Evolution, Religion and Society
Yesterday I was helping a friend pack to move house when she gave me (along with many other cool things) a spare Bible she had lying around, as you do. It's New International Version, which I've never read before. Years ago, when I was a Christian, my church used the Good News. A Christian friend had already told me that NIV is the best translation and Good News "too interpretive" but I suspected that this meant that Good News just wasn't her interpretation. Then just a week or two ago an agnostic(?) friend (who is in the process of converting to Judaism!) also asserted the superiority of the NIV, explaining that it was written by professional translators, with no particular theological axe to grind. [I have since learnt that just the opposite is true, see comments.] (I do hope Wade is reading. If we're lucky he might even leave a comment arguing for the superiority of his fancy New Revised Standard Version!) But I digress... I was surprised to find myself accepting a Bible but did so because it will probably come in handy next semester when I take the discussion classes for Prof. Lisa Lloyd's "Evolution Religion and Society" class.
I am really looking forward to teaching this class (I have twice passed on other options) but am not sure how easy it will be. I have a little teaching experience already: I have tutored dozens of high-school (and quite a few university) students in maths, chemistry and physics, just one or two at a time; and I have supervised classes of up to sixteen first and second year university students in the chemistry labs. But I've never given a class where the topic is discussed.
When I was an undergrad I started paying attention to the way different academics run their classes. Some played devil's advocate a lot, while others were more upfront about their own prejudices and encouraged the more vocal students to argue for the opposite view themselves. I might have to do a bit of both. Certainly I'm going to emphasise that both science and religion must be approached philosophically, that is, giving clear arguments with explicit premises and being aware of one's own assumptions. When I mentioned this to one of my classmates he pointed out that this is likely to alienate many of the religious students who relish their blind faith. I'm well aware of this but I think that if I'm seen to come down hard on any student who gives bad arguments for belief in science then the students will see that I'm not being partial.
I think I've had enough theological debates with Christian friends that I can teach this class without being disrespectful of religion in general. Some would argue that that's important for paedogogical reasons (I'm not too sure that it is). It's definitely important to be respectful for pracatical reasons when you live in small-town America, Paul Mirecki of Kansas U. got beaten up for calling Creationism a "mythology"!
posted by Nick @ 4:49 pm
8 comments
8 Comments:
I like the KJV for the impact of the language on myself as a reader and the way it, through its long standing stature, runs parallel with most English literature since its publication in 1611. For a straight talking read though, the NRSV is my bible of choice. The maxim of its approach: "As literal as possible, as free as necessary" mean you get the real deal of translation from qualified scholars not afraid to fiddle with established tradition. They even got rid of the old "thou shalt..." in the ten commandments. It evolves with new discoveries and it is available in one complete volume with detailed, scholarly commentary and the apocrypha to boot.
So there.
Yes, yes! We all prefer the sound of King James. It sounds like you're reading Shakespeare compared to modern translations, which sound more like 10 Things I Hate about You. But you should be aware that many of the quotes that have become English idioms actually predate Jim, most of them come from John Wyclif's Lollard Bible!
I was hoping il Wadè would drop us a line because I know he paid money for his Bible (something I'm not likely to do when I can get it on line and have no burning desire to see that text on my shelf) but it sounds like you have the same version as him.
Actually, I think my American friend has misinformed me! It sounds like NIV was a direct reaction against the first edition of your Revised Standard Version. Apparently a lot of Protestants got their knickers in a knot when they translated Isiah's almah as "young woman" because the Jewish authors of the Septuagint more often translate it into Greek this way, and only rarely make it παρθένος, "virgin". As I understand it, RSV only translates betulah as virgin. But surely any translation of the Gospels will claim that Mary was both! Why get so hot and bothered about Isiah? I dunno!
Misinformation from an American? Who would have thought!
Sincere apologies to Americans, I just can't resist grasping onto a stereotype from time to time. Indeed, Australia and the UK went to war on a lie as well...
A mention in the comments! Sorry, I'm a bit behind. It's a full-time job just keeping up with everyone's blogs. So glad I don't have my own...
Anyway, yep I think Budski has the same bible, but it's clear that he has dabbled with a few varieties. All this reminds me that I've got to get back into reading the good book. As Denton says, just don't tell me how it ends...
Oh, and I forgot to actually comment on the topic on which I was prompted! Yep, I definitely like my Oxford annotated NRSV, but I have almost no basis for comparison, so it counts for little. I have flicked through other versions, but not in a manner sufficient to facilitate any worthwile discussion. I do note Budski's point about the KJV's language, though.
But why aren't we asking Roland about this?
Well, I'll try not to spoil it, but there are a few bizarre plot twists in that book. If you've seen The Passion of the Christ you're already aware of that soap-opera style character comeback. I found it rather implausible but most of the audience lapped it up!
As for the grand finale, Revelation, well, it's wierder than Brazil even!
I've been corrupted by the Sydney Anglicans, so now I use an ESV - English Standard Version, Eastern Suburbs Version, Even Sexier Version, Phillip Jensen Authorised Version. It could be 'superior' to the NIV (Now Inferior Version) in the sense that it is less interpretative. You could think of it as a more readable KJV, based (apparently) on more reliable documents. The maxim for the ESV is 'essentially literal', i.e. as literal as possible while still being readable.
I would really like to get a Geneva Bible, though...
Less interpretive than the NIV? That is must be a very literal translation! Have you ever thought about learning Greek?
I have since discussed this again with that American friend. He justified his stance by saying that it was the sheer number of different denominations that made all the biases cancel each other out. But when I pushed him on this, he admitted that they were all just different sorts of Protestants! Apparently the Dead Sea Scrolls had just been discovered and they wanted too use them as an extra reference but the Catholics objected. (Which is why there is no NIV of Tobit.)
Also, I was at a book sale on Sunday and saw a Revised Standard Version for $1 but it wasn't the New RSV (and it certainly wasn't Waden's fancy-schmancy Oxford Annotated NRSV) so I decided not to break my "do not pay money for Bibles" rule.
Post a Comment
<< Home