David Hatton revisits Good as New: A Radical Retelling of the Scriptures by John Henson. O Books (Alresford 2004). Pbk. 456 pages. £11.99.
Some people give priority to the King James Version of the Bible because of the excellence of its literature. I believe that the meaning of a text is more important than the fact that it is good literature. The purpose of reading the Bible is surely to consider its teachings and how or whether we should follow them. To clarify the text of the second part of Christian scriptures is what Henson sets out to do. Henson does not use the terms Old and New Testament but says: ‘[these terms] are rude to those of the Jewish faith and are misapplied. New covenant refers to a new relationship to God, not a collection of texts’.
Henson’s version makes for much easier reading than the traditional text. For one thing, it is set in paragraphs instead of verses. But much more. His style of writing means both adults and children can pick it up and follow it like an ordinary book. Even if children are too young to understand everything, at least they will have started to get familiar with the text. This is because it is not a direct translation of the Greek but a switch into twenty-first century language and style of writing.
He includes the four gospels and adds Thomas. He includes most of the epistles but excludes those which many authorities consider are dubious: and also excludes Revelation. He disagrees with those who link Thomas with other Gnostic texts and thereby present it in a less intelligent way than he thinks it deserves. He admits to gently pressurising readers by pushing them in the direction of this intelligent reading.
In many places Henson changes the name of people and places. I find the change from ‘scribes’ to ‘experts in the old books’ and ‘Pharisees’ to ‘the strict ones’ is good. As he says, it saves some people from having to look up what those people were. But I don’t like others. Mary Magdalene becomes Maggie, Peter becomes Rocky, Bethsaida becomes Fishtown. I think these changes are undesirable. There is nothing wrong with the traditional names, and the changes cause bewilderment in the minds of those who are familiar with those older names.
Sometimes he uses very contemporary phrases. In Thomas some folk are called ‘Holy Joes’. In Matthew 3.16 instead of Herod being ‘exceeding wroth’ he ‘went berserk’; in 5.13 instead of the salt losing its savour and being cast out it is ‘the packet that goes past its sell-by date and has to be thrown out’.
Sometimes he softens phrases. In Luke 14.26 the need to hate one’s family is changed to say they should put following Jesus before meeting the needs of family. Now that most people who live in a Christian culture don’t believe in devils, a sensible change is from ‘the devil-possessed’ to ‘the mentally ill’. And today when there is much discussion on same-sex orientation, he claims that what Paul had in his mind was not the issue of loving same-sex relationships but the callous exploitation associated with the sex-trade, and any ill treatment of one human being by another.
I like Henson’s change of ‘whereby we cry Abba, Father’ to ‘so that we can call God mum or dad’. I also like his version of Ephesians 6.13ff, which includes references to God’s survival kit with its weatherproofs, hiking boots, first-aid pack, hard hat, handy knife and map. He expresses the quotations from Psalms in poetic form. Very appropriate, though his attempts at this aren’t good.
His comments on Luke 3.23ff are: ‘The orthodox text has “Jesus being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph”. The words in brackets are a later addition. The scriptural evidence for a virgin birth ranges between the minimal and nil. Everybody comes into the world as an act of God’s spirit and has God for a parent.’
But if his was not a virgin birth, who was the father of Jesus? One early suggestion was that it was Panthera, a Roman soldier. But surely it was more likely to be Mary’s partner Joseph.
To sum up, I found Good as New an interesting book which has prompted me to follow up a number of issues.
David Hatton is a former lecturer on world religions with, he says, ’97 years of life under my belt’.