Another Progressive Leader Misleading his Followers

I came across an interesting article today by Rev. David M Felten. I don’t remember having heard of him before, but according to his bio, it seems like he should know better than to make such claims as he did today.

Answering a question about being born again, David explains how most Christian translations have changed the Bible to add the phrase “born again” to Jesus’ words in John 3, and that “born again” is a false translation. To his credit, he offers the original word, ἄνωθεν, with the definition of “the “up place.”” He then explains that really means a “re-orientation of your priorities and perspective.” Note: these are words he puts in quotes as from Jesus, but they bear no relation to the original texts. So he really has no basis to complain that most professional translators (which he isn’t) translate a phrase as “born again” when he adds a whole different interpretation to the passage anyway.

Now, he’s technically correct: ἄνωθεν, according to the LSJ, does mean “from above, from on high, from the interior.” But then the Louw-Nida translates it as “to be born again, to experience new birth, rebirth.” He conveniently leaves out that lexicon or never looked it up. But, that’s one of many; most do offer the first definitions as some form of “from above.” 

What’s interesting, though, is that the same LSJ that agrees with him also records Plutarch using the term to mean “from inner Asia.” And the IGEL, which also offers “from above,” notes that Thucydides used the word to mean “from the upper country, from inland.” So do with those as you will.

Want to know what David also left out? He said we need to use the NRSV to see how it “should” be translated. So I checked. The NRSV does read the following:

“3 Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.”b”

Wait, did you catch that? There’s a footnote! A footnote that David failed to mention. Let’s see what it says: “or born anew.”

Wait… So, the NRSV, the translation David says we should use, agrees with the other translations? How can this be?

Well, let’s dig some more. The DGL Greek cites the word used in Galatians 4:9, so let’s again look at the NRSV:

“Now, however, that you have come to KNOW God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits?e How can you want to be enslaved to them again?”

The Louw-Nida is very helpful here for understanding the koine Greek:

“67.55 ἄνωθενb; πάλινa; εἰς τὸ πάλιν: a subsequent point of time involving repetition—‘again.’

ἄνωθενb: οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε ‘whom you want to serve as slaves all over again’ Ga 4:9.

In Jn 3:3 ἄνωθεν involves a play on the two distinct meanings of the word, namely, ἄνωθενb ‘again’ and ἄνωθενa ‘from above’ (see 84.13). For the idiom γεννάω ἄνωθεν, see 41.53.

πάλινa: εἶτα πάλιν ἐπέθηκεν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ ‘then he again placed his hands on the man’s eyes’ Mk 8:25.

εἰς τὸ πάλιν: ἐὰν ἔλθω εἰς τὸ πάλιν οὐ φείσομαι ‘when I come again, I will not spare anyone’ or ‘… nobody will escape punishment’ 2 Cor 13:2.”

Let’s dig just a little bit further in the Louw-Nida. See how the above, 67.55, references an idiom, 41.53? Here it is:

“41.53 γεννάω ἄνωθεν (an idiom, literally ‘to be born again’); παλιγγενεσίαa, ας f: to experience a complete change in one’s way of life to what it should be, with the implication of return to a former state or relation—‘to be born again, to experience new birth, rebirth.’

γεννάω ἄνωθεν: ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν ‘unless a person is born again’ Jn 3:3. It is also possible to understand ἄνωθεν in Jn 3:3 as meaning ‘from above’ or ‘from God’ (see 84.13), a literary parallel to the phrase ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν in Jn 1:13. In Jn 3:3, however, Nicodemus understood ἄνωθεν as meaning ‘again’ (see 67.55) and γεννάω as ‘physical birth’ (see 23.52).

παλιγγενεσίαa: διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως ‘new birth and new life by washing’ Tt 3:5. The metaphor of ‘new birth’ is so important in the NT that it should be retained if at all possible. In some languages ‘new birth’ can be expressed as ‘to cause to be born all over again’ or ‘to have a new life as though one were born a second time.’ See also 13.55.”

So, we have David, on his own authority, declaring that most experts are wrong and offering nothing for his position but a single, literalistic denotation. Is that supposed to be convincing or even justified? I am confident he wouldn’t accept such an argument if we offered it.

This isn’t the first time I’ve had to take Progressive Christian leaders to task for accusing Christians of changing the Bible just because they don’t like the resulting translation; see my rebuttal to Keith Giles, where I correct all four of his claims.

I also want to note that I didn’t even engage with their theology in either case. I’m just addressing their claims about translations, which is a much more objective subject. But that is exactly why such issues are so important. Unless you are fluent in the original languages (and cultures, for that matter), your foundational understanding of the Bible comes from a translation. However, if you are in negligent error in your fight against most translations, that means your foundational understanding of the Bible is in danger. How would your understanding of Scripture change if you used correct translation principles and used them consistently?

Now, do I expect any replies from either of them? No. Not really. Do I expect corrections from either of them, admissions that their accusations are premature or even entirely false and divisive? No, I don’t expect that either.

But maybe you can learn from their mistakes.