Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!ukma!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Bible the word of God? Message-ID: Date: 16 Nov 90 21:24:22 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 61 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) wrote > On the other hand, we have the fact that the Bible exists in the form of > written documents and is subject to copying errors (what a _pity_ that > we didn't adopt the error detection techniques of the Jews!) and to both > intentional and unintentional errors in translation. (Which is one of > the reasons why I recently bought a copy of the Tanakh, the fresh 1986 > translation brought out by the Jewish Publications Society. So far it > is reassuringly familiar, although they do say "a wind from God moved > on the face of the waters".) Yet even these imperfect copies, and even > slanted translations, are effective in bringing people to Jesus, so > absolute literal perfection can't be _necessary_. Today I received E-mail from a Jew who reads soc.religion.christian (and why not? I read soc.culture.jewish, though I wouldn't dream of posting) and who seemed rather angry at what he took to be a claim that the JPS translation of the Tanakh was "slanted". That's not what I wrote and it's not what I meant. I thought that it was clear from the extract above that "one of the reasons why I recently bought a copy of ... the 1986 [JPS translation]" was to help me check for "intentional and unintentional errors" in *OUR* translations. That runs a risk of being misunderstood too. I'm not saying that where Christian translations and Jewish translations disagree the Jews are right. I _am_ saying that where there's a difference there is something worth looking into. One of the themes of Bible translation in the 20th century is the attempt to produce translations which reflect good scholarship rather than sectarian interest. The Revised English Bible, for example, was "planned and directed by representatives of The Bapist Union of Great Britain, The Church of England, The Church of Scotland, The Council of Churches for Wales, The Irish Council of Churches, The London Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, The Methodist Church of Great Britain, The Moravian Church in Great Britain and Ireland, The Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, The Salvation Army, The United Reformd Church, The Bible Society, and The National Bible Society of Scotland, to quote the back cover, and was brought out by OUP and CUP. One idea, of course, is to get the best scholars you can wherever you can find them. Another is to try to avoid bias; to avoid slanting things. The 1986 JPS translation of the Tanakh "represents the collaborative efforts of academic scholars and rabbis representing the three largest branches of organised Judaism in America." In looking at it, I can be reasonably confident that it represents "Jewish" understanding rather than "Orthodox" or "Reform" special interest. I think it makes a useful and interesting comparison against the REB or the NIV precisely because I believe that the translators took pains NOT to slant it. Which slanted translations did I have in mind? Well, that posting was not intended to give offence to anyone, and neither is this. Suffice it to say that I had in mind two religious groups which call themselves Christian. What's more, I particularly had in mind their translations of the New Testament, not of the Tanakh. -- The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3 may always be replied to with a lob across the net. --Alasdair Macintyre.