I was given the opportunity to speak to a group of junior and senior high school students tonight at church. Before I got to my lesson on having a Godly disposition and building character, I took the liberty of shilling for Eugene Peterson. Peterson is the heretic/hero who paraphrased the Bible, putting it into words that everyone can read. Not only is his paraphrase, called The Message, readable, but it is also written with the alacrity of a truly brilliant ink slinger. As Christians, we must take full advantage of the doctrinal flexibility that our faith grants us. Since we do not have a serious traditional of literalism like our Muslim friends, or Jews to a lesser extent, our faith and our system of morality can be known by all, young and old. Peterson gets it.
For years many Christian churches have been embroiled in controversy over the veracity of one translation over another; it is utter nonsense. Translations are subjective by their very nature. To say that the King James version is more correct than the New International Version which is more correct than The Message belies and understanding of what the scriptures are. What the scriptures have to say about this life are too important to be exclusionary in any way. More to the point, the Message of Christ is too important to be lost in the minutiae of outdated language and anachronistic figures of speech.
Again, we are lucky. Most Christians do not believe that the Bible represents a verbatim recitation of the words of God. The majority of Christians believe that the Bible represents the inspired writings of the great men of the Faith--authoritative yet not immutable. Interpretations of interpretations of interpretations, then, don't seem to make us queasy.
The Bible wasn't written in a sacred language. That is, when Christians pray they pray in a multiplicity of languages--unlike in Islam where Arabic is the only lingual medium to God. The same can be said for reading the scriptures. Many Muslims consider the translation of the Qu'ran into other languages to be apostasy. In this way, the message of the Prophet is lost to people who cannot read in Arabic. This would seem to contravene the Qu'ran's proscription against religious compulsion--though it is certainly not alone.
The Message represents the best of what the Bible can be. It loses none of its depth, it takes nothing away from the spirit of the original texts, and it is more inclusive that any other single translation. The days of reverence to the scroundrel King James' version of the Bible should be put behind us. But, judge for yourself.
I think this calls for a side-by-side-by side comparison. Let's look at this passage in Galatians, chapter five, through the lens of three different versions of the Bible.
Galatians 5:16-18 (KJV):
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Galatians 5:16-18 (NIV):
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
Galatians 5:16-18 (The Message):
My counsel is this: Live freely, animated and motivated by God's Spirit. Then you won't feed the compulsions of selfishness. For there is a root of sinful self-interest in us that is at odds with a free spirit, just as the free spirit is incompatible with selfishness. These two ways of life are antithetical, so that you cannot live at times one way and at times another way according to how you feel on any given day. Why don't you choose to be led by the Spirit and so escape the erratic compulsions of a law-dominated existence?
What do you think?
Peterson writes with a prose that has a Thomas Paine feel to it that certainly appeals to a wide audience. It was Thomas Paine, the muckraker, who sowed the seeds of revolution in young America with his pen--the one that was "mightier than the sword." In the final analysis, it was Paine's style every bit as much as his words that made him a hero of the revolution.
His cause was important enough to necessitate universal currency, and we should not lose sight of that.
The scriptures are too important, too life-changing, to be anything but inclusionary on a grand scale.
In an article published by Mars Hill several years ago, Peterson was asked about how The Message might change the way we look at the Bible:
"...why do people spend so much time studying the Bible? How much do you need to know? We invest all this time in understanding the text which has a separate life of its own and we think we're being more pious and spiritual when we're doing it. But it's all to be lived. It was given to us so we could live it. But most Christians know far more of the Bible than they're living. They should be studying it less, not more. You just need enough to pay attention to God."
The knees are getting wobbly and the pews are quaking--and I think he is right.
.JPG)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=small}
3 comments:
Since the original interpretation of the Bible obviously predates theology, how can you establish bad theology from good theology? That, it would seem, is every bit as subjective as the various interpretations.
Also, Eugene Peterson is himself a scholar. In fact, he is more scholarly than his predecessors because he recognizes the importance of broadening the audience. And, he actually has accomplished something with his life. Preferable, I should say, to the litany of theologians who diminish the wonder of Christ by subjecting it to the instruments of pseudo-science.
What, then, qualifies one translation as being scholarly and another "bad theology." This is a cumbersome characterization to say the least.
People with the desire to know the scriptures will come to know the scriptures if it truly is their desire. For people, especially young people, who struggle with getting into the scriptures reading The Message just might instill in them that very same desire.
I can tell you from experience that the NIV can be hard to understand for junior high and high school students. I shouldn't have to tell you that. You've been around students almost as much as I have. It's too easy to just simply chalk it up to laziness.
I can understand the NIV just fine, but I am an educated person. I should be able to understand it. I am talking about kids, here; kids who seem to have less knowledge of the Bible than ever before. The Bible, it seems, has been outmoded in many churches and, for this reason, I think The Message is a step in the right direction.
I don't care about theology. I have experience with the truth and The Message is full of that.
If Christians were truly concerned about theology and interpretration, we would learn to read Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew. But, lucky for us, that would be an exercise in futility.
First of all, to say that interpretation predates Theology makes perfect sense. Theology is a field of study, like any other. Intrepretation is an act that by necessity must predate specialized religious study.
In the future, please don't proceed from the assumption that I am prone to forming opinions and making statements without first thinking about them. I do not take stands or form opinions without giving them their due time--and neither do you.
If, indeed, Theology is simply an inquiry into the nature of God, could not good theology be wasted on inquiries into false premises? That's a debate for another day and probably one that would not interest me in the least.
Secondly, I don't defend my faith with theology--me and millions of other Christians who wouldn't know Theology from Cosmetology.
My trust is in God and not Gordon Clark. I trust that God is using The Message to promulgate Biblical principles to a new generation of seekers.
I don't have any knowledge of Peterson being unfaithful to the original texts and you haven't provided any. And, since I will grant you that anomalies probably exist, isn't it worth considering the extent to which these anomalies take away from the spirit of the Word?
I do not agree with your take on translation and interpretation. A requisite condition of translation is exactly that, "telling you what it means." There must be serious play in the joints of translation because languages are so vastly different, strictly speaking, and time-specific.
I am of the opinion that these translations that you speak are not empirical reflections of the original texts--nor are they without interpretation. After all, language itself is a culture-specific interpretation of reality.
It was not my intention to infer that that you place undue emphasis on Gordon Clark's work--though I am sure many do. That is neither here nor there. I was simply saying that there is a fair amount of subjective trust that goes in to accepting one scholar's translation, intrepretation, or study over against another's.
I, for one, do not have the intellecutal capacity (or interest) to delve into Gordon Clark or any of the other so-called eminent theologians.
But, it obviously guns your engine--and I don't have a problem with that!
By the way, is there any way you could get off work Thursday and Friday to go to the 'Burgh with Gav and I?
Post a Comment