Trouble Hearing the Message?
As a student of scripture, I find that I am increasingly concerned with the fact that Christianity has so embraced the book, “The Message” created by Eugene Peterson. In and of itself, the book “The Message” is merely a more modern paraphrase than the Living Bible. And while Peterson has done a vastly superior job of turning the language of the New Testament into the vernacular, we read it at our own risk and we accept it as authoritative at our peril.
The book has been around for around a decade, but I find that it crops up in curriculum, studies, and sermons more and more. I find that troubling.
When on reads “The Message,” one is basically reading a stylized narrative based on the texts of the New Testament. A good first page of this work might read, “Based on the New Testament,” in much the same spirit as movies that are loosely based on a true story begin with "Based on a True Story." Perhaps a more accurate opening page would read, “Inspired by the New Testament.” For while it takes its cues from the New Testament, it is far from a scholarly or literal interpretation of it.
What Peterson attempts to do is place the texts of the New Testament in more accessible English. I have no qualms with that. However, in so doing, Peterson also turns the stories and texts into a cohesive narrative that is largely of his own creation. “The Message” is not a scholarly attempt to reconstruct the Greek New Testament into a more readable English edition. Rather, as is stated in its introduction, “The goal is not to render a word-for-word conversion of Greek into English, but rather to convert the tone, the rhythm, the events, the ideas, into the way we actually think and speak.” What Peterson does is in the same vein as Tim Burton and his collection of films which “re-imagine” existing stories and/or movies (such as Sleepy Hollow, Planet of the Apes, etc.). While basic themes might remain intact, events, details, and often theological underpinnings have been changed.
Take, for example, a minor passage in Acts 19:1-7 as recorded in the Revised Standard Version.
“While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve of them in all.”
This same passage is found in “The Message”, but reads rather differently.
Now, it happened that while Apollos was away at Corinth, Paul made his way down through the mountains, came to Ephesus, and happened on some disciples there. The first thing he said was, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? Did you take God into your mind only, or did you also embrace him with your heart? Did he get inside you?”
“We’ve never even heard of that – a Holy Spirit? God within us?”
“How were you baptized, then?” asked Paul.
‘In John’s baptism.”
“That explains it,” said Paul. “John preached a baptism of radical life-change so that people would be ready to receive the One coming after him, who turned out to be Jesus. If you've been baptized in John’s baptism, you’re ready for the real thing, for Jesus.”
And they were. As soon as they heard it, they were baptized in the name of the Master Jesus. Paul put his hands on their heads and the Holy Spirit entered them. From that moment on, they were praising God in tongues and talking about God’s actions. Altogether there were about twelve people there that day.
What Peterson does is move fast and free with existing English texts. We can see from this example that Peterson’s interpretation of the conversation between Paul and the unnamed disciples reflects more of a revised theological criticism of John’s baptism as well as placing heavier emphasis on what reception of the Holy Spirit means. While it may be in more accessible language, it moves in directions that were not a part of the original.
Therefore, if the church validates it from the pulpit, the church undermines genuine Biblical study. By allowing an approximation of the text (and often not a close one), we invalidate genuine study. We defer to an easy harmonization and paraphrase rather than the often more difficult task of scriptural comparison, study, and exegesis. Have we become so busy or so lax in our own study as clergy that we cannot seek out the deeper meaning of the text itself without utilizing someone else’s paraphrase?
Of course, even within our own existing written Scriptural translation traditions (not paraphrases) we have to be on guard. KJV, NIV, RSV, ESV, etc. must often be scrutinized for accuracy. They have to be read carefully. Why, then, do we legitimate an obvious re-write? In essence, the acceptance of “The Message” is a growing indication that genuine scriptural study, exegesis, and critical interpretation has been left to others and has, therefore, taken a back seat to pat, concise, pre-packaged theological ideologies. The fullness and complexity of the original texts are far more intriguing, vast, and rich than “The Message” could ever hope to be.
If we wish our congregations to be students of the Bible, perhaps we also need to be students ourselves. If we wish to develop a greater appreciation for the New Testament, perhaps we should begin by reading it.
The book has been around for around a decade, but I find that it crops up in curriculum, studies, and sermons more and more. I find that troubling.
When on reads “The Message,” one is basically reading a stylized narrative based on the texts of the New Testament. A good first page of this work might read, “Based on the New Testament,” in much the same spirit as movies that are loosely based on a true story begin with "Based on a True Story." Perhaps a more accurate opening page would read, “Inspired by the New Testament.” For while it takes its cues from the New Testament, it is far from a scholarly or literal interpretation of it.
What Peterson attempts to do is place the texts of the New Testament in more accessible English. I have no qualms with that. However, in so doing, Peterson also turns the stories and texts into a cohesive narrative that is largely of his own creation. “The Message” is not a scholarly attempt to reconstruct the Greek New Testament into a more readable English edition. Rather, as is stated in its introduction, “The goal is not to render a word-for-word conversion of Greek into English, but rather to convert the tone, the rhythm, the events, the ideas, into the way we actually think and speak.” What Peterson does is in the same vein as Tim Burton and his collection of films which “re-imagine” existing stories and/or movies (such as Sleepy Hollow, Planet of the Apes, etc.). While basic themes might remain intact, events, details, and often theological underpinnings have been changed.
Take, for example, a minor passage in Acts 19:1-7 as recorded in the Revised Standard Version.
“While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve of them in all.”
This same passage is found in “The Message”, but reads rather differently.
Now, it happened that while Apollos was away at Corinth, Paul made his way down through the mountains, came to Ephesus, and happened on some disciples there. The first thing he said was, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? Did you take God into your mind only, or did you also embrace him with your heart? Did he get inside you?”
“We’ve never even heard of that – a Holy Spirit? God within us?”
“How were you baptized, then?” asked Paul.
‘In John’s baptism.”
“That explains it,” said Paul. “John preached a baptism of radical life-change so that people would be ready to receive the One coming after him, who turned out to be Jesus. If you've been baptized in John’s baptism, you’re ready for the real thing, for Jesus.”
And they were. As soon as they heard it, they were baptized in the name of the Master Jesus. Paul put his hands on their heads and the Holy Spirit entered them. From that moment on, they were praising God in tongues and talking about God’s actions. Altogether there were about twelve people there that day.
What Peterson does is move fast and free with existing English texts. We can see from this example that Peterson’s interpretation of the conversation between Paul and the unnamed disciples reflects more of a revised theological criticism of John’s baptism as well as placing heavier emphasis on what reception of the Holy Spirit means. While it may be in more accessible language, it moves in directions that were not a part of the original.
Therefore, if the church validates it from the pulpit, the church undermines genuine Biblical study. By allowing an approximation of the text (and often not a close one), we invalidate genuine study. We defer to an easy harmonization and paraphrase rather than the often more difficult task of scriptural comparison, study, and exegesis. Have we become so busy or so lax in our own study as clergy that we cannot seek out the deeper meaning of the text itself without utilizing someone else’s paraphrase?
Of course, even within our own existing written Scriptural translation traditions (not paraphrases) we have to be on guard. KJV, NIV, RSV, ESV, etc. must often be scrutinized for accuracy. They have to be read carefully. Why, then, do we legitimate an obvious re-write? In essence, the acceptance of “The Message” is a growing indication that genuine scriptural study, exegesis, and critical interpretation has been left to others and has, therefore, taken a back seat to pat, concise, pre-packaged theological ideologies. The fullness and complexity of the original texts are far more intriguing, vast, and rich than “The Message” could ever hope to be.
If we wish our congregations to be students of the Bible, perhaps we also need to be students ourselves. If we wish to develop a greater appreciation for the New Testament, perhaps we should begin by reading it.
Comments
Post a Comment