Joan of Bark

My goodness, you are such a wit! I'll bet you get invited to all sorts of trendy parties.

First of all, I'm not a 'she', or a 'Ms'. You should assume less and inquire more.

Secondly, I didn't actually claim that different translations of the Bible represent different kinds of Christianity, but then I hardly think it's necessary to prove that the New Jerusalem Bible was not produced by the same kind of Christianity that gave us the NIV. Unless you want to claim that protestants and Catholics are the same.

sotto voce

More literati than glitterati, thankfully.

Apologies. I'll try to remember.

Your comment was that students would 'see that there's a major problem with the 'word of God' just because Christians can't decide which one is true'. As there are at least twenty English translations in common use at present, readers might reasonably have supposed that there are thought to be up to twenty discrete kinds of Christianity. But there is of course only one, because no educated person gives the RCC of infamous record a second thought, no matter what their lips may say.

Only because the former contains additional books, and the Vatican's notes. Those are not variations of agreed canon. From the agreed canonical text as read in the NJB, one can hardly detect the works-justification of the Vatican, which has learned the hard way to justify its dogma by interpretation, not by 'translation'. In fact, there are renderings in the NJB that are more Protestant than some Protestant versions, so madly keen are Catholics these days to be seen to be biblically orthodox! This was perceived to be a need, because, until the RCC got its act together translation-wise, it 'borrowed' the RSV's text and made its own edition.

Now let us position the RCC at one end of the religious spectrum (and I mean the whole of it, cosmically) and say, the NIV's readers at the other end; an exercise you would presumably approve at least as far as Christianity goes. Now if one can hardly tell a theological difference between the NJB and NIV body texts, there cannot be any significant difference in that whole translational spectrum.

So this idea that translations reflect major credal differences is nothing like the truth. There is a tendency to bias towards hierarchical polity that is actually inimical to biblical principles, and there are other heretical tendencies, that are unconscionable text misrepresentations, but I doubt that's what you referred to. And remember, no theologian uses translations for any serious business, anyway. The sixth form students would have told you that.

Joan of Bark

You have evidence for the boldface portion of your claim, of course.

You don't consider the difference between "you shall not kill", and "you shall not murder" significant?

I seriously doubt sixth form students know much about theological studies, unless they're in a religious institution, but that's irrelevant anyway.

My main point is that when anyone looks at a bookshelf and sees a dozen different versions of a book that's supposed to be agreed on by all Christians (even if the differences are mainly translational, there's still the issue of all those extra OT books in the NJB) they're going to wonder what the hell's going on with this Christianity critter. Why are they wasting their time producing more versions of an inspired work?

sotto voce

No. I suppose that Roman Catholics could see advantage in the latter choice. But of course, nobody at all who knows RC history thinks it anything but antichrist.

They know that anyone who in public tries to argue theology on the basis of a translation will soon be saying, "Only joking."

Or, "I'll get my coat."

Did I hear that right? Your offer of distribution of Bibles is only for the less able?

But nobody ever says that their differences amount to different species of Christianity. It's an absurd notion, and I don't know why we're even talking about it, now I come to think about it.

Because it's inspired, and they wish to twist it, as their twisted minds see opportunity. Let's not be naive. Bible publishers would rather the book did not exist. They would prefer it in archaic English, and rue the day that the Vulgate ceased to preserve the Scripture, as in aspic. There's a whole industry in the USA used to distort the meaning of the Bible with 'commentaries' and the like.

If humanity had really wanted the Bible read and understood, it would never have permitted those original languages to go into disuse. If the Reformation had been actually Christian, churches, schools and universities would not be reading translations at all.

Having said that, there are legitimate reasons for several versions in any one language. One is that scholarship continually advances, and new translations reflect that. Another is that there are different translational techniques and purposes. A third is that readership varies, in ability as well as taste.

anethema

The RCC is remarkably fluid in what they teach about the "word of god". I've recently attended a bible study at an RCC church with the parish priest as moderator. Incredibly i heard it pronounced that when Paul refers to slaves he only means paid household servants and the sort.

sotto voce

Fascinating. I'm sure you would just love to start a new thread on it.

anethema

Im sorry if that sounded sarcastic. Im here to learn, not pontificate. My backround is obviously RCC, and believe me its hard to totally divorce myself from it. I try

DCHindley

Anethema,

Don't fret, Sotto was the one being sarcastic. His posts makes it clear that he disapproves of the RCC, Presbyterians, Jews, Atheists and so on, all the while never really saying what he actually approves of. You will have to learn how to ignore folks like him.

DCH

DCHindley

My wife is a Roman Catholic, and our son attends CCD classes (Catholic version of protestant Sunday School). I remember during one orientation meeting with parents, this one volunteer was very concerned to "explain" that "concubines" were like governesses for the children, not sex partners outside of marriage. A lot of the parents just looked at him weird, as I assume that even the working class women of our little town knew what a concubine was, and I came to the conclusion that this matter bothered him more than it bothered the moms.

DCH

anethema

This is why Frued said that Irish Catholics were impervious to psychoanalysis. This stuff is imprinted on our brains from a very young age. I had 12 years of it. It might explain a little bit of Hoffmann I dont know, Ehrman on the other hand had the fundie stuff. Im not sure which is worse for the children.