Ringing Through The Ages

I wonder what a good Jew would have thought as Paul began his discourse on the status of the Jews in Gal 4:21? I could just imagine them nodding away sagely as they happily affirm the first part of Paul's argument - all the way to the first part of 4:24 - and then choking on their tassles when Paul so fundamentally reinterprets the Jewish nation's ancestry from Abraham. Wouldn't they be tearing their hair out at Paul's use of Ishmael as a reinterpretation of the Jewish religion? At the very least Paul seems to have seismically departed from the traditional understanding of Judaism.

.

Pre-Script: On the other hand

In the same introduction, the CEV looks at how it translates a psalm, effectively a poetic song of praise, moving away from a literal translation and from some of the poetic devices of the time to using more modern techniques. And it works brilliantly.

.

Now why would I advocate this as good practice? For the exact same reasons as below. In the original Hebrew, the writer may be rhyming and using poetic devices, including rhythm to make the poem much more powerful as a result. All this is lost with a wooden literalistic rendering of the text. Now listen to how they take a literal translation, add the spice and in my view, slam-dunk the translation.

.

NIV of Ps 29:3-4:

.

The voice of the LORD is over the waters;

the God of glory thunders,

the LORD thunders over the mighty waters.
The voice of the LORD is powerful;

the voice of the LORD is majestic.

.

And try to read these lines from the CEV without getting goosebumps

.

The voice of the LORD echoes over the oceans.
The glorious LORD God thunders above the roar of the raging sea,
and his voice is mighty and marvelous.

.

Awesome. Devastating. Evocative. You can almost hear the thunder in your head as you read. Praise-inspiring. They have captured the sense of the text perfectly.

.

So between the two prescript posts here, the jury is out on the CEV.

Pre-Script

Finding meaning in translation is a tricky thing. I tend towards wanting to preserve the words people use because words in and of themselves contain nuances of meaning. For example, try explaining what a word means and you will find yourself composing a recipe. 'Oh, it means such-&-such and so-&-so with a hint of this-or-that.' This recipe is part of capturing an overall sense of the meaning of a word. In my view, anyway. I know that this is a debated point. I would also maintain that rhetorical devices also communicate meanings.

.

Take one of the examples the CEV gives as a guide to its rationale in the translating process. The NIV of Jer 23:23 says

.

"Am I only a God nearby," declares the LORD, "and not a God far away? Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?" declares the LORD. "Do not I fill heaven and earth?" declares the LORD.

.

The new, 'improved' CEV says (note the subtle use of quotes that, as a grammatical device, adds a spice of irony to the adjective before CEV)

.

"I am everywhere-- both near and far, in heaven and on earth. There are no secret places where you can hide from me."

.

Now the translators proudly maintain this is a reliable rendering. In one sense they have given a reliable rendering but in my personal opinion here at this point (which remember is an example they are giving of their approach to the text) they have stripped it of some of its potency. It is my opinion that a rhetorical question posed by the Lord should elicit the correct answers with an accompanying sense of awe. Here no such opportunity remains; and some of the spice in the text is lost asa result.

.

Plain English? Yes. Plain meaning? Debatable. Spice? Totally missing.

.

Palpable Disappointment

In Ch 3, it seems as if Paul breaks off from the disappointment of his experiences with the apostles to launch into the Galatians who are in the process of being led astray. But it almost seems as if Paul alone is fighting for truth, battling with Peter and even Jesus' own flesh and blood to defend the centrality of the cross. I wonder whether Paul has worked himself up into a stew with his reminiscences and now is laying into the Galatians or whether he is genuinely trying to reform their faulty thinking with generous rhetoric. Either way, he is taking no prisoners.

The important leaders

I was a little confused by the passage in Gal 2:3-8. The leaders in 2:6 sound like the infiltrators in 2:4.

.

The CEV communicates something of an antipathy between these giants of the early church, almost as if there is a dividing of constituencies. The apostles can have the Jews; Paul can have the rest. And all can live in peace. It seems quite sad really.

Preaching as Revelation

1:11 My friends I want you to know that no one made up the message I preach. It wasn't given or taught to me by some mere human. My message came directly from Jesus Christ when he appeared to me.

I know this is not the point of the text but I was reminded that having a message to preach is not just an exercise of the mind but should at some level involve an aspect of revelation or inspiration, even imparted understanding, if you like.

Grace as Kindness

I love that the CEV is trying to get contemporary with their translation of grace as kindness (1:3) but is the sense of God's unmerited favouring being lost in translation? And for that matter is grace as kindness and mercy as undeserved kindness (6:16) being truncated into one concept rather than two? And how come grace is translated as kindness in one verse and wonderful kindness in the next (1:6)?

I'm not complaining. It feels more real to me already.

1, 2, 3...

3 By The Sea, originally uploaded by Meloses.

There are three types of people in this world. Those who can count. And those who can't.

thoughts on galatians

The first thought that strikes me is the extent to which Paul is defending his own ministry. This is quite personal stuff from him. I think when I come to preach a text I am looking for the eternal perspective, what will translate well and be applicable to people reading the text and trying to be a Christian in a 20/21 century context, but Paul quite loudly proclaims his credentials. So much for humility? Not really: he is vigorously defending the authority of his call. But the letter doesn't automatically translate into preaching material. If you're not careful, the requirement to produce a sermon can impose itself on the process of discovering what the text is really saying.

What I'm trying to do

What I'm trying to do here is take a new version of the Bible and look at scipture afresh. Let the letters or books themselves and the words really hit me. I am too comfortable and familiar with the NIV. I know it off by heart and back to front so it has lost its capacity to shock me with something I haven't seen before because it's like I can see around the corner. I know what's coming.

.

So I have chosen the CEV. It's clear & fresh and people are praising it to the rafters; churches are even choosing it for their pew Bible. So I am going to have a look. And first impressions, at 5.30am, is that it does read rather well and that the text is really making me think again.

.

But the question is, is the new stuff revelatory just because they have translated the words out of their meaning or have I been truly shocked out of my stupor?

.

Take Gal 4:19 for example. In the Greek, Paul talks about being in labour pains until Christ is formed in them. A powerful metaphor connected with strong images of bringing new birth and a mysterious insight into one aspect of the apostolic role. Totally missing in the CEV: "My children, I am in terrible pain until Christ may be seen living in you." If they miss as powerful a metaphor as that because it doesn't translate well, what else might be missing? That said, in the same verse the CEV really captures a sense of Paul's bafflement with the Galatians, almost as if he really is at a loss to know how to deal with them: "You really have me puzzled." Delicious.

.

I wonder whether that very verse will end up being my overall impression or whether the loss in exactness will be more than offset by the gains in understanding by the freshness of the text.

.

Let the games begin.

.

Conviction Rates For Rape

I found this article by Camilla Cavendish of the Times very insightful on conviction rates for rape. The comments underneath of tourists' experiences in the UK are quite disturbing.

So we are weak on rape? Think again

A question of identity

Apparently, 1 in 5 people in the world are Chinese.

And there are 5 people in my family,

So it must be one of them.

It's either my mum or my dad.

Or my older brother Colin.

Or my younger brother Ho-Cha-Chu.

But I think it's Colin.

Two Appalling Spectacles

In 2003, an American pilot shot at a convoy of British troops in Basra, killing one British soldier and injuring four others. At the British inquest, the American government refused to allow the video of the incident to be admitted in court or for the pilots to be interviewed as to what happened. The video was subsequently leaked to a British newspaper to the fury of the Pentagon. It is shocking viewing.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,11021-10043,00.html

Yes, friendly fire incidents will happen. But when no responsibility is taken for the consequences, and no lessons learnt, you guarantee further such episodes. It would appear that British lives continue to be cheap to the Americans. Further, the way this was subsequently dealt with by the American Government is a shameful way to treat an ally.

For the MOD, blatantly lying to the wife of Matty Hull that no such tape existed is unforgivable. It seems the only hero to come out of this debacle with his dignity intact is the soldier on the ground who rushed in to drag a comrade to safety and who desperately tried to radio this appalling incompetence to an end. The ice-cool and professional voice of the British pilot belatedly calling for the pilots to stop strafing his ground troops with uranium-depleted bullets sums it all up.

It is disgraceful for the American Government to refuse permission for this video to be shown in a coroner's court when any member of the public around the globe can go to a website and watch the whole sorry spectacle online. That's crazy & disrespectful to this nation. But it is nothing compared to the spectacle of governments treating the families of those who died in a tragic accident so badly.

A terrible day for international relations. Is that what you call a special relationship?

Flashmobbing Japanese Stylee

Winning Hearts and Minds, American Style

A bit of this and a bit of that