Bad Bibles
At this season for celebrating the Reformation of the 16th century and its recovered emphasis on the Bible as the vehicle of the Word of God, it occurs to me that there are “bad Bibles” out there, waiting for unsuspecting seekers and readers.
I don’t mean only the badly printed Bibles of a few centuries ago, like the early edition of the King James Bible which (in a typesetter’s joke) omitted the “not” from the commandment about committing adultery. And I don’t mean condensed Bibles, like Thomas Jefferson’s notorious précis of the teachings of Christ, which he did not actually propose to replace the Bible. There are other Bibles that are really bad. There are inept Bibles, like the version of the Revised Standard Version called “The Young Readers Bible,” which was printed by Holman for the Methodists in 1965. There’s nothing wrong with its text; the problem is simply that it was produced in a bulky, oversized format, and included nothing but line drawing illustrations. The only “young readers” feature about it that I can see is the way it presents less compelling sections (from such books as Leviticus) and material from Kings repeated in the Chronicles in tiny little type, which “young readers” would presumably have difficulty reading!
And then there are the paraphrases. In these the issue is not format, but content. A prime example is Kenneth N. Taylor’s “The Living Bible” of 1971, which at least is explicitly identified as a paraphrase. But the problem is the substitution of interpretation for translation. It is easy to smuggle in meanings which are not supported by the text, as in “The Living Bible’s” wording for John 1:1 – “Before anything else existed there was Christ.” Maybe. But that’s not how it is put the original -- and in just about every translation I know. “The Living Bible” achieves apparent clarity and vividness by waltzing way off from the original text.
Some of these aberrations have been rectified in the “New Living Bible;” like the more reliable editions which are commonly called “versions” (as the Revised English, New Revised Standard, etc.), it is the work of a committee. But the “New Living Bible” continues to introduce a gratuitous spin on the text. It assumes words not present, such as “John” in the first verses of both the Second and Third Letters of John.
And it does one other thing. It sets God’s Word within a very particular framework. It sees the message of Scripture through a very particular lens. It is rife with commentary presented in the guise of “User’s Guide” sidebars.
Here’s where the tilt of this translation becomes most visible. In its “Topical Guide” there are sidebars on every listing related to “homosexuality,” in Leviticus, Romans, and I Corinthians. But nary a comment on any of the scant seven references which the “Guide” gives for “peace” (one of which does not even have the word). My King James Bible uses “peace” more than 250 times. Plus, there are no “New Living Bible” references where peace is between nations. The “Guide” identifies seven places which deal with “justice;” in my King James Bible the word occurs 27 times. And, in the “New Living Bible” you won’t find a word of commentary about Micah 4:3 (“neither shall they learn war any more”) or 6:6-8 (“what does the Lord require of you but to do justice...?”) or the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-11. On the other hand, there are comments on three of the six places the “Guide” identifies as dealing with “sexual purity” (which, for some reason I don't understand, includes Psalm 5:1-10.)
It seems to me the “New Living Bible” clearly has sex on the mind... but not justice or peace. Baaaad Bible!
I don’t mean only the badly printed Bibles of a few centuries ago, like the early edition of the King James Bible which (in a typesetter’s joke) omitted the “not” from the commandment about committing adultery. And I don’t mean condensed Bibles, like Thomas Jefferson’s notorious précis of the teachings of Christ, which he did not actually propose to replace the Bible. There are other Bibles that are really bad. There are inept Bibles, like the version of the Revised Standard Version called “The Young Readers Bible,” which was printed by Holman for the Methodists in 1965. There’s nothing wrong with its text; the problem is simply that it was produced in a bulky, oversized format, and included nothing but line drawing illustrations. The only “young readers” feature about it that I can see is the way it presents less compelling sections (from such books as Leviticus) and material from Kings repeated in the Chronicles in tiny little type, which “young readers” would presumably have difficulty reading!
And then there are the paraphrases. In these the issue is not format, but content. A prime example is Kenneth N. Taylor’s “The Living Bible” of 1971, which at least is explicitly identified as a paraphrase. But the problem is the substitution of interpretation for translation. It is easy to smuggle in meanings which are not supported by the text, as in “The Living Bible’s” wording for John 1:1 – “Before anything else existed there was Christ.” Maybe. But that’s not how it is put the original -- and in just about every translation I know. “The Living Bible” achieves apparent clarity and vividness by waltzing way off from the original text.
Some of these aberrations have been rectified in the “New Living Bible;” like the more reliable editions which are commonly called “versions” (as the Revised English, New Revised Standard, etc.), it is the work of a committee. But the “New Living Bible” continues to introduce a gratuitous spin on the text. It assumes words not present, such as “John” in the first verses of both the Second and Third Letters of John.
And it does one other thing. It sets God’s Word within a very particular framework. It sees the message of Scripture through a very particular lens. It is rife with commentary presented in the guise of “User’s Guide” sidebars.
Here’s where the tilt of this translation becomes most visible. In its “Topical Guide” there are sidebars on every listing related to “homosexuality,” in Leviticus, Romans, and I Corinthians. But nary a comment on any of the scant seven references which the “Guide” gives for “peace” (one of which does not even have the word). My King James Bible uses “peace” more than 250 times. Plus, there are no “New Living Bible” references where peace is between nations. The “Guide” identifies seven places which deal with “justice;” in my King James Bible the word occurs 27 times. And, in the “New Living Bible” you won’t find a word of commentary about Micah 4:3 (“neither shall they learn war any more”) or 6:6-8 (“what does the Lord require of you but to do justice...?”) or the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-11. On the other hand, there are comments on three of the six places the “Guide” identifies as dealing with “sexual purity” (which, for some reason I don't understand, includes Psalm 5:1-10.)
It seems to me the “New Living Bible” clearly has sex on the mind... but not justice or peace. Baaaad Bible!
posted by David at 5:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home