How reliable are paraphrases?
I have pondered whether to get a Message bible. I had a Message New Testament but got rid of it and do not plan to get one in the near future. When I preach, I rarely quote from the Message or the Living Bible. And upon hearing a verse or passage quoted from the Message, I might suddenly get the feeling that something is wrong. When this happens, I will go to one of my trusty translations, NRSV, ESV or TNIV. The difference can sometimes be shocking. Sometimes, the whole idea of the verse has been completely changed. The purpose of paraphrases is to render a hard-to-understand verse more understandable and still remain accurate. Sometimes, in paraphrases, accuracy gets thrown out the for the sake of trying to be contemporary as possible. When accuracy is discarded, reliable is gone too.
Personally, I think many of us have a pretty big tolerance for what can be considered as reliable. As far as gender-accuracy or gender-neutrality is concerned: the difference between “brothers” versus “brothers and sisters” is minimal. I still consider both reliable. I would also consider both “fallen asleep” and “dead” as accurate. Where I draw the line is a complete change in idea. Let’s take a passage from The Message with the theme of food.
Isaiah 29:8
| Message: | TNIV: |
Where in the world did "steak" and "ice tea" come from?
The usefulness of paraphrases is debatable. It is useful for those who have absolutely no understanding of biblical language (or Christianese). Paraphrases can easily lead one into confusion and a dumbing-down in Christian theology. I can tolerate almost any difference in other translations but this is an example of where I draw the line.
19 comments:
You and I are standing behind the same line.
The Message goes way past the point of reasonableness in too many places for my comfort level.
I like occasional steak and ice tea.
Kevin, I understand your point, but I personally don't consider this one as crossing the line.
I tend to like it.
I hate to malign the translation because I feel like I'm being disrespectful to the translator.
But we had a copy of The Message that we got for free. I looked at three or four passages and couldn't help but laugh. I figured I shouldn't have a Bible that makes me laugh so I gave it away. I also saw a quotation of a verse with the brand name Brand-aid. That's just plain freaky.
I did find one verse in it that I like though. I couldn't have been more surprised.
So I will look at it as a last resort but 99% of the time I can't take it seriously.
I assumed everybody who was serious about Bible study disliked it (because everybody is like me, right?) but because of people like TC and others I see that I could possibly have a more open mind.
Iced tea???
Jeff
Today the pastor read a passage from Ephesians. I don't remember the details, but he introduced his reading as "from The Message translation." Now I'm not keen on paraphrases, but I was blown away at his statement and don't recall a thing from that point on. I hope it was a slip of the tongue, but it is just one more discouraging thing for me. It was the only scripture he quoted, and it wasn't too colloquial but entirely misrepresented. Maybe I'm just overreacting.
TC, there are so many people who like it and I don’t blame them because it is so different.
Thanks Stan. It’s good to know we’re not alone.
Jeff, I don’t like to malign translations either but I also found the Message very funny. When the Message first came out, a friend in seminary introduced it to me. He read me this verse and I couldn’t believe my ears. We just couldn’t stop laughing. This is why many people can’t take the Message seriously. Yes, you’re right about keeping an open mind because there are those with tastes like TC’s who like it. That is why I occasionally quote passages from the pulpit. It’s such a popular paraphrase but I don’t see this popularity being long-term, e.g.,Living Bible. For an easy-to-understand translation, I’d prefer to quote the NLT.
Nathan, I just picked this verse because it was the first one I ever heard from The Message. Most of it is still okay though. It can still convey the word of God.
It’s easy to mislabel a paraphrase as a translation. But it depends how you qualify a translation. Some say that as long as the translators use the original Greek, it qualifies as a translation but I would disagree with this. Peterson likely would have consulted the Greek.
When I first started reading the Bible, I read from the Good News Translation. I still read from it occasionally, especially through long stretches of the Old Testament (Kings, Chronicles, etc.) But I think the GNT is about as far away as I'd like to get from the more literal translations. I also agree with you that the NLT is a better alternative.
I would not criticize anyone using anything that would lead them to God and wanting to follow Christ. However, I have found the more people start studying, however, the more they want to get into a deeper study of the Word, they need a more literal translation. Paraphrases too easily allow the individual biases of the author, where committees working together offer more balance. Of course, no system is perfect. But it's amazing how God can use our imperfections to accomplish His goals.
I don't recall the source, but I remember reading in the past where Eugene Peterson referred to the The Message as a paraphrase, but the publishers spoke of it as a translation. I wonder if they did't do this for marketing.
The Message is officially referred to, on the dust jacket of my 2002 copy, as a "paraphrasing translation". And that is a good description. Technically it is not a paraphrase but a translation because it is based on the original language texts. But it has many of the characteristics of a paraphrase. Another good description would be "free translation".
But I would never want to rely on a paraphrasing translation, and so would not ask the question whether it is reliable. I would not call a wild flower or a rainbow reliable either, but that does not stop both being things of beauty which help us to know to God - and so is The Message.
As for this particular example of non-literal translation, note that the adaptation is only in the comparison side of a simile. According to the translation principles I learned to be a Bible translator, adaptations of this kind are permissible as long as they don't introduce anachronisms. And yes, iced tea is an anachronism, so this goes beyond that bound, although the steak does not.
I note also that the second dreamer in The Message is a woman, although both are explicitly masculine singular in Hebrew. TNIV makes both generic plural. But since they are being compared with male warriors later in the verse, these really should be men.
But for me the more important reason to reject this adaptation is that the comparison with drinking iced tea doesn't work at all, as it's the last thing I would dream of drinking.
Joe, thanks for commenting and welcome to New Epistles blog. The GNT was my first bible I enjoyed reading as a kid and it may always remain a children’s bible in my mind.
Robert, individual biases are so hard to avoid when there are only a few translators. Yes, even though it may be a work of one person, it is amazing how God can use it to edify believers. You might see it almost parallel to a person’s sermon where interpretation comes through a single person.
Peter, I really like your explanation and analogous example of “a wild flower or rainbow”. Thanks for your valuable input on this.
I see how “iced tea” is an anachronism and “steak” is not. Now, I’m wondering about more specific descriptions like filet mignon, or beef stew, or hamburger? Could they be anachronistic?
The Message attempted to be gender-inclusive. It can lead to inconsistencies when trying to include both genders. TNIV’s gender-neutrality can go a little too far. I guess the question is where do you find the balance in trying to be gender-neutral , -accurate, or –inclusive?
Iced tea is okay for summer time but when it’s winter or fall, I think I’d prefer a nice cup of hot tea. ;)
Personally I prefer my tea hot whatever the season. As for exactly which descriptions are anachronistic depending on their names, that is an interesting point. There have always been steaks, surely. Hamburgers are a more recent invention, and named after a city, Hamburg, which was not around in biblical times, so this might be counted as an anachronism; but Abraham very likely ate something very similar to the Turkish dish Urfa kebab which comes from the area around Harran - and is very like lamb hamburgers! So should the name be rejected as an anachronism if the concept is not? Consider this: in Turkish a dolphin is literally a Jonah-fish. Was it an anachronism to use this word for the skins used in covering the tabernacle because the name Jonah-fish could not have been in use before the time of Jonah?
Kevin, here's the Message on Gal 2:11-13:
11-13Later, when Peter came to Antioch, I had a face-to-face confrontation with him because he was clearly out of line. Here's the situation. Earlier, before certain persons had come from James, Peter regularly ate with the non-Jews. But when that conservative group came from Jerusalem, he cautiously pulled back and put as much distance as he could manage between himself and his non-Jewish friends. That's how fearful he was of the conservative Jewish clique that's been pushing the old system of circumcision. Unfortunately, the rest of the Jews in the Antioch church joined in that hypocrisy so that even Barnabas was swept along in the charade.
That's a great paraphrase in my opinion.
Well said Kevin. Personally I have zero interest in paraphrases. There are simply too many more literal translations available today that are very understandable, so I just fail to see the need for something that goes so far beyond the original texts.
Unwittingly, people could potentially develop dangerous doctrines from passages that actually skew the original languages (not that this hasn't happened on occasion with literal translations as well, but it seems much more likely to occur with a less reliable version), so I'd rather stick to more scholarly, trustworthy versions.
I don't mean to sound abrasive, but in my view The Message should only be used as an example of a Bible NOT to own. But this is only my humble opinion.
Peter, the term "paraphrasing translation" is just confusing to me. I understand paraphrase, and also what I learned in college as to a translation, but putting them together makes no sense to me. I know, I'm probably out of touch. But to me, even if one goes back to the original languages to do the initial work, but winds up being very interpretative in the end, that to me is still a paraphrase.
It's not that I discount any value for such, but to add the phrase translation to the finished work, no matter where it started, is just confusing.
Peter, that’s a good example. I’d say Jonah-fish is an anachronism but that’s debatable too. This can get complicated. There are so many factors: culture, language, and timing. I’m glad I’m not a bible translator who has to make all these decisions. I stick with critiquing translations.
TC, for a paraphrase, it’s not bad. The colloquialism really stands out in The Message: “pushing the old system of circumcision”, and “swept along in the charade”. Maybe that’s why some people like it?
L. Wells, I’ve also heard that said about the Living Bible. Look where it’s at today. No where. That’s why I believe paraphrases may be popular for the short-term, but they will disappear from popular usage very quickly.
Robert, it also doesn’t sit well with me to attach the word “translation” to “paraphrasing”. It is trying to legitimize something that isn’t into something that looks like a real thing. Isn’t it almost kind of like a counterfeit to call a paraphrase a translating paraphrase?
Kevin, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that everything I read in the Message I agree with, but some I do like.
TC,
I agree with you that the Message on Gal 2:11-13 is a great paraphrase.
Post a Comment