Monthly Archive for July, 2008

The amplified woman

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on July 30, 2008
in bible publishing and 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

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on July 28, 2008
in bible publishing
. 0 Comments

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…

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on July 27, 2008
in bible publishing and 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

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on July 23, 2008
in 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”

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on July 22, 2008
in 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.

An open response regarding Christian environmentalism

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on July 22, 2008
in creation, eschatology and 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

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on July 20, 2008
in 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

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on July 17, 2008
in 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…

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on July 16, 2008
in 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.

So without further explanation, here is my blog’s Wordle (created from my RSS feed to avoid sidebar text and links from distorting my actual blog content).

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

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on July 15, 2008
in bible publishing and bible translation
. 82 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”.