I've been using it for BCP 1662 services this year. The beautiful, poetic language is part of our culture. Mostly. Except when you get things like this:
"And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son, which came forth of my bowels..." (2Sam 16:11)
You wouldn't want surgery in ancient Israel.
Bowels are brought up again (sorry) even in the New Testament, translating a word that means something like "the stuff that's inside you".
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. 12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. (2Cor 6)
When we speak of someone as "big-hearted" or talk about a "gut reaction"' we're using a similar comparison. The Bible is full of metaphor, because its the natural way we use any language - Hebrew, Greek, English included.
Which is why it really annoys me when people decide, quite arbitrarily, that we must take the Bible strictly literally. No-one actually does that, because it doesn't make sense. But some people argue for a particular favourite doctrine of theirs on the basis of an over-literal reading of a verse or two. Often this is backed up by veiled threats, like "if you don't take this literally then you can't trust the Bible at all and you're not a proper Christian like me and..."
Jesus says he is a light, vine, bread, shepherd etc. But these are all pictures. As someone put it: when he says he's a door, he's not being wooden. None of the men I know takes literally the bit about plucking out your eye if you have a naughty thought when you see a woman.
We have to interpret the Bible, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There's no other way. Some people don't even like the word 'interpret', claiming they just read what's there, plain in black and White. In my experience, all these people have one thing in common. They don't use a Hebrew or Greek Bible- they rely on an English version, or 'interpretation'. Because translations invariably are interpretations. Word choices were made on our behalf. Some go as far as to suggest the King James translation itself is inspired. Thankfully, not many.
2Corinthians 6, Good News Bible
11 Dear friends in Corinth! We have spoken frankly to you; we have opened our hearts wide. 12 It is not we who have closed our hearts to you; it is you who have closed your hearts to us.
Which is why you can't really do a Bible study with this version, but it has its uses.
Location:ANE
Yes. Translation of the text often loses the picture language and 'poetry' of the original text. King James is quite word for word and keeps the original flavour which is often lost when the translation tries to capture the 'meaning' (and all too often in a literal sense). Although "The Message", like Good News, has it uses, I find this book is so much a paraphrase that I don't consider it to be 'reading the bible': It is reading somebody's evaluation of the Bible. With "The Message" as an extreme example, I can understand why people see King James as being closer to the original. I have often found that translations based more on the King James (New King James, RSV, NRSV, ESV) are more solid and retain the 'picture language' better than NIV for example.
ReplyDeleteThe balance between word for word translation and paraphrase clearly varies. Perhaps bibles should be coded like foods at the supermarket?!
... And then there's the issue of whether a gender-inclusive interpretation is more accurately God's word!
I like The Message just because it does shed some light on the the often complex language of the King James and for those of us who are less academically minded the more light the better I say! As long as you keep in mind it is a paraphrase it can be a useful tool, I have an NIV/Message parallel and use it in group Bible studies to bring a different perspective sometimes.
ReplyDeleteAs for picture language, have a look at Psalm 65 in The Message, wonderful kennings.
Having said that, the version I can quote most easily is the RSV because it's the one I had in college and was really the first Bible I used for study.
Because paraphrases rely more on interpretation, it all depends on the quality and choice of the intrerpretation. The Message has some really good insights but they are not always the one which is most true to the original meaning: they are often the one that makes you think "That's a good point!". Where two or more interpretations are good, Message can only give one. So, it is useful but in my opinion we should not be calling it a Bible when it offers just one single, narrow (even if often good!) interpretation - Oh - and I do find it rather too 'American' to stomach at times! :-)
ReplyDeleteAs you point out, the Message can be a 'useful tool', sometimes making a point quickly which a commentary would take pages to make!
Definitely with you on the 'American' bit!
ReplyDelete