Coming up with a balanced translation of the Bible that maintains both the artistry and meaning of the original text is no simple matter. In reality, it's very difficult to keep one of these features without losing the other. You've heard the expression "lost in translation"? Well, this concept certainly applies to Biblical translations and paraphasings.

For decades now, most translations (at least the ones used predominantly in the Evangelical community anyway) have erred on the side of word for word translation, at the expense of literary flow. It is only with postmodern sensibilities that many are beginning to recognize just what a loss this truly is. Thomas Word publishers have recently embarked on a new Biblical paraphasing project to re-balance the scales- so to speak, in order to offer Biblical re-tellings that dance, as well as inform.

Many Pentateuchal passages from the Old Testament are prime examples of the multi-dimensionality of the Biblical texts. When you translate from Hebrew to English, it's very difficult to maintain the rich, multi-faceted overtones present in the text. We westerners have done a good job of translating the initial meaning accurately. But, in doing so, we often miss the word-plays and subtle- and sometimes not so subtle- second meanings and sub-plots.

It was only while I attended Trinity Western University and studied Biblical Studies under a wonderful Hebrew teacher- who had a real appreciation for literary skill- that I learned just how much artistry is featured in these early texts. We 21st century homo-sapiens often assume our OT predecessors were simple-minded and culturally unsophisticated. A study of these passages in the original Hebrew will put that mischaracterization to rest- believe me. These early texts were not merely historical records, they were works of art. Again, if you have a hard time believing this, take a Hebrew course under someone who understands literary dynamics.

In recent decades, concerns for scientific, clinical translations of the biblical texts have made translations such as the NIV a popular choice. This is especially true for Evangelicals- less so for Catholics, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestants.

The thing is, for someone with an appreciation of literary artistry, the NIV has always left much to be desired. My personal favorite of the available English translations has long been the NRSV- which makes a more determined attempt to maintain a poetic flare in re-energizing the original text.

With these concerns in mind comes the Voice project. Voice is "a scripture project to rediscover the story of the Bible". The folks at Thomas Nelson have gleaned that many postmoderns are much more comfortable with narrative than they are with "legislation-like" text (my term, not theirs), and have thus launched the Voice project to meet this felt need. Voice is divided up into volumes based on the books of the Bible.

The publisher recently passed on to me the latest in the series- the Voice of Matthew. Lauren F. Winner, author of Girl Meets God, Mudhouse Sabbath and Real Sex: the Naked Truth about Chastity has been given the re-authoring reigns this time around. Working with Winner are scholars David Capes and Peter H. Davids. Winner's task was to find a literary voice that told the story with new vitality. Capes and Davids were onboard to offer reflection on the meaning of the original texts- especially the more obscure passages. In other words, they were the resident scholars.

The editors behind the Voice project have several aims in mind. This new paraphrasing project is designed to be:

1.) Faithful to the original texts: Effort was exercised to avoid prejudice in the translation process and result. The editorial team writes that "while we do not pretend to be purely objective, we asked our teams to seek to be as faithful as possible to the biblical message as they understood it together". I, for one, certainly appreciate the admission that subjectivity and bias are always in play in such endeavors. I also appreciate and concur with the understanding that interpretation is best forged within community. (*All the Eastern Orthodox in the crowd shout "Amen!"*)

2.) Stimulating and Creative: Terms were chosen that would "stimulate fresh thinking rather than reinforce unexamined assumptions." This is a wonderful aim. Too often our old translations become to us lifeless containers of what I call "plastic words".

3.) Transformative: By showcasing the artistry and cohesion of these various books of the Bible, the aim is to "promote the public reading of longer sections of scripture- followed by a thoughtful engagement with the biblical narratives in its richness and fullness and dramatic flow".

For the most part I think the Voice of Matthew project succeeds in what it sets out to do. It is indeed a faithful and engaging rendering of the original story.

One of the most compelling features of the work is its structuring. The dialogue is offered in radio-play form, with each section of one speaker's comments offered in a separate block. This approach unburdens the text and allows the story itself to shine. There's even something about the allowing for space between sentences, paragraphs, etc. that allows the reader to breathe, and to take in the story in more dynamic fashion.

There's also something engaging about having, in this case- the Book of Matthew, sitting in your hands as a stand alone work. Because of course, all understandings of Canon aside, this is an individual book- with its own aims, foci, literary, personal and cultural history, etc. I think that, rather than "flatten" various Biblical texts into one familiar narrative voice, we gain when we allow the original flavors to percolate through to our new translations/paraphrases. I also think our picture of God is granted more color, depth, and contour when we seek to maintain the individual voices present in Scripture. We get a rich, vibrant chord instead of a single note.

The only concern I have with the Voice of Matthew effort is the editorial comments that are inserted within the text. I do give credit to the editorial team for placing these comments in their own self-contained boxes, because this demarcates them from the actual text itself. Still, I find these editorial sections somewhat obtrusive, and often, unnecessary.

One of the first lessons a good writer learns is not to underestimate one's audience. It's important not to "dumb down" your text for fear that your audience will miss your point. The second you do so, in my mind, you somewhat insult the audience, and take away from their personal engagement with the text. Secondly, I think that some of the editorial comments fail to communicate the diversity of opinion regarding the meaning of some parts of the text.

Still, this is a relatively small concern. I do understand that, in addition to offering an engaging re-telling of the Book of Matthew, that the editorial team is also aiming for a "middle of the road" translation that can be understood by young and old, cultured and not-so-cultured alike. And this aim inevitable flattens the text to some extent.

Perhaps though, we need to embrace the fact that it's okay- and perhaps even appropriate- to have multiple paraphasings for multiple audiences. Who says we have to make a one-size fits all Bible every time we attempt a paraphrase/translation?

Overall I think the Voice project is a fresh, revitalizing concept that largely delivers on its promise to bring the books of the Bible to life in contemporary re-tellings. And I think it's a wonderful idea to have a writer, not a theologian, actually pen the words of the paraphrase. Because this helps to restore to the Bible, its original vitality, color, and flow. I applaud the Voice team for faithfully re-narrating a work that was always meant to be, above else, a moving story.