BOOK REVIEW: Is “The Voice” Thomas Nelson’s cultural compromise?
With “The Voice New Testament,” publisher Thomas Nelson is playing with a fine line of producing the latest contemporary translation of the New Testament, or compromising the accuracy of God’s Word by elevating cultural influences in the translation process.
I’m not sure why Thomas Nelson, partnering with Ecclesia Bible Society, thought it necessary to produce yet another translation of the New Testament, but anytime a publisher takes on generating an actual translation of the Bible, the most essential element must be accuracy of translation from the original languages.
In producing a New Testament or complete Bible, accuracy is priority one.
I’ve had the opportunity to read “The Voice” — reading it was my responsibility as a reviewer. I haven’t had adequate time to do any type of comprehensive analysis of the accuracy of translation from the original languages. Nor have I had enough time to adequately compare and contrast “The Voice” with other translations. From my general reading, relying on general knowledge, there’s much to like about the fluidity and clarity of the contemporary style of “The Voice,” but there are multiple times where I question the choice of words or phrases and would have to rely on deeper study to draw thorough conclusions.
What is an immediate red flag for me is the purposeful inclusion of artists — such as singers, musicians, song writers, and poets — as contributors to the translation team. In order to have the most reliable translation possible, I want the the most gifted, skilled, capable scholars in the world doing the work of translating, not an artist!
So why were “artists” included as part of the translation team?
The first few pages of “The Voice” explain the translation method for this New Testament. The goal was not a word-for-word or even a dynamic equivalence translation, but what the publisher calls a hybrid of those two as a “contextual equivalence” version. To that end, artists were added to the translation team. Under the heading of “A Different Translation Process,” this explanation is offered:
“‘The Voice’ Bible is a different sort of translation. It combines the relative strengths of scholars who are experts in the original languages (in the case of the New Testament, Greek) and modern writers, musicians, and poets who are skilled in their use of English, our target language.”
The publisher does not offer a clear or more thorough explanation about the specific contributions made by artists on the team, or their degree of influence in the translation. That is something I definitely want to know. While I appreciate the gifts and skills of artists, having the scholarly aptitude to translate ancient documents into an accurate version of the New Testament is not among their gifts, skills, or experiences. I cannot believe that Bible scholars are so lacking in their knowledge of the English language that they need the guidance of a poet to put together what is both an accurate and readable translation. Furthermore, why would a Bible scholar need the skill of a musician in Bible translation?
In today’s church, there are some churches that engage culture so they can proclaim the Gospel and reach people for Christ. Other churches have gone far beyond engaging culture to embracing it, with the result being culture having a greater influence on the church than the church on culture.
This cultural influence has been so strong among some of these churches that their written mission statements speak of culture, art, beauty, and social justice but little or nothing of the original mission of the church as given by Jesus Christ — that of making disciples.
With it’s modern “screenplay” format, “The Voice” may be Thomas Nelson’s reflection of these churches that embrace culture by elevating artists and “creatives” to a new level of influence. But in this case, it’s not simply within the church, but in the work of translating the Word of God.
I find that disturbing.
Let me clarify that my discomfort with the inclusion of artists on the translation team is not, in any way, a disdain of art or artists. I appreciate both. I’m a writer, I’ve had a youthful stint as a musician, I appreciate and enjoy the arts. But it makes as much sense to put truck drivers, cashiers, and school teachers on a Bible translation team as it does to add artists to one.
One of the most important responsibilities I have as an ordained minister is the accurate teaching of the Word of God. Until Thomas Nelson can provide a thorough reasoning as to why artists were part of its translation team, and clarify with great specificity what influence these artists had in the translation process, there is no way I could recommend “The Voice” with a clear conscience.
Scotty
I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
December 4, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Dear Scotty
A very brave and, in my book, valid criticism of one of the most influential Christian publishers of our age. What on earth is Thomas Nelson thinking of? More specifically, what are their advisors thinking of? Is this the first step towards the liberalisation of Nelson Publishing. If so, it's a great loss as most of their translations prior to this are indeed good and valid ones.
December 4, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Al good questions and insights, Chris, thank you! I've enjoyed much of Thomas Nelson's work, as they are the largest Christian publisher in the world. They also were recently purchased by HarperCollins, which may affect the direction of their future. I simply found it odd, and very questionable, about how the publisher comprised a translation team. Do whatever you want with how you put together "any ol' book," but the Bible isn't "any ol' book." It certainly raises the question of cultural influences, and not necessarily the good kind.