Tags
Aramaic, Bible, Church, English Standard Version, Hebrew, Koine Greek, Language, The Voice, Translations
(The following post is part 2 of the series titled Let’s talk about the Bible. For part 1, please click here.)
Now, you have The Voice which I recently learned about last week. This is not the singing talent show with Blake Shelton and the lead singer of Maroon 5, but a new version of the Bible. At first glance at what they have done with The Voice and what I heard from others, I was shocked. I went to the website and found many popular, famous names associated with it. Many of which are good, evangelical Christian scholars. Though, I was a little guarded when I saw the name Brian McLaren associated with The Voice and fully endorsing it. I noticed that some of what I’ve heard was true, and they have indeed done something quite bold with this “version” of the Bible. They have omitted the word “Christ.” This is a pretty bold thing to do with a translation or paraphrase. However, when I learned their reasoning for it it doesn’t sound as bad as it did. The reason is most Americans and modern readers do not understand what Christ means. Some think it’s Jesus’ last name which is completely off-base. Christ is simply the Greek rendering of Messiah which means the anointed one, referring to the promised king to Israel. The Voice has provided anointed one, promised king in place of Christ in their version which actually is incredibly helpful for the modern reader who doesn’t know the original languages or hasn’t studied biblical studies/theology. However, many Christians are in a great uproar over this latest “version” of the Bible. I will admit, I am not entirely sure what to call it. It isn’t really a translation and it’s possibly a paraphrase. I think the changes they have made could be better served in the margin or footer of the text, as opposed to changing the text. Thus, I cannot support this version of the Bible because I do sense they go a bit too far in their changes however noble some of them are.
I think ultimately it is important to go by some of the more basic concepts in approaching which translation/s to use in reading the Bible. You don’t have to know the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to read the Bible. Though, they will certainly help greatly and I encourage it. It is a challenge, but there are so many helps to make it easier to learn the languages. However, another option is simply to have a more literal version and a more free translation and compare the two. Some translations today are word-for-word, some focus more on the meaning/concept, and some are merely paraphrases/interpretations of the original wording. I think it is ideal to have a little bit of each and to use them to comparatively when studying the Bible. You can notice quickly that no 2 translations are alike and there are nuances that you might not catch with 1 translation.
I always translate the original languages when I study the Bible critically for sermons on Sunday or if I want to study something that interests me. I have a LXX, MT, NA-27/UBS-4 (Greek New Testament), and I also have a number of English translations. The goal is to better understand the author’s original meaning for me, and the overall purpose is to know God more and to help others know God more. When I study the Bible devotionally, I prefer to use the ESV. It is a good balance between literal and less-literal. I used to use the NASB and before that the NIV. I still check the NASB, NIV, and KJV to see what they have translated/interpreted, but I prefer the ESV.
I want to say outright that I do not endorse or recommend The Voice, and encourage Christians and non-Christians alike who might be reading this to look to the ESV, NIV, or NASB for a more accurate translation of the Bible. The KJV used other translations and late Greek manuscripts for their translation. It is a great achievement, but it is nearly incomprehensible in today’s modern world and English language. No doubt, some will still prefer the KJV and will die beside it. In the same way, I know there are many who prefer The Message, NLT, or more recently likely The Voice. I don’t prefer any of them, but I do not consider anyone who enjoys reading any of these heretical or an “anti-Christ.” These terms are being used for those who prefer such versions and I think we as the Christian community need to grow-up and be mature. The fact is that if you could not understand the meaning of Christ before I said something, The Voice might be helpful for you in understanding the Bible more than the translation you are using. I still recommend the ESV or other more formal translations though, myself, but I don’t count those who do not use what I use as heretics or “crazy liberals” or something.
I applaud the passion many Christian have over The Voice, but I wish that passion were spent in understanding the Bible more and not in pointing fingers at others or saying hurtful remarks which can only cripple the influence of the Gospel where you are. Don’t you know that the Bible is quite against such behavior!? How can you righteously oppose someone for reading a paraphrase of the Bible while disobeying the Bible yourself by not loving others, especially those you disagree with?! Again, I don’t endorse The Voice, I think they have gone a bit too far in their decisions and a definition of Christ could be provided in the margin or in the footer of the page to help the reader better, but I do not go around pointing fingers at people for reading The Voice or getting angry and complaining about it to others in the Christian community. Time better spent could be in pointing out in love the problems with The Voice to those using it and for those not using it maybe a quick loving comment in the spirit of grace and peace. Regardless, it is important to remember that all English versions of the Bible are not the original, all English translations are translations whether from other English translations, Latin, or the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek.
I just want to encourage the broader Christian community to choose your arguments well and to better know the history of the Bible. Do you know how many non-English speaker today would be terribly offended by your appeal to your own personal favorite English translation as the authoritative version over their translation? The truth is they are both translations and English is a great language, but it is no better a language than Mandarin, or Arabic, or Spanish, or others. There is an amazing history surrounding the Bible coming to your particular translation today. It is likely some other translation had some impact on it as well. Imagine if scholars wouldn’t allow the Bible to be translated into anything but the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek of the original wording and held to it as the only authoritative version. How would that make you feel? It would actually be more justified being in the original wording and not being a translation too. Hopefully, instead of being frustrated, more people would learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Do you see how silly it is then when people hold to their particular translation of the Bible as if it were the original wording? Not only better than another translation, but as if it were better than the original wording? This is how many treat the KJV for whatever reason and people are starting to do the same with more contemporary translations as well.
What would the Church look like if it focused less on complaining about the abundance of Bible translations and started to actually read, memorize, and live the Bible? It would truly be an amazing thing indeed.
Pingback: Let’s talk about the Bible. (pt.1) « That I Should Gain
Matt,
I myself have mixed feeling about changing the translation of “Christ” to “Messiah” as has been done in some other recent translations similar to the way this has been handled in “the voice”. However, I am far more concerned about the translation of “Christ” as “Liberating king” which is not a valid reflection of this term from either Hebrew or Greek, the translation of Lord (kurios) as “Eternal one,” the inconsistent translation of titles that describe our Lord, the translation of “Baptism” as “ceremonial cleansing,” and translations that minimize the ideas of God’s law and sin, and the reader centric interpretations of the text that are intermingled throughout this translation. The voice is one of the few translations that I believe we should raise significant enough concerns that will encourage us to warn our brothers and sisters that are unaware of the ideology behind this translation. Brian McClaren, who you noted is one of the backers of this version, has proposed “a new kind of Christianity,” one that has abandoned doctrines long held essential by all Christians. He is one of the people I mentioned who is involved with the “Insider movement” and believes that people come into the kingdom of God through their own cultural/religious context. He believes that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc… should NOT convert to Christianity; they live within their narrative and we live within ours.
Benelchi,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I agree with you. My critique is simply in the manner that Christians warn and tell other Christians and non-Christians about such “versions” as The Voice. I am a pastor, so part of the reason behind this post is that I’ve sensed a great deal of fear about this “version” by some in my church and others. Many seem scared and very emotional about it. Now, it is one thing to give a quick word of rebuke concerning things that falsify God’s Word or encourage others to not read or support The Voice because of the points you and I have emphasized already, but it is quite another for such “versions” as The Voice to cause believers to be fearful in their faith and to promote a sort of anxiety and fear concerning such things as The Voice. It is also another thing to angrily condemn things like The Voice and allow your anger over something without specifics concerning why it is wrong and without specifics concerning what is right. From what you have mentioned, no doubt McLaren has embraced postmodernism, the talk of narratives is quite telling of that not to mention his being the frontrunner of the Emergent Church movement as well. Scott McKnight who has been close to McLaren called him out as going too far in an issue of Christianity Today awhile back in reviewing the book you mentioned. Sometimes, I think the over-attention given by Christians to certain topics can draw more people to that topic anymore. Also, I think many Christians do damage to their ability to witness to others when most of their conversation is consumed with what they hate or don’t like, as opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There has been a strand of Reformed Christianity which has been animated about various issues, but sometimes it seems like in their being animated about issues more of their concern is to belittle other people they disagree with, point fingers, or go on “who’s the heretic” witch hunt. All the while the command to love God and love others, and more specifically loving our enemies is seemingly left by the wayside. I want to make clear to you and others, that I am not endorsing The Voice, but I am also not endorsing the ungodly behavior by many Christians in discussing and voicing their concerns about The Voice and other things. I hope this is clear.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments Benelchi.
In Christ,
-Matt
Matt,
I agree that far too often people in the church have “allowed [their] anger over something without [giving] specifics concerning why it is wrong” often repeating “rumor” as if it were fact. In many ways the current issue over the Muslim idiomatic translations has taken this same turn i.e. inciting anger before people really understand the issues. And while I cannot endorse the choices made by those advocating these new idiomatic translations, some of the rhetoric over this issue has been over the top and very hateful (from both sides). I recently helped someone write an article defending Wycliffe/SIL against some unfounded attacks that were being made, while at the same time communicating to the author the very serious concerns I have about this issue and how this situation has so far been handled by Wycliffe/SIL. So while I would agree with you that the church too often has engaged issues like these in an ungodly, fearful, and gossipy manor, I think the church has just as often failed to address serous doctrinal errors within the church, wrongly believing that ignoring these issue will bring unity. Neither response is a reflection of Godly wisdom or Love.
FYI: I personally became aware of he current translation controversy about four years ago, after engaging in discussions with the leader of a ministry on which Brian McClaren served as a member of the advisory board.
Side note: I saw that you described yourself as a “Christian hedonist.” Nothing in your posts seems to demonstrate hedonism of any kind (thankfully), so I am curious how you are defining a “Christian hedonist?”
Benelchi,
Well said. As for the Christian Hedonism, my understanding really comes from that defined in John Piper’s book Desiring God. He describes this view thoroughly and provides 5 overarching convictions that ought to be taken into account in understanding this view better. Then, he provides a summary which says, “The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever.” This is what I mean by Christian Hedonism, for a deeper treatment, I recommend Piper’s book Desiring God. He provides a summative definition at the beginning as a foundation for the book and a helpful appendix as well to further elaborate and distinguish Christian Hedonism from general philosophical Hedonism. I hope this is helpful.
OK, I understand. I found this page by Piper (http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/we-want-you-to-be-a-christian-hedonist) that gives a full definition. While I like much of What Piper says, I still cringe at hearing the vocabulary he chose to describe it. Those who haven’t yet read Piper’s book, like me, are left with a very different impression about what is being communicated by that term because of Piper’s redefinition of words.
If removing the word “Christ” was done simply to avoid confusing readers, I don’t see anything wrong with doing so. However, The Voice and other biblical tools should provide a glossary or take greater steps to help educate those who are unfamiliar with the translations.
It’s interesting that you mentioned the different translations/interpretations of the Bible. I’ve done a lot of biblical research on my own and I became rather fascinated with the story of Abraham and his family. In fact, I just wrote a book that, after thoroughly research the subject, is a new re-telling of the events in the life of Abrahahm and his “chosen family”.
You seem like a very intelligent writer with a passion for the Bible, and if you are interested in reviewing a copy of my book for That I Should Gain, I would be honored. If you are interested, please conatct me at authorleonardsmith@yahoo.com
Thanks!