Page 125 of 128

Posted on

Easter: The ‘Big Bang’ of the New Creation

 I’m still thinking about Easter.  I know.  Easter is already past; I should be on to something else now.  But frankly, Easter is just one of those days that takes time to process.  When you think of it, Easter is more than a day; it’s a season.  Truth be told, every Sunday is “a little Easter” as we gather together to celebrate the risen Lord.big bang

As I was thinking about Easter, I also had reason recently to refer students in my New Testament class at HBU to 2 Corinthians 5:17.  This is an amazing passage about the new creation.   As anyone knows who is familiar with Greek and biblical theology, Paul’s language here is a notoriously hard to translate.  We struggled with that passage in The Voice.

Here is how we rendered it:

Therefore, if anyone is united with the Anointed, that person is a new creation.  The old life is gone—and see—a new life has begun!

The language of new creation is not original with Paul.  It goes back to the message of Isaiah who looked beyond his own day to a time when God will do something new and amazing in this good—but now disordered—world he had made.  What he will do, according to Isaiah, will be so astounding the only language to describe it is the language of “new creation” (Isaiah 65:17-25).  In John’s Apocalypse it is described this way (Revelation 21:1):

I looked again and could hardly believe my eyes. Everything above me was new. Everything below me was new.  Everything around me was new because the heaven and earth that had been had passed away, and the sea was gone, completely.

When we turn to the New Testament, we discover that the new creation has in fact already begun.  It began on that first Easter when the dead body of Jesus—composed as we are of carbon, hydrogen, and other elements—is suddenly and miraculously transformed into a new kind of body, a resurrected body.  In that moment a piece of the old order became new.  In that moment a piece of the earth—because we like Adam are all made of dust—became eternal.  Easter is “the Big Bang” of the New Creation.

No one was there to observe it, but no one can deny that in that moment everything changed.  As the risen Jesus appeared to one after another, the beleaguered and defeated disciples become powerful witnesses to the greatest miracle in history.  The church—which began small like a mustard seed—started to grow at an amazing pace and in a few decades stood to challenge the power of Rome.  If Jesus is Lord, they thought, then Caesar certainly is not.

Today the empire and her leaders are long gone.  Only fractured monuments to her greatness remain.  But the Church Jesus established is not only present; it has filled the earth.  To borrow a line from one of Jesus’ parables: the birds of the air are making their nests in it.

Paul wants the Corinthians to know that those who are united with Jesus through the ritual cleansing of baptism have entered into that new creation.  Their old lives are put away.  Their new lives have begun.  But the Lord’s emissary does not claim that they are new creations in and of themselves.  They are made new only in relation to the One who was crucified, buried, and raised to new life.  They are made new in that very first Easter.  In a sense they were there on the cross and in that tomb, already united with him.  Paul’s point is personal, but it is more than individual.  Every person who turns to Jesus is not only new creation, he or she enters into a community of individuals graced to be full participants in that new creation which began that first Easter. 

 

 

Posted on

C. S. Lewis on Bible Translation

I recently attended a lecture by the Revd Professor Alistair McGrath of Kings College London and Oxford.  The lecture was hosted by the Lanier Theological Library, a private collection of nearly 80,000 theological books.  It was founded and opened to the public just 3 years ago by an amazing fellow named Mark Lanier.  Lanier is one of the top trial lawyers in the nation, and one of the most gifted Bible teachers you will ever hear.  For those of us who love books and all things English, the Lanier Library is a bit of heaven.  You can tell from the picture that it looks like the kind of library you’d find at Cambridge. Lanier Theological Library

Professor McGrath was invited by Lanier to give a lecture on the contributions of C. S. Lewis.  2013 marks the 50th anniversary of the death of C. S. Lewis.  He died the same day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, November 22, 1963.  I’m sure Lewis’ death was overshadowed by the death of the 35th president.

McGrath has written a definitive biography of Lewis to mark the occasion of his passing and reassess his contribution.  He titled it C. S. Lewis—a Life: Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet.  If you are interested in Lewis’ life, I recommend you buy it and read it.  McGrath is a worthy interpreter of Lewis.

While I have read 7-8 of Lewis’ books in the past, I haven’t read everything Lewis wrote.  I discovered from listening to McGrath that Lewis had a great deal to say about Bible translation in a variety of essays and the preface to J. B. Phillips’ translation of the New Testament Letters (published 1947). 

 Here are a few things Lewis said about translation:

 . . . the Authorised Version has ceased to be a good (that is, a clear) translation.  It is no longer modern English: the meanings of words have changed. . . . The truth is that if we are to have translation at all we must have periodical re-translation.  There is no such thing as translating a book into another language once and for all, for a language is a changing thing. If your son is to have clothes it is no good buying him a suit once and for all: he will grow out of it and have to be re-clothed.

 We ought therefore to welcome all new translations (when they are made by sound scholars) and most certainly those who are approaching the Bible for the first time will be wise not to begin with the Authorised Version—except perhaps for the historical books of the Old Testament where its archaisms suit the saga-like material well enough. 

 Lewis went on to commend the translations of James Moffatt (1870-1944) and Ronald A. Knox (1888-1957).  They had translated the full Bible, beginning with the New Testaments. C S Lewis

 After having read some of what Lewis has said about translation, I wonder what he would think of The Voice.  Lewis loved stories; he was himself a master story-teller.  Would Lewis have appreciated the emphasis on story in The Voice?  Would he like the screen play format we used in dialogue that makes it clear who is speaking to whom?  Lewis praised human imagination and encouraged Christians to be imaginative when sharing the good news; more than any 20th century Christian leader he unleashed his imagination in expressing his faith.  What would Lewis think of the imaginative ways the poets and scholars worked together in order to discover the beauty of the poetry, the acrostics and the various literary techniques employed by each writer?  Well, we will never know what Lewis might think, this side of eternity.  What I do know is that the more I read Lewis, the more I think he would celebrate any serious attempt made to capture the hearts and minds of those who read the Bible. 

Posted on

“God’s Restorative Justice”

There is a phrase in Paul’s letters that is notoriously difficult to translate.  It occurs at key moments in major letters like Romans and 2 Corinthians.  Most often the phrase is translated into English as “the righteousness of God.” cropped-p52.gif

Notice how the New American Standard Version renders Romans 1:16-17: 

                 16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

            17For in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written” But the righteous man shall live by faith.”

Now Romans 3:21-22 (NASV):

            21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

            22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; . . .

Now I must admit that I like the NASV translation; I have preached from it for years.  It is probably the most literal translation into English we have.  If you have the time, interest, and skill in doing a word study, it is an important translation to have around. Unfortunately, it tends to obscure the meaning of important phrases.  People without a background in Scripture may be left scratching their heads.

So what does “the righteousness of God” refer to?  It is an important question.  Without getting that straight you can’t make heads or tails out of what Paul is saying in these key passages.  Scholars, by the way, have been debating the significance of this phrase in these letters for centuries.  So it is no easy task.

When we were translating THE VOICE, we spent a great deal of time working through Paul’s language in these passages.  We ended up with what I think is a faithful and helpful rendering.  Here is The Voice translation of Romans 1:16-17:

                 16For I am not the least bit embarrassed about the gospel.  I won’t shy away from it, because it is God’s power to save every person who believes: first the Jew, and then the non-Jew.  17You see, in the good news, God’s restorative justice is revealed.  And as we will see, it begins with and ends in faith.  As the Scripture declares: “By faith the just will obtain life.”  

 Now Romans 3:21-22:

             21But now for the good news: God’s restorative justice has entered the world, independent of the law.  Both the law and the prophets told us this day would come.  22This redeeming justice comes through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Anointed, who makes salvation a reality for all who believe—without the slightest partiality.

Now, we think this translation may help shed light on what Paul is getting at here in these verses.  Still we decided to put some commentary with it to help people think through it.

The phrases “God’s restorative justice” and “this redeeming justice” refer to the same reality.  For Paul the good news—the gospel—is located in history in the incarnation and sacrificial death of Jesus. By “God’s restorative justice” Paul means first that justice and rightness belong to God; they reflect his character.  God, and no one else, determines what is right and what is just.  But as we all know, character is reflected in action.  “Justice” and “righteousness” are nouns of action.  This means that God’s justice must express itself in some way.  So it is in the nature of a just God to act, to restore, to redeem, to repair the world.  This God did primarily through His Son, Jesus the Anointed, the Liberating King. 

Paul would not shy away from these bold claims.  The gospel is power.  It is God’s power to restore the world to what it can and ought to be.  But how do we get in on what God is doing?  Well, Paul says, it begins with and ends in faith.  It begins with God’s faithfulness to His creation, then His covenant people.  It continues with Jesus’ faithfulness to God to enter our broken realm to give Himself in love to begin its repair.  It ends with us, hearing and responding in faith and following faithfully in his footsteps. 

Now read the passage again with these things in mind.  Do you see it?  Did you get it?  Recognize that from the beginning God has been at work to restore our world so badly damaged by sin and corruption.

Posted on

Bousset at 100

I’ve worked with several scholars–Loren Stuckenbruck, Paula Fredriksen, and Larry Hurtado—to create a special session at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in November 2013 (Baltimore, MD).  Christ enthroned2013 is the 100th anniversary of the publication of Bousset’s magisterial work, Kyrios Christos.  We thought it might be helpful to take stock of Bousset’s influence on the field of religious studies. Here are a few of the salient questions we hope to address:

(1)   How do we assess the significance of Bousset’s work today (particularly Kyrios Christos), 100 years later?

(2)   How has Bousset shaped scholarly discussion?

(3)   Is there a new history of religions school (a statement made by Professor Martin Hengel in the 1990s)?

(4)   Is there anything Bousset said that we missed?

(5)   Has subsequent research (Dead Sea Scrolls, pseudepigrapha, archaeology, etc.) proved or disproved any of Bousset’s ideas?

Four prominent New Testament scholars have agreed to present papers and guide our discussion.  They are

       Kelley Coblentz Bautch, St. Edward’s University

      Larry Hurtado, University of Edinburgh

      Lutz Doering, University of Durham

      Cilliers Breytenbach, University of Berlin

Dr. Jeff Peterson of Austin Graduate School of Theology has agreed for his program unit, Extent of Theological Diversity in Early Christianity, to host the session.

Professor Jens Schroeter, editor of the prestigious journal Early Christianity, has agreed to publish the essays in the fall 2014.

As details about the time and place of the session are made known, I’ll share them with you.  If you plan on being in Baltimore, MD in November 2013, I hope you will join us. 

 

Posted on

English or Biblish?

I remember a conversation I had with a friend years ago.  He was lamenting the fact that modern Bible translations like the New King James Version and the New American Standard Version had dropped words like “Thee,” “Thou,” “Thine,” “art” (as in the Lord’s prayer: “Our Father, who art in heaven . . . “) and “hast.”  These words were typical of the 16th and 17th centuries but have long since fallen out of use with most English-speaking people. The only time people may have heard or used them was “in church.”  For my friend, the Bible was not the Bible if it didn’t sound . . . well “Biblish.”    kjv_bible

(I’m grateful to Mark Strauss and Gordon Fee for bringing this word to my attention in their excellent book, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007]).  Modern translations, he felt, had left behind the formal language of heaven (God’s language) preferring instead the mundane language of “this world.” The translation he loved sounded more “spiritual” to him than the newer ones, so he was against them, pure and simple.  Like many people, my friend had a deep emotional connection with the King James Version of the Bible based on all the years he spent in church and Sunday School.

As a seminary graduate and a recently minted PhD in New Testament, I tried to explain to him all the complexities of Bible translation. I talked about translation theory, the ins-and-outs of determining word meaning, the difference between functional and formal equivalence. I defended the need for newer translations.  But it didn’t matter.  His mind was made up.

The basic concern we had as a translation team on The Voice was to render Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic sentences (our source languages) into meaningful, natural English (our target language).  In other words, the goal of any English translation must be English not Biblish.  As Strauss and Fee note: “Biblish results when the translator simply replaces Hebrew or Greek words with English ones, without sufficient concern for natural or idiomatic English” (p. 21).   Translation is not about exchanging this Greek word for that English word or this Hebrew word for that English word.  Translation is not that easy. It involves knowing both the source and target languages well enough to be able to move back-and-forth between them.  It entails an understanding of culture—then and now—and recognizing how language is one of the key vehicles of culture.  Translation, I have come to understand, is not a science; it is an art.

I’m not sure what my friend would think about The Voice. I haven’t seen him in years.  I hope he would have mellowed a bit and would appreciate what we have tried to do.  In the last year I have met a number of people who prefer the KJV but now read regularly from The Voice.  But, if I’m honest, I’d be disappointed to learn that my friend had lost his deep, emotional connection with the KJV.  The KJV is a great, historic translation, even if it is no longer in our language.