Ship of Fools: The Message

Thread: The Message Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026528

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

The Message is a modern-language version of the Bible and currently not on the CofE's authorised list for use in worship - at least not the main services. I know of a couple of churches where this version is currently being used for the lectionary readings. I really like it. It gets the message across very effectively IMO and is a great help when preaching because there's no need to spend time translating what's been read into modern language.

Given that the CofE generally takes a very long time to update its practices I think of The Message as pre-authorised rather than non-authorised. Has anyone else encountered this version for lectionary readings? And does anyone object?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Yes. No.

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

I love The Message, but have always considered it to be a paraphrase. Therefore good to read alongside a formal translation to bring the bible more to life.

However Wikipedia says that rather than a paraphrase it is more of a highly idiomatic translation. Take your pick I say.

(From Wikipedia)

quote:
Though The Message is often considered a paraphrase, it is not explicitly; The Message was translated by Peterson from the original languages. Thus, it is a highly idiomatic translation, and as such falls on the extreme dynamic end of the dynamic and formal equivalence spectrum.

JtW

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Yes
Yes

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
The Message is a modern-language version of the Bible and currently not on the CofE's authorised list for use in worship - at least not the main services. I know of a couple of churches where this version is currently being used for the lectionary readings. I really like it. It gets the message across very effectively IMO and is a great help when preaching because there's no need to spend time translating what's been read into modern language.

Given that the CofE generally takes a very long time to update its practices I think of The Message as pre-authorised rather than non-authorised. Has anyone else encountered this version for lectionary readings? And does anyone object?

Yes I have come across it, and yes, I do object. I object very strongly, actually. The problem is that 'the Message' is not really a translation at all. It's a paraphrase. A very free paraphrase. By one man. It basically one person's idea of what the Bible might sound like, which could I suppose be interesting (although 'the Message' isn't, in my opinion), but it's not the same thing as a faithful and well-researched translation.

The Church of England's advice of translations is, in my opinion, very sensible. It specifically suggests the following versions, each of which has its own merits:

The Authorized Version , which is the best translation into English ever done, when considered as a translation: that is to say that it's in good English but also conveys the sense of the original languages very well. Unfortunately, it has two problems, the first being that it's based on outdated manuscripts, and the second (much more important in a parish context) is that, whilst it's translated into very good English, the specific type of very good English is Jacobean, which some people have difficulty in understanding.
The Revised Standard Version , which is what we use in my church. This is a very good translation, and improves on both of the problems found in the AV. Unfortunately, it also introduces new problems, most notably in adding some dodgy paraphrases where the AV opts for a more literal reading. It was produced by theological liberals and is definitely more academic than devotional in its aims in some places. Also, it calls God 'thou' and everyone else 'you', which is just bizarre. The language in general is basically modern but with a few archaic touches that can sound strange in context.
The New International Version , which I don't particularly like. It contains a fair amount of paraphrase and has a definite theological bias. It also doesn't included the the Apocrypha, which means that it cannot be used as the exclusive version in any Anglican church that follows the lectionary.
The New Jerusalem Bible is one I don't know very well, but it seems good and puts a clear premium on readability. It's probably slightly easier for children than the other versions on this list.
The New Revised Standard Version , is quite similar to the RSV in its aims, but somewhat different in feel. It's done in very ordinary, somewhat flat, English, as one might read in a newspaper. It's very clear and easy to understand, but a bit dry. It's biggest weakness is a somewhat overzealous approach to gender neutral language, which sometimes uses a plural for words that are clearly singular in the original language, even where this makes an important theological difference. It's probably tied with the RSV as the most used translation in Anglican services.
The Revised English Bible . I have no idea, as I've never seen it used. It's based on the New English Bible, which had a reputation for being a bit hippy-ish in a kind of educated middle class suburban way, but I think this applied more to its language than to its theology. Still, I don't think anyone actually uses this.
The English Standard Version , which is another one that I've never seen used anywhere by anyone, but which I gather is a bit like the NIV, except more so, as it were. I gather it's a party badge for really hard-core Evangelicals.

I think that list really covers all needs for a main lectionary Bible, although it wouldn't shock me to see the Good News Bible in a school setting. The GNB is a paraphrase as well, and for that reason probably shouldn't be used for adult services, but it doesn't take nearly the liberties that 'the Message' does.

[ 26. September 2013, 15:36: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Wow - I wholeheartedly agree with the two people ahead of me - must be an extremely rare event.

Peterson, who compiled the message, has specifically said that it is not for use in public worship.

I have fought, and won, a battle to stop a certain lector using it at ours.

I could post a lengthy list of examples, verse by verse, of where the message is biased or just plain wrong.

I will add, however, that it is good for those who have a limited vocabulary and who want to encounter scripture for the first time.

It's also good for those who have been reading the bible for a long time and become cynical and need a jolt.

[ 26. September 2013, 15:48: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by justlooking
Given that the CofE generally takes a very long time to update its practices I think of The Message as pre-authorised rather than non-authorised. Has anyone else encountered this version for lectionary readings? And does anyone object?

1. YES. I have encountered this (only once, thank G*d) and it was a jarring note in an otherwise good service.

2. You are rather leaping to conclusions when you say you consider it "pre-authorised" - there are many things in The Message that are questionable.

3. In any case, the writer of The Message (Eugene Peterson) has expressed his disquiet at it being used for lectionary readings in church - he said so in an interview for a US Christian magazine.

4. Given that there are no fewer than 7 authorised texts for you to choose from, why do you need an eighth? Which particular bits of scripture do you find so opaque they aren't capable of being understood by an adult?
Yes, there may be parts that require thought , but that doesn't mean they're incomprehensible.

4. YES, I do object to readings being taken from this book. The extract below (which the writer has released from copyright) may give you a clue:

The Lord's Prayer as in The Message
Our Father in heaven, Reveal who you are. Set the world right; Do what's best— as above, so below. Keep us alive with three square meals. Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes [Ultra confused]

So every service should have its When Harry met Sally moment?

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

.............that it is good for those who have a limited vocabulary and who want to encounter scripture for the first time.

It's also good for those who have been reading the bible for a long time and become cynical and need a jolt.

I think both of these reasons could apply to many congregations. In the churches I know where it is being used, or perhaps trialed might be a better word, the congregations have been asked for their opinions. The suggestion of using this version came from some congregation members so there may generally be approval. It does provide for more dynamic reading than is usually achieved.

[ 26. September 2013, 16:03: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

I think The Message is great for use in church in one context only - selected use by a preacher within a sermon in cases where it enriches the understanding of what is being said, preferably used after first using the same passage from a standard translation. If Peterson's paraphrase does a good job of illuminating and explaining a passage in the context of a sermon that's great, especially if it gives a useful assist to the quality of a sermon prepared by a person who preaches because it comes with the territory when their main strength would actually be pastoral care or leadership.

Using it in a reading from scripture that exists on the running sheet as a separate item rather than as part of the sermon - no thanks.

There are many parts in The Message where it provides a great alternative that illuminates and enriches the passage, there are also a lot of parts where it is awkwardly wordy and culturally anchored which would make inappropriate for a person or group to use as their regular version of the Bible.

A hybrid translation-paraphrase like The Message that sits closer to the translation end of things that would be worth considering is the New Living Translation (second edition). You get a natural form of English that isn't archaic, doesn't try too hard to sound like it's not the Bible (e.g. The Message, Good News, Contemporary English Version etc), doesn't add odd sentence structures where the original never had them, avoids being wordy or dumbed down, and keeps major footnotes are left in place.

More of the words traditionally left untranslated (e.g. Amen, Hallelujah, etc) are left untranslated compared to TM/GN/CEV, so the footnote for Matthew 6:13b with the doxology reads as

quote:
For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

The NLT has a restrained and logical approach to gender/sex-neutral terms, one that was revised after the first version went way too far and wound up being more biased (in the opposite direction) than the version of the NIV available at the time (not the more central NIV 2011 revision).

One to avoid is the Contemporary English Version, which is the American Bible Society's next effort after what they now like to call [rather optimistically] the Good News Translation. Unfortunately when they did the CEV they took every bad trait of the Good News and amplified them, including both the extreme dumbing down of the language which strips out so much of the meaning, and the marketing of bulk packages of crappy paperbacks to youth and children's ministry leaders. My current church still has some of these lying around (now commonly used for propping up things on an angle or holding doors open) after a previous youth pastor went for five cartons of what was cheapest rather than a good text, which he soon regretted when he had to read out alternative versions of passages from proper translations in his sermons. I would go as far as to say the CEV is even less suitable for any use in corporate gatherings than The Message, because at least with The Message you still get some content filtering through.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I've never been keen on The Message when I've heard bits of it being used during services. It always has the ring of middle-aged-dad trying to be down-with-the-kids. I'm nowhere near enough of a scholar to critique the translation, but I just find it flat and uninspiring. For me I find both the REB and NRSV have about the right balance of "weight" and intelligibility. I can't comfortably read the AV, much as I like it in small doses at certain times. It's not written in my everyday tongue and so I have an extra overhead of translation of language before I can delve into meaning. I can see, however, that I have a fairly middle class, educated tone and use of language, so maybe my preference for the NRSV is just that it matches my own use of language? I'd be interested to hear what people who come at it from a different direction think.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by L'organist:
4. Given that there are no fewer than 7 authorised texts for you to choose from, why do you need an eighth? Which particular bits of scripture do you find so opaque they aren't capable of being understood by an adult?
Yes, there may be parts that require thought , but that doesn't mean they're incomprehensible.

In my opinion, The Message isn't any easier to understand as a whole than the NRSV, NIV, or New Jerusalem translations. Sometimes The Message sounds plain goofy when read aloud. Other times it sounds dated.

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

Having checked in the past, I can say that The Message is authorised for use in the Church in Wales. I have only heard it used - and used it myself - in more informal services, where the chattier style fits the setting.

I note that in the list of seven 'canonical' translations above, there is no sign of the Good News Bible or its close cousin the Contemporary English Version. As I've known the Good News to be used in a range of churches and denominations for the past 30 years, why is this not considered acceptable - the 'paraphrase' issue again?

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
YES, I do object to readings being taken from this book. The extract below (which the writer has released from copyright) may give you a clue:

The Lord's Prayer as in The Message
Our Father in heaven, Reveal who you are. Set the world right; Do what's best— as above, so below. Keep us alive with three square meals. Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes.

I've never heard of this translation before. There's a quaint kind of trendiness in this -- a mixture of ...

-- generalized cliche: "Set the world right." "Do what's best."

-- dated colloquialism: "three square meals"

-- cutsey playing around with tenses: "keep us forgiven"

-- greeting-card banality: "You're in charge."

-- embarrassing poesy: "Keep us ablaze in beauty!"

-- wildly inappropriate suggestions of Molly Bloom re-living orgasm at the end of Ulysses: "Yes. Yes. Yes."

This doesn't sound have the sound of prayer, to me at least, let alone a prayer given to us by Jesus. ("This, then, is how you should pray.")

It sounds like something patched together by an ad hoc committee of many different kinds of bad writer.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

"First this: God created the Heavens and Earth—all you see, all you don't see."

Leaving the writing style aside for a while, I can see where the "First this" is coming from, but not the "all you see, all you don't see".

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

2. You are rather leaping to conclusions when you say you consider it "pre-authorised" - there are many things in The Message that are questionable.

That's really only what I'm telling myself because generally I'm wary of going beyond what is authorised - not just in liturgy but more widely within the Church. This is because I think rules, regulations, laws and such are mostly there for a good purpose and often serve to protect. OTOH there can be justification for going outside what is specifically authorised. It very much depends on the reasons. In the case of using The Message for lectionary readings there could be pastoral reasons for its use and it could be seen as an aid to mission in some settings.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

I have just (a couple of weeks ago) acquired The Message Remix 2.0 in a binding called "purple swirl" which is beyond beautiful.

Peterson seems to say "What does this mean to/for us?" (as opposed to "What does this say?") but without sacrificing what I can recognise as very good translation from the Original Hebrew - both words and style.
The word that came to mind was "fresh".
(Then I wondered if that was an irreparably tarnished word these days!)

He was a lecturer in Biblical Languages originally and then moved to a parish situation which lead him to this master-work.

Whether it is useful in Public Settings is another question.
The CofE (or whoever) can decide what they want for their own institutional use.
I have HUGE problems with some of the Hebrew translations in the REB, not to mention the way they invert the syntax in many verses of both Testaments that I have no idea how anyone could imagine let alone publish such easily checkable inaccuracies. Though it does make for such a lovely flowing read in English English.
I feel similar reservations about many many Hebrew translations in the KJV, NIV, and even on occasion the NRSV which we use from the lectern ( and don't get me started on any others)

I am more and more thinking "By George! I think he's got it" as I read my favourite bits.
Though I am not at all sure I can imagine it being read from then lectern.
"Why?", I am asking myself.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

As ever, context is everything, and yes the OP signifies England. So yeah. But in our context, dealing with Australian Indigenous peoples for whom English is a third, fourth or fifth language ... Yes, use it and CEV as much as possible ... please.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

The Lord's Prayer as in The Message
Our Father in heaven, Reveal who you are. Set the world right; Do what's best— as above, so below. Keep us alive with three square meals. Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes

I'm torn between [Killing me]

and

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
The Lord's Prayer as in The Message: You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes.

Am I the only one who has a craving for a cigarette after this? And I don't even smoke.

Seriously though, I think that texts like The Message can be read in Church on occasion, as long as it's made clear that it's not exactly the Bible, but that things have been added to it.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

All this talk about "authorized" versions gets it totally backwards. To quote from the notes on the lectionary:

"1 In the reading of psalms and other portions of Holy Scripture any version of Holy Scripture which is not prohibited by lawful authority may be used."

It is probably worth pointing out that no version — no, not even the New World Translation — has been prohibited.

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
[*] The New International Version , which I don't particularly like. It contains a fair amount of paraphrase and has a definite theological bias. It also doesn't included the the Apocrypha, which means that it cannot be used as the exclusive version in any Anglican church that follows the lectionary.

Totally agreed. I don't know how they can recommend that one in good conscience.

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
[*]The New Jerusalem Bible is one I don't know very well, but it seems good and puts a clear premium on readability. It's probably slightly easier for children than the other versions on this list.

I quite like this. It, like the NRSV, goes a little too far on the non-gendered language (tangent: I loathe the term "inclusive language" — in quite what way is it "inclusive" to decree that the word "man" exclusively has the gender-exclusive sense?), but it avoids the horrific dryness of the NRSV. The biggest problems I see with it are:
1) it's missing 1&2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh (it's a Roman Catholic, not an Anglican Bible);
2) it spells out God's name with vowels, which is probably not the best for public reading without upsetting people.

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
[*] The Revised English Bible . I have no idea, as I've never seen it used. It's based on the New English Bible, which had a reputation for being a bit hippy-ish in a kind of educated middle class suburban way, but I think this applied more to its language than to its theology. Still, I don't think anyone actually uses this.

The church I attend for evensong most weeks uses this. It's not bad, but the revision of the NEB was definitely in the direction of assimilation to the Tyndale-AV-(N)RSV tradition, and somehow it's lost much of its attraction as a result. (And no, this isn't just about no longer having a pew Bible that includes the memorable phrase "she broke wind" in it...)

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
[*]The English Standard Version , which is another one that I've never seen used anywhere by anyone, but which I gather is a bit like the NIV, except more so, as it were. I gather it's a party badge for really hard-core Evangelicals.

It's generally a very good update of the RSV. It's particularly admirable how they drew up rules to balance the requirements of literary criteria (such as faithfulness to the text translated and natural English style) with gender-neutrality. Generally, it's what the NRSV should have been, especially now it has an Apocrypha. The things that let it down are:
1) the unfortunate way it occasionally imports a reading from the NIV to gloss over a difficulty or to make it sound right to the Evangelical ear; and:
2) the general assumption that only Evangelicals would want to use it, when really its market is everyone for whom the NRSV was a let-down.

I am far from being a stereotypical Evangelical, but I would heartily recommend the ESV.

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I think that list really covers all needs for a main lectionary Bible, although it wouldn't shock me to see the Good News Bible in a school setting. The GNB is a paraphrase as well, and for that reason probably shouldn't be used for adult services, but it doesn't take nearly the liberties that 'the Message' does.

That's because the GNB isn't actually a paraphrase. Hence the attempts to remarket it as the Good News *Translation*. (I suppose this is also why recent editions omit the wonderful illustrations [Frown]

— one of my most prized possessions is a GNB with Apocrypha with the stick men.) It's more in the REB bracket of word-for-word-ness.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
The Message is a modern-language version of the Bible and currently not on the CofE's authorised list for use in worship - at least not the main services. I know of a couple of churches where this version is currently being used for the lectionary readings. I really like it. It gets the message across very effectively IMO and is a great help when preaching because there's no need to spend time translating what's been read into modern language.

Given that the CofE generally takes a very long time to update its practices I think of The Message as pre-authorised rather than non-authorised. Has anyone else encountered this version for lectionary readings? And does anyone object?

It's not the Bible, basically, so shouldn't be read in Church as though it were.

As a sermon aide, similar to a speaker's use of anecdotes, quotes from CS Lewis, or jokes, it can be very illuminating though.

It's very oddly worded in places, not contemporary English as anyone really speaks it by any stretch and people who support it as 'clearer' than other translations make me scratch my head in puzzlement. It certainly isn't clearer, but its turn of phrase and authorial additions are unique enough that it surprises and makes you think about passages and themes in a fresh and interesting way, which is what a good sermon should do. The Message can be used in a sermon or housegroup in the same way as the 'Cotton Patch Bible', or the 'Street Bible' with good effect.

But any sermon or housegroup study should always be founded on the Word of God, so having a real Bible read first is vital.

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

I know nothing about Greek or Hebrew, but I know a thing or two about translation. I know that there is no single correct way to translate a text. It depends on context and it depends on who is the intended reader. So a translation of something technical has to be very exact, whereas something which is literary or poetic or natural speech has to sound fluent. If you can be exact and sound fluent that is great, but usually some kind of compromise has to be made. The thing with the bible is that I think both exactness and fluency are important. Fluency makes it sound relevant, less dusty, more natural somehow, which I think is vital. On the other hand you don't really want to compromise on the accuracy. That's why I think that reading The Message as well as a more accurate translation can be really helpful.

In essence I agree with the Cheeseburger:

quote:
I think The Message is great for use in church in one context only - selected use by a preacher within a sermon in cases where it enriches the understanding of what is being said, preferably used after first using the same passage from a standard translation.

Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
It always has the ring of middle-aged-dad trying to be down-with-the-kids.

Ouch. I recognise that. It can be rather cringeworthy in places, but I find if you can overlook those places it can bring a really new insight into other bits. Like the proverbial curate's egg: good in part.

JtW

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

The Lord's Prayer as in The Message
Our Father in heaven, Reveal who you are. Set the world right; Do what's best— as above, so below. Keep us alive with three square meals. Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes

So every service should have its When Harry met Sally moment?

That gets at least one [Overused]

Could I( quote you?

I admit that I don't like The Message. It feels as though, in its desire to please, it's put itself into an idiom nearly as far from my own as the AV.

S Bacchus, that's a good summary, except that when it came out there was a lot of admiration for the Good News Bible as an example of a consistently dynamically equivalent translation. It isn't a paraphrase. As an 'idea for idea' translation, I feel it falls quite badly short on much of the OT.

An odd problem with the RSV is that it was produced by people who did not naturally use the second person singular. So in quite a lot of places, they handle it wrongly. But as most of its readers didn't either, that quirk didn't jar widely. In the AV, incidentally, the 2nd person singular is, as one would expect, handled grammatically correctly, but used as in koine Greek, not Jacobean England.

I agree that the NRSV is a bit flat. It's cloth eared. Who else would use the pedantically semi-correct 'bushel basket' in the Sermon of the Mount. I've realised that this matters more to some of us than others. However, apart from erroneous use of plurals to avoid offence, it's more accurate than the NIV. I've also not experienced the English Standard or the New Jerusalem. Despite your anxiety that its roots are too evangelical, you might quite like the ESV. I've heard it's an update of the RSV with not much more than more modern grammar and any corrections required by more recent research. Also, in this country, you can buy it with the Apocrypha.

This will upset Galilit, but I really like the REB. No translation is perfect. It isn't either. It has an irritating habit of combining or changing the order of verses. There's a particularly dodgy bit in Job. It's a dynamic rather than verbal equivalent translation, but for general reading purposes, it does me quite well. It also does sometimes better express the underlying text than some of the more verbally equivalent translations do, and it try to respect the metaphors of the original.

[ 26. September 2013, 21:56: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Given that the CofE generally takes a very long time to update its practices I think of The Message as pre-authorised rather than non-authorised.

Given that The Message Was published between 1993 & 2002 and the ESV was published in 2002 & is included on the good list, I don't think this holds.

I think I have encountered it once, it was ok. l do recall seasick saying he'd had a problem as a preacher when his reader used The Message for the Armour of God passage which was unrecognisable!

Carys

[fixed code]

[ 27. September 2013, 06:09: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
I know nothing about Greek or Hebrew, but I know a thing or two about translation. I know that there is no single correct way to translate a text.

True, but there are many more wrong ways than right ways. As with any art, it's a trade-off between methodological rigor and beauty. All too often it seems that "no single correct way" is used as cover for people with at best idiosyncratic aesthetic taste to shun any rigor in method.

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
It depends on context and it depends on who is the intended reader.

With the Bible, there's the added problem of deciding which text to translate. Most variants aren't a big deal until you have to decide which one you're putting in the text.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

I have owned a "Message" NT since it was first published. It's worth looking at, but is a sufficiently left-field translation that I don't think it's appropriate for a lectionary.

I have twice had a priest quote from it during a sermon, though, and I think that's fine.

I would like to like the Common English Bible, and mostly I do, but it makes a small number of choices that I find bizarre.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

The REB is the preferred Bible for liturgies in the Order of Julian of Norwich (Wisconsin, USA).

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Since becoming aware of how the Lord's Prayer is rendered in the Message, I've thought it rather interesting that Jesus teaches us to ask for our daily bread but Eugene Peterson tells us to ask for three square meals...

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

The Message here tends to be used by the more Evangelical wing of the church and it never ceases to amaze me that they push for it's use and with the same breath say they alone have more respect for scripture than anyone other grouping in the church.

It's a poor paraphrase at best - not a translation of scripture. It removes all subtlety and beauty of the text, very often loading a passage towards one single understanding. I don't understand why anyone would want to do this to scripture in the first place. If you want to paraphrase it and pre-load it with your own interpretation of texts, then write a commentary. Scripture is too sacred to me to have something so badly constructed as 'The Message' read in its place.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

I'm evangelical and not anti-Message (I have a nice little pocket edition of The Psalms) but I would also advise using it with caution.

I have sometimes quoted from it in my sermons because read aloud it can be effective and help people approach the text in a fresh way.

But. I would never recommend it for serious Bible study. Certainly not without something like the NRSV to hand. The Message is a paraphrase, not a translation, and a very loose paraphrase at that ... it's very much Peterson's commentary on the text. And I would not recommend it for use in public liturgy, either. I am cheered to know that Peterson is also of this opinion!

In fairness to Eugene Peterson, he is a good writer (check out his other books), and I do like the way he renders the Psalms in The Message ... he deliberately tries to capture the gutsy, earthy feel of the Hebrew.

But I've always preferred Kenneth N. Taylor's 1971 paraphrase The Living Bible.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

Hearing a layreader (who hadn't asked permission beforehand) read John 14:6 at a funeral from The Message* has almost completely put me off. It was the wrong time and place, it wasn't what was expected or wanted. It's fine as a resource for a bible study or in a much more informal service, but in a formal setting it's hopeless.

While we're here, has anyone come across 'Good as New', another paraphrased translation, shall we say, of the NT? I find it very good, quite a wake-up call in many places.

*Jesus said, “I am the Road, also the Truth, also the Life. No one gets to the Father apart from me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him. You’ve even seen him!”

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

Laurelin said

quote:
But. I would never recommend it for serious Bible study. Certainly not without something like the NRSV to hand. The Message is a paraphrase, not a translation, and a very loose paraphrase at that ... it's very much Peterson's commentary on the text. And I would not recommend it for use in public liturgy, either. I am cheered to know that Peterson is also of this opinion!

The pastor at the church I used to attend was very liberal and ONLY preached from The Message. He was always extolling this translation and telling me I should get a copy of it. My partner has it and I tried to get into it but found it way too... to... "slangy"? Too modern? Not very poetic? I'm not sure what turns me off about it so much but it does. I don't like the King James bible either. I vaguely remember a Catholic study bible I picked up at a used bookstore in Seattle. I don't know whatever happened to it but I know I liked it.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

After reading all of the comments here I dug out my partner's copy of The Message and started skipping around, reading a one chapter and another one. I think I've figured out why Peterson's translation bothers me so much. Too much of it sounds like bad dialogue from "Jesus Christ, Superstar". My older sisters had the album soundtrack when I was growing up and I always liked parts of it but when I was much older I watched the actual movie and it stank! Dreadful, dreadful movie and the dialogue and "acting" were atrocious, in my humble opinion.

That's what The Message reminds me of.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
The5thMary: Dreadful, dreadful movie and the dialogue and "acting" were atrocious, in my humble opinion.

I think the acting in this film was a bit campy on purpose.

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

A couple of years back Neil G. Richardson did an article in the Epworth Review (which I can't find references to at the moment) about why The Message was not suitable for use in public worship. This being a scholarly analysis of the text.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
The New International Version , which I don't particularly like. It contains a fair amount of paraphrase and has a definite theological bias. It also doesn't included the the Apocrypha, which means that it cannot be used as the exclusive version in any Anglican church that follows the lectionary.
The Revised English Bible . I have no idea, as I've never seen it used. It's based on the New English Bible, which had a reputation for being a bit hippy-ish in a kind of educated middle class suburban way, but I think this applied more to its language than to its theology. Still, I don't think anyone actually uses this.

I think that list really covers all needs for a main lectionary Bible, although it wouldn't shock me to see the Good News Bible in a school setting. The GNB is a paraphrase as well, and for that reason probably shouldn't be used for adult services, but it doesn't take nearly the liberties that 'the Message' does.

In all the canonically required lectionaries, there is a canonical alternative given for apocryphal readings, so the NIV can be used.

The REB is OK as a translation, but it is not very good for public reading as there seem to be fairly frequent traps for readers in terms of sentence structure etc.

The GNB is not in fact a paraphrase, although some of its translational decisions are open to criticism. in the days when the CofE officially 'authorized' translations as suitable for use, it was one of those authorized IIRC. In the dynamic equivalence v. word for word spectrum it tends towards the dynamic equivalence end, but it is nonetheless a translation. Personally I find it sometimes refreshing for narrative, but almost always hopeless for poetry. [X-posted with loads of others]

[ 27. September 2013, 14:31: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Not sure what happened there, but I meant to say that I like the Good News version not only for its simplicity, but also for the illustrations by the incomparable Annie Vallotton - possibly the most-reproduced artist of all........

Ian J.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It wouldn't shock me to see the Good News Bible in a school setting. The GNB is a paraphrase as well, and for that reason probably shouldn't be used for adult services, but it doesn't take nearly the liberties that 'the Message' does.
That's because the GNB isn't actually a paraphrase. Hence the attempts to remarket it as the Good News *Translation*. (I suppose this is also why recent editions omit the wonderful illustrations — one of my most prized possessions is a GNB with Apocrypha with the stick men.) It's more in the REB bracket of word-for-word-ness.

I grew up in Methodist churches that used the GNB as their standard pew and pulpit Bible, and it's the version I'm most most familiar with. It's only on the internet that I've heard it described as not a proper translation, which is a slightly worrying accusation for someone whose worshipping and devotional life has been built around it!

As for the The Message, I've often heard it used for lectionary readings. Indeed, it seems to be the most common alternative to the GNB in the Methodist pulpits I know.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

This discussion is very Anglican.

Let me be clear that for me at least there are a variety of options between can be used as the only translation in worship and cannot be used at all for worship.

I can think of two cases where without a full endorsement it is totally possible to use. Firstly when used to refresh a familiar passage where the sermon actually deals with the differences. Secondly when it is read as a contrast too the same passage in another translation or translations.

Jengie

[deleted duplicate post]

[ 28. September 2013, 09:35: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

I have found that regular dudes and dolls who have swotted English in school have a very tough row to hoe with The Message's super "street cred" word-smithing. Reading it aloud for the back chairs of the audience, just can't be done, man. Sounds phoney as a $3.00 dollar bill, dig?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
While we're here, has anyone come across 'Good as New', another paraphrased translation, shall we say, of the NT? I find it very good, quite a wake-up call in many places.

Yes, it reads better and is more thought-provoking. I read this and the message, both from cover to cover, in the same year and much preferred good as New.

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

If we are not allowed to use the King James (Authorised) version in church any more, the New International Version is the best of the modern translations.

Yes, I know the KJV is authorised by canon for use in the CofE, but do any of the clergy use it in church on a regular basis? It is rare to hear it read at Christmas apart from the service of Nine Lessons & Carols from King's College, Cambridge. I prefer my shepherds to be "sore afraid" (KJV) rather than "terrified" (NIV). The modern clergy forget that the KJV was written to be read aloud in churches. When read properly the poetry and majesty of it language lifts the spirit in a way that modern translations do not.

If you like debased language in your liturgy, there was a version of Psalm 23 about 30 years ago that began:

"The Lord and I are ina shepherd/sheep situation and I am in a position of negative need"

You can read the rest of it here: Alternative versions of Psalm 23

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
All this talk about "authorized" versions gets it totally backwards. To quote from the notes on the lectionary:

"1 In the reading of psalms and other portions of Holy Scripture any version of Holy Scripture which is not prohibited by lawful authority may be used."

It is probably worth pointing out that no version — no, not even the New World Translation — has been prohibited.

I didn't know this - I've heard references to 'approved' or 'authorised' versions for use in worship so it's good to know the churches currently using The Message are not going beyond what's allowed. Although I suppose they're going beyond what is advised about translation and paraphrase. In the circumstances though I'm finding it fresh and engaging. The passages are printed in the pew sheet each week which allows people to read them before the service starts.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

In the Anglican Church of Canada, there is a shortlist of approved translations for common prayer, but the NRSV takes precedence and is used for diocesan events such as ordinations.

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In all the canonically required lectionaries, there is a canonical alternative given for apocryphal readings, so the NIV can be used.

Interesting. Does the CoE follow the RCL? I'm pretty sure there are a few Sundays where the first reading is from the Apocrypha. At the very least "The souls of the righteous..." and other such chestnuts. Certainly the Apocrypha can't be avoided in the daily office, at least not for us.

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
The pastor at the church I used to attend was very liberal and ONLY preached from The Message.

In the parish where I was received, a lay minister who would have placed herself considerably to the "left" of me theologically was much more averse to the Message than I was. (She called it "The Massage" since it "massages the divinity of Christ right out of the story," according to her). So I don't know how much of a liberal (or otherwise) shibboleth it can be.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I have found that regular dudes and dolls who have swotted English in school have a very tough row to hoe with The Message's super "street cred" word-smithing. Reading it aloud for the back chairs of the audience, just can't be done, man. Sounds phoney as a $3.00 dollar bill, dig?

Well, The Message is too "cute" for me but have you ever seen the bible written in the slang of the 'hood? Oh, man... I don't have it in front of me because I would never buy anything like this but I remember reading parts of it at the Seattle public library and almost getting tossed out for laughing loudly. Here's the 'hood version of the 10 Commandments:

1. I beez God. Don' beez dissin me wit otha godz.
2. Don' beez makin no hood ornaments like nothin in my crib, anythang upstayrs, orr anythang anywherz elz.
3. Don' beez usin my name 'n a wack way - homey don' play dat.
4. Y'all betta be keepin da sabbath.
5. Don' dis ya mama ... an if ya know whoz ya daddy beez, don' dis him neither.
6. Don' cap ya bros.
7. Don' cheat on ya babies' mama.
8. Don' be liftin no goods.
9. Don' be lyin an' snitchin on ya homies.
10. Don' be eyein' ya homie's crib, ride, or nothin.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

Or, the "Ghetto Bible" could be a bunch of racist shit dreamed up by ignorant white folks to further their own hatred. I just have a hard time believing that there are actual people who would want to read something like that.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Gwalchmai

My shack has proper Choral Matins once a month.

Service is, of course, BCP so the readings are from the KJB - anything else would be jarring.

We also regularly have things like The Litany (Lent and Advent), the proses, and the Proper Psalms for things like Ash Wednesday; the Sovereign's Accession is marked suitably, etc.

Just in case you're wondering if the entire place is made up of people over 60 (or more) I'd point out that we have a lively Sunday School, families attend other than just for the Family Service, young altar servers, etc. The churchmanship can best be summed up as "diverse" which not only seems appropriate if the church is to be for all the community but also seems to work since we have the support not just of people who come to services Sunday by Sunday but also of the wider population.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In all the canonically required lectionaries, there is a canonical alternative given for apocryphal readings, so the NIV can be used.
Interesting. Does the CoE follow the RCL? I'm pretty sure there are a few Sundays where the first reading is from the Apocrypha. At the very least "The souls of the righteous..." and other such chestnuts. Certainly the Apocrypha can't be avoided in the daily office, at least not for us.

The C of E follows a slightly adapted version of RCL see here and here

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
While we're here, has anyone come across 'Good as New', another paraphrased translation, shall we say, of the NT? I find it very good, quite a wake-up call in many places.
Yes, it reads better and is more thought-provoking. I read this and the message, both from cover to cover, in the same year and much preferred good as New.

I've known it since it was being put together jointly by a group of scholars. While I'm in no position to join in the translation/paraphrase argument, I did understand that it was intended to be an accurate translation.
My only dislike is the authors' insistence on translating personal names and place names (Mary Magdalene becomes 'Maggy' and Peter is 'Rocky' and they go to Dategrove). Otherwise, like many above with The Message, I think it has its place in the sermon after the reading of a more conventional version.

GG

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
While we're here, has anyone come across 'Good as New', another paraphrased translation, shall we say, of the NT? I find it very good, quite a wake-up call in many places.
.
My only dislike is the authors' insistence on translating personal names and place names (Mary Magdalene becomes 'Maggy' and Peter is 'Rocky' and they go to Dategrove). Otherwise, like many above with The Message, I think it has its place in the sermon after the reading of a more conventional version.GG

There are not projectile vomiting emoticons enough in the world to register my response to
'Maggie,' 'Rocky,' and 'Dategrove.'
[Ultra confused]

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
My only dislike is the authors' insistence on translating personal names and place names (Mary Magdalene becomes 'Maggy' and Peter is 'Rocky' and they go to Dategrove).

Of course, "Peter" is already a translation. Perhaps it should be retroverted to Cephas throughout...

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

I think some of the responses to The Message are really over the top. Relax, it's just a paraphrase! As has been repeatedly noted above, the author never intended it to be used as a lectionary so all the ire should be deservedly reserved for those who so use it, not for the work itself or its author.

I learned of the existence of The Message during the course of my EfM class. My take: it is rather interesting, and sometime humorous, to see how the paraphraser interprets things. On a few occasions, when a particularly confusing or seemingly convoluted or enigmatic scripture passage has been under study, it has been useful to see how he paraphrases it. On the other hand, he can be silly for no good reason (e.g., "Rocky", "Maggy", et al.), and on occasion his interpretation has been clearly not what the scripture was saying.

But as a lectionary? -- clearly no.

There is an ongoing group project in Kerygmania of re-interpreting books of the Bible in a humorous (and sometimes silly) manner. If I recall correctly, they were progressing through the Book of Numbers the last time I checked. I think what they are doing is not different than what the Message has done. I don't think any plans to use it liturgically (except maybe in an cyber-Eucharist?)

I do have rather fond memories of the Good News Bible and its stick drawings. I have no problem with that as a lectionary.

PS: Why does my spell check think that "lectionary" is not a legitimate word?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I've heard of most translations before but hitherto, not the 'Good as New' one.

I'm with Amos. A pity perhaps, but 'Maggie' and 'Rocky' marks this for me as a translation I won't be bothering to look at further, someone trying to be 'exciting' and 'new' for its own sake.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0