In 2006, Andy Schlafly, best known as the son of notorious anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly, launched a wiki site called Conservapedia as an alternative to Wikipedia. The nation’s sixth most frequently visited Web site had, he felt, become dominated by liberal and anti-Christian bias.
Now Schlafly has a new project: rewriting the Bible to free it from liberal bias. The new translation will be free of “emasculated” and “dumbed-down” language as well as “liberal wordiness.” So-called “later-inserted liberal passages” will be deleted entirely. All of these changes will be made by amending the King James Version of the Bible through an online wiki format.
While the Conservative Bible Project (CBP) has so far been regarded largely as a joke, it does raise some interesting questions. The idea of writing a sacred text through a wiki is largely unprecedented. The CPB also marks an escalation in what Robert S. McElvaine has called “Grand Theft Jesus”—the appropriation of the Christian tradition for political ends. Is Schlafly a profoundly cynical politician, attempting to manipulate religion in a way that would put Machiavelli and Karl Rove to shame? Or does he truly believe that the Bible has been tainted by “liberalism” for over a thousand years?
The Jefferson Bible as Precedent
Curiously, the CBP is reminiscent of The Jefferson Bible, written in 1820 by our nation’s third president. Thomas Jefferson felt that the teachings of Jesus had been abused and corrupted by Christians, but that the “genuine” teachings of Jesus were “as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dung-hill.” Jefferson removed passages referring to the supernatural, as well as what he considered to be misperceptions by the Gospel writers. Critics accused him of paraphrasing the Bible to suit his own ends. Is Schlafly simply a modern day Jefferson, seeking conservative diamonds in a liberal dung-hill?
Not exactly.
The CBP differs from The Jefferson Bible in at least three respects. First, although Jefferson used religious language in the Declaration of Independence and other writings, his revision of the Bible was a private pursuit: He never allowed The Jefferson Bible to be published during his lifetime. Second, Jefferson recognized that his views were highly unorthodox. By contrast, Schlafly identifies as a practicing Catholic and argues that his reading of the Bible is, in fact, orthodox. Finally, the nature of the revisions is fundamentally different. The Jefferson Bible rejects supernaturalism as well as the tenets of Calvinism.
However, Schlafly’s projects—Conservapedia and the CBP—do not seek to combat specific ideologies so much as a species called “liberals.” Conservapedia defines a “liberal” as “someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.” In this world, liberals are incapable of understanding the Bible, or even logical thought. Where Jefferson excluded doctrines from his Bible, the CBP seeks to exclude words. “Accountability,” for instance, is a conservative word that enriches understanding of scripture. “Laborer,” on the other hand, is a liberal word and has no place in the Bible.
“Young girl”? How about “floozy,” “bimbo,” or “temptress”?
So how is the new translation proceeding? As of October 11, the completed “translations” on Conservapedia include Mark 1-8, Matthew 1-9, Luke 1-2, John 1-3, Philemon, and a few verses from Genesis, 1 John, Jude, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians. As for the Hebrew Bible, only Genesis appears to be slated for translation. Calling the works in question “translations” may be a misnomer since work with Greek originals seems to be intermittent at best. For the most part, the changes are simply re-phrasings of passages from the King James Version.
Where commentary has been made on the Greek, it typically reflects a rudimentary and sometimes distorted understanding of the language. For example, the only mention of any Greek in the translation of the Gospel of Mark 1-8 comes in verse 6:22, where the “translators” have argued that korasion, which means “young girl” or “maiden,” should be translated as “floozy,” “bimbo,” or “temptress”—despite the fact that this translation has no historical, philological, or textual basis. In fact, Mark uses the same word in 5:41, in reference to a young girl whom Jesus raises from the dead.
Such an open approach to translation will likely offend conservative and fundamentalist proponents of “biblical inerrancy,” the theory that the Bible is God’s inspired word and that only the literal meaning of the text is valid. Some comments on the talk pages for the project already reflect a tension among conservative readers along these lines, with the critics referring, for example, to Revelation 22:19’s injunction not to “take away from the words of the book of this prophecy.” One comment from the blogosphere said of the CBP, “Let them rewrite the Bible. It is deemed a sin to add or take away from the Good Book, so those wanting to rewrite will find their own brimstone and hellfire soon enough.”
In their interpretive procedures and principles, however, participants in the CBP do not reject biblical inerrantist or originalist rhetoric. On the contrary, they see themselves as restoring the text to its original state. The project’s authors maintain, for example, that there are three “sources of error” in modern translations of the Bible. Along with bias in modern translations and the “lack of precision in the modern language,” they point to the inadequacy of the original language of the texts in rendering the “powerful new concepts” introduced by Christianity.
This can result in the somewhat paradoxical claim that the meaning of the text is insufficient to convey its clear meaning. Hence, for instance, the following conversation between a critical commentator, who takes issue with the historical and philological accuracy of the translation of “korasion,” and Andy Schlafly:
The trouble with that example is, we already know what “κορασιων” means—it means “little girl,” the diminutive of the bog-standard Greek word for girl, κοραι. And we know that because people used it on funerary inscriptions (among others) to describe their dead daughters, who they (presumably) didn’t want to call temptresses. Ancient Greek had a rich, complex vocabulary, including a complete vocabulary of sexual terms—they had words for temptress, slut, prostitute, dancer, etc. The author of the Gospel of Mark chose to use the word that unequivocally means “little girl” instead of one of the many less savory words he had available, and yet you think you know better what he meant to say? That’s not creating an unbiased translation, that’s shoehorning your own belief structure into the Bible. Does that honor God?
—Jere7my 20:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Fine, κορασιων means “little girl,” but that obviously does not fit the context of the story. What is missing from your analysis is that Mark himself was a young boy at the time also. The underlying event was almost certainly a provocative dance by a young woman, and the best translation should reflect the obvious truth. Fisherman Mark may not have been familiar with the “rich, complex” Greek vocabulary to which you allude, and we’re not about to change the Greek term Mark used. But let the finest English be used to convey the likely meaning accurately.
—Andy Schlafly 22:33, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Since the text does not say that the dance was provocative, Schlafly’s argument that the author’s intended meaning is “obvious” begs the question, “obvious to whom?” On the talk page, one contributor offers an answer, of sorts, to this question: “THE BIBLE IS CONSERVATIVE,” he writes, and, as such, “conservatives” will know what it originally meant.
Tags: andy schlafly, bible, ceiling cat, conservapedia, conservative movement, king james bible, liberals, lolcat, pharisees, translation, wikipedia
I would argue that a more fitting precedent, rather than the "Jefferson Bible," is Walter Grundmann's "Die Botschaft Gottes," a Bible produced by the "Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life" in the early 1940s. It was a Nazi project to produce a Bible without any Jewish references. Please see Susannah Heschel's outstanding work on this subject, published in "The Aryan Jesus."
Although Grundmann's project was completely discredited after the war, he remained an important figure in the world of Bible scholarship for decades. These projects have lives far beyond themselves.
Conservatives have been picking and choosing what to include in their scriptures since the earliest church councils. Their choice of which gospels to include, their choices of which interpretations God would affirm in heaven, and their choices of which passages to build the various churches and congregations on is the way of the religions of the God of the Mideast. Why stop interpreting now?
I tried to ask my following question in response to another article, one in which Sean Hannity was quoted in conversation with Michael Moore as saying that, in summary, that he loved his enemies so much that he wanted to destroy them. I am not a Christian, and am a metaphysical/philosophical naturalist. Because I live in a country that is largely considered to be Christian, it would be to my benefit to understand something about Christianity. My problem is that I cannot identify anything that seems to me to be actually or specifically Christian. Christianity was acknowledged as a "large tent" in the previous discussion, as it contains so many different views about what Christianity means. From ascetics who live alone to American mega-churches, from social activists to prosperity gospel advocates, from Eastern Orthodox believers to snake charmer's, from Unitarians to Southern Baptists, well, you get the picture.
It is certainly possible to think about Christianity as a "large tent" but it also makes sense to me to think of Christianity as an empty concept that anyone can project anything they want onto. It appears, and this is what I don't understand, that anyone can say that they are a Christian, and more or less believe just about anything they like and call it Christianity (and, therefore, be respected as being of a religious persuasion). The Bible, which is supposed to be true in some way other than the loosest of metaphors, says a number of things that would indicate that you would have to believe them, but modern Christians don't seem to. For example it seems pretty clear from the New Testament that helping the poor is a good thing, but this isn't universally believed or practiced. The Old Testament has a number of notions that must've seemed reasonable at the time but are ignored now because they don't seem to need anyone's modern needs, and frankly come across as being absurd. What is this Christianity Thing? Is there some way that somebody can claim to be a Christian but it can be demonstrated that they are not? This isn't a troll; I really find this interesting.
I think you are developing a pretty good understanding of the basics of Christianity. Beyond that, all you have to do is give your heart to the Lord. This means you humble yourself and open yourself up to your spiritual guides as they tell you what you need to know about God and Jesus and religion and potentially finances. They will help you grow in confidence in your new life path, and you in turn should help others to also believe in the path.
Jim,
Thank you for your reply. As I wrote, I am a metaphysical/philosophical naturalist, and I'm not really looking for a spiritual path right now. I'm quite happy with the naturalistic outlook, and find in the concept of nature fulfillment of my spiritual needs. In addition, I have some generally Buddhist Beliefs, although I'm not buying into the reincarnation thing at all. I'm really trying to understand the Christianity thing.
I understand that individual Christians are passionate and committed to their own views about what Christianity is; it it appears that you are. What I am looking for is some sort of common feature that is true of all Christians not just what beliefs a single committed, passionate Christian or a single group believes. If Christianity is a real belief system, what is it, and why does it appear that so many people who call themselves Christians don't believe common things? This is also true in Buddhism, where there are many different belief systems which seem to be contradictory. Although I don't know much about Islam, it appears that they manage to police the system a bit better, and there is at least somewhat less diversity there than in Christianity and Buddhism.
I have a book by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse entitled What Makes You Not a Buddhist (Shambhala Publications 2007), where he makes four assertions (he does it nicely though) about what would make someone not be a Buddhist even if they thought they were:
1. Accept that things are impermanent and that there is no essential substance or concept that is permanent,
2. Accept that all emotions bring pain and suffering and there is no emotion that is purely pleasurable,
3. Accept that all phenomena are illusory and empty, and
4. Accept that enlightenment is beyond concepts; that it's not a perfect blissful heaven, but instead a release from delusion.
He maintains that if you don't believe these four things, that you have failed to understand the essence of Buddhism, and I really do think that sounds reasonable. If someone were to write a book (perhaps they have) What Makes You Not a Christian?, what would it say? If someone were to write a book (again perhaps they have) What Do You Have To Believe to Be a Christian?, what would it say? What is the essence of Christianity, or is it really just whatever you want it to be or what you believe it to be? I understand that you believe that there is an individual path to God that you can find, but even this is not necessarily required of Christianity, as I understand that that is not a Roman Catholic concept.
Best Wishes from Tucson.
The list for Christianity is shorter, just accept the name of Jesus as the way to salvation. They might call it being born again, or giving your heart to the Lord, or repent and be baptised, but that is the one requirement. I am not now a professing Christian. I think it is hard to have a real understanding of Christianity until you have gone through the experience of leaving the religion, and looking at it from a less involved perspective.
I don't think it is fair to compare Christianity to Buddhism because they approach it more from an intellectual perspective whereas Christianity uses intellect, but with an understanding that it will be suppressed when it conflicts with the religion. Your concept of books on what makes you or makes you not a Christian wouldn't help you make any progress toward your goal because different groups would have different books. What really makes them Christian is they all believe their group is the right one, and the others are wrong. What gives them faith is belief in God, and the group defines God for them. Be careful you don't overthink this.
I love this essay, gghellmann!
It also reminds me of a parish priest who once said to a bickering congregation: "If you were tried by a judge and jury for being a Christian, would you be found guilty?" An awful lot of us would be found not guilty.
gghellmann,
I think your inquiry has been playing out across different threads on this website. Ask the question and you will reveive answers to choose from. If you reject what is flawed, ultimately something has to give, but that just goes to show how important the questions are. I hope this is not clear enough to see the point.
Christianity can't answer your questions. They can't answer any questions because the contradictions have become too big, and any answer would only dig them in deeper. They are in a downward spiral and the only thing they have come up with is to stay the course. The course is to focus ever more tightly on the righteousness of their particular sect, and blame the others for whatever is wrong. The other possibility is to repent of what they have done and ask the rest of the world for forgiveness for the horrors they have caused, but with each turn of the cycle that option becomes more distasteful. If they don't make that change, they will spiral until something has to give, and that might mean war. Then only the survivors will have to deal with this, and if the war is large enough the survivors will no longer care.
If you ask 20 different Christians what the four things are that would make someone a Christian/not a Christian, you'll get 20 different answers.
One way in which Christianity differs greatly from other paths is that it focuses on a personal relationship with the divine. There's plenty of chat about compassion, community, service, etc. (like there is in virtually every other religion), but the relationship with the divine is largely a personal experience. As a result, we have some denominations with creeds, others without--it's a vast spectrum.
I realize this doesn't answer your question, but that's kind of the point. We tend to crave easy answers and simple boxes in which we can encompass identity. Christianity just doesn't seem to work within those confines. There will always be someone willing to say, "You're not a real Christian!" because you're not feeding the hungry or waiting until marrige for sex or giving or denying someone their rights. And two seconds later, there will be someone there embracing your "good" Christian self for the same thing.
It's a complicated journey with a million different roads (a la Many Roads, One Journey). I would suggest that instead of trying to label what is "real" versus what isn't, just enjoy the discovery. What other religion offers such a vast diversity in belief? The paradoxes and contradictions are fascinating. How can two opposites both be true? How can we define something that is essentially a personal experience within the context of community? The questions never cease!
How would you know whether you are giving yourself to the Lord? How do you know if your "spiritual guides" are true or false prophets or ordinary people with ordinary limitations? What would you do with your enemies, kill them like Joshua or turn the other cheek? What do we do about other people in an economy where what helps some, including me, hurts others, often in complex ways? One poster here said "religion's rhetoric of ultimacy dresses up our own concerns -- we seek to give ourselves power through it, rather than using it as a corrective that reveals the ambiguity of our own motives." Does Osama bin Ladin thinks he is giving himself to the Lord (as he understands it in Islam?) Or Schafley who is doing this rewriting of the Bible? Or some "liberal" who thinks Jesus really said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" even if that meant a whole lot fewer stonings would happen? "Giving yourself to the Lord" seems like a very open ended undefined thing, particularly since we don't have many reliable ways of challenging ourselves. If we do it within the context of some community, we are probably making human institutional and even political decisions of what belongs and what doesn't.
Did you folks not hear that some conservatives want to re-write the Bible to support their ideology? Did you not hear that this is exactly the same thing the Nazis tried in WWII? I don't see how this article has provoked a polite discussion about the true meaning of life. This is an emergency, friends. It's an emergency because it's a very, very bad idea, and given a little apathy, it just might come together.
The King James version of the Bible was originally published to fund a war. This is nothing new. He's just taking the selective readings that conservatives have been engaged in (well, conservatives and liberals alike--'cuz if we ALL didn't pick & choose, we'd be simutaneously helping the poor while stoning our children) in one quick and easy location so folks don't have to skip over the difficult parts. If they even read it, instead of eating whatever their pastors spoon fed them.
Same tale, new era. Same interpretation as always, just more conveniently packaged. I don't see how that's an emergency more than it is simply more of the same from folks who will always, a-l-w-a-y-s look for ways to justify their rage.
It is to transfer the authority over your life from yourself (or family, or culture, or anything else) to Jesus, who is living. A very common problem is to slide into believing that it is about being right (about Jesus) and identifying who is wrong. Jesus was not that concerned about that, ISTM. I think we do the best we can in following him, and joining with other followers in following him, allowing the Holy Spirit within and among us to change us. There are lots of mistakes made, and a whole lot of being coopted by this or that ideology - getting sidetracked - but it doesn't change the fundamental concept. Following Jesus is to give up your quest for your own life, and to begin a quest to live for Jesus/have Jesus live in/through us.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.