Review: The Voice (New Testament)

The Voice (New Testament)
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007

If there ever was a Bible that was written in Community, it is The Voice. The preface states that this translation is an attempt to distinguish "the uniqueness of each author [through] a retelling (of) the story of the Bible in a form as fluid as modern literary works (that) remains painstakingly true to the original manuscripts." While the translating was done by academics, as per usual, they were working in community with pastors, writers, musicians, poets, and other artists. The project's vision is to create a Bible that is "holistic, beautiful, sensitive, and balanced", that is, a Bible that "considers the heart, soul, and mind; achieves literary and artistic excellence; respects cultural shifts and the need for accuracy; and includes theologically diverse writers and scholars." The attempt at diversity, beauty, and balance has, in my humble opinion, been achieved with excellence.

The project definitely walks a fine line between trying to stay true to the original text and attempting to write in an idiom and fluidity that is readable. In my opinion, it is infinitely more accurate and readable than The Message, and I eagerly anticipate the release of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms. I can't wait to see what they do with the Psalms.

Here's the one caveat I will offer to my recommendation: This translation, like any other, is not without bias. And I will say that anyone who believes ANY Biblical translation to be without bias sadly doesn't understand the process of translation. Language does not have objective meaning. It only has meaning in context. If I use the word "love" in English, I might be referring to any number of emotions, actions, thoughts. Anything from the love of a parent for a child to erotic love to the sort of preferential affection that is colloquially used today. The only way you can understand which type of "love" I mean when I write the word is to understand the context of my usage. And whenever a decision must be made, we must acknowledge that a decision has been made. Of all the potential meanings, one has been chosen over another. That is bias. Whether we think our bias comes from theological certainty (which, by the way, is just a collection of biases that have been validated by others) or from the bad shrimp we had last night is completely at our own discretion. Yes, there are translations that are generally accepted to be as accurate as possible to the original language. And there are translations that are generally accepted to be more "interpretive". This will, no doubt, be considered to be an "interpretive" translation. And some will probably call it "not a translation".

The particular bias of this translation is admitted up front. The translators, in an attempt to explain the purpose of the project, have acknowledged that translation includes the making of decisions concerning context. In the Introduction, Dr. David B. Capes discusses the covenants of the Old Testament, which is appropriate, and then states that "these covenants become the basis for all the promises and hopes that are fulfilled in Jesus, the Liberating King." Then, when discussing the new covenant, he places particular emphasis on the understanding of the first-century church (of Jews) and how they would have understood Jesus as the Liberator. Therefore, they have called this New Testament "The Liberating King and His Church." This is also, I believe, an appropriate and accurate decision.

There are, of course, those who oppose Liberation theology, who will likely see this as an attempt to circumvent what they believe to be the "real" truth of the Bible, which has more to do with America as the new Israel than the idea that Jesus came to free *all* nations and *all* peoples, in addition to his desire to free all people. In my opinion, opposition to Liberation theology is covert (sometimes overt) racism, and I find it to be closed-minded and elitist. It is, frankly, an excuse to prefer translations written in the height of English racism that reinforce our national Christian preferences for comfort in wealth and oppressing anyone outside our borders, as long as we don't have to look them in the eyes.

This book, while written with a decidedly Liberation bent, also reflects the community of artists who created the first text of the Bible we know today. The authors have attempted to preserve the integrity of each author, in addition to the message of the text. So, for instance, John reads like a play while Luke reads like a treatise. They attempt to show who is speaking whenever the text makes it clear, and the try to preserve the idiom of English (to make it more understandable to a modern audience) while still preserving the truth of the text. Will it be challenging to those who have grown up with the Gospel According to Pat Robertson? Probably. But we all need to have our paradigms challenged once in awhile. That's the only way we know them to be true... if they withstand testing.

So pick up The Voice someday. Listen to the Community of God speaking together. Read it knowing that it is a translation with a bias, but do not dismiss its message. Allow it to challenge you and speak to you. Allow the Liberating King to liberate you not only from the sins of the Ten Commandments, but also the sins of pride, selfishness, oppression, and self-deceit. Allow the beauty and the truth of the New Testament to wash over you in a new way.