Iver Larsen has a good post on choosing a Bible translation over at Better Bibles blog. The discussion is also excellent. Go join the fray!
You might also check out my site, Bible Translation Selection Tool.
Category: Bible Translation
-
1 Chronicles 1-9 in the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary
I previously gave an overview of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on 1-2 Chronicles, but I’ve been spending more time with it since, reading the Hebrew text along with the commentary. While I do appreciate the NLT text on which the commentary is based, I’m not reading this for the NLT text, but rather for the commentary.
I just completed chapter 9 which gets me to the start of the narrative portion of the book. In the genealogies especially, it’s hard to properly represent the Hebrew text in English translation. There are many ambiguities, name variants, and textual variants, especially in the versions. In several cases when I went to the NLT after reading the Hebrew I found that the reading I had chosen as I went through was in the NLT margin. That’s not a negative comment on the translation–it’s just very difficult to render this sort of text both clearly and accurately. Clarity is often purchased at the price of accuracy.
My impression of the commentary on this section is very positive. Author Mark Boda focuses on structural issues and the way in which the structure of the genealogies sets the shape for the narrative of the remainder of the book. One can derive timing, sources, and the purpose of the author from the way the genealogies are named. This commentary tends to emphasize a key point about studying the Old Testament: Genealogies aren’t some sort of appendix or footnote, but are rather of great, even central importance to the writers.
Within the limits of space (1 Chronicles 1-9 occupies pages 25-102), and the purpose of the commentary, which is for serious lay students or pastors, and not so much for scholars, the coverage is excellent. Boda includes a discussion of sources wherever they are used. It would be interesting to see more discussion of the implications of the way these sources are used, but what is provided is excellent.
Connections with historical events are covered, including references to place or personal names in other ancient near eastern sources are covered. What is absent is any extended effort to deal with the historicity of either these chapters or their sources. The author presents options but doesn’t really push any particular approach. I think that’s a positive thing. With the number of rough edges involved, such a discussion could easily occupy the whole book.
Overall, the commentary on these first nine chapters presents a structure that sees the post-exilic community built around the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, but with the Levites placed at the center of national religious life. The other tribes are included in such a way as to make a statement that they are part of the restored Israel as well. In some ways you can see Israel reinventing itself post-exile.
I’ll post further notes as I study further.
-
Common English Bible: First Impressions
I did not react very favorably to the announcement of the Common English Bible, because I didn’t really see the benefit of this particular version and its placement. From a ministry point of view my question is just who will be reached by this Bible version, not just in evangelism and outreach but in discipleship and Bible study in the church. I have a hard time seeing who that will be. From a business point of view the question would be what niche will the version fill that is not already filled by a current Bible.
In order to receive a favorable evaluation based on either of those questions, a Bible version needs to be substantially better than those readily available. Repairing a few clumsy structures isn’t sufficient. I would add that I question the total resources placed into new translations in the English language as opposed to translations in other languages, especially those with no scriptures at all. At the same time many Bible publishers do contribute some of their revenue to such projects.
Having thought (and said) all that, I still requested a free CEB New Testament, and I received it a couple of days ago. I’m just going to give you my first impressions. I want to thank the Common English Bible Committee for making these free New Testaments available and sending one to me.
I started by reading 2 Corinthians. I found silent reading easy, and the general outlines of Paul’s arguments quite easy to follow. I was not confronted with excessively theological language that I would expect to have to explain if I was teaching a class using this Bible. The sentences were a bit too short for my taste, and were even a bit reminiscent of the NCV which was intended as a children’s Bible originally. I think the NCV sounds choppy when read aloud.
In one place I watch closely in Bible translations, 2 Corinthians 5:20-21, The CEB does use one translation I didn’t think quite make it, “God is negotiating with you through us” in verse 20. I prefer the NLT (and NRSV amongst others): “God is making his appeal through us.” Verse 21 is a fairly straightforward literal translation, which I also prefer. The NLT’s translation “For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin …” is clearer, but also tends to limit the options for interpretation in a controversial passage.
I also read 1 Corinthians 12-14, where I didn’t find much that was exceptional. Again, the reading is easy, but still gives me the impression of being a bit choppy. The questions in 1 Corinthians 12:29-30 are properly translated to imply the answer “no.” I found 1 Corinthians 13 rather bland. Some of the soaring phraseology seems to be lost in very clear, yet not very impressive phrasing. One can certainly argue the value of clearly understanding the thought versus the poetic feeling of the passage.
In the preface, the translators indicate that they use a number of contractions except in passages that should be regarded as more formal. I’m thinking I’m not going to agree with all their choices on this, but again, this is a subjective matter, more based on my taste than any particular principle.
I found the preface very helpful. I often recommend that Bible students read the introduction to their translations. You can learn a lot that way. In some cases, you get essentially sales hype, but in most cases you get some good basic theory as well as a good introduction to the choices made by the translators. I commend the CEB preface.
Finally, my wife asked me to read from John 1 to her. Reading out loud was an interesting experience from this Bible. I would have to rate the sound of John 1 as abysmal. I’d much prefer to do a scripture reading here from the NLT or the NRSV (given that most people won’t let me use my favored REB!). The constant repetition of “the light” is jarring.
I’m going to continue reading this New Testament for some time and allow these early negative impressions to be changed. Certainly a number of passages read quite well when read silently, and I found the translation easy to understand. Not every translation has to be great for oral reading. The main problem I see is that this Bible doesn’t seem to me to excel enough over currently available options to make me want to switch to using it for any of my own activities.
-
Free CEB New Testament
You can sign up. (Corrected Link for sign up.) They are only guaranteeing delivery for shipping addresses in the United States, but are working on others, and list a number of countries to which they should be able to ship as well. You can also still download a free copy of Matthew. I hope to get around to writing a brief review of that soon.
(HT: Wesley Report)
-
NLT for Academic Study
Chris Heard asked via Twitter whether the NLT was suitable for academic study. T. C. Robinson has given an answer:
Concluding thoughts: The NLT, New Living Translation, is simply too loose to be considered a serious academic Bible.
While I have some sympathy with this point, I have to ask just what the definition of “serious” and “academic” are in relation to a particular Bible translation. Most of my teaching has been of lay people, and thus I’m probably not looking for a serious academic Bible however those labels are defined. Nonetheless it seems to me that this is too broad an answer to a question that needs a bit of definition.
For example, what are these serious academic students doing with the particular Bible? If they are doing exegesis suitable for scholarly publication, or perhaps for training in order to do scholarly publishing, then I would argue that no translation is sufficient to the task.
On the other hand if they are doing a survey type of study, the NLT might be a quite workable option. I would especially recommend it for reading whole books. I should note here that even when teaching lay people I’m in the habit of asking for such shocking things as reading of an entire book, and not the book of Philemon. Try Ezekiel or Isaiah.
In reading a whole book I find such translations as the NLT, CEV, TNIV, and a few others quite helpful. Personally, I like to read a book through in several versions as I follow the 12x reading recommendation I learned from my mother. I find it difficult to maintain concentration when reading something 12 times from the same version, so I’ll use a variety. For that purpose, the NLT is certainly helpful.
I also find the NLT very useful in comparison with my own translations. Normally if I’m going to preach or teach a text I will do a written translation of my own. I then like to compare that translation to a range of versions. Normally I prefer to teach from an English version which is available to my class, provided there are not too many variations in the way I read the text.
I don’t know whether I agree with T. C. or just how I’d answer Dr. Heard’s question. I have a hard time conceiving of recommending any single English translation for serious academic study. But perhaps I’m thinking of something other than what was intended in the question.
-
Another KJV-Only Comment
Every so often a KJV-Only advocate comes by this blog to comment. They normally don’t hang around long, but I occasionally feel inclined to respond. I like to tolerate and even celebrate other points of view, but I don’t make an idol of it; it’s one value, not the value. KJV-Only is one of those views I simply cannot respect. It’s too divorced from reality.
This most recent comment was no exception. It resulted from my poll on Bible translation.
There were 5 versions of the Biblical Scriptures/Sources-printed–
Really? Which five were these, and which versions will you exclude from your list?
The One in English from the Textus Receptus(received Text) was the Authorized King James Version-1611-
Well, at least this is approximately correct.
All Others were from the Catholic Codexes/Manuscripts found from 1841 -1881
Well, no, not precisely. In fact, many other versions were translated from the TR or something similar, many manuscripts were discovered outside that time frame, and I have no idea what makes a manuscript “Catholic.” If one uses any definition that doesn’t make practically every manuscript at the time Catholic, then relatively few would be. One wonders whether all manuscripts copied in the eastern church are Catholic or not.
–which were in Philosophical Greek-Not Koine-
No, they were not. They were in the same dialect as the rest.
that were being used as fire-starters in the churches-
This is a falsehood built from a falsehood. The initial one was that Sinaiticus was being used to start fires, which would comment on the stupidity of the person so using it rather than on the value of the manuscript, but even then we can hardly jump to “fire-starters in churches.” But even the fire starting in the monastery is not factual. (See here.)
and Not complete/or Preserved as God Promises- which Add,Subtract, and Change the Word of God
By what standard do you judge completeness and preservation? Is not a manuscript with additions just as corrupt (if that is even the correct word) as one with deletions? In order to determine which is the case, one needs to have some idea of the source text.
And on another note, why can’t KJV-Only advocates punctuate normally and write complete sentences?
/Perverts Doctrines–contrary to the Word of God–From these the American People Seek to make Profit in the Churches like the “Money-Changers” of Old that Jesus chased – out of the Churches ??–
The folks who print KJV Bibles also make a profit.
The 70 Translaters of the King James Bible did Not Hide their Identities like those of the Modernistic Versions-
This is simply false. Many modern translations include lists of the translators. For editions that do not, a little bit of web research will turn up the information.
Many who themselves claimed to be Atheists, Agnostics, and Members of “Cults” ??—
… assuming that atheists, agnostics, and members of cults cannot translate. But the fact is that most of the translators of modern versions belonged to churches that would fall within orthodoxy.
My Great Grandparents readily understood the King James Bible- SO are people today More Stupid or What ??—
The argument about readability, as anyone should be able to tell, is not that people are getting less intelligent, it is that language has changed. Modern English would be similarly difficult for people of a few centuries ago. The reason KJV-Only advocates generally can’t read Greek isn’t that they’re stupid; it’s that they haven’t learned Greek.
The King James Bible IS The Bible–Not Just Another “Version”–or should I say — a “Perversion” ??
On the contrary, the KJV is a version. It is not the original. It is not the best. It’s not extraordinarily inspired. It’s just one translation of a set of texts into a new language.
The sad excuse of “Interpretation(s)”–is Weak at the Best-for those who Reject the Authority of God’s Word in their Lives..
Well, no. Any translation involves interpretation. Any preaching involves interpretation. You can’t get away from it.
I have found that the KJV 1611 Bible woks just fine with those that I witness to in other countries that are 3rd World countries–
I’m sure you imagine that you do. It’s amazing to me how many people can convince themselves they are communicating when they are not.
But these Modern Perversions only Confuses them !!!
I suspect that the problem is that the modern version make them question what you have to say.
– In Cambodia I found that the Mormons(a Cult) even PAYS People to come to Church ??–Further Proof that their “Another Testament of Jesus Christ ” has NO Power in the Word !!!
Of course, use of modern versions is not connected to Mormonism, so this is just a red herring.
And thus we come to the end of another KJV-Only comment. I spent too much time on it, but on occasion it’s fun.
-
On Etymological and Anti-Etymological Fallacies
Clayboy has an excellent post on preachers who say “What the Greek really means…” or words to that effect. I was drawn to this one because of my own experience.
My wife tells me that when we first got married she quickly got used to watching me during sermons. I need to tell you that my wife is extraordinarily observant and will catch people–especially me–trying to conceal feelings and reactions. She told me that I was very good at concealing my reaction, but she would see me get a certain fixed expression on my face whenever a preacher said “What the Greek really means …” (They rarely do it with Hebrew, but for what it’s worth, the comments on Hebrew are generally less accurate than those on Greek.)
Often the preacher is simply replacing he word in his English translation with one that is possible, though not necessarily probable, but which better supports his point. Besides the inaccuracy, I dislike the implication that someone with a couple of years of Greek can correct the work of translation committees in such an authoritative fashion.
I also, however, understand the reservations expressed by Bob MacDonald in the comments in reminding us that etymology has value. It can be useful in studying the history of words or in suggesting meanings for derived forms for which we have too few examples in the literature. Of course, the context of the word in actual used, studied as synchronically as possible, governs, but the etymology can be very useful.
I’ve encountered a few people who have heard of the etymological fallacy, and some of the very careless uses of etymology, especially in ancient near eastern studies, and have therefore determined that any use of etymology must be a fallacy. There are legitimate uses.
My suggestion to preachers and teachers has always been to use whatever skills they have in the original languages for they’re worth in preparing to teach, but to avoid making the sermon into a language lesson. There are, after all, many factors other than the structure of language in understanding a text.
I recall one professor I had in graduate school who was incredibly good at the structure and vocabulary of a language. I took readings in Biblical Aramaic from him and I value highly the time I spent in his classes. But while he could analyze the nuts and bolts better than anyone I have encountered, before or after, I would not rely on him for the exegesis of a passage. The only thing he cared about were those nuts and bolts. Which is fine–I’d build on his foundation any day.
The problem, as I see it, is that when we use the language to give a single word for “what the Greek really means” or provide a few synonyms, we imply that getting the right gloss for the word is what using Biblical languages is all about. It’s much better to learn to express the result in good English–assuming that’s the language in which we’re preaching.