Review: "The Voice"

After reading The Gospel According to Lost, I made the comment that I hoped I would be able to read and review The Voice, which is the “translation” that is primarily used in the book. I got my wish. For those who are interested, the product information on this book can be found at http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1418534390&title=The_Voice_New_Testament_%28VOICE%29_

Let me state right up front that I am not a linguistic scholar. Although I had to learn Greek and Hebrew in seminary, and I can use the tools to do translation to a fair degree, I cannot simply plop myself down in front of the original text and translate off the top of my head.

That being said, let me say that the Ecclesia Bible Society and Chris Seay seem to have wonderful intentions. That is they want to present the Bible in a readable text with all of the character of the individual authors (vii). That is laudable. Then they lose me.

One of the reasons they did this work is due to the fact, they state “Most English translations attempt to even out the styles of the different authors in sentence structure and vocabulary” (vii). My reading suggest that this is a rather bizarre claim.

Then they say “Words that are borrowed from another language or words that are not common outside of the theological community (such as “baptism,” “repentance,” and “salvation”) are translated into more common terminology” (viii). This is outrageous. Certainly no other discipline does away with it vocabulary. (Would anyone go to a urologist who wants to look at your “wee willy winky”?) But the problem is worse than this.

After claiming this is a translation, they go on to say this is a “retelling of the Scriptures” (ix). Out the door with translation, then. And this “retelling involves translaiton and elaboration” (x). Uh-oh.

Throughout the introductory material, there is the claim that in this post-modern and emerging/emergent world that we now live in, words are not as effective as the visiual, so “preaching” as it were, ought to be narrative. After all, that’s what Jesus used to get the Gospel accross, right?

Actually, Jesus spoke in parables – in the narrative – so that His listeners would not understand (cf. Matthew 13:10-17). Instead, we read, “But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?’ So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:14-17, ESV).

Three examples from the text that elucidate trouble:

First, in John1:28 and following, the “translators” replace the troublesome word “baptism” with “cleansing” or “cleansing with water” – somehow, that doesn’t help me. And in the footnote, they write, “literally immersing, to show repentance” (161). Now, anyone who has ever discussed the issue of baptism knows that the word baptism does not necessarily mean “immerse.” If it did, there wouldn’t be traditions that sprinkle, dip, and drip. So, the meaning is skewed here to a particular tradition, rather than to what the text says.

Second, Romans 8:29-30 is “translated” “From the distant past, His eternal love reached into the future, and He chose those who would be conformed to the image of His Son. God not only knew which part they would play, but He chose them especially to be united with His Son, the firstborn of a new family of believers, all brothers and sisters.” The problem here is using a “retelling” of the words “foreknew” (which cannot simply mean “knew before” here) and “predestination” such that we are not being told that salvation is based on God’s choice apart from anything the human does or does not do, but rather that God looks down the corridor of time and falls in love with some...perhaps based on their works? It’s confusing to say the least.

Third, and I could go on ad nauseam, but in I Timothy 3:11, which says, in the ESV “Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.” Now, there is a footnote which says the word for “wives” can be translated as “women” here. However, that gives not right to the “translators of this work to “expand” the text to say “Again the same applies to women in key positions;...” as though Paul was saying that these are the qualification for male elders and female elders and male deacons and female deacons. To say to contradicts where Paul clearly states that only men are to hold positions of spiritual authority.

I will grant the Eccelsia Bible Society good intentions. But this is not a translation. At best it is a commentary; at worst, this is a rewriting of the text to suit the “translators.”

I urge everyone to stay away from this “translation.” Instead, buy a faithful one, such as the ESV, and, if possible, work to be able to handle the biblical languages yourself.

[This review appears on Amazon.com and my blog.]