rcj1@ihuxi.UUCP (Ray) (10/17/83)
Starting Nov. 27, many congregations (which ones I don't know) will be using revised versions of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Why? Because, and get this, of a desire to use "non-sexist, inclusive" language. If this don't beat anything I've ever heard of!! I can't believe that some people will turn even the Bible into a thing of "discrimination" against the sexes... Explaining the changes, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Prof. of English at William Paterson College of New Jersey in Wayne, said: "The language currently used in most churches transmits a patriarchal, male-dominance model." One of the changes would be in Genesis 2, changing "man" as in "It is not good that man be alone.", to "It is not good that the *HUMAN BEING* should be alone; I will make a companion corresponding to the creature [ not'I will make him a helper fit for him']." Another change is Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsemane and saying "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me" would change to "God, my Father and my Mother, if it be possible..." Another and probably the most absurd would change: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" to read "This is my beloved *CHILD*, with whom I am well pleased." It is my opinion that these people are in grave error by these actions and only tend to weaken the basic theme of the Scriptures..... Ray, ihuxi!rcj1
bees@drux3.UUCP (Ray Davis) (10/17/83)
I am of the opinion that once something has been written it should be
left alone (or as close as possible, through translation). It may be
that those responsible for this "Revised Slandered Version" are more
interested in equality than what the authors of the Bible have to say.
I suppose that we will also see new and *improved* versions of all the
classic philosophers, historians and novelists?
Ray Davis AT&T Information Systems Laboratories Denver
{ihnp4|hogpc}!druxy!bees (303)538-3991bch@unc.UUCP (10/17/83)
Before everybody gets too upset at the two Ray's articles, the "trans- lations" in question are not a new translation of the bible, but a lectionary for "voluntary, experimental use in services." "The National Council of Churches, an organization of 30 Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations, cannot require any of its members to use the lectionary, but will promote the volume and ask churches to report their experiences with it." "Members of the committee [charged by the NCC] do not believe the new lectionary should completely replace the more traditional and more literal translations of the Bible. But the believe the use of sexually inclusive language in public worship will undergird other efforts for equality between men and women." (the above quotations from an article by Charles Austin in the New York Times News Service printed in the Raleigh, N.C. News and Observer, Sun. Oct. 16, 1973.) -------------------- My opinion: Since the King James Version of the Bible, that everyone keeps swearing by, is anything but a wholly accurate version of the original text I see no harm in an equally inaccurate translation for conveying a more modernized spirit. At least nobody is trying to claim that these texts are accurate. Biblical text is interpreted as to meaning in Church services all the time with varying degrees of effectiveness and accuracy in order to teach specific pieces of dogma. Why is this more or less wrong than that? Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!unc!bch
eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (10/20/83)
#R:ihuxi:-57400:uiuccsb:11900003:000:670 uiuccsb!eich Oct 19 13:38:00 1983 Because this piece of dogma is a secular accretion. I am amused by the perspectiveless chauvinism that characterizes this kind of arrogant modernism. Voluntary lectionary or no, there is an ideological pitch for `non-sexist' bowdlerizations of scripture being made in all denominations nowadays. One of the strangest mutations I've heard is `the Human One' for `the Son of Man'; these people can't claim ignorance of the meanings of this apocalyptic term from Daniel. They merely idolize late-20th century intellectual fashion. And I needn't point out that the distance between King James and this rubbish is far greater than that between King James and the Greek.
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (10/21/83)
I prefer the RSV because it is a translation of close-to-original Hebrew and Greek versions into modern American English, the language I understand best. The VERY next best thing would be for me to learn both Hebrew and Greek and try to translate the old stuff myself, but this is not best because I don't want to take the time. ---------------------------------------- Dave Decot ..!decvax!cwruecmp!decot
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (10/24/83)
#R:ihuxi:-57400:uokvax:8300009:000:164 uokvax!emjej Oct 20 11:07:00 1983 I'd go along with God saying "This is my child...", if the folks pushing the change could come up with evidence of Jesus being a hermaphrodite... James Jones
stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (10/27/83)
In response to Dave's response where he says he likes the RSV.....
Actually, if what you want is faithfulness to the original, then most
scholars today would tell you to get one of the following three:
1. New American Standard Version. This is a revision/retranslation
of the RSV done about 1970 by the Lockman foundation,
a non-denominational (inter-denom.?) group founded
expressly for this purpose (or so I understand). It,
like each of the following two, makes use of manuscripts
not yet known at the time of the RSV work (1880-1901).
(i.e. Dead Sea Scrolls)
2. New International Version. This is a translation completed
about 3 years ago, again by an inter (or non) denominational
group. While the NASV retains the RSV/KJV type grammer,
the NIV reads more like Ken Taylor's Living Bible. It is
reputedly very faithful to the oldest known manuscripts,
but reads too colloquially for my taste.
3. New English Version. I am not real familiar with the NEV, but
I understand it is an excellant translation, but tends to
use British wordings and phrasology. Possibly related to the
NIV the same way the RSV-1883 is related to the RSV-1901
(aka American Statndard Version, because it is merely the
wordings preferred by the American members of the RSV-1883
translation team).
Comments, rebuttals, etc., welcome. Advocates of the Douay, KJV, or other
translations based primarily on the Latin Vulgate should take a linguistics
course before replying.
Don Stanwyck ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck
(NOTE: The Thompson Chain Reference Edition has a fair description of the
origin of most of the translations up to the 1901-RSV. Many books
are available on this subject at your local library, your local
church library, or your local Bible/book store.)tim@unc.UUCP (10/28/83)
All the Bibles discussed here have been, if I am not mistaken, Protestant versions of the Bible, created and verified by Protestants, and thus missing a few of the chapters of the Catholic versions. What do people think of the major Catholic editions in terms of scholarliness; that is, accuracy? What is important to me in a Bible is its faithfulness to the original source, since I have even less faith in revisers of holy books than their authors. The Bible I use is The Jerusalem Bible, given to me long ago in the underground warrens of St. Charles Catholic Preparatory Academy. Not being a scholar of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Septuagint Greek, it is difficult for me to verify claims by reference to the original, so I wonder what others think, and on what grounds their beliefs are based. ________________________________________________________ Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (10/28/83)
The New English Bible is a complete retranslation incorporating all known texts to its date (1947-1968.) In cases where documents disagree, footnotes are given including all variants on the text. It is not based on previous translations nor is it a revision of previous translations. While it is, indeed, of Protestant authorization, the so-called Apocrypha have also been retranslated and are included in the edition that I own. The New English Bible is well regarded for its accuracy and I have not found British usage and spelling to be any particular obstacle to understanding. In fact, I find the somewhat stark formality of the language to be refreshing in com- parison to the somewhat trendier revisions and translations of the Bible that have appeared in this country. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!unc!bch
emma@uw-june.UUCP@cvl.UUCP (emma@uw-june.UUCP) (10/31/83)
OK, I'll bite. The Bibles which have mentioned so far have indeed been Protestant. The Authorized Version, by the way, may or may not contain the Apocrypha. These books were translated at that time, but not all editions and printings have included them. I do not like the RSV, as it is mostly a paraphrase of the AV. So I don't trust it. My favorite translation (for readability) is the New International (often called NIV, by the way). A couple of Catholic translations reputed to be good are the New Jerusalem (with a couple of books translated by JRR Tolkien, by the way) and the New American. I don't have a copy of the NJ, so I only pass on the recommendations I have heard. I do most of my reading in the fairly recent NABible (no, not the New American Standard Bible). This is a translation from the original sources which is nearly as readable as the NIV. It is reputed to be accurate. In addition, it is cross-referenced and has some "official" interpretations in footnotes. These footnotes range from very helpful and informative, to hilarious half-hearted defenses of old Catholic heresies. -Joe P.