| Product: |
Message Personal New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs-MS-Numbered - Eugene H. Peterson |
| Date: |
27/08/08 (102 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: Doesn't patronise, is a mostly accurate translation
Disadvantages: Americanised, some other minor issues covered in the review
Here is the second bible on the list - aren't you just thrilled to hear the outcome? If it helps - it wasn't half as bad as the last one...and so we come to 'The Message', which has a similar aim, if not style, to 'The Word on the Street'. (Background by the way, the reason for these reviews is to help my vicar find a decent youth Bible).
===Boring stuff===
Title: The Message
Author: Eugene H.Peterson
Genre: Bible (fiction or non-fiction - up to you)
ISBN: 0-89109-853-4
Publisher: Navpress Publishing Group (17 Jul 2002)
Price: RRP: £15.99, but from Amazon the paperback is going for as little as £0.01 and the hardback for £0.33 at time of writing.
===Aim===
Much the same as the last supposed Bible that I reviewed; the aim of this is to use contemporary language to bring across the message of the Bible. It uses the fact that the New Testament originally was written in the street language of the day, in the idiom of the playground and the marketplace...not in the formal, lofty language of government decrees and historical documents. Like 'the other' one (I will not even dignify it with a name), 'The Message' aims to bring out the 'expressive, earthy flavour of New Testament Greek'. The main question is, has it managed it without being as darn condescending, patronising and idiotic as 'the other' one...?
A main point worth mentioning before I even really start is that this is only the New Testament, it is not a full Bible. If you are looking for a full Bible in contemporary language then look elsewhere...just please don't look in the direction of Rob Lacey.
===Language===
The language as a whole I have no complaint with, my only issue would be that it is very Americanised, it depends on how much this would effect what you the translation for and if this would annoy you. One of the things my vicar asked me to keep an eye out for was if the language was too American. It is not as bad as it could be, but there is a definite American twist to the language that on several occasions had me scrunching my brow and thinking 'that's not right.'
I think one of the things that very much appealed to me was a very simple thing, and it was to do with the language used. In Matthew 18;21 Peter asks Jesus a question that he knows will probably make him sound like an idiot. And in the typical translations it is simply 'Peter said to him', however in this it's 'Peter got up the nerve to ask'. Which is actually more realistic? To me this made the whole thing more accurate, more true to life.
''Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani?' which means 'My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?'' Now, ok, my translation has 'forsaken me' which I personally feel is a much better way of putting it, but it doesn't patronise. It puts the Aramaic first, then explains what this means...rather than saying 'Daddy, why am I here?' I like most of the language for this reason alone, it doesn't seem to think that you are an idiot, and yet it explains the parts that most people wouldn't understand.
A minor issue that did annoy me about the language used was that points of it could be very poetic, but then in the same verse suddenly switch to the complete opposite of poetic. A perfect example of this would be 1 Corinthians 13, 'If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but do not love, I'm nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate.' It starts brilliantly, but then ruins itself...and points like that did kind of set my teeth on edge, particularly as 'noisy gong or clanging cymbal' (NRSV) is far more poetic
===Style===
In complete contrast to 'the other' bible this was not patronising, and if anything explained many of the points very well. Often or not it would explain a 'difficult' point without making it clear that the author was clarifying, at the same time sticking to the original meaning that the Bible itself gave. An example of this would be Matthew 5:27-28: 'You know the next commandment pretty well too, 'Don't go to bed with another's spouse'. But don't think you're preserved your virtue simply by staying out of bed. Your heart can be corrupted by lust even quicker than your body. Those leering looks you think nobody notices - they are also corrupt.' From this you can see that it is not too simplistic or patronising, while at the same time sticking to the actual meaning that was originally given.
This next point might annoy some people, but to me it makes it all the more appealing. The Bible isn't necessarily meant to be a page turner, you all know about the long lists of names that the book excels at. And this translation doesn't miss them out, which is shown in Luke 3: 25-32. The style sticks as closely as possible to the actual Bible, while trying to make it more accessible to the ordinary reader who does tend to get lost in Leviticus although they started with the best of intentions. It is still a 'Bible' because it doesn't just miss out the bits that the author knows will bore some people.
===Translation===
The 'new' translation of the Lord's prayer - again - annoyed the living jeepers out of me. This is the second supposed bible I've found with an absolutely awful translation of the Lord's Prayer, when I have seen some absolutely brilliant versions in my time (and how old does that me sound!). What is it with people and an inability to write a decent Lord's Prayer, when it is quite obvious that there are some brilliant versions out there?
===Biblical Telling===
An issue that I found was that 'The Message' did not necessarily stick to the contextual knowledge that you need if you are actually going to read and understand the Bible. If you take Matthew 5:39-40 ; 'If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;...and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.(NRSV)' Without any background knowledge this could be, and often is, taken as a message just to take whatever is doled out to you - and this is the way that 'The Message' portrays it. But this is not the way it was necessarily meant to be taken; in turning the other cheek you were forcing your attacker to either hit you with the palm of him hand or with his fist - not the back of his hand which was an insult to you. And considering the times in which these passages were written, a Roman soldier could ask you to walk one mile carrying his stuff - but any more than that and that Roman soldier would face a flogging. Does this sound like Jesus was telling people to just 'stand there and take it'? Or does it sound more like passive resistance on a scale that is reminiscent to Martin Luther King or Mahatma Ghandi? Because if like me you think the latter, then the translation given in 'The Message' is rather incorrect, and for no reason other than the fact that not enough background research has been carried out. You may not necessarily need the contextual information, but that doesn't give the author any reason to presume.
However in actually re-telling most of Jesus' direct teachings this bible does do a remarkably good job at it, A brilliant example of this would be Matthew 18;3-5, in which they are explaining why the children and childlike rank the highest in God's kingdom, and to anyone who 'receives the childlike on my account, its the same as receiving me.' Direct teachings and parables alike are often done very well.
===Other===
The short introductions at the beginning of each book of the New Testament which explains the background and the basics of what is going to be told in said book, as well as how it is going to be told are very useful. To the uninitiated this would make the whole thing easier to read, as you are not just being shunted in at the deep end, but instead have a certain amount of introduction to work with, which will impact how you actually read the book in question. In addition to this the lack of verse numbers in the text made it far easier to read as an uninterrupted story, rather than it being forever interspersed with numbers which take away from the flow. This does make it more difficult to reference, but the verse numbers are included at the top of each page and it's not that much more effort to flick through all the corresponding verse numbers to find what you want...
===Conclusion===
It doesn't molly coddle the reader, doesn't patronise or use supposedly 'street' language in order to impress...which ends up annoying any reader who is educated enough to be literate in any sense of the word. It works with the semantics of the text, not necessarily the idiomatic, which again make it easier to read and far less likely to confuse a reader. There are some minor flaws, mostly in the language, but as far as I'm concerned the pluses do outweigh the minuses, it is by no means the best of the bibles I've been looking through but it's well beyond decent...
Summary: It covers the message it wants to
|
|
