If by some miraculous reason Lewis were still alive today, he'd have been 108.

When I was in college I made it my goal to read everything C. S. Lewis had ever written. I never actually finished that goal, but I read a whole lot of Lewis, especially in those days. In fact, I read so much Lewis in my college days, and his thoughts were so intermingled with mine, that I started getting marked off on my term papers for using British spellings instead of American ones (colour vs. color, honour vs. honor etc.). Yes, I confess that I used a typewriter in college for the first three years for all my writing; I didn't start using a computer until my final year.

I have a great little daily devotional drawn from Lewis' writings entitled The Business of Heaven. The title comes from a statement that Lewis once made, "Joy is the serious business of heaven."

Today's entry comes from one of his best known works, Mere Christianity and is worth repeating here.

I think all Christians would agree with me if I said that though Christianity seems at first to be all about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into something beyond. One has a glimpse of a country where they do not where they do not talk of those things, except as a joke. Everyone there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled with light. But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it. They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes. But this is near the stage where the road passes over the rim of our world. No one's eyes can see very far beyond that: lots of people's eyes can see further than mine.

Tags: C. S. Lewis

After suggesting we go see Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain yesterday, Kathy says I am not allowed to make our entertainment choices for at least a year. Be sure to see Kathy's succinct evaluation of the movie, too.

I was intrigued by the implied promises made in the trailer for this movie back in the summer. The trailer included references to the biblical tree of life, and we saw the principal actors, Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz in three time periods: the 16th Century, modern day, and supposedly the 26th century. The viewer might assume that the principal actors--or at least Jackman--had eaten of the Tree of Life and was living an extended life through the next millennium. Not so.

I try very hard in my reviews not to give away major spoilers or surprise plot points, but there's no way to talk about my frustration with this movie without doing so.

Major spoilers below.

The movie opens with the words of Genesis 3:24: "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." The first scene is of a Spanish conquistador, Tomas, played by Jackman in the Mayan jungles looking for the Tree of Life--a mission commissioned by Queen Isabel, played by Weisz. The movie is not told in a linear fashion, but will continue to weave scenes from all three time periods throughout the story. In the present time, Jackman plays Tommy Creo whose wife Izzy is dying from a brain tumor. Is this the same couple we saw from the 16th century? Evidently not, although their names have connections. And then we see Jackman again in what looks like a futuristic setting where he is in a bubble (yeah, a bubble) with the tree of life floating through space toward the Xibalba nebula, which is also supposed to be the Mayan underworld. In these scenes he is visited by visions of Izzy telling him to "finish it." Oh, and he practices yoga and hugs the tree a lot (literally).

Here's where my major spoiler comes into play (apologies in advance): We find out that the conquistador scenes of the 16th century are depictions of a book called The Fountain that Izzy is trying to complete before she dies. Knowing she won't be able to write the last chapter as her time is very short, she tells Tommy to "finish it." Meanwhile, Tommy, a neurosurgeon of some sort, is obsessed with trying to find a cure for her tumor. Experimenting on an ape named Donovan, Tommy uses a substance obtained from an unclassified tree in remote Guatemala (the tree of life, evidently) and is successful in rejuvenating the ape's brain and cognitive skills, but not shrinking the tumor--at least initially. All of Creo's colleagues see the potential in this treatment as a kind of "fountain of youth," but Creo is only interested in shrinking the tumor in his wife's brain.

The movie is frustrating because there's too much left for the viewer to decide. I suppose Aronofsky envisions this movie to be some kind of work open to interpretation, but all that leaves is a film that is extremely unsatisfying. I normally avoid reading reviews before I write my own because I don't want to subconsciously borrow from others' opinions. But in this case, I've read about a dozen different takes on the movie because I came home with more questions than I had answers. Incidentally, the best and most complete treatment I've seen of the movie is its article on the Wikipedia.

And after reading all the reviews, all I can determine is that no one else knows what the heck is going on either. One reviewer suggested that the characters in the three eras are reincarnations of the same people. I wonder if he saw the same movie I did? Obviously it's not reincarnation because the 16th century segments are a story written by Izzy. Whether or not the scenes in the bubble take place in the 26th century is anyone's guess because the movie never tells us that. It might as well be a vision of Tommy Creo. Obviously it's the same character from the present time because he has continued on his self-tattoing project that he started during the present day scenes. Plus, there is no futuristic version of Izzy. It's the present day version of Weisz that appears in the bubble from time to time to Jackman's character.

The ongoing theme in the movie is immortality. There's talk from Izzy about someone planting a seed over a grave so that a tree grows and the person who has died becomes part of the tree (this would never happen with modern caskets designed to last virtually forever). Then the tree provides nourishment to the birds who carry the deceased person with them and so on. I think I heard something similar in the "circle of life" speech in the Lion King. And of course, Tommy's conclusion to Izzy's story about The Fountain carries on with this theme. I won't give it away, but it was certainly not what I was expecting.

Supposedly, Aronofsky started planning The Fountain after seeing The Matrix in 1999 realizing that it was a genre changing movie like Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey had been before it. He wondered how science fiction would be written after The Matrix and The Fountain is evidently his answer. I don't really consider this to be a science fiction movie although I realize the genre is pretty wide. I've sat in on some film festivals before and I've learned that if a filmmaker introduces his work by saying that the movie is experimental, that's usually code for "it won't make sense to anyone."

My concern is that the few who do go see this based on the trailers will be disappointed. I haven't picked up on any buzz surrounding this movie which, after seeing it, doesn't surprise me. Kathy will tell you it's definitely not a date movie, so be warned. Today both Kathy and I are off work. We slept in late and turned on the television while we ate breakfast. Kathy is the channel flipper in our household (I usually don't care), and she stopped on The View because Jackman and Weisz were both guests promoting this movie. The only scene discussed in the conversation was the "bathtub love scene" which was heavily cut to take the original R-rating to a PG-13. My next statement is not meant to be sexist, but only a acknowledgment that the primary audience of The View is female. After the plug for the movie on today's show, undoubtedly a great number of women will want to see this movie, thinking that it's a love story. I suppose it is a love story at some level, but The Fountain is not going to be what the audience of The View will expect.

I'm sure that some folks will appreciate Aronofsky's movie, and I suppose that some will say they do just to be seen as enlightened. But I can't say that I'm one of them. I'll be glad to watch The Matrix again in the future, but not The Fountain.

My father can't remember the man's name, but he tells the story of a prominent Dallas, Texas area minister and religious radio show host in the early eighties who was asked to resign because he commented publicly that he liked James Bond movies. Dad always looked at such indignation as a bit hypocritical because he assumed all those making such an outcry surely watched James Bond movies, too. I mean, after all, hasn't it been said of Bond that every woman wants him, and every man wants to be him?

Well, times have changed, and James Bond has certainly changed over the years as well. Everyone seems to compare each actor who plays James Bond to Sean Connery. Well, I have a confession to make. I will always be favorable toward Roger Moore. Before you start throwing rotten fruit at me, please realize that Moore simply was Bond when I started going to see the movies as a kid. I like Connery as Bond, but when I think of Bond, I think of Moore. After all of these years of simply keeping that thought to myself, finally I've been echoed by someone of my generation in print. Joshua Rich, in the November 24 issue of Entertainment Weekly put it like this (slightly edited by me):

Now about Roger Moore. The Queen knighted the actor in 2003, yet many still can't forgive him for replacing Sean Connery and turning Bond into a smirking wise***. Well, you know what? Get over it. For anybody born between, say, 1970 and 1990, Moore, not Connery is the guy with the Walther PPK. And looking back past Timothy Dalton and The World Is Not Enough, he did just fine.

(Incidentally, I was born in 1967.) Of course, I'll admit that some of Moore's Bond movies are stinkers, especially Moonraker.

But technically, true James Bond purists don't compare the various Bond-playing actors to Sean Connery; they compare them to the character in the original Ian Fleming novels. Hopefully, I won't be asked to resign from anything, but I've enjoyed James Bond movies, and I've read many of the original Ian Fleming novels (and later ones by John Gardner) over the years. If you take the time to read the Fleming novels, you might be surprised to find a Bond very different from the movies...at least until perhaps now. Fleming's Bond was always much more cold, and had the ability to kill on order without conscience. It's said that Fleming never intended Bond to be the "hero" that people think of in the movie incarnations. Rather, Fleming has been quoted as saying, "I intended him to be a sort of blunt instrument wielded by a government department." Well, that's exactly what audiences will get with the Daniel Craig version of Bond: a blunt instrument. In fact, in the movie, M even calls Bond exactly that, obviously signaling to audiences that this movie is an attempt take Bond back to his roots.

This is not the first time that the Bond franchise has attempted to take the movies back to the roots of the Fleming novels. When Roger Moore took over the role in Live and Let Die, there was a concerted effort to move Bond away from the camp and high tech gadgets that had already crept into the Connery films. Most Bond fans, even the Moore detractors, admit that Live and Let Die is one of the best installments in the series. But then something happened as Moore made more movies--the gadgets came back as well as the camp. Another attempt was made to get to the "core" Bond when Pierce Brosnan replaced Timothy Dalton in 1995 with Goldeneye. Although this script was originally written for Dalton, Brosnan made it his own. The mood was a bit darker, and in shades of the personal side of Bond we see in the new Casino Royale, Bond seemed a bit more reflective and self-aware in Goldeneye. Consider this excerpt from Roger Ebert's review in 1995:

This is the first Bond film that is self-aware, that has lost its innocence and the simplicity of its world view, and has some understanding of the absurdity and sadness of its hero.

One crucial and revealing scene takes place on a Caribbean beach, where 007 is enjoying an erotic interlude between scenes of death-defying mayhem. His companion is the lovely Natalya Simonova (Izabella Scorupco), a Russian computer programmer who has joined his quest to save the world, etc. But instead of sexy small-talk, she asks Bond: "How can you act like this? How can you be so cold?" And Bond replies not with a sophisticated wisecrack but with, "It's what keeps me alive." In the earlier Bond adventures, no woman would have asked such a question, and 007 certainly would not have provided such an answer.

More evidence of Bond's loss of innocence: He is now aware that his history is repeating itself. Although all the Bond films have followed a story pattern so rigid that 007 could have predicted the next scene just by looking at his watch, there has always been the fiction that each adventure is more or less unique. Bond has never used an obvious line like, "Do you realize you're no less than the 12th megalomaniacal madman striving for world domination that I've met?" There is always one absolutely obligatory scene: Bond has been captured by the madman, who needs only to kill him. But he always talks first. Explains his plans for world domination. Boasts.

Preens. Doesn't realize that his mistress will become attracted to Bond. This scene is so inevitable, indeed, that it helped give rise to the definition of the Talking Killer in Ebert's Little Movie Glossary.

In "GoldenEye," the unthinkable happens. Both Bond and the madman apparently have read the Glossary, and can no longer act unself-consciously. Bond has fallen into the clutches of an evil genius who plans to rule Earth from cyberspace, via a powerful communications satellite. He narrows his eyes and says: "How shall we kill you?" And Bond replies: "What - no small talk? No chit-chat? That's the problem with the world these days - no one takes the time to conduct the proper interrogation." Indeed. Even Bond himself has changed. As played by Pierce Brosnan, the fifth 007, he is somehow more sensitive, more vulnerable, more psychologically complete, than the Bonds played by Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. They were all, in their various styles, cold and dispassionate. Brosnan's Bond looks at home in the casinos of Monte Carlo, but he's more knowing, more aware of relationships. I am not sure this is a good thing. Agent 007 should to some degree not be in on the joke. He should certainly never have to listen to dialogue such as the following, from Agent 006: "The vodka martinis do silence the screams of all the men you've killed. And all those women you failed to protect." Perhaps our popular conception of maleness has changed so much that James Bond can no longer exist in the old way. In "GoldenEye," we get a hybrid, a modern Bond grafted onto the formula.

Unfortunately, by Die Another Day, Brosnan's fourth Bond film, the series had slipped back into it's earlier routine of gadgets and girls, although some of the darker side of being a secret agent was still retained in Bond's capture and subsequent torture by the North Koreans. That element of the last movie felt like something that Fleming would have written. Was it From Russian with Love or You Only Live Twice (the books, not the movies) where the Russians capture Bond, brainwash him and attempt to send him back as a double agent? I don't remember.

But if Brosnan's Bond was a step toward's Bond's loss of innoccence, Daniel Craig's incarnation takes it to the next level. I wish Andrew was still around to write a review on Casino Royale. I speculated recently with his wife, Leila, who has gone to see it in his honor, about whether or not he would have liked it. Andrew and I were often polar opposites in our tastes when it came to movies, and we had many spirited debates on the merits (or lack thereof) of various films. But now, having seen the movie myself, I do believe Andrew would have liked Casino Royale because of its iconoclastic spirit toward the movies that have come before it.

Personally, I wish that Pierce Brosnan could have played Bond at least one more time. Brosnan himself has said that the decision to dump him was a tremendous surprise, calling it a "blow to the gut." But there's no loyalty in the movie business. If you don't believe me, just ask Peter Jackson who has recently been dumped by New Line Cinema as the director for the Lord of the Rings prequel, The Hobbit.

Minor Spoilers Below...

Just as Casino Royale was the first James Bond novel written by Ian Fleming, this movie attempts to restart the franchise by giving us a Bond at the beginning of his career. In fact, in the earliest pre-looking down the barrel of a gun intro scene, Bond is not even a 00 (pronounced double-oh) agent yet. We get to see him "earn those 0's," so to speak. As I mentioned in the paragraph above, this movie is quite the iconoclast of the previous installments in the series, and seems to go out of its way not just to distance itself from the gadgets and camp of the earlier movies, but to even ridicule them at times. Here are some examples of the new direction taken in this Bond film:

- Although Bond is obviously in great shape, he is not quite as graceful as other movie Bonds. For instance, in the depiction of one of his early assassinations, nothing about it is clean and quick--there's practically a wrestling match in a men's bathroom before the target is subdued. In an early very-well choreographed chase-on-foot through a construction yard, there are a number of times we see Bond slip, fall, and narrowly miss death due to either his own clumsiness or his inability to match his target's athleticism.

- We've rarely seen a Bond get so beat up and dirty as Daniel Craig. Brosnan may have come close (I again think of the North Korean capture in the last movie). After fighting off killers during a break from the card table, the main villain Le Chiffre notices that Bond has changed his shirt (the previous one got torn and bloody). Roger Moore et al. could always engage in any skirmish without nary a wrinkle to the tuxedo coat.

- Related to the above, we see Bond with cuts on his face (why there aren't bruises I have no idea) and tending his wounds. He even washes blood from his hands which may have figurative aspects. Again, this is the dirty side of the spy business that we never saw from Connery, Moore, or Brosnan.

- When asked by a bartender whether he wants his martini shaken or stirred, Bond, looking annoyed replies, "Do I look like I give a damn?"

- When Bond has one adversary cornered early in the movie, rather than let him talk on and on (see Ebert's "Talking Killer" above), Bond simply shoots him and is done with it.

- There are no women whose names count as double entendres. The main Bond girl in this movie is named Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) like the character in the book, and the only nod to previous movies is Bond's suggestion that Lynd's undercover alias should be "Stephanie Broadchest" of which she does not approve.

- Kathy was quick to notice that there were no nude silhouetted women in the opening credits.

- Although Bond has a few clever lines in this movie, it's not near the level of punnery in previous installments. Fancy comebacks during torture are a defense mechanism, not the sign of being a wiseacre.

- There are no futuristic "spy" gadgets, but using current technology means lots of opportunities for product placement. Sony was everywhere with cell phones and laptops. There was such a large Sony presence in this movie (Sony now owns MGM which owns United Artists which owns the rights to the James Bond movies) that I half-expected to see Bond playing a new PS3.

- No gadgets means no "Q," who had most recently been played by John Cleese. However, there is a crack tech team for computer support that we see a few times. I suppose this is more realistic, but I'll miss "Q," especially the Cleese incarnation.

- Not only is there no Q, there's no Miss Moneypenny, ever dreamy-eyed over Bond. However, there is a reference to money and penny in the same scene when Bond first meets Lynd so at first audiences may mistake Lynd for the Moneypenney character.

I first read Casino Royale sometime in the mid-to-late eighties, and there were only two or three things I remembered for certain about the book. A buddy of mine saw the movie a few days before I did, so I asked him--"Did they include the torture scene?" If you've seen the movie, yes that was in the book--surprising for something originally written in 1953. Another thing I remember from the Fleming version was the card game at the center of the story. In the book they played baccarat, but I suppose to create suspense that a modern audience could follow, the game has been updated to Texas Hold 'Em Poker. Ugh.

Although the book's storyline is significantly altered from its original cold war context, the movie follows a good bit of the basic premise of the original story. This is quite a departure from many of the Bond movies that have taken names from Fleming's original works. Essentially, the story revolves around a high stakes card came hosted by a villain named Le Chiffre who is trying to raise a large amount of money back that he had inadvertently lost. Bond is sent in by MI6 because as explained in the movie, he has the best reputation as a card player among the agents. There's lots of action before, during, and after the card game, of course. In fact, at over 144 minutes, this is actually the longest Bond movie in the history of the series.

Although, we do see a more personal side of Bond, and perhaps strong clues as to why he is the way he is, Daniel Craig plays a much darker, colder spy than what most movie Bond fans will be used to. That doesn't mean that Craig's version won't be successful. This Bond is more like the character in the Bourne Identity/Supremacy movies or even the Transporter series with Jason Statham than the suave spy we've watched over the years. In spite of Bond's cold heart, and the ability to kill on command, Daniel Craig plays the character in more than one dimension; it just takes a while to get there. By the end of the movie, I began to actually like this Bond, and I felt sympathy for him. I don't know if I ever felt sympathy for the previous Bonds. But Daniel Craig's bond, if he is a hero, is a tragic one.

Kathy really liked this movie because she said it was more realistic--it depicted a more honest look at what a spy's life might be like. In her own review, she writes:

This Bond is rougher than the James Bonds we've come to know over the past 40 years in films. Daniel Craig plays the lethal agent with the perfect blend of toughness and charm. He's a real man with real scars. The scrapes he finds himself in are much more believable than the sometimes laughable escapades of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan.

I admit that the former Bonds played by Connery, Moore, Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan with their wisecracks and gadgets are more fantasy and escape than the current version with Daniel Craig. But that's why I liked the James Bond of the movies. When we say that all men want to be Bond, it was said in relation to the earlier incarnations. Daniel Craig does indeed make a good Bond if you like Fleming's original, but I don't want to be this one.

Passing by Matt Perry's blog, I was reminded that 43 years ago today (November 22, 1963) C. S. Lewis, John Kennedy, and Aldous Huxley died (and you thought that thing about deaths coming in threes was a myth!).

A few years back, Peter Kreeft wrote a very charming book in the form of a Socratic dialogue about the conversation Lewis, Kennedy and Huxley had on "the other side" while waiting for their fate. The book appropriately enough is entitled Between Heaven and Hell. Here's how it begins.

Kennedy: Where the hell are we?

Lewis: You must be a Catholic!

Kennedy: You could tell by the accent, eh?

Lewis: Yes. I say--aren't you President Kennedy? How did you get here--wherever here is?

Kennedy: Ex-President, I think: I seem to have been assassinated. Who are you? And--to return to my first question--where the hell are we?

Lewis: I'm C. S. Lewis. I just died too, and I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the location. This place just feels too good to be hell. On the other hand, I didn't see any God, did you?

Kennedy: No.

Lewis: Then it can't be heaven either. I wonder whether we're stuck in limbo.

Kennedy: Ugh! Do you really think so?

Lewis: Actually, I think it is more likely that it's purgatory, especially if we end up getting out of it and into heaven. I did a bit of speculating about such places as a writer, especially in The Great Divorce. I don't suppose you've read it. No...well...But surely you should be familiar with such concepts if you were a Roman Catholic.

Kennedy: Well...I was more of a modern Catholic; I never bothered about transcendental mysteries or mythology. I was too busy trying to take care of the world I lived in for escapist thinking. "One world at a time" as Thoreau put it.

Lewis: You can see now that you were wrong, can't you?

Kennedy: What do you mean?

Lewis: Why, first that it isn't mythology. It's real. Wherever we are, here we are, large as life. And second, that the rule isn't "one world at a time." Here we are in another world talking about our past life on earth. That's two worlds at a time by my count. And while we were on earth, we could think about this world too; that's also two worlds at a time, isn't it? Finally, it's not escapism. In fact, not to have prepared for this journey while we were living on earth would have been escapism. Don't you agree?

Kennedy: Hmm...I suppose you're right. But look! Someone is coming. Can you make out who it is?

Lewis: Why, it's Huxley! Aldous Huxley. Aldous, welcome. How did you get here?

Huxley: Same way you did, I'm sure. I just died. Oh. I say! Kennedy and Lewis! What good company to die in--or live in, whatever you're doing. Where is this place anyway?

Kennedy: That's what we're trying to figure out. Lewis thinks it may be some sort of limbo or purgatory. I'm just hoping it's not hell.

Huxley: Well, you're both wrong. It's heaven. It must be heaven.

Kennedy: Why?

Huxley: Oh this is going to be fun! Lewis you've lost none of your cantankerous penchant for Socratic questioning, have you? I remember you made Oxford a regular hornets' nest when you debated back on earth, and now you've shipped your hornets to heaven. This is a nice challenge.

Lewis: Then reply to it. If everywhere is heaven, then either hell does not exist, or hell is a part of heaven. Which way will you have it Aldous?

Kennedy: Wait, please! Before you two take off, could you please give me some assurances about this sort of debate? I was a debater too, but we politicians confined ourselves to the concrete and the tangible. I'm not all that convinced that you can do anything more than talk through your hat about things you've never seen.

Lewis: So you want an assurance that there is some method of really finding the truth about things we can't see.

Kennedy: Yes. Before you take off, be sure you have a plane that can fly, and can get back to earth and land. Lewis, you said you wrote a book about heaven and hell. How the hell--how in heaven's name--how on earth--do you know anything about heaven and hell? Have you ever been there?

Lewis: Yes, indeed. I've been in and out of the back doors many times.

Huxley: You see, Mr. President...

Kennedy: Please call me Jack.

Lewis: That will be rather confusing. My friends call me Jack.

And so it goes for another hundred or so pages. Kreeft's Between Heaven and Hell is a delightful read, but carries many serious themes about the Christian faith as well.

Peter Kreeft. Between Heaven & Hell: A Dialogue Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis & Aldous Huxley. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1982.

Tags: C. S. Lewis

Sometime back, I signed up online for Zondervan's daily "To the Point" email. Some days I have time to read it, and on other days I don't. This morning was one of those days where I quickly glanced at the daily quote at the top of the page. It said, "Eventually, God asks us to discard our infatuation with him and move on to a mature friendship with him" (Gary Thomas, Authentic Faith). Although I didn't have time to read the whole email today, I did read Thomas' statement twice and tried to let it sink in.

Although I hurriedly read those words, they've stayed with me throughout the day and I've been reflecting on them on and off all day as they've come to mind.

Then this afternoon, while working on my dissertation, I came across this little debate (not related to my dissertation, but reminding me of Thomas' statement) in the Mishna:

         On that day did R. Joshua b. Hurqanos expound as follows: “Job served the Holy One, blessed be He, only out of love,
         "since it is said, Though he slay me, yet will I wait for him (Job 13:15).
         “But still the matter is in doubt [as to whether it means], ‘I will wait for him,’ or ‘I will not wait for him.’
         “Scripture states, Until I die I will not put away mine integrity from me (Job. 27:5).
         “This teaches that he did what he did out of love.”
         Said R. Joshua, “Who will remove the dirt from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai? For you used to expound for your entire life that Job served the Omnipresent only out of awe,
         “since it is said, The man was perfect and upright and one who feared God and avoided evil (Job. 1:8).
         “And now has not Joshua, the disciple of your disciple, taught that he did what he did out of love.”

(Sotah 5:5, Mishna/Neusner translation)

What about you? Do you serve God out of love or awe? Both?

Tags: Mishna

“In the beginning, when God created the universe,
the earth was formless and desolate.
The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness,
and the Spirit of God was moving over the water.”
(Gen 1:1-2 GNT)

Thus begins the Good News Translation. The well-read Bible reader immediately notes the change in Gen 1:1 which in standard translations reads, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...." The GNT's use of universe accurately communicates the all encompassing Hebrew idiom, "heavens and earth, and for many readers, this simple rendering allows better understanding of the writer's point that everything that exists was created by God.

When I first compiled my list of top ten favorite translations for this blog, I wanted to include an entry for a common language translation. Part of my selection of the GNT is sentimental, but I hope that I can demonstrate the value of this translation as well.

What's in a Name?
First things first: what exactly is this translation called? The Good News Bible? Good News for Modern Man? Today's English Version? The Good News Translation? Throughout it's history, it's been called all of the above, and frankly it's confusing. In the blog entries where I've mentioned this version, I've probably used every one of those terms at some point.

Well, see if you can follow this. When the New Testament was first released in 1966, it was referred to as The Good News for Modern Man in Today's English Version. Then a decade later when the entire Bible was completed, it became the The Good News Bible in Today's English Version. It was revised in 1992, but the title didn't change. In fact, I didn't even know there had been a revision until last year and I collect translations of the Bible! In 2001 the name was changed again when Zondervan obtained North American publishing rights and asked that the designation be changed to Good News Translation since many perceived the GNT to be a paraphrase and not an actual translation (which it is).

An ironic aside: one of the main features of the 1992 revision was the further use of inclusive language for human references when the context warranted it. After Zondervan obtained publishing rights, one of the titles they resurrected (no doubt for familiarity's sake) was the classic title Good News for Modern Man, although that title is decidedly not inclusive.

Nevertheless, in spite of all the titles, it does seem a bit confusing. Interestingly, my copy of the text in Accordance is labeled "Today's English Version" and abbreviated "TEV" even though it has the 1992 copyright date of the 2nd edition. And when I ordered my copy of the 1992 revision directly from the American Bible Society (the owner of the translation), I noticed that my copy has both "Good News Bible" and "Good News Translation" on both the cover and the spine! Even more confusing, in looking at the most recent online catalog on the ABS website, I observed that there are pictures of the Bible that have both "Good News Bible" AND Today's English Version on them.

In keeping with most recent nomenclature, I will refer to this Bible version as the Good News Translation (or GNT for short) even when referring to the older editions.

What Kind of Bible Is This Anyway?
Back in the summer I came across a blog entry written by a youth leader who had tried to convince one of the young ladies at his church to get a different Bible than the GNT she was reading and for which she had a strong preference. Although in hindsight he regretted this discussion with her, he went on today how much he hated (he literally used that word) the GNT. When I tried to engage him in the comments about his opinion (and I tried my best to do so in a friendly way), he responded back that he was not even going to address my question, but concluded that "from a scholarly perspective, I believe I am on solid ground in saying that the Good News Bible is drivel."

Well, such a response is regrettable and I chose to pursue the discussion no further. But it does reveal ignorance about the GNT, its history, method of translation, and intended purpose.

The GNT started out as a project of the American Bible Society to create a New Testament specifically aimed at readers for whom English was a second language. Very quickly, however, they realized that there was an even broader audience. From the preface to the current edition of the GNT:

In September 1966 the American Bible Society published The New Testament in Today's English Version, the first publication of a new Bible translation intended for people everywhere for whom English is either their mother tongue or an acquired language. Shortly thereafter the United Bible Societies (UBS) requested the American Bible Society (ABS) to undertake on its behalf a translation of the Old Testament following the same principles. Accordingly the American Bible Society appointed a group of translators to prepare the translation. In 1971 this group added a British consultant recommended by the British and Foreign Bible Society. The translation of the Old Testament, which was completed in 1976, was joined to the fourth edition New Testament, thus completing the first edition of the Good News Bible Translation. Through previously known as Today's English Version (TEV) and commonly known as the Good News Bible (GNB), the translation is now called the Good News Translation (GNT).

The GNT was one of the first major Bible versions to apply the translational principles of dynamic equivalence as developed by Eugene A. Nida. A year after the release of the full edition of the Good News Bible, Nida himself wrote a wonderful little book that serves as an introduction to the translation, Good News for Everyone: How to Use the Good News Bible. Although out of print, the book is still obtainable through used book sources. The value in this volume lies not only in its introduction to the GNT, but also as an explanation and defense of dynamic equivalency from the leading developer and proponent of the method himself. On the principle of dynamic equivalency, Nida writes on p. 13,

The principle of dynamic equivalence implies that the quality of a translation is in proportion to the reader's unawareness that he is reading a translation at all. This principle means, furthermore, that the translation should stimulate in the new reader essentially the same reaction to the text as the original author wished to produce in his first and immediate readers. The application of this principle of dynamic equivalence leads to far greater faithfulness in translating, since accuracy in translation cannot be reckoned merely in terms of corresponding words but on the basis of what the new readers actually understand. Many traditional expressions in English translations of the Scriptures are either meaningless or misleading. How many present-day readers would know, for example, that "children of the bridechamber" (Matt. 9:15) really means "the guests at the wedding party" or that "bowels of mercies" (Col. 3:12) is better rendered as "compassion"?

The GNT is also in a category of translations known as a "common language Bible." In regard to this, Nida writes, "...the translation is produced in what is known as 'the common language.' This is the kind of language common to both the professor and the janitor, the business executive and the gardener, the socialite and the waiter. It may also be described as the 'the overlap language' because it is that level of language which constitutes the overlapping of the literary level and the ordinary, day-to-day usage" (p. 11-12).

The GNT is usually rated at about a 5th or 6th grade reading level, which puts it in the same market as similar translations that purposefully avoid larger vocabulary or technical language when possible such as the CEV, NCV, and NIrV. If an in-depth comparison of these specific translations exists I'm not familiar with it, but such analysis would certain be interesting.

To get a feel for the dynamic equivalency of the GNT compared a very literal translation such as the NASB, consider the following passages:

Proverbs 1:8-9
GNT	NASB
8 My child, pay attention to what your father and mother tell you. 9 Their teaching will improve your character as a handsome turban or a necklace improves your appearance. 10 My child, when sinners tempt you, don’t give in. 11 Suppose they say, “Come on; let’s find someone to kill! Let’s attack some innocent people for the fun of it! 12 They may be alive and well when we find them, but theyll be dead when were through with them! 13 We’ll find all kinds of riches and fill our houses with loot! 14 Come and join us, and we’ll all share what we steal.” 15 My child, don’t go with people like that. Stay away from them. 16 They can’t wait to do something bad. Theyre always ready to kill. 17 It does no good to spread a net when the bird you want to catch is watching, 18 but people like that are setting a trap for themselves, a trap in which they will die. 19 Robbery always claims the life of the robber—this is what happens to anyone who lives by violence.	8 Hear, my son, your father’s instruction And do not forsake your mother’s teaching; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, “Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,” 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors.
Matthew 6:1-8
GNT	NASB
1 “Make certain you do not perform your religious duties in public so that people will see what you do. If you do these things publicly, you will not have any reward from your Father in heaven. 2 “So when you give something to a needy person, do not make a big show of it, as the hypocrites do in the houses of worship and on the streets. They do it so that people will praise them. I assure you, they have already been paid in full. 3 But when you help a needy person, do it in such a way that even your closest friend will not know about it. 4 Then it will be a private matter. And your Father, who sees what you do in private, will reward you. 5 “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites! They love to stand up and pray in the houses of worship and on the street corners, so that everyone will see them. I assure you, they have already been paid in full. 6 But when you pray, go to your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what you do in private, will reward you. 7 “When you pray, do not use a lot of meaningless words, as the pagans do, who think that their gods will hear them because their prayers are long. 8 Do not be like them. Your Father already knows what you need before you ask him.	1   “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.    2   “So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 3 “But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.    5   “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6 “But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.    7   “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. 8 “So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
Rom 7:15-25
GNT	NASB
15 I do not understand what I do; for I don’t do what I would like to do, but instead I do what I hate. 16 Since what I do is what I don’t want to do, this shows that I agree that the Law is right. 17 So I am not really the one who does this thing; rather it is the sin that lives in me. 18 I know that good does not live in me—that is, in my human nature. For even though the desire to do good is in me, I am not able to do it. 19 I don’t do the good I want to do; instead, I do the evil that I do not want to do. 20 If I do what I don’t want to do, this means that I am no longer the one who does it; instead, it is the sin that lives in me. 21 So I find that this law is at work: when I want to do what is good, what is evil is the only choice I have. 22 My inner being delights in the law of God. 23 But I see a different law at work in my body—a law that fights against the law which my mind approves of. It makes me a prisoner to the law of sin which is at work in my body. 24 What an unhappy man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is taking me to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who does this through our Lord Jesus Christ! This, then, is my condition: on my own I can serve God’s law only with my mind, while my human nature serves the law of sin.	15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.     21   I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

These are standard passages I look at for readability in a translation. I always look at the Romans passage because I still remember my confusion as a child after reading it in the KJV. One thing you might note above in the passage quoted from Proverbs is the loss of the Hebrew poetic doublet. Whereas the NASB's literal rendering reads "Hear, my son, your father’s instruction / And do not forsake your mother’s teaching;" the GNT translators were more concerned with communicating the message of Prov 1:8 than reproducing the poetic form. Thus the GNT simply renders the verse "My child, pay attention to what your father and mother tell you." This accurately communicates the message of the Hebrew, but does not follow the poetic form. That might be bothersome to some people, but keep in mind the original purpose of the GNT to provide God's Word first to those to whom English is a second language and to communicate in common language. Common language probably does not include understanding of how Hebrew poetry functions. If a person is going to study the form of Hebrew poetry, a more traditional translation might be preferable, although the GNT used alongside would aid with understanding the text itself. Having said that, however, poetic form is often retained in many passages, including those in Job, Psalms, and elsewhere.

I could have just as easily placed the text from the NIV in the passages above instead of the NASB. Although critics of the NIV/TNIV like to refer to it as a dynamic equivalent translation, in reality, it is not purely dynamic, but more of a halfway point between formal and dynamic equivalency. The GNT easily shows off the nature of what is a truly dynamic equivalent, or meaning-driven translation; and is in fact, even a bit spunkier (for lack of a better term) in places than the NIV/TNIV.

The original 1976 edition was one of the first translations to concern itself with gender inclusive issues. Consider Psalm 1:1 in which traditional literal translations begin with "Blessed is the man..." The GNT rendered this phrase, "Happy are those..." The second edition in 1992 took this a step further by changing "evil men" to "evil people" since, after all, women can be evil as well as men.

Psalm 1:1
NASB	GNT (1st ed.)	GNT (2nd ed.)
How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!	Happy are those who reject the advice of evil men, who do not follow the example of sinners or join those who have no use for God.	Happy are those who reject the advice of evil people, who do not follow the example of sinners or join those who have no use for God.

I should note that like other mainstream versions that pay attention to gender concerns (NLT, NAB, NJB, REB, NCV, NRSV, CEV, TNIV, the Message), inclusive gender is only applied to humans when the context is appropriate and never to God. The 1992 revision brought not only further changes related to gender, but also concentrated on "passages in which the translation had been seen as problematic from either a stylistic or an exegetical viewpoint. Two examples are given below:

Genesis 1:2
GNT (1st ed.)	GNT (2nd ed.)
...the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was ingulfed in total darkness, and the power of God* was moving over the water. *or the spirit of God; or a wind from God; or an awesome wind.	the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God* was moving over the water. *or the power of God; or a wind from God; or an awesome wind.
Philippians 2:6
GNT (1st ed.)	GNT (2nd ed.)
He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God. *or remain.	He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain* equal with God. *or become.

I certainly agree with the changes made in the above verses, but it's worth noting as I've pointed out in some of my translation reviews before that this is yet another example of a revision of a translation becoming more conservative and less risky than an earlier edition. I've demonstrated this in the NEB/REB, the NIV/TNIV (gender issues aside) and especially in the NLT1/NLT2.

What--There's Controversy?!
I suppose it would be unfair to write about the GNT without at least briefly mentioning some of the controversy surrounding it. Some controversy is hardly worth mentioning. Some people don't like the GNT simply because they don't care for dynamic equivalency. And then there's also that crowd that makes a fuss about any new translation, no matter what it is.

One of the charges made early against the GNT was that it removed all mention of the blood of Jesus. First, this claim is simply not true. The blood of Christ is indeed rendered literally in a number of places in the GNT:

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “I am telling you the truth: if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in yourselves. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them to life on the last day. 55 For my flesh is the real food; my blood is the real drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me, and I live in them.

Heb. 9:14 Since this is true, how much more is accomplished by the blood of Christ! Through the eternal Spirit he offered himself as a perfect sacrifice to God. His blood will purify our consciences from useless rituals, so that we may serve the living God.

Heb. 10:29 What, then, of those who despise the Son of God? who treat as a cheap thing the blood of God’s covenant which purified them from sin? who insult the Spirit of grace? Just think how much worse is the punishment they will deserve!

Heb. 13:12 For this reason Jesus also died outside the city, in order to purify the people from sin with his own blood.

1John 1:7 But if we live in the light—just as he is in the light—then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from every sin.

But there are indeed some passages where blood is being used as an idiom for death (physical or spiritual) and these are rendered somewhat differently for the sake of clarity (don't forget the purpose of the GNT). Compare these passages from the GNT with a more traditional/literal translation:

Matt. 27:24 When Pilate saw that it was no use to go on, but that a riot might break out, he took some water, washed his hands in front of the crowd, and said, “I am not responsible for the death of this man! This is your doing!” 25 The whole crowd answered, “Let the responsibility for his death fall on us and on our children!”

Acts 20:26 So I solemnly declare to you this very day: if any of you should be lost, I am not responsible.

Just as I remember claims that the GNT removed the blood of Christ from the Bible, I am also reminded of the controversy years ago when the claim was made that John MacArthur denied the blood of Jesus. I was in college at the time working in a small independent bookstore, and we had a woman come in declaring that we had to immediately pull all John MacArthur books from our shelves. Such claims are nonsense and stem from ignorance of the issues involved.

The only real controversy, in my opinion, associated with the GNT had to do with remarks made by Robert Bratcher, the chief translator for the GNT New Testament. Speaking in 1981 at a Bible conference sponsored by the Southern Baptist Convention, Bratcher, then head of the American Bible Society said,

"Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. To qualify this absurd claim by adding 'with respect to the autographs' is a bit of sophistry, a specious attempt to justify a patent error ... No thruth-loving, God-respecting, Christ-honoring believer should be guilty of such heresy. To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false God ... No one seriously claims that all the words of the Bible are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications ... Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek 35 to 50 years later do not necessarily wield compelling or authentic authority over us today. The locus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. It is Jesus Christ as THE Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do."

(quote retrieved from Michael Marlowe's review of the GNT)

Obviously, to use a technical term, this was a boneheaded thing to say, not only as the head of the ABS, but also at an SBC-sponsored conference. Soon thereafter the ABS board requested Bratcher's resignation. But even these statements should not unduly take away from the value of the GNT because not only did Bratcher work on the GNT New Testament with an editorial board (and therefore not in isolation), but he was also a good and honest translator in spite of his personal theology.

2 Tim 3:16 is still rendered accurately in the GNT:

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living,

Marlowe says this blunder by Bratcher led to the rejection of the GNT by evangelicals. Although some undoubtedly did have nothing to do with the version after Bratcher's remarks, the evangelical world did not totally reject the GNT; although undoubtedly, it lost much of its momentum.

The Wikipedia entry on the GNT notes the popularity of the GNT in Evangelical, Mainstream Protestant, and Roman Catholic circles, marking it as truly a translation for nearly all faith expressions:

The GNT has been a popular translation. By 1969, Good News for Modern Man had sold 17.5 million copies. By 1971, that number had swelled to 30 million copies. It has been endorsed by Billy Graham and Christian groups such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). The GNT is one of the authorized versions to be used in the Episcopal Church. Excerpts from the New Testament were used extensively in evangelistic campaigns, such as the Billy Graham crusades and others, from the late 1960s right through to the early 1980s. In 1991, a Gallup poll of British parishioners showed that the GNT was the most popular Bible version in that nation. In 2003, the GNT was used as the basis for a film version of the Gospel of John.

It's All About the Pictures...
Kathy says I'm partial to the GNT because I simply like the pictures. This is partly, but not wholly true. But I have to admit that I really am taken with the pictures by swiss artist, Annie Vallotton. Because of the millions of copies of the GNT distributed in the last forty years, Vallotton has been designated "the best-selling artist of all time."

Although the claim is often made that Vallotton's work in the GNT is dated, I suppose I'm too familiar with it to even notice. From the memories of my very earliest days, we had multiple copies of Good News for Modern Man in the house. Before I could even read, I spent many hours looking at the pictures in "that book" as I called it.

I am all for illustrations in Bibles, even for adults. But they should be purposeful, not superfluous. A recent edition of another Bible (which will remain nameless) comes loaded with pictures. But when I examined a copy and looked, for instance, at the picture of a very traditional, full-color picture of Noah's ark accompanying Gen 6, I had to wonder what purpose it served. But I never feel that way with the pictures in the GNT. They are certainly not elaborate, but merely simple line drawings, and they say so much. The drawings don't add idolatrous images to the text, but rather pulls the reader in and points to the passage itself. Vallotton's drawings are reflective in nature--never distracting, and perhaps that's why I like them so much.

I won Kathy's favor toward these pictures when I began adding them occasionally to the handouts I make for our Sunday School class. I used the picture accompanying Eccl 5:12 on one of them and Kathy remarked, "It's amazing that I can see the worry in his eyes, his face, his posture."

In his book Good News for Everyone, Nida devotes an entire chapter to Vallotton's drawings with his selected analysis. Regarding the depiction of Zacchaeus in Luke 19, Nida explains,

When artists make pictures of Zacchaeus, they usually put him up in a tree, but Annie Vallotton illustrates this man's real problem, by his small stature, by showing him almost lost on the crowd. Furthermore, by not picturing Jesus, she symbolizes Zacchaeus's plight in not being able to see what is happening.

I really wish the ABS would release a CD with the illustrations by themselves. I know of only one company authorized to distribute these images as clip art. They were kind enough to send me a CD free from the UK, but I was greatly distressed to note that they had colored the images! Adding color to them takes away from their simplicity in my opinion. However, digging into the folders on the CD, I found the original scans they made (without color), all in PCX format. I haven't used PCX format since the old days of my hand scanner, which may have been the original tool to capture these images.

How Do I Use the GNT?
A reasonable question to ask me is "Why the GNT over CEV?" That's a good question. And truthfully, until a year or two ago, I was under the impression that the CEV was merely a revision of the GNT. Here's how that happened...

In the mid-nineties when the CEV was about to be released, Thomas Nelson Publishers had obtained the initial commercial publication rights to it from the American Bible Society, also the copyright holders of the GNT. At that time, I was working as assistant manager at a Baptist Book Store (now Lifeway), and a Thomas Nelson rep gave both me and my manager unedited proof copies of the CEV. For years I referred to this as my "errant Bible" because the cover specifically warned of possible mistakes in the text. However, this rep mislead both of us by incorrectly describing the CEV as a revision and replacement to the TEV. At the time I did not know that the Good News Bible (a.k.a. TEV) had been updated in 1992. And for years when anyone mentioned something about a revised GNT, I assumed they were referring to the CEV.

My preference for the GNT over the CEV is not based on any objective, logical grounds. The fact is that I've just never spent enough time with the CEV because when I was first handed a copy by the Thomas Nelson rep and told it was a revision of the TEV, my first thought was "What, no pictures?" So, the GNT is preferred primarily for sentimental reasons, but I'm sure that one day I will attempt to get better acquainted with the CEV as it certainly comes highly recommended from a number of individuals I respect. And I highly admire the brains behind the CEV, Barclay Newman.

To be honest I don't use the GNT as much as I used to, but it will always have a place in my heart. In recent years when speaking in front of groups not as familiar with the Bible, I've often used the New Living Translation or even the Message. In the old days, I would have used the GNT, but there are a lot more choices for freely rendered Bibles now than there were when the GNT was at its peak.

When I was in college, I used it almost exclusively in my devotions, which were separate from study of the Bible. I also had a friend who DJ'd the local college radio station on Sunday mornings. He invited me to come by and give on-air devotions on my way to church, and thinking of my audience (mostly unchurched college students), I always used the GNT because I felt the dynamic equivalent renderings of the passages would connect better with them.

If I were buying a child of reading age a Bible, I would not hesitate to purchase the GNT. The ease of reading and the addition of pictures makes this the absolute best choice to give to a child. And certainly there is still value in using the GNT with it's original audience: English as a second language readers.

And as I mentioned earlier, I still use the pictures by Vallotton in many of the handouts I make for my Sunday School class.

What's Available in the GNT?
The GNT is available in a number of editions with or without the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. Both my original 1976 edition and my 1992 revision were ordered directly from the American Bible Society. They are both hardback, and sadly, as far as I know there are no current leather editions available that do not say "Catholic" on the cover. This is a shame. Years ago Thomas Nelson published a Good News study Bible of sorts that had the GNT and a number of reference features added, all in bonded leather. And in spite of Zondervan having the exclusive North American rights to sell the GNT, they only offer a couple of communion BIbles and a retro copy of the old Good News for Modern Man paperback (with the 1992 revision).

Your best bet for obtaining a copy of the GNT is through ABS at the link in the above paragraph.

Some Bible software programs offer the GNT as well. I have it in Accordance (of course, as I mentioned earlier, it's incorrectly labeled "TEV"). Sadly my electronic copy does not include the textual notes or proper poetic formatting. And I discovered a couple of typos in it as I was preparing this review.

I suppose the lack of nice editions in print or available electronically probably signals that the GNT has seen its peak come and go, but it will always be in my top favorites when it comes to Bible translations.

---

For Further Reading:
- American Bible Society Website
- Better Bible Blogs page on the GNT
- Wikipedia page on the GNT
- Bible Researcher page on the GNT
- Ken Anderson's GNT page
- Eugene A. Nida. Good News for Everyone: How to Use the Good News Bible. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1977.

---

Next Bible version in series: The Wycliffe New Testament of 1388

Tags: GNT, Top Ten

Some of you might be interested in a good deal I came across today on first edition Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bibles with Deuterocanonicals. New editions are expected by year's end and while supplies last on the first edition, you can get them for half price at $19.99 (regularly $39.95).

This is a hardcover Bible published by HarperCollins featuring the NRSV text. As far as I know, the special half price is available only at the Renovaré website.

If you aren't familiar with Renovaré, be sure to check out their website. If you aren't familiar with the Spiritual Formation Bible, below is the description from the HarperCollins site:

Many people are looking for a fresh way to read the Bible, not as a text to be mastered, but as a story to enter into and a lifestyle to pursue. In this unique Bible, the foremost names in Christian spirituality and biblical scholarship come together to provide a Bible that rediscovers Scripture as living text, rich with insights into how to live our lives more intimately with God.

Spearheaded by bestselling authors Richard J. Foster (Celebration of Discipline) and Dallas Willard (The Divine Conspiracy), The Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bible introduces the concept of the "with-God life," a model for seeing the whole of Scripture as the unfolding story of God's plan for our loving relationship with the Creator. This central theme weaves throughout the essays, introductions, notes, and exercises, powerfully revealing how God is present to his people today and throughout history.

Yet our relationship with God should not be passive. Concrete practices—Spiritual Disciplines—have been used throughout church history to guide disciples of Jesus. This Bible integrates the Spiritual Disciplines into the Christian life by showing how they are central to the Bible's teachings and stories. Abraham and Ruth, Moses and Deborah, Jesus and the disciples all provide amazing examples of the life-changing power of prayer, worship, fasting, celebration, and many other Spiritual Disciplines. Scripture thus becomes a primary means for the discovery, instruction, and practice of these disciplines as well as a tool for spiritual formation.

Combining the highest possible biblical scholarship with the deepest possible heart devotion, this new Bible project seeks to nourish inner transformation by unlocking and revealing the profound resources within Scripture for changing our hearts and characters and bringing them in line with what God wants for our lives. The Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bible will redefine what the Bible means for Christian discipleship.

This is a good price on a very unique Bible. And NO, I don't get a cut--I'm just passing along a good deal.

Tags: NRSV, Bible study

Over at his blog, "Kingdom People," Trevin Wax has conducted a couple of interviews that are really "must reads" (to quote Scot McKnight's evaluation of the series).

First, Wax interviews Theron Mathis who is a former Baptist who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy (see "Theron's Story: Why I Left Evangelicalism for Eastern Orthodoxy"). Some of you may remember Theron as a contributor to This Lamp before starting an Orthodox blog, "Sword in the Fire." Theron and I have known each other for about a decade, meeting back when we went to the same church and even attending seminary at roughly the same time.

Following Theron's interview is another with a man named John who made the opposite conversion (see "John's Story: Why I Left Eastern Orthodoxy for Evangelicalism").

Finally, Trevin Wax draws some parallels and conclusions in this third post, "Sola Scriptura: The Dividing Line between the Orthodox and Evangelicals."

It's an interesting series, and the faith journey of these two individuals is a bit eye-opening. In the comments on Wax's third post, I made these comments:

What strikes me after reading both Theron’s interview and then the one with John is that the only thing they have in common is switching to the other’s tradition.

Here’s what I mean. I’ve known Theron for almost a decade. We met at a Baptist church we both attended, and while I was on staff there, he even did his required SBTS supervised ministry experience under my supervision. I’ve never doubted Theron’s commitment to his faith regardless of when he was Baptist or now when he is part of the Orthodox Church. His enthusiasm for his beliefs has remained intense regardless of the tradition through which he worships. It seems to me that his journey has been one that is both ecclesiological and doctrinal.

John, on the other hand was a nominal Christian before his conversion–a cultural Christian at best in what he describes as essentially a dead church.

I wonder whether John would have converted if he had been in an Orthodox Church that offered some depth or even a setting here in the US as a member of the Orthodox Church. I know that they do study the Bible at Theron’s church because he teaches a Bible study there.
...........
As a Baptist myself, I imagine I would have more in common with someone who is Orthodox (or Catholic or Pentecostal etc.) who takes his or her faith seriously than your average nominal Baptist who attends church to go through the motions of an external spirituality.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the third post, however, relates to the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. Wax makes the assertion that abandoning scripture alone as one's authority will lead most to liberalism. Mathis counters in the comments that this is not true at all, but that a viewpoint such as protestant liberalism is the logical (or illogical?) result of sola scriptura--that is, interpreting the biblical text completely for oneself.

Both have good points, and it's a complicated issue. Look for instance at the theological perspectives vying for control in Jesus' day. Who were the liberals--the Pharisees or the Sadducees? I once heard a preacher say that the Pharisees were the Republicans of Jesus' day and the Sadducees were the Democrats. Ridiculous! Such historical parallels cannot be made. Take the Sadducees. Yes, they seemed to have made the strongest cultural compromises with Greco-Roman society, but they had the most conservative approach to the Canon, recognizing only the Pentateuch as authoritative. On the other hand, the Pharisees come across in our modern eyes as the most legalistic, which we often equate with conservatism. However, that legalism was rooted in oral tradition that had been added as an authority in addition to the Scriptures. If they're adding to the Scriptures, wouldn't this make them liberal? Again, these are not easy questions, and simple comparisons cannot be made across 2,000 years of history.

Those who hold to the Orthodox tradition seem to me to be by and large conservative in their approach to life and ethics. I don't feel that adding the church as an authority has pushed them to become liberals. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is a mixed bag. And often the Catholics in the United States are much more liberal than their counterparts in other countries.

Growing up Southern Baptist, we often used to discuss this concept called soul competency which is defined as "in matters of religion, each person has the liberty to choose what his/her conscience or soul dictates is right, and is responsible to no one but God for the decision that is made." This sounds like a great idea in principle, but try enforcing any accountability or church discipline in the context where this idea is particularly strong. I don't hear as much about soul competency anymore, but maybe that's because of the part of the country I live in today. And of course the debate in recent years has been between the exact phraseology for the believer's priesthood. Which is it--"the priesthood of the believer" or "the priesthood of all believers"? A minor distinction in words makes a big difference doctrinally.

Let's be honest for a moment, though. We all work out of some tradition to some degree. We'd all like to say, "It's the Bible, Jesus, and me," but we know there's more to it than that. Various traditions filter our perspectives on how we approach the Scriptures and how we approach life. I know folks who can't read the Bible without Calvinist lenses and because they are so convinced that the Reformed system is absolutely right, any other perspective is inconceivable, if not laughable. And I'm not just picking on Calvinists. Fill in the blank with Arminian, Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Neo-Orthodoxy, or the tradition of your choice.

Do any of us really practice sola scriptura as much as we might value it?

Am I myself, immune? I can look back to a time when I was in high school that I picked up a book on Methodist doctrine from my aunt, a book on Church of God distinctives from my girlfriend, a book on Mormon teachings from a friend at school, and the old orange Baptist Faith and Message book off our shelf at home. I read through those books looking up almost every Scripture reference in my Bible. I've always pointed to that moment as the day that I truly embraced Baptist doctrine as most closely representing what I read in the Bible. I had become a Christian at age seven, but that day, I truly became a Baptist. But is it any coincidence that I had attended Baptist churches all my life?

What's much more rare are stories like Theron's and John's in which people actually switch teams.

And I found it particularly telling that when I began teaching my Sunday School class through Hebrews a few weeks ago I had to make sure that in the resources I was using in my preparation, I had to include at least one commentary on Hebrews written by a Southern Baptist. Why? Well, because of Baptist teaching on eternal security in light of the warning passages in Hebrews--that's why!

But I do read more than Baptist writers, thankfully. I have some friends who claim this, too, but never consult any theologian who lived more 500 years ago or who is not Protestant. I want to be a Christian, however, in conversation with voices from throughout two millennia of the faith. I recognize it's not just Jesus, the Bible and me, but that I am surrounded by that "great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12:1). I do believe that the Holy Spirit gives us ability to understand the Scriptures, but I also feel that I am accountable in my interpretation and practice. I am accountable not only to my local church, but I'm accountable to the larger body of Christian traditions: Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic from all eras of history.

And maybe that's the distinction: accountability vs. authority. Where does sola scriptura come into play? Accountability says that I am humbly in conversation with the traditions mentioned above. But if Scripture is my only authority, I have the freedom to say, "I disagree with Augustine" or Chrysostom, or Aquinas, or Luther, or Calvin, or Barth, or Erickson, or anyone else if I feel they are not in line with the Scriptures. But I can also affirm them even if they are not part of my immediate tradition because "There is one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Eph 4:4-6). Does sola scriptura give me too much freedom? I hope not. And surely that great cloud will keep me in check.

Tags: canon

If you're an ESV aficionado who likes the translation just as its been since 2001, I've got some news you'll be glad to hear. But if you are someone who had any hopes of significant changes in an ESV revision, you may be gravely disappointed.

In August This Lamp broke the story about an upcoming revision of the ESV with official word from Crossway. However, we were informed that the completely updated text would not appear until 2007, confirmed to be January 2007 recently on the ESV blog. Right now the only updated text available is that of the New Testament, found in The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament.

A reverse interlinear is a bit of an unusual reference work, and I will review it at a later date. But my focus in this blog entry is on the actual changes made to the ESV text which is why I've obtained a copy of the ESV Reverse Interlinear. As mentioned the changes surveyed here apply only to the New Testament.

I'm not sure how to refer to this edition of the ESV text to distinguish it from the first edition published in 2001. I should be clear that the changes made to the text are nowhere near the extent of change made in something like the the 2004 second edition of the New Living Translation. In fact, from what I can tell, the changes are few and far between which no doubt will disappoint those who were hoping for significant changes to the text. The changes have been referred to on the ESV blog as "minor textual updates," so for now, I will refer to this edition as the "updated ESV."

I found it interesting that the ESV copyright inside the ESV Reverse Interlinear still referred to the 2001 publication year in spite of the fact that this is a slightly different text. Surely this is an oversight, and I would expect an updated copyright on the full-text Bibles to be released in January. Further, although the ESV Reverse Interlinear comes with a CD containing the ESV Bible Reference Library (Logos/Libronix), unfortunately the text is not that of the update. For a moment I hoped I had access to the revisions in both testaments.

Where does one begin when finding changes between the original ESV text and the updated ESV? Obviously, I don't have the time (or patience) to compare every verse in the ESV NT line by line, so I looked to sources that have critiqued the text of the ESV. I mean, I assumed that a translation committee would have targeted significant issues that had been pointed out. I thought this was the obvious route to take. Specifically, I have looked at the analysis of the ESV at Better Bibles Blog, the ETS Review of the ESV by Rodney Decker, and a review by Allan Chapple. The contributors to the Better Bibles Blog do not officially endorse any particular Bible version, but are primarily interested in what makes for good Bible translation. Decker, at the time of his writing of his review, was essentially positive toward the ESV--claiming it as his #2 preferred translation behind the NIV--in spite of his critique. Of the three critiques, Chapple is the most negative, but I do believe his assessment is quite fair because it evaluates the ESV by the claims that the publishers have made for it.

The table below lists NT verses that I could find in the updated ESV. If the verse was questioned in one of the two above-mentioned sources, but is not displayed below, it was not changed. Feel free to make specific inquiries in the comments and I will update this post with any further changes found.

	2001 ESV	Updated ESV
Mark 8:34	And he called to him the crowd with his disciples and said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."	And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."
John 19:17 [note change in capitalization]	and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.	and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.
Acts 1:3	To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.	He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
1 Cor 11:30	He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.	And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption.
1 John 3:24	Whoever keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.	Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
Jude 14	It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones,	It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

Yes, it's a short list, isn't it? I'm sure there are more changes, and I'll modify this post as I discover them, but as I said above, the changes are few and far between (too bad I don't have access to both versions for use in the handy new Accordance text comparison feature). The ESV has been plagued by criticism such as "archaic word use," "baggage from the RSV," and the feeling that it felt rushed to publication (my actual sentiment). I suppose there's good news for those of you who were perfectly pleased with the ESV the way it was: you can simply write the updates into the margins of your Journaling Bible.

After spending the last four hours going through three different sources critiquing the ESV, I am genuinely surprised that the update was not more extensive than what I've found so far. When I started writing this post, I felt like the above table would have literally dozens of entries. I wondered if it wouldn't take me two or three days to actually upload this post to my blog.

But all the major criticisms of the ESV still hold true. The inverted negatives remain (Matt 7:1), the use of archaic words like "lest" are still found in abundance, and incorrect translations are retained for what I can only guess is the sake of tradition. Even "unawares" remains in Heb 13:2--ouch! I would have nearly bet money that Heb 13:2 would have been updated.

In my opinion, I really feel like the ball was dropped somewhere with the ESV update. If anyone was hoping for a contemporary translation in the Tyndale tradition, this is simply not it. For contemporary language in the Tyndale tradition, I'd have to still recommend the NRSV. For an accurate literal translation, I still believe the NASB is far superior to the ESV, and Allan Chapple's review specifically bears that out in a number of places. In the final analysis I'm no longer sure exactly what niche the ESV is supposed to fill in today's selection of English Bible translations because while parts of it are an improvement over the RSV, it suffers from not going far enough and not remaining consistent throughout.

Look, if the ESV speaks God's word to you, as I always say, keep reading it. It befuddles me, though, to think that a translation of the Koine Greek New Testament--that is, God's Word communicated in a common tongue--would communicate the scriptures in a manner that is not consistent with common contemporary language at all. At least no one that I know speaks in reverse negatives. Well...maybe Yoda.

But hey, maybe Crossway simply knows its market. Maybe readers of the ESV want something that sounds like it came from a different generation. Just realize that such sentiment is not keeping with the spirit in which the New Testament was written. If you were sitting on the fence regarding the ESV, hoping that the update would significantly fix things, I believe it's time to move on. If you're still on the fence, read Chapple's review and note that none of the problems he pointed out have been fixed. As I said, the NASB makes a better literal choice in a Bible translation. If you want a contemporary, but accurate translation, I always recommend the TNIV. If that's not for you, and you want something that adheres to the Colorado Springs Guidelines, I heartily endorse the HCSB as a superior choice over the ESV, the only other CSG translation.

Perhaps the rest of you can wait for the ESV II in 2012...or will that be called the RESV?

---

Previous Related Posts:
- Truth Unchanged Changed? Revised ESV Release Imminent: Solid Evidence
- Official Word from Crossway: No Complete ESV Revision until 2007
- Sign of the End Times: Singular They in the ESV
- More on 1 John 3:24 in the ESV: Change Is Coming

Tags: ESV

Seems like it's already Christmas here. Well, not literally, but almost since today I received the newest issue of the Biblical Illustrator Plus CD-ROM. The cover of this issue features a Persian horse as a number of the articles are written to coincide with studies on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.

Biblical Illustrator contains background supplemental articles for teachers to accompany a number of Lifeway curriculum series including Bible for Life, Explore the Bible, MasterWork, and the January Bible Study.

Here are the articles for the new issue (which I'm having to manually type because the contents PDF is password protected and I can't copy and paste the names of the articles, [grumble, grumble]):

"Confidence: A Word Study" by Michael Priest
"Roads and Travel in the First Century" by Robert J. Priest
"Salvation: A Word Study" by Mark Rathel
"'In the Beginning': A Comparison of Genesis 1 and John 1" by R. D. Fowler
"Curses and Blessings in the Old Testament" by Wayne VanHorn
"Ancient Altars" by George H. Shaddix
"Reaching the Heavens: A Study of Ancient Towers" by Stephen J. Andrews
"John, Follower of Jesus" by Timothy Trammell
"A Man Named Nicodemus" by Randall L. Adkisson
"Galilee in Jesus' Day" by Mark R. Dunn
"Beside the Sea of Galilee" by Bill Patterson
Book Review: John E. Curtis, Nigel Tallis, Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia
"The Persian Empire" by Kelvin Moore
"Zerubbabel's Temple" by Conn Davis
"Ezra: Scribe and Priest" by Robert C. Dunston
"The King's 'Cupbearer'" by Kevin Peacock
"The Jerusalem Gates" by Gary P. Arbino
"Postexilic Hebrew Worship Practices" by G. B. Howell, Jr.
"Susa: Esther's Capital City" by Terry W. Eddinger
"Xerxes: King of Persia" by Stephen R. Miller
"The Feast of Persia" by Dorman Laird

The CD-ROM edition of Biblical Illustrator also comes with more than 70 related articles from previous issues:

"Tyre and Sidon" by George L. Kelm
"Ancient Persia" by Wayne Jones
"The River that Leads to Ahava" by LeMoine DeVries
"From Cyrus II to Darius I" by Harry B. Hunt
"The Role of Queen Esther" by Janice Meier
"Andrew: Just Peter's Brother" by Steve Lemke
"John's Use of 'Witness'" by John Polhill
"Antichrist in John's Letters" by Charles A. Ray, Jr.
"The Purpose and Life Situation of John's Letters" by Timothy Trammell
"Gnosticism" by Cecil Ray Taylor
"Introducing 1 John" by C. Mack Roark
"My Little Children" by Bennie R. Crockett
"Nebuchadnezzar" by Vernon O. Elmore
"Propitiation: A Word Study" by Hal Lane
"Friendship in the Old Testament" by Raymond Lloyd
"Babylonian and Persian Kings" by Daniel Caldwell
"John's Use of Logos" by Darryl Wood
"The Significance of Curses and Blessings" by Pamela J. Scalise
"Grotto of the Annunciation" by W. Murray Severance
"Flesh and Spirit: Romans 7:14 - 8:17" by George R. Beasley-Murray
"Son of Man in John's Gospel" by Argile A. Smith, Jr.
"Introducing John's Gospel" by Leslie Thomas Strong
"Ancient Near Eastern Flood Stories" by Francis X. Kimmitt
"Flesh and Spirit in John's Gospel" by Larry McGraw
"David's Dynasty" (unnamed author)
"The First Evangel" by Wayne VanHorn
"Noah's Life and Times" by Scott Langston
"First-Century Games" by Gary M. Poulton
"Enoch: Example of Faith" by James E. Carter
"God's Revelation in the Sinaitic Covenant" by Jerry W. Lee
"The Elect Lady" by Douglas C. Weaver
"The Arabians" by M. Dean Register
"Languages of the Ancient Near East" by Waylon Bailey
"Ahasuerus: His Life and Times" by A. O. Collins
"Heroes Between the Testaments" by Elmer L. Gray
"Shushan" by W. Murray Severance
"'Aliens': A Study of Two Words" by James Wiles
"Peter's Use of the Old Testament" by C. Alan Woodward
"In God's Image" by Harold R. Mosely
"Destroyed Relationships" by Rick Davis
"David's Kingdom" by Kevin C. Peacock
"A Booth" by Alan Moseley
"Immanuel" by Bennie R. Crockett, Jr.
"Moses' Snake in the Desert" by Leon Hyatt, Jr.
"The Meaning of 'God's Spirit Moved'" by Billy K. Smith
"Feast of Booths" by Vernon Elmore
"First Century Mirrors" by Kendall H. Easley
"First Century Slavery" by A. O. Collins
"Love's Abiding Nature" by John Mason
"Paradise" by Charles Ray
"A Walk Around the Walls with Nehemiah" by George L. Kelm
"Ritual Baths of the First Century" by Norma S. Hedin
"Hosea: the Man and His Message" by Leon Hyatt
"Perils of the Return" by Philip J. Swanson
"Simeon and Jesus" by Todd D. Still
"The Scriptures in Jesus' Day" by Rodney Reeves
"Hate/Murder" by Don H. Stewart
"Cain in the New Testament" by Gregory T. Pouncey
"Sanctification" by David S. Dockery
"Joseph: Mary's Husband" by R. D. Fowler
"Jerusalem Before the Return" by Jerry Lee
"Zerubbabel's Temple" by Donald W. Garner
"Enemies of Rebuilding Jerusalem" by Jerry W. Lee
"Messianic Expectations" in Intertestamental Judaism" by Carolyn Ratcliffe
"The Jewish World When Jesus Was Born" by Jeff S. Anderson
"Nehemiah Inspects Jerusalem's Walls" by Phillip J. Swanson
"Music in Celebration" by Becky Lombard
"The House of Herod" by D. Larry Gregg, Sr.
"The 'Word' in John's Gospel" by Sharon Gritz
"The Tower of Babel" by Phillip J. Swanson
"People Who Built the Temple" by Wayne VanHorn

The print edition of Biblical Illustrator is described on its website as "Well-researched articles related to LifeWay Sunday School lessons" with "[v]ivid portraits of Bible lands, people, and customs" plus "[m]aps, archaeological finds, and breathtaking color photos." The CD-ROM edition, Biblical Illustrator Plus "includes the current issue of Biblical Illustrator, quick access to over 200 pages of additional material, multiple articles for the current Sunday School lessons, and archived articles from previous issues of Biblical Illustrator."

Tags: Biblical Illustrator

Andrew Ray Wells, age 33, of Snellville, GA, passed away on Thursday, November 2, 2006 after an extended illness. The Fulton County, GA, native was a graduate of Berry College and earned a Masters of Arts Degree in Louisville, KY, and taught at the University level. He was a member of Lexington, SC, Baptist Church and was an employee of the Municipal Association of South Carolina. He is survived by his wife, Leila Elizabeth Wells, son, William "Mason" Wells, his parents, Ray and Kay Wells of Snellville, GA, brother and sister-in-law, Matthew and Kim Wells of Statham, GA, aunts, uncles, cousins, and cherished friends. A Funeral Service will be held at 3:00 PM on Sunday, November 5 at Wages & Sons Gwinnett Chapel, with Pastors Rick Mansfield and Russ Shimpoch officiating. In lieu of flowers, memorials in Andrew's name can be made to: Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Donor Services, P.O. Box 4072, Pittsfield, MA, 01202 or National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP), 3001 Broadway, NE, Ste. 500, Minneapolis, MN,

Published in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on 11/4/2006.

Andrew Wells was a frequent contributor to This Lamp and my very good friend.

Tags: Andrew