Of all the stupid things I've ever heard...

[woodface]

You have got to be kidding me. The dutch and the belgians (catholics, protestants and jews) put their heads together and brought out a new bible translation. Okay, so what?

Apparently now it is no longer the virgin Mary but the girl Mary. WTF?

Yes, apparently someone decided that the bible isn't selling enough in the Netherlands. So they need to make it easier to read and more of our time. And let's hope more people will buy it again!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I should hope so but sadly enough this is true. I am dumbstruck. Bibles aren't about selling them and they shouldn't be easy to read literature for everyone. It doesn't have to be of our time. That's hardly the point of a bible. Have those dimwits even stood still and considered the consequences of changing virgin to girl?

*knocks on heads* HELLO? Anybody in there?

And what idiot decided to do this only for Belgium and the Netherlands? If you're gonna change the bible, you might want to make sure the entire christian world agrees. (Or is this an international thing and has this whole thing managed to pass me by unnoticed and mock free?)

Bloody hell. Who's negative IQ came up with this?

Comments

[ellory1.livejournal.com]

In actually it does not say "virgin" in the orginal. Talking about the signs of where the messiah would come in what is called the Old Testament.

[woodface]

Hmmmm, interesting. Not even in the New Testament? Either way it seems a bit stupid to decide to strike this little fact from the bible right now considering how much a part of our history it is.

[scarlet1983.livejournal.com]

So if someone translates the bible incorrectly, you rather have other people copying their mistakes instead of making a better translation?

Loads of people have been thinking about and criticising every little detail and every change they made. They published brochures about every problem they encountered (called NBV informatie, Project Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling. you can probably still order those) and wrote articles for various magazines. They also published their work at various stages over the last ten years and asked people to send suggestions and criticism.

If you want more information, have a look at
www.bijbelgenootschap.nl
(esp. http://www.denieuwebijbelvertaling.nl/sf.mcgi?852&ac=deeplink )

[woodface]

Depends on what sort of mistakes. However, it seems to be more about making it accessible than about going back to the first version. Just the first impression I'm having right now.

"Various translations for various target groups"

Will have to read more later.

[scarlet1983.livejournal.com]

What's wrong about making it more accessible? If it's not accessible, no one will read it and the meaning will be lost.

Statenvertaling (uitgave Gereformeerde Bijbelstichting)

Zou zich de stoel der schadelijkheden met U vergezelschappen, die moeite verdicht bij inzetting? (Psalm 94:20)


De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling:

Staat u aan de zijde van verdorven rechters, die onheil stichten in naam van de wet? (Psalm 94:20)

I mean, I don't have a clue what that first sentence means, and I'm probably not the only one.

[woodface]

What's wrong with it is that they have been changing meanings too. And a bible is not about selling and being popular. It's not a novel you're trying to sell, it's a religious book. They don't make law books more accessible either by changing the way it is written down.

[scarlet1983.livejournal.com]

They haven't been changing meanings, they've been trying to create a translation that has meaning to nowadays readers, because the old translations don't have any meaning anymore to most readers.

[woodface]

That's a bit of a contradiction.

[scarlet1983.livejournal.com]

I can't really think of a good example, but take the two different translations I posted earlier. People won't understand the first one, but they will understand the second one. That does not mean that they don't mean the same thing (denotation).

Take for example the word 'mof'. It used to be a muff, but since WWII it has come to mean German (pej.). Language changes, you can't expect the same signifiers to refer to the same signified in every cultures/place/time. And in that way, sticking to old signifiers means that the meaning changes BECAUSE you don't change the language. If you want meaning to be preserved, you have to 'update' the signifiers.

One example from the Bible is the change from 'herberg' to 'nachtverblijf'. Most people will associate the word 'herberg' with a backpackers hostel or think of an inn or a tavern, which isn't exactly where they spent the night. (And this is also a bad example, because 'herberg' is only one of many possible translations for the word in the original, and could also be a sort of 'binnenplaats' which is actually why they changed it. but it's the only example I could think of now).

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

What about Isaiah chapter 7 (It's verse 14 in mine)? Isn't that a sign of the messiah, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive." A young woman conceiving isn't much of a miracuous sign.

(Stop me if I get annoying, but I do wonder about this stuff.)

[ellory1.livejournal.com]

The correct translation is maiden or young woman which does not nessarily equate to a virgin. Rashi who is a Jewish philospher talked about it meaning a young wife.

Virgin is more fitting for miracles but not what is in the original text.

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

I guess somewhere along the way, people started looking at "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign" to mean different things. I couldn't argue with a philosopher about what "a sign" is supposed to be. So, now that's one more thing I know about Jewish Philosophy than I knew before.

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

:: checks :: NIV has this one as "virgin."

The phrasing in The Message (I will refrain from giggling at its being abbreviated as MSG) is interesting: "A girl who is presently a virgin."

Amplified: "the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin "

New Life Version: "A young woman, who has never had a man"

All the other versions on Bible Gateway have simply "virgin." (Interesting aside: three or four of them are in present tense instead of future.) *frowns* And they don't have Jerusalem on there any more. WUWT?

Footnote to Contemporary English Version, which encapsulates the question: '7.14 virgin: Or "young woman." In this context the difficult Hebrew word did not imply a virgin birth. [Val: Throws an interesting light on the Message phrasing.]However, in the Greek translation made about 200 (B.C. )and used by the early Christians, the word parthenos had a double meaning. While the translator took it to mean "young woman," Matthew understood it to mean "virgin" and quoted the passage (Matthew 1.23) because it was the appropriate description of Mary, the mother of Jesus.'

So I was half right earlier -- the ambiguity crops up in the transition to Greek, not from.

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

Wow, the internet is great for easy crossreferencing.

However, in the Greek translation made about 200 (B.C. )and used by the early Christians, the word parthenos had a double meaning. While the translator took it to mean "young woman," Matthew understood it to mean "virgin" and quoted the passage (Matthew 1.23) because it was the appropriate description of Mary, the mother of Jesus.'

Interesting, because according to the notes in my Bible, the Hebrew word may have a dual meaning, but the Greek parthenos has only the meaning of virgin. I imagine that after all these centuries, it could be difficult to ascertain which was more correct at that time. But, even without the particular Greek word, there are still several phrases in Matthew such as "before they came together" (1:18) and "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" (1:25) that do indicate that she was a virgin. There is a great Luke one, but I'm going to stop now.

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

I should doublecheck with thanatos_kalos, but I'm betting you're right that it would be difficult to ascertain. I'm wondering about the use of parthenos as opposed to nymphos too -- both more or less imply virginity, simply because that would be culturally assumed of a young/unmarried woman -- but IIRC one implies it more strongly, and I can't remember which. (I'm thinking it's likely to be nymphos, because of all the ones Zeus went around ravishing, but am by no means positive.)

As for your other Gospel quotes, they're more reasons to doubt that anyone is actually trying to change the record to say that Mary wasn't a virgin. Only that this particular descriptive word has been translated differently. I'm betting the article Jara read was limited to that.

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

(Or is this an international thing and has this whole thing managed to pass me by unnoticed and mock free?)

The sad thing is that there is an American version of the Bible called the New International Version, and it has said "young woman" for years.

I consider it quite (ironic is the word I want to use, but I shouldn't) that you have noticed something that doesn't seem to bother the average American churchgoer.

[woodface]

Oh man, so they're copying that version more than likely *facepalms*

Bah, dude, the bible is written in a certain way. Those words have influenced an entire culture. The first thing I was thinking is that in 100 years to get medieval culture you'll have to explain your students that in the previous version of the bible Mary was a virgin. So absurd.

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

Very good way of putting it from a literary standpoint. I was immediately reminded of Handel's Messiah, and how ridiculous it would sound if it were modernized similarly.

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

I don't think those versions are going to go out of circulation any time soon. And the cultural idea certainly isn't.

Heck, most of the Western world assumes Mary of Magdala to be a harlot, and/or equates her with the woman saved from stoning. None of which is so much as implied in any version of the Bible itself.

[woodface]

No, you're right. It would take a while for it to happen but there are a lot of things that seemed naturally at one time and were forgotten regardlessly.

Btw, if you go check out New Advent about Mary Magdalena (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm) that seems to be highly debated.

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

It would take a while for it to happen but there are a lot of things that seemed naturally at one time and were forgotten regardlessly.

I'm just not convinced that it will happen. There are many, many new versions in English, but people still use the KJV, which is 400 years old.
It's not like the older versions get thrown away when the newer ones appear, and they certainly don't wipe out the cultural ideas, which are held by people who've never even read the Bible.

that seems to be highly debated.

It is, but it's still an example of something considered a "given" in the culture at large when it's not at all. The question of whether the three figures are the same person is debated, but the idea of her as a prostitute doesn't appear until medieval Catholic doctrine. Yet it remains the first thing the average person thinks about her.

Even if the word "virgin" disappeared from every Bible in the world, I'd bet you money that a thousand years from now it would still be associated with Mary.

[woodface]

Yeah, you might be right. But of course not all changes are this big and easily recognisable.

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

NIV has it that way for scholarly reasons -- IIRC, the question lies in the Greek-to-Latin transition, but don't quote me. One of those cases of "we know more about this language now, and believe X is the translation that better expresses the author's intent in using this word, even though Y is ingrained in Western culture."

That reason, I'm perfectly fine with. Then again, I'm the one who makes "Thou shalt not suffer a pharmacist to live" cracks about the KJV. *g* My investment in it is as a cultural document, which is why any time I'm looking something up, I want at least three different translations. (I <3 Bible Gateway.)

There are a lot of languages in which "virgin," "unmarried woman" and/or "young woman" are all the same word because they are/were culturally assumed to be the same thing. When you're not only translating for a culture that distinguishes among them, but for which the difference is critical to the very nature of Jesus' conception... Yeeeks. I'm always happy to read what the scholars have to say, but I ain't going anywhere near the debate myself.

Blowing it off as "we did this because we want to make it easier to read and more in step with the modern world"? That's obnoxious.

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

NIV has it that way for scholarly reasons -- IIRC, the question lies in the Greek-to-Latin transition, but don't quote me.

My understanding is that the Latin translation (used by some translators) isn't as reliable, which is why the KJV translators skipped it, going back to the original languages.

(Not trying to pull you into a debate, I promise.)

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

which is why the KJV translators skipped it, going back to the original languages.

*looks confused* KJV or NIV? I thought KJV was from the Latin, but that could be me underestimating what they could get their hands on in 17th century England.

I'm pretty sure it's the case for NIV, yeah.

I know it's the case for Jerusalem, which was what I always had available as a kid. It has a fairly extensive (in layman's terms) introduction thumbnailing why they made some of the choices they did, which is a really interesting read.

(Not trying to pull you into a debate, I promise.)

Oh, I love the topic. As long as nobody expects me to weigh in on which side is right. ;-D

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

*looks confused* KJV or NIV? I thought KJV was from the Latin, but that could be me underestimating what they could get their hands on in 17th century England.

It is my understanding that most of the pre-KJV English translations were from the Latin Vulgate, but the preface to the KJV indicates that the translation is from the original languages.

And it is an interesting topic, if just to see how different people respond, and to stretch the knowledge that I gained from hours of sitting in lectures and seminars.

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

Cool. ::files away info :: I don't own a print KJV, and it's been a number of years since I dealt with it in history. That makes more sense in light of how many denominations consider it the most, if not the only, authoritative.

and to stretch the knowledge that I gained from hours of sitting in lectures and seminars.

One of the reasons amilyn is handy to have around. Obsessive geekiness + Churches of Christ upbringing = depth of knowledge that will drop your jaw. Very handy for a high school English teacher, especially for AP and Shakespeare. :-)

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

Very handy when it comes to Shakespeare. Having grown up reading the KJV, I didn't realize how hard Shakespeare's English was to read for some people until I met some people in high school without that background. All our experiences shape us :)

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

*nods* And not just the language, but plot and thematic references. Amy's continually amazed by how much she has to explain when she does The Skin of Our Teeth, for instance. Things like the significance of Sabina's real name being Lily go right by most people.

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

BTW, do you know mikasteelelell? SG fen, minor in Bible studies, and in your neck of the woods. (Well, broadly speaking. I've driven the width of Pennsylvania enough times to know I should be careful about saying that! *g*)

Sorry, Jara, this is Waaaaay Off Topic

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

Oh, Val, thank you so much! She and I have so much in common. The college she attended is my Alma Mater's archrival, and I do know a lot of people from there. She also said that she lives somewhere near Altoona, which I live near, so we probably aren't more than 2-3 hours apart. *hugs*

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

Blowing it off as "we did this because...

BTW, just to clarify: This is intended to mean that it's obnoxious for them to decide to do it for that reason, not for Jara to say that they did.

[woodface]

*snickers* I figured as much ;o)

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

I figured you would. Just looked at my wording and realized it was a little dicey...

[woodface]

*nods* Heh, I only realised that when you pointed it out.

[sandra47.livejournal.com]

well, actually, I never understood the whole freaking out over the virgin thing anyway. I get the immaculate conception, but really, after she had Jesus, and married Joseph? Doesnt the bible say they had lots of kids?

And I would think that the bible should be accesible to everyone. I thought that was the point. I am not talking 'dumbing down' but, I dont think taking out the thee's and thou's makes a big diference, as long as the main point is still there.

:) Just my 2p

[woodface]

Maybe not to you but centuries have been based on that concept. It's not about thee's and thou's, it's about changing meanings (and really there aren't any thee's and thou's in dutch). I still don't think the thing has to be popular and easy accessible (because this is mostly dumbing it down if you ask me).

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

Maybe not to you but centuries have been based on that concept.

But centuries before those centuries may not have been.

It's not an easy question, and truthfully I don't see it ever being settled to everyone's satisfaction. But I don't think it's just about "dumbing down."

[woodface]

No, maybe not. And pleasing everyone is hard.

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

If not impossible. *wry g*

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

well, actually, I never understood the whole freaking out over the virgin thing anyway. I get the immaculate conception, but really, after she had Jesus, and married Joseph? Doesnt the bible say they had lots of kids?

Protestants would generally agree with you that there isn't any Biblical basis for Mary's perpetual virginity, but the Catholic church still teaches that she never had any more children. Which makes it even more surprising that some Catholics apparently signed off on this new translation even though it seriously undermines a teaching very important to them.

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

I don't know that it would undermine. The Church has been dealing with it for a looooooong time, and I'm pretty sure they acknowledge other English versions that don't use "virgin" as the adjective in question.

I'm not up on the basis for the perpetual virginity doctrine, but I have a hunch this particular word choice doesn't affect it much one way or the other.

I'll try to remember to email my uncle Jim about it, as well as seeing what I can find on my own. (Speaking of handy, I can't imagine having to track down this kind of info without a priest in the family. Preferably one with a doctorate. *g* I'm very spoiled...)

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

I need to go into the book boxes when I get home too, and see what Jerusalem's word choice is. I grew up with it mostly as a result of its being the first choice of my mom's (Catholic) study group when I was 3-4.

I expect "virgin" does appear in the missal readings, tho. Certainly in the Nicene Creed (recited by the congregation at every Mass): "He was born of the virgin Mary, and became man."

Interestingly enough, the doctrine of Mary being virgin after Christ's birth was never emphasized in any parish I ever went to. Whether that's an American thing, or simply a "modern" Catholic thing, I don't know. I don't think I even knew about it as such until high school.

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

Thanks for all of your info and insight ;) Have a nice weekend.

[indiefic.livejournal.com]

I'm not trying to be incendiary here, I'm just wondering ...

(and please note that I do understand the general human aversion to change.)

Why exactly do you feel that your particular interpretation of this text is the "real" one?

As others have stated, in the original text, it wasn't "virgin" Mary, but young girl. Also, regardless of what version of the bible you consider your own, I can guarantee you that it isn't a verbatim, literal translation of the original texts. It's an interpretation, whether literal or figurative (both, actually, I'm certain.)

I haven't actually seen any of the reports on what they're doing in Belgium and the Netherlands, they very well may have made these changes to be more "accessible", which gives a lot of people pause. I'm not making any judgement calls on whether it's bad or good, but I very seriously don't believe that doing something makes them in possession of "negative IQ". Their intentions may well be questionable, but it doesn't make them stupid.

It's your journal and you're definitely entitled to your opinons.

That said, I disagree, respectfully, but vehemently.

[woodface]

*snickers* Hmmmm, yeah, I've had time to vent now so it's out of my system somewhat. Sorry *looks sheepish*

No, I do get that someone would try to bring a new translation closer to the oldest text that they have. However, what bugs me with this is that they have more motives than that. There are changes made that are not merely interpretation. I do not know exactly where the line was from but they showed another example where the old version says that god will punish over those who sin while the new version says "some of the sinners". These are not just wordings they're changing but meanings to make it more open for our time.

See, I'm all for christianity taking its place in modern time. I do however wonder about tinkering with an age old text. That's the historian in me coming out and saying "no way!". I question the translators motivations of making a version that is accessible and targeted towards different groups. Isn't the bible one universal text (but with different interpretations from different groups)? Why would we want to bend it for different groups to read? Why in the world would we want to make it so that we sell more bibles?

[scarlet1983.livejournal.com]

"I do not know exactly where the line was from but they showed another example where the old version says that god will punish over those who sin while the new version says "some of the sinners". These are not just wordings they're changing but meanings to make it more open for our time. "

Do you know what it says in the original?

"I do however wonder about tinkering with an age old text. "
"Isn't the bible one universal text (but with different interpretations from different groups)? "
They are not tinkering with an age old text, they are only making a new translation of it. If you are against tinkering with texts, you should be against everyone who helped writing the bible and everyone who ever made a translation of it. It's people who wrote the bible, it's people who interpret it, it's people who decided what was going to be in the bible and what was not. The bible has been changed over the centuries, e.g. franciscus van assisi added the story of the ox to the story of jesus's birth.