theophiles.org - 'The Voice': New Bible translation focuses on dialogue

'The Voice': New Bible translation focuses on dialogue

Written by holmegm

Thursday, 19 April 2012 11:31

From USA Today:

The name Jesus Christ doesn't appear in The Voice, a new translation of the Bible.
Nor do words such as angel or apostle. Instead, angel is rendered as messenger and apostle as emissary. Jesus Christ is Jesus the Anointed One or the liberating king.
That's a more accurate translation for modern American readers, says David Capes, lead scholar for The Voice, a complete edition released this month by publishing company Thomas Nelson. Capes says that many people, even those who've gone to church for years, don't realize that the word "Christ" is a title.

Comments

SteveGus - The problem these always run into....

|2012-04-19 22:11:40

Quote:

Disciple: "It's a ghost!"

Another Disciple: "A ghost? What will we do?"

Jesus: "Be still. It is I; you have nothing to fear."

Of course, even the 'meanest' translation of the Bible remains the Word of God. They are all useful; the KJV remains unequalled in poetic passages and frequently quoted texts, and the CEV excels in the journalism of Samuel and Kings.

But all of these colloquializing translations read oddly because they seldom go far enough stylistically.

On the one hand, the passage has been recast as dialogue. On the other hand, Jesus is still using jarring, archaic grammar, rather than the contemporary "It's me" that's acceptable everywhere. The holier the person speaking, the stranger they will talk.

PineHall

|2012-04-19 22:33:24

I have to agree. I think the NIV sounds better. Here is Matthew 14:26-27.

Quote:

26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear. 27 But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."

I don't know Greek, but if I were to put Jesus' words in modern colloquial English to capture the mood, I would say:

Quote:

"Stop! Don't be afraid, it's me!"

Note it is Matthew 14, not Matthew 15 as the article says.

whitemice - why bother?

|2012-04-20 06:08:35

> But all of these colloquializing translations
> read oddly because they seldom go far enough
> stylistically.

Or they just make no sense. A translation obviously needs to change the words and possibly reformulate certain things - but at some point it ceases to be a 'translation' and becomes a 'paraphrase.

Reflecting (not necessarily parroting) the style and formality/informality of a text, or period, is good translating. Going from a formal specific speech form "Greetings fellow country men" to "Yo dawgs' isn't an update, it is just bad translating.

I haven't read The Voice, but I've read other 'colloquial' texts. My issue is just that I read the passage in the NIV, the KJV, and the NASB,... and then the 'colloquial' version - and they frequently don't say the same thing. Trying to be 'colloquial' in my opinion is always dangerous [for any text] as what 'colloquial' means is amazingly fluid and many colloquial forms can vary in their meaning regionally or by demographic, and shift quickly. Just watch how many celebrities or politicians come off looking idiotic when they try to be 'colloquial'. Let colloquial speech exist where it naturally does [we all use it] but trying to force it onto a page or into very much not-colloquial documents is just silly (and ultimately pointless).

Much of what Jesus said may have been 'colloquial' for his period or place - but that place isn't now or here. And 'colloquial' does not equal 'colloquial'. Some cultures 'colloquial' is still quite formal and specific [this may be influenced by the richness of the language itself] while in others 'colloquial' may be less so. So even the argument "Jesus was colloquial" doesn't hold up for me; it is extremely unlikely I can find anything close to 1:1 equivalents to the colloquial forms he used (assuming we can agree on what is 'colloquial' currently for a population of any significant size).

laika - re: The problem these always run into....

|2012-04-25 00:16:44

SteveGus wrote:

The holier the person speaking, the stranger they will talk.

It might be fun (and somehow edifying?) to see that convention reversed. What effect might it have on the reader to leave the stilted speech to the lesser players and cast the holiers as plain spoken and accessible?

Hmmm... that might be a worthy community project. The Theophiles Conversational Jesus Translation.

emperorbma - Voice vs Word? Try Hebrew primacy...

|2012-04-20 10:57:55

TFA wrote:

In The Voice, that passage reads: "Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking. The Voice was and is God." Frank Couch, the executive editor and publisher of The Voice, says that translation better captures what logos means.

Somehow this translation choice makes me uneasy. What is the agenda behind eschewing the obvious Greek meaning of "logos," which is Word? Is it just me or does using "Voice" seems to suggest a subtle modalistic subtext or, perhaps more ominously, attempting to draw some subtle division in the Godhead as depicted by John's Gospel?

The thing is, in this case, any alternate possible Greek connotations are secondary considerations because the Greek word "logos," itself, is a direct translation of the Hebrew word "dabar." In my opinion, the Hebrew term usually has a more direct primacy except when the Apostles clearly mean to use the alternate case.* To wit, the Hebrew term "dabar" is unambiguously "speech, word."

In general, the substitution seems harmless enough, but I'm still a bit wary about it.

*-Namely, this limitation is referencing the "Parthenos vs almah" issue. In this case, the context clearly indicates the Apostolic use implied Virginity (following the Greek use more closely than the Hebrew) and this has a clear precedence because of the historical events of Christ's birth. However, the Hebrew term "almah" doesn't specifically forbid virginity either. It simply doesn't imply it as directly as Apostles' and the Septuagint's use of "parthenos" does.

laika - re: Voice vs Word? Try Hebrew primacy...

|2012-04-25 00:26:21

emperorbma wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:

Bene Gesserit are trained in what they call "the Voice" — a means "to control others merely by selected tone shadings of the voice." By modulating the subtleties of her voice, a Bene Gesserit can issue commands on a subconscious level, compelling obedience in others that they cannot resist, whether they are consciously aware of the attempt or not. This control can be as subtle as influencing thoughts and motivations, or as strong as forcing physical actions in the subject. To effect this, the Bene Gesserit must "register" the intended target by analyzing his or her personality and vocal patterns through observation or seemingly innocuous direct questions.

(My bolding)

Only registered users can write comments!

Last Updated on Thursday, 19 April 2012 11:34

Our valuable member holmegm has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

Russian army introduces the flying Orthodox church... (04 April 2013)
Faith - and a side of fries (31 March 2013)
Resigning From the AARP (22 February 2013)
On Metrorail, pastor tries to raise Christmas spir... (27 December 2012)
Tulsi Gabbard, First Hindu Elected To Congress, Wi... (20 November 2012)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online