It was this past Sunday (November 3, 2002) that the scriptural cycle came back to Matthew 5 (The Sermon on the Mount) and I inserted my "translation" of such  in the weekly church bulletin.  You can find my version of the Sermon on the Mount if you click on the link at the beginning of this thought.

Yes, my translation is quite a departure from the King James (KJV) and subsequent versions.  I use the word "Advantaged" instead of "Blessed".  I use different phrases and I reverse the order of the sentences.

Is this sacrilege?  Is it defacing "Sacred Scriptures"?

This question lies at the heart of the issue:  Should we accept or depart from religious tradition.

Matthew 5's Sermon on the Mount (Beatitudes) in the King James (Authorized) Version translation of the New Testament Greek (a certain 11th Century manuscript) is a product of 17th Century Anglican scholars, for certain).  Previous thought,  Anglican and Roman Catholic and other, may have contributed to the manner in which the translation came about.  We are talking about the entire Bible here.  We are talking about a belief system and a paradigm that was developed through centuries of thought contributed to by dozens of Catholic and other scholars and thinkers.

In short, we have a First Century writing as perceived by 17th Century Anglicanism.  Where the meaning of the original could conceivably fit the scholarship of the translators, words were used to convey that scholarship.  Acts 15 shows James as the leader of the Jerusalem Church and has h im stating "My judgment is . . . "  This would fit with a leader who is the final and ultimate judge of church matters (see the original preface to the Oxford Edition of the KJV).  A marginal reference to the word tells us that it could also be rendered, "opinion", which detracts from James having the final say -- in fact, later in the chapter, we see that the entire leadership writes the letter and states "It seems good to us . . . " This is hardly dogmatic.
Where the original seems to deviate from the belief system of the translators, words are changed.  In First Thessalonians, we find a reference to "Abusers of men and 'effeminate'"  A reading of an interlinear Greek translations shows that "effeminate" is taken from a phrase "Those who let themselves be abused by men."  It's generally agreed that this is sexual abuse.  Women also can abuse men sexually and let themselves be abused by men so how can we attribute this only to men except through the eyes of the translators and others who read this as pertaining only to men.  Looking at First Century practices more closely can elucidate on matters such as are addressed in this passage.

Another passage in in the book of Mark, when the women are approaching the tomb where Joshua (Jesus) was lain after his crucifixion.  King James renders this "As the sun was rising . . . "  At least one Greek Interlinear (George Ricker Berry, Ph. D., 1971, Zondervan Publishing House) renders this passage "As the sun was setting . . ."  This would seem to dispel the Easter Sunday Morning tradition.

With this in mind, let me tell how this translation of mine came about.  It was 1980, and I was searching.  I had found a lot of interesting concepts (some of which I have shared and some of which I plan to share).  The Sermon on the Mount, however, was haunting me.  My question was "Is this the way it is? (the KJV, that is).  If so, then I had to rethink all that I  had thought to this point.  I discovered, though, that there was more meaning, and deeper, in those Greek words.  For example, checking out Luke's version, I discovered the the words for "mourn" and "comforted" were "extreme" words, that is, they described the extremes of emotion -- the deepest mourning and the most pleasant comforting one could think of.  This was fine.  It didn't solve my dilemma though.

Then I checked into the passage:  "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

It took referring to the lexicon for just two words:  "pure" and "heart" to see what KJV had missed and had missed conveying to the reader.

The Greek for "Pure" has several meanings, included "genuine".  The Greek for "Heart" also has several meanings, including "feelings" -- just as the word for "Spirit" -- pneuma -- can mean "the wind" or "air" or "thoughts" or any number of things.

This coincided with what I had concluded:  that Joshua was preaching the "here and now", human interrelationships, and the Deity of each and every human.  "The son of man coming in the clouds of Heaven" (at which Caiphus rent his clothes and declared such statement "blasphemy" at the interrogation of Joshua before taking him to Pilate).

I also discovered that reversing the order helps some with elucidating the new meaning.

Then I looked at the rest of the passage in the same light and discovered that this rest could follow our "Pure in Heart" verse in having a new meaning -- one that was environment oriented.

Taking the KJV beatitudes, we see that this deals with a person's individual relationship with God -- it's between the believer and God -- restricted and exclusive.  Others are unimportant.

With the changes I made, the passage becomes one of growing interrelationships.

to remain with and accept the traditional passage, we are left with obscure and vague meanings:  "Pure in heart", etc.  I can call myself "pure in heart" and everyone around me not so.

Feelings toward others that are genuine is neither obscure nor vague. It deals with a "concrete" notion.

When we do not let tradition cloud our understanding of religion, then I think we discover a truer religion.

Not only in interpreting religious readings, but in interacting in Life.