Not quite why this translation was necessary or that it holds a candle to the NRSV -- in either scholarship or clarity. With the plethora of fine translations out there today, do we really need another?

Also, I found its translation of the "clobber passages" a bit frustrating. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: 9 "Don’t you know that people who are unjust won’t inherit God’s kingdom? Don’t be deceived. Those who are sexually immoral, those who worship false gods, adulterers, both participants in same-sex intercourse,h10 thieves, the greedy, drunks, abusive people, and swindlers won’t inherit God’s kingdom. 11 That is what some of you used to be! But you were washed clean, you were made holy to God, and you were made right with God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

Really? Both participants in same-sex intercourse? I may not be a New Testament scholar, but from what I've read, that's not an accurate description. (h- endnote clarifies: dominant and submissive partners, which just reinforces a paradigm that there are dominant and submissive. So irritating)

I'll stick with my NRSV, supplemented with The Source.

-Gregory Stark

Sorry to hear this Gregory -- I liked the translation of the creation stories in Genesis - but the Corinthians sounds like bad scholarship.

@ Christ Epting "Not quite why this translation was necessary or that it holds a candle to the NRSV -- in either scholarship or clarity."

Right on! The NRSV does for most everything. The R.E.B. is good for comparative translation of difficult passages.

Sometimes I've found The J.B. Phillips NT to be kind of neat --if I'm looking for a slightly eccentric translation as an attention getter e.g. Phillips' Galatians "Oh you dear idiots of Galatia...who has been casting a spell over you?"

The translation given above for Corinthians is a definite problem maker, not a problem solver. I'm reminded of the NIV which opts for the "parthenos" or "virgin" translation of Isaiah 7:14 rather than the "ha-almah" of the Hebrew text "young woman". The decision favors a conservative view.

Bruce Metzger published a really great little book titled "The Bible in Translation" (Baker Academic. 2001). Folks interested in this may find it a good read.

I can't stand the way Christian teachers have taught us to approach the Scriptures. This is completely ridiculous. If Paul sucks, or some Judean scribe had a bad day, then for some reason we're all expected to suffer for it, or tease out "meanings" from their drivel. Religious history, and the Bible, are full of both Jimmy Swaggart's and St. Francis's, but apparently, since someone was the first to write something down, that means they're more knowledgeable than anyone else will ever be EVER. I cannot believe that God works this way. Tell me why some of you do.

Clint Davis "I cannot believe that God works this way. Tell me why some of you do."

Clint, all I can say is that hopefully some of us don't.

I was really looking forward to the CEV when I heard about it through ENS. When I got my copy of the CEV I was very disappointed with the clobber passages too. I felt like I had a copy of the "Good News Bible" instead. Clearly there was bias on the part of the interpreters. I will stick to the NRSV for a literal English translation, and the Message as opposed to the CEV.

Eric

Clint,
One of the fundamental marks of the Church is the Canon. That means that, in common with the rest of the faithful through the ages, these are the texts with which we must wrestle. It doesn't mean that we will always agree with them, but it does mean that we believe God is encountered in our struggle with them.

Clint, I empathize with Derek's point, and there was a time when I would have left it at that; but I think there is another layer of complexity. When we wrestle with sacred stories and mythology, no matter how normative, whether the myth of a religious tradition the mythology of a nation, we must also be prepared to wrestle with honesty.

I like the like the point you make in your first post
"apparently, since someone was the first to write something down, that means they're more knowledgeable than anyone else will ever be EVER." Interesting emphasis, and an important one.

For example, on the various issues of sexuality, it is my contention that the bible is silent on what we today refer to as "sexual orientation". What is required is to wrestle with a variety of texts to see if we can squeeze out of them some basic notions like faithfulness, commitment, covenant love. We then must wrestle honestly in the attempt to reconcile these general values with contemporary insight and experience into the human condition--information that may be seminal in, or absent from, or at radical variance with the experience of scripture writers.

Scripture is the word--its just not the last word.

The NRSV is an excellent translation of the Bible and doesn not seem to have a denominational bent. The CEV does not improve it and gives a 21st century interpretation in some passages (like the ones on sexuality) that is just incorrect and not credible to the first century.

I couldn't have said it better myself Judith.....

It's not the Canon per se that I have a problem with, it's the way Christian teachers approach the Scriptures that is problematic for me. Derek and Rod's remarks that allow room for disagreement with the Biblical authors are much more sensible to me than any idea of biblical inerrancy or what have you. Paul is one of our most important teachers and figures but he's not God. He's an excellent place to begin discussion but he's not the last word. Reasons to overrule his ideas might have to be glaringly obvious, but they can still be overruled. Etc. Etc. Why doesn't anyone have the guts to stand up for this approach to the scriptures?

Paul himself engages in wrestling with the Scriptures within the context of a community--and he was not unopposed. Changes in interpretation do come and they happen as a community. Besides, when we move to quickly overrule we may miss layers of meaning and other possible interpretations.

As to another version, we need one of modern English with the poetry of the Authorized Version and the Coverdale Psalter. The NRSV is not a liturgical translation in the same way imho.

I wish that the Church would authorize us to read THE MESSAGE at Morning Prayer.
Jere Ownby