The Politicization of Everything
Over at Conservapedia, some contributors are concerned about the possibility that certain passages in the Bible might be misinterpreted as progressive in their implications. So they are suggesting the creation of a new translation that is politically correct free from “liberal distortions.” Here are a few choice examples of liberal bias in prior translations that the projects founders have identified:
First Example – Liberal Falsehood
The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7]
- Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.
Second Example – Dishonestly Shrewd
At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the “master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.” But is “shrewdly”, which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.
The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is “resourceful”. The manager was praised for being “resourceful”, which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the ESV, which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term “resourceful” in its entire translation of the Bible.
Third Example – Socialism
Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the “social justice” movement among Christians.
For example, the conservative word “volunteer” is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word “comrade” is used three times, “laborer(s)” is used 13 times, “labored” 15 times, and “fellow” (as in “fellow worker”) is used 55 times.
Following Mollie’s sound advice, I suppose I should assume that Conservapedia has been hacked and that this is all a hoax. I did stumble on this via Dreher, who was recently punkd by the “praying to Obama” video, so please take this with the appropriate grains of salt. It has the virtue of being funny, whether understood as satire or simply authentic insanity. It’s a sad commentary on the state of our political discourse that it’s so hard to tell the two apart these days.
UPDATE: To be clear, I do not believe this to be a hoax. I was just riffing off of Mollie’s expose of the “praying to Obama” video. As comments below indicate, the Conservative Bible is far too elaborate to be a hoax. For example, links within the page lead to translations already underway, complete with reasons for suggested changes. That said, the project as a whole and the specific instances of bias identified are so inane that it’s hard to believe someone would actually take the positions asserted. I wish it were a hoax.
How sure are we that this isn’t a parody of liberal methods of biblical criticism?
If it is a hoax or a parody, it is a very elaborate one, considering that they have “translated” the entire Gospel of Mark and part of John. Their method of “translation” is to reword the King James Version, clearly without references to the original Greek. An example,
King James Version
Proposed Conservative Translation
Analysis
Another example
King James Version
Proposed Conservative Translation
Analysis
One reason not to use the pronoun “women” is that it is a noun, not a pronoun.
A problem really arises not when religion speaks about politics burt when politics shapes religion and its speech.
The translation of Logos in the beginnin gof John’s Gospel (thanks, Davis) shows the need for some to put forward their agenda.
While Biblical critiicism may be criticized itself, the authors of such criticism come from a background with some scholarship and in general are subject to the critiques of scholars in their field.
The proposed changes David cites hardly strike me as scolarly.
I’m with Kathy – a parody
Kind of reminds me of . . . . oh . . . gender inclusive translation
I hope it’s a parody. Pretty scary if it’s not. Among the “striking advantages” to a Bible translated along politically conservative lines are the following: “the ensuing debate would flesh out — and stop — the infiltration of churches by liberals pretending to be Christian, much as a vote by legislators exposes the liberals,” and “this would debunk the pervasive and hurtful myth that Jesus would be a political liberal today.” Yikes.
How is this any different from the current “New” Roman Missal push using the so-called latinization process because it is based on better scriptural translations (even though every biblical expert and association has stated that this is incorrect and biased).
New Roman Missal – pushed by Medina and company (a minority running roughshod over the 2,000+ bishops of Vatican II)…..how is this any different than what you post above.
I’m with Kathy – a parody
Sean,
The Bible Retranslation Project is not a parody or a hoax, but a serious undertaking by Andy Schlafly, who founded Conservapedia. It is difficult to believe that anyone would put so much work into a hoax or a parody, and if you spend some time reading it, there’s nothing remotely resembling intentional humor.
Inclusive language, in scripture or in everyday conversation, is simply accurate (when correctly used, of course). How anyone can object to accuracy is beyond me.
Help me out David –
Is it accurate to, for example, speak of God The Parent, instead of God The Father?
How about the people who say the Our Father/Mother prayer?
It seems to me that the injection of political points of view into scripture and scriptural translation has been going on for a very long time. Why suddenly get our knickers in a twist over this siliiness?
Sean — you should just have a standard comment that you incorporate by reference. No need to spell it out each time. Something like: “If the comment of this post is a criticism of something conservatives are doing, please note that it is no worse than (or, more likely, not nearly as bad as) the stuff liberals have also been doing for years.” This would save both you and readers a lot of time. Any time you wanted to make it, you would just have to type in: “see standard comment.”
Help me out David –
Is it accurate to, for example, speak of God The Parent, instead of God The Father?
Sean,
Well, I don’t know. It actually might be. But that was not the kind of thing I was referring to, and I wouldn’t give it my stamp of approval. I was referring to translations like the NRSV, which don’t rely on male pronouns when it may be assumed that both men and women are being referred to. I see that as accuracy, not distortion. And when the literal translation would merely be “brothers,” but women are understood to be included, I see no problem with saying “brothers and sisters.”
Speaking of renaming the Trinity, Andy Schlafly isn’t happy with Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, so he “translates” it as Divine Guide. See the discussion here.
It’s clear from another discussion on that page that in an earlier draft, this KJV verse
was “translated” as
The are clearly unaware that the woman’s hemorrhaging was a menstrual flow which on top the medical aspects rendered her ritually unclean.
Eduardo
Perhaps I should, and perhaps you and the other contributors should stop acting as if you are objecting to things based on neutral principles.
You are not objecting to the “politicization” of the Bible, but the conservative politicization of the Bible. Just as the strenuous objections to “political” bishops, is not that at all. It is an objection to “conservative” bishops.
I happen to agree with you in this case – this translation project, motivated as it is – is stupid. However, I feel the same way about the many attempts to re-write history, and re-interpret and translate scripture to promote a paticular political point of view point of view – most of them liberal.
So, if I was to see something like – “Archbishop Burke is making statements that I disagree with.” I wouldn’t do what you object to. Unfortunately, what I see instead is, “Archbishop Burke is making statements that I disagree with, and he is a partisan political hack who is stepping outside his proper role and authority as bishop.” So when I point out Archbishop Gumbleton’s antics, it’s not to say everyone does it, it’s to point out that the objection is not really what you say it is.
To save even more time, how about Eduardo just writes a daily post that says, “Oh my word, there’s somebody that posted something crazy on the Internet somewhere,” to which Sean can respond, “See standard comment.”
To which Stuart can say, “I wish I had more time to read what you linked to, but I’m too busy repeating Sean’s standard comment.”
It’s surprising how many translations and editions of Scripture there are, and what motivates the translators and editors. Here is a review of the Green Bible, which, to be fair, isn’t really a new translation (the reviewer doesn’t mention which translation it is, but I believe it’s the NRSV) but rather an edition that emphasizes the “green”, i.e. environmental, aspects of the Bible by highlighting those passages in green ink.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/04/blessed-are-the-green-of-heart-1243315303
Wrong, Grant, I actually don’t wish I had more time to read multiple articles about the latest stupidity that somebody dug up somewhere. I try, often without success, to aim a bit higher than that.
Eph 4, 1-3: I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
The Commonweal blog has been striking to me because of the participation of people of diverse shades of faith within Catholicism, and because they have, by and large, been conversing in an urban manner, trying to reach new insights together by communicating across different sensibilities.
I do not think that thread topics that focus on some extreme perspectives is fruitful.
“is fruitful” should be “are fruitful” – sorry for the faulty grammar!
Sean,
“However, I feel the same way about the many attempts to re-write history, and re-interpret and translate scripture to promote a paticular political point of view point of view – most of them liberal.”
Please be specific. Who makes these claims and what are their credentials as authoritative translators? Your comment is otherwise too general to be useful. It verges on caricature.
I’d just like to hear from people who have some scholarship in biblical studies talk about this instead of the less knowledgeable cefending less knowledgabl;e (nbout politically acceptable to them) biblical understandings.
Alan
If you would like a list of various feminist and gay and lesbian translations, interpretations, and biblical studies out there I can find plenty. Are you telling me that none of these is designed to promote a particular point of view – they are all neutral studies?
I would ask why is is that when a Commonweal contributer posts a comment about an obscure and nutty “conservative biblical translation” that “politicizes” the bible – that is not a caricature?
This is America and I think that people who want to make capitalism into a religion are entitled to have their own bible.
All translation is traitorous, as an old adage goes.(its funnier in latin, but all translation…) Every translation has bias, but that does not prevent them from being at least somewhat accurate. In the examples cited, the bias does impede accuracy.
The first example is an interesting textual problem. In the Codex Sinaiticus (http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en) it looks like something was erased so that this passage could be inserted. It has a slightly different handwriting than the most of the MS. Similar problems exist in other texts. Does this justify dropping this passage? Maybe, but if it is done for an avowedly political purpose, we are making ourselves into the inspired evangelist’s coworker. Catholics might accept that, ie the Pope et al. are the inspired coworkers who give us the text, but others might object. Particularly conservatives…
The second example is almost dishonestly shrewd. “Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.” But I doubt that many would admire someone who is dishonestly resourceful either. (Except of course for the Lord in the parable.) The important word here is not ‘shrewd’ but dishonest, and changing shrewd to resourceful or prudent(NAB) does not help too much as long as the dishonesty remains.
Finally, the third example is a mixed bag. Comrade is an odd term used 3 times in a single chapter of Judges in the ESV. Maybe there is a reason for it? But the other terms are usually direct translations — What term could replace worker or laborer and not sound equally socialistic? There is an interplay between the bible’s portrait of workers and “socialistic” labor movements that would be denied if we changed the workers in the vineyard into volunteers, or said every volunteer deserves to be paid. It is the imagery that is socialistic, not just the language, and attempts to change it like this just point out how liberal the Bible is.
And what about “shrewd as serpent?” Was it commented upon at all?
Sean, surely you know God has no gender. Or did they deceive you in RCIA?
Bill
God has no sex –
But does He have no gender?
Conservapedia and this Bible translation are both projects of Andy Schlafly, who is Phyllis Schlafly’s son (and, coincidently, Obama’s Harvard Law classmate).