The death of median translations?

Posted on August 6, 2008 
Filed Under bible publishing, bible translation | 28 Comments

Jeff at Scripture Zealot has a good post up today on using the word “propitiation” as a shibboleth of sorts in selecting a Bible translation. He likes what he reads in the NLT for Romans 3:25 –

For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us.

– but still fights “against the idea of using a dynamic equivalent translation as [his] main Bible” and “always wonders if more interpreting is going on than with a more literal approach.”

Jeff’s post prompted me to revisit a thought that started to rumble around in my brain the past week or so - namely the idea that when functional translations become accepted as every bit authoritative as formal translations, the Bible translation market is going to break in two directions for the general reader: [1] modestly formal translations like the NRSV, ESV and HCSB for those who want (or are directed) to study the context of the original languages and receivers, and [2] idiomatic functional translations like the NLT for those who want to use the Bible as a living document in their maturing lives.

Traditionally, Bibles have been sold as either literal translations, paraphrases or median translations. The final selling point of median translations always seems to be around “the Bible in today’s language” - no different than what a true functional translation offers. It seems to me that median translation offers buyers a way out in trying to decide between more literal texts and freer language options. To date, the latter have done nothing to assuage the fears, such as those expressed by Jeff above, that somehow the accuracy of the Bible has been sacrificed and that it is necessary to learn Biblish (with words like “propitiation”) to really understand what God says to Christians.

However, as more accurate functional translations (like the NLT, which has been through two revisions) emerge on bookshelves, I’m beginning to think that the median fence may not be so attractive a marketplace to be.

The final stake in the heart of median translation would be a functional translation with a reading level geared toward native English-speaking adults. According to ChristianBook.com, the NLT has a 6th grade reading level. Median translations like the NIV and HCSB are written at a 7th or 8th grade level, while formal translations speak on a level understood by high school and older audiences. If a modern evangelical publisher were to produce a functional translation that doesn’t feel like it is speaking down to an adult Christian, median translation would become obsolete.

Finally, please note that I said “the general reader” at the start of this. I realize that there are academics, hands-on original language students and other niche market audiences that will always require specialized texts, but I’d find it hard to believe that these groups, even added all together, purchase more Bibles than the unwashed masses.

Comparing notes on the NLT Study Bible

Posted on August 6, 2008 
Filed Under bible publishing, choosing a bible | 15 Comments

Coming up on two weeks ago, a package from Tyndale arrived just as we were finishing up packing for a weekend away with friends in northern Minnesota. Needless to say, my planned reading was left on the shelf (sorry Greg Boyd!) and the new NLT Study Bible (NLTSB) went with me. I had planned to pen some initial thoughts on the blog last week, but the days slipped away between a hectic work schedule and shuttling kids for Vacation Bible School.

In the interim, Bryan Lilly and Rick Mansfield published some detailed “first looks” overviews, while Nick Norelli took us on an in-depth look at the NLTSB’s various study features. There have been a host of other comments and reviews, which Jeff has summarized here.

So rather than rehash ground that has been well-traveled already, I thought I’d enter the comparison arena. One of the big marketing points of the NLTSB has been its claim to be focused on historical context rather than specific doctrinal systems, topical subject matter, personal life keys, literary forms analysis or study methodologies. Historical-critical study Bibles are nothing new, certainly this is ground well traveled by the Oxford Annotated Bible, HarperCollins and even the Oxford Study Bible (REB) I tend to refer to.

In a comment to the above linked post, NLTSB editor Sean Harrison wrote:

[...] you are right that there are some similarities in tone between the NLT Study Bible and the Oxford and HarperCollins Study Bibles. I included those Bibles in my initial review and wanted to achieve a similar tonal level, but within an explicitly evangelical framework (Scripture as divinely inspired, Scripture as historically accurate, etc.).

Since I don’t have an Oxford Annotated or a HarperCollins for fingertip reference, I’m going to reach back to my review of the Oxford Study Bible and use the NOAB notes quoted there from a review published on This Lamp last year. This will limit to some extent the text used in comparison (Ezekiel 1:1-3), but I believe that even this small excerpt will be enough to illustrate the essential approach of the NLTSB.

Ezekiel 1:1-3 - Comparison of three study Bibles

NLT Study Bible (NLT)

New Oxford Annotated Bible 3rd Edition (NRSV)

Oxford Study Bible (REB)
1:1-3:27 OT prophetic books often begin with a “call narrative” that gives details of the prophet’s commissioning to his office (e.g., Jer 1:4-19). The prophetic call narrative demonstrated that the prophet’s words were legitimate, showing that he spoke as the Lord’s ambassador. It often introduced themes that his prophecy would address in greater detail, just as the overture to a symphony introduces the musical motifs that form the basis for the composition that follows. The focus of Ezekiel’s call narrative is the Lord’s impending judgment of his people. 1:1-3:27: Part 1: The call of Ezekiel.

[no introductory notes]

 1.1-3.21: Ezekiel empowered. He receives his commission to prophesy doom to the Israelites.
1:1-3 The opening verses locate the prophet’s ministry among the exiles from Judah who had been carried off to Babylon.

1:1 On July 31: Literally On the fifth day of the fourth month of the ancient Hebew lunar calendar. A number of dates in Ezekiel can be cross-checked with dates in surviving Babylonian records and related accurately to our modern calendar. This event occurred on July 31, 593 BC.of my thirtieth year (or in the thirtieth year): Priests begain to minister in the Jerusalem Temple when they were thirty years old. Ezekiel was a priest (see 1:3), but he was with the Judean exiles … in Babylon and was therefore unable to serve in the usual ways. Ezekiel’s identity as a priest in exile is significant to the message that follows. The exiles felt cut off from God and from conventional ways of appealing to him in the Temple. In the ancient world, most gods were closely tied to particular lands, so it was easy for those who were removed from the Promised Land to assume that the Lord was no longer interested in them. That God’s word had come to a prophet among the exiles in Babylon showed that God had not forgotten them and still had a future for them.

The Kebar River was probably a large irrigation canal in the Nippur region southeast of Babylon. The Babylonians had deported the previous occupants because of their Assyrian sympathies and replaced them with exiles from elsewhere in their empire, including Judah. The Babylonians generally resettled peoples by ethnic groups and allowed them to retain their identity, unlike the Assyrians, whose policy of exile was to disperse and scatter populations. This difference later made it possible for the remnant of the exiles of Judah to return to their homeland. Those who had been exiled from the northern kingdom by thte Assyrians were not able to return in the same way.

 1:1-3: Superscription. Ezekiel was a Zadokite priest (v. 3, 44:15-31n.), steeped in the traditions of Jerusalemite royal theology (Zion theology; see Introduction). Despite his exile, he never loses his priestly role (cf. 43:12n.). The thirtieth year, probably Ezekiel’s own age. At the age for assuming his duties at the Jerusalem Temple (Num. 4:3), Ezekiel sought solitude outside his settlement (see 3:14-15) to reflect on what course his life might instead take in exile. 1.1-3: Superscription. 1-2: There is difficulty understanding the thirtieth year, especially in view of the fifth year (v. 2), since both dates seem to refer to the same event, i.e. the call of the prophet. The point of reference for both dates seems to be the capture of Jehoiachin by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in 597 B.C.E. (2 Kgs. 24.10-17). The first date then becomes 568 B.C.E. and the second 593 B.C.E. Scholars think that the thirtieth year refers either to a second call of the prophet, the one in Babylonia (see Introduction); or possibly, though less likely, to the date of the compilation of Ezekiel’s many messages into a single book. Some conjecture that the call of another prophet whose work was in some way associated with that of Ezekiel was added. The river Kebar is probably an irrigation canal mentioned in Babylonian records. It flowed from the Euphrates through the old city of Nippur, where excavations have revealed ancient business contracts with Jewish names. See Ps. 137.1-6.
1:2 This happened during the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s captivity: The word of the Lord first came to Ezekiel in 593 BC, while Judah was still a semi-independent state (see Ezekiel Introduction, “Setting,” p. 1310). Judah had been subjugated by the Babylonians in 597 BC, and King Jehoiachin had been carried into exile in Babylon at that time. Jehoiachin’s uncle, Zedekiah, ruled Judah as a Babylonian vassal (597-586 BC). Ezekiel dates his prophecy with reference to Jehoiachin’s captivity rather than to Zedekiah’s reign because he seems to have viewed Zedekiah as a stand-in for the lawful king, Jehoiachin. Zedekiah later rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 24:20), who besieged the city of Jerusalem (588 BC), destroyed it, and burned the Temple (586 BC). Fifth day of the fourth month . . . fifth year of the exile would be July 31, 593 BCE. Chebar, a canal, flowing near Nippur, which is mentioned also in Babylonian documents. There were two groups of exiles. The first, referred to here, was taken to Babylonia with King Jehoiachin. The second was deported by Nebuchadnezzar after his destruction of Jerusalem (12.11-12; 2 Kgs. 25.3-12); this date is set by some at 586, by other at 587 B.C.E. Jehoiachin was considered the rightful king, if a restoration were to take place; hence his captivity is the point of departure for all the dates in the book.
1:3 Ezekiel was a priest by descent and a prophet because the hand of the Lord was upon him. Priests offered sacrifices in the Temple and explained God’s law. Prophets delivered God’s words of blessing or curse to the people and interceded with God for them. Ezekiel’s ministry included aspects of both priestly and prophetic mediation between God and the Israelites. Babylonians: Or Chaldeans. 3: The name Ezekiel means “God strengthens.” Hand of the LORD (3:14,22; 8:1; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1), Ezekiel undergoes the same sort of divine compulsions and ecstatic trances experienced by Israel’s early prophets, such as Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 18:46; 2 Kings 3:15). Chaldeans, Babylonians. 3: Ezekiel means “God strengthens.” Hand of the Lord is the symbol for Ezekiel’s consciousness that his activity is divinely motivated. Compare 3.22; 37.1. Chaldaea: southern part of Babylonia.

In their marketing, Tyndale claims that reading the NLTSB is “like being led through Scripture by a caring Bible teacher.” From the notes reproduced above, I would further suggest that reading the NLTSB is like listening firsthand to that lecture or discussion, while reading the NOAB or OSB is like reviewing the notes that you took from that lecture. All cover similar ground, but the NLTSB has a more conversational narrative than the latter editions’ more abbreviated annotations.

In rereading the NOAB review on This Lamp, I was struck by the similar description that the reviewer, “Larry”, used for the New Interpreter’s Study Bible (NISB):

This passage illustrates well the strengths and weaknesses of the NISB. On the one hand, the annotations are written in a much more conversational style than those of the NOAB or the HSB. On the positive side, one can simply read this study Bible as if it were the transcript of a lecture of a friendly instructor. But on the other hand [...] this is clearly a Christian reading of the Bible – seeking to answer the question “what is the relevance of this passage to us today?”

The NLTSB clearly does not give us a Christian reading in the study notes, nor does it address any modern application of the text to life today. These are good things. That said, I should note that the NLTSB is still a Christian study Bible; the final paragraph or two of the Meaning and Message section of each book’s introduction addresses fulfillment by/in Jesus Christ. I would have preferred that the Christian extrapolations be put it in their own section of the introductory materials, apart from the original “meaning and message”, but their presence is consistent with Sean Harrison’s rejoinder that the NLTSB was created with “an explicitly evangelical framework.”

Much of the discussion of dates in the OSB is covered in the NLTSB’s introductory material. By shifting alternate or disputed elements such as timelines and authorship out of the study notes, the editors have tightened up the study notes narrative and provided a much more continuous thread. Several times in looking at the NLTSB, not just at this passage, I caught myself reading the notes for page after page - this caused me to reflect on an essential difference between the NLTSB and the Oxford editions.

Whereas the latter really are annotated notes to the text, the NLTSB feels more like a commentary, more in line with my Daily Study Bible editions from William Barclay. Yes, the notes are inline with the text, but they really form their own narrative to some degree and can be read separately if so desired. The key is that the NLTSB appears to be a balanced “commentary”, not tipped in a doctrinal bias, but evenhandedly providing the contextual story of the scripture.

As someone who typically does not *use* study Bibles on a regular basis, I enjoyed this approach and found it more engaging than the jottings of the Oxfords, which often leave you wanting more or trying to flesh out a comment. In my next NLTSB review, I will compare it to another commentary-style study Bible, namely the Jewish Study Bible featuring the NJPS Tanakh translation.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not point out a minor error in the NLTSB’s notes. In the first section, the notes describe the “call narrative” that gives legitimacy to the prophet’s words. The analogy is used of an musical overture. However, I must point out that symphonies do not have overtures; I must assume that the notes author meant that “just as the overture to a symphony an opera introduces the musical motifs that form the basis for the composition that follows.” Certainly there are examples of works where the first movement of a symphony contains the motivic seeds for the remaining movements, but these are never called “overture”. Or perhaps the author was thinking of a self-contained symphonic poem, but that is neither overture nor symphony. Change a word or two and this note will be acceptable to music majors everywhere!

Y not translate the Bible?

Posted on August 5, 2008 
Filed Under bible translation | 1 Comment

What do Helen Spurrell, Annie Cressman, Helen Barrett Montgomery, Jane Aitken and Julia Evelina Smith have in common with Frances Siewert? Yes, they’re all women. But more importantly, they all translated or produced portions of or all of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek sources. Suzanne McCarthy has been blogging a fascinating series on women translators over the past few days - if you have any interest in the history of Bible translation, this is well worth checking out.

Be sure to also check out a recent discussion (also here) on The Source translation of the NT by Ann Nyland, which is reportedly based on more up-to-date Greek lexicographical evidence than most traditional texts admit. (I do have to admit that a book called “The Source” initially stirred memories of long summer nights reading James Michener rather than a Bible translation…)

What type of bread is your translation?

Posted on August 3, 2008 
Filed Under bible translation, humor | 10 Comments

We all know that Jesus claimed to be the Bread of Life and that all who eat will be filled. One of the ways that we spiritually eat is by reading the Bible, which is available to the English-speaking part of the world in a confounding number of translations. But have you ever stopped to think about your Bible as bread? And if so, what type of bread? The following list clarifies some of the differences between the different translations available.

Changes in the bookstore

Posted on August 1, 2008 
Filed Under bible publishing | 16 Comments

I had a few minutes to stop by our local Christian bookstore and noticed that they’d completely rearranged the Bible section. Frankly, I was very much taken aback by the new layout (in a good way):

There’s really not a point to this post other than these observations, but I found it interesting to see how the top two translations on the lastest CBA rankings had been moved to the highest visibility areas of the store. If nothing else, it’s good merchandising by the bookstore and shows that they’re in tune with what people are evidently looking for.

The amplified woman

Posted on July 30, 2008 
Filed Under bible publishing, bible translation | 28 Comments

No, I’m not talking about Joyce Meyer. In the comments to Rick Mansfield’s missive on the rising fortunes of the NLT translation, there was an interesting side discussion about the Amplified Bible, which is seemingly unique in its effort to catch the range of functional meanings of a passage through the use of multiple renderings of the original text. An example of this is John 11:25 –

“Jesus said to her, I am [Myself] the Resurrection and the Life. Whoever believes in (adheres to, trusts in, and relies on) Me, although he may die, yet he shall live.”

The items in [brackets] and (parenthesis) have been added to the text as a way of using different nuanaces in language to suggest different facets of the text’s meaning. A more complete explanation of this system and the underlying textual sources can be read on the Lockman Foundation’s webpage.

I should disclose at this point that I have used the Amplified Bible in the past and while I don’t currently have a copy, I found it a valuable resource - like having a mini-Strong’s built into the text. My dad has used it as his primary translation for quite a while as well, though I think he’s been shifting toward the TNIV lately.

From the comments in Rick’s post, it appears that the base of usage for the Amplified Bible is focused these days in Charismatic/Pentecostal circles, as evidenced by Meyer’s Everyday Life Bible which uses the Amplified as a base text. Evidently charismatic leaders like Meyer have been using the Amplified for years. The suggestion was made that critics of charismatics might claim that their targets are attracted to the Amplified because they can take one of the bracketed meanings and say, “to me, it means this,” or even read into the Amplified whatever meaning they want to. However, Peter Kirk noted that “in the relatively little of Joyce Meyer’s preaching I have listened to, I have not seen poor exegesis based on misuse of the Amplified.”

The final topic on this tangent was more anecdotal, but it was noted that usage of the Amplified seemed skewed toward women. Suzanne commented that “I think that those who do not have training in the Biblical [languages] feel that this gives them authority. That would tend to be charismatics and women who enter the ministry without formal seminary training.” Her point on assumed authority perhaps runs into the criticism noted above.

Toward the end of all this, I commented that “with all the discussion of the Amplified and its seeming favor with women, I’m surprised that nobody mentioned that the translation was originally undertaken by a woman, Frances Siewert.” This is no small point. The Amplified Bible was created in the middle of the 20th century alongside the great committee translations like the NEB, RSV and Jerusalem Bible, which were predominantly if not exclusively produced by men.

Born in 1881, Mrs. Siewert (Litt. B., B.D., M.A., Litt. D.) dedicated her life to the intensive study of the Scriptures as well as to the cultural and archaeological background of biblical times. Her M.A. thesis was on “The Effect of the Bible on English Language” (1910). In 1954, she wrote that “I have averaged 4 hours a day of serious Bible study since 1914 [ed. 40 years!], when I was already a theological seminary graduate, and yet I am finding daily evidence of the fact that there are countless Scripture passages which have been obscure to me until now.”

Siewert’s vision and life’s work was to create a translation which would bring out each word’s original, often hidden, meaning in all its fullness. She began work in 1952, already in her early ’70s, and lived to see her work financially supported by the Lockman Foundation and Zondervan Publishing. The Amplified NT was published in 1958 and the full Bible in 1965; Siewert died in 1967.

Certainly the Amplified Bible is a legacy worth celebrating?!

HT: The Lockman Foundation

The business of Bibles

Posted on July 28, 2008 
Filed Under bible publishing | Leave a Comment

Kevin O’Brien has written a thoughtful article on the business of Bible publishing, especially related to the market opportunity of “niche” Bibles. He describes the various factors of “can we?” vs. “should we?” when it comes to making publishing decisions.

I’m far too familiar with Kevin’s dilemnas, having spent almost 10 years in the software publishing industry as a product manager making profit/loss decisions on everything from the feature definitions of our products to development resourcing to documentation choices to packaging and the like. While I understand the complexity of the tradeoffs involved, I never had to explicitly deal with the business vs. ministry aspects of Bible publishing. Those in Kevin’s position have my respect for the integrity of the decisions that they have to make.

Kevin specifically addresses a topic that I’ve raised numerous times here and on other blogs: the availability and practicality of a single-column, cross-referenced, wide-margin edition for serious students, teachers and ministers who want to record their own thoughts alongside the text. He describes the first such NLT edition and comments on why there has not been a followup printing. Kevin’s post has already born fruit, with a significant rebuttal comment from Rick Mansfield, who champions the cause of “gatekeeper editions”, to use his language.

Kevin closes by asking the following question:

How would you strike the balance between “can vs. should”? What would that look like if you were the one developing Bibles?

I encourage you to take a look, even if you find the business of Bibles somehow distasteful.

Just a quick note about the NLTSB…

Posted on July 27, 2008 
Filed Under bible publishing, choosing a bible | 2 Comments

First, a huge “thank you” to the team at Tyndale for providing me with a review copy of the NLT Study Bible (NLTSB) to look at and post about. The package arrived Friday afternoon just as we were finishing up packing for a weekend away with friends in northern Minnesota. Needless to say, my planned reading was left in the office and the NLTSB went with me.

I’m really quite pleased with what I’ve seen so far and look forward to spending more time with it this week and beyond. I’m hoping to offer a series of posts, including a “First Look” style post in the next day or two, as well as a comparison of study notes with the historical-critical NOAB and Oxford Study Bible (REB), which seems appropriate given the focus of the NLTSB on the original context of the meaning of the text.

I’d also like to compare it to the ESV SB notes, at least based on the samplers that are publicly available, as well as my wife’s NLT Life Application SB. I may have to fight my wife for the NLTSB, however, as she seems interested in taking it to her Beth Moore study on the Psalms of Ascent.

NLT Study Bible: focusing on historical context

Posted on July 23, 2008 
Filed Under bible publishing | 29 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.

[ Read full article here ]

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.

Next Page →