MetaCatholic

Ruth Gledhill draws attention to the bizarre letter sent out to SPCK bookshops this week, explaining why staff would have to work on a Sunday.

The theological justification is, apparently, to be found in Canon 29 of the Canons of the Council of Laodicea which says:

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

Far from justifying the position taken by the owners (Saint Stephen the Great Charitable Trust) this actually encourages Christians to try to rest on a Sunday (the Lord’s day). The letter also tries to big up the Synod of Laodicea by claiming that it decreed the books of the Bible. Unfortunately, not only is this (Canon 60) seriously disputed, but it’s First Testament canon list is the Protestant OT + Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, which is of course no-one’s canon today.

What’s in view seems to be the kind of practices so roundly denounced by John Chrysostom - a fourth century Asian resurgence of Christian interest in the synagogue. The canon is part of that matrix of what later became foundational to Christian anti-Semitism, and it’s astonishing to see it being employed, entirely contrary to its intention, and without any awareness of the disastrous history associated with the views expressed in it.

This kind of sloppy a-historicism, and naive non-interpretative quotation, is exactly a hallmark of fundamentalism, it’s just that in this case it’s a kind of conciliar fundamentalism. But then again what can you expect form a group who claim on their website: “Until the Norman Conquest in 1066 A.D., England was Orthodox.”

It is inevitable that the way the Bible is translated will be affected by the traditions of the translator. There’s recently been a lively exchange of views relating to the translation of Psalm 2:12 on e.g. Kethuvim, Higgaion and Codex among others. In this particular instance, however, the difficulty of the Hebrew, and the obvious potential of the text for either christological or non-christological interpretation, means that the translator tends to be fully aware of the amount of interpretation that goes into the translation. As a corollary, translators are willing to argue for, and defend, their choices.

Generally in contemporary translations, both the individual translators and the translation committees are well aware of a whole host of such disputed cruces, and often take particular care with their quite self-aware biases. More interesting are the instances where the tradition is so strong that the translators may not be aware of their own particular bias, and are unaware of the extent to which their translation conforms to their interpretative tradition.

An interesting case in point is Philippians 3:9. Here, I submit, the overarching and longstanding dominance of the Reformation paradigm for interpreting Paul has led to a common translation that is nonetheless open to question. The so-called New Perspective¹ has rattled a lot of cages, but hasn’t significantly affected the translations of this and similar verses.

[that I may] be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. (Philippians 3:9 NRSV)

This posits two different types of righteousness, one that is “my own” – which comes from keeping the law, and one that is not my own but “God’s righteousness” which comes as a gift through faith. And for centuries, not only has this simply been the shared interpretation and translation, but has itself become a proof-text for the Lutheran evangelical opposition between Law and Gospel. I don’t intend to single out the NRSV – NET, ESV, NAB (Catholic!), NASB, NIV etc all agree.

Is this, however, the only translation?

καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει

The translations read “ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου” as one type of righteousness and “τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ” as another (with the noun implied. It is at least possible however that the opposition is only between the two adjectival phrases “τὴν ἐκ νόμου – from the law” and “τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ –through the faithfulness of Christ / through faith in Christ”, both of which describe “ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην – my righteousness.” The contrast is in the source of the righteousness only, and not one of attributing it to either “me” or God. In line with this the NJB translates:

[that I might be] given a place in him, with the uprightness I have gained not from the Law, but through faith in Christ, an uprightness from God, based on faith

I am not claiming this is right, only that it is possible. If there is any merit in that claim, as I think there is, then the common translation needs justifying (excuse the pun) as much as any other area where doctrinal traditions affect translation issues. Here the tradition runs so strongly that not only is the alternative not given fair hearing, but the commonly assumed interpretation is even used to construct arguments against the challenge of the New Perspective. That, at least, cannot be right.

1. a good resource on this is the Paul Page [↩]