Blessed Be Those Who Sin
The handiwork of a former Baptist minister, this “translation” is really more of a paraphrase of Scripture — actually more of a politically adept re-rendering — which now permits what was previously forbidden by changing its terminology. St. Paul’s admonition to shun immorality by each man having “his own wife and each woman her own husband” now reads, “My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner.” And there’s this: “There’s nothing wrong with remaining single, like me. But if you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner.”
In short, the idea of marriage between one man and one woman has been replaced with a “partnership” between whomever. But “The Good as New” Bible (a pompous title implying all older translations were broken and needed mending) doesn’t stop there: it seems Jesus did not usher in the kingdom of God, rather “God’s new world,” a very this-worldly conception (can “a new world order” be far behind?).
Now I’m sure many people’s immediate reaction (Evangelicals foremost among them, given that this is taking place in putatively Protestant England) will be, “See? Those liberals have perverted Scripture itself in order to justify their agenda!” But rewriting the Word of God is not new. It began a long time ago in a German principality far, far away…
Martin Luther put his hand to Bible translation, and when he was done he had confirmed (for himself and his disciples, at least) his unique understanding of the doctrine of justification by translating Romans 3:28 as, “We are justified by faith alone.” The only problem: the original Greek does not have “alone” — Luther added it.
In 1913, James Moffatt, in an attempt to justify his belief that the Eucharist was merely a symbol of a past sacrifice and not a present re-presentation of that sacrifice, translated the original New Testament Greek to read “Take and eat this; it means my body.” Unfortunately, that isn’t what the original Greek means.
Just Who Does Protect the Word of God?
The Catholic Church has been chided for centuries for supposedly withholding the Scriptures from Catholics in order to impose upon them alien doctrines. This is despite the fact that it has been demonstrated repeatedly that vernacular (common language as opposed to Latin) translations of Scripture existed long before the Reformation — even before the time of John Wycliffe, who took to himself the task of translating Scripture in 1382. It is true the Church condemned “unauthorized” translations or eccentric and individualistic interpretations — for what should now be obvious reasons. Will Protestants, especially Evangelicals for whom Sacred Scripture is still an inerrant and infallible teacher, learn from this lesson that they can no longer hold themselves up as the sole protectors of Scripture’s integrity, that they, in fact, are incapable of performing that function? And will Catholics wake up to the threat of those who would demolish the Church built upon the Apostles and prophets only to construct another iteration of the Anglican/Episcopal Church, whose foundation is…the morning news?
The Bible is the Church’s book — not Amazon.com’s or Thomas Nelson’s or the Bodleian Library’s. It was produced within the Church, for the Church, in order to nurture and feed the Church. It logically follows that it must be interpreted by the Church. The Church utilizes the authority Jesus gave to her and calls upon what G.K. Chesterton described as the “democracy of the dead,” the great saints, doctors, theologians, catechisms, and councils of the past, who will not be swept away in the name of political correctness or “contemporary relevance.” To fail to do this is to fall into the modernist trap of denying the deity of the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit was at work in the Church 1,500 years ago, illuminating those with apostolic authority to read Sacred Scripture in one way, how can He then contradict Himself in the 21st century by “illuminating” Scripture scholars and theologians to interpret it in another way? As the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit is God and cannot contradict Himself. Like Jesus, He is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
Scholars and teachers with a political agenda use modern critical methodologies not as probes to discover a deeper understanding of how biblical authors constructed their texts (in purely human terms), but as hammers to destroy the texts themselves, rendering all traditional interpretations relative and therefore non-binding. But what such radicals never understand is that, if this method is valid, then a modern interpretation is as bound for the historical trash heap as any other. It is no more “right” than the interpretations they overthrew. And if that is the case, why bother giving credence of any degree to an “authoritative” text that can exercise no real authority? The counter-argument is, “Well, future generations will have to re-re-interpret Scripture for themselves.” One can only ask, “But what is left to be said once you’ve opened the door to mere personal preference as the crux of exegesis? The book, the text itself, has already been rendered pointless.”
Christ and Christian: Particular Things
What to do? Well, we can ensure that everyone learns to read koine Greek. But even if such a plan were practical (and it seems difficult enough to teach standard English, let alone an ancient language), what difference would it make? Even if you admit the biblical author wrote X, intending it to be interpreted in a Y fashion, you can still argue that this ancient interpretation is now outdated and that a rewriting — er, excuse me, retranslating — of the text is justified. Knowing what Sacred Scripture says and believing it are two different things.
So is it merely a matter of faith? No. The Catholic Church has also rightly rejected fideism, the idea that all one can do in a pluralistic and confused world of meaning is take a “leap of faith,” grounded in nothing more than subjectivity. The words “Christian” and “Church” are not relative terms — they are historical terms with concrete meanings as witnessed to by real people in real places making real decisions that were embraced by real institutions. If you cannot accept these historically verifiable facts, then please stop calling yourself a Christian and admit you are practicing another religion and preaching another gospel (as if there could be more than one).
In the end, “The Good as New” Bible is nothing new. It’s as old as the Enemy’s question to Eve, “Did God really tell you…?”
© Copyright 2004 Catholic Exchange
Anthony Sacramone is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in Biography Magazine and on beliefnet.com, abcnews.com, and the historychannel.com.
