I must have been living under a rock. Here it is late June, The Voice appeared a whole month ago, and it wasn’t until last week that I heard anything about it.
It is a new Bible, of course, from Thomas Nelson Publishing and the Ecclesia Bible Society, the latter an outgrowth of Ecclesia Church, Houston, an “emergent” congregation. There was an earlier 2010 release of The Voice New Testament, but I slept through that as well.
But what I’ve learned is just ever so astonishing. The vitality and importance of The Voice, I am led to infer, is almost level with the Coming Consummation of Time. If you want to read God’s story, this, at the very least, is the best thing since Moses took dictation for the Pentateuch. I am perhaps exaggerating the exaggerations promoters are making.
The seventy-two dollar “product,” as it is frequently called in Bible-marketing circles, isn’t one of your average ho-hum translations, either. No, sir, this is “a faithful dynamic equivalent translation that reads like a story.” Reading like a story means formatting the text to look like a script. Here’s the real wow factor: It does all this while remaining “completely accurate to the original manuscripts.”
Um, no. A “dynamic equivalent translation” is on the discount aisle at the biblical language store, in contrast to a “formal equivalence.” Another phrase might be “upgraded paraphrase.” In any case, it isn’t any sort of translation favored by actual language scholars. Artists and poets, we are told, took this translation to its dynamic equivalence with the original manuscripts. Only then was it passed around to a panel of biblical language scholars. As descriptions go, the equivalent of “formal” is not “dynamic” and nobody wants a stodgy old formal Bible when they can have a shiny dynamic one.
I seem to be lapsing into sardonic snarkiness. So, before my condition becomes terminal let me say that the “dynamic equivalent” parts I’ve read do have a real zing, a pleasant, engaging lilt and cadence. I even like the scripted format, a whole lot. There is precedence for it; Dorothy Sayers produced radio scripts from gospel stories. Also, there is nothing wrong and lot that is right about twisting Greek into idiomatic American English. I can’t even object to the middle school reading level, making it about the same as the New York Times.
The Voice does pick up some heat from critics for avoiding “Christ” in favor of “Anointed One,” and referring to Jesus as “Liberating King.” It also avoids the word “angel,” preferring “messenger.” There are other mild quirks like this. Folks who take their Bible “words” seriously think something is amiss.
But if I have any real objection, it is less with The Voice itself and more with the entire category of what I call “entertainment Bibles,” every one of which was supposed to rock our Christian world.
The effect of an entertainment paraphrase, whatever the intention, is to titillate by novelty. When the novelty is gone, we go looking for new entertainment. That’s how it rolls.
What promoters have said of The Voice has been said of other “dynamic equivalent” versions as they appeared and in some cases reappeared on the scene. There’s a half-life to these things, and it isn’t long at all.
Make a list: Kenneth Taylor’s The Living Bible. Eugene Peterson’s The Message. The American Bible Society’s Contemporary English Version. The Jefferson Bible is back on the shelves, Thomas’ cut-and-paste attempt to cleanse ethics of religion and superstition. Schonfield’s The Original New Testament (author also of The Passover Plot) was said to be a “radical” reinterpretation. Maybe, but there is even an older Original New Testament, a “secret” Essenes text “discovered” in the early 1880s in a Buddhist monastery by the Rev. G. J. Ouseley of Ireland. His version, like Schonfield’s and Jefferson’s, sets out to correct the early corruption of the first gospels.
Then we have the niche Bibles: Women’s Study Bible, Men’s Study Bible, The Mossy Oak Bible (the cover features an oak tree trunk covered with—wait for it—moss), The Princess Bible (pink cover, all glittery with sparkly jewels, “an instant favorite among princesses of all ages”), The Sportsman’s Bible (camo cover optional).
Along with niches are agenda Bibles: The Patriot Bible (telling the story of the United States as it is “wonderfully woven into the teachings of the Bible”), and The Green Bible (green lettering highlights the subjectively selected passages touching on care of the earth).
Everybody gets a Bible. But I’m kind of lost. Yet, I too have my own “dynamic equivalent translation,” something Mary Magdalene said at the empty tomb: “They have taken away my Bible and I do not know what they have done with it.”
Russell E. Saltzman is dean of the Great Plains Mission District of the North American Lutheran Church, an online homilist for the Christian Leadership Center at the University of Mary, and author of The Pastor’s Page and Other Small Essays. His previous On the Square articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
The Voice
Dynamic equivalence vs formal
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
In a way, though, that does point to a (minor?) problem with your critique. Even folks who are reading one of these Bibles aren't (for the duration of their engagement with the text, at least) engaging in "real" entertainment, i.e., watching superheroes blow things up down at the local multiplex. Now *that's* entertainment, and of a variety that makes the wildest, nouveau Bible translation seem positively staid. And even if the marketing for the Voice is a little silly, I'm open to any number of ways of trying to raise the appalling Biblical illiteracy of our culture.
When I read "faithful dynamic equivalent" it made think of "semi-boneless ham."
There are several intertwined ideas behind them.
**The idea that the real power of the Bible is not in God's words, but in our packaging of them. We advertise the binding and the photos and the notes (preferably by a famous person).
**The idea that people can't understand a more literal version. There's some truth here, but I find it fascinating that the churches that cling to the King James Bible are often made up of less-educated people.
**The idea that Bibles are basically a means of making a profit.
**The idea that the Bible is basically stories and creativity, not truth. I think this last idea is the driving force behind The Voice.
You guys are complaining about the way it's marketed. The way those trying to make a buck off it are describing it. Fine. I don't disagree about all that's sickening about that industry (namely, the fact that that's an industry). But the content is pretty spectacular. And should be seen as no more offensive than any other English translation. It's interesting that the King James was mentioned. Talk about a shoddy translation. But that's not even why. It's interesting in that this feels like the same conversations that surrounded the KJV in it's infancy.
The idea that any of us consider ourselves "scholarly" and look down our noses at The Voice as being "unscholarly" is pure vanity. Wanna be a scholar? Learn Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Ethiopic, etc. Study ancient Near Eastern culture, literature and geography. Then study Scripture in it's own language and context. Scholars aren't people who read the right translation, I assure you. They're people who read the oldest manuscripts available. And the good ones, the ones doing the work of God, they are trying to find creative ways to engage modern (or post-modern as the case may be) people with the stories found in those manuscripts. People like David Capes (,PhD. if that's important to you), one of the true scholars who poured the last decade into this dynamic equivalent translation.
You guys are as bad as the people who fall for the marketing of entertainment bibles (a phrase which I also like a great deal btw.) when you base your opinions on the publishers' marketing of those products. Don't be so arrogant. Open tit up. Read it. Study it. Maybe it won't connect with your intellect in the same way another translation will. That's okay. If you're not reading the Greek & Hebrew then shame on you for expecting one translation to be THE translation. You should be studying several. The point isn't for you to get all the right words. The point is understanding each author's point (or points as is more often the case). The Voice may engage another part of your mind/heart/soul. A part outside your intellect. A part that may be starving if you've only been studying a single translation.
I know many of the folks involved with Ecclesia Bible Society. Rest assured, they are scholars who take the weight of translation seriously. This translation was not intended to "entertain". Nor was it intended to be studied alone for scholastic progress. Read it. It's engaging and beautiful. Rant over. Thanks for your time and for being a part of important conversations. These sort of disagreements, I believe, can be truly beneficial to the health of the church, so Lang as we can all disagree thoughtfully and disagree well. Thanks again.
Truly? I wouldn't have thought it written above a 5th grade level.
Sarcasm aside, it is nice to see someone who is as frustrated with the marketing of Christianity over the making of disciples as I am. So-called "Christian Bookstores" are too often half-filled with this sort of niche-designed sales junk that only serves to feed Christians weaknesses by focusing us on our felt desires over God's. Offered a glorious banquet, we prefer to stuff our gullets with Twinkies and call them "food".
Of course the other half of these stores (online or off) is generally filled with far worse nonsense like having a book extolling all the (purported) wonderful Christian values in Harry Potter, sitting on the shelf right next to a book that proclaims the Potter series to actually be the essential component the beast will use to overthrow the world.
The contradictory nature of this sort of thing is not missed by the secular world who attribute it to just another example of why Christianity is little more than another way to make a buck off the gullible; and the majority of what identifies itself as "Christian TV" is no more than an infomercial for the same audience.
Of course, as much as I am frustrated by all of this, I am not entirely immune to it either.