I’ve been taking a closer look at The Message after some awkward moments in Bible class the last few Sundays. In each case, someone read from The Message, and what was read led the class away from what Jesus was talking about in the Sermon on the Mount (our subject material).
I’ve been looking more closely and like less and less of what I see. The Message is a version of the Bible produced by Christian author Eugene Peterson. Peterson is a masterful author that I’ve enjoyed for years. The Message is his attempt to produce a Bible in the “street language” (his term) of the late 20th century.
Colloquial speech Bibles have been around for a long time. J.B. Phillips’ New Testament is a joy to read; I love gaining new insights into biblical passages from reading Phillips’ interpretation. Take Romans 8:19 for example:
The whole creation is on tiptoe to see the wonderful sight of the songs of God coming into their own.
Yet, I think we need some awareness when reading such texts. Clarence Jordan, who wrote the intriguing Cotton Patch Version, stated:
obviously the ‘cotton patch’ version must not be used as a historical text. The Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible are excellent for this purpose.
I personally wish Peterson had put a similar warning somewhere in The Message. I’ll spend some time next week looking at some of the things that trouble me about this version of the Bible. But I’d like to hear your thoughts and experiences. How do you see The Message?
“Awkward moments” – I love it! I bought a copy of “The Message” as I wanted to have one on hand, and because I like to read the Bible in as many versions as possible. One problem I have with it is that it is totally mislabeled. It is not a “translation.” It is a “paraphrase” and the distinction is critical. A phrase I saw in a book review not too long ago fits here – ” ________ (fill in author’s name) loves to hear himself type.” I have read some other of Peterson’s work, and he does have a way with words, but I have begun to question Peterson’s core theology. I believe he understands people, and no doubt is a marvelous, warm, kind-hearted and generous person – but his paraphrase reveals more about his own beliefs than it does about the text of the Bible. That being said, I will refer to “The Message” every once in a while just to see how Peterson handles an awkward phrase. He is a wordsmith, and sometimes that helps, but I would never teach from it.
It’s critical for people to distinguish between a translation and a paraphrase (which is pretty much a commentary). There’s a place for each, but it’s not the same place. The same applies to single person translations (like Philips, which I like, and Hugo McCord’s shamefully neglected NT/Psalms translation). Single person translations will, of necessity, reflect a single person’s theology.
I’m thankful to you for going into detail on this paraphrase. Perhaps, one day, it will be lucky enough to suffer the fate of the Living Translation. It started life as a single author paraphrase (we used to call it “The Dead Translation”). However, a committee picked it up and revised it as a full blown translation. The New Living Translation, Second Edition, is actually a pretty interesting and useful translation. I often use it in parallel with the ESV.
Sadly, I’m finding people in the church aren’t as aware of translation history as they should be. I teach a class on how to study the Bible every couple of years; and, when I teach classes on specifics books of the Bible, I try to make sure we discuss genre and style as they relate to the message. In the past, I’ve been guilty of assuming that people who grew up in the CofC tradition naturally know more about Scripture and the history of the Bible than other folks. You know what happens when I assume…
Last year a few of us decided to read through Job together in different translations. Many people picked the KJV or something similar and lost traction by day three. Admittedly, it can be tough in those type of translations. Some people switched to the Message. We were discussing a passage from Job one day, 6:13, and someone asked me about Job’s boots. I was clueless. In the ESV…
“Have I any help in me, when resource is driven from me?” (Job 6:13, ESV)
However, from the message…
“Do you think I can pull myself up by my bootstraps? Why, I don’t even have any boots!” (Job 6:13, The Message)
This was just one of the many occurrences.
It was after we read Job together that I came to the conclusion that there is a difference between “reading” bibles and “study” bibles. I think the Message can be one you read for reading’s sake – but I wouldn’t study from it. If something caught my eye while “reading” I’d go back and “study” it from the NRSV, ESV, or NET as well as original languages. However, we often get so familiar with a text that we stop “reading” it and mechanically “review” it. From time to time it may be helpful to be jarred to attention by the Message.