And the winner is...

Well, I got a hold of the ESV today and have spent some time with it (mostly in 1Cor 12-14, since I'm preaching on spiritual gifts in a few weeks.) Overall, it seems a very nice translation. I like that the fact that it is very literal without being totally idiomatic (like, for example, the NASB.) However, I find myself drawn in another direction: the NET Bible manages to get a lot of the translational issues I care about right. They translate "pistews Christou" (pardon my erratic transliteration) as "faithfulness of Christ" (e.g. in Gal 2.16). Since I find the arguments for this presented by e.g. Richard Hays convincing, this makes me happy. Of course, they still render YHWH as "The LORD", so it's not perfect. However, they also get right 1Cor 13:3, translating as "if I give up my body so that I may boast", following the NRSV and the UBS4.

This bears some explanation, which I will mostly draw from my reading of the NET notes. It turns out that there is a significant textual question here. The earliest manuscripts seem to have "if I give up my body so that I may boast", while later ones say "to be burned." This all hinges on two Greek letters. Metzger argues (and I tend to agree) that (1) boast makes more sense with the tense of the Greek verb (2) boast makes more sense in context and (3) given the Roman habit (in later years) of burning Christians at the stake, it would be a very easy mistake for a later scribe to make. However, it is hard to see how a later scribe would come to change "to burn" into "to boast." So, the reading of "to boast" makes more sense, and is what is used by the NRSV, as well as the NET. Dissenting are the KJV, NIV, and ESV.

But let's get real here. Does it really matter? If we read the whole chapter and base our interpretation on the whole chapter rather than trying to divide it up into tiny pieces and base our interpretation on those pieces, it really doesn't matter which word is more accurate. So, this particular difference does not matter. However, I have always maintained and will continue to maintain that the best way to use translations is to use a LOT of them. Don't depend on one, human, fallible translation for your faith.

Quotable Kempis:

DO NOT yield to every impulse and suggestion but consider things carefully and patiently in the light of God�s will. For very often, sad to say, we are so weak that we believe and speak evil of others rather than good. Perfect men, however, do not readily believe every talebearer, because they know that human frailty is prone to evil and is likely to appear in speech.

I think it speaks for itself, eh?

I spent the whole day today at the church, working on computers. Oddly enough, I think I get more theological reflection done at home than at the church! This being the case, I thought I'd share an insight I had a couple of weeks ago.

Hope (my church) is in the process of buying a monastery as our new church building. A few of us 'droids from the office went by there a couple of weeks ago to pray in the chapel (which is open to the public.) As is my custom, I prayed through the Lord's prayer. In the past, when I've prayed inwardly I have tended to change the Lord's prayer from "We" to "I" - so, it becomes "My father in heaven, holy be your name ... give ME today MY daily bread," etc.

However, this time I was struck with the insight that the "we" is probably deliberate. We do not pray in isolation - we pray as a community of believers, part of God's chosen people, citizens of God's kingdom, inseparable, with truth and just... err .... Yes. Anyway, all flowery language aside, my core realization was that the Lord's prayer is not a prayer for "me", it's a prayer for "us". Even when I pray inwardly, alone, I pray as someone who has been given the standing to pray only by my membership in the community of the church. And that's pretty stinkin' cool.

But it gets better. When got to the part about "lead me not into temptation, but deliver me from the evil one" I was given another insight. This insight began with the question "what is the temptation before us, as a body, right now." as I prayerfully considered this, I realized that our greatest temptation was to run away from the calling of God, to be God's people.

This is important: being in a church with other members of the Romans 3.23 crowd is not always easy. Often, it seems that the easiest thing to do is to flee from the challenges of community life - to jump to another church, or (maybe worse) press into our own private cloister, where religion is defined exclusively by our private experience apart from the church. I have felt that temptation, and if you've been around church much so have you. Don't give into the Dark Side. Y'all hear?

This seems to be the year for rare archaoelogical finds. Several months ago, we had the James Ossuary, now it appears that repair plans for the first temple in Jerusalem have been unearthed. In your face, Biblical minimalists! Click here for more about this.

I'm still reading Thomas a Kempis, and he's rocking my world:

The more you know and the better you understand, the more severely will you be judged, unless your life is also the more holy. Do not be proud, therefore, because of your learning or skill. Rather, fear because of the talent given you.

I think there's obviously some truth to that - in fact, scripture says something similar (Jas. 3.1). Of course, that's not exactly a comfortable thing for me to read - since it is my ambition to understand everything.

On another topic, I spent much of this evening chasing after the details of the ESV, trying to decide whether to get that or the NRSV for Accordance. I still haven't reached a conclusion. Frankly, I am non-plussed by the NRSV's gender inclusiveness spiel (as I am by gender inclusive language in general.) However, I am concerned that the ESV may not have great intellectual integrity. Particularly, their desire to return the translation of Isaiah (9 I think) to "virgin" troubles me. I think Bible translations should preserve the ambiguity of the original text whenever it's coherent. "Young woman" is what the Hebrew word means - we should leave it up to the reader to make the connection back to the "virgin" in Matthew. Part of me is inclined just to use the RSV and save a lot of money and time, but I don't know if that will be academically credible. (The New Jerusalem Bible is still my favorite, if only because its the only reasonable translation not to play silly games with the word YHWH -- translating it consistently as "Yahweh" rather than "The LORD", as distinct from "the Lord" or "THE LORD" or whatever the conventions are.)

Oh yes .. I should probably mention that I am quite aware that the reason for the NIV's translational flops lies in its translational philosophy. However, I am troubled that the NIV has not done a better job of limiting theological bias in the translation process!

From Thomas a Kempis:

What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.

I could be wrong, but I think the estimable Kempis is on to something here. It might even be the same thing that Paul was on to in 1Cor 8:

Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge.

Of course, this verse is often an excuse for trite anti-intellectualism and general silliness. That's not what this is about. Bonhoeffer makes the point (in Cost of D.) that, when Faust says "I now do see that we can nothing know" he does so as someone who has learned quite a bit. He also points out that, if a college sophomore said the same thing, it would be the heart of foolishness. Neverthless, probably words worth remembering.