I'm currently test-driving a New Testament translation called The Voice. It's apparently a product of the 'emergent' movement. I'm frankly confused by the whole emergent thing. Where do these folk sit on the continuum between fundagelicism and sanity? Read Phyllis Tickle's The Great Emergence and you might be forgiven for thinking the latter, but I'm not so sure.
The Voice is published by Thomas Nelson, so that's minus 10 points before you even crack open the cover. Next, take the temperature with two key texts in that most incoherent of Pauline letters, Romans.
Romans 3:22 (along with texts like Galatians 2:16) can be translated two ways, and there's a wide theological gulf between them. Before the beginning of the twentieth century the text was rendered "faith of Christ," as in the KJV (and before that Tyndale, the Geneva and Bishop's Bible.) The ratbags who produced the American Standard Version (1901) changed it to "faith in Christ," and it's been downhill ever since. "Faith in Christ" leads to sawdust trails and Chick tracts. Faith (or faithfulness) of Christ puts the emphasis back on Jesus and away from propositional righteousness. The Greek lends itself to of more than in, but oh dear, there goes a handy-dandy proof text.
The Voice does the right thing: "This redeeming justice comes through the faithfulness of Jesus..." Ten points.
Romans 16:7 is the Junia text which has already been mentioned here. Here The Voice gives poor Junia a gender reassignment, and she pops up as Junias (a totally unwarranted male name.) Minus ten points.
The Voice has a distinctive (one might even say 'cool') layout, and there's the promise of a full translation, that includes the Old Testament, somewhere downstream. The notes are designed to promote a devotional (yuck, ick, has anyone got mouthwash?) reading: minus twenty points. Scholars who contributed include Darrell Bock of Dallas Seminary (minus 50 points), but Brian McLaren's influence shouldn't be understated (plus 10 points), and Phyllis Tickle is involved in the Old Testament part of the project (plus 5 points.)
What The Voice does with the sense of Romans as a whole I'm about to discover. Not that I'm sure Romans is capable of making good sense given Paul's overindulgence in complex rhetoric. Let's face it, if Barth stuffed up so badly, what chance have a bunch of middle-class emergents got? If Luther only succeeded in muddying the waters, isn't it likely that Bock will produce pure schlock?
I'll get back on that one...
If anyone is interested in the pros and cons of Romans 3:22, and is prepared to deal with some fairly technical exegesis around Pistis Christou, Bird and Sprinkle's The Faith of Jesus Christ will tell you far more than you need to know.
"I'm frankly confused by the whole emergent thing. Where do these folk sit on the continuum between fundagelicism and sanity?"
ReplyDeleteHaving been exposed to "emergent" folk (in the same sense as one is exposed to radioactive fallout) within the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), I can unfortunately report that they conform more to the former, than the latter. (Think Westboro Baptists in Amish costumes, and you'll be close to hitting the mark.)
"The Greek lends itself to of more than in, but oh dear, there goes a handy-dandy proof text."
And two thousand years of pagan idolatry. I like the faithfulNESS touch, too, since that renders any faith in the false doctrine of the Person of Christ unworkable, unless one retreats back to a solidly pro-Constantinian/Eusebian translation.
"Faith (or faithfulness) of Christ puts the emphasis back on Jesus and away from propositional righteousness."
I like that soundbite so much, I'm quoting it on the new blog! Hope you don't mind! :-)