Scribe and I are reading John Stott's
Basic Christianity together this first term of the school year. Because I like to mark in my books:), I bought a second copy.
However, I got more than just an another copy of the book...I got a dose of gender-neutral language changes and well as a more "modernized" version of the original.
Here's Mr. Stott's explanation: "It was obviously necessary to udate the language....and to respond to sensitivities relating to gender." Sensitivities?
I had already started reading the original, and I wasn't in the least bothered by the use of "man" to refer to all of us. In fact, I didn't really focus on it until I read the preface to the newer version explaining some of the changes made to the text and then thought of some recent comments I heard from Pastor Tim Bayly about the importance of using the word "man."
Consider his points:
"One day I realized that when God named the human race "adam," He used the same Hebrew word that Genesis records as the name of the first man. So when we see this same Hebrew word, "adam," used by the Holy Spirit throughout the Old Testament to refer to Adam's descendants, the whole race of them, if I were committed to the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture--that every single word of Scripture is inspired by God and useful--I would name the race as He did. And that meant, of course, that I would repent of my scrupulously neutered habits of speech."
"Through His words and Word, God is training us to think Biblically about the Fall, but also about the authority of our Heavenly Father that is resident in early fatherhood, starting with Adam and coming down to us today. God could have decreed that it be otherwise, that Eve represent the race with Adam, but He didn't. And every single time the Holy Spirit speaks in Scripture about the distinction between the sexes, reinforcing the Edenic truth that creation is neither matriarchal nor egalitarian, but patriarchal--that God is the Father from Whom all fatherhood gets its name--we need to listen up, believe, and then confess this glorious truth with our actions and words."
"Over a hundred words are in the English language because early translators like John Wycliffe and William Tyndale knew they'd need to bring Hebrew and Greek usage in, coining new words and phrases in English in order to assure the proper communication of the Word of God. So today, why are we allowing feminists and their willing helpers to strip usages common in the English language for centuries out of our vocabularies? Are we really so naive that we don't know they're doing this because they hate the Biblical concepts communicated through that usage?"
So, not only is the new Basic Christianity full of "human race" instead of "man," it's also updated to make it "easier" to understand. Sadly, "modernized" often simply means "dumbed down" and politically correct.
Consider the differences in the old and new versions. Is the old version truly too difficult to understand?
"He is altogether beyond our comprehension. Therefore our minds, though wonderfully effective instruments in the empirical sciences, cannot immediately help us here." (original)
"He is altogether beyond our understanding. Therefore our minds, wonderfully effective instruments though they are when it comes to scientific investigation, cannot immediately help us here." (modernized)
"We are not concerned primarily to discuss the nature of His philosophy, the value of His system, or the quality of His ethic. Our concern is fundmentally with the character of His person. Who was He?" (original)
"We are not concerned primarily with the effect He has had on the world, important though that is. Our concern is basically with the man Himself. Who was He?" (modernized)
"That Jesus did in fact claim this intimate relation to God is further confirmed by the indignation which he aroused in the Jews." (original)
"That Jesus did in fact claim this very close relationship with God is further confirmed by the indignation that He aroused in the religious leaders who opposed Him." (modernized)
(hmm....why didn't they just keep the word "Jews.")
In some cases, modern translations can be very helpful, but truly, the original of this book is not written in such a sophisticated fashion as to have the reader scratching his head wondering what has just been said.
The original is just fine..."man" and all, and if we're challenged by the language, isn't that a good thing?
So, all of that said, Scribe and I will be sharing the original version. Because, especially with books, old is often much better than new.
Pressing On,
Queen Mom