poem

some people are quite critical of The Message by Eugene Peterson, which is called a translation of the Bible (and maybe technically it is, in some sense) but it's really more of a paraphrase, just because of the liberties he takes in recontextualising and modernising it. a good translation will be accessible to modern readers but be cognisant of the original context, but Peterson, in elucidating the message, refers to things that are completely foreign to the original context. To give a couple of examples, in Psalm 23, where the standard translations have 'though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil', The Message has: 'Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid'....what makes that problematic is that Death Valley is a literal place in modern day California. 

Probably the best example I know of to illustrate this point is John 2:15 - 16. The NIV has:

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

The Message has: 

Jesus put together a whip out of strips of leather and chased them out of the Temple, stampeding the sheep and cattle, upending the tables of the loan sharks, spilling coins left and right. He told the dove merchants, “Get your things out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a shopping mall!”

I think that's going too far in the direction of transposing the text into our world. I don't hate The Message. Some people do. They think it's actually evil - a perversion of God's word. But some people say the same thing about the NIV, the NLT, or, in fact, every translation other than the King James Version. I don't want to get into that debate, although there's a lot I could write about it, because, as I've written before, I don't like making an argument or making a case. There's a long list of points that I would make if I was going to do that, but I don't want to. 

With The Message though, I used to quite like it, but then, when I tried to use it to actually study the Bible and explore the meaning of the text, I found it unworkable. It gives you one meaning, and that's it - there's nothing further to consider - whereas the other, more standard translations provide scope for really thinking more deeply about the meaning of the text, and coming up with your own understanding. The Message is really 'the Bible according to Eugene Peterson', and he would probably have no argument with that because it's literally true. Even though I don't think it's good for studying the Bible or reading it closely, I think it does sometimes shed an interesting light on some passages. 

But the reason I'm writing about The Message is because I wanted to write something about another translation that has been heavily criticised - The Passion Translation. The criticism of it is that it has obviously been written to serve the agenda of a movement within Christianity called 'The New Apostolic Reformation', which a lot of mainstream Christian leaders and groups regard as being in error, to the point where it's heretical - it's a false gospel, which is a very serious thing. There's also the criticism that, like The Message, the translation is largely the work of one man - Brian Simmons, while other translations are a collaborative effort of a team of scholars. I've done quite a lot of research (i.e. watching YouTube videos) about the NAR, and also I've listened to critiques of The Passion translation that talk about why it is not a good translation. Not everyone is super-critical of The Passion Translation - some people who seem pretty balanced and reasonable have some good things to say about it. There seems to be more strong criticism of it though, than there is praise, which makes sense because there is a lot of strong criticism of the New Apostolic Reformation movement that this translation came out of. And even the people who have good things to say about it seem to still put it in the same category as The Message....it's good to read to get fresh insights, but it doesn't sustain close reading or study. 

but something very interesting happened. I was watching a Christian YouTube video, and it wasn't anything extreme or radical...it was quite moderate and reasonable and grounded....which is what I tend to prefer. Then, in this video, the presenter referred to a passage in the Bible that I had heard/ read before, but it was expressed in a different way, and I really liked the way it was expressed - it really spoke to me, and it struck me as an accurate and insightful translation. So I did a search to find out which translation the presenter was talking about, and it was The Passion Translation. 

The passage was Ephesians 2:10. 

In the NASB, which is one of the more literal/ word for word translations (as opposed to thought for thought), Ephesians 2:10 has:

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

In the Passion Translation the same verse reads: 

We have become his poetry, a re-created people that will fulfill the destiny he has given each of us, for we are joined to Jesus, the Anointed One. Even before we were born, God planned in advance our destiny and the good works we would do to fulfill it!

Using the term 'poetry' is a very insightful and eloquent rendering because the root meaning of the word 'poem' is simply 'something that is made', so this translation carries the rich double meaning of God creating, in the sense of making something (or someone), but also creating in the sense of making something beautiful or meaningful. 'Workmanship' brings to mind something a bit more mechanical (maybe that's just me). I'm probably biased because of my interest in literature. But interestingly, when I looked up the Greek wording of Ephesians 2:10, the Greek word that is used is: ποίημα or, to transliterate: poiēma. So, while most translators focus on the fact that the Greek word ποίημα means basically 'to make', Brian Simmons has drawn on the rich double meaning of the word. And, when I look at the online etymological dictionary at the word poēma, which is an early variant of the word poiēma, it has that double meaning:

Greek poēma "fiction, poetical work," literally "thing made or created," early variant of poiēma, from poein, poiein, "to make or compose"

So, it's not like Simmons is introducing some modern spin on the word. It's more like he's drawing out a meaning that was already there.