![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
woodfaceYou 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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 06:09 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 06:17 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 06:27 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 06:28 pm (UTC)(Stop me if I get annoying, but I do wonder about this stuff.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 06:33 pm (UTC)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.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 06:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 06:42 pm (UTC)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 )
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 06:48 pm (UTC)"Various translations for various target groups"
Will have to read more later.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 06:59 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 07:03 pm (UTC)*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
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 07:06 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 07:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 07:19 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 07:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 07:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 07:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 07:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 07:56 pm (UTC)Virgin is more fitting for miracles but not what is in the original text.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 08:07 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 08:09 pm (UTC)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."
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 08:12 pm (UTC)(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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 08:13 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 09:57 am (UTC)Btw, if you go check out New Advent about Mary Magdalena (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm) that seems to be highly debated.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 10:06 am (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 10:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 10:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 11:19 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 11:28 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 11:32 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 12:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 12:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 12:57 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 01:55 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 01:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 02:03 pm (UTC)and to stretch the knowledge that I gained from hours of sitting in lectures and seminars.
One of the reasons
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 02:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 02:17 pm (UTC)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).
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 02:20 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 02:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 04:28 pm (UTC)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...)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 04:33 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 04:49 pm (UTC)Sorry, Jara, this is Waaaaay Off Topic
Date: 2004-10-30 09:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-30 09:44 am (UTC)