Diversity of Modern Versions, pt 4 – Paraphrases
The word paraphrase literally means “spoken alongside.” To paraphrase is to take statements and rephrase them – not necessarily in a simpler way but in a more easily understood way. Often a paraphrase does not reflect the full content of the original statement, but it aids in comprehension.
For example, the general theory of relativity is an enormously complex idea. It baffles even the most intelligent people. Any version of the general theory you encounter on PBS or the Discovery Channel is a paraphrase of the theory – a rephrasing so the general public can understand the concepts even if they cannot grasp the details.
You can therefore easily see the very real potential for error in the paraphrasing of the Scriptures. Much of the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament, is elaborate theological thought. There is often quite a bit of high level thinking involved, and while the Scriptures are available to all, not every idea can be reduced to its simplest components.
Those thoughts aside, paraphrases of the Scriptures are often wildly popular. The most recent, the New Living Translation, consistently ranks as the 5th best selling English translations. Paraphrases are often used in commentaries and Bible study books because they are infinitely quotable and have a ‘feel’ to them that appeals to a popular audience.
As we have in the previous posts in the series, we will look at these various translations through the lens of their own prefaces.
The Living Bible
There were paraphrases before Kenneth Taylor completed The Living Bible (TLB) in 1971, but they were never as widely circulated or accepted. Taylor was working at Moody Press when he published The Living Letters, his paraphrase of the Epistles. This proved popular enough that he was able to leave Moody Press and establish his own publishing company, Tyndale House and publish his completed paraphrase under its imprint.
The Living Bible is a paraphrase of the American Standard Version of 1901, and was never intended to be considered a translation. According to Taylor, it began with his children. In an interview in 1979, he said:
All too often I would ask questions to be sure our children understood, and they would shrug their shoulders…I would paraphrase it for them and give them the thought. It suddenly occurred to me one afternoon that I should write out the reading for that evening thought by thought, rather than doing it on the spot during our devotional time. So I did, and read the chapter to the family that evening with exciting results—they knew the answers to all the questions I asked!
The impetus of the complete paraphrase was Billy Graham’s sponsorship of The Living Letters. The Billy Graham organization eventually bought and distributed over 600,000 copies of The Living Letters in 1962 alone. This provided the capital for what became Tyndale House.
Originally, there was an entry here for the New Living Translation.
I have since moved it to the post on Dynamic Equivalence.
I was ambivalent on including it here in the first place, and the consensus seems to be for a reclassification.
The Message
Eugene Peterson is very uncomfortable with his paraphrase The Message being used as if it is a formal translation.
When I’m in a congregation where somebody uses it in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy…You can’t tell people they can’t do it. But I guess I’m a traditionalist, and I like to hear those more formal languages in the pulpit. (Christianity Today)
In 1991, Peterson was pastoring Christ Our King Presbyterian Church in Bel Air, Maryland. For most of his adult life, he had been reading the Scriptures in the original Greek and Hebrew, and as he taught, he would often make ad hoc translations based on his knowledge. After retiring from Christ Our King, he was persuaded to turn his ad hoc translations into a full translation of the Scriptures and over the next twelve years, he worked to create The Message.
Unlike The Living Bible, The Message was paraphrased from the original languages. It was never intended to be used as a study Bible or even a standard translation:
My intent here (as it was earlier in my congregation and community) is simply to get people reading it who don’t know that the Bible is read-able at all, at least by them, and to get people who long ago lost interest in the Bible to read it again. But I haven’t tried to make it easy—there is much in the Bible that is hard to understand. So at some point along the way, soon or late, it will be important to get a standard study Bible to facilitate further study. Meanwhile, read in order to live, praying as you read, “God, let it be with me just as you say.”
Peterson’s paraphrase has a vibrant English. It is as if it is being spoken in every day language, complete with word choices and syntax. It is uniquely the Scriptures in Peterson’s words, and he freely admits that limited scope.
Because of its popularity, The Message has been increasingly used exactly as Peterson intended it not to be used. Many books and Bible studies quote Peterson’s words as if they are Scripture.
Other Paraphrases
There are other paraphrases of the Bible in English, chief among them J. B. Philips’ New Testament in Modern English and The Berkeley Bible but these have very limited scope and appeal. Paraphrasing is nothing new, and some of the first glimpses of the Bible in English are paraphrases, often in the margins of Greek or Latin texts.
A paraphrase is a tool, and as Eugene Peterson points out, it is never intended to replace a more formal translation. Sadly, many people use these paraphrases as if they are sufficient – often producing a sort of pop Christianity without the depth and power that a full study of the Scriptures releases.
One Post Left
The final post of this series will focus exclusively on one translation – the New King James Version. As I have previously pointed out, this translation is unique among the pantheon of modern translations. The final post will include the NKJV as well as the other modern attempts to produce a revision of the KJV while ignoring the rest of the KJV tradition of formal translations.
This char is linked from Biblica.com and obviously biased toward the TNIV/NIV, which are patently not as balanced as the creators of the chart believed they are. But the chart does show the basic scale of translations. There is a much better one that used to be on the Christian Book Distributors website, but it has since been taken down.
The linked picture is interesting, but appears flawed, in that one version (the one they are promoting?) is placed in the ‘perfectly balanced’ position, TNIV/NIV.
This is quite a claim…I doubt the editors of most of the other bibles would agree with the arrangement, especially those near the middle in the chart as it is.
peace
Nazaroo
I agree. Definitely a flawed graphic, but I didn’t have time to make one of my own – perhaps for a final post.
I don’t think its right to call the Message a mere paraphrase. There is a lot more going on in it than that.
I remember reading a passage in the Prophets from the Message, and I was stunned by how much the text had been edited and force-fit to apply to the modern educational system.
It was as if the translator suddenly got inspired to take and apply these general prophecies, formerly having a universal application to subsequent events, and actually narrowing them down to specific modern groups identified and targeted by the translator/AUTHOR…
Essentially, the translator/AUTHOR of the Message was using the ‘medium’ of Bible publishing to issue new prophecies about the modern world we live in, and trying to acquire the authority of Holy Scripture for his interpretation/application.
Nice if you can afford it, but the idea is similar to the Mormon leader issuing his own extra ‘Bible’, or one of the founding fathers of the USA issuing his own ‘readers digest’ bible.
Somehow I believe a real prophet would be poor, and not have access to hundreds of thousands of dollars to write and sell his own custom “Bible”.
Its like Bill Gates or President Nixon publishing their own Bible. I’m sure there would be some ‘truth’ about the American economy in it, but it AIN’T Holy Scripture!
peace
Nazaroo
Could you provide references to the specific ‘general prophecies’ that Peterson narrowed down to specific modern groups? I’m unclear on the thesis of your comment.
I’ll note that the NIV/TNIV promoters seem apt to provide such resources that throw themselves in the best light. Karen Jobes wrote an article on Bible translation a few years back that made the TNIV shine brightest by being picky on which translations were in the chart.
Oh, but on topic: great post! I didn’t realize Peterson never intended The Message to be a replacement for formal translations. Now I can sympathize with him better.
Hi Folks,
As Michael Marlowe points out :
the publisher has advertised it as a “translation from the original languages” that “accurately communicates the original Hebrew and Greek” and brings out “the subtleties and nuances of the Hebrew and Greek languages,” being the work of a respected “exegetical scholar,”
Since this was Peterson’s work, he surely could have corralled the baloney claims. Acting hurt post facto that folks were deceived by his own publisher seems a bit transparent. Think $.
Shalom,
Steven
Steven, you have been warned about your tone before. You clearly don’t understand the ways that publishers operate. Authors often have no ability to curb how the publishers advertise their work and in his preface he makes his philosophy very plain. You have rephrased the situation incorrectly.
Please watch your tone. You have continued to caricature any view that conflicts with your own and then use the caricature as ‘proof’ that you are correct. I have said it before and I will say it once last time. Respect the other commenters and the authors or you will be banned from commenting. The contributors have all discussed your comments and agree that sub tactics are disrespectful and unacceptable. I have already given you more opportunities than your attacks warrant. There will be no more warnings.
I personally could never use The Message as anything but one person’s commentary. Peterson puts all kinds of interpretation into the text.
As an example, my personal favorite is when he translates, “For he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God…He that speaks in an unknown tongue edifies himself; but he that prophesies edifies the church.” (1 Cor 14:2 & 4, KJV) as “if you praise him in the private language of tongues…The one who prays using a private ‘prayer language’ certainly gets a lot out of it, but proclaiming God’s truth to the church in its common language brings the whole church into growth and strength.”
I remember reading this and commenting to my wife, “Well, we know Eugene Peterson’s position on tongues, even if he reads it back into the text.” And this is the problem with paraphrases – a problem that Peterson himself humbly acknowledges – the paraphrasing translator will always filter the Scripture through his biases. I do my own paraphrases all the time and like Peterson try to base them on the original text and not on a translation, but I also know the paraphrases are how I understand the text and not necessarily the most accurate way to render the text.
Hi Folks,
Erik
“Authors often have no ability to curb how the publishers advertise their work and in his preface he makes his philosophy very plain. You have rephrased the situation incorrectly.”
In those cases, the author can simply make a clear public disclaimer. The publisher will invariably yield to such pressure, at least in the next edition.
Sometimes they speak a little proforma word, like Ehrman with Misquoting Jesus, expressing a bit of surprise or disapproval. Do you have any indication at all that Peterson objected to the Message advertising ? Are you really saying that $ should not be considered as a motive for false advertising ?
The problem above was ** highlighted by Michael Marlowe ** . With the new protest, it really looks like you are angling for a way to bump off sharp comments (ie. real debate). It is my style to actually speak directly, and while I tone down at times, you have to decide whether you are interested in debate on this blog.
Peterson’s version is an absolute disaster, we have not even scratched the surface (e.g. the new age terminology), overall you should feel very awkward defending the misrepresentations of The Message.
Shalom,
Steven
Steven,
How exactly is Eric defending the Message?
RE: your “warning” from Eric. Play by our rules or play elsewhere. We are serious about this. We can have a friendly, Christian debate without resorting to strong-arm tactics and grandstanding.
We are the authors here, and come from a different perspective than you on these topics. Please respect that. You can interact, but you shouldn’t aim to correct and criticize that we didn’t do a post like you would have wanted.
Eugene Peterson said in interviews with Christianity Today both in 2002 and more recently that he was surprised that people use his translation as an ‘official’ translation. He said in his preface that this was intended to help understanding and not to supplant other translations. He advocates that people use The Message as a beginning point but eventually get themselves a good study Bible.
That isn’t enough to make it plain that he never intended his translation to be used the way some people use it?
It took me awhile to even figure out who Michael Marlowe is, but once I did, I checked his article on The Message. I agree with his assessments:
No one is defending The Message as a translation. I even noted in my brief entry: “Many books and Bible studies quote Peterson’s words as if they are Scripture. ” (EMPHASIS MINE)
I also noted in another comment: “…the paraphrasing translator will always filter the Scripture through his biases.”
Thus, I am patently not defending The Message as you so falaciously and continually contend.
Now, you can do the right thing and apologize for mischaracterizing my article or you can continually to twist around while claiming to be direct. Choose the latter and no further comments for you will be permitted on anything I write for this site.
Hi Folks,
“How exactly is Eric defending the Message?”
Waxing poetic about the “vibrant English” without even mentioning the new age philosophy (this is not Riplinger stuff, this is very clear, Bob, you would probably recognize it easil8y)
Defending the clearly deceptive advertising as just one of those thing.
Apparently all this brouhaha was because I indicated that there might be a pecuniary motive behind the advertising, and indicated that Peterson should be considered a part of the advertising process, as would be any responsible author, more so on a version related to the Bible.
Feel free to ignore that element if you find it offensive, all I have shared above stands.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
ATTENTION ALL READERS
Although we have tried repeatedly to give him the benefit of the doubt and offer reasonable solutions to his differences with the authors of this blog, Steven Avery has ignored us and continued in aggressive and uncharitable comments. He has caricatured arguments, refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing on his own part, and at times made accusatory statements about the owner of this blog. He has continued to treat this blog as if it is some kind of public forum for his own advancements, adopting a very condescending demeanor toward others.
Such behavior is in violation of this blog’s Rules of Debate and is unacceptable. We will therefore remove any comments he makes on this post and/or any other posts where he exhibits the same kind of behavior. It grieves us to have to take such action, but we will not tolerate such things. Anyone who wishes to contact us about this may do so by emailing The Author of these posts.
One clarification, “accusatory statements” were not necessarily directed to me, but I do believe toward Erik.
We are not banning Steven altogether. We will have to approve his posts on a case by case basis until we see him respect the wishes of the moderators of this forum, or until we have to ban him altogether.
We don’t like banning people here. We do want it to be a debate blog with discussion from all sides. But we have to ask for everyone to take care before hitting “post”. Think about how your words may be taken, it is harder to converse via a keyboard and body language, etc. is missed.
A paraphrase is a rendering of a text in different words but within the same language. The Living Bible was a “paraphrase” because it was produced from the KJV, not from the original text.
The New Living Translation is a translation. It is not a paraphrase of anything.
The Message is–um–well, paraphrase isn’t right. It was produced from the original languages. If it is a translation, it is one with low fidelity, that is, it wanders from the meaning of the original frequently, either by addition or omission. It is really a kind of expository restatement. It is not a paraphrase and it makes a poor translation.
If Peterson is uneasy about seeing it used as a Bible, he shouldn’t have agreed to it being published as it is. Leatherbound, and on shelves between ESV and NKJV, perhaps.
It is a Bible help. But it is presented as a Bible. Yes, as a matter of fact, he could tell people not to do that.
Hi Marv, thanks for stopping in.
Just to clarify, the Living Bible is actually a paraphrase from the ASV, not the KJV.
While the NLT is considered a translation, it still parallels the Living Bible and employs such a dynamic philosophy that, as I pointed out, it could still be considered a paraphrase. This is a difficult distinction to make, but I felt the NLT belonged here because of its close relationship with the Living Bible.
Why is there an excerpt from a prolonged advertisement for the TNIV at the end of this article/entry?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
No particular reason other than to show how publishers classify translations.
“The Voice” New Testament should be included as another example of a paraphrase. Or – I suggest – creating another category for The Message and The Voice: hyper-paraphrase.
Also, it might be a good idea to do a comparison of how each version renders specific passage of oratory, narrative, and epistle; I think that readers of this blog would be blessed by a version-by-version comparison of Matthew 9:15-17, Mark 6:20-24 and I Tim. 3:1-3, highlighting the differences between the versions’ base-texts and translational approach.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
The articles are what they are. If you’d like to write a comparison with all those things in them, you’re more than welcome to do so and provide us with a link.
Erik,
Yes; the articles are what they are, but frankly they seem to be a collection of random thoughts, rather than a collection of profiles of Bible versions. Take your paragraphs about “The Message” for example: we can read that it was written by Eugene Peterson. We can read your statements that it was based on Peterson’s “ad hoc translations,” and that when Peterson made The Message, he was turning his preliminary work into a “full translation.” Thus you referred to The Message as a translation, while also calling it a paraphrase. You called it “The Scriptures in Peterson’s words.”
There’s no mention of which base-text Peterson used. And there is not a single example presented of the liberties that Peterson has taken with the text! What good is a review that does not even give the reader a glimpse of its subject?; it’s a review without a view. I encourage you to follow up sometime in a more detailed way.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Erik, I would have to strongly disagree with you concerning you misappropriation of the term paraphrase for the NLT. First, the NLT is hardly based on the Living Bible which was based on the ASV. The NLT 1996 is a fresh translation made even more literal in 2004 and then in 2007. Yet, it is still dynamic, but that doesn’t equate a paraphrase. The Message is clearly a paraphrase, if one was to compare the two, then you would see the difference.
Further, the 2007 is very literal in some places. I note as well that ‘literal’ doesn’t have to mean word for word. A quick note of the translation staff should dispel the myth that the NLT is a paraphrase.
I don’t know. I know what you’re saying. I just still consider it a paraphrase. I hope we can still be friends.
Sorry… forgot to subscribe.
Erik, everyone as an equal opportunity to be wrong. If thought hard and long enough, I might even come up with a time in which I was wrong
One thing you may wish to consider is that the Living Bible was based completely off the ASV while the NLT had actual translators who produced a complete new translation based on the original languages.
Yes, it’s true. I know that in principle the NLT is a fresh translation. I had intended to include it with the dynamic translations, but then I grouped it with the Living Bible because of their close relationship originally. The 2004 revision definitely put more distance between it and the Living Bible. Given the weight of opinion and my own ambivalence, I guess I could move it.
Like Erasmus pondering 1 John in his 3rd edition, I probably would have done it different if I had it to do over. Unlike Erasmus, my work is not set in stone forever. (Although I can imagine ‘scholars in 2510 arguing over whether I had textual support from the now lost original documents to make the move.)
Everyone knows Joel is NLT-Only, so…. I figured he’d differ with Erik on this one.
What? Me? NLT-Only?
I have relocated the NLT to the Dynamic Translation post. Don’t say I never done nothin’ for ya.
Thanks, Erik!
[...] too often people say, perhaps out because of a mistaken understanding or to make a purposed slight (IA), that the New [...]
Joel, in this comments thread, maintains that “the NLT is hardly based on the Living Bible.” But clearly it is a revision of the Living Bible. See my review of the New Living Translation for a full discussion of this. I see also a certain amount of confusion introduced by the attempt to distinguish “dynamic equivalence” from “paraphrase.” The distinction is very questionable, and ultimately it seems that it functions only as a way of protecting paraphrastic versions from the derogatory connotations of the word “paraphrase.” Whatever you may wish to call the version, the only question worth asking is, is it accurate or not? And certainly the NLT is not as accurate as several other versions on the market. The second edition is a big improvement over the first, but it still falls short of the NIV in terms of accuracy. It would be a great mistake to rely upon it for serious Bible study or exposition.