NLT Study Bible: focusing on historical context
Posted on July 23, 2008
Filed Under bible publishing | 25 Comments
Sean Harrison has written a short post on the NLT Study Bible blog about “How is the NLT Study Bible Different?” In it, he makes statements that are music to my ears:
Basically, the NLT Study Bible focuses on the meaning and message of the text as understood in and through the original historical context. [...] In many passages, we don’t discuss the theological implications “for us” in our culture, where it is different from the biblical world. We simply discuss what the text meant in the original context and let people extrapolate from there. [...] We don’t try to take the place of the Christian tradition/community in providing a systematic doctrinal understanding of Scripture. [...] What we are trying to do is supplement that understanding, deepen it, and (on occasion) challenge it in light of a contextual reading of Scripture.
It’s refreshing to read about a study Bible that is not focused on specific doctrinal systems (cf. Scofield), topical subject matter (cf. HCSB Apologetics Study Bible), personal life keys (cf. the Life Application Study Bible), literary forms analysis (cf. ESV Literary Study Bible) or study methodologies (cf. the Inductive Study Bibles), but simply provides foundational context for more intelligent growth in any of those areas if a reader so chooses.
Kingdom life: “Roommates for Jesus”
Posted on July 22, 2008
Filed Under kingdom living | 2 Comments
HT: more fire
The New York Press has a compelling story about a communal Christian house in Bedford-Stuyvesant (Brooklyn) run by blogger Jason Storbakken:
[They] are taking part in a form of cohabitation that few young New Yorkers could fathom: communal living with a religious twist. [...] It is a multiracial bunch, mostly made up of non-native New Yorkers in their twenties and thirties. The residents call their experiment in faithful cohabitation “Radical Living.”
They are born-again Christians turned off by the trappings—physical, philosophical and political—of the suburban mega-church and conservative mainstream evangelism who have found each other amidst the pressures of New York City living. Dedicated to getting back to basics, to ministering the gospel quietly from the ground up, members of the group are fond of reminding each other that “radical” is a word that has biological origins, meaning “arising from the root.” While seemingly isolated and underground, this community represents an inkling of a broader shift in the evangelical movement—renegade branches of which are increasingly embracing climate change, poverty reduction and compassionate politics as their touchstone issues.
Jason’s story resonates with me as I hear echoes of my parents’ decision to leave the “physical, philosophical and political” pressures of living in Chicago in the late 1960s and move to the remoteness of Alaska to “get back to the basics” and quietly minister “from the ground up”. Theology without action, faith without works, is ματαιολογίαν, mataiologia, a wilderness of words, and it is always inspiring to read about those who have taken risks of comfort and security for their faith.
If you’ve not had a chance to browse Jason’s blog and testimony, please do.
An open response regarding Christian environmentalism
Posted on July 22, 2008
Filed Under creation, eschatology, kingdom living | 9 Comments
In the comments to a recent post on Al Gore, Christianity and environmentalism, TC made the following statements (quoted, but edited together - emphasis mine):
I’m all for a cleaner environment for our enjoyment and our children’s children, but where is the biblical mandate? [...] We’re told in Scripture to love ourselves and not to destroy our bodies, which are God’s sanctuary, but I do not find the same for our physical planet. [...] I believe we need to care for the environment, but the Bible says that it has been subjected to futility by God himself. [...] [You] are doing your part [to use less energy], but I’m wondering in light of Scripture, if it’s worth it.
The comment thread in question was getting rather lengthy and rather than muck up the discussions already in place, I’ve decided to post my response here. Bryan has already said much of this, so I can only hope to echo some of his thoughts and add something worthwhile.
As for our Biblical mandate, I take the stewardship outlined in Genesis 1:28 to be our overriding commandment as human beings, regardless of sin or the corruption of the physical planet.
Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.” (Genesis 1:28, NLT)
We were created to reign over creation in God’s image, to be his ruling viceroys on Earth. By fulfilling this commandment, we give glory to God by fulfilling our purpose. However, to reign over the whole earth and everything that lives on it does not mean to ignorantly or willfully destroy our subjects, but to intelligently understand and promote the welfare and growth of everything within our sphere of responsibility. How else can we explain the course of human history, but the progressing effectiveness of our understanding of creation and how to rule it? It is our role and responsibility to try and leave the earth better than we found it, regardless of whether the entire system is breaking down or not.
Doug’s comment about your argument being “a misuse of eschatology” seems in response to the typical pre-mil position that life is progressively getting worse and therefore there’s no reason to focus on our stewardship of creation because, in the end, Christ will come back and fix everything for us. This is, essentially, what you appear to be saying. That is not to say that any other eschatological system is more correct. I know the common criticism of post-millennialism is that post-mils are viewed as trying to usher in the kingdom by manufacuring heaven on earth. But honestly, the hands-off mindset of many pre-mils suggests that you’re trying to equally hurry His return by hastening the destruction of Creation.
Frankly, that’s an abdication of our creation mandate, of the original role and purpose of humanity, and to ignore our present earth for the future one is misguided. I don’t believe that the corruption and futility of sin has invalidated the Genesis 1:28 commandment. If you don’t try to steward Creation to your greatest ability, then you are no different than the third servant who hid the coins in the ground because he was afraid to take risks and was scared to lose. If God didn’t want us to take risks and invest ourselves in Creation and try to make a return for Him, He would never have left us alone and we would be no different than pigs in the wallow.
I’ve stopped writing about eschatology on this blog because honestly I don’t care anymore about when Christ comes back. It doesn’t matter when; it is enough to know and believe that scripture promises that he will. In the interim, until He does, my purpose as a human being is to worship God as a steward of His creation, living a holy and godly life. Live in the Kingdom now and it won’t matter if Christ comes back during my Old Earth life or not.
The beginning of 2 Peter states that in order to live a godly life and receive God’s promises, we are to make every effort to add goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance,godliness, mutual affection and love to our faith. Isn’t progressive environmentalism nothing less than trying to apply these virtues to our stewardship of Creation?
As for the end, 2 Peter 3:11-12 says that living as such will hasten the coming of the day of God:
You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. (2 Peter 3:11b-12a, TNIV)
You asked, “is [trying] worth it?” I think that Peter would say, most emphatically, “Yes!” As do I.
First look: Oxford Complete Parallel Bible
Posted on July 20, 2008
Filed Under bible publishing | 6 Comments
With a mighty swipe, I’ve managed to replace several reference texts on my Bible bookshelf with a single volume. How’s that? With the addition of an edition that’s been out of print for a while, but still shows up at a reasonable price from time to time through online vendors like Amazon.
I’m speaking of course about “The Complete Parallel Bible” (CPB) from Oxford, henceforth to also be known as “the Behemoth Bible” for reasons that will soon be readily apparent.
The CPB features four translations outside the mainstream of evangelical Protestantism: the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Revised English Bible (REB), the New American Bible (NAB) and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). The NRSV and REB were produced by ecumenical committees representing Protestant and Catholic denominations (and in the case of the NRSV, the Orthodox Church as well). The NAB and NJB are primarily Catholic translations. The common thread pulling this edition together is that all four translations include selections of the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical Books.
Publisher description:
The Complete Parallel Bible presents four of the most highly respected modern language Bible translations arranged side by side for easy comparison. The parallel format brings new insights into the distinct characteristics that distinguish the texts used by Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians. This unique work highlights the importance of the translation process in defining the priorities and concerns of these different groups, and reveals interesting contrasts in literary styles, verse placement, and canonical content. The volume includes three translations that have an imprimatur (NRSV, NAB, NJB).
Product details:
Publisher: Oxford University Press (1993)
Hardback, 3291 pages
ISBN: 019528318X
Size: 9¼” H x 7″ W x 2½” D
It is impossible for one’s first impression to be on anything other than that last product detail: the sheer size and weight of this edition is daunting, it is a behemoth for lack of a better word! I’ve been using an old edition of the New Jerusalem Bible that is comparable in size (see below), but is not nearly as heavy with less than half the pages.
This edition features an impressively sewn binding; the registers are tightly pressed together, but very clearly intact and uncut. The paper has a glossy feel and is thin as you might expect, but the transparency is minimal. Or rather, there is so much printed on each page that you barely notice any bleedthrough if it’s there.
The font size is smaller, there’s no getting around that, but it’s acceptable for a reference book. And let’s be honest, this isn’t a volume that I’m going to be hauling off the church on Sundays or to a chair for devotional reading.
On most pages, there are two translations printed on each page: the NRSV and REB side-by-side on the left, the NAB and NJB on the right. Oxford’s introduction states that this arrangement more easily allows comparison of formal and functional translation from an ecumenical prespective (NRSV vs. REB, respectively) and comparison of different Catholic translations (NAB, NJB). They also mention that the layout allows the reader to compare U.S. (NRSV, NAB) and U.K. (REB, NJB) scholarship.
I might have preferred the REB and NJB side by side as “literary” translations, but that’s just me. I’m not familiar with the NAB, other than what Kevin presented in his recent comparison series, so it will be good to take a closer look at what many have called “the Catholic NIV”.
Conclusions:
So why did I get this? I’m not normally a parallel Bible guy, but this edition allows me to compare my favorite translation (REB) with three others that I’m not as familiar with. The advantage of having all four in a single reference book should prove itself with my limited desk space, especially since the REB, NJB and NAB don’t seem to be readily available electronically. Already, I’ve freed up room on my bookshelf by taking down my separate REB, NRSV and NJB volumes.
I would recommend this for any of the above reasons and/or if you wanted an economical introduction to more than one or two of these translations. Economical of course is relative to each of us, but there appear to be a handful of used editions between $35-45 at Amazon right now.
Remnants of the KJV
Posted on July 17, 2008
Filed Under Uncategorized | 18 Comments
TC’s comments on 1 Peter 3 prompted me to look up a few verses and I came across another example of the HCSB’s alliterative translation:
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21)
Of course, this is preserving the KJV’s translation of this phrase, something that none of the other translations I consulted do. Most use a variant of “[...] not as a removal of dirt from the body [...]“, which clarifies that Peter is not talking about a physical washing in comparing baptism to Noah’s salvation through the flood in vss. 18-20.
[Aside: the NET Bible's footnotes clarify that there are no moral connotations to "flesh" (Gk. sarx) here, despite Strong's definition of the Greek rhupos ("dirt, i.e. (morally) depravity:-filth"), but whether a less resourceful reader would be confused and substitute perhaps "sinful nature" (cf. NIV) in their reading, I couldn't say.]
The HCSB has been noted for its modern English grammar, compared to the ESV for example, but it’s worth also noting that it retains that touch of the traditional by preserving or recalling the KJV either through small phrases like this one or as alternative translations in its frequent footnotes.
I’ve been Wordled…
Posted on July 16, 2008
Filed Under blogging | 10 Comments
Jeff has challenged us to Wordle our blogs as a way of visually seeing what we write about. Essentially the Wordle Java application parses your text and creates an image of the words you use, with the more frequent words represented in a larger font size.
Pretty much what I’d expect for a blog that primarily discusses Bible translation… this is, after all, a wilderness of words.
Oxford University Press and the ESV Apocrypha
Posted on July 15, 2008
Filed Under bible publishing, bible translation | 44 Comments
According to Amazon.com and Christianbook.com, the English Standard Version (ESV) with Apocrypha edition will be published by Oxford University Press on February 1, 2009:
The English Standard Version Bible captures as far as possible the precise wording of the original biblical text and the personal style of each Bible writer, while taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. The ESV thus provides an accurate rendering of the original texts that is in readable, high quality English prose and poetry. This Bible has been growing in popularity among students in biblical studies, mainline Christian scholars and clergy, and Evangelical Christians of all denominations.
Along with that growth comes the need for the books of the Apocrypha to be included in ESV Bibles, both for denominations that use those books in liturgical readings and for students who need them for historical purposes. More Evangelicals are also beginning to be interested in the Apocrypha, even though they don’t consider it God’s Word. The English Standard Version Bible with the Apocrypha, for which the Apocrypha has been commissioned by Oxford University Press, employs the same methods and guidelines used by the original translators of the ESV, to produce for the first time an ESV Apocrypha. This will be the only ESV with Apocrypha available anywhere, and it includes all of the books and parts of books in the Protestant Apocrypha, the Catholic Old Testament, and the Old Testament as used in Orthodox Christian churches. It will have a lovely pre-printed case binding, and will include a full-color map section, a table of weights and measures used in the Bible, and many other attractive features.
The English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha is certain to become the preferred Bible in more conservative divinity schools and seminaries, where the Apocrypha is studied from an academic perspective. And it answers the need of conservative Christians in general for a more literal version of these books.
Presumably “the same methods and guidelines used by the original translators of the ESV” means that Oxford is revising the RSV Apocrypha texts, just as the ESV’s OT and NT were revised from the 1971 RSV texts. This edition is being produced as an Oxford hardback, hopefully with the superior bindings and typography that we expect from this publisher.
One wonders if the Oxford commission might signal a possible future shift from the aging and financially orphaned NRSV to the ESV as a broader academic text. Perhaps a Fourth Edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible using the ESV to complement the much ballyhooed ESV Study Bible?
Regardless of what one thinks of the ESV in general or specifically, it is good to see another Bible translation make itself available to the broader Christian community. As I noted last year in my posts on a common Bible, the textual differences between Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christian traditions eliminate many deserving translations from consideration for common use. The ESV’s undeniable popularity in some circles may now make it a new candidate for the title “Most Likely to be the Common Bible”.
A foul turn of phrase in Psalm 38
Posted on July 13, 2008
Filed Under bible translation, psalms | 10 Comments
The following verses from Psalm 38 caught my attention this morning while reading the HCSB:
4 For my sins have flooded over my head;
they are a burden too heavy for me to bear.
5 My wounds are foul and festering
because of my foolishness.
Most translations I looked at had some variation of the more literal “my wounds fester and stink” in verse 5 (REB, NEB, ESV, TNIV, JB, NJB, NLTse, JPS Tanakh).
Only the NASB had the same alliteration as the HCSB, albeit in different verb forms: “My wounds grow foul and fester because of my folly.” However, the NASB didn’t use “flooded” in verse 4 (”For my iniquities are gone over my head…”), which, in the HCSB, creates a literary connection between the different thoughts
Update: the older RSV has the same wording as the NASB above, or more accurately, the NASB uses the same wording as the RSV.
This, plus the “burden [...] bear” alliteration in verse 4, brought to mind a previous post on some of the literary qualities of the HCSB.
Pew Bible ponderings: 2 Peter 1:3-9
Posted on July 11, 2008
Filed Under bible translation, church, scripture study | 19 Comments
I attempted once again to use my REB as my Sunday “church Bible” again this past week, with mixed results. For those coming new to this blog, my church uses the NIV as its pew and pastoral translation; however, for reasons I can’t fully explain, I’ve never warmed to the NIV and so have been searching for a modern translation to use that offers minimal distractions in reading along from the pew. My focus has been on minimizing the amount of time needed to correlate what I’m hearing from the pulpit (and seeing on the overheads) with what I’m reading in my own Bible so that I’m more actively engaged in listening and learning to the sermon.
I’m hoping that this will be a semi-regular translation comparison series, looking at alternatives to the NIV for use in the pews. For this post, I’ve presented the NIV, ESV, HCSB and REB translations, with the TNIV changes to the NIV noted with [brackets] following the NIV text (italicized). Red text highlights those areas where the different translations’ text differs from the NIV - note, however, that I have not highlighted strictly gender language changes. This is primarily because my pastor tends to inclusive-ize the NIV text from the pulpit, but also because I think we’re able to parse differences in pronouns a little more easily than nouns and verbs. Feel free to comment if you don’t agree.
I want to also say at the start that I am not making a value judgment on the accuracy or correctness of the NIV. I am only using it as my base text for comparison because that is what my church uses. In comparing other translations to the NIV, I am only trying to understand which ones offer the best opportunity for complementary reading in a live worship scenario.
Is “essentially literal” essentially accurate?
Posted on July 9, 2008
Filed Under bible translation | 8 Comments
There has been a great deal written lately comparing the ESV and NLT translation philosophies [see Tim Challies, Keith Williams and TC Robinson]. Much is repetition from earlier formal vs. functional debates, but it’s always interesting reading for translation junkies.
That said, I want to draw your attention to a post on the blog “Church Discipline” that predated these exchanges by a few weeks. Titled Is the ESV “essentially literal”?, the author writes to counter the claim by ESV promoters that [1] there is little difference from the original languages to an “essentially literal” translation like the ESV, and that [2] there is a chasm of difference between “essentially literal” translations and median or dynamic translations like the TNIV, REB and NJB.
It has been noted by many before that the ESV incorporates many aspects of dynamic translation, as do all English translations, no matter how literal they suppose to be. After demonstrating that, despite how they are marketed very differently, both the ESV and TNIV translations are pursuing a similar balance of accuracy, beauty, clarity and dignity, the author states that the ESV is neither “essentially literal” by an accurate definition of the phrase nor fully dynamic and that better examples of each approach exist.
It has also been noted that most critics of dynamic translation tend to focus on the “easy English” translations like the CEV and NLT, as is the case in Challies’ original article linked to above, rather than “tight dynamic” translations like the REB . As such, the critique of dynamic equivalency from the position of something like the ESV or NASB tends to be a comparison of complexity vs simpleness with the regrettable implication being that the more complex or foreign a translation, the closer to the original texts it is.
The author claims that if ESV apologist Leland Rykan were truly “interested in an honest debate on dynamic translation he would be addressing the REB and places where the REB differs substantially from the ESV.” (No, I did not slip anyone cash under the table!) The author promises a future post that will “show how the REB/NEB by using dynamic translation philosophy are able to capture meaning lost to the ESV, which is precisely the point of dynamic translation.”
The author concludes the article by stating that “readability kills literal accuracy. Literal accuracy kills meaning. So [with the ESV] you end up with a bible you can trust neither to be accurate in the text nor in the meaning.” Inflammatory to be sure, but some good points to think about.
