Rod Dreher calls it “insane hubris”.
These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it’s wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don’t worship God. They worship ideology.
Mark Shea writes:
Have I mentioned how much I appreciate the Catholic Church’s large and bovine imperturbability and slowness to be moved by stupid cultural frenzies, fevers and fashions?
The challenge of Christian believers is to adhere to the Word of God, not to bend the Word of God to our preferred ideology. Doing the former requires discipline and a clear understanding of the the Bible. Doing the latter makes God subservient to an ideology, rather than the other way around.
I’ll state it plainer. This is where I get off the boat.
During the 2008 elections, I suggested that some Christian Conservatives might be making their ideology into their idol. I got a lot of hate mail for that, too.
Well, what do you think now:
“As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible…”
You know, I don’t buy tampons that are designed “by women, for women” because I do not believe that a tampon is intrinsically better because of exclusivity. To create a Bible “by conservatives, for conservatives” seems to me to be just as needlessly parochial, and not a little proud and arrogant. Just what do these folks suggest? A rewriting of all existing translations of the bible:
* identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as “government”, and suggest more accurate substitutes
* identify the omission of liberal terms for vices, such as “gambling”, and identify where they should be used
* identify conservative terms that are omitted from existing translations, and propose where they could improve the translation
* identify terms that have lost their original meaning, such as “word” in the beginning of the Gospel of John, and suggest replacements, such as “truth”
Replace “Word” (“Logos”) with “Truth” because “word” has “lost its original meaning.” As if “truth” is not a relativistic word in this age?
“In the beginning was the Truth, and the Truth was with God and the Truth was God…”
God is Truth, but that is not what the scripture says, is it? Scripture says in the beginning was the Word, the Logos – which suggests something beyond Truth and moves into Intention. The Word goes forth -it moves on the air, it moves with the Spirit. The Truth is not the same; they are not interchangeable. As the propagators of this terrible idea would surely agree: words mean things.
If you want to reclaim a word, why not start with a reclamation of the meaning of the word, Holy, which has fallen into great disuse, which is a shame because it brings enormous clarity.
This from Swampland:
Passages like the story of the adulteress whom Jesus saved from being stoned with the famous line: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Conservapedia complains that liberals have used this story to argue against the death penalty.
Oh, come on now – these people are not to be taken seriously! Are they going to edit out the entry into Jerusalem because the laying down of palms might smack too much of recycling road materials?
Earlier this year I mused on an idea:
. . .from Richard John Neuhaus’s American Babylon; Notes of a Christian Exile, where he wonders if some Protestant Americans -those bereft of liturgy and sacraments- have not created a sort of ecclesiastical substitute for those things in their intense nationalism. That is, are they making up for what is lacking in their worship -the outward pageantry, the sensory cues- within their patriotism? An interesting question. . .
Perhaps these Conservapedia folks personify the question. They appear to be confusing “sacred” things with “holy” things.
The flag is sacred. The scriptures are Holy. The constitution is sacred. The Word is Holy. Our bodies are sacred. The Body of Christ is Holy.
These words are sacred:
The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present…As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disentrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.
– Abraham Lincoln, Remarks to Congress, 1862
These words are Holy:
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.
What profit is there for one to gain the whole world yet lose or forfeit himself?
– Luke 9:24-25
The “Conservative” Bible is an attempt by some who are clearly “enthralled” with their ideology to wrestle Eternity to the ground and conform it an Age. But the Age is fleeting; it is already a passing illusion. An attempt to re-translate the Bible to suit one’s worldview is to belong too much to the world, itself, and to worldly solutions. Translate the Bible to gain a wholistic world view, and you may very well forfeit yourself.
These busy bees might best serve themselves, their cause and their Lord by withdrawing a little bit from the world and taking some “time in the desert” away from the television, the radio, the gathering crowds. They need to break away from “enthrallment” to “detachment” or they will become all they despise.
Believe me, I know whereof I speak.
On a superficial level, I can understand the concerns of some of these Christians. Yes, the left does misappropriate Jesus, lately more than ever. Yes, the gender-inclusive language is a cheap sop to the age that strips meaning, humor and poetry from scripture. But these people are talking about translating scripture to suit an ideological bent. In this way, they are exhibiting a kindred spirit with the sorts of people who make “Mary and Josephine Nativity Sets” because doing so validates their beliefs, even if it is totally made up.
When Jesus came, some could not reconcile the humble carpenter with their worldly notion of what a Messiah was supposed to be. They were too much in the world, seeing with only worldly eyes, and so they missed Him. Some conservative Christians are too much in the world; they give the world too much credence, and respond to the world in worldly, rather than otherworldly ways.
Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.
— Romans 12:2
“But Anchoress,” I can hear some saying, “you’ve got it all wrong! These people are deliberate working in opposition to the world, so they’re not conforming to it.”
No, they are thinking as the world thinks, therefore they are conforming to it.
He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”
–Matthew 16:23
Finally, one cannot escape this irony: Conservapedia makes a point of posting these lines from Rev 22, and then adding an insufferable (and, I am sorry, but intellectually vapid) dare:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
You have been warned.
Got that? You’ve been warned. Ohhh, scary and not at all loving or inviting.
That is a possible misapplication of scripture, as there is some disagreement as to whether John is referring specifically to his writings in Revelation, or to the Bible entire (which had not yet been complied), but whether it is or is not, perhaps these folks should reconsider arbitrarily changing “Word” to “Truth” in the beginning of John’s Gospel, or reassessing Jesus’ merciful rescue of the woman caught in adultery according to their worldly -and thus very faulty- lights.
October 6th, 2009 | 6:07 pm | #1
[...] II: I sent this to The Anchoress, thinking that she’d have something incisive to add, and she doesn’t disappoint: The [...]
October 6th, 2009 | 6:08 pm | #2
Eejits. Don’t be fixing what ain’t broke.
October 6th, 2009 | 6:20 pm | #3
They are neither conservative nor Christian. I have a favorite passage (Philippians 3:20) which every translation I can find, including my KJV printed in 1722 and my Hebrew and Greek Bibles all include the word “citizenship” yet these idiots have decided to change that word to “conversation”.
Unfortunately for them, their hermeneutics are atrocious and they are practicing a form of eisegesis instead of using appropriate exegesis.
October 6th, 2009 | 6:27 pm | #4
From what I gather from this silly website, this is apparently going to be a translation of a translation (which is itself a translation of a translation).
Sadly, there are hucksters everywhere. Maybe they will pause in translating Gen. ch. 3 and realize that they too are partaking of the fruit, vainly thinking that they can be like gods and write the Bible as they see fit.
October 6th, 2009 | 6:33 pm | #5
I will give you my “old chestnut-modified”
“You can have my RSV when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.”
Just kidding…
Well, not not really…
October 6th, 2009 | 6:34 pm | #6
Well, there are ‘niche’ bibles for all sorts of groups, why not this? Just go down to the local Christian Bookstore to see the variety.
I’m not saying any of them are any good – just sayin’…..
Susan Lee
October 6th, 2009 | 6:37 pm | #7
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tim Gilbert and Andrea Harris. Andrea Harris said: @TheAnchoress I have long suspected that Conservapedia isn't really: http://bit.ly/1a8871 [...]
October 6th, 2009 | 6:38 pm | #8
Who is behind Conservapedia? I always thought it was a Moby site.
October 6th, 2009 | 6:45 pm | #9
I commented elsewhere on this; my belief is that the KJV is already pretty conservative.
October 6th, 2009 | 6:47 pm | #10
A glimpse from the Conservative Bible:
Abraham is the founding patriarch of the Illinites, the chosen people of Illinois. He died in the theater.
Moses was a great prophet. God talked to Moses through the Burning Bush 41 and died during the reign of the Burning Bush 43 after leading the NRA to the promised land. He gave the world the 11 Commandments. (The 11th is “Thou shalt not speak evil of a fellow Republican.”) Moses was not allowed to cross THE Jordan. To this day Republicans may not go into the land of the 23 for the Bulls.
October 6th, 2009 | 6:48 pm | #11
So I took a couple of minutes to look at some of the translations.
How laughably lousy.
Not only do some very fine theological points go right over their heads in their changing the text (maybe there is a reason it was written a certain, albeit mysterious, way???), but it makes for some really bad prose.
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this handmade temple, and within three days I will build another without using my hands.”
But anyway, those witnesses couldn’t get their story straight.
The high priest stood up and asked Jesus, “Don’t you have anything to say? Just what are they saying about you?”
Jesus kept his mouth shut. The high priest started interrogating him again: “Are you the Christ, the son of the blessed?”
Jesus answered this one, saying “Yes I am, and you all are going to see the son of man sitting at the right hand side of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
The high priest ripped his shirt off, saying “Witnesses? We don’t need any more witnesses!
I’m sure I’m not the only one that envisions the robber from Treasure of the Sierra Madre with that last line.
These guys don’t have the faintest possible idea of a potential clue about what they are doing.
October 6th, 2009 | 7:27 pm | #12
I’m an atheist, and I find the idea blasphemous.
October 6th, 2009 | 7:46 pm | #13
This is, strictly speaking, not my business, but I do think you have it right when you say that they are in an incorrect relation to the text. The point of any scriptural study in any religion that has a scripture is always that you are supposed to examine what it means by contemplating the text, rather than trying to make over the text in your image, as any good secular scholar [not that there are many of these] places the text first and his commentary after.
As a Buddhist, I feel very blessed that our monastic tradition of text and commentary study has been preserved. While no one should feel that they cannot understand a religious text without some kind of help, they should always rely on the professionals to clarify matters. And if the professionals have a markedly different point of view than you do, you should examine your point of view for errors, first.
October 6th, 2009 | 8:09 pm | #14
I always thought Conservapedia was intended from the get-go to be a joke.
October 6th, 2009 | 8:13 pm | #15
Further, from the outside, I think that the conservative point of view is still handicapped by a certain degree of hostility among some of its proponents toward any type of intellectualism. This is a shame. Everybody loses from the belief that hard and careful thinking is optional in politics [or in life] and can be replaced by a make-it-up-as-you-go-along variety of “common sense.”
I think this hostility is quite plain in the remarks of this group: “As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible…” The very fact that the translators through the years have worked so hard and carefully to preserve the genuine meaning while not losing the intelligibility and idiomatic character of the vernacular language, is somehow suspect in and of itself.
There is a fundamental disrespect for the activity of the mind itself in this, as well as a disrespect of the primary difficulty of any translating: trying to save the sense of an idiomatic expression in the original when translating the idiom literally would either be bewildering or misleading.
That our Universities have largely been captured by a single political point of view truly helps no one. There are historical reasons for it, but they are not excuses for it.
On my side of the political spectrum it leads to a swelledheadedness that sloppily argues from academic authority as a substitute for thought. On the other side, it reinforces the anti-intellectual make-it-up-as-you-go-along “common sense”, which is basically nonsense, because if political thinking were easy, we wouldn’t have such profound disagreements about it as we do.
October 6th, 2009 | 8:15 pm | #16
I’m not sure how to take the Conservative Bible (joke or whatnot), but on the serious point made by our host I’m with most of the Catholics, which I don’t say often (I’m Orthodox) in that I’m glad that my church just… wouldn’t? I have nothing against Protestantism, but yeah, changing faith to fit the times just isn’t my thing.
October 6th, 2009 | 8:26 pm | #17
Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.
— Romans 12:2
Enough said. Do you have room in the boat for another>
October 6th, 2009 | 8:30 pm | #18
I don’t see why this is such a bad idea in and of itself. To translate the Bible so as to explain it from a certain point of view seems an interesting undertaking…translation always involves judgment calls, coloring of language, etc… I imagine both the right and left could make a respectable go at this.
I can’t speak to this particular effort. But I see no reason to ridicule the idea per se.
October 6th, 2009 | 8:45 pm | #19
I’ll keep my Reina-Valera and King James, thank you very much.
October 6th, 2009 | 9:04 pm | #20
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”
– 2nd Timothy 4:3-4 (ESV)
October 6th, 2009 | 9:21 pm | #21
Well said. This is the kind of topic that makes me sad to the core.
It reminds me of a quote I read almost 30 years ago and still sticks with me:
“Are you trying to the master the Bible, or are you letting it master you?”
October 6th, 2009 | 9:31 pm | #22
What’s that old chestnut about the Church being like the Ark? “If it weren’t for the storm on the outside you couldn’t stand the stink on the inside”? What an awful travesty.
Sometimes I could just weep. As an orthodox/evangelical pastor in a largely liberal (Presbyterian) denomination I have witnessed the ravages that result from holding Biblical authority hostage to political agendas. To see folks that I am often in sympathy with doing the same darn thing… well it just hurts.
Plus, as my NT professor was always shouting “what about the text!” It is somewhat ironical is it not that a group that surely includes a majority of “originalists” when it comes to interpreting the Constitution don’t see any problem with putting an ideological spin on Scripture!?… oy.
October 6th, 2009 | 9:38 pm | #23
[...] Morrissey has some good reaction as well. Actually, I would strongly suggest reading the Anchoress’ brilliant take on this – it’s both enlightened in its defense of the Bible and scathing in its rebuke [...]
October 6th, 2009 | 9:48 pm | #24
The thing is —
Some people veer so far to one extreme, that they end up end up at the other extreme. Folks go far enough to “the right,” they end up on the left.
This is anything but a “conservative” initiative.
[No, the truth is, these people are exactly the same as the "progressives" in the church who decided that the 2000 year old Palm Sunday liturgy needed to be "improved" with pantomime. -admin]
October 6th, 2009 | 10:39 pm | #25
Are these bufoons the same clowns over at “We are Church”?
Or just some over zealous protestants, who instead of turning the Bible to Swiss Cheese (aka K. James) are re-writing it for an agenda that neither reads well nor has the inspiration to rise above thier panglossian outlook.
October 6th, 2009 | 10:45 pm | #26
I’m with Andrea on this one – it stinks of ‘false flag’. This sounds like a parody of conservatives.
October 6th, 2009 | 11:47 pm | #27
Deep Six the Conservative Bible Project…
Conservapedia started the Conservative Bible Project, among its goals are the following:
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
Not Emas…
October 6th, 2009 | 11:55 pm | #28
I thought the Bible (Douay – Rheims, Challoner revision) was “conservative” (note the use of lower case “c”)
I have come to believe that the current one in liturgical use (The New American, or the Jerusalem) are more creative in their language.
Got room in that boat for another?
October 6th, 2009 | 11:59 pm | #29
Utterly asinine
October 7th, 2009 | 12:57 am | #30
Re: word/truth etc…
Honestly, how can we have an english translation, when we haven’t spoken a coherent language in years? There are others out there, such as Cotton Patch Gospel(an excellent show BTW), which tend to paraphrase into cultural subsets. But you can’t really call them translations, any more than calling any commentary part of the Cannon.
October 7th, 2009 | 2:12 am | #31
I haven’t read the comments yet, so forgive me if I’m repeating something.
The Bible clearly tells us we are not to change one thing to add to or deduct from the Holy Word of God.
Woe to those who do it!
October 7th, 2009 | 2:19 am | #32
Guess I should have read the rest of the post too before commenting, as you already pointed out what I said in my previous comment. :red:
October 7th, 2009 | 6:57 am | #33
“It is somewhat ironical is it not that a group that surely includes a majority of “originalists” when it comes to interpreting the Constitution don’t see any problem with putting an ideological spin on Scripture!?… oy.”-Pastor Dave
You nailed it in one sentence!
October 7th, 2009 | 8:46 am | #34
@Newton: What’s the “Reina-Valera”? I’ve not heard of it before.
Regarding the prologue to John’s Gospel, there are multiple possible translations of logos. The earliest translations out of Koine Greek into Latin gave “ratio” [reason] and not “verbum” [word] which was the line followed by almost all subsequent translators into English. So using a different term for logos isn’t a problem as long as it’s an actual translation; once you’ve moved into politically inspired word games, however, it’s a whole other, thoroughly disreputable ball-game.
October 7th, 2009 | 8:59 am | #35
I have to strongly disagree with calling the U.S. flag or constitution sacred, or the words of Abraham Lincoln, or whatnot. “Sacred” and “holy” really are synonyms, just like “spirit” and “ghost” are really synonyms — they just come from roots in different languages.
If you want to say that ANY flag that good men have died for is “sacred”, not indeed set apart for God but set apart for men and worthy of respect, OK. But that involves changing the meaning so much I would advise you to find a new word. Maybe “revered” would be a good compromise.
October 7th, 2009 | 11:39 am | #36
Regarding the prologue to John’s Gospel, there are multiple possible translations of logos. The earliest translations out of Koine Greek into Latin gave “ratio” [reason] and not “verbum” [word] which was the line followed by almost all subsequent translators into English.
One problem with “ratio” or “reason” or “truth,” rather than the admittedly mysterious “word,” is that John 1 very obviously is meant to track the beginning of Genesis — “In the beginning.”
And Genesis does not say that God created the universe by His reason (mere thought), but that He created the universe by the word, “and God said ‘Let there be light.’”
As such, “word” seems to better capture the meaning and intent of “logos,” than do the other possibilities. (And besides, faith informs us that the canonization and early translations of scripture were guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.)
October 7th, 2009 | 11:41 am | #37
I went over to the site yesterday and saw that a few pages were down, with some pages set for deletion, because of some intentional satirical translations.
October 7th, 2009 | 12:16 pm | #38
I had not heard of “Conservapedia” before reading this post, and after checking out other blogs on the “Conservative Bible” story, it appears that while Conservapedia is NOT a parody created by liberals (as I originally suspected), it is also considered so far “out there” that most conservatives ignore it anyway.
The conservative Bible project seems to me to be an overreaction to the way in which some (not all) liberals attempt to use Scripture to “prove” that Jesus would have endorsed Big Government liberalism, or the controversies regarding gender-inclusive language. These are legitimate concerns but again, the whole notion of there being a “liberal” or “conservative” version of Holy Writ is totally misguided.
C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity says something about how people down through the ages have wanted to pick and choose what they accept as “true” Scripture or “real” Christian teaching. Since man is fallen and everyone is a sinner, everyone will find something in Scripture that they don’t like or find too difficult to accept — the commands to forgive one’s enemies, renounce worldly possessions, remain absolutely faithful to one spouse for life, don’t commit adultery or hatred even in your heart, “hate” one’s father and mother (a Semitic term meaning “love less than” or “place a lower priority upon”), etc.
October 7th, 2009 | 12:26 pm | #39
If God’s purpose was to mesh politics with faith or if His purpose was to show that He supported a particular system of government, then Jesus would have declared Himself as either a proponent or opponent of Caesar. He would have given great oratory on the role government should play in our lives.
He would have encouraged the Jews to protest political injustices, vice, and corruption. He would have organized mass demonstrations protesting Roman occupation and the beheading of His cousin John. He did neither but rather instructed the disciples to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which belongs to God.
While both a conservative and a Christian, I’m deeply suspicious of any organization calling itself ‘Christian’ that wants to ‘conservatize’ and thereby politicize God’s Word.
October 7th, 2009 | 12:29 pm | #40
I find the ESV a very readable, orthodox translation (I’m not fond of “dynamic equivalence” – NIV et al). And the KJV of my childhood bible memory is a wonderful, cherished thing. But I think the RSV-CE is the best, for my money. When I left evangelicalism for the Church years ago, running into the NAB at mass was a big disappointment. It truly is, as Fr. Neuhaus said, a “wretched translation.” The Pauline liturgy as commonly celebrated in the U.S. and the NAB deserve each other.
October 7th, 2009 | 12:50 pm | #41
Here’s a suggested text, presented in a spirit of mockery:
My Father, Who are in my desires,
We think you’re the best.
May your free-of-tariffs republic prevail.
May the invisible hand swiftly move
To the most efficient fulfillment of demand.
Let us earn today the greatest profit
And learn from our mistakes
As we have learned from the mistakes of others.
And lead us not into second-best
But deliver us from unsuccess.
October 7th, 2009 | 12:57 pm | #42
[...] In the comments, Dave points to this blog post by the Anchoress at First Things, in which she says, among other things: The “Conservative” Bible is an attempt by some who are [...]
October 7th, 2009 | 1:56 pm | #43
I’m in the first year of a 4 year Scripture class (given by the diocese) taught be a person with an MA in Biblical Studies.
I’m using the NAB, the D-R, and the RSV-2CE to do my homework. I find them all to be of value, but the RSV-2CE just takes the cake!
October 7th, 2009 | 2:04 pm | #44
This reminds me of some of the churches (I’ve worked much of my adult life as an organist for many denominations) that have re-written the lyrics of the hymns to “reflect” inclusiveness ~ it all just seems a tad silly to me.
October 7th, 2009 | 2:42 pm | #45
“@Newton: What’s the “Reina-Valera”? I’ve not heard of it before.”
It’s a Spanish-language Bible – on my native tongue.
October 7th, 2009 | 3:12 pm | #46
Anchoress,
The obvious contradiction of your blog’s name aside…
Looks to me like there are a lot of post-Vatican II pots calling the kettle black.
Not surprising such a shrill is heard from the feminist spirits that have lead so many off into the deserts of error and scandal.
There is only one varsity edition of St. Jerome’s Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims. All the others are not much better than a junior high term paper. Link
HCS Knight
October 7th, 2009 | 3:14 pm | #47
Darn those public-school teachers. And President Bush.
But really — the Gospel according to Glenn Beck? Will it scream out loud like those letters in the Harry potter films?
October 7th, 2009 | 3:22 pm | #48
This may be the dumbest theological idea in quite some time. The last time a politically motivated believer, influenced by contemporary philosophical trends, thought he could improve on the Church’s understanding of Scripture, it did not work out too well.
We’ve gone from “James is an epistle of straw” to “There’s just not enough Milton Friedman in the Sermon on the Mount.”
October 7th, 2009 | 4:01 pm | #49
The bible is the word of god, not a conservative or liberal god, just gods word.
Anyone that feels they can rewrite gods words will have to explain himself.
October 7th, 2009 | 4:39 pm | #50
By the way, for the corresponding wackiness from the left, there is the “Good As New” Bible, which is unfortunately real and available from Amazon.com. Some interesting passages:
Mark 1:10-11 “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!’”
1 Corinthians 7:8-7 “If you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated.”
October 7th, 2009 | 4:55 pm | #51
[...] The Anchoress at First Things [...]
October 7th, 2009 | 5:04 pm | #52
@HCS Knight Jerome’s Vulgate is an excellent translation of the original languages…as is the RSV, NAB, and NIV. The Douay-Rheims, while a stellar read, is a translation of a translation. The Second Vatican Council has nothing to do with anything.
I think the Bible is conservative enough as it is. We get much of our conservative ideas from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition anyway. Sure, many modern translations are pathetic, but that just means we should stick with the RSV-CE.
October 7th, 2009 | 5:26 pm | #53
Reminds me of a politcal rally I was at (for Sarah Palin, if I’m not mistaken). One speaker, a self-described Christian, said that America is the world’s “last best hope.”
Um, pardon me, but NO Christian should say such things. America is not permanent, and is NOT the last, best hope for the world. There is but ONE Hope for the world, and that is Jesus. And all Christians need to understand that. We must keep our faith, not in principalities of this world, but in Christ Himself.
October 7th, 2009 | 5:36 pm | #54
I have a King James Bible & an Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662). But I obviously am reading them more for their literary merits & because of their cultural significance, what with the influence they’ve had over literature, than for any theological reason.
But have you not thought that, while this is the most obvious & blatant political translation, politics has always been involved? In recent times there have been left-wing translations, as your commentors have been at pains to point out, & even racist translations designed to “prove” that white supremacy is enshrined in the Bible.
You reject all these, but what is it you’re supporting?
In the old days- apart from the wrangling over whether laymen should read the Bible at all, once it was decided to have it in English the arguments began immediately. The debates over the Apocrypha, the exact purposes of the commissioners, the intended readership… all smells like politics to me. Hence the frenzied arguments over what the original Greek/Hebrew/whatever mean.
Worth further explanation- but probably not by me & definitely not at 10:30pm
October 7th, 2009 | 5:57 pm | #55
I confess that in my younger and less God-fearing days, I was struck with a notion to create a tongue-in-cheek website entitled “Build-A-Bible” where you could pick and choose the passages of the Bible you wanted to include, add passages if you felt inclined, etc. I’m sure it would have been very profitable but something about the sheer irreverance of it just caused me not to wholeheartedly pursue it. I think even the most hardened of hearts should be careful about messing around with the Word of God. I, for one, would not want to be Martin Luther.
October 7th, 2009 | 6:20 pm | #56
I would like to congratulate Conservative America. You have now officially become as loony as the Left. And this website was and is correct: Conservatism has become the new faith of far too many Christians. My guess is that most Born-agains will accept this bible and abandon the KJV. Only Satan wins.
October 7th, 2009 | 6:31 pm | #57
If we go back to 1620 when the Pilgrims landed, they held fast to their Geneva Bibles and that book became the first constitution for the start of America. If individual freedom began in New England and followed the scriptures and gave us a free and prosperous nation, which itself is “conservative,” could we not recognize the Geneva Bible as our conservative start? See http://www.claysamerica.com
October 7th, 2009 | 7:12 pm | #58
Rewriting the Bible in order to take passages and ideas away from liberals (so those ideas aren’t abused) is like trying to do away with violence by taking away hand guns. It’s not the tool, it’s the wielder.
October 7th, 2009 | 7:14 pm | #59
Would I be correct in presuming that this new translation of the Bible will not be a Catholic Bible? Catholic Bibles require a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur. Surely this “conservative” Bible will get neither.
I am content using such Catholic Bible translations as NAB, NJB, and NRSV.
October 7th, 2009 | 8:47 pm | #60
[...] First Things, Elizabeth “The Anchoress” Scalia rounds up the right wing blowback, and announces, “This is where I get off the boat.” [...]
October 7th, 2009 | 9:49 pm | #61
America is the world’s “last best hope.”
It does seem awfully impious. But the phrase does have an honorable history –
“Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We — even we here — hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free — honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just — a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.”
– A. Lincoln, Message to Congress, December 1, 1862, one month before the Emancipation Proclamation took effect.
Ronald Reagan, himself a man who had a way with words, adopted the phrase in “The Speech” that he gave on behalf of GOP nominee Barry Goldwater –
“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”
October 8th, 2009 | 1:06 pm | #62
All other considerations aside, incessantly tinkering with Bible translations does not reflect a conservative disposition.
I’d be more impressed if they proposed reverting to some generally respected scholarly translation that was made before the fad for new translations began.
October 8th, 2009 | 3:29 pm | #63
[...] if it is, it’s not funny. I also acknowledge that the extreme conservatism of this project has already been rebuked by various, more moderate conservative commentators.) In the interest of keeping this post [...]
October 8th, 2009 | 10:22 pm | #64
[...] it. Naturally. Anything with a conservative label gets their approval. Fortunately there are some conservative sources who are not as accepting of a rewrite of the [...]
October 8th, 2009 | 11:13 pm | #65
[...] best possible end to this story is for the much-deserved criticism from left and right to kill the project — and the sooner, the better. addthis_url = [...]
October 9th, 2009 | 9:14 pm | #66
*sigh* This is the latest in the “we can be MORE STUPID THAN YOU!” competition…
One of my favorite passages is Joshua 5:13-15, on the eve of the battle of Jericho where Joshua runs into a mighty warrior with a drawn sword, and Joshua asks Him, “are you for us or for our enemy?”
Well, what’s the answer? If is a Christophany, then this is essentially God who set apart Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who gave the law to Moses, who lead them in the wilderness for 40 years after they refused the first entry into the promised land – OF COURSE He’s on “their side” – right?
But no, the answer (in my paraphrase) is “Neither. As the Ruler of the Host of the LORD I Am here; it’s not My place to be on ‘your side’ but your place to be on MY side.”
It’s our place to shape ourselves to Him, to allow Him to prune, to purify, to refine us – we don’t get to specify what is eternal and what is burned up like wood, hay and stubble. I suspect soooo much of the political impulse falls into that category.
This is one more specialty Bible, directed at a certain market segment. Me, I’m waiting for the Bible directed toward women who love left-handed men born in June…
October 10th, 2009 | 12:46 am | #67
I recall from my study of Greek language and literature in college (several decades ago, admittedly) that “logos” is the opposite of “chaos.” “En arche en ho logos” (transliteration of the first half of John 1:1), in the beginning was Order, “kai ho logos en theos”: and the Order was God. In choosing “logos,” the author may have meant, among other things, to set apart Christianity from the myths that preceded it. In Greek mythology, in the beginning was chaos, and the gods arose from chaos. In Christianity, in the beginning was Order, and the Order WAS God. God is Creator, not created. If I were to hazard a guess, the author of John chose “logos” very deliberately as the opposite of “chaos.” To translate “logos” as “truth” misses the point of the author’s clear distinction between the old mythology and the new beliefs of Christianity.
October 10th, 2009 | 5:11 pm | #68
Playing the same corrupt game as every body else doesn’t work, unfortunately. Any good points to be made get swallowed up. And so, by believing a sort of game theoretic idea – that in the universe of cheaters, only cheaters win – the conservatives, in this case it seems economic conservatives, lose the battle by trying to win it through the same corrupt methods the feminists and other groups used.
Now, we do need translations of the bible that uphold conservative ideals – in so much as those are upheld by the bible, and Christian conservatives must believe they are, and must be frustrated by attempts to eliminate them in so called ‘modern translations.’
Also, we should be particularly interested in a bible that is willing to cast (appropriate) doubt on the woman caught in adultery passage, because that is a doubtful passage and yet it colors so many readings of the whole bible, the gospels particularly. But we should keep the two issues separate, so they each get a fair hearing.
October 12th, 2009 | 1:53 am | #69
The CE in RSV-CE stands for Complete Edition, the others having been redacted, right?
October 13th, 2009 | 5:44 pm | #70
Conservapedia was founded by Andrew Schlafly, son of Eagle Forum founder and conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly. Like you, Anchoress, I think Andrew and the folks behind Conservative Bible Project are a bunch of nuts who have placed the flag not on an equal to the cross, but above it.
As a Lutheran who abandoned the liberal theology of my college years (formerly with the Disciples of Christ) because of its ever-shifting, and increasingly belligerent, beliefs, I place the Conservative Bible in the same camp. That is, they have a strong need to reinterpret or outright rewrite the entire Bible to fit their specific beliefs. That in and of itself is blasphemous. Who is to say that after the translation is completed, they decide to go at God’s Word again to reflect whatever will be deemed “conservative” or “free-market” in the future?
I have written a similar critique of the Conservative Bible Project on my blog, pandapolis.blogspot.com.
Rich Rodriguez
West Covina, CA
2 Cor 1:3-5
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact