I
er 14,111
its
Iff
thought
a pm
sive rigf;
nd
as will!
on FriJi
our coe
the eifli
- of wh;
nation!
and
e, whit!
Connect!
t Tech i
ssic
will h
it game
also wit
mes, it-
at Ten-
ols haw
e, hasi
Televi
7 game
1 on T
ermam
io’II an-
1. “This
it worn-
3 re but
them-
y their
a great
accept
—-w The Battalion
Opinion
Thursday
September 14, 1995
75
Some things should be left alone
The new Oxford University
Press version of the Bible is a
gross distortion of a Holy text
S
) be
an-
oor
od-
ny
lon
by ;
rid
ter j
rse I
he ;
ile |
4, i
ir-
"All Scripture is
inspired by God and
profitable for teach
ing, for reproof, for
correction, for train
ing in righteousness;
that the man of God
may be adequate,
equipped for every
good work. ”
Second Letter of Paul to Timothy.
"It is often called ‘The New Tes
tament of Our Lord and Savior Je
sus Christ.’ But Jesus didn’t write a
word of it. Who, then, wrote the 27
books that make up the traditional
New Testament canon? ” asked a
Dec. 1990 U.S. News & World Re
port article.
Who, indeed?
The birth of the New Testament
was not a tidy one. Around A.D. 140,
in response to Gnostic heresies and
other threats to doctrine, the church
moved towards an official Christian
canon and began organizing the
texts and letters that had been pass
ing around the early church.
Since that time, people have
changed it to suit their own person
al gospels and creeds, but perhaps
none so dramatically as the folks in
England who have put together a
version of the New Testament to
top all others currently available on
the market.
It’s a doozie, that’s for sure. And
they are hard at work on a revised
wsion of the Old Testament.
This isn’t the first time someone
has wanted to change it, but this
seems to be one of the most compre
hensive make-overs the Bible has
ever received. And it comes from a
prestigious institution usually
thought of as a place where
thoughtful and intellectual deci
sions are made.
This makes it quite alarming.
Oxford University is no crackpot
underground organization or loose
band of radical believers.
It’s Oxford. It’s definitive. It’s
made a big mistake.
Susan Thistlewaite, co-editor of
the Oxford University Press version
in question, defends the recent
facelift given to the Holy Book. She
argues that Jesus’ message of toler
ance and love is “warrant for treat
ing everyone equally,” including
equal treatment in the Bible.
This poor Bible has actually gone
through more than just a facelift —
it’s more like total reconstruction, if
you will.
All words which might be consid
ered sexist, racist or anti-semitic
have been changed. All words
which might have excluded have
been changed so that everyone is
included. Sounds great, but tastes
terrible.
For example, if
you were to follow
the Oxford Universi
ty press’ version of
the Lord’s prayer,
you would say “Our
Father-Mother who
is in Heaven.”
We could go on
and on here, or you could do it
yourself in the privacy of your
home. Every time you read about
God’s only begotten Son, substitute
the words “only child.”
This would be almost laughable
if it weren’t so real.
Who are they fooling?
To tamper with the Bible is to
ask for trouble.
It’s the real thing.
God’s word, written down by man.
It is Scripture, not a paper that
needs a little editing to make it more
sensitive and culturally appropriate.
It is literature. No one thinks to
rewrite Shakespeare to make his texts
more inclusive. But we’re more than
happy to change the words of
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
It is also history. It documents
the social mores, attitudes and is
sues of particular groups.
It does not document our society
— that is true. But that doesn’t
mean that we should change it
around so that it does.
The Bible is what it is. Love it or
leave it; don’t rewrite it.
If anything, we should be trying to
get it closer to the original Hebrew
and Greek texts, not further from it.
Several things about this new
version are alarming.
First, the idea of revising history
to make it more palatable troubles
any thoughtful person.
The original text is a lesson in it
self; you can learn attitudes of soci
ety at that time, but if you change
it there is no context. Every time
you change it, it loses something.
Second, is the belief that if we
change the text then the behaviors
will follow suit.
It is foolishness to think that by
changing words, we are changing
lives. Words are important, yes, but
words by themselves are rarely so
compelling that an entire society
rids itself of all of its sexist, racist
habits and joins in a rousing chorus
of “We Are The World.”
To paraphrase the words of
Berkeley professor and biblical
scholar, Robert Alter, author of The
Art of Biblical Narrative, this ver
sion of the Bible is an agenda mas
querading as a translation.
And I don’t think Oxford Univer
sity knows who it is messing with.
Erin Hill is graduate pursuing a
teaching certificate
If
M
M
M
m
I
I
|
I
f
I
4
M
The
New, Revised Version,
of the Amended Version, of the Revamped Version, of
the Overhauled Version, of
the Abridged Version, of theTruncated Version
OF..
Rihlffec
UIHIvO
|
I
&
f
f
° PC compatible
(politically correct.)
Mail
Different approach
just same old bull
Matt Segrest’s guest column
Tuesday on women in the
Citadel took me laughing down
memory lane.
His reasoning that “women
are just different” is exactly the
same argument that keeps
women from driving cars in
some Islamic countries.
If you exchange the word
“women” with the word “blacks”
it’s the same argument that
forced black people into “separate
but equal” schools and to the back
of the bus.
It’s even the same argument
that kept women out of the A&M
Corps of Cadets.
Now the men of the Citadel are
using it to justify their disdain for
Women in their own corps.
When I was in the A&M
Corps just 10 years ago, no
Women were allowed in the Ag
gie Band or the Fish Drill
Team. The Corps staff had nev
er included a woman either.
Then surprise — a lawsuit
started by a female cadet changed
all that. Cadets were pissed, and
even A&M’s president at the time
refused to shake her hand at her
graduation. Now, the idea of
women cadets is no big deal.
The differences between the
sexes are far fewer than most so
cieties like to purport. Arguments
like these are used to promote
specific agendas and lifestyles of
specific groups.
Sometimes the groups are
small, like the A&M Corps or the
Citadel, and want to maintain a
social cohesion that a single gen
der organization often provides.
The Israeli army, the most effi
cient army in the world, doesn’t
think females are too “different”
to be soldiers. Their primary
agenda is effective organization.
The “women are different” and
“single-sex organizations are bet
ter” arguments are just rational
izations to maintain an agenda —
in this case an outdated tradition
— without appearing sexist.
The real reason women aren’t
wanted at the the Citadel is be
cause of the “we are better than
you” syndrome - something with
which Aggies are quite familiar .
We have a saying at Texas
A&M that all the little dimples on
the underside of the Aggie Ring
represent all the a-holes at t.u.
The story is that by the time the
dimples wear down, the Aggie is
old enough to realize t-sips aren’t
a-holes anymore.
This principle of eventual real
ization of error applies to many
situations, including the Aggie
Corps and the Citadel.
Frank Stanford
graduate student
"Liberals belong at
t.u." hypocritical
I have a story about hypocrisy
at Texas A&M University.
Eva Darski writes a Mail Call
letter and says, “I didn’t come to
Texas A&M for cowboy hats and
country music but rather for hon
or, and an environment where my
beliefs weren’t ridiculed.”
Then she tells everyone with
liberal views to go away. Darski
wants only her ideas not to be
ridiculed. That’s the end of a sto
ry, and the beginning of a double
standard.
Steve Balfour
Class of ’90
IDS misrepresented
by Baxter column
This letter is in response to
H.L. Baxter’s column in the Opin
ion section of The Battalion on
Sept. 12.
First, I would like to point out
that there is no such religion as
“Mormonism,” nor is there a Mor
mon Church. The correct name of
the church Baxter is referring to
is The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints, appropriately
shortened as LDS.
Secondly, Baxter’s friend Lisa
could not have “discontinued
practicing Mormonism” only after
“intense arguments with family
and friends.” To be an active
member of LDS means to dili
gently follow Christ.
The day “Lisa”*started prac
ticing her bisexuality is the day
she stopped being an active
LDS member.
Finally, I sympathize with the
biases and prejudices people face
in our society. I do not have the
authority to judge a person, nor
does anyone have the authority to
judge me.
It makes me sad to think.of the
pain Lisa must be going through,
but I hope that she and Baxter re
alize that their lifestyles are
strongly opposed by the Church
and its doctrine.
While Baxter is complaining
about conservatism and tradi
tions, he himself is succumbing to
a prejudice that has developed a
traditional negative view of LDS.
Enlightening our environment
at Texas A&M University with
liberalism may seem exciting to
Baxter, but I believe he and Lisa
need to enlighten their minds
about the values and positive tra
ditions that Texas A&M, conser
vatism and Jesus Christ endow.
Christie Chapa
Class of’99
NORML no Civil
Rights movement
This is in response to the” Situ
ation NORML” article that ap
peared in the Aggielife section of
the Sept. 13 Battalion.
We are so proud to see that
people today, of Generation X, the
generation that cares about noth
ing, are finally excited about
something: Specifically, the legal
ization of hemp/marijuana.
By their comparison of them
selves to the Civil Rights move
ment of the 1960s, we see a new
guideline in the quest for equality
and bettering the world — today
the Civil Rights movement has
become the quest for marijuana.
I think Martin Luther King Jr.
would be proud. I know we are.
Shannon Smith
Class of ’95
Tiffany Carroll-Curtis
Class of’97
Gun law provides
food for thought
In response to Lydia PercivaTs
column of Sept. 11: Imagine you
are a police officer, and you stop a
vehicle for running a red light.
You want to issue the driver a
citation, finish your shift and go
home. But, under the new law,
you don’t know if you have
stopped a rational, unarmed mo
torist or an armed lunatic.
You frisk the driver for
weapons for your own safety. She
is unarmed, but irate over this
treatment for a simple traffic tick
et — especially if you are a male
officer. Next time, do you risk
your life, or do you put up with
one irate driver after another?
It’s food for thought. But with
freedom comes responsibility
and consequences. Be prepared
for all of the consequences of an
armed society.
Eric R. Ivie
Class of’96