Cotton Patch version :O

[RCCDefender]

I was reading an article on CA about Bible versions. It gave some examples of the way different Bibles wrote different passages - literal vs. dynamic. This one was astounding!

At the other extreme from absurdly literal translations are absurdly dynamic ones, such as the Cotton-Patch Version (CPV). This was translated from Greek in the 1960s by a man named Clarence Jordan, who decided not only to replace ancient ways of speaking with modern ones (like most dynamic translations) but to replace items of ancient culture with items of modern ones.

Compare the NIV rendering of Matthew 9:16-17 with what is found in the CPV:

“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved” (NIV).

“Nobody ever uses new, unshrunk material to patch a dress that’s been washed. For in shrinking, it will pull the old material and make a tear. Nor do people put new tubes in old, bald tires. If they do, the tires will blow out, and the tubes will be ruined and the tires will be torn up. But they put new tubes in new tires and both give good mileage” (CPV).

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

 

[tjmiller]

Actually, that’s a pretty good exegesis.

 

[RCCDefender]

tjmiller:

Actually, that’s a pretty good exegesis.

I agree. Up to a point. I think that would be a good exegesis to put into a homily. But to actually change the word of the Bible to say that? No thanks.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Jordan’s goal was a distillation, not a translation, not remotely. He was more in the mode of a storyteller and he would be a little shocked (he was Southern Baptist) that anyone anywhere had adopted his text as authoritative.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I have a copy of the Cotton Patch version.
I bought it about 18 years ago and at the time,
I thought the “translator” was dead serious, so I was shocked with the liberties taken with the text.
I’m glad to hear it was not meant to be taken that seriously !!
Love,
Jaypeeto3

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

JKirkLVNV:

Jordan’s goal was a distillation, not a translation, not remotely. He was more in the mode of a storyteller and he would be a little shocked (he was Southern Baptist) that anyone anywhere had adopted his text as authoritative.

It’s good to know that – I’d sure hate to hear the Cotton Patch version proclaimed at Sunday Mass.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If you think Cotton Patch is weird, and it is, you should see the modern Street version. I can’t affoard to purchase a copy so I been looking at it in store from time to time.

First off, nothing. No light, no time, no substance, no matter.Second off, God starts it all off and WHAP! Stuff everywhere! Genesis 1:1

It’s creative. It’s colourful. It’s the Bible as you’ve never read it. In this engaging new paraphrase, author and actor Rob Lacey renders the Bible in the language of the modern urban reader. Using MTV-style dialogue, Lacey lends fresh perspective to familiar stories and sayings. For new and seasoned readers alike, the street bible takes the message of the Scriptures into the 21st century to create the impact it had in the 1st century.

zondervan.com/Books/detail.asp?ISBN=0007107900

Need I say more.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Daniel, wow.
I checked out the link. This version strikes me as extremely sacrilegious.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

yeah, I think you are right. I am hoping it is not a big seller.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

a recent translation of Matthew 16:??? I got in email from Comtemporary Christian Music about what Jesus really said to Peter reads, “Petie, you are a rockin dude, and on this song ( rock of ages ) I will build my band.”

I posted this as a joke in the water cooler and it was promptly deleted, I guess they have no sense of humor over in that forum, so I am not going to bother with it anymore.