These days you'd be hard pressed to find a copy of any of those translations. They've been replaced - for better or worse - by a new generation of versions: the NIV, NLT, NASB, ESV and (the Eternal preserve us all!) The Message. Yet the same strategy endures. The wide-eyed neophyte may well be dazzled by this apparent mastery of diverse translations, but the truth is far less profound. More often than not it's simply - to use a term that has had a good airing here recently - cherry picking. Pick the translation that best fits the point you want to make and ignore the rest (which are clearly inaccurate). Shuffle according to taste. Forget hermeneutics, this is simply apologetic sleight of hand. It's a sure sign that the writer is, far from an expert, an amateur and a dilettante.
In other words it's a bit of a con.
I agree that the exegesis and hermeneutics employed by many biblical scholars could be characterized as a "sleight of hand" because it is very often used to reconcile "supposed" contradictions within the text. I also share your belief that an objective evaluation of the evidence (Scripture) precludes any reconciliation of many of those texts (once again, contradictions and errors do exist within Scripture). Likewise, the practice loses any "scientific" investigative value when it is employed to reinforce or prove a predetermined interpretation of the text in question. However, I don't think that you are dismissing the value of comparing translations and taking a critical look at the texts vis-à-vis the Bible - right? After all, your statement about "The Message" implies that you recognize a qualitative difference between the different translations (I don't like "The Message" either!) Nevertheless, I agree with you about proof-texting (there was a time when I too found it to be impressive). However, for those of us who are still trying to engage the old culture, we must recognize that many of those folks are still bedazzled by the practice (proof-texting). Ignoring that fact is sure to shut down any conversations with them before they even get started.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing such writers have in common is not knowing the original biblical languages. :)
ReplyDeleteSo a person should be fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek before he/she explores the Bible or is able to have an intelligent conversation about it? What about Latin since many of the most ancient manuscripts are written in that language? That would certainly limit the conversation to a handful of people - Isn't that just a tad bit elitist? Are we of the great unwashed to be barred from the conversation?
Delete"So a person should be fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek before he/she explores the Bible or is able to have an intelligent conversation about it?"
DeleteNope, and that's not what I said at all. But I think if you're going to write a book that teaches on the Bible, and you have pretensions to being a theologian, yeah, it wouldn't hurt to know the original language. (Or you could rely heavily on academic publications by scholars who *do* know the languages, but I don't see a lot of that either in the kinds of books Gavin is referring to.)
Thanks for the clarification. Your expectations in this regard are certainly reasonable, but don't you think that an agenda on the front end can pervert the work of the most outstanding scholars of the discipline? After all, a knowledgeable person can be just as subjective as a novice or dilettante.
DeleteSomething gets lost in the translation.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons that the proof texting seemed to make considerable sense is that it appeared to run parallel to the principles of logic which one learned from high school Geometry. The problem, of course, is that Geometry and Theology are two vastly different fields. The word "appropriate" comes into play, and WCG would have done well to have all members read and study the childrens' book "Epaminondas and his Auntie" as a basic primer and companion, but that would have defeated their purposes.
ReplyDeleteBB
I need to clarify something. I just Googled Epaminondas. When this book was read to us in grade school, we did not see the illustrations, and therefore race was never dramatized. All that I remembered were the unusual name of the main character, and the lesson that children should use common sense. The version that our teacher had read to us was apparently a later revision, because the characters did not speak in slave jargon. I understand that in the intervening decades since this was read to us, it has rightly dropped from public favor because it is demeaning to black people. When I used the book as an example in my comment above, I did not intend to endorse the demeaning aspects, in fact, I actively hate and deplore racism in all of its forms.
ReplyDeleteBB
"Its a bit of a con" is quite the understatement. For WCG and for all religion.
ReplyDelete