NASB vs. NRSV Round 4: Gospels and Acts
| Reference | Larry's Evaluation | Rick's Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
Matt 13:37 |
The NASB95 alone translated "de." (Isn't it inconsistent for it to translate "de" but not translate initial vav's in the Hebrew?). Neither version full translates apokritheis eipen. The translation of the KJV is more literal here "He answered and said ...." although it immediately deviates after then because of its use of the TR. Nonetheless, I regard apokritheis as the more important term here, especially as it connects the explanation of the parable to the question of the disciples in the previous verse. So the NASB95 gets the nod for translating "de" but the NRSV has a better translation of "apokritheis eipen" -- tie. |
This is a close call. You're right about the deficiencies of both in regard to apokritheis eipen, but both translations made a good call by stripping down what amounts to a redundancy in English. I want to call it a tie as well, but in my opinion, the NASB's translation of de makes it (ever so) slightly more literal than the NRSV. So I'm giving it to the NASB, but BARELY. |
Matt 21:27 |
Well, here the NASB95 translates both words apokrithentes and eipan, so it is more literal, and translates kai consistently in the verse. | Agreed: NASB. |
Matt 23:33 |
The NASB95 (in a footnote) captures the subjunctive in phygete and also finds two one word translations of kriseos. It is more literal. | I agree with your analysis and would add that "sentence of hell" better captures the genitive construction of kriseos tes geennes. NASB wins here. |
Mark 8:16 |
Translating deilogizonto as "said" does not do it justice. On the other hand, why does the NASB95 add the completely unhelpful "began". The NRSV makes this a direct quote, although tries to make up for its previous mistranslation of deilogizonto by inserting, out of thin air, "It is because" and changes echousin to first person plural. There is no contest here. The NASB95 is far more literal. | I agree with the unnecessary additions of the NASB. But like you, overall, I see the NASB as more literal here. |
Luke 8:32 |
Both versions are commendably literal in translating this verse. The NRSV moves up hillside here, but the change is minor. The NASB95 translates "there" twice here, one appears to be from "ekei" but I cannot find from whence it obtained the second "there". I'm calling this one for the NRSV. | I believe the second use of "there" in the NASB is the actual translation of ekei. The first is merely part of the translation into good English. However, the NRSV found a way to keep this literal without it, so I, too, give the nod to the NRSV, but it's a very slight nod. |
Luke 18:29 |
Other than capitalization (not an issue in original manuscript Greek) and "say to" versus "tell", these are identical. Tie. |
Agreed. Tie. |
Luke 21:7 |
There is no attempt here to represent the de, but the NASB95 does separately translate the Eperotesan & legontes, pote & oun and more accurately translates the single word (out of context) hotan. On the other hand, it adds an interpolated "things." I give a slight nod to the NASB95. | I agree that the NASB is more literal, but I feel it is a good bit more literal than a simple slight nod. Regardless, NASB gets this verse. |
John 3:28 |
If one includes alternatives, the NRSV and NASB95 are essentially the same here -- it is a tie. I'm not sure why the NRSV and NASB95 put in the footnotes they did given the later use in John 4:25. (Off topic: did other viewers notice how horrible the Aramaic pronunciation was in Gibson's Passion of the Christ? For example, the High Priest pronounces "messiah", repeatedly, in mixed up Hebrew and Aramaic: meshiaha.) | I agree to the tie. I agree that "having gone before" would be a more literal translation than either option in the NASB or NRSV. As to the off-topic question, I didn't notice. However I remember when I saw the movie wondering how mangled the pronunciations were in general with so many non-Aramaic speaking actors. After viewing it at the theater, I've never gone back to watch it on DVD. And I'm not sure I ever will. It's a difficult movie to watch. |
Acts 20:13 |
Here the NASB95 translates the "de", so I don't understand its translation philosophy for Greek -- it appears inconsistent to me. There is a substantial difference in the translation of proelthontes. Since this is an aorist participle, wouldn't the literal translation be "having gone before"? Perhaps the translations intend to capture this by using "ahead", but that seems an inadequate to me. I can't make up my mind which of the verb forms used "going" or "went" is close to "having gone before" -- neither seems particularly accurate to me.
In this case, I'd call it for the NASB95 [purely on the basis of having translated the "de"], but neither is as literal as the KJV. |
Agreed. The NASB is more literal. |
Acts 28:23 |
Taxamenoi is another aorist participle, so I would translate it "Having set in order." The NASB95 translates ekitheto diamartyromenos as "explaining [to them] by solemnly testifying" while the NRSV opts for "explained the matter" Of course the middle voice doesn't exist in English, so an exact translation is impossible; the NASB95 captures the notion of testifying and adds "solemnly" (which does not capture the clear sense of thoroughness that context demands here, but which is literal enough.) So I call this for the NASB95. |
Another agreement for the NASB. |
Additional Comments: |
A blow-out for the NASB95
I'd like to make some additional comments here. The NASB95 has a decidedly different character in translating the Greek Scriptures than the Hebrew Scriptures; it hews much closer to the text and shows greater care in translation. At the same time, it is neither as literal as the KJV was to the Textus Receptus and certainly is not as elegant as the KJV. The NRSV also changed character in the Greek Scriptures -- it almost adopted an "easy reading" character I identify more closely with the NIV. What accounts for this difference? I have some preliminary speculation. For the NRSV, perhaps because the Gospels and Acts is more straightforward than the more alien, ancient, and ambiguous language of the Hebrew Scriptures, the translators felt more comfortable putting the Scriptures in plainer language -- they didn't think they would go astray so easily. For the NASB95, given that the Greek Scriptures are more important to their audience than the Hebrew Scriptures, I simply think they devoted more time to them. I must say that in reading these verses, I am more impressed than ever with the achievement of the KJV (and Tyndale), which manages to present both Hebraized English and relatively literal Greek while maintaining a consistent tone (perhaps too consistent, since the original differs so greatly in tone) and also maintaining elegance and also using (for its period) simplified English. |
Larry, in regard to your final thoughts on this section, I think we are in agreement that both translation committees seemed to have taken more care in their translations of the New Testament. This might explain my earlier comment that analyzing these verses seemed easier than the previous ones in the OT, and I don't think it was simply the fact that my Greek is (much) better than my Hebrew. The difference in character between the testaments in these translations may just be another instance of a long standing tradition of slighting the Old Testament. At some point, it might be interesting to do a similar analysis, although obviously not on literalness, with a translation like the NLT. I know that one of my former OT committee members, Daniel I. Block, was very influential in the translation of the NLT OT, and much of the changes between the NLT1 and NLT2 I woul guess came at his insistence.
Regarding the nature of the NRSV NT that you mentioned, I had always thought of the NRSV as being a bit more in flavor like the NIV, and these verses certainly seem to demonstrate. I can only guess that my experience with the NRSV (primarily in my M.Div years) was rooted more in the NT than the Old (see, there's that bias again). |
Cumulative Scores: |
Torah: 2 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 4 (tie) |
Torah: 1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB95) - 3 (tie) |
To read more click the following links:
NASB vs. NRSV
NASB vs. NRSV Round 1: Torah
NASB vs. NRSV Round 2: Nevi'im
NASB vs. NRSV Round 3: Kethuvim
Comments where these discussions are taking place
March CBA Bible Rankings
There are a number of interesting points to notice about this listing. First, if you've been keeping track, note that the TNIV has fallen off the list after its initial listing a couple of months ago. My suspicion that the TNIV's place was held primarily from the audio-based Bible Experience may be supported by my assumption that post-Christmas sales would see a significant decline.
Also note that the HCSB and the NASB have reappeared after falling off last month's charts. The HCSB had continually kept a spot on the chart around the halfway mark since its release in 2004, but then suddenly dropped off last month. The sale of the newly released HCSB Illustrated Study Bible (which appears on the Study Bible rankings for the first time) may have been part of the reason for the HCSB's renewed spot in the top ten. And the NASB had been on the chart for decades until it's drop last month, but now has claimed a spot somewhere around its usual position.
The chart suggests that the King James Version refuses to go away and has reclaimed the number one position, although it wouldn't surprise me if it goes back to #2 next month. What really surprises me is that the New Century Version would rank so high. Both the NCV and the NKJV are exclusively published by Thomas Nelson. I can't imagine the NCV attracting this kind of popularity, but it may say something for Nelson's marketing department.
What are your thoughts?
Harper Collins Launches New NRSV Site, Releases New Editions
A press release on the site states:
February 2007—HarperSanFrancisco, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, is now the publishing home of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The NRSV is widely recognized as one of the world’s finest translation of the scriptures available in English.
...
After many years of allowing various publishers to produce versions of the NRSV, the National Council of Churches of Christ recognized the need for a single lead publisher to direct the NRSV publishing program in a very competitive marketplace and selected HarperSanFrancisco to be the exclusive licensor of the NRSV. HarperSanFrancisco and the NCCC anticipate a new era of growth for the NRSV.
I have to admit this is a bit surprising. A year ago I would have predicted a continued fade out on the almost two-decade-old NRSV. I had confirmed from a source at a major Bible publisher a few months back that sales of the NRSV had fallen to near negligible numbers. But a number of new editions, such as the Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bible, and the NRSV's continued use as the academic translation of choice in mostly non-Evangelical circles, have managed to keep the NRSV alive. The translation has not appeared on the CBA translation best seller list in a number of years, but CBA sales focus solely on member stores which don't always stock NRSV offerings.
In addition to the new website, Harper Collins has released new editions of the NRSV: the NRSV Standard Bible, the NRSV Go-Anywhere Bible, and a forthcoming NRSV XL Bible.
The website itself has a number of interesting features including a podcast page! Podcast #1 features a discussion by Walter Harrelson on the NRSV. There is also a page of endorsements with quite an eclectic mix from the likes of Richard Foster to Anne Rice (yes, that Ann Rice). Some of the endorsers, such as Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan, and Bart Ehrman make this Evangelical feel a bit squeamish, but the NRSV publishers may no longer see Evangelicals as a market with potential (although there is a new NRSV advertisement in Christianity Today).
I don't use the NRSV as much as I used to. It was the recommended translation of choice when I was pursuing my M.Div in the early nineties at a then-less-conservative-than-now SBTS. I used it a good bit at that time. Conservatives tend to often look at the NRSV with suspicion, but in general, I find that to be unfair. Overall, I find the NRSV to be a fairly solid translation (even if I don't use it that much anymore) which had the late Bruce Metzger at its helm, and I tend to respect and trust Metzger quite a bit. The NRSV is certainly a more consistent and readable update to the RSV than the ESV (which in my opinion didn't go far enough). The Conservative/Evangelical Christian community did an about face on the NRSV at some point. My first copy of the translation was printed by the Southern Baptist Holman Bible Publishers, although they don't print any editions anymore. And one Saturday afternoon when I have some time, I'm going to go to the library and wade through the back issues of Christianity Today to find the launch ads that had quite a few Evangelical endorsements at the time of the NRSV's release. When I find it, I'll list their names here.
In the "I-can't-help-but-say-something" department: Since Harper Bibles and Zondervan are both imprints of Harper Collins, perhaps now the marketing department will focus on updating the extremely neglected TNIV.com which has not seen even a complete product listing update in over a year.
Nonsense for Today
Every time I watch Law & Order: Criminal Intent, I think to myself that Eric Bogosian, who plays Captain Danny Ross, looks like a character who would have been somebody's uncle on the Brady Bunch 35 years ago.
His curly perm and even his voice seem to have time warped him straight from an early seventies sitcom.
Okay... back to more serious topics...
More Thoughts on Cameron's "Jesus' Family Tomb"
From Larry:
It may be the case that Israel Antiquities Authority acted incorrectly in this case -- I don't feel I have enough information from the article to judge. I don't regard Biblical Archeology Review as a very careful journal, and I do note that expert witnesses in court trials tend to always make statements that agree with the side that retained them (if only because experts who don't agree with the lawyers are never put on the stand.) I don't think we can exclude the possibility of a careful forgery; certainly this would not be the first case.
On a more substantive note, based on the New York Times article today it appears that the main evidence presented by the filmmakers is the improbability of the names appearing together in the crypt. The article mentions the estimate of the chances of the names appearing together in the tomb are one in 600, based on an analysis by Andrey Feuerverger. I wonder if this doesn't reflect some statistical error. For example, there are presumably a number of ossuaries, both known and unknown, in the greater Jerusalem region. The NY Times article mentions that thousands of of ossuaries have been discovered.
Second, depending on how the problem was posed to the Feuerverger, the statistic may be quite misleading. A moment's thought reveals that there are many possible different configurations of names that could potentially "match" a potential family for Jesus. Thus, the actually probability of a ossuary having a set of names that match a purported Jesus family is perhaps far more likely than mentioned. Of course, we can't tell for sure without seeing Feuerverger's actual calculations, and to the best of my knowledge, he is not publishing those.
I did contact Feuerverger (whom I know) and he has not responded to my inquiries.
I am also struck by the fact that a $4 million budget film decided as a cost saving measure to limit the number of DNA samples tested. It raises suspicions.
Most damning of all is the quote by Kloner, which I repeat here:
Among the most influential scholars to dispute the documentary was Amos Kloner, former Jerusalem district archaeologist of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who examined the tomb in 1980.
Mr. Kloner said in a telephone interview that the inscription on the alleged “Jesus” ossuary is not clear enough to ascertain. The box on display at the news conference is a plain rectangle with rough gashes on one side. The one supposedly containing Mary Magdalene has six-petalled rosettes and an elaborate border.
“The new evidence is not serious, and I do not accept that it is connected to the family of Jesus,” said Mr. Kloner, who appears in the documentary as a skeptic.
Amos Kloner discovered the tomb, and you can read his report at the link given below. Kloner is a professor at Bar-Ilan (the Israeli equivalent of Yeshiva University) and has won the "Emet Prize" (truth prize) which includes a cash award of one million dollars from the Israeli government.
- Link to the NY Times article.
- Also check out Ben Witherington's take on the subject.
Da Vinci Code Redux: James Cameron Style
This time it's coming from
Cameron, the director of movies such as The Terminator and Titanic will be holding a press conference tomorrow claiming that tombs have been discovered in Jerusalem with the names of Jesus, his wife Mary, and their son, Judah.
[What? I thought there was a daughter named Sophia!]
The press conference will promote Cameron's new documentary airing soon on the Discovery Channel. Feel free to read the initial report from Time.com.
There's been very little response yet from the Christian community on this, but it's too early. Expect there to be controversy. Expect there to be a lot of attention--perhaps even more than what was unnecessarily given to The Da Vinci Code.
And before you change your plans for next Sunday morning, take a deep breath, and realize that these kinds of claims have come before and will be around again. But in a video age, they seem to get more and more spectacular. For a sane early reflection on this, be sure to read Michael Spencer's thoughts on this over at Internet Monk: "A Rejected Messiah Buried without Honor? Responses to the 'Tomb of Jesus and His Family' Story."
Stay tuned. I'll come back to this story, if warranted, as it develops.
Meanwhile, has anyone ever read Skeleton in God's Closet by Paul Maier?
A Call for a TNIV Apocrypha
In the comments section of that post, Peter Kirk challenged my suggestion for the necessity of a TNIV translation of the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha:
I'm not sure I agree, simply because once you go down that road, where do you finish? There is an open ended, nowhere clearly defined set of "apocryphal" books out there of interest to the academic community, including the pseudo-Pauline writings you mention. If academic use were really a priority for the TNIV team, they could start on this. But I doubt if it is. Why should it be? I don't think there is a lot of money in it, and they won't particularly be wanting to promote liberal scholarship. Also I guess that NRSV is adequate as a scholarly translation of the deuterocanonical books.Now meeting the needs of Christian communities with different canons might be a different matter. A TNIV translation of the deuterocanonical books might be helpful for promoting Christian unity with such groups. Again, whether the TNIV team wants to promote this kind of unity is up to them.
First, without getting into the whole issue of canonicity, I should say that I am a Protestant who does not view the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books as authoritative Scripture. Having said that, however, I would agree with Martin Luther who stated that these are "books which are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures but yet are profitable and good to read." In fact, I would suggest that it's impossible to fully understand the cultural context of the New Testament without reading these books as they fill in the historical gap of 400 years between the testaments.
Further, I believe that Peter's concern about the limits of what should be translated is a simple issue to resolve. In the previous post, I purposefully used the word Deuterocanoical instead of Apocryphal because the latter word can sometimes be interpreted as the larger body of pseudepigraphal and pseudonymous writings from the time in which the New Testament books were written. The first term lends itself to a specific body of writings. Let me make it clear that when I say it would be beneficial to have the TNIV Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) produce the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal, I am specifically speaking of those books found in the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew Tanakh.
I agree that academic use is not the main priority for the CBT regarding the TNIV. However, considering that the NIV, the TNIV's predecessor, became the standard translation for academic resources in Evangelical circles (there are currently more commentaries and reference materials based on the NIV than any other translation), I would think that academic acceptance of the TNIV would certainly be a goal of the CBT.
Further, although I cannot back this up statistically, it would not surprise me if the NIV is the most widely used Bible translations as well among non-Evangelicals, although the NRSV is used more widely in non-Evangelical academic resources. One reason that the NRSV is used more is because its inclusion of the Apocrypha makes it more accessible to the wider umbrella of Christendom. Plus an Apocrypha is needed for biblical historical-critical studies. The NRSV is now approaching two decades in age, and while this doesn't really take away from its value, the stage could easily be set for a new translation such as the TNIV to become a truly international version. But it would have to include the Apocrypha for this to happen.
Take for instance Zondervan's Archaeological Study Bible released last year. Although it was somewhat flawed because of a number of factual inaccuracies in the first printing, this was the kind of volume that simply screamed for treatment of the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books. In fact, despite it's large size, the lack of these books seemed somewhat glaring in my opinion. Of course, there is no NIV Apocrypha and there never will be. But it's certainly not too late for a TNIV Apocrypha to be developed.
Now this would certainly be groundbreaking for the International Bible Society, the sponsors and copyright holders of the NIV and TNIV. Unlike the American Bible Society, the IBS does not include Catholic Bibles with the Deuterocanonicals in its catalog. This would be uncharted territory. But think of the possibilities. What if the majority of Christians of many different denominational stripes were united by one major translation? The King James Version and the New International Version have come close to this, but a translation for everyone would have to include the option to have these extra books for those who wanted them.
Finally, it's not without precedent for a primarily Evangelical translation to have editions with the Apocrypha. Although it's not widely publicized, there are Catholic editions of the New Living Translation that are already available with these extra books.
Regardless, considering that I can't even get a wide-margin TNIV, I'm not going to hold my breath for an edition with the Apocrypha.
TNIV Replaces RSV in 2nd Ed. of Wayne Meeks' Writings of St. Paul
The Second Edition of this perennially popular Norton Critical Edition is based on the Today’s New International Version of Paul’s letters, renowned for its inclusiveness and accuracy in representation of gender.
This thoroughly revised and expanded edition includes an entirely new introduction to Paul and the central issues surrounding his writings, as well as several newly included sections of writings from Paul’s time to the present, among them “Annotated Text: Pseudo-Pauline Writings”; “The Apocryphal Paul: Some Early Christian Traditions and Legends,” with writings by Jerome, Clement of Rome, and Ambrosiaster; “Paul and His Pagan Critics,” with writings by Julian, Theodotus, and Elaine Pagels; “The Second Century Paul”; “Reading Romans,” with writings from Origen, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Paul W. Meyer; and “A Sampler of Modern Approaches to Paul and His Letters,” with writings by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Abraham J. Malherbe, Peter Lampe, Margaret Mitchell, and Dale B. Martin.
A helpful Epilogue—“The Christian Proteus,” by Wayne A. Meeks—a Selected Bibliography, and an Index are also included.
Rick's comment: this is easily the most academic use of the TNIV to date, and one of the first outside Evangelical circles. In my opinion, the TNIV Committee on Bible Translation should really consider completing a translation of the Deuterocanonicals if they want to continue to see expanded use of the translation in the wider realm of academic biblical studies.
Meeks' 2nd edition of The Writings of St. Paul will be available in March.
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut
Therefore you may or may not know that the Superman II shown in the theaters and released on various video incarnations over the years was not quite the original vision. Mario Puzo of Godfather fame had penned the screenplays of the first two Superman movies staring Christopher Reeve. As the first movie was being made, the sets were used to film scenes that would appear in the sequel as well. This saved time and money and would also guarantee a quick sequel on what most assumed would be an instant moneymaker. According to director Richard Donner, he had about 80% of the second film completed when he had to devote all of his time to finish up the first movie in time for a 1978 Christmas release. During this time, Donner fell into creative differences with producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind and was fired. His name appeared as director for the first movie, but director Richard Lester received credit for the second movie. Some scenes had to be reshot in order for Lester to take credit, and he also completed the remaining 20% or so never completed by Donner. In the end, none of us knew it at the time, but we didn't receive a Superman II exactly the way Donner envisioned it. And perhaps that's why I've always felt that there is a disparity of feeling between the first and second movie. Defenders of Donner say that he respected the mythology while Lester did not, but there may be some amount of bias in play with such accusations, too.
Regardless an internet movement began around 2004 for Warner Bros. to produce a version of Superman II more along the lines with Donner's original vision. Evidently, all of the scenes directed by Donner that did not make it into the theatrical release still existed. The fulfillment of that project is the Richard Donner Cut of Superman II released in 2006 and viewed by myself last night.
Lester's and Donner's movies certainly are different, but probably not profoundly so. It's a mix. There's good elements in both. Plus neither version stands as a work totally directed by either individual. There is the work of Richard Donner that remains in Lester's version, and those creating the new Donner cut had no choice but to include some material directed by Lester because Donner never actually finished his version. If you would care to get a sense of the visual and directorial differences of the two men, I would refer you to the IMDB trivia page for the theatrical release of Superman II (look for the paragraph that begins "Director 'Richard Lester' was not sympathetic to the epic look..."). See also the Wikipedia page for this version.
And while I don't want to give away everything in the new cut, a number of interesting differences can be pointed out. First, the opening is quite different and closely ties in the events of the first movie with the sequel. The events at the end of the first movie had direct impact on the release of the Phantom Zone villains, thus demonstrating that the sequel takes place only days after the first movie. The scene where Lois climbs the Eiffel Tower in Lester's version is completely absent from Donner's cut. But in its place is a wonderful scene where Lois jumps out of a window in an attempt to prove that Clark Kent is Superman. Why this was not used in the theatrical release I have no idea.
As I mentioned in my review of Superman Returns, I felt that Superman's actions in the second movie--to give up his abilities for the love of Lois Lane--was an incredibly selfish and unheroic decision. This is one reason that in general, I don't like the storyline of the sequel. Well, I felt much better after seeing Brando's scenes restored because in this version Jor-El berates his son over this very issue, leading to an "I told you so" moment when a powerless Man of Steel comes crawling back (literally) later in an attempt to retrieve his powers. I was right to believe that Superman's actions were selfish, and even his father agrees with me! In general these scenes with Brando create a much stronger emphasis on the relationship between father and son, something that is totally lost in the Lester version. We also get more of the "Son becomes the father; father becomes the son" dialogue that is repeated in Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. But here it is referred to as a Kryptonian prophecy.
The Donner cut includes a number of extended sequences among the actors including scenes with Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor in prison with his sidekick, Otis, played by Ned Beatty. Extended scenes with Valerie Perrine as Eve Teschmacher hint for the first time that there is some kind of actual relationship between her and Luthor. This was always an assumption of course, but until Donner's cut we never actually heard anything about it.
One mildly odd sequence involves a whole scene of spliced together screen tests between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. In the Lester version, Lois proves that Clark is Superman when she sees him stick his hand in fire and not get burned. In the Donner version, she actually fires a pistol at Clark. This scene was used for screen tests between Reeve and Kidder and can be found in the special features sections of certain DVD's of the first movie. Evidently, this was one of the scenes that Donner wanted to use in his version, but never got around to actually filming before he was taken off the project. Although the alternate scene is interesting, the segments of it are spliced together from what are obviously different periods, and in the end distract from the story line. Reeve's hair length and glasses size changes throughout the scene, and this was obviously before he got into the weight room and bulked up a good bit for the role.
One final difference is the ending of the movie, and there's no way for me to describe it without giving it away. You'll remember in the Lester version that Clark kisses Lois and makes her "forget" his secret identity. I've always thought that was a bit hokey, but the Donner ending is much worse. According to the special features on the disc, Donner felt that Clark Kent should never kiss Lois; only Superman should kiss her. Therefore, they resort back to the same horrible solution of the first Superman movie in which he flies faster than the speed of light backwards around the earth, somehow reversing time. Now it's one thing in the first movie when he just backs things up a few minutes and somehow saves Lois from dying (never quite understood how that happened though since he didn't stop the missile--oh well). But this time, it leave the viewer with an entire story (the entire events in the movie) that never happened; although it doesn't explain how he keeps the Phantom Zone villains from being released. Whether or not Donner actually planned to do this the first go round, I honestly have no idea. But I can't imagine making two movies back to back with the same ending. Frankly, it left a very unsatisfying feeling as if I had watched one long dream sequence.
Finally, the disc contains a relatively short behind the scenes look at the recreation of Donner's original vision. Merely tracking down all of the alternative film edits must have been a Herculean task. The comments made by Donner himself seem to reveal that he was deeply hurt by being cut out of the second picture after he had already put so much work into it and had completed the first film. He comments that he felt that he could have made a whole series of quality films with Reeve and Kidder had he been allowed to stay with the series.
I suppose you would have to be somewhat of a fan already to even want to view this version of the film. But regardless, there's really something significant here. I can't think of any time in the history of film that something like this has been attempted--to piece together forgotten film edits--not to just expand a film as often is done in so-called "director's cuts"--but to create an alternative version altogether and restore a film to an earlier intended vision. There are a few minor shots that had to be created new such as a scene of Clark Kent yelling at Lois from a window of the daily planet. It's not hard to tell that it's not actually Christopher Reeve. And according to the behind the scenes commentary, over 200 new special effects were created for this cut, and it was noted that it was a challenge to keep them downgraded to match the technology of a film made almost three decades ago.
I watched this movie on HD DVD. I've found that although newer movies look spectacular in high def versions, some of these older films are a mixed bag. There are some scenes in this movie that look extraordinarily good, but some look quite grainy and the difference in quality seen on a normal DVD vs a high def disc may very well be negligible. Nevertheless, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is available on standard DVD, HD DVD and Blu-Ray Disc. If you're a fan or at least remember the theatrical release, you might be interested to see this remix.
NASB vs. NRSV Round 3: Kethuvim
One note of difference from previous posts, though. I have switched myself to the left column and Larry to the right column for this post since I was able to write my analysis first this time.
| Reference | Rick's Evaluation | Larry's Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
Psalm 22:26 |
It's interesting that the NASB renders ‘anaw "afflicted" and the NRSV, "poor" and both offer the other's rendering as an alternate translation. Either word is suitable and part of the glosses included in most Hebrew lexicons.
I also found it interesting that the NRSV retains the use of "shall" while the NASB changed its wording to "will" in the 1995 update. These words are used interchangeably in today's vocabulary and any traditional distinction is ignored. Finally, I was about to call this one a tie, when I noticed that the 2nd person plural suffix added to levav is better reflected in the NRSV's "your hearts" than in the NASB's "your heart." So, in light of that, I'll give the nod to the NRSV as being more literal. |
I can't agree with you here on the disappearance of the shall/will distinction -- it is still in the (grammar) books, after all. However, more on topic: I also don't completely agree with you on "your hearts". This is one of those phrases that is easily translated into English -- chem is indicating that your is masculine plural but the root levav is actually singular. Thus the BDB translates it as "you yourselves." There is a deeper problem here. There is an ambiguity in the Hebrew text. Who is the subject of your this line? One possibility is that it is the Deity, and "chem" is being used as a royal identifier (or, a Messianic Christian interpretation that views this another triune reference.) The NASB95 translation allows this ambiguity while the NRSV seems to preclude it. For this reason, I would disagree with you and say the NASB95 is more literal here, since it preserves the ambiguity. |
Psalm 37:6 |
I don't feel much detail is needed here, but Larry can challenge me on this if he wants to. Although I would feel that the NRSV brings out the meaning of the verse more clearly, the NASB gives a much more literal, word-for-word translation. And since that is what we are judging on, I claim the NASB to be more literal. | I don't understand why both the NRSV and NASB95 change the word order between k'or and tzidkecha. Nonetheless, I agree that the wording of the NASB95 is more literal here. |
Psalm 104:34 |
Neither one of these verses translate ‘arav literally as "sweet," although "pleasing" captures the meaning of the idiom for English speaking audiences. The NASB attempts to reflect the extra pronoun ’anokhi [literally, "I"] in the phrase "as for me." There's no easy way to do this because samach (I [will] rejoice) is also first person singular and can create an unnecessary redundancy in English. However, it is in the Hebrew for added emphasis and since the NASB attempts to refelct this (albeit awkwardly) and the NRSV does not, I have to claim that the NASB is more literal. Larry may decide to challenge this. |
Anokhi is an interesting word, in that it carries special emphasis; famously at the start of the Ten Commandments. Nonetheless, I don't think that the NASB95, although it tries to reflect this emphasis, is a more literal translation -- in fact, it is just odd to me: "as for me" suggests a comparison -- suggesting the NASB95 is translating Anokhi in opposition to the Lord. But this is Hebrew poetry and the parallel structure is not in opposition but in sympathy. Thus, the reading of the NASB95 is opposite to what the psalmist is saying here. I'm not so sure that this is a case of the NASB95 not being literal as it is of the NASB95 simply being wrong. Even worse, the introduction of the extra phrase "as for me", even if it is not interpreted as being in opposition, breaks the symmetry of the poem. For this reason, I regard the NRSV as more literal. |
Psalm 118:8 |
This may be the first verse in which we've truly had to wrestle with the NRSV's inclusive language [i.e. "mortals" as opposed to "man"]. Any regular reader of this blog knows that I am not opposed to inclusive language as it often better communicates the meaning of the original message. This is case in point where I have offered anecdotal evidence in the past that masculine universals do not always communicate well in today's culture.
So, on one hand, I have no problem with the NRSV's use of "in mortals" for ba’adam as opposed to the NASB's "in man." However, in terms of literalness, the word "man" is singular (even if representing the plural) like the Hebrew singular absolute, while mortals is plural. Maybe this is splitting hairs, though. In which case, I'll give the nod to the NASB based on the fact that "trust" is word-for-word more literal for batach than the NRSV's "put confidence." So I say the NASB is more literal, but if it's any consolation, I like the NRSV's wording here better. |
Had the NRSV included a footnote here, I would have excused the introduction of the plural mortals. (By the way, this is not the first time we've dealt with this -- there is a fathers/ancestors dichotomy in both Deut 13:6 and Isa 64:11 but here it is more intrusive, because of the switch to a plural.) I give the nod to the NASB95. |
Prov 6:33 |
The NASB reflects the word order of the Hebrew in the opening line more closely. However, I've already stated in this series analysis that I don't find fault in translators shifting the verb for better English translation. Therefore, I call this verse a tie. |
It is true that the NASB95 better reflects word order here, but I do not understand how the NASB95 derived "not be blotted out" from "lo timacheh". The root M-CH-H is normally translated as wipe (this is particular clear in 2 Kings 21:13) -- and this particular clear in cases of writing (e.g. Moses name in Exodus 32:32-33). The "blot out" sense listed in BDB, for example, is not found in HALOT -- it means in the instances used as "annihilate." I this this is a case where the Evangelical leanings of the NASB95 translators show all too clearly; the translators are perhaps trying to steer the reader away from the metaphor of "washing" sin away. I could call this a draw (word order versus word choice), but I think the word choice here is so misleading that I will call this one for the NRSV. |
Job 36:5 |
These translations are identical except for the way each translates the first Hebrew word, hen. Generally, this is translated "behold" as in the NASB, but according to the BDB, it can be seen as a hypothetical participle propounding a possibility. I'm under the assumption that this is what the NRSV translators had in mind when they rendered hen as "Surely." Therefore, I call this verse a tie. |
If I were going to make the rules all over again, I would exclude verses from Job on the basis that the meaning of the text is so unclear in so many places. This verse is a perfect example -- while the words in this verse are clear enough, it has an ambiguous reading:
Behold God is mighty and rejecteth not; He is mighty in strength of understanding. Or as the New American Bible translates it: Behold, God rejects the obstinate in heart; he preserves not the life of the wicked. Or as the New Jerusalem Bible translates: God does not reject anyone whose heart is pure. [This appears to be following the Septuagint, but can be read into the Hebrew, i.e., Behold God is mighty but does not despise those with mighty, strong, understanding.] Or as the New English Bible translates: God, I say, repudiates the high and mighty. I must say that I am considerably annoyed at the way that both the NRSV and NASB95 confidently translate the text throughout the book. For lacking what I consider absolutely necessary footnotes here, I am calling this a tie. |
Lam 3:59 |
Let me give my own literal reading for this verse: "You have seen, YHWH, my oppression / judge my judgment [shafeta mishpati]."
This is very close, but despite word order on the part of either translation, the NASB is more literal in its use of fewer words in the first line. "Case" may also be more literal than "cause" for mishpat. Therefore, I consider the NASB slightly more literal. |
I see your point here, but I was a little surprised you accept an archaic reading of obscure. Of course, I am compelled to accept it, so I agree that the NASB95 is superior here. |
Dan 11:23 |
To me this is a difficult verse to put into English. Regardless, I am going to go for a tie because of the deficiencies of both translations. The NRSV completely leaves out any translation of we‘ala [reflected in the NASB's "and he will go up"], but I don't think the NASB's insertion of the italicised (i.e. added) "force of" is all that helpful or accurate. |
I agree with your analysis, but weigh the factors differently, so I'm calling this for the NASB95. |
Neh 8:14 |
The NRSV translates the initial vav that the NASB removed in the 1995 update for readability. And although it's another inclusive issue, I feel that "sons" in the NASB is more literal than "people" in the NRSV for bene.
One vs. one creates another tie. |
I'd like to point out the KJV uses "children of Israel" here. Gee, even the ESV uses "people of Israel" here. The problem is that bnei-yisrael is a single semantic unit and it everywhere means Israelites. (Semantic units are mistranslated if broken up -- one does not gain insight into "left bank" by translating "left" and "bank".) Indeed, the Rabbinic writings interpreted the commandment to live in a sukah) as binding on women. Now, one of the most silly aspects of the NASB95 is how it translates everywhere in Exodus 1, for example, bnei-yisrael as "sons of Israel" rather than Israelites. Strangely, though, the NASB95 translates yeled as "child" (twice) and in this case, yeled definitely meant a male, since it was Moses. [Perhaps this is an Evangelical choice, to echo a more famous phrase beginning "son of."]
Other differences: The NRSV, as you note, translates the initial vav. But it adds an unnecessary "it" after "found". Neither version literally translates the "by the hand of Moses" -- which is particularly odd since the NASB95 went out of its way to translate "sons of Israel" in the same verse. Neither version shows particular fidelity to the text, and I'm calling this a tie. |
1 Chron 6:24 |
Larry, we'll blame your randomizer for this verse. Tie. | Tie. |
Cumulative Scores: |
Torah: 1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB95) - 3 (tie) |
Torah: 2 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 4 (tie) |
To read more click the following links:
NASB vs. NRSV
NASB vs. NRSV Round 1: Torah
NASB vs. NRSV Round 2: Nevi'im
Comments where these discussions are taking place
Wikipedia Watch: Not Satisfactory for College Papers
College: Wikipedia Not Source for Papers
Middlebury College in Vermont Says History Students May Not Cite Wikipedia As a Source
The Associated Press
MIDDLEBURY, Vt. - Middlebury College history students are no longer allowed to use Wikipedia in preparing class papers.
The school's history department recently adopted a policy that says it's OK to consult the popular online encyclopedia, but that it can't be cited as an authoritative source by students.
The policy says, in part, "Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a citable source."
History professor Neil Waters says Wikipedia is an ideal place to start research but an unacceptable way to end it.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures
I know that I'm often hard on the "democritization/relativization of knowledge" inherent in the Wikipedia. But in reality, Middlebury College's decision isn't really so much a slam against the Wikipedia as a reaffirmation that encyclopedic references are not suitable for college papers. Any encyclopedia, whether the Wikipedia or Britannica are beginning sources for research that should point to other, more detailed information that would be appropriate in a college paper.
When I was in college, I would have ever used an encyclopedia as a reference, but I often I did stop there first in my research. Could it be that the internet has just made some students a bit lazy?
My First Vista "Wow"
Tonight one of my students was struggling to get some assignments transferred from her new Acer laptop (bought just this week) to a flash drive that I handed to her. She muttered something about hating "this new Windows Vista," so I walked over to her desk to see if I could help. She had only booted the laptop a few minutes earlier, loaded her documents into Word, and was now trying to save them to my flash drive--which is supposed to be driverless on any system. What I saw when I looked at her screen was a total freeze up. The mouse pointer wouldn't move. I tried to alt-tab between applications. Nothing. I tried a control-alt-delete. Nothing.
As I held down the power button to shutoff her laptop, I would've been speechless had it not been for the one word that came to mind.
"Wow."
Plagiarism Prevention Can Start At An Early Age
With younger students, plagiarism often occurs out of ignorance. How many of us turned in reports copied out of the World Book Encyclopedia word for word when we were younger simply because no one told us that doing such was wrong? And I admit right here that the first term paper I ever turned in was plagiarized; but at the time (9th grade), I had no idea that what I was doing was wrong. I came into my school mid-year and one of my courses was at an advanced level that required a term paper for higher credit. The other students had written their papers at the beginning of the year with complete instructions on how to do so. When I asked my teacher how to write a term paper, she said that basically I had to use a minimum of six other sources in my paper. So I simply divided the minimum page requirement for the paper into six parts, wrote down information from each book in my notebook, and then had my mother type it up for me (she was a much faster typist at the time). I even listed the six sources on a bibliography page in the back of the book, and did not realize until two years later when we wrote term papers in my junior year English class that what I had done as a freshman was wrong.
I found it interesting in Berg's book that the source of plagiarism for her fictional characters was not the encyclopedia as it was in my day, but the internet. This certainly brings this issue up to date because the main source today for plagiarized texts among students of any age is the internet. When Marion Copied is aimed at elementary age children, but it's almost just as tempting to read it in a college classroom as well.
This is a book you certainly should pick up for your children if they are in elementary grades, and you might even want to consider donating a copy to their classroom or school's library as well.
The Ethic of "It's Legal As Long As I Don't Get Caught"
I am completely appalled at what just happened to me! A first year teacher was being observed by a college professor and he heard me announce to a class of students in a health class that as we research we do not cut and paste information onto Word documents to use as presentation material, but that we take notes from what we read on the web. This professor turns to me and asks me why they can’t do that? I told him that breaks copyright laws and he says, “How would the person who wrote the information on the web know the student used their work?” How about that?
This, of course, is the ethic of "it's legal as long as I don't get caught." Plagiarism is a huge problem on college campuses these days (and even seminaries--I'm a grader at SBTS and know full well), and it makes one wonder what this particular professor would accept in his own classes.
I went through a period teaching my classes at IWU in which I had about three blatant plagiarism issues one right after another. I've since found that if I address the issue up front on the first day of class, both in discussion and in the syllabus that there's less likelihood of a student trying to steal work from an outside source. I explain to my students (without revealing my secrets) that I'm very good at spotting it, and by the time I speak to them about any incident, I will have already confirmed that it is indeed plagiarism with the dean and it will already be on their records. As I said, I don't have instances of plagiarism nearly as often now that I've taken a proactive approach. But with teachers like the one described in the quote above, encouraging the theft of others' work, it continues to be an uphill battle.
NASB vs. NRSV Round 2: Nevi'im
The first round of verses from the Torah proved my original suggestion regarding the NASB. Surprisingly though (to me), this second round has proved much more even between the NASB and NRSV. Here are the results:
| Reference | Larry's Evaluation | Rick's Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
Josh 18:21 |
Bnei as "sons of" is captured in the NASB95 -- this is the more literal version here. [Why the NRSV didn't use Benjaminites here is not clear; much better is the NJPS: "And the towns of the tribe of the Benjaminites, by its clans, were: Jericho, Beth-hoglah, Emek-keziz."] |
Larry, I am in agreement that Josh 18:21 is more literal in the NASB. Not only does the NRSV leave out sons, it also leaves out the “and” (for the Hebrew vav) before the last two cities listed. Although these aren’t necessary for good English and the NRSV reads better, the NASB is more word-for-word literal in this instance. |
2 Sam 1:3 |
It is funny that the NASB95 insists on the word order "from where do you come" while filing to put "And said to him" first in the sentence or inverting "From the camp of Israel have I escaped." Both the NASB95, despite liberties with the text, retain the somewhat confusing "and he said to him." Still, the word order in both is unnecessarily confused compared with the original, so I am calling this a tie. Note the KJV is far more literal than both of these versions. | I’ll have to disagree here. I don’t see how awkward word order creates a tie. Plus, the NRSV does not reflect the initial vav of the verse (captured in the word “then” in the NASB), nor the vav that introduces the quotation. That makes at least two places where the NASB is more literal. |
2 Kings 4:32 |
The NASB95 does translate v'hinei as behold, but why does it omit the "and"? Even worse, why does it put an unnecessary "and" before "laid on" which is not in the Hebrew "mat mushkav." In the KJV the "and" is correctly marked as an interpolated word. This could be a tie, but I think the NRSV is slightly more true to the Hebrew here. | Larry, I agree that neither is fully literal here, but I’ll opt for a tie because I don’t see how the NRSV is any more literal than the NASB. To pick up on a couple of your comments, I debated internally whether “lad” was more literal than “child” for na’ar. Although na’ar can mean "male" or "female" according to the context, here it is clearly male. Personally I prefer translating words like this according to the context of the gender, so I would prefer “lad” or perhaps better, “boy,” but I can’t fault the NRSV simply because I would have translated it differently. Technically, “child” is not incorrect. Also, I would guess that the reason “and” is added before “laid on” is because the verse literally reads “the boy was dead laid/lying on the bed.” A comma between dead and laid would have sufficed, but by the NASB’s own rules, “and” should have been in italics. So again, I’m going to call this a tie. |
2 Kings 17:23 |
The NASB95's "carried away into exile" is more complex than the literal Hebrew and does not communicate the idea of golut from the simple word va-yigel. One might think that "spoke through" is more literal than "foretold", but the literal sense of diber is in both phrases. In this case, the NRSV is more literal. | I agree, the NRSV is closer to the Hebrew here. |
Isa 24:15 |
The NASB95 gives the literal meaning of "east", but changes the word order rather dramatically, while the NRSV tracks it accurately. Nonetheless, the NRSV unnecessarily repeats the English word "glory/glorify" while it only appears once in the Hebrew. I'm calling this a tie, with neither version as literal as it could be. Note, that the KJV is far more literal here and superior from a literary perspective. | Larry, I don’t disagree with your general points about the rendering in these verses, and all things equal I would call it a tie as well. However, two issues make me lean the scales in the favor of the NASB. First, the NASB offers a more literal rendering of “region of light” in the notes in place of “east.” Second, in the second line, the NRSV duplicates the first line’s use of khvd by adding the word “glorify.” While this makes for smoother reading, it does not match the literalness of the NASB. |
Isa 64:11 |
First, note that this is a place where the Hebrew and traditional Protestant bible have different verse numbering. I've used the Protestant numbering here.
First we notice the gender difference, the NASB95 "fathers" and NRSV "ancestors" for "avoteinu." The NASB95 is more literal here, and I was a little surprised to see no footnote in the NRSV. The NASB95 puts "by" in italics, but somewhat unnecessarily, since a literal reading of lisrefat would be "for burning of" rather than "burned by." I will remark here that I find the NASB95's arbitrary use of italics somewhat disturbing -- it should only be used for words added to the English translation, but it seems to be rather inconsistently used for that purpose (many words added to the English translation are not italicized.) Both "our precious things" and "our pleasant places" are legitimate translations of machmadeinu and I don't find the ruin/ruins distinction significant here. So in this case, I count the NASB95 as more literal. |
I’m in essential agreement here that the NASB is more literal. However, on a minor note, is “our pleasant places” a legitimate rendering for machmadeinu? I can’t find any similar gloss in the HALOT or the BDB unless I overlooked it. |
Isa 66:11 |
These are very close. Both are using a modern interpretation of miziz which compares it with the Akkadian zizu or the Arabic zizat which means udder. However, kvodah is best translated as glorious, so the NRSV has a slight nod here. | I agree with the assessment that the NRSV is more literal, not only for what you mention, but also note that the NASB changes the singular shod to a plural [“breasts”]. |
Jer 31:39 |
Almost identical; the NRSV gets a slight nod for translating v' as "and". | Agreed, NRSV is slightly more literal for translating the two instances of the Hebrew vav. |
Ezek 43:15 |
Ignoring the rather odd alternative translation proposed by the NASB95 in the footnotes, the major differences are the omission of the initial "and" and the interjection of the bridging phrases "shall be" and "shall" in the NASB95. The first is marked as added words (using italics), the second is not, although I'm not convinced this is necessary. Similar to the last verse considered, the NRSV gets the nod solely for translating the initial v'. However, if Rick calls these ties, I'll understand completely. | No, I won’t call this a tie. As in the last instance, the NRSV is more literal. |
Jon 4:5 |
Sukah is normally translated as "booth", but "shelter" is equally valid. I would have chosen "booth" to remind the reader of the connection with the Festival of Booths, but I regard the variation as insignificant. "Ad asher" is best translated as "till", so the NASB95 gets a slight nod here. Strangely, in this case, the NRSV translates the v' in vaya'as but not in vayeshev, while the NASB95 does the opposite. |
I will agree to the tie only because the NASB offers a literal translation of city in the footnotes. Otherwise, in response to the issues you’ve already mentioned, I would have been willing to give the nod of literalness to the NRSV. Translating both instances of 'ir creates an odd-sounding redundancy in English, but it is more literal. But nevertheless, I’ll agree to a tie; although again, I almost gave this to the NRSV. |
Cumulative Scores: |
Torah: 2 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 4 (tie) |
Torah: 1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB95) - 3 (tie) |
To read more click the following links:
NASB vs. NRSV
NASB vs. NRSV Round 1: Torah
Comments where these discussions are taking place
Uptight NFL Lawyers Want to Cancel Your Church's Super Bowl Party
For groups that want to host Super Bowl parties -- other than sports bars and businesses that normally show televised sports -- here are rules the NFL says must be followed:
• No admission fees (even to pay for snacks).
• Only one television (55 inches or smaller).
• No use of the words "Super Bowl" in promotional materials.
• No exhibition of the game in connection with events "that promote a message."
Source: NFL
As a kid I noticed that no one came to church on Super Bowl Sunday night. Well...maybe a small number. But in those days, it was a taboo topic to even suggest that we cancel Sunday night service for a sports event. However, I'm sure that even the ministerial staff secretly wished they could be home watching the game. I even remember the blank stares I received while on my first church staff around 1990, when I suggested we borrow or rent a number of large screen televisions (this was right before the advent of data projectors) and hold a Super Bowl party at church.
Regardless, such gatherings are common today. This Sunday night, churches all around the country will hook up a cable television signal to a data projector to show the big game. It's good family fun--an alternative to sports bars and a chance to see the game with friends and family on a screen larger than what most people have in their homes.
Even though churches have been doing this kind of thing for over a decade, one church, Fall Creek Baptist in Indianapolis, has received word from uptight NFL lawyers that showing the game on a screen larger than 55" and using the term "Super Bowl" in its promotion is a violation of copyright laws. And guess what? Your church may be the next target.
The irony in all this is that exception is made for sports bars, also a popular gathering place for Super Bowl parties.
From yesterday's Indianapolis Star:
NFL's lawyers sack church's game plan
By Robert King
robert.king@indystar.com
The thousands of churches across the country that want to host Super Bowl parties Sunday night had better not pull out big-screen TVs, or they could face the wrath of NFL attorneys.
The NFL is telling Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis that the church's plans to use a wall projector to show the game at a party for church members and guests would violate copyright laws.
NFL officials spotted a promotion of Fall Creek's "Super Bowl Bash" on the church Web site last week and sent pastor John D. Newland a letter -- via FedEx overnight -- demanding the party be canceled.
Initially, the league objected to the church's plan to charge partygoers a fee to attend and that the church used the license-protected words "Super Bowl" in its promotions.
Newland told the NFL his church would not charge partygoers -- the fee had been intended only to pay for snacks -- and that it would drop the use of the forbidden words.
But the NFL wouldn't bite. It objected to the church's plans to use a projector to show the game on what effectively was a 12-foot-wide screen. It said the law limits the church to one TV no bigger than 55 inches.
The league even took exception to the church's plan to influence nonmembers with a video highlighting the Christian testimonies of Colts coach Tony Dungy and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith.
"While this may be a noble message," NFL assistant counsel Rachel L. Margolies wrote in a follow-up e-mail, "we are consistent in refusing the use of our game broadcasts in connection with events that promote a message, no matter the content."
Given all the NFL's concerns, the church appears unlikely to host a Super Bowl party.
"The Colts and Tony Dungy are such good people -- and (team owner) Jim Irsay, too. We want to be supportive of our local team. I don't want to make our people choose between coming to church and watching the game. It is such a big event," Newland said.
"For us to have all our congregation huddled around a TV that is big enough only for 10 or 12 people to watch just makes little sense."
Newland said he expected there are churches across the country that are planning similar Super Bowl watch parties using big screens.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league's longstanding policy is to ban "mass out-of-home viewing" of the Super Bowl. A major exception to the rule is made, however, for sports bars and other businesses that show televised sports as a part of their everyday operations.
"We have contracts with our (TV) networks to provide free over-the-air television for people at home," Aiello said. "The network economics are based on television ratings and at-home viewing. Out-of-home viewing is not measured by Nielsen."
Newland said his church won't break the law. But he sees a double standard at work when sports bars with giant screens can charge barstool rental fees and sell food, but his church can't offer a free event for families.
"It just frustrates me that most of the places where crowds are going to gather to watch this game are going to be places that are filled with alcohol and other things that are inappropriate for children," Newland said. "We tried to provide an alternative to that and were shut down."
So Fall Creek Baptist Church has cancelled it's Super Bowl Party. Notice that in the statement released on the church's website, Pastor Newland even avoids mentioning the phrase, "Super Bowl," no doubt out of fear of more legal reprisal:
Fall Creek Baptist Church Family...
We regret to inform you that we have had to cancel our bash to view the Colts game this Sunday in a family friendly environment due to the fact that the NFL believes we would be in violation of the Copyright Act, because we had planned to show the game on a screen bigger than a 55 inch diagonal. We have appealed to their legal counsel and exhausted all options without success. We have been informed that the only exceptions to view the game are given to sports bars and restaurants. While we have argued that we only intend to provide a family oriented environment that will make no profit from the showing, the NFL claims that our event cannot proceed by law. Therefore, we have no choice but to challenge this in court or cancel the event. We choose to cancel the event. We deeply regret that we have been prohibited by the NFL from providing a family friendly environment for celebrating the Colts great season.
Pastor John
The gall of NFL lawyers shutting down a church Super Bowl party in the Colts' hometown!
I understand that copyright laws are designed so that owners of creative content get due compensation or that their creation is not used in unintended ways such as third parties making profit from the work. But really, how is a church's Super Bowl party a violation of this? If anything it's free promotion of the NFL and the Super Bowl by churches all across the country, and it probably draws some viewers who might not watch the game otherwise.
My prediction is that such overzealous legal bullying will backfire on the NFL in publicity nightmare. In fact I would suggest that you take the time to write a quick letter to the NFL and make your feelings known if you are as aggravated about this as I am. Send your thoughts to:
National Football League
280 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
As for my plans Sunday night? Well, I can't tell you that. I'm too afraid of the NFL's Gestapo lawyers shutting us down.
UPDATE: Evidently, concerns over Nielsen ratings may actually be the source of the NFL lawyer's zealotry. Supposedly, if everyone is gathered at a church to watch the game, there's no way to track actual viewership. Lower numbers in the Nielsen ratings might make it more difficult for CBS to charge those exorbitant commercial time fees (this year's cost per commercial during the game is a whopping $2.6 million). But if this is the case, then why not block the sports bars as well? Seems like a huge double-standard to me, and worse, one that discriminates against the church.