It occurred to me that I needed some color around here…all the recent photos I’ve used have been black and white.
It occurred to me that I needed some color around here…all the recent photos I’ve used have been black and white.
Last week, I posted a survey on languages and bible preference, which is still open by the way. (If you haven’t spent the 30 seconds necessary to complete its four questions, I would greatly appreciate it.) Soon after, I came across these thoughts on bible translation in the preface to a commentary on Romans by Fr. Lawrence Farley, a priest in the Orthodox Church in America serving at St. Herman’s Church in Surrey, British Columbia. After briefly describing the two principle approaches to translation–formal and dynamic equivalence–he writes:
The English translator is faced, it would seem, with a choice: either he can make the translation something of a rough paraphrase of the original and render it into flowing sonorous English or he can attempt to make a fairly literal, word-for-word translation from the original with the resultant English being stilted, wooden, and clumsy.
These two basic and different approaches to translation correspond to two basic and different activities in the Church. The Church needs a translation of the Scriptures for use in worship. This should be in good, grammatical, and flowing English, as elegant as possible and suited to its function in the majestic function of the Liturgy. The Church also needs a translation of the Scriptures for private study and for group Bible study. Here the elegance of its English is of lesser concern. What is of greater concern here is the bring out of all the nuances found in the original. Thus this approach will tend to sacrifice elegance for literality and, wherever possible, seek a work-for-work correspondence with the Greek. Also, because the student will want to see how the biblical authors use a particular word (especially St. Paul, who has many works included in the canon), a consistence of translation will be sought and the same Greek word will be translated, whenever possible, by the same English word or its cognate.
So, what do you think about Fr. Farley’s observations concerning the place of different translations in the life of the Church? Do you agree that we would do well to utilize a more flowing, dynamic translation for public reading and liturgy as part of worship while resorting to a more literal translation for study? It seems the desire of many (most?) of us is to find that one bible translation that is perfect (or at least suitable) for both worship and study. In the ever-changing landscape of English bible translation, this quest is as elusive as it is ultimately frustrating.
What do you think of Fr. Farley’s advice?

I’m taking a short, four-question, 30-second survey on spoken languages and bible translation preferences. I would be grateful if you’d take it and give me your inputs!
Thanks!
A must read article, in my opinion:
Evangelical Christians and Guns: Are We Doing it Right?
Lots to ponder and think about here. Thoughts?
When not wrestling with Greek in the LXX and NT, I spend most of my English bible reading in three versions: the ESV, the HCSB, and the NLT. Due to some of the difficult phrasing in the ESV and the fact that I minister mostly to folks who are younger and unfamiliar or turned off by its traditional wording, I spend the least amount of time in the ESV. That said, Crossway keeps me coming back again and again because of the superb editions they publish–editions that sometimes fill a very specific reader niche and aren’t likely to be huge sellers but are nonetheless treasured by bibliophiles for various reasons.
Last fall, I picked up a copy of the ESV Single Column Legacy Bible for no other reason than its typesetting and layout. Sounds crazy, I know, but the layout of this bible makes it an absolute dream to read. Mark Bertrand did an excellent three-part series on this edition beginning with this post. I highly recommend jumping to his site and reading the series to get a picture for what went into this edition.
Today I was in my favorite bookstore, picked up a copy of the recent ESV Single Column Journaling Bible, and fell in love with this new edition. The layout is amazing–single column (obviously), super wide margins, and a creamy page color similar to that used by the German Bible Society in their Greek and Hebrew texts. Best of all, as a chaplain who needs a bible that can be tossed in a rucksack and dragged all over creation for worship services, bible study, and counseling, it has the same hard cover and elastic flap similar to the original Journaling bible and Moleskine notebooks. This bible may be the perfect chaplain’s bible!
I shall post some photos in the next couple days for you to get an idea of this great little edition. Until then…
I like to joke. I like to laugh. I like to be intentionally eccentric just to draw a reaction. I like to make scandalous statements to spark conversation. I do this at home and at work. And some people simply don’t get it.
“You can’t be serious,” they chide.
To tell the truth. They’re right. By the dictionary definitions above, most of the time I am not serious. There are times and places for serious, no doubt, but most of life doesn’t fall into that space. The problem, as I see it, is that many (most?) Westerners have wrongly conflated seriousness and sincerity.
Much of the time I am not serious, but I always strive to be sincere. To use the cliche, sincerity means ‘what you see is what you get.’ Sincerity is a must in our world where facade rules–in politics, in relationships, in the workplace, in the church, etc. (More on that last one later…)
So, lighten up. Be sincere all the time, but don’t always be so bloody serious.
You have my permission.
That Jesus was born of a virgin is one of the most marvelous aspects of the miracle of the Incarnation. While not even considering objections from skeptics here, it is not uncommon to hear Christians raise the question, “Why was Jesus born of the Virgin Mary?” Answers typically revolve around the need to fulfill prophecy (cf. Isaiah 7), show God’s providential initiative, or avoid the transmission of sin*.
Reading through Justin Martyr’s Dialogue With Trypho (according to the Read the Fathers reading plan), St. Justin presents the following reason for Jesus’ virgin birth:
He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God (Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter 100).
In other words, since sin entered the world through a virgin, Eve, Christ was born of the virgin Mary that sin might also be destroyed through a virgin.
His is an interesting one, to say the very least.
* This view only makes sense, of course, if sin is transmitted by male DNA or you further postulate Mary’s Immaculate Conception…neither of which is supported from Scripture or Church Tradition outside of Roman Catholicism.
The joy and celebration of Christmas is that God took on humanity and dwelt among us. Immanuel, of course, means “God with us”–as everyone familiar with the Christmas narrative in Matthew’s gospel knows. Yet, so often, it seems we let this essential mystery of our faith evaporate as soon as Christmas and Epiphany pass, the decorations are put away for another year, and we resume our post-New Year routines.
Usually, this translates into lives characterized not by walking in faith in Christ’s presence with us but by an unending series of questions addressed to him.
God does not typically answer those questions. Just ask Job. God does not usually reveal his plans to us with crystal clarity. Ask the apostles about that. As Oswald Chambers points out, “God does not tell you what He it’s going to do—He reveals to you who He is.”
To be even more succinct, God is not in the business of answering our questions. He is in the business of coming to us, dwelling with us, and giving himself to us.
He is not our instructor who promises to answer our questions that we might gain knowledge.
He is Immanuel, who has promised never to leave or forsake us, that we might gain him.
This is most certainly true and most certainly better.
When we think seriously about what it will cost others if we obey the call of Jesus, we tell God He doesn’t know what our obedience will mean. Keep to the point–He does know. Shut out every other thought and keep yourself before God in this one thing only–my utmost for His highest. I am determined to be absolutely and entirely for Him and Him alone.
Oswald Chambers