tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post4651680845052174828..comments2024-03-17T11:05:22.464+00:00Comments on The Life And Opinions of Andrew Rilstone: Mark 4 21-45Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-10254194781746899452019-10-31T13:12:48.466+00:002019-10-31T13:12:48.466+00:00I'll check out the blog, but I don't do po...I'll check out the blog, but I don't do podcasts: the structure of my life is such that there's never a time when I can give attention to listening to something. (That's mostly because I have the privilege of not having to commute.)Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-45080203616588060462019-10-31T12:58:32.046+00:002019-10-31T12:58:32.046+00:00He's a British professor of God-ology in an Am...He's a British professor of God-ology in an American university. I would strongly recommend his New Testament Pod-Cast. His unique selling point is that he doesn't believe in Q.Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05786623930392936889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-78622527738845624842019-10-31T12:44:35.925+00:002019-10-31T12:44:35.925+00:00No, I'd not come across Mark Goodacre. I'l...No, I'd not come across Mark Goodacre. I'll take a look at the article you linked. Thanks.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-8138734839137561092019-10-31T12:30:38.942+00:002019-10-31T12:30:38.942+00:00The question of eye-witness testimony in the Gospe...The question of eye-witness testimony in the Gospels is one we can leave to another day. <br /><br />Do you read Mark Goodacre? I was very taken with the idea that the Gospels are "different instantiations of the same fluid textual tradition". <br /><br />https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2019/05/larsens-challenge-to-studying-synoptic.htmlAndrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05786623930392936889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-23984961960768774652019-10-31T11:05:22.137+00:002019-10-31T11:05:22.137+00:00... with the rather notable difference that Eugene...... with the rather notable difference that Eugene Peterson was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.<br /><br />(I'm not familiar with the CEV.)Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-83404011207351187942019-10-31T10:38:51.381+00:002019-10-31T10:38:51.381+00:00The Contemporary English version was consciously w...The Contemporary English version was consciously working with a limited vocabulary; so "my name is 'Lots'" was their best attempt to represent "my name is 'Legion'" with the words they had available. Having had a closer look at it, it seem to work pretty well.<br /><br />You could say that "the Message" is doing to John what John (arguably) did to Mark: retelling the story freely, and weaving in new insights and interpretations. But that's not at all the same thing as a translation. Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05786623930392936889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-20442182573923016522019-10-28T23:47:36.148+00:002019-10-28T23:47:36.148+00:00"What is like the Kingdom of God is the whole..."What is <i>like</i> the Kingdom of God is the whole situation."<br /><br />I think this is exactly right, and it's hard for us modern westerners to grasp. Our nature, and natural tendency, is to pick each parable apart and try to determine which story element represents what real thing. But the parables don't necessarily work that way. (Some do; some don't.) They have a much a much looser, allusive quality to them that I didn't recognise for a long time. I do think some of the questions that often get asked about them are a bit wrong-headed.<br /><br />And this applies more generally in the New Testament (and even more so in the Old): that there is a looseness to the story-telling where it's really trying to draw you into a narrative, and into feeling its message — whereas we tend to try to dissect it. (As a scientist myself, that is very much my default mode. That is a defect that I am trying to overcome.)Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-31995930712708215102019-10-28T23:41:26.544+00:002019-10-28T23:41:26.544+00:00"People have asked me why I have a bee in my ..."People have asked me why I have a bee in my bonnet about the Good News Bible. This is why."<br /><br />I share your distaste for a book that is (at least in part) a commentary masquerading as a translation. We all get that translation is Difficult, and that one often has to make a hard judgement between preserving the literal meaning of the words and the intended sense of the sentence. But I do think a line has been crossed when "translators" just make things up.<br /><br />Exhibit A is The Message, which describes itself as a translation but sometimes appears to go completely off its head. For example, it Matthew 11:29 — which in a fairly literal translation like the RSV is "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart" — is rendered rather inexplicably as "Walk with me and work with me—watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won’t lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you." I mean to say, what?Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.com