Letters

Dear CHRISTIS,

Julien Foster’s spot of Bible Bashing (Christis Issue 13) was directed against the Good News Bible with some justification. The Good News is perhaps best used for teaching children up to secondary school age, being written in a form of English unlikely to intimidate, with short introductions at the beginning of each book, useful, clear maps, imaginative line drawings, sturdy and relatively cheap. As Julien points out, though, the English is uninspiring and the translation is at times bizarre. However, his defence of the Authorised Version is somewhat misdirected. Its seventeenth century prose is indeed remarkable; it is a precious gem in the heritage of the English language. There endeth its value!

The value of the Authorised Version should be understood in terms of its literary beauty; as a Bible it is simply not up to scratch any more. The sources from which it was compiled and translated were even in its own day inadequate. The Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza in the reign of Elizabeth I, and used in the Authorised Version, was itself based largely on the compilations of Erasmus over half a century earlier. Erasmus used a few medieval manuscripts, but had access to a text from the tenth century which, although his best source, he made little use of because it differed so much from far later manuscripts. Beza had access to manuscripts from as early as the fifth and sixth centuries, but paid them scant regard because they differed from the text published by Erasmus! The Authorised Version thus contains the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.

The translation of Beza’s Greek version to English for the Authorised Version was remarkably proficient for the seventeenth century. Since then, however, an enormous volume of Greek manuscripts has been unearthed-bills, business accounts, private letters and public proclamations etc.-which has greatly enhanced the knowledge of Greek as spoken in the first century.

Julien mentions in passing the change in meaning of the word ‘charity’ since the seventeenth century. Further examples of such changes include ‘let’ in the sense of ‘hinder’, ‘communicate’ for ‘share’, or ‘take no thought’ for ‘be not anxious’. These changes are almost innumerable. The development of the English language over the last three and a half centuries has made the Authorised Version quite incomprehensible to a normal modern reader, I would contend.

I shall not even begin to take issue with the Authorised Version of the Old Testament.

There are many modern translations of the biblical texts which resolve the problems now recognised in the Authorised Version, but do not suffer from the excesses of the Good News Bible. I am not going to plug one version over another; but I would suggest that the dedicated Bible reader should assess what they want a Bible for, take the time to ‘shop around’ and do a little research into the various Bibles on offer. If a single book is going to have such a monumental effect on your life, choose it carefully.

Yours sincerely,

Timothy L. Jones

Dear CHRISTIS,

Having seen the Six o’ Clock News today (BBC1 17th February 1992) I felt that I had to write to express my views.

One of the main stories was that of an Irish schoolchild aged 14 who had been refused the right to go to the United Kingdom in order to have an abortion despite the fact that she has been raped. As a Christian, I deplore the fact that an ostensibly Catholic country can show such an un-Christian attitude of myopia and lack of compassion.

Rape is one of the most harrowing experiences that a human being can ever go through; to be reminded of the experience by being forced to have a child, especially at such a young age, with the likely pain, emotional difficulties and above all physical danger is not only a deplorable decision but inexcusable.

I hope and pray that all concerned may be able to overcome their prejudices and that a suitable outcome can be provided. I also hope that such a deplorable situation does not have to arise again.

An Exceptionally Concerned Man

Dear CHRISTIS,

May I first thank Ben Rule for expressing his thoughts on ‘Tolerance of other Religions’, in issue 13 of Christis, in a clear and rational way. My reply is both directed at his article and Dominic Connell’s letter which appeared in issue 12.

Firstly Ben, in his article, compares Christian Belief to others by stating some of what Christians believe — “God is the creator” and “God is the source of all truth goodness and love”. I do not deny that these points are true and important to the Christian faith but what of Christ who our religion is named after.

Ben later in his article quotes Gandhi who says that “Jesus … belongs to all races”. I agree to a point — Christ belongs to the Jews as a mere mortal and to the Muslims as a prophet but to Christians as our saviour, part of God. Surely Christ would belong to a new found religion that thought he was a space-alien from the planet Zorg under this argument.

I believe that people can only really know God through Jesus. This is and has been the essential point of the Christian faith ever since its advent. If you say that people can come to God and live eternally with him without first coming to Jesus, then you are in effect saying that there was no point in Jesus’ coming.

Jesus came, I believe, because there was a need. Because since the fall of humankind (Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit) we have been separated from God by sin and that, in Jesus’ death and resurrection, he atoned for all our sin so that we may come to God through him. If the last sentence seemed ‘Greek’ to you then please read at least some of the following references: Rom 8:1–4, Rom 5:12–19, Heb 9:1–10, Heb 10:1–4, Heb 9:24–26, Col 1:19–20 & 2–9, Mat 5:17, Heb 10:12–18, 1Cor 5:12.

So the question still remains, how do you communicate with and ‘tolerate’ people of other faiths are leave your own in tact. My answer to this is not to condemn Jews, Muslims etc. as having no recognition of God or even as being any more sinful than Christians but neither is it to accept them as right.

I believe it is possible to live in harmony with people of other faiths if you respect each others beliefs. Respect what it means to people and the way they live their lives according to it but this doesn’t entail adhering to it yourself.

But what of evangelism? I have no qualms in saying there is a need for all non-Christians to be converted to Christianity whatever they may believe as until they are they can not enter the kingdom of Heaven.

But evangelism should never be a hostile activity where the main objective is to try and ‘prove’ each other wrong. Evangelism as I see it is two people coming together and openly sharing what they believe. I would have no objection to being evangelised to (for want of a better phrase), in this sense, by someone of a different faith as I feel the experience would be educational, even beneficial to my faith.

In my view, Christianity, as a belief, is incompatible with any other religion or faith. Things would be a lot easier if it were but sadly it isn’t for the reasons I stated above, but to be hostile towards and ignorant of other faiths doesn’t follow in any way from this and, if anything, shows weakness in ours.

Paul Salaman

Dear CHRISTIS,

I agree with Julien Foster (“Bible Bashing” Issue 13) that the Good News Bible is unimaginative, pedestrian, tedious-lacking in accuracy and literary style. For University students with receptive minds and opportunities to develop these not to have been weaned off the simplistic Good News Bible when other, better versions are available, is a waste of God’s gift of intelligence. “Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature…” (Heb. 5:13–14 NIV). As solid food, Julien Foster suggests the Authorised (King James) Version, but this goes to the opposite extreme of making the Bible unnecessarily difficult to understand. When the Under-secretary of State for Education proposed in the Commons recently that English teaching in schools should be based on the language of the King James Bible and the Prayer Book, even his fellow MPs were aghast. We are indeed as the AV puts it “a peculiar people”-some more so than others however. Fortunately English is not taught in this way. Julien foster is out of touch with those of us not studying Chaucer and Shakespeare at University if he thinks a return to the AV is in order.

At only one point does Julien Foster mention “the excellent New International Version of the Bible, which” he claims, “follows King James’ Authorised Version very closely, but removes genuine archaisms.” He continues, “This seems to be a far more acceptable way of changing the Bible, rather than hurling out the work of centuries and beginning afresh.” However, it is possible to begin afresh without “hurling out the work of centuries” which is what the NIV committee did. The preface to the NIV states:

“The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.”

It doesn’t follow the AV, rather, both follow earlier manuscripts, the collation, preservation and interpretation of which has been the work of centuries. As far as accuracy goes, the NIV is ‘probably the best translation in the world’: “It may well be that no other no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision from committee to committee than this one.” (NIV Preface). This process also included stylistic review and revision to insure “clarity and literary quality.” Regarding archaisms, the NIV Preface states:

“As for the traditional pronouns ‘thou’, ‘thee’ and ‘thine’ in reference to the Deity, the translators judged that to use these archaisms (along with old verb forms such as ‘doest’, ‘wouldest’ and ‘hadst’) would violate accuracy in translation. Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead. A present-day translation is not enhanced by forms that in the time of the King James version were used in everyday speech, whether referring to God or man.”

Having seen at first hand the tedious, time-consuming work of Bible translation (into Afar in North East Africa) I feel that we in the English-speaking world are privileged to have such an excellent translation as the NIV, combining style with clear, comprehensible English. It is up to us to make full use of God’s word, in both private and group study (e.g. Small Groups), by reading it prayerfully and regularly, and by using the best available translation (with perhaps others to hand for comparison).

(Those interested in the work of Bible translation could consult the journal “Bible Translator” in the MZ Periodical section of the JBM Library, or contact Wycliffe Bible Translators, Horsleys Green, High Wycombe, Bucks HP14 3XL — information available in the Careers Service in the “Christian Opportunities in the UK” folder)

Steve Nicolle