The most significant version of the Bible today is not the REB. And neither is it the KJV. Or the ESV or TNIV, or even the NLT. No, the most significant version of the Bible today is The Message by Eugene Peterson.
I’ve been reading the first few chapters of Fee and Strauss’ “How to Choose a Translation For All It’s Worth” with a nodding smile on my face, given the general endorsement of functional, idiomatic translation as their preferred approach to the Bible (and translation in general).
In addition to the standard Formal-to-Functional spectrum of translations, Fee and Strauss discuss the polarity of original meaning vs. contemporary relevance. Most Bibles place greater emphasis on original meaning as a means of conveying semantic accuracy, but all make accommodations for contemporary relevance, if only to convert ancient units of measure to modern equivalents, e.g. miles instead of the Greek stadia.
Some recent translations make even more accommodation to achieve contemporary relevance. The NLT is built on the premise of “the truth made clear” in an effort to communicate the message of the Bible clearly and naturally. Marketing language from Zondervan emphasizes the contemporary relevance of the TNIV:
[The TNIV has] the up-to-date language of today for readability. This rendition of Scripture provides a new choice for those who desire a contemporary [...] translation.
[...] a new translation that speaks the timeless truth of God’s Word in the language of today.
Yet, as readable as the NLT and TNIV are, they still keep the Bible’s time and culture at arms’ length, creating cultural foreignness as an essential means of retaining “accuracy”. The language may be “of today”, but the time and culture of the TNIV is not - it is of millenniums ago.
Should God’s Word be culturally isolated and passed on as a carefully preserved relic? Or should it be living and breathing and constantly reinventing itself to be relevant and applicable? Is the message in the words or in the meaning? If we translate to the meaning, shouldn’t we be translating within our own time and culture as receptors of the text? It is popular these days to laud the NLTse as an accurate functional translation (and it is), but I wonder why the more idiomatic First Edition still has so many devoted fans who refuse to “upgrade”. Is it because the language of the original, and the Living Bible before it, is closer to our own time and culture and speaks a “heart language” that the newer revision does not? Is the “heart language” of the Bible a theological treatise - or is it a vivid proclamation of the relationship between God and his people?
To this end, Eugene Peterson tried to “intentionally eliminate historical distance not only with reference to language but also with reference to time and culture.” (F&S, p.33) Fee and Strauss quote Matthew 23:27 from The Message:
You’re like manicured grave plots, grass clipped and the flowers bright, but six feet down it’s all rotting bones and worm-eaten flesh.
As you scramble for your preferred translation to see “what the text *really* says”, think about what you find. Chances are, there’s a reference to “whitewashed tombs”. Do you know what that means? I mean, RIGHT NOW, without thinking about it. This isn’t about theological nuance - it’s about your instinctive response to the English language. Personally, I know which one sounds foreign and which one sounds relevant… and that’s why I say that the most significant - not the most formal, functional, accurate, readable, dynamic, literal, literary or idiomatic - the most significant version of the Bible available today is The Message.
And I don’t have a copy. For shame…
23 Comments
ElShaddai, I really like to use the message when working on sermons. The reason is that it really does communicate to the people in a language that is widely understood. Like his use of the word “blockheads”, you got love that. “…You’re going to stare with your eyes, but you won’t see a thing. These people are blockheads! They stick their fingers in their ears so they won’t have to listen;…” Acts 28:24
For awhile, I “evaluated” The Message by looking up problem passages–tricky expressions and concepts to translate. I was generally dissatisfied with it. Then I heard someone read Isaiah 40 in The Message, and I was amazed. It doesn’t solve all translation problems (of course), but when it gets it right, The Message is unbelievably good.
I really think that The Message should be used as a paraphrase of the bible, and not Holy Scripture.
Robert: Love the example from Acts - it reminds me of the REB’s use of “pompous ignoramus” in 1 Timothy 6:4.
Matt: I will look forward to reading Isaiah 40 when I get my copy.
Paul: - Can you tell me what “should be used as a paraphrase” means to you?
“but when it gets it right, The Message is unbelievably good.”
I agree.
I used to have a hard copy and I gave it away. That was before I saw the good parts.
Jeff
The most significant version of the Bible today is not the REB. And neither is it the KJV. Or the ESV or TNIV, or even the NLT. No, the most significant version of the Bible today is The Message by Eugene Peterson.
El, until I hear from the hoi polloi, I can’t agree. I’m going with unit sales on this one.
When the hoi polloi switch to the Message, then I’d be in agreement.
He attempted to put the scriptures in his own words. It should be used along side your Bible in study.
TC, the problem with the “many” is the amount of negative feedback that the average consumer gets. Had it not been for sites like ElShaddai, Rick M., and yours I would still think that the TNIV is not a good translations. I think that the Message bible has some of the same rap. “It’s just a paraphrase” as to imply that there is something wrong with a paraphrase. Also we should remember that Eugene Peterson worked from the original languages when translating into English. He is a well trained scholar and holds a Master’s degree in Semitic Languages.
I guess the question is, do you consider a paraphrase to be the word of God?
I guess the question is, do you consider a paraphrase to be the word of God?
That’s the rub, right? This was an interesting discussion of what “the word of God” is. For me, it is “the message behind texts we consider inspired”; that message can be delivered in many different forms or translation styles, but as long as the meaning of the text is delivered then the word of God is being communicated.
So, yes, for me, a paraphrase is the word of God inasmuch as it communicates the message behind the words.
When The Message gets it right it is spectacularly good, when it gets it wrong it is wrong
To be really a translation for today it needs to correct the wrong places, this is where a translation team comes in… now if Peterson and a few others got together and produced a New Revised Message [just kidding about the name, please] that added the benefits of a team to moderate the errors it would be more than occasional. In the meanwhile I’ll stick to the CEV renderings like: “You Pharisees and teachers are in for trouble! You’re nothing but show-offs. You’re like tombs that have been whitewashed. On the outside they are beautiful, but inside they are full of bones and filth.” may not have the occasional brilliance of The Message, but they also reduce its occasional mistakes to very occasional mistakes
TC, the problem with the “many” is the amount of negative feedback that the average consumer gets. Had it not been for sites like ElShaddai, Rick M., and yours I would still think that the TNIV is not a good translations. I think that the Message bible has some of the same rap. “It’s just a paraphrase” as to imply that there is something wrong with a paraphrase. Also we should remember that Eugene Peterson worked from the original languages when translating into English. He is a well trained scholar and holds a Master’s degree in Semitic Languages.
Robert, I have a lot of respect for Peterson. He is well educated and has a pastor’s heart and pen.
Well, I’m glad that our sites were able to give you a different perspective on the TNIV. I too have benefited from Rick and Elshaddai’s sites.
I do reference the Message from time to time, but I can’t call it the most significant.
I have come a long way with translations, I use to be very narrow minded, wouldn’t even pick up a TNIV, let alone the NLT. But I have to side with ElShaddai on this. Although I don’t study with the message bible, I will read it and will reference it when preparing sermons. I just find it useful in how it communicates various passages.
E.S.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s the most significant, but I agree that it’s a great translation, so long as you have reference to the original. I find it incredibly easy to read from, and the one time I read the bible from cover to cover, it was in the Message, referring to other bibles if I thought ‘what the hey!’.
If you get one, get a ‘remix’ version - the message usually doesn’t contain verse numbers, but the remix does. It makes it easier to see where Peterson got his inspiration.
I have been looking for a copy of The Message for several years but never wanted to pay over $20 for a paraphrase. Well I got lucky this summer and found a copy marked down to half price and promptly picked it up. I haven’t spent much time with it yet, but it has fared pretty well in a few comparisons that I have done.
I would also agree that the word of god is the message behind the words. I still prefer the more formal translations, but the modern day translations/paraphrases no longer turn me off like they used to.
@All - don’t read “most significant” as “the best” or “the most accurate” or “the most popular”. Read it as meaning the translation that has the potential for the greatest instinctive understanding, the greatest opportunity for the message to come alive and be heard fresh, the greatest opportunity to plug into this proclamation from God we call the Bible and feel it down into your rotting bones.
@Damian - thanks for the advice on the Remix. I’d been twirling the idea of getting an original to read along the lines of The Books of the Bible (TNIV), but NEB-style verse numbers in the margins shouldn’t be too intrusive. I’ve seen several editions at the bookstore and have to admit that I’m impressed with the NavPress quality.
@Nathan - as long as the focus is on the message, not the words, I’m good.
To a great extent I agree with your opinion of The Message. But I recently compiled a list of about 300 references (from less than half of the NT) in which The Message is not clear to the average reader for a number of reasons. (I would be happy to share that list with you.) That is one of the factors that motivated me to produce my own translation of the NT entitled “The Better Life Bible”, which you’re welcome to view at http://www.BetterLifeBible.com. This translation is geared to people who rarely read or have never read the Bible, so my goal was to make the meaning of every text clear and natural as well as accurate.
See Richard Rhodes’ post on Better Bibles for an excellent critique of The Message on its own terms.
Read it as meaning the translation that has the potential for the greatest instinctive understanding, the greatest opportunity for the message to come alive and be heard fresh, the greatest opportunity to plug into this proclamation from God we call the Bible and feel it down into your rotting bones.
Ahh…
Does the Message achieve that?
Good post. I enjoy the Psalms in the Message but that’s about all I can handle. It just tries too hard to be iconoclastic or innovative. I agree with Tim that CEV hits it about right without being slangy (which incidentally is an occasional failing of the NLT).
I think The Message Bible suffered from as much a disinformation campaign as the TNIV did - it is a brilliant “translation” in many respects.
I agree with others about the CEV - my OT prof in seminary always made us read from the CEV as well as the original when doing textual work.
In seminary, I just heard one classmate praise the Message but I don’t think it would ever be used during any public readings, just because it’s not academically sound. Personally, I don’t think I would ever use it during readings but who makes the rules? Maybe it should be used once in a while just to turn the tables once in a while on our stuffy formal translations.
I’m in the same boat as comment #2 by Matt- when The Message gets it right, it really does get it right, even more if we hear it instead of read it.
One Trackback
The most significant version of the Bible today…
You may be surprised at the answer ElShaddai Edwards gives in his post. It is one of the English versions of the Bible available for sale today….