Should “The Book” Be Panned?

036

Thirty million copies sold. Published in 40 languages. A ten-million-dollar advertising budget, including prime-time television. All royalties going to a charitable foundation.

The Living Bible, completed in 1971 and having appeared in numerous formats with such great success, has now made its grandest entrance of all under the simplest of titles, The Book.^a The back cover of Publisher’s Weekly (April 19, 1985) warns booksellers: “Don’t Let America Discover You Without The Book.” The publishers of The Book expect this dignified appearing edition of The Living Bible with its simple, cream-colored title to sell at least a million copies a year for the next five years.¹

Ostensibly this would seem to be an occasion for great rejoicing. Millions of people who previously shunned the Bible as archaic and dull will now find it, in this version, interesting and instructive.

The word “version” is crucial, however. For The Living Bible, including its present incarnation as The Book, is not a translation of the Bible. It is a paraphrase. Unfortunately, the fact that this Bible is a paraphrase will not be apparent to most people who encounter The Book, for neither the cover nor the title page clarifies the issue; that is done only in a two-sentence paragraph on the opening page of the introductory matter: “This particular edition of the Bible is one of the easiest to understand, since it is a thought-for-thought translation. Instead of translating the original Hebrew and Greek texts word for word, the ideas are expressed here as ordinary people in the late twentieth century would say them, with our idioms, word-pictures, and expressions.”

This paraphrase not only Christianizes the Old Testament, but incorporates into both Testaments a fundamentalist interpretation that goes far beyond what the biblical text actually says. The result will be that millions of readers will think that this is what the Bible actually says without realizing that it is only one interpretation of a text that in fact says something far different from what The Book says.

This potential for misunderstanding does not exist for other English versions of the Bible intended for mass distribution, like the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the New English Bible (NEB). Even though these versions are produced under Christian auspices, Jews and Christians alike can use the RSV and NEB, for they permit the Old Testament to stand on its own and do not compromise its integrity by transforming it into a Christian product.

The didactic introductory essays that precede each book of the Bible in The Book often signal the interpretation that is incorporated into the paraphrase of the biblical text. For example, the introduction to Leviticus states that “The central theme of this book is that God has provided a way for 037atonement to be made by the offering of sacrificial blood. This whole system found its fulfillment in the shedding of Christ’s blood as the one great sacrifice for the sins of the world.” The introduction to Daniel states that Daniel “saw the power of God and the Messiah, Jesus Christ, who was to come and undo the evil of this world.” The introduction to Malachi says that the prophet “ends his book with a prophecy concerning the coming Messiah and his forerunner, John the Baptist (called Elijah here). Thus the O[ld] T[estament] ends looking toward what God would do in the N[ew] T[estament].”

This may be one way of interpreting the text of the Old Testament—the Old Testament’s supposed references to the Christ-event are highly ambiguous at best—but The Book’s paraphrase of the biblical text is seriously misleading in its effort to support this interpretation.

The Book’s paraphrase also introduces an evangelical emphasis that the text itself does not contain. Thus we frequently read of being “saved” and on one occasion even of being “born again,” although there is no textual—and often no contextual—warrant for this wording.

For example, in Galatians 1:8 where the text has “gospel,” The Book paraphrases it as “way to be saved.”² Paul is writing:

In several passages, The Book uses “saved” for “justified.”³ Elsewhere, it uses “saved” or “be saved” for “righteous” or “righteousness.”⁴

In still other places where the RSV uses “righteousness,” The Book uses the American revivalist phrase “get right with God” or “make men right with God.”⁵ In one instance where the RSV uses “justify,” The Book says “take away sins.”⁶

The Book has also worked into the text of the New Testament a host of additional references to being “saved” that are not there (Romans 3:31, 4:2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 9:32, 11:5, 15:9; 1 Corinthians 15:17; Galatians 2:18, 3:12, 4:3, 21, 5:2; Philippians 3:3–4 [thrice], 12; Colossians 1:23, 2:20; Hebrews 4:2, 6:1, 19, 7:18; 2 Peter 2:19), as well as a few references to being “lost,”⁷ and at least one to being “born again.”⁸

The extent to which evangelical ideology is extraneously introduced into the biblical text may be illustrated by comparing the diffuse language of Romans 1:17 with the explicit language of The Book’s paraphrase of this passage:

Another example comes from Romans 3:21–22:

This kind of language permeates The Book’s rendition of the New Testament and will unfortunately lead millions of readers to believe that this very language comes directly from the Bible!

Some, though not all, of these alterations in, and additions to, the text may be defended on hermeneutical grounds, especially when it is remembered that The Living Bible paraphrase was originally written by one man, Kenneth N. Taylor, for children! But many mature readers will not be aware that this is a paraphrastic children’s Bible. Mature readers will not only be misled; they will also be deprived of the depth and riches of much in Christian theology. “To get to heaven” (The Book’s paraphrase) hardly touches the surface of the rich meaning of “eternal life” (Mark 10:17) or of “salvation” (Romans 1:16).

Anyone who seriously studies the teachings of Jesus will recognize that when The Book uses phrases like “put aside your own pleasures” (Mark 8:34) or your “…desires and conveniences” (Luke 9:23), we are being given only the most superficial aspect of what is meant by the exhortation “Let him deny himself.”

The Book also attempts to exonerate Jesus from his seemingly mistaken notion that the end of days (the 038eschaton) will come in his own generation. The so-called Little Apocalypse, Mark 13, describes the coming of the end of days, and the appearance of the Son of Man: “When you see these things taking place, you know that he [the Son of Man] is near, at the very gates” (Mark 13:29 [RSV]). This is as close as the text gets to referring to Christ’s literal return, the Second Coming or parousia as it is called by scholars. In short, the text is not explicit. In The Book’s paraphrase, however, Mark 13:29–37 contains four references in Jesus’ words to “my coming” and “my return” that have no warrant in the Marcan text itself,⁹ and it renders Mark 13:29 as “When you see these things happening that I’ve described, you can be sure that my return is very near, that I am right at the door.” The Book thus interprets this entire chapter wholly and unambiguously in terms of Jesus’ own literal Second Coming, although the text itself is richly ambiguous.

Even more telling, The Book significantly alters the passage (Mark 13:30) in which Jesus seems to be saying that the end of days will occur very soon—in the generation of those then living. Compare the RSV with The Book:

Although The Book retains the passage about Jesus’ own ignorance about the time of the eschaton (Mark 13:32), it completely eliminates Jesus’ indication that the end will come in his own generation.

Of course, if Jesus does not know the time of the end, how could he have affirmed that it would come in “this generation”? And, of course, the “end” did not literally come in Jesus’ generation. How could Jesus be wrong about so important a matter? Many different scholarly views have developed around this issue.¹⁰ Each attempts to explain how Jesus was right or wrong, whether the “end” had or had not come and, if it had not, how the Church coped with the non-occurrence of the parousia, etc. But never has the problem been dealt with in so summary a fashion as does The Book—by emending the text of the crucial passage.¹¹ In short, both the imminence and yet the indefiniteness of modern evangelistic eschatology (“Christ may return today”) have been imposed on the text.

The Book also fosters a misunderstanding of the Judaism of Jesus’ day. By reducing Judaism (almost relentlessly) to a mere legalism, The Book denigrates both ancient and modern Judaism. Indeed, The Book appears almost to derive pleasure from castigating and chastening the Jews and Judaism—as if to punish them by tongue-lashing and to reprimand them for failing to accept “their Messiah.”

A first example—at the same time subtle and the blunt—involves the philologically plausible though inappropriate reference to the “[Jewish] nation” rather than to the “generation [of Jews].”¹² Genea can mean either “generation” or “nation,” but in all of the passages referred to in endnote 12 at the end of this article, it clearly means “generation” in the sense of “contemporaries” and does not refer to the “nation” of Israel. Accordingly, when The Book reports (1) that Jesus referred to Israel as “an evil, faithless nation,” “this evil nation” or “this evil, unbelieving nation” (Matthew 12:39, 45, 16:4); (2) you that Jesus predicted his rejection “by this whole nation” (Luke 17:25); (3) that Jesus referred to the condemnation of “this nation” in the last judgment (Luke 11:32); and (4) that Peter preached a long sermon to his fellow Jews, “telling about Jesus and the strongly urging all his listeners to save themselves from the evils of their nation” (Acts 2:40), the net effect defames—in the reader’s eyes—the whole nation of Israel, past and present, though in no way was this the original intent of these passages.

This approach to the text appears in bold relief in Luke 11:32 where The Book adds in brackets an editorial comment in the midst of the text, as though it were a saying of Jesus: “But this nation won’t listen.” There is absolutely no warrant for this.

There is more. The guilt for betraying Jesus is about transferred by The Book from Judas to the Jewish leaders: When Jesus is being questioned by Pilate, Pilate asks Jesus if he knows that Pilate has the power either to release him or to crucify him. Jesus replies that Pilate’s power was given to him from above, “Therefore he [Judas] who delivered me to you has the greater sin” (John 19:11 [RSV]). In The Book “he” is changed to “those”: “So those who brought me to you have the greater sin.” In the next verse (John 19:12), The Book makes clear that by “those,” it is referring to the “Jewish leaders.”

Here and elsewhere The Book seems almost to be scolding the Jews—ancient and modern—for not accepting “Jesus, your Messiah” (Matthew 27:17, 22; the RSV renders this phrase, by contrast, “Jesus who is called Christ”). In the crucifixion scene at Matthew 27:11, The Book speaks of “the Jews’ Messiah” instead of “the King of the Jews.”¹³ Incidentally, in The Book, Jesus’ response as to whether he is “the Jews’ Messiah” is a straightforward “Yes” (Matthew 27:11) or “Yes, it is as you say” (Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3), rather than the ambiguous “You say so” of the Greek text.

The Book eliminates Jesus’ uncomplimentary references to gentiles: If a brother sins against another and rejects the judgment of the Church, says Jesus, then, according to the RSV, “Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). In The 039Book this uncomplimentary reference to gentiles is eliminated completely; there we are told that “the church should excommunicate [such a brother].”¹⁴ In The Book Jesus does not compare the erring brother to a gentile.

The Book’s chief denigration of Judaism occurs in its treatment of Torah or Mosaic law and in its understanding (or rather misunderstanding) of Judaism as “mere legalism,” a theme not only frequent in The Book, but belabored at every opportunity.

For example, in Matthew 16:12, the text refers to the “teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees”; The Book inserts “wrong” [in italics] before “teaching.” In Luke 18:10–11, the text refers to “Pharisee,” The Book inserts “proud, self-righteous” before “Pharisee.” Luke 16:15 refers to the “hearts” of the Pharisees; The Book inserts “evil” before “hearts.”

A more extended example in the Gospels occurs in Matthew 23:2–3, where the original text has Jesus speak positively of the scribes and Pharisees as legitimate successors of Moses, though he censures their hypocrisy: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but they do not practice” (RSV); The Book, however, creates a different complexion and emphasis in Jesus’ words, including harsh sarcasm—something quite absent from the original. The Book paraphrases the passage: “You would think these Jewish leaders and these Pharisees were Moses, the way they keep making up so many laws! And of course you should obey their every whim! It may be all right to do what they say, but above everything else, don’t follow their example. For they don’t do what they tell you to do.” The text itself contains tough language, but, unlike The Book’s paraphrase, it is serious and compassionate in its tone, not sarcastic.

In John 1:17 the RSV states that “the law was given through Moses”; in The Book this phrase is rendered: “Moses gave us only the Law with its rigid demands and merciless justice.”

These comments on the Pharisees and these characterizations of Torah introduce a further, sensitive issue. Certainly the Gospels, quite apart from their treatment in The Book, already display a distinctly negative attitude toward the Pharisees and toward their development and practice of oral Torah, and certainly also Jesus is portrayed frequently as critical of the Pharisees. Yet the term “Pharisee” must not be taken—as it is too often in common parlance—as a synonym for “hypocrite.” Obviously there were hypocrites among the Pharisees, as there are in all human groups. Jesus himself, however, was not only conversant with the Pharisees in legal matters; he shows a highly positive attitude toward Torah (see Matthew 5:17–19; Luke 16:17). Within the Judaism of his day Jesus, the Jewish teacher, must fit somewhere within Pharisaic Judaism. There is nowhere else he can plausibly fit,¹⁵ shocking though this suggestion may be to some. Despite attempts during the past generation to place him among the Essenes or the Zealots, he does not fit either group, and most assuredly he cannot be placed with the Sadducees. It is one thing, then, for the Gospels to portray for us a Jesus who is critical of certain legalistic maneuvers by other Jewish teachers (his fellow Pharisees?), but it is something quite different to characterize all of Judaism—past and present—as a mere legalistic system, devoid of religious substance or feeling and unworthy of respect by Christians. Yet, this is the strong tendency of The Book.

The Christians’ problem with Pharisaic Judaism—the only kind of Judaism there was after 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple—is compounded by Paul’s attitude toward it, for it is well recognized that Paul the Pharisee held (or rather developed) a view of Torah that was untypical of Pharisees generally; not all Pharisees—probably very few, in fact—felt oppressed by Torah and in bondage to it as Paul did. Rather, the normal attitude of the average Pharisee no doubt was that of joyful and willing obedience so as to fulfill very precisely the whole will of God: the more requirements, the more opportunity to obey. Apparently Paul’s psychological make-up prevented him from sharing this common, positive view, but it is unfair to Judaism, then and now, to pick up on his negative evaluations of the legalistic aspects of Judaism and heighten and expand them so that they become the exclusive terms in which Judaism is apprehended and by which it is characterized. After all, Paul (like Jesus) also had a fundamentally positive attitude toward Torah, even calling it “holy” in Romans 7:12, where Paul uses the word twice: “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (RSV): The Book, however, omits the term “holy” entirely (except as a homonym!): “But still, you see, the law itself was wholly right and good.” Not a drastic change, one might say, but a revealing transformation nonetheless. Lest it be thought accidental, compare Romans 3:31, where Paul’s rhetorical question, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?” is answered. In the RSV, the answer is “By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law”—a strong affirmation about the sanctity and validity of Torah. The Book, however, so transforms the passage as to eliminate both Paul’s real question and his answer; in The Book, the question and answer are as follows: “Well then, if we are saved by faith, does this mean that we no longer need obey God’s laws? Just the opposite! In fact, only when we trust Jesus 040can we truly obey him.” The affirmation of the law is completely eliminated in The Book.¹⁶

If The Book distorts Judaism, it also distorts the Jewish Scriptures. Earliest Christianity—both Jewish and (curiously) gentile—tended to interpret numerous aspects of the Christ-event as fulfillments of specific Old Testament passages that thereby are understood as divine prophecies (in the predictive sense of that term). The earliest Church obviously found a rationale for its own history and a justification for its beliefs in these fulfillments of prophecy. For the early Church, it was not necessary that an Old Testament passage be either oracular or taken strictly in its context to be “prophetic.” Ancient (and sometimes modern) Judaism was both mystified by and resentful of such usage by Christians of passages from the Jewish Bible, for they felt that the practice was somehow akin to misappropriation or a “violation of copyright.” The Book is certain to dismay contemporary Jewish readers even further—as well as fair-minded Christians—for it not only reinforces but in some ways even expands the role of predictive Old Testament “prophecies” in the Gospel narratives and in the theological discussions of Paul.

A number of Old Testament quotations that occur in the New Testament are twisted by The Book into explicit statements about Jesus Christ, or are turned into pronouncements by Jesus or by Paul rather than oracles of God. Here are some examples.

When Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple, he quoted Isaiah 56:7 to them: “He [Jesus] said to them, ‘It is written, “My [God’s] house shall be called a house of prayer”…’ ” (Matthew 21:13; RSV).

In The Book’s paraphrase, Isaiah is not quoted. The result is that in The Book Jesus calls the Temple his house rather than God’s. Here is The Book’s paraphrase: “The Scriptures say my Temple is a place of prayer” (Matthew 21:13; The Book). There is no indication in The Book that the Jewish Bible is here being quoted directly.¹⁷

In Romans 9:33, The Book will lead an unthinking reader to suppose that the name “Jesus” actually appears as part of Isaiah’s text. Here is the passage from Romans as it appears in The Book; Paul is writing and quotes Isaiah 28:16:

“God warned them of this in the Scriptures when he said, ‘I have put a Rock in the path of the Jews, and many will stumble over him (Jesus [sic]). Those who believe in him will never be disappointed.’ ”

Not only does The Book make it appear that Isaiah actually mentions Jesus, but this supposed quote from Isaiah is a serious misrepresentation, as we can see by comparing the same passage from Isaiah as quoted in the RSV of Romans 9:33:

“They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, ‘Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ ”

Note also how The Book capitalizes “Rock” to give the passage from Isaiah a specifically predictive force that is not in fact in the Isaiah text.

Biblical quotations are better left in their original phraseology, in the interest both of accuracy and of according them their integrity as texts.

There are other deficiencies in The Book. The crucial but enigmatic term “Son of Man” in Jesus’ sayings is frequently rendered in The Book as “I, the Messiah” (35 times!). Readers of The Book will thus be misled into thinking that the text actually portrays Jesus as saying, “I, the Messiah,” when the literal rendering—and the original text—is far more ambiguous than that, and in many instances it means nothing of the kind.

If Jesus did identify himself with the Son of Man, thereby making messianic claims for himself, then certainly he did so far more subtly and in a less personal and egoistic fashion than The Book suggests. The Book effectively obscures all of the third-person indirectness, the intriguing ambiguity and the enigmatic nature of any messianic claims of Jesus that might reside in his use of the term “Son of Man.” This at the very least represents a failure to appreciate the richness—to say nothing of the mystery—with which the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) portray his messianic self-understanding. These writings—so measured and restrained on the subject of who Jesus is—have been converted unashamedly by The Book into new and earlier “Gospels of John,” where the messianic claims of Jesus are blunt, bold and ever-present. Regrettably, serious readers of The Book will be impoverished by this treatment and all readers—unless informed by other means—will be misled. What is particularly worrisome is that inadequately trained clergy may exegete the “Scripture” from The Book.

Actually, The Book retains the term “son of man” in only four New Testament passages (John 5:27, Revelation 1:13, 14:4 and Hebrews 2:6), even though it occurs 85 times in the Greek text. In one of these instances (Hebrews 2:6) The Book seriously distorts its meaning. Hebrews 2:6 quotes Psalm 8:40. As quoted by The Book in Hebrews 2:6, this psalm reads: “What is mere man that you are so concerned about him? And who is this Son of Man you honor so highly?” Consistent with its Christianizing bias, The Book capitalizes “Son of Man” to indicate that it refers to Christ, thereby transforming a perfectly ordinary couplet of synonymous parallelism in 041Hebrew poetry into a prophecy of the Messiah!

The term “son of man” appears frequently in the Old Testament without messianic implications (as in Psalm 8:40), which naturally raises questions as to whether it has messianic implications when used in the New Testament. The Book easily resolves this problem by eliminating most of the references to this term in its paraphrase of the Old Testament. Thus, The Book translates the term as “humans” in Numbers 23:19; as “human race” in Psalm 144:3; as “man” or “men” in Job 25:6, 35:8, Psalm 146:3 and Isaiah 56:2; as “mortal man” in Isaiah 51:12; as “the son of your choice” in Psalm 80:17; as “son of dust” in Ezekiel 2:1 and thereafter; and as “a Man—or so he seemed to be” in Daniel 7:13. Apparently, only in Daniel 8:17, where it is used in direct address to Daniel, the seer, does The Book retain in its Old Testament paraphrase the term “Son of Man.” From reading The Book, one would hardly know that the term “son of man” appears in the Old Testament, let alone so frequently in a non-messianic context.

The Book thus raises in a pointed fashion the question of whether translators have a right to protect their readers from problems by virtually removing such key phrases and leaving no record—in footnotes or otherwise—of what the original text contains. One can sympathize with the translator’s or paraphraser’s wish to clarify obscure or enigmatic terms, but much in the understanding of both Jesus of Nazereth and early Christianity as a whole turns on the interpretation of “Son of Man,” particularly its occurrences in the New Testament. A prudent course would be to leave such tricky but important phrases alone rather than to make a decision—often questionable—about their meaning.

Heartening as it may be to see the Bible “catch on” in the English-speaking world and, indeed, around the world via The Book, it is far more disheartening to discover that what is “catching on” is a freewheeling paraphrase that is often inaccurate, inconsistent, biased and otherwise seriously flawed—and at times almost pernicious in its effect, even if not in its intent. In addition, rich, technical terms and concepts have been transformed into contemporary, enervated religious jargon.

Much as we might wish to endorse a highly successful project, and painful as it is to speak so broadly against any version of the Bible, the choice is clear: Though The Book should not be banned, integrity requires at least that it be panned.

Thirty million copies sold. Published in 40 languages. A ten-million-dollar advertising budget, including prime-time television. All royalties going to a charitable foundation.