Stupid Scholar

A friend just told me about a group of conservatives who are putting together a new translation of the Bible. This project, called The Conservative Bible Project, aims to correct and surpass all of the “liberal” Bible translations (ex: NIV and ESV) in our pews.  Please take the time read about the CBP using the link provided before you continue here.  You may also want to read the reviews by Mark Shea and The Huffington Post.

The Positives of the Conservative Bible Project

The CBP is right to understand that translation implies interpretation. This is denied by virtually no one. Indeed, it is impossible to translate a text, especially a religious one, without inserting one’s own bias or preferences.  Thus, the CBP is correct that a liberal minded translator (or group of translators) may intentionally or inadvertently impose a liberal agenda on the interpretation, which certainly should be avoided.

A decent example might be the modern move to include only gender inclusive language (ex: “people” instead of “men” or “children” instead of “sons”). This can result in Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ (ex. Psalm 1:1) being lost in translation. Clearly, such would be a move away from traditional Christianity, and hesitancy here is understandable.

Furthermore, the CBP is right to suggest that there are false teachers and bad theologies within our churches.  As there is no perfect church, there is no perfect translation.  If a translation leads to erroneous conceptions of God, sin, man, Hell, Jesus, etc., then it should be rejected. 

Ambiguities within the Conservative Bible Project

Nevertheless, I firmly believe the CBP to be ambiguous on certain accounts and down right wrong on others. First, the CBP defines neither “conservative” nor “liberal”. It is completely unclear what is being criticized and what is being upheld. Are they dealing with theological conservatism/liberalism or political conservatism/liberalism?

For instance, the CBP claims that the word, “government,” is a liberal word. However, there is no explanation as to why government is inherently liberal. Is this a theological issue or political issue? The same ambiguity applies to words like comrade, laborer, and fellow. Even God’s name, Yahweh, is considered “liberal wordiness”, and no defense is given. This is confusing to the say the least.

Second, the project is unclear as to whether it desires to present a entirely new translation or build upon the existing King James Version. The project cannot do both, because there are well attested problems with the underlying Greek text, Textus Receptus, of the KJV (see Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament and Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration).

The CBP seems to understand this, but it fails to commit to a new translation. It is unclear how the CBP will decipher which verses/words/sections of the KJV are “defective” and which are not. If the CBP bases its work upon the Textus Receptus, then they will be off to a poor start.

Third, the CBP seems to occasionally not like the Greek itself! In Luke 16:8, the CBP is dissatisfied with the word “shrewdly” because of its “connotations of dishonesty.” They prefer to use “resourceful.” The problem is that the Greek, φρονιμως (phronimos), means, “Shrewdly, wisely, or prudently,” not “Resourceful.” Are they claiming that Luke’s words are too liberal?

Errors of the Conservative Bible Project

Furthermore, there seem to be places where the underlying philosophy and practice of the CBP is in error. The most obvious example is that the CBP equates “conservativism” with God’s truth. However, it is possible – indeed, probable – that the theology behind the CBP is flawed, at least on points. If this is the case, their theology should not be the guiding principle in translation.

Instead, they should acquire serious Greek philologists, linguists, textual critics and grammarians to translate the text as literally (whether word for word or thought for thought) as possible. Then, the CBP should conform its theology to the Biblical text, not the other way around!

For instance, topics such as social justice, which the CBP rejects, are present within the Bible, especially in the OT prophets (ex: Jeremiah and Isaiah). God cares about poor, oppressed, and exploited people. Simply because the CBP is cautious about promoting the “Christian social justice movement” – how they define this is unclear – they should not alter the text.

In short, the CBP seems to be driven by agenda, which is exactly the critique they use against their liberal opponents. Yet if God’s Word actually differs from the CBP’s theology/philosophy, the CBP should alter their philosophy not the Biblical text. The “conservative” agenda should not be allowed to alter God’s Word any more than a “liberal” one should. This is, perhaps, the most serious problem of the CBP.

Furthermore, the CBP appears deficient in its knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. For instance, they claim that the use of “word” in John 1:1 has lost its meaning in modern society – fair enough. Thus, they suggest using “truth” instead. However, the Greek is λογος (logos: word) not αληθεια (aletheia: truth). The former simply does not mean, “Truth,” (see BDAG, 2000, pp. 598-601), and to translate it as such is just wrong.

Finally, the whole project appears to be condescending and pejorative. Anytime there is a potentially liberal word or concept (remember that this includes “Yahweh!”), it is considered a distortion or intrusion. They paint of picture of pseudo-christians infiltrating the church with their radical agenda and who can only be stopped by a conservative vocabulary.

This gives no credit to the politically or theologically liberal scholars who are more qualified than CBP members in understanding Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic language, grammar, morphology, and literature. Even if we assume that the CBP’s theology is perfect, this does not guarantee that they know how to translate and understand ancient texts. Credit should be given where credit is due, but the CBP seems unwilling to acknowledge the skill that so-called “liberals” might possess. This reeks of arrogance and condescension, which is always a bad starting ground for doing the work of God, as the CBP is clearly motivated to do.

Conclusion

I appreciate what the CBP is trying to do. St. Paul was correct in predicting that there would be many false teachers in the church universal, and there certainly are today. However, stamping a movement or translation “conservative” does not solve this problem, and it may even foster it by confusing theological problems with political ones.

I agree with the CBP that new translations of the Bible are needed, especially as modern English changes with time and culture. Nevertheless, new translations should be governed by what the texts actually say, not by what a group wants them to say. Once the meaning of a text is understood, translators should seek to communicate that meaning in the vernacular, as best as possible. Sometimes this might mean using “liberal” vocabulary or even – God forbid! – promoting social justice, because that is what the texts say and mean.

In the end, since the CBP seems more motivated by agenda than faithfulness to the text, I am inclined to see it as biased, unhelpful, flawed, and even misleading. It’s not the kookiness Mark Shea suggests, but it’s not a good idea either.