[Previous entry: "Trivializing abortion and democracy"] [Next entry: "Weirdness at the PCUSA assembly"]
06/30/2004: "Bible "translator" speaks"
John Henson, the English Baptist minister who recently offered the world the Good as New "translation" of the Bible was interviewed by Martin Reynolds for the monthly Lesbian and Gay News. This excerpt comes from Thinking Anglicans:
MR–You say this is an inclusive translation–how do you understand that?
JH–Passages that have been used with a homophobic slant have been widened to include all forms of abuse–here the homophobic glasses have been taken off. Some people want a Bible to hit homosexuals on the head, while at the same time taking a relaxed view of say,...the allied abuses in Iraq, they will find no comfort here.
Translation: I didn't like what Paul had to say on this subject, so I changed it. (I'm not aware of any biblical texts, no matter what the translation, that would allow for a "relaxed" view of the Abu Ghraib abuses, but perhaps Rev. Henson will make that clear in his next edition.)
MR–Rowan Williams has come in for some criticism for his foreword.
JH–Well I did see the Times article, atrocious piece, using the book to attack Dr Williams–I am responsible, if anyone should be criticised it should be me. It is a fair translation of the Greek, the idea put about that it advocates more sex is not true. All the early work on Romans was done by a Calvinistic Fundamentalist scholar.
As to the foreword, that was originally written for my book "The Other Temptation of Jesus"–that book used this translation for its Biblical passages. The publisher asked if he could use the same foreword and that was approved.
As the texts have been circulating for 12 years I’m not sure how much Dr Williams has read or used them. They have constantly been refined so I am not sure even if he saw the final work.
This is a piece of work aimed at primary evangelism, it is hardly surprising a bishop should approve it.
As to the omission of seven books and the inclusion of the Gospel of Thomas, that was my editorial choice. There were good reasons for that, even Luther wrote a "health warning" for Revelation, but this is not a completed work, its in progress, maybe it will come later. Those for whom the Canon of Scripture is a sacred cow will perhaps have had problems with the serialisation of the separate books, it is not an issue for me. This is a work for a 1st time reader, it has already moved people and changed their lives, it is achieving its goal. We can all be happy with that.
Rev. Henson doesn't explain why including the Gospel of Thomas, which teaches another religion entirely from the gospel presented in the New Testament, makes sense in a work aimed at "primary evangelism," especially since he wants it to be understandable by those who have little or no acquaintance with the Bible. As for the canon being a "sacred cow," well, I think it's taking the Baptist idea of soul liberty a bit far to say you can create your own Chinese menu version of Scripture–a bit of orthodoxy, a bit of Gnosticism, maybe a little Manichaeism on the side. (Yeah, yeah, I know all about the Apocrypha issue, but there's absolutely no disagreement among Christians about the New Testament, or at least I thought there wasn't.) All in all, it sounds very much like a version that only a Spong could love.
