Book Review: the Voice
January 22, 2010 | 
Author 
I received a copy of the Voice New Testament from Thomas Nelson for review. I’m not sure if I like it or not. My first impressions are a mixed bag; there are definitely some things that I like, but there are also things that I do not like. Let me explain my reasons…
It goes without saying this is a personal review and my opinion only; however, I’m a bit of a translation junkie when it comes to Bibles and the Greatest Story Ever Told. I love reading different translations and versions…always excited to read a “fresh” retelling of the Story. I’m always a little bit leery when the story seems “too fresh.” While I haven’t gone cover-to-cover in the Voice New Testament, it seems there are some portions that are, in my opinion, too fresh. By this I mean, there might be some biased interpretation, or so it seems by the way the reader is led through interpretive “call out” boxes and italicized statements placed in the text for inference. This isn’t necessarily wrong or bad, but I don’t particularly care for it (personally). I find that it can be misleading when trying to accurately understand the text; not always, but sometimes. In fairness to the Voice, I feel the same way about most study Bibles. Also, with respect to the translation team, they do qualify the nature of the italicized statements and the call-out boxes and instruct the reader these elements are not in the original texts.
I appreciate the “spirit” behind the translation. I also respect the teams that have put in work to make the translation. I enjoy the flow and screenplay format of the reading; I found it to be very fluid and easy to follow…definitely as though I were reading a story rather than a verse by verse recounting. There were no repetitious stumbling through the verses, chapters, and books; this made the reading easy and pleasant too. I do think a chronological approach to this work might be something I’d enjoy more than the present version.
I want to spend more time with the Voice, but my recommendations for now are as follows: I recommend it with a few caveats. I don’t think it should be a primary study Bible; I don’t care for the liberties taken that I observe when I place the Voice alongside versions like the ESV, NSRV, and even NIV, and NLT. I think it would serve very well as a devotional-supplemental reader (once again, the authors and publishers call this a “personal devotional Bible”) as it is titled in point-of-sale material. I’m up in the air as to whether I’d recommend it for curious seekers or not. I’d probably be more inclined to determine that on a case by case basis. I think if it did not have the call-outs and italicized inferences I might be more open to those recommendations…especially when I consider other dynamic translations and paraphrased Bibles that would serve this same purpose without leading interpretation.
All in all, I plan to spend more time with it, do additional side-by-side comparisons with other Bible translations and checking some of the “call-outs” and italicized inferences with my study Bibles and commentaries. I will update my review at a later date when I have had the opportunity to be more thorough. In the interim, try it, you may enjoy it. Mine is just one opinion, and even with my points of contention, there are many things that I still like.
Posted in Books, Media | 
Tags: Bible Speak, Bible Translation, Bibles, Book Review, Book Reviews, Books, Christian Living
Well, this is just me…but I don’t think they are similar at all. Maybe the intent is similar; bringing focus to the narrative, and bringing the story alive. The similarities end there (IMHO). The Voice seems to me a contemporary paraphrase generously sprinkled with inference and leading commentary inserted into the flow of the Biblical narrative That’s vague when I write about it, so let me give you an example:
John 8:30 – As Jesus was speaking, many in the crowd believed in Him. But they could not imagine what He meant about the lifting up of the Son of Man. the Voice
John 8:30 – As He was saying these things, many believed in Him. ESV
John 8:30 – When He put it in these terms, many people decided to believe. MSG
Now that might not seem like a big deal, but it’s leading…and there are other examples I could share that have more significant implication than the examples I’ve provided.
The Message, seems to me more like a contemporary Amplified Version in paraphrased readable form. I think The Message tries to stay faithful to the original texts in their language as well as giving attention to the colloquialisms, euphemisms, and historical-cultural context of the stories that made up the ancient societies. I don’t know that I can say that is the intent of the Voice. I think they are very different in that respect.
How would you describe the Voice in relation to the Message by Eugene Peterson?
Hmmm… I definitely understand what you are saying.
From what I have gathered, however, the Voice project seems to be rather like an artist’s rendition of the narrative. And not just one artist, but a collection of artists who all come to the text with different perspectives and experiences to offer.
There is an interesting conversation to be had here regarding the nature of Scripture and our interpretation of it. After all, while the Voice may be seen as a very “loose” interpretation or paraphrase, one might be justified in arguing that none of our translations are omitted from human agency. What I see happening in the Voice is that people are getting around to exposing the myth of textual agency – that is, that the text somehow “speaks” without our reading, translating, and/or interpreting it.
With that considered, perhaps the Voice becomes not an objective translation (which doesn’t exist) but a mosaic and/or collage of different voices (artists, writers, pastors, scholars, etc) who all come together to narrate the Spirit inspired word. Thinking about it, I would actually prefer this diverse narration to a paraphrase that is limited to one person’s reading and rendering of the text in contemporary language.
All that said, don’t hear me wrong. Like you, I value our translations of the Bible (and the diversity of translations that exist) along with Peterson’s Message. Nevertheless, Alongside of these translations and/or paraphrases I would like to see more projects such as the Voice to come along and give us more and more diverse perspectives/readings of the narrative. Can you imagine a project like the Voice that sought to be even more diverse in the artists, writers, pastors, and scholars that it draw from? Wow, that would be incredible! This kind of diversity and creativity is inspiring. And in my view, it only gives birth to more imaginative readings of the texts we have.
I embrace it.
I get what you’re saying Nate, and I appreciate the “collective voice” (pun intended) in this work too. However, with exception of the Message, most of the modern interpretation-translations we have today were also the work of a collection of artists and scholars who also approach the text with different perspectives and experiences to offer. I agree with your perspective and concern for textual agency and interpretive criticism… I hear you, although I believe my points aren’t necessarily directed to those ends. Maybe they are… I’m open to that I suppose, I don’t claim to be the authority or even “an” authority.
I did a few comparisons with selected passages laid parallel with the Greek interlinear, ESV, MSG, and Voice. I think in some cases there are efforts (inadvertent or not) to lead the reader to a specific conclusion and meaning of the passage. I realize we do this with our own oral transmission and recounting of Scripture and I also realize we do this in our preaching, but there are textual references given so people can go back to “search the Scriptures” Berean style to see if our recounting and preaching are accurate. One assumes that when Paul told this story he was relying upon some standard of textual accuracy to the documents (scrolls) the Bereans were checking. This is my point and my concern. I’m not sure I agree with your statement that an objective translation doesn’t exist…that’s a pretty broad generalization. I do agree that many are not objective and most (English) translations are probably filtered through the culture in which they were translated for, but I still think it is a broad generalization. I have much respect for the original texts in their original languages and realize we must be careful that we don’t resort to Scripturolatry and Bibliolatry, but we must have a benchmark standard to keep us honest in our interpretations. I think too imaginative of a reading of the Scriptures can lead us to dangerous interpretations. In this opinion I might be in error, but I know my heart and conscience is clear and will choose to err in this direction opposed to the alternative.
Like you, having said all this, I embrace the work of the Voice to the extent that I will use it. As I mentioned earlier, I will read it (and whatever new interpretations follow it) in concert with other translations which I believe are “less open” in their interpretation of the original texts. I appreciate the diversity and “kick to my sensibilities” the Voice offers and will continue to enjoy it with this regard and within these parameters.
Peace!
Is it possible that “leading” is only good in parades, batting orders and dancing?
[...] first encounter with The Voice Bible was reviewing an early New Testament version a couple years ago. At that time, I had some reservations about the translation, which had to do [...]