My Ideal Bible Translation

It is something of an understatement to say that there is no shortage of Bible translations in the English language. The popular website Bible Gateway lists over 50 English translations either of the whole Bible or of the New Testament and there are probably at least as many other English translatons not included on that site. New translations or revisions of existing translations seem to come out every other year or two.

It is true that not all translations you can find online are readily available as printed bibles or are widely used in churches, but even so there are a lot of translations out there, and there are also a few translations that are not available online but only in print.

Even so there are around twenty widely available translations in common use in English speaking churches.

With all this choice, you would think there would be a Bible out there to suit every English reader.

I had a think about what I look for in my ideal translation and came up with 10 items on my "shopping list."

1. The most fundamental requirement is that it would be more at the formal equivalence end of the translation spectrum, with text as close to the form and content of the original Hebrew and Greek as possible and as free as necessary to be intelligible in English. The NIV is about as far as I would go on the spectrum. The NASB and KJV are the most literal (formal equivalent) translations in general use and the ESV and NRSV are not too far behind them, though much more readable.

2. Though I love the Authorised Version, my ideal bible would be a translation in modern English. I don't want to have to translate my into the language we actually speak in the 21st century.

3. The translation should be based on the best available Hebrew and Greek texts. For me, this would probably be the standard NA/USB text, which is supported by the best textual evidence. All modern translations—except the KJV and the NKJV)—are based on the critical NA/UBS texts.These include conservative evangelical versions such as the NASB, ESV and NIV and I have to accept that the people who produced these bibles know what they are doing.

4. The translation should be free of theological bias and probably be the work of a committee rather than an individual translator. Most versions show some bias in places. The ESV and NIV are sometimes accused of biased in favour of Calvinism and evangelical positions. The NRSV and REB are sometimes accused biased in favour of liberal positions, though I think bias is often exaggerated both ways. There is less room for bias the more literal or formal equivalent a translation is as they are less interpretative than functional equivalent translations tend to be.

5. A translation should be gender accurate, in line with the original languages, but need not be "gender neutral." Some older translations show gender bias in favour of the male gender.

6. The ideal translation will be readable and quotable and be widely enough known to carry weight when discussing what the Bible says with others.

7. My ideal translation will be available in British English. It is sad that so many excellent modern translations such as the NASB, NKJV, CSB and NET are only available in American English, which though not a massive issue is a visual distraction every time you come across words like honour and Saviour. The KJV, NRSV, ESV and NIV are all available in British English editions.

8. A personal preference is for pronouns and other nouns referring to deity not being capitalised. It is done out of respect and honour for God and I acknowledge that, but it is not something that comes from the original languages or the historic English bibles such as the KJV. It is a later addition. I think it looks cluttered on the page and sometimes imposes an interpretation onto the text about who is being referred to in the text. This affects the NASB and most editions of the NKJV. Interestingly, although the HCSB used capitals in its earlier editions, its new revision the CSB has stopped capitalising the pronouns and it reads much better for it in my view.

9. On a similar note of preference, I don't really like red-letter editions either, though I can undertsand why some people like to be able to identify Jesus' actual words in the text. Here there is also an issue because it is not always clear which verses are Jesus' words. The best known example is probably John 3. Does Jesus' speech to Nicodemus end in verse 15 or carry on through the well-known words of verses 3:16-18 as well? Interestingly, there is now available a Blue-Red-Gold Bible which has the words of Christ in red, the direct speech of God (the Father?) in blue and references to the Holy Spirit in gold/dark yellow! You can see the BRG Bible online at Bible Gateway: look up Exodus 3 and John 3 in this version to get an idea of how it looks. In my view, black letter bibles are to be preferred, not least because "all Scipture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16) not just the direct speech parts!

10. Good textual notes are another personal preference. I am not talking about study bible type notes or even cross-references. I mean notes on where the text is difficult, where the evidence for the correct text is divided, where more than one translation is possible. These notes I view as integral to how a good translation works. Two translations stand out in this regard. The NKJV has the best notes on textual variants, especially in the New Testament as it lists every occasion where the Textus Receptus, Majority Text and Critical Text (NA/UBS) differ from each other and offers translations of the other texts. The NET Bible includes over 60,000 translators notes which discuss translational and interpretative issues in some depth. It is closer to a study bible feel because some pages have more notes than biblical text, but the notes are a great help, which is one reason I really like the NET Bible.

If you compare these ten criteria against the main English versions, none of them perfectly meets all of them. But then no translation is ever perfect. I wish the NASB, CSB and NET were available in British editions—and indeed were better known in the UK—and I wish the NASB did not use capitals for pronouns. I wish more translations had notes as good as the NKJV and NET. I refer to many versions when doing studies, but my main Bibles are currently the NIV, the ESV. the NKJV and the venerable KJV itself.

A Vision for the Local Church (Remix)

Originally I wrote most of this piece nine years ago for a parish church magazine. As my current church comes together to discuss the future this coming Saturday, I have remixed it and updated it as a personal vision for what our local church could be like.

I have been thinking a lot recently about the church. Not so much the church worldwide or nationally, but our local church. I’ve been thinking about and asking myself a lot of questions about us. Hard questions, like why don’t more people want to come and worship with us, or even better, join us and become part of the church family. We give thanks for those who do come with all our hearts. But why don’t more people come?

After all, I think we are a welcoming and friendly congregation and I know how eager we are to see more people coming along to our services and other events. We are a strong and committed congregation – strong in our faith and committed to doing God’s work in our part of the city. And I believe we are a loving and caring church too.

But there’s a hard fact that we have to face. In the past three years we have been shrinking as a congregation. Recently some have left because they do not want to stay in the Church of Scotland. I believe many others left before that because they were not happy with the ministry of our soon to be departed minister. Most of us stayed put and wait upon the Lord's leading for the next part of our story to be written. 

I know full well that if God wills it, he can send a revival and save a thousand souls. He can fill our church with new life and new Christians by the hundreds if he wants to. And we pray that he will! But, what if God is waiting until we show our willingness to change and go further as a congregation to bring people to Christ? God has always also worked through the work and witness of his people. Sometimes he waits until we give our lives to his service and to mission. He might be waiting to act until we decide what our priority is as a church, until we decide we are willing to change ourselves and the way we do things, so that he can then do a new thing through us. As he said to the prophet Isaiah:

“Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland.“ (Isaiah 43:18-19, NIV)

The question we all have to face is whether we are ready and willing to change, to give up certain things, to have “dead wood” cut away from the stump of the tree so that new growth can flourish?
What things do I have in mind? Well I don’t have all the answers. I think this is a discussion we need to have with each other within our congregation. We all need to be willing to give and take, learn from each other, and take up different ideas. Here are just a few ideas to get the discussion started.

Faith. Unless we have a real, living faith in Jesus Christ ourselves, unless we know Christ as our Saviour and Lord, brother and friend, how can we really tell other people about him? Unless we understand the gospel, believe it and live it out in our lives, how can we really tell anyone outside the church that we have good news for them? This means that opening up the Scriptures, whether in Sunday preaching or midweek Bible study, must be at the heart of what we do.

Worship. We need to worship God in accordance with God’s word. But are there parts of our worship that people from outside the church would find hard to understand, or difficult to engage with? Do we have things that are merely our traditions rather than God’s commands? Could we do worship differently at some of our services if this would be more interesting or easy to understand for people who are not used to going to church? Is it a good use of our resources to have two Sunday services following almost exactly the same format?

Communication. Those of us who have been going to church for years are comfortable with church language that we use all the time. Do we need to take time to consider that not everyone knows what our church language means or how our church works? Can we find ways of communicating the truth of God’s word in ways that are more meaningful to people who are not used to reading the Bible or going to church? Should we better at explaining how our church is governed and what decisions have been made?

Prayer. Prayer has always been central to our congregation life and we need to go on in prayer if we want to become a growing congregation again. The apostles were constantly telling Christians in New Testament times to pray for one another. Do we need any new systems to enable us to pray for each other and for what we need as a congregation? Do we need to think of ways to boost our prayer life beyond the traditional prayer meeting?

Fellowship. If the churches in the New Testament were anything they were communities. We are God’s family and we need to be as close to each other as any blood family. Are we ready to share our lives with each other, allowing each other to see and to share in our joys and sorrows? Or are we too proud to let our guard down? Too scared of what people will think of us, to be really honest with each other when we have problems, doubts, sadness, or pain? If we don’t live as a family, as God’s community, really loving each other and showing it, how can we convince anyone outside the church that we really love them?

Service. One of the most effective ways of touching the lives of those outside the church is by helping and caring for them in practical ways. In this Jesus is our prime example. As well as teaching people, Christ helped people in very practical ways. He cured the sick, he fed the hungry, he comforted the broken. How can we find ways of doing that for people that we want to reach and bring into God’s kingdom?  Equally how can we serve those who have limited or no material needs? How do we ensure that everyones gifts for service are recognised, encouraged and developed to their maximum potential?

For a long time it has seemed to me that small groups is a biblical and practical way to cover several of these issues in one solution, particularly fellowship, prayer and studying the Bible. But I am aware that for others the current large midweek prayer meeting and Bible study for the whole church is also a valuable and important part of our church life. Perhaps we need to move beyond an either/or mindset to a both/and mindset?

Coming up with ideas is a human skill. Coming to agreement and moving forward together as congregation is the work of the Holy Spirit. Let us pray for his guidance in the days ahead.

A Fellowship of Differents

A Fellowship of Differents
Scot McKnight
Zondervan, 2014

I have read a number of books by the American New Testament scholar, Scot McKnight, and have never found one that wasn't both interesting and useful. His book A Fellowship of Differents was no exception. As the title might suggest, the theme of the book is that the Christian Church is supposed to be a fellowship of people who are all very different from one another. Different sexes, races, nationalities, social classes and temperaments all coming together in a shared life as God's new community and new humanity through faith in Jesus Christ.

The book's subtitle is "Showing the World God's Design for Life Together" and that captures one of the book's key themes - the importance of sharing life together as Christians. As the author makes clear, God's church is intended to show the world a new way of being human and form a new community composed of followers of Jesus, and most importantly, that this isn't some high-flying spiritual theory - it is meant to be lived out in practice at each local gathering or congregation of Christ's people, namely at the local church where you go on Sunday morning or to events during the week.

Somehow, McKnight manages to make this a practical look at what church should really be like and a theological reflection on why this should be so. Above all, it is realistic about what our expectations of our local church should be.

At a time when my own local church is facing issues of people leaving because the denomination to which we belong is deemed by them to be unworthy of their continued membership and support, I was particularly struck by a profound quote in the book from Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "Those who love their dream of a Christian community more than the Christian community itself become destroyers of that Christian community though their personal intentions may be ever so honest, earnest, and sacrificial" (p.112, from Life Together). McKnight's point is that we cannot desert the real churches that we find down the street from where we live in pursuit of an imaginary church where everything is perfect: perfect doctrines, perfect worship, perfect people. Such a quest is not only delusional, but damaging to the real church. 

I was also fascinated and moved by a passage where McKnight describes a "typical" church service in New Testament times, maybe in a Roman city like Rome or Pompeii. The passage is too long to quote (pp. 100-102), but it describes a Roman woman going along to a church meeting in a rich person's house, seeing people from all different Roman classes sitting together and sharing in a meal together (in these times communion was taken as part of an actual meal, not in the ritualised form of "meal" we find in most modern churches). Such an act was revolutionary in Roman society where it was unthinkable for wealthy patricians and common slaves to sit at a table for a meal which celebrates God's grace for people through the death of the Messiah on the cross, and they take the bread and wine as equals and—perhaps even more amazingly—as a family gathering together.

Throughout the book, the author blends teaching with examples of real people in real churches, which also help to keep the book grounded in practical realities as the discussion moves through a number of different subjects including grace, love, communion, holiness, new life and the Holy Spirit—and there are useful insights on each of these subjects along the way.

This book would be great for anyone interested in the importance of their local church, maybe especially for anyone who is a bit jaded and needs to be reminded that the events in that building you go to, and the interactions you have with the people there (yes, even the odd ones, the strange ones, the ones who are as unlike you as you can imagine), despite how it might seem, are actually God's chosen mechanism for changing the world and making a new humanity. Think about that next Sunday and every Sunday in your local church.

Manchester Bombing

Last night it appears that a suicide bomber detonated a device at the Manchester Arena near the end of a pop concert. The reports today indicate that 22 people were killed and around sixty people have been injured; it is believed that some of the casualties were young children. We do not yet know the identity or motivation of the bomber, though there is already speculation that this has the hallmarks of another so-called Islamic State atrocity.

Our prayers are with the victims, the emergency services and the health care professionals.

Every time there is a terrorist attack like this my first thought is that we must carry on as before and somehow just soak up the deaths and the maiming and the terror as a society because we believe in freedom and there's a price to pay for that belief in a world when so many fanatics hate freedom. If we give in to the haters, if we change things, then we are letting the terrorists win. They want to foment conflict between communities. They want war between Islam and the West. They want all Muslims to think as they do. They want us to think all Muslims are like them.

Our hardest fight is against their evil ideology. But we will fight on, and we will win, because our love for life and our fellow human beings is a lot stronger than their barbaric hatred. They do not know the mentality of the British people if these fanatics think otherwise.

My second thought is what do we do about these things? Can anything be done without giving the terrorists what they want?

There no easy answers. I know what we must not do. We must not turn ourselves into a police state and destroy the very freedom the terrorists also hate. There is no level of security high enough to stop attacks like this anyway. And we must not blame innocent people for the crimes of guilty people just because they share the same religion or have the same ethnic background. To do so would be unjust, counterproductive and make our country into the kind of place the terrorists long for.

One thing we can do is explore what makes people do these things and seek to counter their ideology. This is especially important if we can reach people before they reach the would-be terrorist stage You cannot seek to change people's minds or stop people ending up thinking a certain way until you understand them. And this both a political and a theological understanding. We then must put effort into countering these ideas and showing why they are wrong. We need the help of good Muslims to achieve this, including Islamic theologians and preachers.

But the other thing we must do is show zero tolerance of incitement to violence. Notice I do not say zero tolerance of "extremism". Extremism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In a free country, anyone should be able to believe anything they want, however extreme or unpleasant we may find it. But, as soon as someone inciting others to acts of violence, the law needs to step in without pussyfooting around for fear of being labelled racist. We need to impose long prison sentences on anyone who is proven to have incited, aided or sheltered terrorists. This includes anyone who knows about terrorist plans and does nothing to try to stop it.

Our hearts are with the victims in Manchester today. Our heads need to be focused on defeating terrorism in ways which do not destroy the very things we cherish most about our society and culture.

God's Covenant Love (Repost)

One of the most important words used in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word "Chesed". It signifies God's covenant love for his people Israel. The word occurs some 245 times in the Old Testament, across 27 out of 39 Old Testament books, over a hundred times in the Psalms alone.

In older English translations, the word was often translated as "mercy" but actually the scope of the this word is wider and deeper than the word "mercy" or "compassion" conveys in English. Modern English translations usually try to convey the greater depth of richness and complexity in this word. They tend to use a number of different words and phrases to try to capture the essence of "Chesed". Taking a number of translations together gives us a good impression of what one of the key terms in the Old Testament means.

Below are a list of different translations together with the Bible translations in which they are found.

"mercy" - KJV, NKJV

"love" - NIV

"great love" - GNB, NCV, CEV

"faithful love" - CSB

"constant love" - REB

"lovingkindness" - ASV, NASB, AMP

"steadfast love" - RSV, ESV, NRSV

"loyal love" - NET, LEB

"unfailing love" - NLT

"loyalty" - CEB

"gracious love" - ISV

No one of these translations captures all the depth of meaning in chesed. But together they give a wonderful picture of God's covenant love. It is great, faithful, constant, steadfast, loyal and unfailing lovingkindness. It is the love that saves. The love that gives. The love that sends the Son to be our Lord and Saviour.

The Christian Year

I really like this graphic on the traditional Christian year.

Festive Illness

I hope you had a great Christmas and I wish you a happy new year for 2017.

As for me, I've been ill since before Christmas with a heavy cold and then a chest infection which has been hard to shift. I'm hoping the second lot of antibiotics will do the trick, but I'm still coughing a lot today and have not yet made it back to work.

It was strange to have to miss going to church right through the festive period. I think I was last at church around 11th December. It's the first year I can remember when I don't think I sang a single Christmas carol or heard a Christmas sermon. And now I've missed the new year sermons as well.

It struck me that my Christmas experience this year was exactly that of most people in Scotland today - a Christmas without so much as "darkening the door" of a church. The big difference being that my absence was forced upon me by illness; most people's is voluntary. Many churches are looking to give a special welcome to visitors at Christmas, but relatively few come, which is sad for everyone.

I also got a glimpse into the lives of people who cannot get to church because of illness. It made me see how important it is to bring church to people who can't come to church. That is something I don't think most churches think about nearly enough.

As we come to Epiphany on 6th January, we continue to remember the message of Christmas, that God became a human being in that baby in the manger is good news for all year round, for all of humanity of every race and nation, and for all eternity.

Rightwise: Time to recycle an old English word?

Anyone who has studied New Testament translation, the writings of Paul in particular, and especially the Letters to the Romans and Galatians, will know that the δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosune) word group is crucial to a correct understanding of these key New Testament documents. The dikaiosune word group is usually translated as “righteousness” or “justice” and similar forms.

The problem in English is that there is no single word group that covers both the quality of being “righteous” and the act of declaring someone righteous. Therefore, English translations are forced to use words from two different roots to cover all the usages:

Noun – righteousness ("justice" has a rather different connotation in English though it can also be used.)
Adjective – righteous ("just" is also possible, but has the same issues of wrong connotation and can also be confused with “just” as in “only”)
Adverb – righteously ("justly" is also possible, but has the same issues of wrong connotation)

The big problem is with the verb forms. English has to use compound verbs as there is no verb “to righteous” (although New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders has suggested we just use “righteous” as a verb). Perhaps we should use an invented word like “to enrighen"? So we have to say “to make righteous” or “to declare righteous.” More often, translations turn instead to the “just—” word group for the verbs and associated forms because no standard “right—” forms exist:

Verb – to justify
Actor – justifier
Process/Event – justification

These words can be confusing since "justify" now tends to be used in the sense of something I do to excuse myself from blame rather than something someone says about me. Using both righteous/justify can also result in cross-references and relationships between words being missed in English translations.

Instead of inventing a new word, we could overcome this problem by resurrecting the old English word “rightwise.” Rightwise was used in Wycliffe’s English translation (the very first in English in the 14th century). This is easy word to understand—it sounds like it means “to be in a right relationship” ("I am rightwise before God") or “to declare to be in the right” ("God rightwises sinners because of Christ's atoning work"). It is easy to say. And it avoids any mistaken ideas about "righteous" (which tends to sound like "self-righteous" to the average person).

Most significantly, it can be grammatically used in all situations where the dikaiosune group of words is used in Greek (and the tsedeq group of words in Hebrew too for that matter).

Noun – rightwiseness
Adjective – rightwise
Adverb – rightwise
Verbs – to rightwise (participle: rightwised; gerund: rightwising) or "to be rightwised"
Actor – rightwiser
Process/Event – rightwising

Consider the difference if we compare a couple of key Pauline passages in standard translations and then using my suggested translation: 

Romans 2:13 (ESV): For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Romans 2:13 (“Rightwise” translation): For it is not the hearers of the law who are rightwise before God, but the doers of the law who will be rightwised. 

Romans 3:21–31 (ESV): ²¹But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— ²² the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. ²⁶ It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. ²⁷ Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. ²⁸ For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 

Romans 3:21–28 (“Rightwise” translation): ²¹But now the rightwiseness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— ²² the rightwiseness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and are rightwised by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s rightwiseness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. ²⁶ It was to show his rightwiseness at the present time, so that he might be rightwise and the rightwiser of the one who has faith in Jesus. ²⁷ Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. ²⁸ For we hold that one is rightwised by faith apart from works of the law. 

Romans 4:5 (ESV): And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness. 

Romans 4:5 (“Rightwise” translation): And to the one who does not work but believes in him who rightwises the ungodly, his faith is counted as rightwiseness.

Romans 4:22–25 (ESV): ²²That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness”. ²³But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, ²⁴but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, ²⁵who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Romans 4:22–25 (“Rightwise” translation): ²²That is why his faith was “counted to him as rightwiseness”. ²³But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, ²⁴but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, ²⁵who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our rightwising.

Galatians 3:11 (ESV): Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 

Galatians 3:11 (“Rightwise” translation): Now it is evident that no one is rightwised before God by the law, for “The rightwise shall live by faith.”

Though the terminology may jar the eye and the ear to begin with, I think we would quickly get used to "rightwise". At the very least, when teaching on Paul, it would give us a way of getting at the original Greek better than current English translations allow.

Actually a similar translational problem exists between the English nouns usually translated “faith” or “faithfulness” and the verb forms usually translated “to believe” even though “to believe” something is not exactly the same as “to have faith in” something. Nor can the noun “belief” simply be substituted for “faith” without confusion and loss of meaning. Perhaps we will return to that topic when I find an old English word that covers both “faith” and “to believe”!

The Case for a Universal Basic Income

For some time I have been supportive of a political idea known as the "Universal Basic Income" (UBI) also known as "the Citizen's Income" or "Basic Income Guarantee" or "Negative Income Tax" is a very simple idea - that every citizen in a country is paid a basic level of income, which is unconditional and universal, irrespective of employment status or other income.

Usuallly the UBI is championed by people on the Left (I believe it is the policy of the Green Party for example). But what I find interesting is that the UBI also has supporters on the Right (both conservatives and classical liberals).

As a way of replacing the bureaucratic welfare state, it is an attractive idea as there is some evidence that it would be either as cheap to run or even cheaper than a plethora of means-tested benefits.

Here are some interesting links I've found discussing UBI, most of them are from a conservative or classical liberal viewpoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

http://citizensincome.org/

http://basicincome.org.uk/reasons-support-basic-income/

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/a-neoliberal-case-for-a-basic-income-or-something-like-it

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee

http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income#.oz0pbd2:3cP6

http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income

This is not a party political issue as the various links show. Across the political spectrum it is an idea that has much to commend it and I think it is an idea whose time has come.

Interesting Political Articles

An excellent piece on the Christian critique of Conservatism: http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/04/the-problem-with-conservatism

And the problem with Liberalism from the Christian point of view is worth reading too: http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/001-the-problem-with-liberalism