A month ago, I wrote a blog entry entitled, "Is a Paraphrase in the Eye of the Beholder?" that wrestled with the sticky issue of defining a paraphrase in distinction to an actual translation of the Bible. In that entry, I referenced David Dewey's definition of a paraphrase from his book A User's Guide to Bible Translations, but found that his definition wasn't as all-encompasing as what I would like. Dewey paid This Lamp a visit and posted some very helpful insights in the comments section:

The line between paraphrase and a free translation is hard to define and is really quite subjective. But there is a spectrum going from literal through free to paraphrase though different people would place the 'borders' in differing places. I would add that paraphrases are less consistent in their rendering than free translations. I remember talking to Barclay Newman, chief translator of the CEV, who says translation is all about rules, rules and more rules. The CEV and GNB are less paraphrastic than the LB or the Message because the former, though very free, do follow certain rules more consistently whereas the latter are more idiosyncratic.

I feel Dewey's comments are extremely helpful here by generally stating that a translation is bound more by rules of translation while a paraphrase is tends to be more what he calls idiosyncratic. Perhaps we say that a paraphraser has more freedom in his or her renderings.

The Question of Use in Worship. A question that has come out of the comments section from my entry on The Message relates to the proper use of a paraphrase. Jeremy Pierce was surprised that I have used the Message for "public reading" in place of a more traditional Bible translation. Further, Peterson himself seems to discourage such a practice, according to Jeremy, because he doesn't want his work confused with the Bible itself. In a 2002 Christianity Today Interview, Peterson said,

When I'm in a congregation where somebody uses it [the Message] in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, "Hear the Word of God from The Message." But it surprises me how many do. You can't tell people they can't do it. But I guess I'm a traditionalist, and I like to hear those more formal languages in the pulpit.

I suppose that part of Peterson's sentiment comes from his own genuine humility. It's understandable that he would be uneasy about having his rendering of the Bible proclaimed as God's Word. Up until recently, most Bible translators remained anonymous and I can see why. It's a weighty responsibility to even teach or preach God's Word, let alone translate it for the use of others.

Is a Paraphrase of the Bible a Bible? But let's back up to another question. Can a paraphrase of the Bible fairly be called a Bible at all--or is it merely a kind of commentary? I know that some people say absolutely not regarding the question of whether a paraphrase is a Bible. But what about the publishers themselves? There are three major modern paraphrases of the Bible in modern English: J. B. Phillips' New Testament in Modern English (revised 1972), Kenneth Taylor's The Living Bible (completed 1971), and Eugene Peterson's The Message (completed 1992). Of these three, only The Message is in widespread use today.

Early editions of Philips NT and The Message came without verse numbers that seemed an attempt to distinguish them somewhat from being thought of as actual Bibles. But later, publishers included verse numbers in both. I don't think The Message had verse numbers until the Remix edition of 2004, but the numberings had already existed for a few years prior for use in Bible software programs. The Living Bible had chapter and verse designations from the very beginning.

Further, the pictures at the top of this entry depicting leather-bound copies of The Message and The Living Bible were selected with s particular motive. When a publisher begins marketing a Bible paraphrase with leather, gold edges, and ribbon markers, it can only mean one thing: these editions are intended to serve as personal Bibles, possibly even primary Bibles. To me, the message (no pun intended) is unmistakable.

To answer my own question, I would say that yes, I consider a paraphrase of the Bible to be a "real" Bible (but I'll qualify that statement in a moment). When I designated a title for my series on my favorite Bibles, I specifically used "Versions" because I believe a Bible version encompasses both translations and paraphrases. Even the Septuagint seems paraphrased in a few places, and no one would doubt it's place as an ancient text representing God's Word. And "representing" is the key thought here. No version of the BIble--translation or paraphrase is God's Word itself. They are merely a vehicles for communicating God's Word.

And here's the qualifier to my "yes" in the above paragraph. As I have stated before, although I would encourage the use of a paraphrase like The Message, I would never recommend it as a primary Bible for study, but rather as a tool alongside an actual translation. However, some do use paraphrases as their primary Bible. A whole generation of church-goers carried those green hardback Living Bibles every Sunday, and I know of a few older members at my church who still do. I regularly see young people carrying copies of the Message to church.

I certainly understand why people do this. Often paraphrases communicate to these readers in a way that they perceive they understand God's Word better than with actual translations. I don't think it's wise to berate people for the Bible they're using. Surely it's better for someone to read a paraphrase of the Bible than no version of the Bible at all. But it's also important to let people know the benefits and cautions of a paraphrase.

The Benefits and Cautions of Using a Paraphrase. The benefits are clear. Paraphrases communicate God's Word in a very easygoing, contemporary style that may enhance understanding of the Bible. Often, it's easier to get someone who's never read the Bible to read a paraphrase first before picking up an actual translation. Sometimes children respond better to a paraphrase (although I like the Good News Bible best for children) than an actual translation. My experience reflected this when as a child often I couldn't understand a passage in the King James Version, but was able to cross-read it in the Children's Living Bible given to me by my grandmother. Teenagers might respond well to a paraphrase, too. When I used to teach high school Bible, I often used The Message for our reading of longer OT passages (but I did not allow them to use The Message as their Bible for classwork). Further, I thoroughly enjoyed reading through the Message in my devotions a few years back, and recommend it to anyone for that use. It took me longer to get through The Message than any previously read version of the Bible because I slowed down to "hear" the words and I tended to reflect on them more.

But there are also cautions. There's no such thing as a committee-based Bible paraphrase to my knowledge. Therefore, any Bible paraphrase is the product of one individual (such as Phillips, Taylor, or Peterson). As godly and as genuine as these men are, they're still human and can make mistakes. The benefit of a committee-based translation lies in the checks and balances of many eyes upon the work. Further, while all translations of the Bible include some amount of interpretation, paraphrases--which by nature have very free renderings--are simply the most interpretive of any kind of Bible version. Since the paraphrase is the work of one individual, that means one mind is interpreting the text for the reader. As masterful as I believe The Message speaks in contemporary language or as clever as I think Phillips NT renders the text at times, I never let myself forget that I'm receiving one perspective on the biblical message.

I've also seen scripture memory cards that use The Message. Although I believe many parts of The Message are quotable and certainly memorable, I personally would caution someone against using The Message strictly as their only choice for memorization. A downside to any version of the Bible that overly depends on contemporary language remains in the reality that the language will not always be contemporary. To me, paraphrases tend to feel dated more quickly than other versions of the Bible.

That brings us back to the question regarding The Message's use in worship. Although I would use it in worship, I wouldn't do it regularly in place of other translations. Further, I believe it's important to let a congregation know when a paraphrase like The Message is being used rather than letting them wonder why "their Bible" doesn't sound like the reader's.

And for the person who still doesn't want to give up use of The Message as a primary Bible, I would recommend at least using one of Zondervan's parallel editions with the NIV, TNIV or NASB.

What are your thoughts? Feel free to share them in the comments.

Tags: Message, Top Ten