Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Bible-New and Improved
Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read’st black where I read white.
—William Blake, The Everlasting Gospel
The Pope is not the only person keeping religion in the news. His efforts to do so by inviting Anglicans to join his congregation, are almost overshadowed by a less well-known but more ambitious project being undertaken by none other than Andrew Schafly, son of the well-known conservative activist, Phyllis Schafly. Andrew, Harvard Law and Princeton undergraduate who majored in electrical engineering, has decided to use his skills as engineer and lawyer to fix something that many people did not realize was broken-the Bible.
Andrew created Conservapedia which is the conservative’s answer to Wikipedia, an on line encyclopedia that Andrew believes has a liberal bias. Conservapedia, however, is more than a conservative encyclopedia. It has undertaken the translation of the Bible that will correct the liberal infusion of thought that now permeates that book. This it turns out, is no minor task because the King James Version (KJV) and the New International Version (NIV) have so many examples of a liberal bias that correcting them is an enormous challenge. Although its work has just drawn attention, it is already well underway. As of this writing, of the 8000 verses in the New Testament 30% or 2400 verses have been translated. (The word “translate” has a different meaning for Conservapedia than for most scholars. KJV is the baseline text used for “developing a conservative translation” rather than the “original Greek or Hebrew”.)
The work is being done by very sophisticated people who are able to translate verses from the KJV that make the verses more understandable to the contemporary reader while, simultaneously, removing the liberal influence. Two newly translated verses make the point. In Matthew 4:19 and 20 the KJV has the following confusing passage that displays a distinct liberal bias. It reads as follows: “And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.” The new, much clearer and less liberal translation by Conservapedia reads as follows: “And he told them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men. And immediately they left their fishing nets behind and followed Him.”
Although the translations were done by highly sophisticated translators, Mr. Schafly recognizes the importance of public input in such a significant project. Thus, in the description of the project that lists which Gospels have been completely translated, it notes, parenthetically next to the name of the Gospel that has been translated: “improvements welcome.” That is egalitarian, suggesting, as it does, that coming up with a better translation of the KJV or the NIM is not limited to a few pointy headed scholars but can be assisted by the likes of you and me, even if we know nothing of Hebrew or Greek.
Defining the scope of the project, Conservapedia says there are three major sources of error. The most significant is that Greek and Hebrew lacked the words to adequately “convey new concepts introduced by Christ.” A footnote embellishes on this, explaining that “Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well.” The second source of error (apparently contradicting the first) says the rewriting is necessary because of the “lack of precision in modern language.” The truth of that is demonstrated by reexamining the passage from Matthew quoted above. Finally, there was a translation bias in converting the original language to modern language. The three errors are, says Conservapedia, easily addressed.
The first error is cured by using experts in ancient language (and you and me by letting us suggest improvements). Linguists are able to cure the second type of error. But the “third—and largest—source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.” A footnote to that sentence observes that professors and higher education participants were involved in the NIV and could be “expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook” thus producing a Bible influenced more by political correctness and other liberal distortions than by genuine examination of the oldest manuscripts.”
Conservapedia sets out 10 guidelines that a conservative translation of the Bible will satisfy. They include providing a “thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias”, avoidance of “gender inclusive” language and “other modern emasculation of Christianity”, not “dumbing down the reading level”, and use of conservative terms to capture the “original intent.” (That is similar to adhering to the “original intent” of the U.S. Constitution favored by Antonin Scalia.) One way of getting back to original intent is to “utilize “powerful new conservative terms. . . .Defective translations use the word ‘comrade’ three times as often as ‘volunteer’.”
It is impossible in a few words to do justice to Mr. Schafly’s effort. It is worth going to the website linked above in order to enjoy the full flavor of this very important work by a few dedicated Christians. Some of my more creative readers may even want to accept the invitation to offer their own suggestions on how this new Bible can be improved.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Pope and the Anglicans
God is decreeing to begin some new and great period in His Church, even to the reforming of Reformation itself. . . .
— John Milton, Aereopagitica
If it had happened a few centuries ago it would have been part of the Counter-Reformation. Occurring now, it was still pretty significant. It was the news that Pope Benedict XVI had invited members of the Anglican Communion to abandon their church and join his. His invitation was addressed to Anglicans who are uncomfortable with gays and women as clergy.
It was a generous invitation and it was extended just 10 days before Halloween which is of no particular significance since that is just one day before All Saints day, a day that, unlike the Pope’s invitation, has nothing to do with spookiness. The invitation was a blanket invitation to Episcopalians, as they are known in the U.S., to abandon the Episcopal ship and set sail with one captained by the Pope.
In an October 20th press conference at the Vatican, Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said that something called an “Apostolic Constitution” had been created that would enable Anglican faithful and their clergy to enter “into full communion with the Church.” He described it as a “single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Anglicans in its universal application.” He explained that the Pope hopes that the new enrollees can “preserve those Anglican traditions precious to them and consistent with the Catholic faith. Insofar as these traditions express in a distinctive way the faith that is held in common, they are a gift to be shared in the wider Church.” (The gift to which he was referring includes neither women nor gays.)
It is gratifying that those who have deep-rooted opposition to gays and women in the priesthood have been welcomed to the company of the faithful who believe as they do and do so in the name of the Lord. The invitation is proof to the recipients that what was perceived as bigotry by those from whom they parted, is not bigotry at all but good sound theology. Inviting the congregants to join is not, however, the most amazing thing about the Church’s new openness.
For many centuries celibacy has been the watchword for those entering the Church’s priesthood. The reasons for it are diverse and it has in many cases been more honored in the breach than in the observance as shown by the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out by the Church in settlement of claims involving priestly pedophilia. Notwithstanding those episodes and tales of priests who secretly father children, the Church remains adamant that priests should live a life of celibacy. It is also aware, however, of the economic hardship that will be imposed on a married Anglican priest whose congregation moves whole cloth over to what was formerly the opposition, if he cannot join in the exodus. Accordingly, the new plan permits Anglican priests who are married to be ordained as Roman Catholic priests. They will not, however be eligible for promotion to Bishop or higher ecclesiastical office such as Cardinal or Pope, a minor drawback since few priests attain those posts.
The possibility of a married Anglican priest becoming a member of the clerical opposition came as especially good news to the Church of the Good Shepherd, a parish in suburban Philadelphia. The Good Shepherd has been in a state of warfare with the Episcopal Church for many years. According to a report in the NYT, for the last 17 years the parish has refused to allow the local Episcopal bishop to come for a pastoral visit or confirmation. Because of the tolerance the Church has for Anglican priests (as distinguished from gays or women) even if married, the Church of the Good Shepherd will be able to take its priest, with it. Bishop David Moyer who has led the church is married and father of three children. Although a Bishop and, therefore, not authorized even under the new rules to be married, he hopes that he may be grandfathered in. (Taking the Bishop along will be easier for the congregation than taking along its real estate. In 2009, the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania sued to take over the church building that has an estimated value of $7 million and only the Lord knows who will win that lawsuit.)
The newfound openness shown by accepting disaffected Episcopalians into the Roman fold may be just the first step. If the Pope wants to make a home for other people who don’t much care for gays and believe that women should be treated differently from men, he may want to reach out to the Taliban. Their attitudes are not as dissimilar as one might hope.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Prolonging of Palin
Books, like men their authors, have no more than one way of coming into the world, but there are ten thousand to go out of it, and return no more.
— Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub, dedication
It’s not the same as learning that just in time for the holiday season, a heretofore-unpublished novel of Dostoyevsky will hit the stores to great excitement and acclaim, but it’s not much less exciting. It’s the news that Sarah Palin’s memoir with the catchy title “Going Rogue: An American Life” will arrive at bookstores on November 17th. Its advent has produced more of a buzz than did the news of Joe the Plumber’s book, earlier this year, with the fetching title of “Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream.”
Joe’s fight began with the utterance of 12 words he spoke when introduced to Presidential Candidate Obama during the 2008 campaign. Those words were: “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” With that cogent inquiry Joe became an instant hero to the right wing and finally gave John McCain something to talk about. It was, of course, a miracle as great as any in memory, that such an utterance should be considered fighting for the American dream. Until then, Joe’s fighting for the American dream consisted of not paying taxes he owed and practicing plumbing without a license. That redemption could be achieved with such an utterance is indeed proof that in this country incompetence is no bar to success.
Joe’s fight continued after the election when Joe became a correspondent for Pajamas TV. As correspondent he went first to Israel where he reported on what he thought Israel’s response to the proposed cease fire with Hamas would be based on his perceptive conversations with “regular Israelis” (as distinguished from the other kind that more sophisticated reporters rely on). From that assignment he went on to “investigate the Obama stimulus package”, an assignment he completed on February 11. His last appearance for Pajamas appears to be March 3, 2009, probably because he got involved in writing his new book that was published later in the year. (Of course he did not write it himself. He wrote it with the help of someone who was able to put Joe’s few thoughts into words and embellish them to book length.) Sarah Palin’s book is more eagerly awaited than was Joe’s and, if advanced reports are believed, will have considerably more success.
Like Joe, (and unlike Dostoyevsky who did all his own writing and in Russian at that, which Sarah, having lived practically within earshot of Russia would be the first to tell you, is a considerable challenge) Sarah, too, had help. Her co-author was Lynn Vincent who spent the entire summer helping Sarah write her 400-page book. Ms. Vincent has written her own books as well as co—authored books for other public figures who lack the ability to do their own writing. A HarperCollins spokeswoman said the book would be “a memoir of Governor Palin’s life” but refused to discuss the role of Ms. Vincent saying the publisher did not “participate in stories regarding collaborators.” According to Politico, however, Ms. Vincent is “a staunch conservative, devoted evangelical Christian and intensely partisan Republican.” (Her partisanship is well illustrated by a book she wrote entitled “Donkey Cons” which, among other things, describes the Democratic party as “pro-gangster” and the “party of treason and subversion”, descriptions that resonate in the hearts of those who can hardly wait for the Palin book to hit the stores.) Its conception aside, the book promises to be a real boon for booksellers around the country.
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal its initial press run will be 1.5 million copies, the same as the first press run of the memoir of another famous American, Edward M. Kennedy published in late September. Retailers are hoping the book will boost the fortunes of booksellers around the country. Edward Ash-Milby, a buyer for Barnes and Noble is quoted in the WSJ as saying that “It’s going to be a No. 1 best seller, the hottest book in the country when it comes out. She has a lot to say and a lot of people will want to hear it.” It is reassuring to learn that Ms. Palin, who was repeatedly stumped by questioners when interviewed during the 2008 campaign, has found a brain and a voice and now has a lot to say. Some were amazed at Joe the Plumber’s popularity with a large segment of the American public when his accomplishments were essentially non-existent. It is even more amazing to think that Sarah Palin’s book will become a best seller. The only question that is left is whether the promised popularity of her book says more about her or about those who buy her book. Readers can reach their own conclusions.