It was one of my favorite writers, the great American wit Paul Krassner, who observed earlier this year that “Reality keeps nipping at the heels of satire — and lately outdistancing it.”
In the fall of 1994, I wrote a satiric column that appeared in these pages, imagining that America’s right-thinkers had come up with a new translation of the Bible to replace the traditional King James version.
For instance, the King James version has, “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. . . . But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret . . . .”
My proposed new translation had, “When thou prayest, do not go into a closet and shut the door, but instead thou shouldst utter thy prayers in a loud voice and before an assembled crowd.”
Now reality is catching up. Last week I learned of the Conservative Bible Project, which aims to provide a new English translation because “as of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible.”
That is, the King James version uses “labourer” several times, as in the seditious notion that “the labourer is worthy of his hire.” The Conservative Bible Project sees this as liberal bias, and promotes “the conservative word ‘volunteer.’ “
The King James version dates to 1604, when King James I of England convened 54 scholars at Hampton Court Palace. Their work emerged in print in 1611.
This happened during a great period for English literature, the era of William Shakespeare, Ben Jonson and John Donne. One suspects that the literary spirit of the time inspired the translators to produce magnificent prose.
But once we get past literary merit, we enter the tricky fields of translational accuracy and textual authenticity. Was the “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” episode in the Gospel of John part of the original text? Or was it, as many scholars contend, added later?
And if so, was it part of some “liberal message” not to “criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself,” as the Conservative Bible Project puts it?
King James I, a scholar in his own right, was a bisexual, anti-smoking zealot, so in some ways he might qualify as “liberal.” But did he have the foresight 400 years ago to make sure that passage was included in the translation so that modern liberals could cite it?
The whole idea of fitting an old text into current concepts of “liberal” and “conservative” is preposterous. King James was certainly no democrat. He wrote a book called “The True Law of Free Monarchies,” wherein he asserted “the divine right of kings.”
That is, subjects are commanded to obey, no matter what: “Just as no misconduct on the part of a father can free his children from obedience to the fifth commandment, so no misgovernment on the part of a king can release his subjects from their allegiance.”
The King James Version tells us that “the powers that be are ordained of God,” and “Whosever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” That sounds conservative, as in “don’t rock the boat,” but most conservatives also honor American tradition, as with Thomas Jefferson’s statement that “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”
And to move on, how will the Conservative Bible handle polygamy and slavery, which are sanctioned in all those biased liberal translations I’ve seen?
Or the lack of private property among early Christians who “had all things [in] common.” Or the expulsion of the money lenders from the temple?
All told, this bizarre conservative project is enough to make one want to quit writing satire. It just gives some people ideas.
Ed Quillen (ekquillen@gmail.com) of Salida is a freelance writer and history buff, and a frequent contributor to The Post.
