TheAverageSwordsman's Xanga

an answer to a letter...

Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:43:04 GMT

To The Editor of The Boston Gazette,

Sir,

Your latest article referring to me as an antiquated adherent of the minions of the Renaissance bourgeoisie left me a bit cold, and frankly a bit confused. You say I view the world too simply, the problem of politics too negatively, and the line between good and evil too naïvely.

You say I am a pretender because I’ll not take sides in this petty and childish little argument between colony and country. You say I do not understand the complexities of the Parliamentary paradoxes and the rights of man. You say I resist your angels of liberty while failing to condemn the devils of government.

And you say I miss the point entire.

But think on this:

Liberty is not rightly attained at the hands of those who delight in the oppression of others. You scream LIBERTY! and yet scald honest, loyal men with boiling tar. You scream REPRESSIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES! and yet you smash the windows and destroy the merchandise of honest, loyal men. You scream SLAVERY AT THE HAND OF THE KING! and yet you drive to death negro slaves ~ honest, loyal men whom you purchase and trade like cattle and horses. You beat senseless those who disagree with you, you point guns at their wives and children, and then you have the gall to send men to my house to persuade me of the justice of your cause?

You make dæmons out of those whose opinions vary in the slightest from yours, and disarm them by labeling them, placing them into groups that it is convenient for you to hate. You can identify them by name and so you can teach others to hate them, as well: tory, king’s man, papist, negro ~ and where will you stop? Will politics and faction divide the land to the point at which every man-jack has pushed every other man-jack into a handy little box so he may be proper hated?

Keep your politics, sir. Oppress good men in the name of the rich man’s shilling, if you must. Die in the name of cheap tea. But do so for a better cause than hating other men. As you lay dying with a musketball thro’ your bowels, I hope you will have something fonder to look back upon than your rise to senselessness in the name of politics. If you truly desire peace and liberty and prosperity, then first you must destroy politics, dismantle faction, and hang every member of any party anywhere.

I’ll bring the rope.

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:56:00 GMT

I’ve not been able to write much this year. I’ve been wondering why, but it finally occurred to me in the past week.

My voice is gone.

I don’t know if I lost it or if it was taken from me. I really don’t know. Whatever the cause, it’s gone, and I can’t write. I can’t converse. I just have no interest.

I’m not melancholy or depressed, so don’t think that. I am happy and free, and enjoying life, as always.

I just have no voice.

I’m weary of speaking. I’m weary of listening. I’m weary of communication.

But I seem to be happier. Perhaps it is merely movement onto another stage of life.

CUT! Run it again from the top - Take II....

Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:59:56 GMT

“…I wonder what caused it? ”

“No.” I remained adamant. Sitting in my leather chair by the window. Arms folded defiantly.

“You must, Sir.” responded Pathos, obviously exhausted by my refusal to acquiesce.

“Never.”

“If you do not, Sir, they might cancel us.”

“Cancel us?”

“Or replace you.”

“They wouldn’t dare!”

“They would.”

“Sigh. Very well – feed me the line again.”

“Very well, Sir.”

Pathos took up his position opposite me at the study table, and picked up a newspaper.

“Look at this, Sir.” said Pathos, rattling the newspaper.

“What is it?”

“There was a dock collapse today at the waterfront. A dozen injured. I wonder what caused it? ”

“[Sigh…] Pier pressure?”

“There – was that so difficult, Sir?”

“More difficult than you’ll ever know, Pathos.”

Discourse One

Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:41:31 GMT

I sat in the circle of learnéd and wiséd clerics before the pulpit of the South Meetinghouse in Boston. Once each week or so, the mightiest theological minds of the Boston area would meet and discuss all manner of subject, from Adam to Zebulon.

I had been pushed into the meeting by “well-wishers”, but truly found little among these men of the cloth to commend them to my attention. All save one…

The topic of the day was the end times. Dull, frankly. I listened to each discourse, as each man tortured the gathering with his view and why it was correct. What I heard was this…

One Feller: Blah blah blah eschatology blah blah blah blah Greek nouns blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah thousand years blah blah blah blah blah blah…

Next Feller: Blah blah blah blah blah seven seals blah blah blah blah blah blah thrones blah blah blah blah Revelation blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah …

Next Feller: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lunch blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…

Next Feller: Blah tribulation [yawn] blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah rapture blah blah blah blah blah blah…

…and so-on for an eternity… until the last feller. He had remained quiet, expressionless aside from a peaceful smile, as he listened to each loud discourse. He actually spent most of the time studying my face as I wriggled in intense boredom. When his turn came, but hesitated, made a few pensive faces, then spoke his view on the end times softly, but firmly…

This Last Feller: Gentlemen, all I know – and all I care to know – of the coming of the next age is spoken thro’ Isaiah: Therefore the redeemed of the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away. Anything else is just mindless speculation and fear-mongering. Honestly, the notion that Christians, of all people, should live in terror of Christ’s return, or even waste precious time fighting amongst themselves over this and lording one view over another. Silly, silly. If this is what Protestantism has come to, perhaps we’d do better… well, no, no I suppose not. Anyway, is it time for lunch yet?

This was my introduction, not only to the little-known thinker, the Reverend Calvin Arminius Pope, but also to a turkey club sandwich that was to die for.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This conversation also began the colonies’ short road to war with Britain, by the way. Stay tuned!

Church?? on a Sunday?!?!?!?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:09:46 GMT

He was terribly cross, I’m afraid. The British officer stood at the front of the church, hand on the hilt of his sword, pacing back and forth, shouting at the congregation. A nervous sergeant stood dutifully by his side.

“Right!” shouteth he. “We are none of us leaving until the guilty party or parties fesses up!”

Silence, all save a few giggles.

“Again,” he agained, “No one is leaving until I discover whomever is responsible for changing the words to ‘God Save The King’ in the hymnal.”

“I’m afraid,” quipped the minister, “That we haven’t a clue as to what you’re talking about.”

“Sergeant!” bellowed the officer. “Read it again!”

The sergeant stepped forward, cleared his throat, and read off of a piece of paper that had been slipped into his hymnal…

Georgie’s a stupid git,

Useless old German twit

Give us back James;

Grant Charlie’s dad the throne,

Who cares if he’s for Rome,

Send German Georgie home,

Or we’ll dump more tea…

Another round of giggling.

“As I said before,” he said again, “The minister shall not be allowed to dismiss this service until…”

Suddenly, the minster rose to his feet and pronounced loudly, “May the grace and peace of Christ be with you now and…”

Before the words were out the congregation rose as one, said in unison, “And also with you,” and exited the church over the protests of the officer.

“Nice one, Sir,” smiled Pathos, as we gained the street and headed home.

“Me? I thought you did it.” I smiled back.

Martial law has come to Boston. Come on, Gerogie. All we did was caffeinate some fish in the harbour. Don't be such a wet blanket.

The Soup Thickens....

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 12:51:35 GMT

I was not upset that Fat Georgie closed the Port of Boston.

I was not upset that my neighbours began panicking, and half of them began railing against the king and the other half against the Sons of Liberty.

I was not upset when it began difficult to get fresh vegetables in town.

But now they’ve stopped my maple syrup.

This means war.

A knock came on the door this morning. It was a fellow in an odd sort of uniform with a slim cap and baggy breeches. He was carrying a strange sort of wooden stick.

“What.”

“Excuse me, sir,” sayeth he, “But I am collecting money to purchase new stockings for the Boston Rounders Club.”

“Rounders?”

“Aye, sir. See, a member of the opposing team hurls a small ball and we have to hit it with a stick and run ‘round some bases.”

“That’s Rounders? What’s that game with the golden snitch?”

“You’re thinking of Quidditch, sir.”

“Ah. Is it an exciting game?”

“Not really.”

“How do you keep people interested?”

“We serve beer.”

“Ah. What’s your team’s name?”

“The Boston Commoners.”

“I see. Well, how many pair of socks will you be needing?”

“Nine, sir. We are hoping to get them all the same colour.”

“Funny you should say that. I happen to have nine pair I wish to be rid of. Will it be alright if they are all red?”

“That would be splendid, sir!”

I went inside and fetch my nine pair of red socks, then returned to the door.

“Here you go. Oh, I’d think about changing your team name, by the way. Boston Commoners is a bit… I don’t know what.”

“Thank you, sir! I’ll suggest something else to the lads.”

And he was gone.

The Myric Unauthorized Version

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:24:29 GMT

Before you read, your computer will need to have the "symbol" font on it to see the Greek. This font comes with MS Word, and already should be on most computers.

Several months ago a first-class homeboy of mine posed the question to me of how I would proceed with my own particular Bible translation. Been thinking a lot about it, and forming a lot of ideas. Now I wish to present to the world the basic translational philosophy behind what I am calling the Myric McBain Unauthorized Version.

DISCLAIMER!!!! Please keep in mind that this is not a design for a Bible for everyone, but only my dream suite of a Bible I would like to see for my own personal use, and for the edification and instruction of those who really want to dig more deeply into the texts of the Scriptures. I would not recommend a Bible such as I shall suggest for everyone, even though deeper Scriptural and contextual knowledge is something to which all Christians should aspire. Not everyone has the same needs, is the bottom line, so please keep in mind I’m not telling anyone to throw out his or her existing Bible version if that version is in line with orthodoxy and Scriptural integrity. However, I’m going to raise some well-established points scholastic and theological that we often do not take the time to fully consider, and I would ask that all who read this take the time to dwell on the ramifications of some of the points I raise.

For those of you who may have objections to my thoughts: I hear you, I understand, and please know that I’ve considered all aspects of all viewpoints that have been raised to me regarding this issue on the past, and have worked those into my philosophy. Some of them have tempered my feelings on this issue, but others I have had to dismiss as untenable. But in the end, this is my personal philosophy on the argument between accuracy and individual understanding, and no one has to agree with me.

Also, please keep in mind that I make claims in this tome about contextual meanings of Greek texts and their reflection in English versions – these are not the result of my own digging into Greek, but have been written about by the finest minds in modern and historic Greek scholarship. So blame them guys. Especially that Metzger fellow.

All in all, this is an intellectual exercise for me, and I hope it will be for you, as well.

So, let’s begin…

As many of you may know, I’ve been spending the better part of the past 5 years studying historic Bible versions and the different thoughts behind the major translational philosophies. In some cases, I’ve butted heads with a few folks more than once over the issue of how literal a Bible should be. I’ve taken a lot of quiet time to consider this very issue and have come up with the underlying point behind my philosophy:

Why would I want to use a Bible translation that purposely changes words from the source languages to English words that do not mean the same thing?

I’m not picking on one particular translation, here – in some form or another every translation does this. But we should all be aware that this has been going on and in some cases there are pretty major changes happening of which the translational committees do not bother to inform the reader. How many of you knew that Paul’s letter to the Romans does NOT say “angels nor demons”, but it actually says “angels nor rulers”? Small example, but there are much larger ones. Also, we don’t have a “sinful nature”, as some Bible versions report. The Greek word used here is “flesh”, indicating a corruption of every aspect of our being, rather than a struggle against a localized entity within us indicated by “sinful nature”. This also leads us to a deeper understanding of the hope we have in Christ, because, as John tells us, “the Word became FLESH (same word)…” This simple phrase – when understood in the totality of Scripture – says something a lot deeper than we realize at first. It also speaks to a cultural understanding of the time – John’s readers, and the reading world, in general, would have been blown away by this statement, because the logos was a concept of the spiritual word that inspired life and set the order of the universe – telling his readers that this logos had come to earth in the flesh would have fried their minds, and meant something to them well beyond what it means to us. Why wouldn’t a Christian in search of deeper meaning want to know that?

While I avoid personal use of thought-for-thought versions in my preaching, teaching, and study because of the detailed nature of the word-studies and explanations I do (which not everyone does, to be fair to them), we should also be aware that word-for-word versions are not really “word-for-word”. There are not many examples of the wording being changed to meanings that do not reflect the source languages, but there are some small things I’d like to put forth. Changing the word changes the context and subtext, and therefore changes the meaning – this is my main guiding principle.

In the New Testament, there are many instances where the Greek word for “age” is translated as “world”. In Luke 16:8 the phrase in most English translations reads “…the sons of this world…”. The Greek actually says “…sons of this age…”. So what’s the difference? Honestly? not much. But there is a subtle statement being made in the Greek about the nature of the “end times” that is not made in the English, and most modern readers would not connect, anyway. Does that mean we shouldn’t explore that? Of course not, because the word was chosen for a very good reason. The New Testament (in Greek, and to the Greek mind) actually does not teach that the “world” will end, but that the “age” will end and a new one will begin. This is an important distinction between a physical end (the world) and a new spiritual beginning (the new age). For one thing, it means that humans aren’t going to destroy the world.

There are also original unspoken contexts to consider that are plain to a Greek reader, but not to a reader who is reading the same passage in English. In Matthew 18:18, Jesus isn’t telling His disciples that what they bind on earth will be bound in Heaven – the Greek context says that what they bind on earth will ALREADY HAVE BEEN bound in Heaven. This understanding takes the credit away from man and gives it properly to God, reminding us of our dependence on Him, especially in matters of spiritual warfare. This verse is not telling us that we have the power within ourselves to bind and loose things and that God will confirm our decisions, but that God alone has that power and we are operating within His Sovereign Will. More importantly, it is telling us that the battle is already won.

All that said, we do have to realize that it is often necessary to “add” a word to a translation to make it make sense. There are some cases in which this needs to be done to clarify the tense or identify the action in the sentence, but these additions do not change the meaning or add something that isn’t there – they are words that are implied in the source languages for which English translations need to account. Until recently, these words were usually italicized in the text so that the reader understood that they were not in the source language text. I think this is a good system, and that we should go back to it.

Now, these contexts and wording issues I have discussed are mere predicates of the main thrust of how I arrived at my translational philosophy. To recap, while I am often quite appalled at some of the misleading changes made to English versions, I understand that a completely literal version is not possible… but it is very possible to get quite close, and this is my main irk with modern translational philosophies.

My translational philosophy is neither word-for-word nor thought-for-thought, in that it rejects major tenets of both, especially thought-for-thought. My translational philosophy is called “Give Us Some Credit”. It isn’t that most Bible versions are bad, per se; it’s that they can always be better – that’s why we don’t still use the Tyndale Translation.

One of the main flaws in modern translational philosophies is that they attempt to simplify the text without taking into account that the text may not really need to be simplified, at all (for the most part). I still have trouble with the notion of simplifying the words for the audience at the expense of the accuracy. The Bible isn’t about appeasing or appealing to the audience. It isn’t about “Oh, this one works for me!” Different Bible versions can be used as stepping stones, but we should always be moving toward a purer and purer (as much as such an entity is humanly possible) understanding of Scripture by understanding what Scripture is actually saying. Making it easier to read at the expense of accuracy still seems counter-productive to me. After all, we aren’t meant to study Scripture in a vacuum, nor are we told that it is even possible for us to understand everything in Scripture. Plus, when someone simplifies it for us, we are getting that person’s or that team’s version of what the passage means, not the meaning from the passage, itself. In essence, they are not allowing us to see what the author said – they are making the decision for us of what it means. And some translational teams have not been faithful in giving is an accurate picture of what is being said, as I have already demonstrated. Sorry, folks, but that’s perfectly true. And that’s a provable statement.

I’m a big fan of keeping the challenge and the interpersonal dependency of Scriptural study. Honestly, most confusion enters Scriptural understanding not thro’ the text, itself, but thro’ additions or omissions to the text, and the multitude of Bible versions that never quite seem to say the same thing. – “My version says this…” “Now let’s look at what another version says…” “Well why is mine different and how do you know yours is right?” – these are all issues with which I’ve dealt in classes and in my own mind. The answers to these concepts are simple and impossible at the same time: “Let’s see what the Greek says!” “Good idea! Which Greek?” Golly-gee-willikers. Issues issues issues. But then that’s a huge part of the fun and awe that Biblical scholars feel when they try to tackle these things.

But to my way of thinking (and again, this is just my way of thinking), some of these would be solved by translators sticking to the script, so to speak. There would, of course, be some minor variations as teams chose which word here and there best reflected the meaning of the word used in the source language. But we wouldn’t have much of one version saying something completely contradictory to another (see example I include about 1 Timothy 1:16, below). In the end, giving the readers more credit and not dumbing things down is a good start to building a translational philosophy. Let’s look at my process…

To start with, I looked at word-for-word translations that are out there, and while they are good, they overlook one key thing – source language idioms aren’t really as hard to understand as many of the translators think. I think that, in some of their clarifications, they go a bit too far in adding words to clarify thoughts, A case is in the verses Paul wrote dealing with deacons. Here many translators – both word-for-word and thought-for-thought – add words to make the passage say that only men can be deacons, when it isn’t all that clear from the Greek (if you have more interest in this, let me know, because I wrote a short study on this very topic). The case can certainly be made, but I don’t think adding the words was justified.

Then I looked at thought-for-thought translations. To be blunt, I still find these versions to be short-changing the English-speaking church, because in some cases they completely change words in the original languages to English words that by no means reflect the meaning of the original words. I’ve been pouring over this issue for months now, and I still find this inexcusable and borderline blasphemous. Granted, these instances are rare, but they really, really do have negative effect on how we read Scripture. Let me give you an example:

A popular thought-for-thought translation lists the text of 1 Timothy 1:16 as “But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.”

However, what this translation is saying about Christ simply isn’t true. Let me say that again: what this Bible version is saying about Christ is not true. Christ’s patience is not “unlimited” as this translation states, and, in fact, this is not only a misrepresentation of the source language text, but it is one that logically cannot be inferred by the source Greek texts. This is a case of the translational committee making the choice to use an English word that in no way equates to the meaning of the Greek, and they did so without taking into account the error in Christology, Theology, and doctrine that they were inserting into the text. And make no mistake, it is an error, and one they chose to insert. They also didn’t tell anyone they were doing it, or give the reader a chance to see what the text really says. They made a wrong decision on all counts, and the reader is left with a false understanding because of a purposeful change they made. Does that sound like a small thing? It doesn’t to me. This is the Word of God – this sort of thing is not acceptable. I may sound hard-nosed and inflexible about this… and the reason is that I am hard-nosed and inflexible about this. Anything less than a real attempt at purity is compromise.

Other words used to describe patience in the New Testament are “utmost patience” and “complete patience”, but neither of these implies “unlimited patience”.

To my view, this is an unacceptable error in any Bible translation, because it is not only changing the phrasing in the Greek to something that it clearly does NOT say, but it is changing Christology to say something that completely contradicts what the rest of Scripture says about God. I’m sure that the translators were godly people with good intentions, but the fact remains that they shouldn’t have done that. Good intentions are never a justification for a wrong act. They had no right to do that, because what they printed as being “Scripture” isn’t what Scripture actually teaches - this isn’t a little deal. Not to me. It shouldn’t be a little deal for anyone who believes in the Divine Authority of the Scriptures.

So, I began to wonder to what extent we really need to change the wording of the source language texts in our translations, and the more I thought about it, the more I decided that not much change was actually necessary, at least from my standpoint.

What I focused most on for my own version was the use of idiomatic language and gaining more transparency into the world of the authors and their readers. One of my big beefs with modern translations is that they seek to “simplify” the Bible by updating it to our modern usage at the expense of the original intent of the passages. It’s rather selfish of us – and horribly anti-productive – to try to separate Scripture from the cultures in which they were written. Two reasons: 1) Not every culture reading the Bible today is reading it from an Anglo-American context; and 2) God revealed Scripture to the cultures He did in the time that He did, and there are many subtexts that can only be understood by understanding the cultures of that time. Understanding these two points gives a more unified starting point from which to view Scripture and Christianity, rather than every culture and time having its own unique, DIVIDED starting point because Christians are ignorant of the original subtexts and meanings of the texts.

Something I desperately need to point out here: God is constant. God does not change. The meaning of our Faith doesn’t change. The Gospel doesn’t change. Christ doesn’t change. Pure Doctrine doesn’t change. However, Christian practice and our understanding of it DOES change. The Church of my generation is a lot different than the Church of my parents’ generation. Their parents’ Church was different from ours, as well. And it goes back and back and back thro’ time, past high points of Christian understanding and low points. The key factor here is that it is our understanding of Christianity that is altered over time, and we are constantly discovering new tools to increase that understanding.

So, while I am not saying that a poorly executed translation changes the message of the Gospel or God’s sovereignty, I am – emphatically! – stating that a poorly executed translation can negatively affect our understanding of Christianity, and turn our generation as a group into a footnote to snicker at in someone’s Church History class 500 years from now. If you don’t believe that can happen, read up on the pre-Reformation Church and how they educated the clerical class. The good news is that God’s plan is not dependent on human exertion and understanding (“not of him who wills or runs” ~ Romans 9:16).

So all that is not to say that the morality of Scripture is governed only by the cultures in which they were written – far from it. What I’m saying is that updating the Bible to modern language and usage (much like many thought-for-thought and paraphrase Bibles) can often rob the readers of the understanding of the depth and richness of the ancient cultures, and some of the original intent as God revealed it can, indeed, be lost to us, to be rediscovered down the road, as has happened many times in the past.

Now, that’s not to say that there aren’t some phrases in Scripture that would need further explanation in the Myric Unauthorized Version (just as in every version!), but I think it would be interesting to have a version that actually records these idioms as-is, rather than updating them to our modern idiomatic usage. So I would keep phrases such as “The Word became flesh and made His tent among us…” rather than “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”. Really, it isn’t that difficult to understand, and a helpful note at the bottom of the page would clear up any lingering confusion.

I would actually prefer this path with quite a few Biblical passages – preserving the original and footnoting the heck out of the text. This would give a much clearer view into the world of the Bible. For example, the Greek and Hebrew make frequent reference to the guts and bowels as the center of the person, whereas we translate that as the heart being the center. I would leave it as-is and put a cultural footnote at the bottom. It’s not that difficult to understand in a culture that makes judgements based on “gut-feelings”, but is often led astray by “following their hearts”.

Now, these don’t really affect doctrine or anything, but they are little interesting tid-bits that do a few things:

1) This method gives us a deeper understanding of the times and cultures in which God chose to communicate the text of Scripture to His people;

2) This method of focusing on the Biblical cultures would help to reduce the modern-cultural jingoism that is prevalent in Christian thought and translation that has served to disconnect the modern Church from the ancient, and modern Christian cultures from each other… well, one would hope… I certainly do…

3) This method would take the focus off us, the readers, and put it BACK on the message and its original intent.

4) This method would help with a more God-centered understanding of this: “But I don’t understand what this verse is saying!” Well, it’s not about you. No one understands everything. Don’t reach for a dumbed-down version – pray, study, ask, discuss, read. Embrace the fact that God calls you to study and love something so that complicated, and have the same faith in yourself to grow as God has in you.

My personal opinion is that there is a serious disconnection that has been going on between the modern Church and the ancient Church, and that it really has been having a negative effect on the course of Church Doctrine and the direction of Church teaching. Lack of instruction in the thought of the Early Church and the cultures of the early Christians and ancient Hebrews gives only a partial understanding of our Faith and the origins of what we believe. So, if we can reintroduce more of this understanding through an even more literal Bible with extremely detailed cultural and study notes would be of great value to the Church in general.

So, after digesting all of my personal reflections and opinions, are you ready to explore a sample page from the Myric Unauthorized Version? Sweet. Let’s do this….

To begin with, I wanted to show that a Bible can be literal, clear, and beautiful, as well as in English. My method for translation was to start with my main sources:

1) The Greek New Testament; UBS 27/4^th Revised Nestle-Aland (which I used not to exclude the Textus Receptus, but because the UBS27/NA4 is what is used in most seminaries and Biblical Greek classes, and most modern versions are produced from the UBS/NA);

2) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2^nd Edition);

3) Word Study Greek-English New Testament;

4) The Holy Bible: English Standard Version

5) Many other English versions

There were many more smaller works I consulted, but these are the major ones, and these are the most accessible to the general population, proving once again that everyone can study the Bible in it’s original tongues, at least on some level.

My first step was to pick my purpose: I wanted to produce a translation of a well-known passage with which people would be very familiar, and I wanted to make it as literal as possible, while keeping it clear and pleasing to the eyes that read, the ear that hears, and the mind that thinks.

Next I selected a passage that had enough deviations from the source language that the changes I made to the translation would be apparent, would show a transparency to the world of the original author and audience, was well known, and would not scare people who found my translation “too different” from their preferred version. I selected John 1:1-18.

After that I did was a word comparison between the New Testament Passage in Greek, a literal translation of each word, and an existing English version. I selected the ESV because I have found it to contain to fewest deviations from the source language, altho’ there are enough deviations so that my translated text would be different.

I then reviewed scholarly works done on the translation process for this passage to see how previous translators had handled tricky situations.

Then I created my format… which evolved throughout the translation process… and will be easy to follow as you see it. Most things I did will be evident when you see the text, but some are explained in notes that would be included for the reader in a finished version.

Please note that words in italics are NOT in the source language text, but are implied by the Greek words used – Greek does that. So does English, by the way.

Word order in Greek isn’t as important as it is in English, so I was able to change word order without affecting the meaning.

I also chose not to capitalize personal pronouns, as that’s a fairly recent feature, unique to English… altho’ I personally always do it.

And so, here we go…

PS: I don’t know if I would do double column or single column print, but that’s not really a biggie at this point.

The world’s first selection from the Myric Unauthorized Version, a translation for the lay-scholar.

The Message According to Joannen[1]

Chapter 1.

1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with[2] God, and the word was God.[3] 2 This word was in the beginning with God. 3 All through him came into being, and without him not one thing came into being. What came to be 4 in him was life, and that life was the light of men; 5 and the light in the darkness shines, for the darkness did not overtake it.[4]

6 A man came, having been entrusted[5] from God, named John[6]; 7 he came as a testimony that he might testify concerning the light, that all might trust through him. 8 He was not the light, but he came that he might testify concerning the light. 9 That light[7] was the true light coming into the world, who gives light to[8] all men[9]. 10 He was in the world, and the world through him came to be, and the world knew him not.[10] 11 To his[11] own he came, but his own did not carry him with them.[12]

12 But as many as carried him,[13] to them he gave authority to become children of God, to the ones trusting in his name, 13 who not out of blood and not out of the will of the flesh or the will of man were born, but who were born out of God.[14]

14 And the word flesh[15] became and he tented in us,[16] and we saw his splendor, splendor as the only son born from the father, full of favor and truth. 15 John testifies concerning him and has proclaimed [17] saying, “This was he of whom I said; ‘the one coming after me is greater than I,[18] because he was before me’”. 16 And out of the fullness of him[19] we all received favor upon[20] favor; 17 because through Moses[21] the law was given, and through Jesus[22] The Anointed One[23] came favor and truth. 18 No one has ever yet seen God; the only born God,[24] being in the lap[25] of the father, has revealed him.

[1] Rather than use Anglicized names, I am keeping the names as they appear in Greek, but only in the titles.

[2] Greek word is toward (proV). Also in verse 2.

[3] Verse 1 stresses not only the distinctive personality of the Word within the three-persons of God, but the deity of the Word. The Word not only always has been with God the Father, but the Word has always been God. The “Word”, or logos (Greek logoV) stresses the deity of the Son, while “Christ” stresses His humanity.

[4] Verse 5 in Greek has an apparent tense shift between the present tense, shines (fainei), and the past tense in the Greek word for overtook (katelaben). Many translations choose to unify the tenses, but I chose not to do so, because it is saying something here that needs to be preserved. These tenses indicate that the light is ever present, but that the darkness has already been defeated.

[5] Greek phrase is one word meaning having been delegated (apestalmenoV).

[6] Greek is Joannes. It is interesting to note that the proper name John in the title ends differently than the name of John the Baptist in the text. This is because of how the proper name is used and appears in the sentence dictates what Greek word ended is used. For a further discussion of this, take a Greek class. I can’t explain it very well.

[7] Greek is he.

[8] Greek is lightens (fwtizei).

[9] Greek is man.

[10] The Creator of the world came to the world, and the world rejected Him.

[11] Greek is the. Also next verse.

[12] Greek is own him not took along (idioi auto ou parelabon). Compare this possible nomadic motif to the image in Vs. 14 of setting His tent in the midst of His people. There is an English equivalent to this idiom, as well, about carrying things around with us.

[13] Greek is As many as but took him (osoi de elabo auton).

[14] That is, the New Birth of the Regenerated Christian.

[15] This is an important word, sarx (Greek sarx) because it links the humanity of Jesus with our own struggles. In the New Testament, the authors write often of the struggles of our flesh and that sin has permeated every aspect of us. This is not the work of a “sin nature” - an isolated part of us that causes us to sin - but of a corruption of every part of us that can only be corrected by the work of Christ on the cross and the Holy Spirit in our lives. See Romans 8:3,4

Note also that this notion would be a cultural shock to the people of that era. To the Greek mind, the word – the logoV – was in the spiritual plain, while the flesh – the sarx - was of the physical sphere. The logoV held everything in the universe together. It was logic, it was wisdom, and it guided humanity, but did not mix with humanity. That the logoV not only would come to earth, but take on the human sarx, was inconceivable to the ancients, and demonstrated to them the depth of the love of God.

[16] Here is an image that would be quite familiar to John’s readers. When one sets his tent among a people (also easily can be read as meaning inside our physical bodies) he is claiming commonality and kinship with them. Note also that this is reminiscent of the Tabernacle in ancient Israel being set up among the people as a meeting place between God and Moses. Jesus is now our Mediator, and we can meet Him without a human mediator. He sets His tent among us of His own Will, and God allows us to approach Him, and Christ’s work allows us to approach God. We cannot approach Christ except by the calling of God. John 6:44; John 6:65

[17] Greek is has shouted (kekragen).

[18] Greek is coming in front of me has become (ercoumenoV emprosqen mou gegonenv).

[19] That is, the fullness of Jesus.

[20] Greek is favor in place of favor (carin anti xaritoV).

[21] Greek is Mouseos. Moses as a name comes from an Egyptian phrase meaning Son Of.

[22] Greek is Jesou, a form of the Hebrew name Joshua.

[23] Greek is christos (cristoV), which means anointed one, as does Hebrew word messiah.

[24] Many translations leave out this word, “born”, but it is part of the Greek word used in the text, monogenes (monogenhV), and is not separated from “only” in Greek. “Born” and “only” in this text are one word in the Greek.

[25] This is an idiom akin to being held in someone’s heart. Where else would a beloved and blessed child be but on this father’s lap?

Wait, what was that name again?

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:59:29 GMT

I awoke this morning to find a strang young man in my parlour. I stood there, in my banyan, watching him unpack a valise filled with this, that, and the other thing. He put on an apron, and looked around the room as tho’ preparing to work. Then he spotted me.

“Oh! Good morning, sir!”

“Um. good morning. Who are you and why are you in my parlour?”

“Ah. Yes. My name is Wayne Scott and I am here at the request of a Mrs. Lorrette Jones to make some decorative adjustments – accents, really – to this room. You know, add a few lovely little touches and all that.”

“I see. Your name is Wayne Scott.”

“Yes, sir.”

“And you’re going to make a few decorative adjustments – accents, really – to my parlour.”

“Yes, sir.”

“And your name is Wayne Scott.”

“Yes, sir.”

“Ummmm…… so, do I guess correctly that you’ll be adding some… oh, I don’t know, wooden paneling?”

“What? No, sir. Area rugs.”

“Area rugs.”

“Yes, sir.”

“I see. And if you are Wayne Scott but you are doing the area rugs, what is the name of the man who’ll be coming to do the wooden paneling?”

“Matt Fleur.”

“Yes, sir.”

“So Wayne Scott is doing my area rugs and Matt Fleur is doing my wooden paneling.”

“Yes, sir.”

“I see.”

“Joke makes more sense if you…”

“…read it out-loud, yes. I got that.”

“And if you put his last name…”

“…before his first. Yes, got that, too.”

“Yes, sir.”

“Is the man doing the murals named Art Wall?”

“What?”

“Never mind. How old are you, anyway?”

“Sixteen, sir.”

“And how did Lorrette find you?”

“Thro’ my boss, sir: Hiram Young.”

“Of course.”

“Best read out-lo…”

“…yes, out-loud, I get it. Well, you best get started, then.”

I decided to go back to bed. It was too early for this bloody rubbish.

I think I've returned.... I think....

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:51:19 GMT

I walked in the door and let my valise drop from my hand. I was exhausted, over-hot, over-mentally…. something.

Lorrette stormed into the hall with her arms folded angrily across her chest.

“And just where have you been?? You’ve been gone for months!”

My mouth was dry, but I squeaked out the words, “So sorry. I was studying abroad, but she found out and called the police.”

Lorrette’s brow furrowed, and her lip tensed and curled as she looked at me in confusion. I took out a scrap of paper and a pencil from my pocket and wrote out what I had said, word-for-word.

I handed it to her. She still puzzled.

“Read it out-loud, and you should get it.”

I walked upstairs and collapsed into bed.

Uh oh....

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:36:05 GMT

Pathos entered the parlour. He looked pale and he was struggling to breathe. I glanced up from my reading as he thrust a piece of paper onto the table before me.

“What’s this then?”

“Sir, I think you’d better read this.”

I retrieved the piece of paper and began to read, calmly taking in what was before my eyes.

I could scarce believe what I was reading.

“Merciful heavens, Pathos, Fat Georgie is shutting up the Port of Boston.”

“He’s also stopping the importation of arms and ammunition.”

“This isn’t good. Worse things are coming. I imagine the Sons of Liberty have heard about this?”

“I don’t think so, Sir. This just came off the ship. There were three – one addressed to you, one to the governor of Massachusetts Bay, and one to the governor of New-Hampshire.”

“Let us keep quiet about this. No need stirring up riots quite yet.”

Pathos nodded and turned to leave, but paused at the door, and asked, almost apologetically;

“Sir?”

“Yes?”

“I was just wondering…” He was silent a moment.

“What?”

“This sort of thing happened in Scotland when you were a boy, didn’t it?”

Memories.

“More or less. Then they marched in and killed everyone.”

“I see. You’re falling off that fence, aren’t you.”

“Seems I’m being pushed.”

“I see.”