A new translation of the Bible called "The Voice" (no, Cee-Lo makes no appearances in this one), published by Thomas Nelson, has created quite a buzz. The discussion is not so much around what is in the newest version, but rather what's left out.
According to a recent article on the Huffington Post, the words "Jesus Christ" do not appear anywhere in the New Testament. And for some, this is tantamount to heresy. The publishers point out, however, that "Christ" was not, in fact, Jesus' last name.
According to the article, "angel is rendered as 'messenger' and apostle as 'emissary.' Jesus Christ is 'Jesus the Anointed One' or the 'liberating king.'" David Capes, the top scholar working on the translation, says that the phrases used to describe Jesus actually are more accurate than the use of "Christ," (which means "anointed" or "messiah"), particularly given the common misunderstanding about the etymology of the word "Christ."
Another stylistic difference in the new version is in how dialogue is presented. Rather than including "he said, she said" verbiage, the interactions are presented more like a screenplay. A sample from the HufPost article:
Disciple: "It's a ghost!"
Another Disciple: "A ghost? What will we do?"
Jesus: "Be still. It is I; you have nothing to fear."
Where we get hung up is when we start debating what it is that's essential and what isn't. For so-called biblical literalists, everything is essential. And in general, the translation referred to as "the Bible" is the King James version.
But it's easy to forget, as the King James Bibles have become the default traditional translation, that even the translators of that version had a specific human agenda. James, King of England at the turn of the 17th century, wanted to ensure that the translation supported the existing structure and authority of the Church of England.
It's easy to forget that all English translations of the Bible mean that we're bound to depend on the agendas of the people who translated it. Now, just because they had agendas doesn't mean those agendas were bad, but it's worth knowing what those angles were they were using in approaching the original texts.
Or at least what we think are the original texts. After all there's no guarantee that the Scriptures in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic we're working from haven't been transcribed and reinterpreted from original writings forever lost. We assume -- perhaps on faith -- that the ancient Scriptures we're translating are the original, unaltered documents.
And even if they are, it's necessary to understand the agendas of the authors of those first texts. For example, why in the world does the book of Matthew start out with a mind-numbing list of names, like some verbal literary family tree? Because the author of Matthew was particularly concerned with demonstrating Jesus' fulfillment of earlier prophecy, portending the coming Messiah. So the "begats" were a sort of line traced from Abraham to King David and then to Jesus.
This is my understanding anyway. I'm hardly a biblical scholar. But each Gospel (as well as every other text in the Bible) had a particular purpose or agenda to present to readers. Does this mean the content is no good if there's a human element at play? Hardly. But if we go into biblical study without this understanding -- or if we simply accept that the Bible is a transcription from God's mouth to paper through human hands, eliminating all human agency -- we miss a critical element of Biblical understanding that diminishes our experience of it.
What's worse, if we assume our understanding of the texts is "the understanding," that's the stuff of religious warfare, dehumanizing subjugation of others and deeper division.
It's easy to forget that the authors of Scripture never sat down in a big room together with the intent of writing "The Bible." It's a collection of stories, historical accounts, songs, prayers, letters, laws and prophecies that were recorded and collected over thousands of years.
For some, these agendas folks brought (and bring) to Scripture are problematic and should be eliminated whenever possible to get down to the "real meaning" of the text. For me, the agendas are, in many ways, as important as the words on the page. They speak to humanity's longing to better understand The Divine. Yes, there are cases where authors or translators aim use the power of human faith to their own advantage. All the more reason to approach all texts with a critical eye.
Like comedian Dennis Miller used to say, somewhat tongue-in-cheek: "That's just my opinion; I could be wrong."
Follow Christian Piatt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/christianpiatt
Rachel G. Hackenberg: Retelling the American 'Kingdom of God' Story in Parables
enough said
Whatever any god is or is not,
Religion is a man-made political power tool fueled by fear and need and greed.
Matt.16:16, 20; Mk.8:29, 14:61 refer to Jesus as 'the Christ,' meaning the 'Messiah.' His last name was not Christ/ Messiah.
In Lk.3:15, many wondered if John was "the Christ/Messiah."
A Bible with no Messiah in it would raise suspicion from its slumber.
While in China, the middle east, and Africa, they have to write down the translations one book at a time, on a small pad of paper or on a piece of wood.
I am surprised that some of what Jesus is reported to have said has survived as long as it has in the New Testament. Some spiritual teachings that Jesus stated preachers don’t touch or they put their own spin on it.
Jesus would be as unwelcome today in the world as he was 2000 years ago. The first to condemn him would be those that think of themselves as true Christians. Hint the evangels.
Think about America a nation of on going wars and a mega size military and a capitalist system of an economic survival of the fittest and pretend to be followers of the prince of peace. This gives you an idea of the human mind and how it can deceive itself.
Speaking of which, "there's no guarantee that the Scriptures ... we're working from haven't been transcribed and reinterpreted from original writings forever lost" is a bit disingenuous. Well, I suppose there's no "guarantee" that Shakespeare's writings or the US Constitutuion haven't been tampered with, but the odds are exceptionally low. The whole science of textual criticism aims at reconstructing the original text, and the NT is at least 98% reconstructable (the best translations take this into account, and the best study notes take into account the other 2%). The OT is more debatable, though transmission from before Jesus until today seems to have a similar record. We don't have originals, but this is hardly relevent; I have never read an original of the Constitution or Macbeth, either.
The biblical scholar Bart D Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus) points out that archaeology has now recovered approximately 5,000 early gospels, or fragments of gospels, and that the contain 150,000 or so variations from the received text - that's more variations than there are words in the gospels.
That's without the debate around the authenticity of the Pauline epistles. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus scholars agree are forgeries. Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians might well be.
Then we have the problem of later inclusions within the text of the received version, such as the verses expressing Paul's negative attitude to women, which most scholars now agree were added to the original text.
So I am much less sanguine about that 98% reconstructable figure,
I generally respect Ehrman's opinion, though my respect is in inverse proportion to the popularity of his works. "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" is well documented and not sensationalized to sell books. "Misquoting" is spotty. "There are more variations in the NT documents than there are words in the NT" for example: of course there are. There are at least 30000 manuscripts (~180000 words in the NT), meaning that there are an average of 6 variants per manuscript. Even the high figure of 1000000 variants gives about 36 variants per manuscript, mostly orthographic and spelling variants. No doctrine of historic Christianity rests on a disputed reading. He is certainly right that the received text has undergone renewed criticism with archaeological discoveries; most translations don't use the textus receptus anymore.
Canon criticism is another mixed bag for him. Ephesians IS much different than Timothy or Galatians in terms of writing style. This is most of the basis for Ehrman's points, which he admits in "Forged" are essentially eliminated with the use of an amanuensis and by variations in Paul's audience and intent (not a major point!). This all rather skips over the whole issue that authorship is only one aspect of canon criticism anyway; no one knows who wrote Hebrews.
In summary, a 99% figure can be doubted; a 98% perhaps, a 96% not really.
Jesus: "Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my father."
Mary Magdalene: Oh, OK then.
On the road to Emmaus:
Disciple: "It's a ghost!"
Another Disciple: "A ghost? What will we do?"
Jesus: "Be still. It is I; you have nothing to fear. Touch me, for you can see, a ghost does not have flesh and bones as I have."
He was such a tease! Or more likely, the gospel authors made it up.
They hadn't worked out germ theory back then though.
I find in most translations, except "The living" & "New English" versions, they didn't change the important symbols (interpreted based on the general accepted concepts presents a clear vision of its meaning) and names (whose definitions are important) in comprehending the Bible. Some examples are as follows.
Lion - King of beast or exalted
Horn - Tool of war
Bows & Swords - Tools of war
Bear's Feet - Strong warrior
Crown - Knowledge, wisdom or understanding
Dragon - Collective Consciousness
Beast - A destroyer for selfish gain
Calf - A prey
Eagle - Far seeing visionary
Man - Man lower than lions
Judah -