Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biblical Illiteracy and Bible Babel
Crisis Magazine ^ | May 9, 2012 | George Weigel

Posted on 05/09/2012 2:07:33 PM PDT by NYer

One of the disappointments of the post-Vatican II period has been the glacial pace of the growth in Catholic biblical literacy the Council hoped to inspire. Why the slow-down? Several reasons suggest themselves.

The hegemony of the historical-critical method of biblical study has taught two generations of Catholics that the Bible is too complicated for ordinary people to understand: so why read what only savants can grasp? Inept preaching, dissecting the biblical text with historical-critical scalpels or reducing Scripture to a psychology manual, has also been a turn-off to Bible-study. Then there is the clunkiness of the New American Bible, the pedestrian translation to which U.S. Catholics are subjected in the liturgy: there is little beauty here, and the beauty of God’s Word ought to be one of its most attractive attributes.

But it was not until I read “Our Babel of Bibles” by Baylor University’s David Lyle Jeffrey, published in the March/April 2012 issue of Touchstone, that I began to understand that the proliferation of modern biblical translations and editions is also part of the problem. Not only are there a plethora of different translations from which to choose; as Dr. Jeffrey points out, there are now “niche” Bibles:

“If you are tired of your mother’s old Bible, which printed the words of Jesus in red, you can choose a more trendy Green Bible, with all the eco-sensitive passages printed in green ink. If you are a feisty woman unfazed by possibly misdirected allusions, then maybe you would like the Woman Thou Art Loosed edition of the NKJB [New King James Bible]. If you should be a high-end of the TV-channel charismatic, there are ‘prophecy Bibles’ coded in several colors to justify your eschatology of choice.”

And that’s before we get to the super-trendy editions like the Common English Bible, which renders Psalm 122.1 (“I was glad when they said unto me/Let us go to the Lord’s house”) as “Let’s go to the Lord’s house.” This is not just dumb; as Dr. Jeffrey points out, is also “verges on a grotesque secularism at the level of ‘Let’s go to Joe’s place – he has the biggest TV.’” And lest you think Jeffrey exaggerates, please note that the CEB renders “Son of Man” as “the Human One.” Yuck.

Dr. Jeffrey’s dissection of our Bible Babel also makes an important point about the use of sacral vocabulary, noting that Venerable Bede and the other first translators of the Bible into Anglo-Saxon understood the limits of their own vernacular and borrowed words from Latin to express what the biblical text meant. A minor point? Not really, because these words came into English that way: alms, altar, angel, anthem, apostle, ark, canticle, chalice, creed, deacon, demon, disciple, epistle, hymn, manna, martyr, priest, prophet, psalm, Psalter, rule, Sabbath, shrift, and temple. Later in the process of making English English, more words entered our language via the Vulgate: absolution, baptism, beatitude, charity, communion, confession, confession, contrition, creator, crucifixion, devotion, faith, homily, mercy, miracle, obedience, passion, pastor, penance, religion, sacrament, saint, sanctuary, savior, temptation, theology, trinity, virgin, and virtue.

All of which is an answer to those who fretted that Anglophone Catholics couldn’t handle “consubstantial” in the new translations of the Roman Missal. As Dr. Jeffrey writes, “What would have happened if someone had said, in that time and place, ‘We just have to find dynamic equivalents in Anglo-Saxon?’ There weren’t any. Appropriately, the first translators were not intimidated by the prospect of teaching people the meaning of biblical and sacral terms not to be found anywhere in their ordinary language. They gratefully borrowed the language of Scripture as they found it in another tongue.”

What to do today? My suggestion is to get yourself the Ignatius Press edition of the Revised Standard Version, and read it over and over again until its language works its way into the crevices of your mind and the texture of your prayer. Maybe, some day, we can hear that translation at Mass.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; protbashing; scripture

1 posted on 05/09/2012 2:07:42 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 05/09/2012 2:08:29 PM PDT by NYer (Open to scriptural suggestions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Spiritual deadness translates into a lack of passion for the Bible.

A lack of reading the Bible leads to spiritual deadness.

If your churchgoers don’t have a passion for reading the Bible it is because they are spiritually dead.


3 posted on 05/09/2012 2:22:07 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
My suggestion is to get yourself the Ignatius Press edition of the Revised Standard Version

Or what I do when teaching is to read several different translations, check Strong's, look for other instances of the original word used by the same writer as well as other writers, look for context and compare to major biblical themes of sin and need for a savior etc. Then turn over the verses to God and ask for guidance.

If all you do is the last step, the translations won't matter. If your heart is open, the Holy Spirit will set you right about the verses.

4 posted on 05/09/2012 2:26:55 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Yours: Psalm 122.1 “I was glad when they said unto me/Let us go to the Lord’s house”

There doesn’t seem to be any difference in these versions, choose one of them. All easy to understand.

Psalm 122.1 (NIV)
I rejoiced with those who said to me,
“Let us go to the house of the Lord.”

Psalm 122.1 (NKJ)
I was glad when they said to me,
“Let us go into the house of the Lord.”

Psalm 122.1 (KJV)
I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord.

Psalm 122.1 (NASB)
I was glad when they said to me,“Let us go to the house of the Lord.”

Psalm 122.1 (ESV)
I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord!”

Psalm 122.1 (YLT)
I have rejoiced in those saying to me, `To the house of Jehovah we go.’

Psalm 122.1 (NLT)
I was glad when they said to me,“Let us go to the house of the Lord.”


5 posted on 05/09/2012 2:52:25 PM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

`


6 posted on 05/09/2012 2:54:04 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Which translation (I wonder) did President B.O. use which taught him that Christ supports homosexual marriage?

And, NYer, in response to your tagline, one somewhat interesting "translation" of the New Testament which is a bit different (but based on the RSV-CE New Testament) is this one   ===>   Truth and Life Dramatized Audio Bible New Testament (Audio CD)

7 posted on 05/09/2012 7:31:03 PM PDT by Heart-Rest ( "Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CdMGuy

Ping!

Could you please post the links to your excellent Bible study program?


8 posted on 05/09/2012 8:05:51 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Hi Salvation!

Can you please ping me when those "excellent Bible study program" links you are recommending are posted, or you get the links some way?

Thanks!
9 posted on 05/09/2012 8:43:14 PM PDT by Heart-Rest ( "Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Bear in mind that the Bible was not written in King James English, Common English, RSV English, or any other form of English. It was written in Hebrew, Arabic and Greek. All English translations are just that; translations. Each translation renders some words differently from the next, but all of them preserve the basic message of the original. One exception to that is the bible you are promoting. The Revised Standard Version was translated by people who didn't believe the basic message of the Gospel (Look it up!) and much of it is rendered to dilute the power of the gospel.
10 posted on 05/10/2012 4:59:23 AM PDT by truthczar2000 (All English translations are just that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthczar2000
Are you sure you're not thinking of the New Revised Standard Version?

The RSV-CE is based on the RSV, not the NRSV. The RSV project was started in the 1930's and finished in the early 1950's. The edition the RSV-CE is based on came out in 1966. The RSV language hews pretty closely to that of the KJV, except where the KJV uses obsolete Elizabethan diction.

The NRSV is indeed a pretty bad edition. The Canadian Catholic bishops wanted to develop a lectionary for Mass using the NRSV a few years ago, and were prohibited from doing so by the Holy See.

11 posted on 05/10/2012 5:26:01 AM PDT by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson