That Hideous Bible?

is what Christianity Today is calling a story about an ill-fated (but correct) petition drive initiated by Louis Markos against HarperCollins's publication of a C. S. Lewis Bible because it uses the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible,  "gender egalitarian" version of which Lewis would not have approved. The petition explains:

We the undersigned wish to express our disapproval of HarperOne’s choice of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) for their edition of The C. S. Lewis Bible.  Though we commend Harper for publishing a Bible that includes thoughts and meditations from C. S. Lewis, we disagree with their choice to key Lewis’s writings to the text of an intentionally gender-neutral translation of the scriptures that Lewis himself would have opposed.  By doing so, Harper tacitly suggests that Lewis would have approved of the NRSV and the agenda that underlies its gender-neutral translation.  Yet, the majority consensus among C.S. Lewis scholars is that Lewis was firmly against gender-neutral usage and the egalitarianism on which it is based.

We support the right of C. S. Lewis scholars to make use of gender-neutral language in their own analysis of Lewis’s works, but we would not support such writers if they intentionally changed Lewis’s own words (by means of ellipses and brackets) to reflect gender-neutral usage.  In the same way, though we support the right of the editors of The C. S. Lewis Bible to choose those passages from Lewis that they feel best capture Lewis’s legacy, we do not support their choice of presenting the NRSV as if it were the Bible Lewis would have endorsed had he been alive today.

We respectfully ask Harper to withdraw The C. S. Lewis Bible from circulation and reissue it with either the Revised Standard Version (RSV) or King James Version (certainly the choice Lewis himself would have made) in place of the NRSV.  Such a change would allow Lewis’s timeless thoughts and meditations to be keyed to a Bible translation which is not linked to an agenda that Lewis himself would have rejected.    

Adam Barkman, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Redeemer University College and author of C. S. Lewis and Philosophy as a Way of Life

Paul Bonicelli, Provost, Houston Baptist University

J. Matthew Boyleston, Associate Dean/Chair of English, Houston Baptist University

James Como, founding member, New York C. S. Lewis Society, editor of C. S. Lewis at the Breakfast Table

Ben Domenech, editor of The City

Anthony Esolen, Professor or English and translator of Dante’s Divine Comedy (Random House)

Scott Goins, Professor of Classics, McNeese State University

John J. Han, editor of Intégrité and Cantos

Nicholas J. Healy, President, Ave Maria University

Joel Heck, author of Irrigating Deserts: C. S. Lewis on Education

David Lyle Jeffrey, Distinguished Professor of Literature and the Humanities, Baylor University

Jason Jewell, Associate Editor, Journal of Faith and the Academy

Michael M. Jordan, Chair of English, Hillsdale College

Bruce Kirby, director, Cambridge Study Center, Plant City, FL

Al Kresta, CEO & Chairman, Ave Maria Radio

James M. Kushiner, Executive Editor, Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity

William L. Lederer, playwright and poet

Bruce Little, Director of the L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture

Louis Markos, author of Restoring Beauty: The Good, the True, and the Beautiful in the Writings of C. S. Lewis; Lewis Agonistes: How C. S. Lewis can Train us to Wrestle with the Modern and Postmodern World; The Life and Writings of C. S. Lewis

Micah Mattix, review editor of The City

Eric Metaxas, author of Amazing Grace:  William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery and Bonhoeffer:  Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy.

Peter Milward, SJ, Professor Emeritus, Sophia University, author of A Challenge to C. S. Lewis  

Joseph Pearce, author of C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church

Patrick Henry Reardon, senior editor, Touchstone

Milton L. Rhodes, author of Survival at the Intersection of Faith and the Intellect

Leland Ryken, Professor of English, Wheaton College, co-author of A Reader’s Guide Through the Wardrobe and A Reader’s Guide to Caspian.

Robert Sloan, President, Houston Baptist University

Robert Stacey, Associate Provost/Dean of the Honors College, Houston Baptist University

Charlie W. Starr, Program Chair Humanities, Kentucky Christian University, author of books and essays in theology, culture, and C. S. Lewis

Michael E. Travers, editor of C. S. Lewis: Views from Wake Forest

Robert Trexler, editor of CSL: The Bulletin of the New York C. S. Lewis Society

John Woodward, author of Man as Spirit, Soul, and Body

Tom Woodward, President of the C. S. Lewis Society of Florida

While it is hoped otherwise, it is not expected that HarperCollins will do anything about this. But the above, at least, is for the record.

Any names signed with affiliations in the Comments will be forward to Markos.

Comments

[Beth from TN]

I'm pretty much a nobody, but you can add me to the list: Beth Impson, Professor of English, Bryan College. What a lack of integrity of the part of HarperCollins.

[Tony Christian]

What a shame none of the original signers were women. Thanks to Beth Impson for remedying that. Just for appearance sake, that is.

[Magister Christianus]

I agree with Beth in that, given this group, I am certainly a nobody, but you may add Steven R. Perkins (B.A. Classical Studies Indiana University, M.A. Classics The University of Texas), Latin and Theory of Knowledge Teacher, North Central High School, Indianapolis. If I am correct, the NRSV was introduced in 1989. C.S. Lewis died 26 years before that. Why on earth would anyone publish his thoughts together with a translation he could not even have known, let alone one that is at odds with his thinking?

[Katie Richter]

I am a nobody, with no affiliations, but Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour. What a pity that HarperCollins did not seek and receive His wisdom in this matter.
Katie Richter

[Kamilla]

Just sign me,

Kamilla Ludwig
Freelance Writer

(that makes me the lowest nobody on the totem pole, I figure, hehehee)

[Julia R.]

I recently listened to Fr. Thomas Hopko's series of podcasts on translations of the Bible ("I would just simply say, point blank, don't bother with the New Revised Standard Version at all..."); might he be interested in signing?

[Julia R.]

Fr. Thomas Hopko on English Translations of the Bible

[Ranee @ Arabian Knits]

Sign me:

Ranee Mueller
Homemaker

(see, there is someone lower on the totem pole than you, Kamilla)

[Jordan]

Isn't this something that the executors of Lewis' estate and legacy should be the primary arbiters of? Is there more information on the arrangement between HarperCollins and any estate?

Not to say there's not some blame with HarperCollins if there's really wrongheadedness here (I'm not familiar enough with Lewis' views and the NRSV to make an informed judgment one way or the other), but I would think the primary responsibility lies with those who are entrusted with Lewis' literary legacy and copyrights.

[Kamilla]

Not in my book, Ranee. You're the tops! (especially since you said, "Homemaker")

Kamilla

[Patricia R. Bart]

One wonders, on a purely worldly level, if the marketing department considered the paucity of C. S. Lewis admirers who are also avid readers of gendro-politically charged mistranslations of Scriptre. It just does not seem likely to be a large group, really.

Come on. Have the courage to admit that neither the Bible nor C. S. Lewis say what you would. Live up to your own ideology. Engage the Other with respect on His Own terms. --Patricia R. Bart, Assistant Professor of Medieval Language and Literature, Hillsdale College Department of English Literature

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Actually, the technical term is "Emasculated Bibles." I pledge never to buy one of these Bibles and to caution everyone I know now or ever will meet against such a purchase. Anathama Sit.

Rev. Deacon Michael D. Harmon
B.A., M.A., M.Min.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Anathema Sit. If I could spell, I'd be dangerous.

[S. Augustine]

I'm so not even close to having any sway with anyone, but I say, Toss the NRSV! CS Lewis would think it rubbish.

S. Augustine
ACC Churchman
Church of the Guardian Angels
Florida

[Nick Milne]

For what little it's worth, I'll add to the pile:

Nick Milne, BA, MA, Doctoral Candidate at the University of Ottawa.

I have 68 books by or about Jack on my shelf, and in none of them have I seen any evidence that he would have supported this venture. At the very least he would have been outraged that his own meager words were being combined with Scripture, however poorly translated.

[Fr. Carl Eyberg]

As one who claims C S Lewis for his heritage, please count me as one opposed to NRSV - in general - but truly appalled by Harper's choice for anything connected to St. Clive.

The Rev. Fr. Carl Eyberg
St. Thomas Anglican
Springfield MO

[Orthodoxdj]

As a devoted Anglican, sacramentalist, and avid Lewis reader, I gladly add my name.

Dustin P. Adams

BA Religious Studies California State University Bakersfield
High school teacher (Biblical Studies, Philosophy, Forensics)
Host and Founder of Mere Christian Radio

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

Well now, to me this points to the apparent fact that Christians have lost the ability to say with authority what is Christian and what is not--even when it comes to the Holy Scripture.

Do you think that a Moselm would stand for one iota of a second the publishing of the Koran is such a way that blasphemed God and changed the very nature of the divine being?

It is not a Holy Bible at all. That is where the protest ought to be.

To me that is a far worse problem than whether or not C.S. Lewis would approve. Don't you think?

[David Deavel]

David Paul Deavel
Associate Editor, Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture
Adjunct Professor of Catholic Studies, University of St. Thomas (St. Paul, MN)

[Mary]

Please add my name to the petition.
Mary Mattison
homemaker

[Ranee @ Arabian Knits]

I said (typed?) that with my tongue firmly in my cheek, Kamilla. I don't think there are people lower on the totem pole in Christianity, anyway. We have no totem poles. That's against our religion, right? ;-)

[Kamilla]

right!

[Bob Srigley]

It was my custom for some years to read a different translation of the Bible every year. And in the course of time I read through the NRSV. I found it quite readable and don't believe I was greatly harmed. But then I read the NKJ version the next year which should have corrected any subtle lurching to the left.
When I first came alive in Christ I read through the simple language of the Good News New Testament and it was like a continual blaze of light. Unlike the Koran which its believers deem inspired only in the original Arabic, our Bible has generative power in translation, even poor ones. If liberal Protestants actually read their favorite version, assuming it might be the NRSV, that is a very good thing. However my impression is that they do not read the Bible all that much.
While I can certainly commend my brothers (and sisters of course) for their concern about this issue and have tremendous respect for Louis Markos, I think I might shepherd my outrage a little. It seems rather amusing to me, given Jack’s present state, that some would imply he is as offended as they are about this matter.

Nonetheless, here is an interesting excerpt from a review by Arthur Farstad to contribute a little grist for your mills:

“A Hebrew Christian girl named Esther sat next to this reviewer in a college speech class. Her great passion in life is to reach her people with her good news about Messiah. She gave a speech once decrying the difficulty of leading a Jewish person to Christ using the RSV OT. She summarized the problem in the words of her ancient ethnic and religious forebear, Mary Magdalene:

‘They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him’ (John 20:13 NRSV).” www.faithalone.org/journal/1990ii/Farstad.html

[MargaretD]

Okay... well, so much for the maturity of college kids.

I believe Jack is now in a place where the very whisper of an untruth would ring as an outrage and offense (just as Ransom's prevarication did in Perelandra). Wouldn't union with the living Truth make you even more sensitive to its betrayal? Less inclined to wink?

[Bull]

"Aggravate that most useful human characteristic, the horror and neglect of the obvious. You must bring him to a condition in which he can practice self-examination for an hour without discovering any of those facts about himself which are perfectly clear to anyone who has ever lived in the same house with him or worked in the same office."

CS Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters," P.16

[Bull]

"Talk to him about 'moderation in all things.' If you can once get him to the point of thinking that 'religion is all very well up to a point,' you can feel quite happy about his soul."

Ibid, P.43

[GL]

I'm guessing C.S. Lewis would be appalled at the very concept of a "C.S. Lewis Bible" no matter what translation was used.

[Lars Walker]

Good comment, GL.

You may add the name of Lars Walker, obscure novelist and Mere Comments contributor, to the list.

[MargaretD]

We may be obscure, but we love CS Lewis. Please add Margaret Davis, MA, British Literature, to the list.
MD

[Patrick O]

I'm curious about the comment "Such a change would allow Lewis’s timeless thoughts and meditations to be keyed to a Bible translation which is not linked to an agenda that Lewis himself would have rejected."

This after encouraging using the RSV or the KJV instead of the NRSV.

I'm curious because the first thing that popped into my mind was Lewis's essay "Modern Translations of the Bible" in which he writes, "We ought therefore to welcome all new translations (when they are made by sound scholars)..." Whether one agrees with the decisions made in the translation of the NRSV, it is pretty clear there were "sound scholars" behind it.

It seems while the NRSV might not be the ideal choice (going beyond translation issues, its just not a very popular translation outside of academia), making such a tremendous issue out of it in this case, for the reasons mentioned, seems to be linking Lewis to an agenda which he would have rejected. His essay is pretty clear that he was open to contemporary expressions of Scripture, as it was originally published as an introduction to J.B. Phillips translation.

I'd be curious to here more specifics why Lewis would be agreeable to this agenda against the NRSV, especially in light of the fact he specifically rejected using the KJV for common use.

As there certainly are an immense amount of respectable signers, who know his work quite well, I say this not as much in argument against the statement, but in seeking to get more details about the specific Lewis reasoning behind it.

I'll finish with another quote from the essay: "The truth is that if we are to have translation at all we must have periodical re-translation. There is no such thing as translating a book into another language once and for all, for a language is a changing thing. If your son is to have clothes it is no good buying him a suit once and for all: he will grow out of it and have to be re-clothed."

[Christopher Hathaway]

I'm sorry, but the definition of a "sound scholar" is one who does sound scholarship. The NRSV is by no means sound in scholarship. A sound scholar does choose a principle of translation that seeks less clarity and accuracy in order not to offend the readers egos. The translators of the NRSV may have been sound scholars beforehand but not in the commission of that work.

I'm pretty sure that Lewis was thinking that "honest" was a necessary ingredient of "sound". The NRSV translation of Hebrews 2:6-8 is hardly "honest"

Another example of dishonesty is the stealth changes made to the NIV last year to bring in the same changes made for the TNIV. Now the NIV has been gender neutered without warning, perhaps because the TNIV was not popularly received.

[Christopher Hathaway]

oops, I meant to type: A sound scholar does not choose a principle of translation that seeks less clarity and accuracy...

[Patrick O]

Christopher, that is the one objection I though of at first, as well.

But, disagreements over decisions, I think, shouldn't detract from the resumes of those who contributed to the NRSV. They, on the committee, made editorial decisions which may be offensive to many, but those on the committee for the translating were certainly proven scholars in their fields. Certainly, like him or not, Bruce Metzger was an exceedingly highly qualified scholar on the topic of the original documents.

I suspect that Lewis would be perfectly fine debating the merits of decisions without deriding the soundness of their qualifications.

[Christopher Hathaway]

My point is that the natural sense of Lewis's statement is that he would approve of any new translation produced by sound scholarship. It is assumed that sound scholars would produce sound scholarship. If they don't, in what meaningful way can they be called sound?

Lewis was never a proponent of mere credentialism. If a biologist said that whales were cold blooded he would certainly ignore that biologist's credentials. Lewis was surely contemplating areas where there was legitimate disagreement in the field and which sound scholarship could not clearly rule out one or more of the positions.

It's not like there is any serious argument to be made that the author of Hebrews was thinking of mankind in general in that passage. Certainly it cannot be argued that a Christological intent is not an equally possible interpretation. If one wants to make both interpretations allowable only holding to the original use of 3rd person singular as opposed to plural with preserve them. Effectively ruling out the most likely interpretation by making the singular plural cannot be presented as in any way justified by scholarship.

[Jacob Bevins]

Lewis would be virtually ashamed of what is happening with the christianiy today.He was a fundamentalist how dare they make him even sound like a new evangelicalist!
He would be even more ashamed with Christ deglorified than him though.
-Jacob Bevins,AMERICAN BAPTIST PREACHER