A Review of "The Voice New Testament"

How do you gauge a Bible Translation? I have not seen a preface or introduction to one yet that doesn't describe itself as “accurate and faithful” to the original text. There are literally hundreds of translations of the Holy Scriptures into English and the goal of those responsible for each one of them was to accurately and faithfully render the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts into the English language in a way which was understandable and readable. The fact that there are hundreds of such translations indicates though that translation is, in fact, more of an art form than an exact science. Do you adhere to the original form of the words and sentences, or do you try and use your understanding of what it means instead, and how far do you stray from the original forms to get at the meaning? These are questions which plague the Bible Translator. For this reason, it can't be said that there is only one, right way to translate a certain text. In some respects, Bible translation can be likened to Quantum Physics where you can know either the position or the speed of an electron, but never both because, to measure one, you interfere with the other. The best you can do is to come up with probabilities and leave it at that; thus the hundreds of Bible translations into English.

The one thing which should never be done by a translator, as he or she wrestles with how to express the text in front of him into English, is to believe that what you're producing is your own work, or that you're free to add or subtract whatever you feel is either meaningful or meaningless. It must always be remembered that you are rendering someone else's writing, someone else's art, or someone else's message. You are just the translator. The message is someone else's and you have been entrusted with the task of making it understandable; no more, and no less.

“The Voice New Testament” is a production of the Ecclesia Bible Society which is closely affiliated with the Ecclesia Church in Houston, Texas, and published by Thomas Nelson. In a more general sense, it is the production of the Emerging Church movement. It is self-admittedly the work of artists, writers, poets, and musicians (over seventy or so) as well as twenty seven Biblical scholars. It is a self-professed “contextually equivalent” translation, as opposed to a modified literal or strict paraphrase.

After a reactionary posting of mine online about this translation (based on a few examples I went through found online) I have been challenged to look through this New Testament with the eye of both a translator and a pastor. I have been studying and using New Testament Greek for over twenty years, and have made private translations of almost half of the New Testament as a part of those studies. It is a language with which I am comfortable working in. I have also been in pastoral roles in churches in California and Tennessee.

Before I begin a criticism of the text, let me first say that I do not wholly disagree with the approach to Christianity which is taken by the Emerging Church movement and by the Ecclesia Church specifically. I find much that I agree with especially in terms of necessary dialogue, mutual respect and willingness to learn between Christians of different traditions. I also find many of my own sentiments which I have expressed in my own writings echoed in the sentiments of the Emerging Church movement.

There are some translation choices in “The Voice” which I don't wholly disagree with. One of the most obvious is the translation of the Greek “Christos” as “The Anointed One” rather than the transliteration “Christ.” I first saw this done in “The Unvarnished New Testament” by Andy Gaus, and thought it wasn't a bad idea then. While translating “logos” as “Voice” wouldn't be my first choice as a translator, it isn't wholly unjustified as an interpretation either because of all the meaning the Greek “logos” is impregnated with. The translation team also chose to include in-text commentary in italics to explain or clarify certain terms or passages. There are many places where this only explains a term or concept such as in John 1:36, where John calls Jesus the “Lamb of God”, and the addition of “God's sacrifice to cleanse our sins” was made. While the Greek text doesn't justify it, the inclusion of this explanation in italics of the term neither adds to nor subtracts from the meaning of the term. It only clarifies what the term means, something which someone who has not studied the Scriptures may not immediately know.

This being said, the word which best characterizes this translation for me is “reckless.” While many might associate this term in a positive light, this is not my usage. The translator within me has conniption fits when comparing the text of “The Voice” with the Greek text. The first issue which presents itself is the inclusion of material in the Biblical text itself which isn't justified by either the Greek text or the context. Many of the additions are explanatory or clarifying materials that don't necessarily change meaning and are marked out in italics. However, there is a good deal of material, words here and there, which is not marked off in italics, which changes the meaning of the text, and has no justifiable purpose for explanation or clarification. Further, there are some verses where text, which is present in the Greek, is omitted from the English translation. A good example of these additions and omissions is John 1:1-18.

The translation makes no attempt to be consistent throughout, but rather is militantly periphrastic in some places (James 1:6-8) and more traditional in others (see John 15:1-7) with explanatory additions in italics sprinkled throughout both. Notes, which in other editions of the Scriptures are placed in margins or beneath the Biblical text, are placed in between paragraphs and sections of the Scriptural text.

In researching the translation approach where “The Voice” is concerned, it appears that the Greek scholars and translators did not have the final say on the Biblical text, but rather the artists, poets, musicians, and writers who contributed. To me, this explains much about the text's inconsistency, and it tends to support my characterization as “reckless.” It is my humble opinion that people who do not understand Greek, however gifted they may be in other fields, shouldn't be the final authority on how a Greek text should be rendered any more than someone who doesn't understand Arabic should be the final authority on how an Arabic text should be rendered.

I do not hold to the “Scripture Only” Christian tradition, but there are a great many Christians who do hold to, and are taught from the beginning that they are to only derive their doctrine, theology, and faith from the Holy Scriptures regardless of what has been taught previously. The issue which this presents is that they then must rely on either their own judgment or a Bible instructor as to what a particular passage means. For most people, this amounts to their own judgment. The argument will be made that the Holy Spirit will teach them everything they need to know through the Scriptures. This can be true enough, but only if the person is actually paying attention to the Holy Spirit, and not their own inclination, fantasies, fears, or desires. The Christian who is new to the faith, or who only reads the Scriptures on the rare occasion tends to be less likely to even know how to listen to Him or discern His voice from their own internal fantasies. They simply don't have the experience with Him to do this reliably. It isn't impossible, but it doesn't appear to be in the majority of cases either.

This brings us back to my criticism of “The Voice.” This is a translation which will likely be used mostly by non-denominational Christians from the post-reformation traditions, who are taught “Scripture Only”, and is specifically targeted at those who are unfamiliar with the Scriptures. It is my concern that the translations and interpretations by the translators and editors will be taken as absolute Gospel (being what they are translating), when the text itself doesn't reflect the meaning (much less the form) of the original language in many cases. Further, there is a tendency to translate new English versions, especially dynamic or periphrastic versions, of the Bible into other languages. A good example of this is the Spanish translation “Dios Habla Hoy” which is the translation of the Today's English Version into Spanish. Similar things have been done with the New International Version into Spanish, French, and Russian as I understand. Given the propensity for doctrinal innovation and misunderstanding, it would be a dangerous mistake doctrinally to do this with “The Voice” for use by “Scripture Only” Christians who are unfamiliar with either the Greek or a traditional Biblical text.

As a member of the clergy of a traditional, Sacramental Denomination, I can't see any way I could, in good conscience, recommend “The Voice” to a layperson, young or old, who is unfamiliar with the Holy Scriptures. I can see a pastor, or a Biblically educated layperson, perhaps turning to it among other translations, as many do, to get a different perspective on a passage during Bible study and sermon preparation. I might even do this myself. I can't recommend it as ever being otherwise suitable for serious study, teaching, liturgical or worship purposes.

Does this mean that God can't use this translation to reach someone? No, of course not. It could be very possible that someone, an unbeliever or unchurched person perhaps, could pick up this translation and be introduced to Jesus Christ without all of the religious terminology. I remember a very similar experience with “The Book” (an edition of the Living Bible) when I was a teenager. And if this is the true target audience, then perhaps this translation might be suitable for that kind of a beginning of the journey of faith, as long as there is a pastor overseeing it, and that pastor knows when to ween the person off of “The Voice” and to put them with a more sound translation for further growth and study.