The Truth New Testament by Colin Urquhart

For more than thirty years I have been involved in various manifestations of the Charismatic Movement here in the UK, and more recently also in the USA. In that time I have seen many good things and also some less than good. Very often among those less good things has been Charismatic preachers’ use of the Bible. I have noticed a strong tendency to use very literal Bible versions (NASB has often been a favourite) and to support sermon points with very dubious exegesis of those versions.

Colin UrquhartAmong the UK Charismatic leaders I have long had great respect for is Colin Urquhart. So I was interested to discover, only yesterday for the first time, that he has translated and published his own version of the New Testament, called simply The Truth New Testament. And this version is by no means another literal translation. Here, for example, is John 1:1:

Jesus is the Word. He existed in the beginning, before time began. This Word was with God and, indeed, the Word was God.

The surprising claim is made that

The Truth New Testament is the first UK translation of the New Testament for 50 years.

That can only be true because this version was published in 2009, and so predates N.T. Wright’s 2011 The New Testament for Everyone, sold in the USA as The Kingdom New Testament. Also, to be pedantic, the claim is true only if restricted to translations into standard English, as in those 50 years there were at least two new Welsh translations, one in Scots (not to be confused with Gaelic), and various attempts into English dialects, as well as numerous versions in world languages largely translated and published in the UK.

The Truth New Testament seems to be a genuine translation from the original Greek, not a paraphrase. Urquhart is clearly not a New Testament scholar and theologian in the same league as Wright (but then is anyone?), but he studied for the Church of England ministry (which he left in the 1970s) at a time when he probably had to learn Greek to a reasonable level.

Here is part of Colin Urquhart’s introduction to the version, as found also on its website but here edited and reformatted to match the printed text:

Having been a preacher and teacher of God’s Word for over 45 years, I have a great love for the scriptures. I have been devoted to bringing understanding of its significance for modern living to people in over 40 nations, where I have had the privilege of ministering in the name of Jesus Christ.

As someone who has been interpreted into several languages I am familiar with the process of translating the meaning of the truth from one language to another. I have been blessed with many wonderful interpreters over the years. They have impressed on me that the best interpreters do not necessarily translate what I say literally, but express what I say in a way that will be understood clearly in their own language.

As the principal of a Bible College, among several other aspects of ministry, I have always been deeply concerned that any version of the New Testament should be accurate. But I have also been acutely aware that people will only translate God’s Word into action in their lives if they clearly understand its meaning and implications for them personally.

I mention these things so that you can understand the principles behind this particular version, ‘The Truth’. Any translation inevitably involves a certain amount of interpretation.

There are two types of translation available today. Some are strict word by word or phrase by phrase translations. These are accurate translation of the original Greek text, but do not necessarily draw out the meaning of the text. On the other extreme are modern paraphrases which are certainly edifying but often seem to depart from the original. I believe that God wanted me to chart a middle course between these two extremes.

I sought to do this by first translating the text literally, and then asking the questions, ‘What does this mean? How would you express this in today’s world, with the modern mindset that people have?’

It seemed an awesome task to maintain accuracy with the Greek text and yet have the freedom to expand the translation where necessary so that it can be readily understood. This I have done by sometimes giving the literal translation of the Greek followed by another phrase that puts the same truth in another way that can be readily appreciated by the reader.

I sensed the Lord encouraging me in this by reminding me frequently that this exactly what a good preacher does. He reads the Word and explains it. Yet this had to be done without turning this edition into either a commentary or a study Bible! The text needed to be easily readable and readily understood.

I intend to review the text of this version. But this post is already long enough, so I will leave that to a follow-up post.

The Truth New Testament is available from amazon.co.uk: paperback £10.80, Kindle edition £4.62, hardback study edition £14.99; also at amazon.com: Kindle edition $7.13, print editions available only as over-priced special imports. (Disclosure: these are affiliate links.)

Tom Wright’s New Testament Translation

Scot McKnight likes Tom Wright’s new New Testament translation:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/01/19/tom-wrights-new-testament-translation/

Fr. Charles Erlandson, a fellow Anglican, likes Wright’s translation but finds a number of translation decisions he disagrees with. See Erlandson’s review on this page:

http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-New-Testament-Contemporary-Translation/dp/0062064916/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

fulfillment

How would you respond to these questions?

1. Are you fulfilled in your job?

2. Is your life fulfilling?

3. Are your days fulfilling?

4. When your days are fulfilled, what will you do next?

(After you think about these questions and comment on them, if you wish, look up translations of 2 Samuel 7:12 and comment on any phrase in those translations that matches any phrase in the questions above.)

Translating Hebrew nefesh

Joel Hoffman’s latest post is on translation of the Hebrew word nefesh. As usual, it’s another good post from a scholar who demonstrates that a good background in linguistics as well as the biblical languages can combine to produce better Bibles (in translation).

Common English Bible sets record

http://oregonfaithreport.com/2011/12/common-english-bible-sets-record/

new Jesus book divides Jamaicans

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16285462

HT: David Ker

Translating the Bible into the vernacular often divides people, sometimes deeply. Why?

Christmas reading video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBieWyvYVfc

Still we see the lie

This time of year I spend a lot of time doing textual criticism of Christmas carols. Tracking down the “authorized version” of the songs we have sung for generations can be quite challenging. And it’s interesting how many similar issues pop up that we face in Bible translation.

Even in those cases where we know the correct words errors can slip in. I was looking through a songbook my wife and I made fifteen years ago and it contains this shocking statement of disbelief:

O little town of Bethlehem,
How still we see the lie!

Now, how did that error sit unnoticed for fifteen years?!

Last night during rehearsal for the Christmas service at our church, the daughter of our flutist was singing that second line, and I asked her, “What does THEE mean?”

She wasn’t sure. Which of course didn’t stop her from singing along with gusto. Finally her mother helped her out, “It means HIM.” To which I nodded, and then she shook her head and said, “It means YOU!”

There are of course many, many examples of strange lines in hymns that make absolutely no sense to modern speakers of English. What do cattle do when they are “lowing?” Is it the same as a “lowly manger?” And what is a “yon” virgin?” Young? Yawn? And why is she round?

The preacher for Christmas day requested that we sing, “Thou Who Wast Rich Beyond All Measure.” It is a beautiful hymn based on a French carol:

Thou who wast rich beyond all splendour,
All for love’s sake becamest poor;
Thrones for a manger didst surrender,
Sapphire-paved courts for stable floor.

(Source)

The congregation where we worship is composed mostly of African college students and young families. So my wife was quite reluctant to try to lead them in singing strange things like “Thrones for a manger didst surrender.” Thankfully she discovered a very nice updating of the carol in modern language:

Lord, you were rich beyond all splendor,
Yet, for love’s sake, became so poor.
Leaving your throne in glad surrender
Sapphire-paved courts for stable floor.

Now, all the archaic language has been removed and it’s mostly intelligible. Notice that the plural “thrones” have been changed to “throne.” I think updating the language works on this carol because it’s not very well known. Imagine if someone tried to change the words to O Come, All Ye Faithful! Would you be able to enjoy singing something like, “Come, all you faithful ones?”

A final example of updating archaic songs is Corde natus ex Parentis, which you might know as “Of the Father’s Love Begotten.” The textual evolution of this hymn is fascinating. It started life as a 5th Century Latin poem. By the 10th Century it had become part of the church’s sacred music. It was translated into English sometime in the 1850s by JM Neale who was also responsible for giving us (afflicting us with?) God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen and Good King Wenceslas.

My wife has been patiently teaching me and our children the parts for Of the Father’s Love Begotten. It is really beautiful and if you modernized the words I don’t think I would be able to sing it. In fact at one point I suggesting that we sing one of the Latin verses. The English is so strange sounding that Latin wouldn’t seem out of place!

Corde natus ex parentis
Ante mundi exordium
A et O cognominatus,
ipse fons et clausula

A final example of textual difficulty (Didn’t I already say “finally?”) is in a more modern carol, Amen (Mary had a baby):

Mary had a baby
Wrapped in a manger

My wife wanted to change it to something like “lying in a manger” but I put my foot down. Tradition! The 1965 Impressions version has “wrapped in a manger.” So of course that’s the way it needs to be. I’ve had a tough time tracing the original lyrics on this song. Sidney Poiter also sings “wrapped in a manger” in the 1963 movie Lilies of the Field. Here’s the scene:

I think looking at Christmas carols is a helpful exercise in thinking about Bible translation. It shows that there isn’t an either/or answer to the question, “Which is better clarity or tradition?” Traditional wordings are very important. But after a while we don’t “see the lie” which is hidden in obscure language. It makes sense to us old fogies but is giving wrong meaning to the younger generation or those who speak other varieties of English.

King James Bible in National Geographic

We here at Better Bibles often say disparaging things about the KJV. There are several reasons.

Elizabethan English is hard for modern English speakers to understand, because English has changed so much. (The sticklers will point out that the KJV was written in Jacobean times, but I will respond that the translators were being self-consciously archaic, so the language is more Elizabethan than Jacobean. But the point remains either way.)

Their use of the Majority Text because they didn’t understand textual transmission is problematic.

While the translators may have, from time to time, used wonderful English in the passages they fully understood, they were very literal in the passages they didn’t fully understand, particularly where metaphors and indirect reference are involved. (You can’t now, nor could you then, use the English word walk to mean ‘live, conduct one’s life’.)

Nonetheless the KJV casts its shadow across every word of Scripture in English. We memorized from it. It echoes in our heads, even when we are reading contemporary translations. And its effect on the cultures of the English speaking world are so profound that one can hardly image English without it.

So it’s worth checking out the article in the December National Geographic on the King James Bible on the 400th anniversary of its publication.

An inquiry into better seeking — Matthew 6:33

What does ζητέω (ZHTEW) mean?

Matthew 6:33 says, “ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ καὶ ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν”

An elementary Greek, wooden translation is, “And/But seek first the kingdom of God and the righteousness of him and these all will be added to you.”

I’ve often wondered what seeking a kingdom meant. Where is it? Is it lost? Has it been misplaced? Is there a map that can direct me to where it is?

Specifically, how does one do this seek activity? The literary context doesn’t really answer that question. The context is about the anxiety of meeting rather important day to day needs: food, water, and clothing. We are to not get worked up into a sweat about such necessary things, but, instead replace that anxiety with seeking. The text seems to assume that the person hearing this for the first time will know what seeking a kingdom means. Seeking is not elucidated.

Moulton and Milligan (MM), “The vocabulary of the Greek New Testament”, show that ζητέω has a lot to do with inquiring into something which is not immediately obvious. The word was sometimes written into a margin (with δίπλωμα) next to specific names on a list. Perhaps this meant that someone was to do a little research into these person’s official papers (travelling papers, perhaps). MM appear to me to indicate that the idea of inquiry was a significant core piece to the meaning of ζητέω.

TDNT also bears this out. Additionally they bring another conceptual piece into play. Namely, that the information being sought is not immediately obvious. Well, of course it’s not immediately obvious–why else seek for the information? But, it’s not that the data is purposefully hidden; it’s just not something readily available unless one makes the effort by doing a further inquiry. Jesus is not painting the picture that the kingdom is a mystery (μυστήριον)–at least not here. “Mysteries” had to be taught; they couldn’t be learned by simple inquiry. He is not talking about a strenuous effort to find special knowledge. It’s more like, ask the right questions. Go talk to the right people. And you’ll get clued in. It’s closer to “figure out God’s kingdom.

Does the idea of inquiry come to mind when the English reader reads Matthew 6:33? Should it? I think so.

Seeking a kingdom immediately brings to mind that there is a place one needs to go. That one needs to leave here and go there. I’m questioning whether that’s the real intent here. It’s pretty easy to interpret the English as “try to get out of this world” either in a real sense or metaphorically. If that were true, then why would one pray, “I want your kingdom to be on earth as it is in heaven?” And, given the context, why would I “give a cup of cold water to the least of these?” Why wouldn’t I tell this thirsty person to not get all anxious about it but go find the kingdom and the drink will “be added to them.”

I wonder if it would be better to think in terms of inquiry. That is, that one is to try to gain information about, and try to understand, the kingdom of God (the same can be said about God’s righteousness).

I wonder if it would be better to translate Matthew 6:33 along the lines of:

Make understanding God’s kingdom and his righteousness a first priority, and these other things will accrue to you.

What are your thoughts? Can we do better than seek?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers