I still contend that the only good part about the Message is the back cover, but in interest of fairness, I am ‘borrowing’ Jeff’s post today for others to see:
Sometimes the Bible translation The Message gets it right when most or all others don’t in the opinion of a couple of bloggers. Here are two examples:
I do not want to be a biblioidolater so I encourage you to make up your own mind. I am not against paraphrasing in translation (as the KJV does as well, and in fact only a literal word for word translation would not) but I am just not for the loose paraphrasing of the Message.
I could be wrong – maybe, just maybe – but I am not going to claim absolute authority on this issue.
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
It gets Acts 15:37 right – literally.
It gets Acts 15:37 right – literally.
Out of curiosity; do you have a background in Bible translation, by chance?
A lot of people who pick up the Bible-inerrancy or no paraphrasing debate do so without having barely any knowledge about the original language, textual criticism or source criticism of the Scriptures. I was wondering if you were among this group.
Out of curiosity; do you have a background in Bible translation, by chance?
A lot of people who pick up the Bible-inerrancy or no paraphrasing debate do so without having barely any knowledge about the original language, textual criticism or source criticism of the Scriptures. I was wondering if you were among this group.
I do have a background in such an enterprise – do you? Does it matter?
As I said, I have no problem with paraphrasing, as near about all translations do so in one way or another. I just don’t like the Message. I like Philips, and Moffet, somewhat, and even Barclay, just not a fan of the Message.
I do have a background in such an enterprise – do you? Does it matter?
As I said, I have no problem with paraphrasing, as near about all translations do so in one way or another. I just don’t like the Message. I like Philips, and Moffet, somewhat, and even Barclay, just not a fan of the Message.
Absolutely. Been translating for several years now.
I think it does matter, because you must understand the Scripture academically to offer a legit opinion. What bothers you about the message, in particular? Do you feel it is more ‘loose’ than the rendering in the NIV, for example?
I think if you try to compare it to standard translations, it comes up short. It’s not meant to be that. But if you compare it to other paraphrases (Phillips, the Living Bible) it’s incredible. And unlike most paraphrases, Peterson used the Hebrew and Greek texts as his starting point rather than an already produced translation.
I think if you try to compare it to standard translations, it comes up short. It’s not meant to be that. But if you compare it to other paraphrases (Phillips, the Living Bible) it’s incredible. And unlike most paraphrases, Peterson used the Hebrew and Greek texts as his starting point rather than an already produced translation.
I do not think that the Scriptures have to be understood academically – that does kind of remove the entire point of the Scriptures.
There are several passages, such as John 3, Ephesians 2, which I find wholly inadequate in translation. I like the though for thought of the NIV. Further, I like the NLT.
As Rick said, it is not meant to be a standard translation – and I understand that – but I still prefer previous paraphrases, when I use a paraphrase, to the Message.
I think we will have to respectfully disagree; I believe it is imperative to understand it on an academic level to deal with it properly. Many people derive meaning from the Bible, and do so outside basic exegesis (authorial intent, audience and linguistics). Personally, I find that disrespectful to the nature of Scripture and its ‘perfection’.
What a pleasent tenor in disagreement!
When I first looked at a copy of The Message I randomly chose three verses to look at. They all made me laugh. Since none of them were supposed to be humorous I thought I better just give this away because I shouldn’t be laughing at the Bible.
Mike Aubrey and a few others encouraged me to take a second look. I still don’t like the vast majority of it. He even uses brand names like Band-Aid which I would think he would need permission for. Some of the idioms are so currently narrow that they either sound trite or they will be outdated in ten years.
But I still use it as a paraphrase for comparison purposes and sometimes it’s very enlightening. I also don’t like to malign it because I have to have some respect for the person behind it. (not saying that you don’t)
Jeff
When I first looked at a copy of The Message I randomly chose three verses to look at. They all made me laugh. Since none of them were supposed to be humorous I thought I better just give this away because I shouldn’t be laughing at the Bible.
Mike Aubrey and a few others encouraged me to take a second look. I still don’t like the vast majority of it. He even uses brand names like Band-Aid which I would think he would need permission for. Some of the idioms are so currently narrow that they either sound trite or they will be outdated in ten years.
But I still use it as a paraphrase for comparison purposes and sometimes it’s very enlightening. I also don’t like to malign it because I have to have some respect for the person behind it. (not saying that you don’t)
Jeff
I guess you may be right, Jeff. As paraphrasing the bible is not up my ally, I might be slightly biased as it is.
I used to also not like the Good News Bible but have gotten to see its value and like it better than The Message. Gordon Fee likes it so it must be good. Although the NEB and REB aren’t really paraphrases they’re pretty idiomatic and those are really nice to read. F.F. Bruce often referred to the NEB.
One of the best exercises I’ve done in studying a shorter passage is to print it out in 6-7 translations in a variety of translation styles and mark it up as suggested in Fee’s NT Exegesis. I include the GNB and The Message for the paraphrases.
I am not an expert in any of this stuff and a noobie exegetor so take all this with a grain of salt (whatever that means).
Jeff
I used to also not like the Good News Bible but have gotten to see its value and like it better than The Message. Gordon Fee likes it so it must be good. Although the NEB and REB aren’t really paraphrases they’re pretty idiomatic and those are really nice to read. F.F. Bruce often referred to the NEB.
One of the best exercises I’ve done in studying a shorter passage is to print it out in 6-7 translations in a variety of translation styles and mark it up as suggested in Fee’s NT Exegesis. I include the GNB and The Message for the paraphrases.
I am not an expert in any of this stuff and a noobie exegetor so take all this with a grain of salt (whatever that means).
Jeff
Absolutely. Been translating for several years now.
I think it does matter, because you must understand the Scripture academically to offer a legit opinion. What bothers you about the message, in particular? Do you feel it is more ‘loose’ than the rendering in the NIV, for example?
I do not think that the Scriptures have to be understood academically – that does kind of remove the entire point of the Scriptures.
There are several passages, such as John 3, Ephesians 2, which I find wholly inadequate in translation. I like the though for thought of the NIV. Further, I like the NLT.
As Rick said, it is not meant to be a standard translation – and I understand that – but I still prefer previous paraphrases, when I use a paraphrase, to the Message.
I think we will have to respectfully disagree; I believe it is imperative to understand it on an academic level to deal with it properly. Many people derive meaning from the Bible, and do so outside basic exegesis (authorial intent, audience and linguistics). Personally, I find that disrespectful to the nature of Scripture and its ‘perfection’.
What a pleasent tenor in disagreement!
I guess you may be right, Jeff. As paraphrasing the bible is not up my ally, I might be slightly biased as it is.