Our friend Ori sent me this link today, about the upcoming really, really even newer revision of the New International Version of the Bible. The tone of the article is that they’re going to make it even more gender neutral, and that people who objected to the last “humankind” revision were complaining on purely ideological–not scholarly–grounds.
And over at Worldmag.com, I see this piece by Alisa Harris, linking to this article from Christianity Today, which talks about the same revision. The tone of this article is that they’re going to tone down the changes, and that the publisher recognizes the legitimate concerns of past critics.
Methinks, if you’re looking for a job, they’re hiring in the Spin Control Department over at Zondervan.
Me, I still sometimes use my old (pre-revision) NIV Study Bible, because the notes are excellent.
But in general, I’ve decided I prefer something a little more literal, like the New American Standard or the English Standard Version.
If I live long enough, I’ll probably just go back to the King James. Or the Geneva Bible, just to irritate people.
I understand the NIV Study Bible you are using is very good. I also understand that the new ESV Study Bible beats the pants off anything out there, except perhaps the old Geneva Bible, which is was so over-the-top anti-Catholic it made you feel good. Or was that The Bishop’s Bible, which is the one Shakespeare may have used? I have a New Geneva Study Bible, which is called or was called the New Reformation Study Bible for a while, and I like it. It’s NKJV. I wish it had more notes.
Notes are great. I learned a whole lot from my study Bible. Concordia’s bringing out a new Lutheran Study Bible in ESV. I may have to spring for one of those.
If you want commentary from a different (Jewish) perspective, I suggest Artscroll. The commentary includes traditions that were written down after the OT, but which may date to the original events.
“Tanach”, btw, is Hebrew for Old Testament – except that for us it’s not old.
I love the Geneva Bible! It does irritate people which is half the fun. I mostly use the NASB, though.
As near as I can tell, the NASB is the most accurate, though if NKJV could be corrected to the best textual material, I’d prefer it. The 1st edition NIV, which hasn’t been available for probably 20 years, is pretty good.
I’m not terribly impressed with the ESV, which is basically the RSV with a few minor changes. It is still not a Bible-believing translation, as the chief translator rejected the historicity of Genesis 1-11, and there are some other issues inherited from the RSV, plus where the attempt is made to translate anew, it is in southern dialect (especially in rhetorical questions) and clunky.
I guess it is what we are all going to use, but I’m not as pleased as I could be.
BTW, did “kill” change meaning since the time of King James? “Thou shalt not kill” is a terrible translation – it actually says “Don’t murder”. The OT is full of killing, many times righteous.
No matter what the translation, we must be careful that the true MEANING is not tainted, or changed…we cannot add or take away words, lets not forget what it says in the last book of Revelations.
ESV all the way, baby. Also, Leland Ryken’s The Word of God in English (his book on what makes for a good English-language translation) is available as a free PDF.
Jeff: No matter what the translation, we must be careful that the true MEANING is not tainted, or changed
Ori: That’s easy to say. Arguably impossible to do.
1. We aren’t always certain what the original meaning is. For example, when Isaiah talks about an “Alma” giving birth, is he talking about a virgin (the Christian version) or a young woman (the Jewish version)? The Greek translation uses “woman”, but that translation was written centuries after Isaiah died.
2. Words carry shades of meaning that cannot be translated so easily. For example, in Lamentation 3 the author (traditionally considered to be Jeremiah) says “Ani haGever”, literally “I am the man”. But “Gever” in Hebrew implies more than a mature masculine human being. It comes from the same root as “hero”. Yet “heroic man” would take it too far.
You could make a more accurate translation by making it longer, but then you lose the poetry of the words.
All we can do is hope and pray that He who came the ancient Semitic people a poetic style that could be translated (based on parallelism instead of meter or rhyme) will help us understand His word.