The Good Word

I took a course on law in high school. In a mock trial, I was haranguing a witness, and I can still remember my teacher blurting out, "John, you’re flogging a dead horse." I thought I might be flogging a dead horse with my first entry on the Conservative Bible Project (CBP), but I think there is more to say of value. I did also wonder over the wisdom of using the word "stupid" in the title, especially in light of Vatican suggestions with respect to blogging, but it seems to me still to be the best and clearest word to describe what is going on in this project. Clarity is of great value in dealing with a project that would instill ideology as the driving measure of a text rather than truth, especially when we are discussing the interpretation and translation of the word of God.

In my first entry I responded to the principles which are informing the CBP. Today, I want to look at the "scholarship" which is on display. It is not a pretty picture. It will only be possible to examine some of the arguments made for a conservative Bible translation, and I will attempt to be judicious in the examples I choose.

The editors argue for a number of "possible approaches to creating a conservative Bible translation," including the identification of liberal terms such as "government." Initially the project sees itself building upon existing English translations, while "alternatively, a more ambitious approach would be to start anew from the best available ancient transcripts." That would not be the "more ambitious approach" that would be the only approach to a new translation. In the meantime, the editors suggest that "in stage one, the translation could focus on word improvement and thereby be described as a "conservative word-for-word" translation. If greater freedom in interpretation is then desired, then a "conservative thought-for-thought" version could be generated as a second stage."

What, apart from the omission of the liberal word "government," are the concerns of this conservative project? One is the presence of Jesus’ words in Luke 23:34, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." The editors write that "the earliest, most authentic manuscripts of the Gospel According to Luke lack this verse fragment." Whether the earliest..... Read more

I have a feeling that this week’s readings were not geared to the Hollywood release date of 2012, but it works out well for those with apocalypse on the mind. The first reading, from Daniel 12:1-3, and the second reading, from Mark 13:24-32, a chapter known to scholars as "the little apocalypse," bring us to the heart of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic hopes. The symbolic imagery of apocalyptic thought is rife in both passages, with pictures of "a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence" (Daniel 12:2) and a time "after that suffering," when "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken" (Mark 13:24). This hardly, I admit, seems like "hope," and gives reason for the dramatic scenes of destruction in almost every cinematic apocalyptic scene. The violence of apocalyptic imagery both attracts and repulses readers and viewers, as it mimics the reality of human violence which has been prevalent in human society from the ancients to the present day. God’s answer is not more violence I would argue, even as the apocalyptic scenarios are shot through with war and turmoil, but the restoration of peace. We are given a window into the reality of human hearts and human society with the prolongation of violence, but also the answer: God’s triumph over human and demonic violence. Evil, suffering, war, sin, destruction and corruption will come to an end - and the only imagery that seems to do it literary justice is to place this triumph in the terms of conquering. Just as the Christian saints "conquer" evil in the Apocalypse of John by remaining faithful (Revelation 3:5, 12), so God conquers by remaining faithful.

Both Daniel and Mark point to a time in the future when those who are "righteous" will live with God in the heavens - like "stars" in the sky in Daniel, or the "elect" taken with the Son of Man who comes from the clouds. These snippets of ancient cosmology, which we need not take literally, nevertheless point us to our eternal place with God. Yet, this raises two big questions. Who are the "elect" who are to live with God forever? And when will it happen?

"Who is found written in the book" (Daniel 12:3)? Who are the "elect," the chosen ones? These apocalyptic images have often been used to "narrow the field," if you will, t..... Read more

I am not privy to the ways of the lectionary, either ancient or modern, and sometimes I see the connections clearly between the readings and sometimes I do not. I had a hard time making sense of how Hebrews 9:24-28 fits with the other readings for the Thirty Second Sunday and the responsorial Psalm, each of which focuses on those who are faithful and generous in their poverty and God’s compassion for the poor, the outcast and marginalized. I thought I might avoid posting altogether, until I read, and reread, Barbara Green's post. She has dealt beautifully with these readings in her post below. The conclusion of her entry made me wonder if it could be applicable to the reading from Hebrews; she wrote, "but these gifts of compassion, where the widows continue to be generous despite everything, offer an even greater invitation to us, which Jesus himself seems to recognize and learn from, be inspired by. Give from our substance, give it generously, compassionately."

While she did not draw a connection from 1 Kings and Mark to the reading from Hebrews, her last line, "give from our substance, give it generously, compassionately," drew me to the description of Christ’s sacrifice in Hebrews. Is this what was intended by those who compiled the lectionary? There seems to be little in common with the cosmic significance of Christ’s sacrifice and the generosity of the widows, but is that truly the case?

Hebrews is a text that has usually intrigued me due to Platonic categories of the "ideal" and the "copy," that show evidence of Hellenistic Jewish philosophy, such as that found in Philo of Alexandria, grounded not in the compassion of widows, but in Greco-Roman metaphysical categories. But the more I reflected on Green’s line, "give from our substance, give it generously, compassionately," it also sums up Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf, made once for all, and the category of the "real" at which the author of Hebrews aims. Christ gave of his true substance, his being, so that we too could enter with him not into a sanctuary "made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one", but "into heaven itself." We should be inspired by this, just as by the widows to "give from our substance, give it generously, compassionately." It also makes m..... Read more

Mary Chilton Callaway, a perceptive and profound commentator on the Jewish Scriptures and their vast matrix literature, says that our understandings and interpretations of biblical passage are often more influenced by how others have read them than by the texts themselves.  By “other readers” she means translators, commentators, preachers, teachers, and so forth.  Her image is that we are guests at a banquet to which we bring something, and we leave with our one empty dish but having been nourished by what everyone else brought as well. Some of it may be toxic, of course, and then we are ill!  

Today the “reading Church,” the lectionary, juxtaposes the widow willing to spend her last resources on Elijah with the woman whose last coins were cast at a moment when Jesus was pondering the quality of his own immediate future. The lectionary thus pushes us toward seeing each of these women giving a valuable gift to “her prophet,” giving him from her poverty something he was not at that moment quite able to provide for himself. It has been common lately, not inappropriately, to stress rather the scandal that the circumstances of both women’s lives were so dire, to underline that the temple that gobbles up a widow’s last coins (if not a prophet who would insist on her last meal) as scandalous. Such interpretation urges us not to think well of the widows but to scold those who were responsible for their dire economic and social circumstances. Those are good and apt readings of our passages, important to ponder, productive for noting. But I think today I side with the slant of the lectionary: There will not lack poor with whom we can share resources: oil, meal and kindling for some, cash gifts for others. Let’s do that. But these gifts of compassion, where the widows continue to be generous despite everything, offer an even greater invitation to us, which Jesus himself seems to recognize and learn from, be inspired by. Give from our substance, give it generously, compassionately.

Barbara Green, O.P.

The first reading for the Solemnity of All Saints is Revelation 7:2-4, 9-14; what has been omitted from this reading, verses 5-8, is simply the listing of the 12 tribes of Israel by name and the numeration of the 12,000 called from each tribe. The reading as it appears in the lectionary begins with, "I, John, saw." While the name of John does not appear in the Greek text here, only "I saw," it is not improper to add it here. Most ancient apocalypses are pseudonymous, attributed to a figure from the distant past, but written centuries later. Whoever our John is – John the Apostle, John the Elder, or some other anonymous (to us) John – he identifies himself and identifies with his fellow Christians. In 1:9, he writes, "I, John, your brother, who share with you the distress, the kingdom, and the endurance we have in Jesus, found myself on the island called Patmos because I proclaimed God's word and gave testimony to Jesus." He changes the nature of apocalyptic writing by placing himself in solidarity with his Christian brothers and sisters in the here and now and offering his visions not only for the hope of future deliverance, but for current endurance and present hope.

Most apocalypses present divine revelation occurring not only through prophetic inspiration, but through the mediation of angels, divine messengers. This, apart from the reality of John’s actual revelatory experiences, is designed to give us confidence in the authority of the information that is being passed on to us. Our passage begins with John’s vision of an angel from the East "holding the seal of the living God (7:2)," the seal being an image intended to lend credence to the authority not only of John, but the angel. The angel represents all of God’s authority.

The angel from the east directs "the four angels who were given power to damage the land and the sea" (7:2) to withhold their power "until we put the seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God" (7:3). The seal is a mark of God’s protection and love; images of God’s seal or mark of protection can be found in Genesis 4:15, Ezekiel 9:6, and, of course, in the Passover story of Exodus 11-12. Revelation is suffused with Old Testament images, which are often not cited, but simply a part of the life-force of the imagery, woven into the fabric of the text.

Who is saved by the "seal"? Revelation speaks of 144,000 or 12,000 for each of the 12 tribes of Israel (7:4), ..... Read more

No, my title for this post is a good one, and fair. Michael Sean Winters, writing at the In All Things blog, has drawn readers’ attention to the "Conservative Bible Project" (CBP). The project is perhaps worse than he suggests. The CBP first came to my attention through an e-mail sent by my colleague David Landry to the theology department at the University of St. Thomas a few weeks ago. I went to check out the CBP and sat, mouth gaping, as I surveyed the site. I, initially, did not believe it was serious, but some sort of Onion type satire. But, unfortunately, I believe the promulgators of this translation are deadly serious. Nevertheless, it is still a joke, even if unintended.

First of all, you need to be aware that "liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are (sic!), in increasing amount: lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ; lack of precision in modern language; translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one." For a conservative project, I find it odd that the first source of error is the "original language." Is the suggestion that the evangelists and the Apostle Paul, for instance, chose improper words? What does this suggest with respect to the inspiration of the text? Inspiration, of course, is a complex issue - is each word inspired, are the human authors inspired, is the whole of the canonical text inspired? Each of these questions is an intriguing one, but to state that the original language is "imprecise" either suggests that the authors "could have done better" or that Jesus himself could have spoken more clearly or directly. This is an odd "error" for a conservative project as it implies that we will have to "fix" the language of the revealed text according to modern "conservative" principles. Why does this seem more in line with liberal Protestant theology of the early 20th century than "conservatism"? Come on Jesus, why so imprecise?

The second error, "Lack of precision in modern language," is hardly a con..... Read more

Apocalypses have always been fascinating to decipher, which is one of their attractions over the centuries. Dense symbolism, angelic mediators, cryptic numerical references, kingdoms which are presented as animals, all presented as emerging, in many instances, from the hoary past pull the reader into the vortex of a world that both seems familiar and far different than anything experienced before. But the same fascination with apocalyptic imagery and symbolism has also been one of the major problems in reading apocalypses. The very murkiness of the visions leads readers to create scenarios based on the political situations of the day, ripped from the headlines interpretations that, according to this interpreter or that interpreter, indicate that the world will end in the next 60 days! Or that the evil Empire described in Revelation is actually China! Or Russia! Or the Roman Catholic Church! And this certainly indicates that the Antichrist - a word which nowhere occurs in Revelation - is the Pope! Or Obama! Or Ronald Wilson Reagan! What, you never heard that one? It’s simple. Ronald = 6 letters! Wilson = 6 letters! Reagan = 6 letters! 666, the number of the beast! And, yes, when you write about these things exclamation marks are required! It is a little known apocalyptic secret!

As excitable as our age might be in attempting to decipher the coming end, it is not new to us. St. Augustine warned in City of God that Christians needed to stop "counting on their fingers" their calculations for the coming end of the age, which they were certain was any day now. Augustine called on Christians to pay attention to Acts 1:6-7, in which the Apostles ask Jesus, "Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel? He replied, "It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority." For Augustine, this was reason enough for us not to focus on the future date of the coming Kingdom, but to concentrate on the present day mission of the Church. It is a position that from the time of Augustine has been the de facto position of the Catholic Church.

What role, then, should these apocalyptic visions in Revelation play for modern day Christians? There are three components, I think, that are essential in reading Revelation. These three components concern the past, the present and the future. Too much time is spent nowadays on the future aspect of Revelation, particularly in terms of tr..... Read more

     Mark has us at the end of Jesus' journey, fateful journey, to Jerusalem.  The last story Mark chooses to tell is a story about the cure of a blind man.  In itself, the cure is one more testimony to the immense power of Jesus, a power which Peter had earlier claimed could only be that of the Messiah.  It is also a story that emphasizes the value of faith - faith, the quality that unites one to Jesus in such fashion that his response to faith is healing.  It is also a story which has a rather unusual ending; the man cured not only saw, but he followed Jesus on the way.  This last phrase suggests that, together with faith, the man begins to live with Jesus, to 'follow him' on his dangerous way into Jerusalem. 

     This last-mentioned 'following him on his way', on the way of the cross to glory, is to be placed within the greater context of Mark's rendition of Jesus' public life.  We are in the second half of the Gospel now.  Notice that in the first part of the Gospel, we read of many miracles, and of wisdom, and of holiness, with great crowds following Jesus; there was no overt mention or prophecy of Jesus' death, though Mark has alerted us to the fact that some in Israel wanted Jesus dead.  In general, Mark has shown, up to Peter's statement that Jesus is Messiah, a consistent argument that grounds belief that Jesus is 'Messiah, Son of God' (Mark 1,1) and shows the joyfulness of Israel at his presence among them. 

     With the second half of the Gospel, most all of these traits disappear.  After Peter's confession there is no more great crowds to follow Jesus.  Rather, the atmosphere is saddened by the three-fold prophecy of crucifixion.  Jesus restricts himself to teaching only his own disciples, principally the Twelve.  Miracles are now at a minimum.  Indeed, what should have been for a Jew a joyous journey to the great Feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread in holy Jerusalem is one filled with trepidation.  

     Within this climate of the second half of the Gospel, we are to place our cure of a blind man.  This context suggests that we are to interpret this cure not simply as a manifestation of..... Read more

The Gospel reading for the Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Mark 10:46-52, gains much of its strength from its location in the Gospel of Mark. In the central portion of Mark, Jesus three times predicts his passion, with similar responses from his Apostles. In 8:31-33, after identifying Jesus as the Messiah, Peter rebukes Jesus for his claim that the Messiah must suffer and die. In 9:30-37, following Jesus’ second passion prediction, the Apostles argue about who is the greatest Apostle. Finally, in 10:32-45, immediately after Jesus predicts his passion for the third time, James and John say that "we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you" (10:35). There is a kind of stunning ordinariness in the requests that Jesus’ Apostles make – a desire for human greatness and success – which in James’ and John’s appeal has elements of hubris and arrogance. As chosen Apostles, a part of Jesus’ inner circle, they are now desirous to reap the fruits of their commitment, even if it angers the other Apostles (10:41). They are just looking out for number one: what’s the point of being the right hand (or left hand) man of the Messiah if there are no patronage appointments?

Jesus, in the whole of this passage, Mark 10:32-45, that precedes this week’s reading, teaches about the nature of power in the Kingdom of God. While the Gentile rulers "lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them," "it is not so among you" (10:42-43). In God’s kingdom, "whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all" (10:44). It is about forgoing power on the part of the Son of Man so that he can offer himself as "a ransom for many"(10:45). For his Apostles, it is about modeling their authority on that of the Son of Man: they are to become the Apostles for others. They are to become servants of those in need, not to seek self-aggrandizement or the perquisites of power.

In our passage, 10:46-52, Jesus’ model of power and authority is enacted in the scene with the blind beggar. The blind beggar becomes an annoying supplicant –"many rebuked him, telling him to be silent"– but he refuses to shut up, "calling out, all the more, ‘Son of David, have pity on me’" (10:48). But what is the difference between the blind beggar demanding from Jesus and James and John demanding from Jesus? Both of them are demanding something from Jesus. The difference is that James and John ar..... Read more

The prophet Jeremiah preached, so far as we can hear from the book bearing his name, mostly harsh, threatening, and accusatory words, urgently necessary in his day.  There are a few chapters of hope, promise and joy, as sampled in the first reading today.  The prophet exults to announce the reversal of Jacob’s journey from his homeland (story in Genesis) and Ephraim’s long exile in Assyria (told in Kings and Hosea), naming God’s people by those endearing names.  In so doing, Jeremiah draws out in imagery the reversal of the rigors of the arduous journey, familiar to us from Isaiah (chapters 40 ff.), picked up as well by the responsorial psalm.  Those who have suffered will find the reversal given to them a great joy.  The gospel tells a similar tale, basically, using a different image: blindness and the curing of it.  How will Bartimaeus, in company of Jacob, Ephraim and the post-exile community—all representing God’s people—become ready to receive and enter into the reversal of their suffering.  How will we be able to do the same?

Jeremiah’s ministry to his peers seems to me similar to those prophets in our midst testifying to us about global warming.  Whether leaders or citizens, old rich countries or newer ones, there is a reluctance to listen in any substantive way.  And yet Jeremiah hangs in with what he thinks must be said, suffers the consequences of disapproval, works through (as we would say) some of his retaliation issues, to be able to rejoice at the possibility of God’s granting a new gift.  And Jeremiah is genuinely glad to prophesy such a reversal—no “I told you so” or “you don’t deserve this but” in evidence.  Good for Jeremiah.  But how will we be ready to receive the new reversing gift if we have refused to confront and be faced with the old situation?  We don’t much like criticism these days, find it easier to push the blame elsewhere.  But if we refuse to acknowledge the reality of exile, we may miss the journey home as well.

Barbara Green, O.P.

The first reading for the Solemnity of All Saints on November 1st is from Revelation 7:2-4, 9-14. I thought that it might be worthwhile over the next two weeks to take a look at Revelation in particular and at apocalyptic thought in general. For if it is true that biblical literacy in general is waning, the knowledge of Revelation and of apocalyptic literature is waxing. Let me qualify that: the knowledge of some things regarding apocalyptic thought and literature seems to be growing, while the actual knowledge of Revelation and apocalyptic literature might be on a precipitous decline. There is a great love of things apocalyptic in popular culture, but the macabre fascination with apocalyptic thought in movies, books, heavy metal, video games and on the Internet hides a lack of true understanding of the purposes and goals of this ancient mode of thought and its best known example, the Revelation of John. I actually think that the popularity of apocalyptic thought tells us something serious about humanity and our deepest goals, even when it is misunderstood, but I often wonder how passages from the Revelation of John are received by people in the pews in light of its ubiquitous use in popular culture. Does it seem odd or out of place to all of the sudden interject apocalyptic symbols that seem oddly reminiscent of Bladerunner into the liturgy?

A few years ago I wrote a book on apocalyptic thought in movies and on television, The End of the World: The Apocalyptic Imagination in Film and Television, as a response to my students who came to take a course on apocalyptic literature, often after watching variations on the theme in the latest movie to imagine mass destruction, terror and the power of evil. The most recent entry into this crowded genre is 2012, supposedly based on Mayan predictions about the coming end. Yet, if you go to the site, you can actually vote on who you want to lead the post-2012 world. (There’s not a woman amongst the candidates, which might indicate a sexist post-apocalyptic world or a real world in which women have better things to do.) That is, the apocalypse does not bring an end to human history, just disaster, great death and a crumbling civilization ..... Read more