photo credit: Lawrence OP

Sing for Joy

Every Sunday morning the pretentiously titled local classical station–The Classical Station–airs several syndicated programs featuring sacred music. One of those is Sing for Joy, a production of Minnesota’s St. Olaf College. Every week the College Pastor presents choral music selected to coincide with the readings from the revised common lectionary. The result is a beautiful production that is well worth your listen, especially if you come from a non-liturgical tradition such as I. I’ve found that keeping up with the common lectionary vocally enhanced by world-class choirs is a delightful way to connect with the Church universal. Sing for Joy presents that certain bountiful depth of sacred music that is too often forgotten. My only disappointment is that the broadcasts, as far as I can tell, are not available via podcast. There is, however, a vast streaming archive available on their site of current and past episodes. You can listen wherever you are no matter the day of the week. Check it out.

Lectionary at Lunch

I discovered this second gem on iTunesU. Concordia Seminary St. Louis hosts an enviable Lectionary at Lunch group every Wednesday that is led by a professor who reads through the OT and NT lessons in Hebrew and Greek, translates them and discusses particular points of interest. The podcast of the group is available free of charge and is well worth your listen, especially if you’re interested in exegesis, translation and original language study. I can’t tell you how beneficial this is to listen to. Check it out.

photo credit: bemky

Several weeks back I attended a birthday party in honor of an elderly woman who has been coming regularly to a Bible study that I lead at the senior apartment complex where she lives. While this woman has verbalized on many occasions her trust in the Lord, I’m not exactly sure where her son’s family is at after meeting them for the first time at the party. It’s always interesting to hear the first remarks people make once they learn that one is a seminary student.

They asked what denominational affiliation the seminary has. I told them it is Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a Southern Baptist school. They then replied that they attend a local Catholic church but are open to “all things spiritual.” I was happy to agree that I, too, am open to “all things spiritual” as far as the plain meaning of the statement goes. I have nothing against spirituality. In fact, a non-Christian ex-worker once remarked to me that he finds it shallow that many Christians while religions aren’t spiritual. I agree.

Their second question was what I wanted to do after I graduate. “So are you going to be a minister or something?” I said that I could be but that I’m pursuing work in Bible translation. “Oh, that’s interesting. There’s a lot that’s lost in translation.” This is one of those statements that people often repeat after hearing because they think it sounds clever, but they’re not actually sure if it’s true; it only seems to be true on the face of it. The idea that a lot is left behind in translation just seems to makes sense.

I wasn’t sure whether to take this comment as a dig at Bible translation or what. I should have asked what they meant by that. I find this to be a good course of action to get to the bottom of people’s thinking. They’ll either be able to articulate a well-crafted explanation of whatever it is you asked them to clarify (rare) or they’ll stumble and sort of trail off (more common). Instead I replied by saying that over and over again in my studies I’m amazed at how well translations are able to reproduce what’s there in the original. For example, I’m doing an independent study this semester on Exodus wherein I’m reading through the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and two modern translations four times each to get a feel for what’s lost and how what is communicated is communicated. So far I’m amazed at how well the message of the text sings loud and clear.

Translation is what it is but I think I can safely conclude that the message of the Bible sings out loud and clear in any language despite whatever may be lost (a topic for another time). That is the point of translation: that God’s redemptive message faithfully sing loud and clear.

The Voice translation of the New Testament is now available and the title of this post is its rendering of the first part ofJohn 1:1. You can download a copy of the Gospel of John for free. Don’t just jump right in to reading the translation though; just take a moment to read through the Preface to see where this translation is coming from and what it is meant to achieve. It’s goals are admirable but unfortunately its method and product raise a lot of questions concerning its status as a translation. Interesting, thought-provoking discussion is underway on the Extreme Theology blog in the post and comments of Review of The Voice New Testament – Part One. Secondly, a worthwhile question is being raised both on Extreme Theology and the Politically Correct blog whether such a translation leads the sponsoring group into cultish territory.

My Thoughts

Below are the thoughts I left in a comment on Extreme Theology:

Reading the prefaces indicates they’ve gone wrong from the start:

“First, accomplished writers create an English rendering; then, respected Bible scholars adjust the rendering to align the manuscript with the original texts.”

This raises all kinds of questions: What Vorlage (if not the GNT) are the “accomplished writers” using? If they’re consulting an English translation, the Voice Translation goes from Greek to English to “accomplished writer” tweaking to only then consulting “the original texts” to the finished product. This is surely backwards: re-interpreting English translated from Greek which is tweaked by Greek to arrive at English. Woah. No wonder they’re arriving at outlandish translations/interpretations.

Moreover, we primarily English readers already have a hard time enough trying to recognize OT allusions in the NT (intertextuality or whatever’s the best term) without replacing terms like “Messiah” with “the Liberator.” Indeed this is only one aspect of the expected Messiah.

Finally, though they claim “it is time to bring the body of Christ together again around the Bible” (page one of Preface) they unnecessarily distant themselves–yay, cut themselves off–from the last millennia of Christianity by removing words like “baptism” and “repentance.” I’m afraid more so than already people won’t have a clue what they’re talking about in their striving to be understood, contemporary and non-divisive.

Caveat

One should be very careful about adopting The Voice as a primary translation. Undoubtedly, if you do adopt it, you will see things in Scripture you’ve never seen before. But then you have to ask yourself: is that because it’s actually in the original text or because the translators have taken liberties with the text? If this is not a question you feel like you can answer, sticking with the English Standard Version or the King James would seem the wise decision.

Promotional Video

Here is a promotional video about the translation:

Gospel of John Reader

And, finally, here is an embedded reader for the Gospel of John: