek term is used by Jesus in other contexts for similar reasons.

This “paraphrasing” of Matthew 23:25 makes a statement about Jesus and his ministry that is erroneous. Throughout his ministry, whether confronting the Pharisees or condemned and scourged at the hands of Pilate, Jesus continued to teach… continued to shine light on the truth. This simple misrepresentation of His words and attitude might justify a reader dismissing another child of God in the misguided belief that this is what Jesus did… that this was Jesus’ attitude… that Jesus was dismissive of others… when it was not... Jesus was not dismissive of any… not even the Pharisees or the Romans who crucified him. To imply this is to distort Jesus’ message of agape and make him appear a hypocrite.

If one examines the words Jesus uses throughout the Gospels, one will find that He uses very specific words for very specific reasons. This “translation” simply moves us a step father away from His message… and we are already pretty far away from it as it is.

All the best.

[casaba]

Hi Tercel,

Hope all is well.

All one has to do is read many of the posts on this forum to see how the “paraphrasing” of Jesus’ words (as well as the mistranslating done under the guise of clarifying) has led to severe mutilation of Jesus’ message.

Take the simple example of Mathew 23:25 which the article cites. The Greek term ouai is rendered as “Take a running jump…” as opposed to “Woe [unto you]…” The original Greek which Jesus spoke does not connote Jesus dismissing the scribes and Pharisees, but rather informing them of the consequences of their actions and beliefs. This Greek term is used by Jesus in other contexts for similar reasons.

This “paraphrasing” of Matthew 23:25 makes a statement about Jesus and his ministry that is erroneous. Throughout his ministry, whether confronting the Pharisees or condemned and scourged at the hands of Pilate, Jesus continued to teach… continued to shine light on the truth. This simple misrepresentation of His words and attitude might justify a reader dismissing another child of God in the misguided belief that this is what Jesus did… that this was Jesus’ attitude… that Jesus was dismissive of others… when it was not... Jesus was not dismissive of any… not even the Pharisees or the Romans who crucified him. To imply this is to distort Jesus’ message of agape and make him appear a hypocrite.

If one examines the words Jesus uses throughout the Gospels, one will find that He uses very specific words for very specific reasons. This “translation” simply moves us a step father away from His message… and we are already pretty far away from it as it is.

All the best.

I thank you Howie for a clear example from this translation that appears to change the meaning. However, I disagree strongly with your last comment that Jesusu "uses very specific words for very specific reasons". Any guesses as to Jesus' actual words are exactly that, guesses. There is no 'original' translation of the gospels, but an amalgam of various sources in several different languages.

Save the example you point out--the difference between "ouai" and “take a running jump” (from my quick net search, 'woe unto you' does appear to be a better translation), all the other objections to this translation presented here I find lacking. Your claim that this translation "moves us a step farther away from [Jesus'] message" does not appear to be justified by the one example you present. I find it refreshing that the name have been retranslated. Nowhere in the original texts do the names "Jesus" or "Mary" or "Peter" appear; these were all creations of previous translators. In fact, the translation to "Peter", we lose the original meaning of his name, which is reintroduced in "Rocky".

I believe this translation deserves far more than the kneejerk reaction of the previous posts. So, again, thank you Howie for the concise example. Do you have any other examples where this text moves away from Jesus' teachings?

[Howie]

Hi casaba,

Call me an old foggie… but I really do prefer the Greek!!

I thank you Howie for a clear example from this translation that appears to change the meaning. Thank you for listening.

However, I disagree strongly with your last comment that Jesusu "uses very specific words for very specific reasons". Any guesses as to Jesus' actual words are exactly that, guesses. There is no 'original' translation of the gospels, but an amalgam of various sources in several different languages. Please forgive my assumption. The assumption is that, as Christians, we “assume” that Jesus spoke the words he is credited to have spoken in the Gospels. If we assume that he may not have said those words, we are fully justified in ignoring them… however, using the appellation “Christian” would then seem to me to be erroneous. So, though I fully agree with you that there is a legitimate argument to be made that the words of Jesus which we have in the Gospels may not have been words spoken by a man named Jesus, I find it problematic to call myself a Christian and at the same time claim that the words we have may not have been those of The Christ.. In fact, I would go a step farther. I would say to those who argue that a man named Jesus (credited with saying those very words) may have not even have existed that I also fully agree with them that a legitimate argument can be made to support their contention as well. This is similar to the Moses argument… that he may not have written the Torah. I bypass these arguments by taking it on faith that the words credited to a man called Jesus in the Gospels (or Moses for that matter) are expressions of divine truth… whether spoken by one man and preserved by many or spoken by many men and collected and preserved by one (Q). It is the truth of the words that interest me, not who should be credited with saying them, for they are the foundation of Christianity (though we often lose sight of that).

This conclusion of mine was not arrived at easily. It is based on years of study. It might help you to understand my point of view if you were to embark on a study of the terms Jesus (if he existed) used (if he said them) that are translated as “pray” or “prayer”. I have found that though there are various terms translated as “pray”, there are specific Greek terms used in specific contexts to indicate specific meanings. There are many others: the terms translated as “bless”, “save”, “judge”, among them.

Save the example you point out--the difference between "ouai" and “take a running jump” (from my quick net search, 'woe unto you' does appear to be a better translation), all the other objections to this translation presented here I find lacking. Your claim that this translation "moves us a step farther away from [Jesus'] message" does not appear to be justified by the one example you present. One example equates to “a step” to me. If you prefer to say that it moves us a quarter step or a sixteenth of a step father away, I would not quibble. My point was that each misleading rendering of the Greek (whether minor or major) is not neutral, but rather moves us farther from Jesus’ message… be it by one sentence or one word.

I find it refreshing that the name have been retranslated. Nowhere in the original texts do the names "Jesus" or "Mary" or "Peter" appear; these were all creations of previous translators. In fact, the translation to "Peter", we lose the original meaning of his name, which is reintroduced in "Rocky". If it moves you closer to living the teachings of Jesus, who am I to object?

I believe this translation deserves far more than the kneejerk reaction of the previous posts. You may well be correct.

So, again, thank you Howie for the concise example. Do you have any other examples where this text moves away from Jesus' teachings? If I have the time to research it I will let you know. I am very sensitive to those who modify the words of Jesus… often to fit personal or doctrinal agendas. I find the practice problematic… and yet it is one which has plagued Christianity perhaps longer than we care to acknowledge.

All the best.