Jan 2008
The Bible Experience: Historical Books
01/31/2008 18:03
What do I mean by this? Well, TBE has reminded me of a very sobering fact: the Bible can be a very violent document in some places. This is especially true of the books of Judges through Esther. The violence of some of these chapters is made more real in a dramatization than in merely reading the same passages or even listening to a straightforward reading. In a dramatized version such as TBE, the listener hears the unsheathing of swords and the clash of weapons. When simply reading about a battle, one doesn't hear the screams of those being killed. It's all there in TBE. In certain parts of the historical books, such events are occur chapter after chapter, and it's all presented in frightening auditory detail in TBE.
Another interesting factor made more relevant in a dramatized Bible is the use of language that sounds foreign or simply archaic at times. People don't think of the TNIV as a dated translation, but since I often criticize the ESV as holding onto too much archaic language of the RSV, it's only fair to admit the same thing for the TNIV, although it's not near as pervasive as that in the ESV. I've stated before that I'm in favor of a median translation such as the TNIV holding onto some Hebraisms, especially in poetic languages, but the dramatization of a text makes certain phrases sound downright awkward in prose and narrative sections. Some examples:
- "make sport of" (Gen 39:14, 17; Ps 69:11)-- I meant to mention this one in the last review. A better rendering would be "make fun of."
- "be it ever so severely" (Ruth 1:17; 1 Sam 3:17; 14:44; 20:13; 25:22; 2 Sam 3:9, 35; 19:13; 1 Kgs 2:23; 19:2; 20:10; 2 Kgs 6:31). In most cases, simply using the word "severely" would suffice.
- "put to the sword" (Deut 13:15; 20:13; Josh 8:24; 10:30, 32; 11:11, 14; 13:22; Judg 21:10; 1 Sam 22:19; 2 Kgs 11:15; 2 Chr 23:14; Ps 78:64). Not even the NASB is this literal.
- "whatever your hand finds to do" (Judg 9:33; 1 Sam 10:7; Eccl 9:10). I believe this could be rendered something like "whatever you decide to do."
However, on the other side of the coin, it's the dramatic presentation that make some parts of the Bible easier to listen to. Let's be honest, when reading through the Bible, most folks skip over genealogies and longer lists rather quickly. Although I can preach a pretty good sermon (in MY opinion) on the genealogy of Jesus in Matth 1:1-17, most genealogies don't offer much unless one takes the time to slowly work through them consulting external reference books. TBE overcomes this difficulty because it can even add a bit of excitement to such passages. In most genealogies and longer lists, hand drums play in the background, creating a rhythm not all too foreign to the literary structure itself in some passages. They rhythm helps to move the passage along quite well, and I actually found myself paying more attention to such lists hearing it in TBE than I might have reading the same passages to myself.
Listening to TBE as I have during my commute each day also allows me to listen to the story in greater portions, not perhaps unlike many original hearers might have heard them. Granted, original hearers wouldn't have received dramatic productions with a multiple-person cast. But the Bible, like most ancient literature, was written to be read aloud. It was also intended to be read in much larger portions than what we are accustomed to, generally a whole scroll at a time, minimum. I mentioned in the last review about the disuse of God's name in the Joseph narrative that sets the stage for Moses' question in Ex 3:13. One can hear such things as they are set up narratively that might be missed if simply reading the text silently to oneself.
In listening to the end of Judges, the whole of Ruth, and the beginning of 1 Samuel in one day, I noticed another interesting narrative connection that I had never spotted before when simply reading the passages--no doubt because I would not have read all of these chapters together. At the end of the book of Judges, Israel disciplines one of its own tribes by declaring war on the Benjamites. Because the rest of the Israelites took an oath not to give their daughters as wives to the Benjamites, there was danger after the tribe was reconciled that it could very well die out eventually. So a "compromise" of sorts is made in which the Israelites instruct the Benjamites to kidnap wives for themselves at a festival in Shiloh. Then, as 1 Samuel begins, Shiloh is revisited, and is now firmly established as the central location of worship for the Israelites. And what happened to the Benjamites? Well 1 Sam 9 introduces us to a Benjamite family from which Israel's first king will originate.
It's not that there is some great profound meaning in all this. Rather, by listening to large sections of scripture, I could hear the ties of locations and names from one part of the story to the next like a narrative bouncing ball tying the pieces together. The example I gave above is even more clear when one realizes that in the original Jewish order of the Scriptures, Ruth does not interrupt Judges and 1 Samuel thus allowing these two books to be read consecutively. The Christian order of the historical books follows that of the Septuagint which inserts Ruth between Judges and 1 Samuel as a kind of parenthesis to provide family background to King David.
In TBE, three different voice actors portray David: Malcom David Kelly (known from the TV show Lost) plays David as a young boy; Derek Luke (Antoine Fisher, Lions for Lambs) plays David as a young man; and Gary Dourdan (CSI) plays David as the older, experienced king. Since David is such a pivotal figure in the history of Israel, casting three different voice actors for different periods in his life was a smart idea. Dourdan probably comes across best in the role, but Kelly's adolescent voice as the boy who takes on the hulking Philistine Goliath (Tommy "Tiny" Lister), demonstrates how preposterous such a match would have been had it not been for the fact that God was on David's side.
As I mentioned in the previous review of TBE Pentateuch, some voice actors come across better than others. Some will give performances that are quite moving while others simply fall flat. It's unfortunate that the latter pull the listener momentarily from the "experience" of The Bible Experience, but it's the reality of creating such an enormous project with literally hundreds of roles, and trying to involve so many notable figures in one project.
In the Book of Ruth, actress Sanaa Lathan performs quite believably, but it's actually Shirley Caesar as Naomi who steals the show. Caesar's performance allows the reader to fully feel Naomi's bitterness (Ruth 1:20). I immediately recognized Loretta Devine's (Boston Public, Grey's Anatomy) voice as Abigail. And I imagine that from now on, when I read 1 Sam 25:25, I will always hear "Please pay no attention, my lord, to that wicked man Nabal. He is just like his name—his name means Fool, and folly goes with him" with her unique intonations.
Readers of my last post will remember how disappointed I was with performance of Forest Whitaker as Moses. In the historical books, Richard Lyons failed, in my opinion, to deliver as Ezra. His voice sounded younger than what I would imagine, lacking in conviction and devoid of emotion until the end of his performance when he started to give some life to the biblical character. In fact, the entire book of Ezra seemed to be a bit neglected in TBE for some reason, lacking in the normal energy found in other books so far.
However, if Ezra was a disappointment, Nehemiah delivered with power. Character actor William Allen Young delivered a wonderful performance as the post-Exile leader of the Israelites. His voice has power and conviction, and all the background sounds and music are well in place. In my opinion, Nehemiah is one of the best produced portions of TBE I've heard so far.
The Book of Esther, with Angela Basset in the title role, has been promoted quite a bit by Zondervan and deservedly so. I enjoyed listening to the entire book in one sitting, and this is another portion of TBE that stands out. My only nitpick was the continued mispronunciation of Vasti as Vash-TIE.
I've never heard any audio Bible dramatized or otherwise that I believe consistently pronounced every name correctly (as I thought it should be). And to be fair, not only are these foreign names, but many of our own standard pronunciations (Isaac and even Jesus!) would sound foreign to the original hearers. Nevertheless, it's a general rule that Hebrew names that include the equivalent of our vowel "i" probably never have the equivalent of our long-i sound, but usually a short i or more often an "ee" sound (my apologies for any improper phonetics representation). Thus, when Shishak is pronounced as SHY-shak (as it is consistently done in TBE), it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. But again, I'm being overly picky, and I really can't blame the creators for mispronunciations of this level. However, I do believe it's poor directing when every other actor can correctly pronounce Artaxerxes except the character himself, played by Bishop Neil C. Ellis who kept trying to pronounce the first "x" as eks rather than "z" (can a person qualify as bishop and not know how to pronounce this)?
Regardless of my nitpicks on pronunciation, I found the historical books to be very well done, if not tiring at times because of the violence made more real by the format. I'm also still pleased with listening to TBE in MP3 format on my iPhone over my car stereo which works for me very well.
Related: The Bible Experience: Pentateuch
|
The Future Lies in the Past
01/30/2008 18:38 Filed in: Faith & Reason
The cover story in the February 2008 issue of Christianity Today is worth reading: "The Future Lies in the Past: Why Evangelicals Are Connecting with the Early Church as They Move into the 21st Century." In the article by Chris Armstrong, the words identity crisis occur more than once.
Armstrong describes the church of the early days of his faith after becoming a Christian:
The church Armstrong describes sounds like almost any Evangelical church I've ever visited. I've complained for years that in spite of the fact that the church has 2,000 years of rich tradition behind it, most Christians are unaware of anything other than their current generation of believers. And many who do venture backwards can't seem to travel beyond the Reformation. But there's a full 2,000 years of that great cloud of witnesses that surrounds us. Rather than continually seeking after the NBT (Next Big Thing), we should reach back to the Bible and to our rich heritage. I once read that Thom Oden said he hoped in his life to offer nothing new to Christianity. Not only do I hope the same for myself, but frankly I'm tired of being bombarded with the supposed newness of one NBT after another in the church. We strive after spiritual junk food to sustain us, neglecting the substance of Scripture, heritage, and tradition.
In the article, Armstrong continues:
I grew up in Louisiana where Baptist churches like mine wanted so much to separate themselves from the Catholics that we didn't even include crosses on our churches. Yet in rejecting tradition in all forms, we've thrown out the spiritual baby with the bathwater. Our churches try to replace tradition with one new program after another, but we're so afraid of tradition that we cannot even stay with one program for long. We follow trends and seek after the NBT's of the contemporary "Christian" culture, but I'm more than ever convinced that for all the programs we've involved ourselves in and for all the activities we pursued under the guise of discipleship, we haven't moved anywhere nearer to the image of Christ.
Let us stop seeking the new and rediscover the "faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
Armstrong describes the church of the early days of his faith after becoming a Christian:
Yet through the years, though this wonderful church formed me in the joy of the Lord that was my strength, I felt like we were missing something. As a stalwart outpost of the kingdom in a threatening world, our faith seemed somehow precarious. We stood, as we faced the world, on a foundation made from the words of our favorite Bible passages--our "canon within the Canon"--and the sermons of of our pastors and a roster of approved visiting evangelists. There was utterly no sense of the mystical massiveness of a church that had stood firmly for 2,000 years. No sense that our foundations stretched down through time. I didn't have a clue who John Wesley, Martin Luther, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Ignatius of Antioch were. I just knew that I felt like we were a part of a church that was in some ways powerful, but in other ways shallow and insecure in a threatening world that did not share our faith.
The church Armstrong describes sounds like almost any Evangelical church I've ever visited. I've complained for years that in spite of the fact that the church has 2,000 years of rich tradition behind it, most Christians are unaware of anything other than their current generation of believers. And many who do venture backwards can't seem to travel beyond the Reformation. But there's a full 2,000 years of that great cloud of witnesses that surrounds us. Rather than continually seeking after the NBT (Next Big Thing), we should reach back to the Bible and to our rich heritage. I once read that Thom Oden said he hoped in his life to offer nothing new to Christianity. Not only do I hope the same for myself, but frankly I'm tired of being bombarded with the supposed newness of one NBT after another in the church. We strive after spiritual junk food to sustain us, neglecting the substance of Scripture, heritage, and tradition.
In the article, Armstrong continues:
I now see that my early sense of the church's insecurity stemmed from what J. I. Packer has called evangelicalism's "stunted ecclesiology," rooted in our alienation from our past. Without a healthy engagement with our past, including historical definitions of "church," we are being true neither to Scripture nor to our theological identity as the church. Though Packer doesn't put it this way, it is easy to see ways in which their stunted ecclesiology has led evangelicals to allow the world to shape the church.
The recent growth of this trend, especially among the young, suggests that evangelicals are still struggling with an identity crisis. Many 20- and 30- something evangelicals are uneasy and alienated in mall-like church environments; high energy, entertainment-oriented worship; and boomer-era ministry strategies and structures modeled on the business world. Increasingly they are asking just how these culturally camouflaged churches can help them rise above the values of the consumerist world around them.
I grew up in Louisiana where Baptist churches like mine wanted so much to separate themselves from the Catholics that we didn't even include crosses on our churches. Yet in rejecting tradition in all forms, we've thrown out the spiritual baby with the bathwater. Our churches try to replace tradition with one new program after another, but we're so afraid of tradition that we cannot even stay with one program for long. We follow trends and seek after the NBT's of the contemporary "Christian" culture, but I'm more than ever convinced that for all the programs we've involved ourselves in and for all the activities we pursued under the guise of discipleship, we haven't moved anywhere nearer to the image of Christ.
Let us stop seeking the new and rediscover the "faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
Worthy of Note 01/30/2008
01/30/2008 01:11 Filed in: Miscellaneous
Says Iyov:
So, with all that extra page space, there is plenty of room for making ample annotations. The paper is significantly thicker than typical Bible paper, so there is much less bleed through from a pen. And, I can add extra paper anytime one wants (in the fashion of Jonathan Edwards' Blank Bible). If I make a mistake, I can always remove the page and replace it with a photocopy from my bound edition of the NOAB. If I want to slip in an entire article, or a copy of a page in original languages -- there is no problem. It seems to me that this is the ultimate in flexibility.
I'm glad to see this finally released, although I doubt I'll personally buy one. Regardless, I've got a number of larger blog projects I'm working on, one of which is an update to last year's survey of wide-margin Bibles. I'm glad that I'll be able to include an entry for the NRSV this year.
But we find ourselves at a point in history when we've never had so many choices, and yet the options are mostly arrayed along a horizontal spectrum -- a thousand different flavors of the same basic thing. I'd like to see more vertical choices, and that might require a shift in perspective. Instead of speaking to end-users as consumers, we might have to start thinking of them as readers.
What is most significant in the post is Bertrand's five-point "Starting Points for Marketing High-End Bible Editions." I can only hope that publishers will pay attention.
My esteem for White dropped significantly a few years ago due to the way he handled a theological disagreement with another individual whom I respect very much. I felt his approach to the issue was uncharitable, far too public, and lacking in the kind of collegiality that should characterize Christian scholarship. Nevertheless, White is usually in natural form when he is engaged in formal debate. However, I often believe that White is rarely pitted in his debates against opponents who are equally skilled. At the very least, Ehrman should provide a worthy opponent to White and this is a subject in which both are well-versed.
Christianity Today has released its list of the "10 Most Redeeming Films of 2007." Some entries on the list may surprise you, but it's a very good list. I remember when we used to do more movie reviews and discussion around here.
Finally, in the I JUST DON'T GET IT DEPARTMENT: 2008 marks the 30th anniversary of the New International Version of the Bible. I've seen references on two other blogs (see here and here; oh, and also here) that Zondervan is planning a special wide-margin, high-end leather edition of the NIV Study Bible as one of the many ways that the NIV's 30th anniversary will be celebrated.
This is in spite of the fact that so many of us have asked for one decent wide-margin edition of the TNIV (the so-called TNIV Square Bible is flawed in three areas: (1) it's paper is too thin for annotations because it is a thinline, (2) the user doesn't have wide margin access to the inner column of text, and (3) the binding is subpar). If the TNIV is truly an improvement to the NIV (which I honestly believe it is), then why does Zondervan (and IBS, Cambridge, and Hodder) keep pushing the NIV and publishing new editions? If in ten years the TNIV turns out to be an also-ran translation, it will only be because publishers didn't know how to fully transition away from the NIV.
My suggestion for celebrating the NIV's 30 year anniversary? Retire it. (My apologies to everyone I just offended, including my friends at Zondervan.)
I would like to find simply ONE decent wide-margin, high quality (see Bertrand's post above for the meaning of high-quality) Bible in a contemporary 21st century translation (HCSB, NLTse, TNIV, or NET). I'm still writing down notes in my wide margin NASB95, but the first translation of those I've listed that is released in a single-column, non-thinline, wide-margin edition, I will make my primary translation for preaching and teaching for the next decade. You heard it here first.
"Be Kind" -- Says Who?
01/24/2008 10:37 Filed in: Miscellaneous
This past week, one of my students turned in an opinion paper that had what I felt was a very thought provoking quotation: "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." The student attributed this saying to Plato in her paper, and in fact, I ran a Google search for the quotation along with the name Plato and found other references to it. I noted, however, that none of the attributions of the saying also included the source.
The more I thought about this quotation, the more I liked it. It communicates the need for empathy. It is in keeping with Jesus' so-called "golden rule" (“Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you” [Luke 6:31 NET]), which is the overriding ethic I seek to live by.
I liked the saying so much, I added it to the top of my blog, and it may still be there if you are reading this in the week I am writing it.
Then today, I got an email from a person who had found my site through Google. She corrected the saying I had at the top of my blog, suggesting instead that it came from Philo. So I ran a Google search with the saying, plus the name Philo, and sure enough, I found the quotation attributed to Philo as well. Again, however, no source was mentioned.
So remembering that I had the works of Philo in Accordance in both Greek and English, I ran a search simply for "Be kind" in the English module. No such luck. Then I ran the same search through every Accordance module I own--multitudes of reference works, hundreds of journals, extra-biblical texts such as the Pseudepigrapha, apocryphal Gospels, Jewish writings, the Church Fathers--easily over a million pages, I would guess.
[Unrelated to this quotation, I found another interesting saying from Pseudo-Chrysostom, quoted by Aquinas: "If God be kind, should His Priest be harsh?"]
Still no definitive source, but now the situation got murkier. One particular Accordance module, The Complete Gathered Gold (a collection of quotations) attributes the saying to two other individuals: Ian MacLaren and Harry Thompson! I'm not sure who either of these individuals are. No source was listed for either attribution.
So, it's a mystery at this point. Does anyone know the actual source for this saying? If you do, please leave the answer in the comments so that I can correct the heading at the top of my website!
The more I thought about this quotation, the more I liked it. It communicates the need for empathy. It is in keeping with Jesus' so-called "golden rule" (“Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you” [Luke 6:31 NET]), which is the overriding ethic I seek to live by.
I liked the saying so much, I added it to the top of my blog, and it may still be there if you are reading this in the week I am writing it.
Then today, I got an email from a person who had found my site through Google. She corrected the saying I had at the top of my blog, suggesting instead that it came from Philo. So I ran a Google search with the saying, plus the name Philo, and sure enough, I found the quotation attributed to Philo as well. Again, however, no source was mentioned.
So remembering that I had the works of Philo in Accordance in both Greek and English, I ran a search simply for "Be kind" in the English module. No such luck. Then I ran the same search through every Accordance module I own--multitudes of reference works, hundreds of journals, extra-biblical texts such as the Pseudepigrapha, apocryphal Gospels, Jewish writings, the Church Fathers--easily over a million pages, I would guess.
[Unrelated to this quotation, I found another interesting saying from Pseudo-Chrysostom, quoted by Aquinas: "If God be kind, should His Priest be harsh?"]
Still no definitive source, but now the situation got murkier. One particular Accordance module, The Complete Gathered Gold (a collection of quotations) attributes the saying to two other individuals: Ian MacLaren and Harry Thompson! I'm not sure who either of these individuals are. No source was listed for either attribution.
So, it's a mystery at this point. Does anyone know the actual source for this saying? If you do, please leave the answer in the comments so that I can correct the heading at the top of my website!
Haran or Harran?
01/23/2008 19:48 Filed in: Faith & Reason
The TNIV has updated the spelling of the Babylonian city of Haran to Harran. Is this justified? Does it matter?
And have the maps in TNIV Bibles kept up? [No! ...and yes!]
See my newest post, "Keeping up with Harran" at the TNIV Truth blog.
And have the maps in TNIV Bibles kept up? [No! ...and yes!]
See my newest post, "Keeping up with Harran" at the TNIV Truth blog.
Spinti Reviews Zondervan's Forthcoming A Reader's Hebrew Bible
01/21/2008 14:49 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Basic features of the HRB (taken from the Eisenbraun's page) include:
- Complete text of the Hebrew and Aramaic Bible using the Leningrad Codex (minus critical apparatus)
- Shaded Hebrew names that occur less than 100 times
- Footnoted definitions of all Hebrew words occurring 100 times or less (twenty-five or less for Aramaic words)
- Context-specific glosses
- Stem-specific glossed definitions for verb forms (Qal, Piel, Hiphil, and so forth)
- Ketib/Qere readings both noted in the text and differentiated appropriately
- Marker ribbon
- Duo-Tone binding
- Considerable amount of bleedthrough due to thin paper used (the RHB is significantly thinner than the large BHS in keeping with Zondervan's "form-over-function" [my opinion] insistence on thinline Bibles).
- James likes the idea of shading proper nouns, but questions the actual execution of it.
- Points out that some of the words are too far apart because of the text's justification.
- Sees using the same footnote number for a word occurring more than once on a page to be an improvement over Zondervan's A Reader's Greek New Testament.
- Notes that the underlying text is the same as the BHS unlike both editions of the RGNT which departed from the UBS/NA Greek New Testament.
- James concludes that he would not use the RHB because his Hebrew is good enough to not need it; however, he would recommend it to those whose Hebrew skills were lacking. Says he would recommend it more heartily if the paper were not so thin.
As I mentioned in my review of the Greek counterpart to this edition, I am enthusiastic about these kinds of tools because they help students and ministers stay in the original languages and maintain them after seminary education. I've found it handy to carry a Greek NT of this sort with me to church because I don't also want to lug around a lexicon on Sundays.
With four months to go before the final release of the RHB, it will be interesting to see if Zondervan can address any of the shortcomings in this early release.
Also of interest:
- Zondervan's page for A Reader's Hebrew Bible
- My review of Zondervan's A Reader's Greek New Testament, second edition
- My review of The UBS Greek New Testament: A Reader's Edition
Gen 11:3 -- Exactly What Kept the Bricks Together?
01/16/2008 21:02 Filed in: Faith & Reason
This past Sunday, in our Bible study class at church, we discussed Genesis 11 which includes the story of the Tower of Babel. I find verse 3 interesting because of the stuff used to hold the bricks together. There's no theology involved here, and any kind of "life application" would be severely stretching the text, but I found it interesting from a historical point of view. I found it interesting because our curriculum teaching guide noted that the stones in the tower were held together by "asphalt created by exposing the plentiful crude oil in the region to the air." Crude oil? Yep, the old black gold, Texas tea.
I mentioned this fact to my class and asked for a brief survey of translations for this stuff between the bricks. I received a lot of tar, one or two instances of asphalt, an isolated bitumen, and then one fellow reading from the King James Version said his translation read slime.
The above screenshot from Accordance displays a few major translations along with original language texts. Due to the Limitations of RapidWeaver, I'll have to transliterate, but the word in question in the Hebrew is chemar. This specific form of the word only occurs in Gen 11:3; 14:10 and Exod 2:3. It's defined in the HALOT as "bitumen, asphalt." But what exactly is that?
First, let's look at the odd man here: the KJV's use of slime. It's frankly a surprising translation to me, and not a very good one. Perhaps someone can provide insight to the KJV translators' choice for this rendering based on older definitions of the word. I wondered initially if there was any connection with the word slime to some kind of Latin meaning. But according to the American Heritage Dictionary on my MacBook, our word slime comes from the Old English slīm which is related to Dutch slijm and German Schleim ‘mucus, slime,’ Latin limus ‘mud,’ and Greek limnē ‘marsh.’ I looked in the Vulgate since the KJV translators often looked there when they were unsure about a word's meaning, but the Vulgate actually reads bitumen. Interesting.
The HCSB renders chemar as "asphalt." Upon first glance, I felt that word asphalt sounded too modern, but I was mistaken. It's not a modern word at all, but a very ancient one. In fact, that's the very word (ἄσφαλτος/asphaltos) that is used in the LXX (although note that the New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS] transfers the word bitumen--go figure). But isn't asphalt the stuff they use to pave roads and parking lots? That still seems a bit too modern for Babel. But actually it's not. Note the definition for asphalt to the right. It states that it is "a mixture of dark bituminous [there's that word again] pitch with sand or gravel used for surfacing roads, flooring, roofing, etc." And then notice the sub-definition: "the pitch used in this mixture, sometimes found in natural deposits but usually made from the distillation of crude oil." Aha! We're back to the crude oil angle.
So, although it still sounds a bit odd to my ear, asphalt turns out to be an okay definition. But what about tar which so many translations use? I also associate tar with roads, and I also think of the old tar baby in the Uncle Remus stories. But what exactly is tar? Tar is defined as "a dark, thick, flammable liquid distilled from wood or coal, consisting of a mixture of hydrocarbons, resins, alcohols, and other compounds. It is used in roadmaking and for coating and preserving timber." We have that roadmaking connection to the asphalt, but there's no mention of crude oil here. Is tar a valid translation?
Well, there's tar, and then, it seems, there's tar. I hate to admit it, but sometimes I actually find information of value in the Wikipedia. In the general article on tar, it says that naturally occurring pits (the ones that swallowed up the saber-toothed cats and wooly mammoths) don't contain the stuff defined as tar above, but actually contain asphalt. What's more, we shouldn't call them "tar pits," but "asphalt pits" (from now on make all references to the "La Brea asphalt pits"). The article further says that "Tar sand deposits contain various mixtures of sand (or rock) with bitumen or heavy crude oil rather than tar... ." So, technically, while tar is often used to refer to the kind of stuff referenced in Gen 11:3, it's not actually tar by the strict definition of the word but instead this substance known as asphalt or bitumen or heavy crude oil.
A number of translations not represented in the original Accordance box above actually render the Hebrew word chemar as "bitumen" (see for instance, RSV/NRSV/ESV, JPS, NJB, and REB). So, what then is bitumen? Going back to our American Heritage Dictionary, bitumen is defined as "a black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons contained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation. It is used for road surfacing and roofing." Sounds like tar and asphalt, doesn't it?
So, in the end, I believe tar, while not entirely incorrect, may not be the best rendering of chemar. Rather, bitumen or asphalt may be better choices. Bitumen is going to be a more unfamiliar word to most, I assume, but I wonder if asphalt still sounds too modern, even if it's really not?
One final point. The story of the Tower of Babel takes place, according to Gen 11:2, in the Valley of Shinar. Where exactly is that? The Anchor Bible Dictionary offers the answer:
"The meaning of Shinar is clear from the biblical references. It is the area known to the Mesopotamians as “the land of Sumer and Akkad,” corresponding to the portion of modern Iraq S[outh] of Baghdad. This meaning is confirmed by the LXX, Targum Onqelos, and the Genesis Apocryphon. All three sometimes translate “Shinar” as Babylon(ia)."
So, it's interesting that the first biblical reference to this region also refers to crude oil petroleum. It was a significant factor in life then, and it is even much more so today.
Sing it with me: "...black gold, Texas tea! Well, the first thing you know, Nimrod's a millionaire..."
I mentioned this fact to my class and asked for a brief survey of translations for this stuff between the bricks. I received a lot of tar, one or two instances of asphalt, an isolated bitumen, and then one fellow reading from the King James Version said his translation read slime.
The above screenshot from Accordance displays a few major translations along with original language texts. Due to the Limitations of RapidWeaver, I'll have to transliterate, but the word in question in the Hebrew is chemar. This specific form of the word only occurs in Gen 11:3; 14:10 and Exod 2:3. It's defined in the HALOT as "bitumen, asphalt." But what exactly is that?
First, let's look at the odd man here: the KJV's use of slime. It's frankly a surprising translation to me, and not a very good one. Perhaps someone can provide insight to the KJV translators' choice for this rendering based on older definitions of the word. I wondered initially if there was any connection with the word slime to some kind of Latin meaning. But according to the American Heritage Dictionary on my MacBook, our word slime comes from the Old English slīm which is related to Dutch slijm and German Schleim ‘mucus, slime,’ Latin limus ‘mud,’ and Greek limnē ‘marsh.’ I looked in the Vulgate since the KJV translators often looked there when they were unsure about a word's meaning, but the Vulgate actually reads bitumen. Interesting.
So, although it still sounds a bit odd to my ear, asphalt turns out to be an okay definition. But what about tar which so many translations use? I also associate tar with roads, and I also think of the old tar baby in the Uncle Remus stories. But what exactly is tar? Tar is defined as "a dark, thick, flammable liquid distilled from wood or coal, consisting of a mixture of hydrocarbons, resins, alcohols, and other compounds. It is used in roadmaking and for coating and preserving timber." We have that roadmaking connection to the asphalt, but there's no mention of crude oil here. Is tar a valid translation?
So, in the end, I believe tar, while not entirely incorrect, may not be the best rendering of chemar. Rather, bitumen or asphalt may be better choices. Bitumen is going to be a more unfamiliar word to most, I assume, but I wonder if asphalt still sounds too modern, even if it's really not?
One final point. The story of the Tower of Babel takes place, according to Gen 11:2, in the Valley of Shinar. Where exactly is that? The Anchor Bible Dictionary offers the answer:
"The meaning of Shinar is clear from the biblical references. It is the area known to the Mesopotamians as “the land of Sumer and Akkad,” corresponding to the portion of modern Iraq S[outh] of Baghdad. This meaning is confirmed by the LXX, Targum Onqelos, and the Genesis Apocryphon. All three sometimes translate “Shinar” as Babylon(ia)."
So, it's interesting that the first biblical reference to this region also refers to crude oil petroleum. It was a significant factor in life then, and it is even much more so today.
Sing it with me: "...black gold, Texas tea! Well, the first thing you know, Nimrod's a millionaire..."
Xslimmer: Cut the Fat from Your Mac
01/16/2008 17:57 Filed in: Technology
I found a great little program today called Xslimmer ($11.95 for a license). It's no secret that now with larger hard drives and plentiful RAM, that in general, programmers don't write code as tight as they used to. The issue is compounded further on Macs as programs have to be written to run on both PowerPC and Intel processors. But do I need the code for both on every Mac I own?
Further, most software programs come ready to run in multiple languages. But do I need to access the Finnish and Korean versions of MS Word on my Mac? Probably not.
Enter Xslimmer, a great little program that does two things: (1) it detects whether you have an Intel or PowerPC processor and removes the code for the other processor, and (2) it strips out unneeded languages from your programs. If you occasionally use more than one language, you can specify in the preferences which language to keep.
Do you think such extra code is insignificant? Consider these representative numbers after I ran Xslimmer on my MacBook:
Notice that after running it on 242 application, I reclaimed over two gigabytes of space! What's more, not only do I save space, but many of these programs that have seen significant reductions, such as some of those shown above, now launch faster because less code is having to be analyzed as the program starts.
Some programs don't work well with Xslimmer though, such as the Adobe CS3 apps which must stay a specific size for verification that they aren't corrupt when updates are run. These programs are "blacklisted" and the software checks itself against an online database as it is scanning a computer. As I ran Xslimmer on my Mac, the only real software I was worried about was Office 2008 which was just released yesterday and installed on my MacBook last night. However, if for some reason I alter a program that should not be altered, the solution is as easy as reinstalling it which won't affect preferences and personal settings.
Further, most software programs come ready to run in multiple languages. But do I need to access the Finnish and Korean versions of MS Word on my Mac? Probably not.
Enter Xslimmer, a great little program that does two things: (1) it detects whether you have an Intel or PowerPC processor and removes the code for the other processor, and (2) it strips out unneeded languages from your programs. If you occasionally use more than one language, you can specify in the preferences which language to keep.
Do you think such extra code is insignificant? Consider these representative numbers after I ran Xslimmer on my MacBook:
Notice that after running it on 242 application, I reclaimed over two gigabytes of space! What's more, not only do I save space, but many of these programs that have seen significant reductions, such as some of those shown above, now launch faster because less code is having to be analyzed as the program starts.
Some programs don't work well with Xslimmer though, such as the Adobe CS3 apps which must stay a specific size for verification that they aren't corrupt when updates are run. These programs are "blacklisted" and the software checks itself against an online database as it is scanning a computer. As I ran Xslimmer on my Mac, the only real software I was worried about was Office 2008 which was just released yesterday and installed on my MacBook last night. However, if for some reason I alter a program that should not be altered, the solution is as easy as reinstalling it which won't affect preferences and personal settings.
The Bible Experience: Pentateuch
01/15/2008 02:50 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Before I received The Bible Experience, I had actually been listening off and on to an earlier recording of the TNIV that was simply a plain reading since the beginning of 2007. But I haven't been listening solely to that. I also listen to podcasts, lectures, sermons, and audio books on my commute. But by taking Tony's challenge, I decided to listen solely to The Bible Experience until I completed it, and offer periodic updates on This Lamp.
Now, I should be honest and say that I'm not going to finish by December 31. I am near the end of 1 Kings, and I actually finished the Pentateuch right before Christmas (so this review is late in coming). But it's been very enjoyable to listen to the Bible in large portions (the way it was originally intended).
As for The Bible Experience itself, I have to say that it's the best dramatized Bible I've ever heard. It's not perfect, but it sets the bar for such things pretty high. I'll be honest. In general, I don't like dramatized Bibles. Why? Well, because usually they're cheesy and not well done. Normally it's like this: "Then the door closed." [Thud]. The Bible Experience is subtly different with [Thud] "The door closed." In The Bible Experience, the background sounds and effects anticipate the narration and dialogue. It's very much like listening to a movie audio track without the picture.
The MP3 Edition. The Bible Experience is roughly 89 hours long. That's at least ten hours longer than the average audio Bible that is a straight reading. If you were to buy the full edition on CD, it would cost you retail $124.99 and comes on 79 CD's. 79 CD's--that's crazy! It makes much more sense in my opinion to get the MP3 edition which comes on only eight CDs (and one bonus "making of" DVD) and sells for retail $69.99. This is a much more sensible way to go, and it makes it much easier to transfer The Bible Experience to your iPod, iPhone, or other MP3-capable player.
The eight CD's contain 1217 separate MP3 files. The first CD contains installation instructions for moving the files to your computer and installing them either in iTunes or Windows Media Player. I was especially pleased to discover instructions specifically for Mac users as we are usually forgotten.
I sync segments of The Bible Experience to my iPhone and listen to it in my car via a cassette adapter.
The Pentateuch. I knew The Bible Experience was going to be powerful from the very first chapters of Genesis. The combination of music, sound effects, narration and acting is a powerful combination and as mentioned earlier, extremely well done. I'm not familiar with Matt Gibson who provides the voice of the narrator, but his voice is very well suited to what is obviously the largest task of the project. His speech is clear and almost soothing, a very good choice for a story teller. As mentioned, I'm not familiar with Gibson, but his voice reminds me of the actor Dennis Haysbert who currently is the spokesman for Allstate commercials. My only real complaint against Gibson is when he occasionally mispronounces a name, but I suppose I can blame the director for that.
For the uninitiated, the cast of The Bible Experience is composed entirely of African American actors, celebrities and other well-known figures. Some have better abilities as voice actors than others. Pastor Paul Adefarasin provides the voice of God throughout the Old Testament. According to a profile on Amazon.com, Adefarasin is Nigerian which in the cast of mostly American voices gives God's voice a noticeable distinction. I'll admit that at first Adefarasin's voice seemed so soft, I had to turn up the volume of my car stereo to hear it. But now that my ears are attuned to Adefarasin's distinct accent, I have no trouble hearing him. Another voice that seemed too soft spoken was that of Abraham's voiced by T. D. Jakes. I never got used to Jakes' voice and frequently had to turn him up.
Some voices are instantly recognizable such as Robert Guillaume as Noah. Someone like Guillaume comes across very well which no doubt reflects his ability as an actor. And Potiphar's wife, voiced by Mo'Nique sounded downright sultry when she propositioned Joseph. However, Danita Patterson's line as Zipporah in Ex 4:25 "Surely, you are a bridegroom of blood to me" fell extremely flat and without emotion.
I know many will disagree with me on what I'm about to say, but personally I feel the worst casting that I've heard so far is Forest Whitaker as Moses. I've very much enjoyed Whitaker's performances elsewhere in the past, but his voice is not "old" enough for Moses, and even worse, Whitaker delivers an absolutely flat performance. Deuteronomy, in which Moses reads the Law to the Israelites was practically unbearable and the only point in listening to The Bible Experience that I was tempted to fast forward or skip a few chapters (however, I did not). Whitaker failed to deliver any emotion whatsoever until Deuteronomy 27, when finally he started to sound like a preacher in rhythm with a congregation. But in what was surely a director's mistake, the refrain "Then all the people shall say, 'Amen!'" was not voiced by the crowd.
Listening in large blocks to an audio Bible offers the listener great insights that might be missed otherwise. Moses' question to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?" in Ex 3:13 is significantly set up by the fact that the name of God is conspicuously absent from most of the Joseph narrative. This was something that I could hear, but it's harder to read and spot such things.
And I have to admit that my face contorted as I winced in reaction to Genesis 34:25 as the narrator says "while all of them were still in pain" [from their circumcision] and the listener can hear men actually groaning in the background!
So far, The Bible Experience is just that--an experience. In spite of some criticisms, I again state that it is the best dramatized Bible I've heard, and one I highly recommend. I'll report some more when I complete my listening to the historical books of the Old Testament.
The Look and Sound of Disappointment
01/09/2008 17:59 Filed in: Movies and Television
Early adoption involves risk.
A year ago this month I wrote about my "free*" plasma television I received as well as an HD DVD player added into the deal. My follow-up post described the format war in high definition video between HD DVD and Blu-ray.
In the past year, I've found that most people--even those who have high definition televisions (those wide, flat ones)--are mostly uninformed about high definition video. A friend of mine was quite proud of his new HD television that had been set up in his basement. I asked him, "Do you have a high definition video player?"
He paused, not sure what I was asking. "Yes," he said, unsure of his answer.
"What do you have--HD DVD or Blu-ray?" I asked.
Again a pause. "Well, I have an up-converter for my DVD's. Is that what you mean?"
Well... no.
A number of videos have been released with high definition on one side of the disc and standard DVD format on the other. It's a great way to show the difference between the quality of "old-school" DVD's and new high-definition video disks. It's an unbelievable difference, and once you go truly high def with a high def movie player, you can't go back to regular DVD's.
When I got my HD DVD player, I said that there were three main film or film series that I wanted in high definition: the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Blade Runner and the Matrix trilogy. As of Christmas since Kathy gave me Blade Runner (all five versions!), I have two of the three. The Lord of the Rings has been yet to be released in high definition. But it was promised to be on its way from New Line Cinema.
Nevertheless, in spite of the wonders of high def video, there's been a war going on. A war between formats. A war that harkens back in spirit to the old days of VHS vs. Betamax. This time the war has been between HD DVD and Blu-ray, with some studios backing one and some studios backing the other. For instance, Disney, Sony, and 20th Century Fox only deliver movies in Blu-ray format while Universal and Paramount only deliver HD DVD titles. The only major fence sitter left was Warner Bros who sells videos in both formats.
It's tough on the consumer because unless you have both players or unless you have one of the few dual format players (that cost upwards of $1,000), you simply can't get certain movies in high definition. When people asked me which format to invest in, I told them HD DVD, of course since that's what I had. But then I'd tell them that honestly, there was not any real difference in picture quality. I'd tell folks to make a decision so that the market could help decide things.
But I knew deep down that this could be a long war. I mentioned that in my post last January. See, when VHS and Betamax were battling it out, folks didn't have to get a whole new television to take advantage of the new technology. But for HD DVD and Blu-ray, they do. And even the change in broadcast channels to HD next February doesn't mean that everyone is going to throw away their old sets. Most will probably opt for a converter box.
Nevertheless, my collection of HD DVD movies has been growing. And I enjoy nothing more than popping in a new one and enjoying the experience.
But then there was last Friday... black Friday as some HD DVD owners are calling the day. The day when the format war was pronounced all but over except for the shouting. If you haven't heard, that was the day when Warner Bros., the last of the fence sitters, picked a side.
And they didn't pick my side.
WB stated that beginning in May, they would only release high definition movies in Blu-ray. Although I'm sure the corporate backers of HD DVD will fight till the end, most think that HD DVD is now sunk.
It's disappointing because in this format war that had gone back and forth, I was really starting to think that HD DVD might turn out to be the winner in the long run. With players dropping below $200 and brisk Christmas sales, things were looking up despite the fact that Blu-ray movies sell more copies at an almost 2:1 rate over HD DVD, thanks to the Trojan Horse Blu-ray player included in every Sony PS3 system. And it makes one wonder how things might have turned out differently if Microsoft, an official backer of HD DVD, had included an HD DVD player with every Xbox instead of just offering it as an add-on.
This week it was rumored that Paramount would also drop HD DVD in favor of Blu-ray. They have since denied this rumor, but I have to wonder how long they could possibly hold out. Also before the CES conference this week, it was rumored that Microsoft was going to announce a high-end Xbox with HD DVD built in. They have since denied this, but my hunch like a lot of other folks is that it was simply pulled at the last minute after WB's announcement.
Although there's no perceptible difference in visual quality between the two formats, HD DVD which had an almost year long head start over Blu-ray is really a more mature technology. An example of this was in the release of the movie 300 a few months back. The HD DVD version allowed the raw footage in front of the blue screen to be viewed in a window over the final production. The Blu-ray edition allowed the viewer to see the raw footage, but not at the same time as the movie was playing. The reason behind the difference had to do with Blu-ray's unfinished Java engine. For similar reasons, Warner Bros. has yet to offer the Matrix Trilogy on Blu-ray even though it has been out on HD DVD for a while.
So I look upon what was a nicely growing collection of HD DVD movies with disappointment. No, I'm not concerned about being stuck with a dead technology. VHS is dead, but I can still watch my video tapes. Vinyl records are a dead medium, but I can still listen to them if I want to. But I am hesitant to further buy anymore HD DVD movies, just as I would not want to buy any VHS tapes or LP's. And for that matter, I can't stand to purchase a standard DVD format as it is not truly high def, up-converted or not.
But my reticence to purchase any more HD DVD titles, just like most others out there in the same condition, will help to drive the nails in the coffin of the technology and allow the Blu-ray format to gain an even speedier victory.
At the same time, who can afford a Blu-ray player? This would be the solution to the HD DVD owners--to simply go out and switch sides with the purchase of a new machine. But Blu-ray players start between $350 and $400 for the low-end models. They are still simply way too high.
So we wait. I wish it weren't so, but I can't see how the HD DVD format can recover from Warner Bros. decision--which they admit was made to help end the format war. And in that regard, I reluctantly admit that it's for the best. I mean deep down, I'd prefer to be able to buy any movie I want in high def, not just ones that will work in my player. But I'm disappointed nonetheless. I picked the wrong side!
HD DVD, rest in peace. Long live Blu-ray (he says with resentment).
Review: CEV Outreach Edition Bible
01/04/2008 18:32 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Well, this is a bit late in coming, but I'm hoping that late is better than never.
Here's the timeline:
When David originally emailed me asking me to review the CEV Outreach Edition Bible (CEVOEB from here on), he stressed that he wanted my opinion primarily on three factors: (1) strength of binding, (2) attractiveness, and (3) suitability for a Bible to give to an unbeliever. So, I'll follow that general outline, perhaps slightly altering the categories.
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
The CEVOEB is a paperback Bible of approximately 840 pages. It measures 5 1/4" x 8 1/4" and looks to be about an inch thick. The paper is newsprint and the binding is glued. I wouldn't think that the CEVOEB is designed to be a legacy Bible, but that doesn't mean it will disintegrate overnight. I still have a paperback Good News for Modern Man NT that belonged to my parents and dates from the late sixties or early seventies. All pages are intact and it has the same binding as the CEVOEB. Further, I have a paperback NRSV that I got at the Urbana '96 Missions Conference which I've carried in my vehicle ever since I got it for times when I needed a Bible and didn't bring one of my "regulars." It's even withstood rainy weather at the Cornerstone Festival and keeps on going. All that to say, that although the CEVOEB is designed as an economical (they sell for $2.15 each on the ABS website) outreach, there's no need to fear that it might not stand up to continued use.
FEATURES
The biblical text of the CEVOEB is presented in two columns. To conserve space (i.e., take up as few pages as possible), there is very little margin between these columns, but a vertical line is used to divide them. The text includes the full complement of CEV textual notes at the bottom of the page in a single column. In what I believe is a standard feature of the CEV itself, the only technical abbreviations in these notes beyond those for the books of the Bible, are c. (CIRCA), OT, NT, and LXX.
Considering the purpose of this Bible (an economical outreach edition), my only real complaint for this edition is the size of the print. However, that may just be me, as regular readers of this blog will note that I almost always complain about text size. I would guess that the text is about a 7 pt. size, but it may be smaller. It uses a serifed font with bold type for chapter and section headings. I can read it without my reading glasses if I try, but it's much better with them on. I personally, would not want to spend long periods of time reading text this size, but again, that's me, and a younger person's eyes probably wouldn't have any problem with this text (I used to carry a pocket Bible when I was in high school and college, but don't use it anymore).
One feature of this Bible I really like is that it separates the biblical texts from the helps which are included in the back of the Bible. I know from experience working with people who have little or no background with the Bible that often the helps get confused with actual scripture. That shouldn't happen with this edition, but I do believe it would be a good idea for the person giving away this Bible to point out the helps in the back.
Following the Book of Revelation, one finds three helps, a section called "What's In the Bible," a mini-dictionary, and maps. The text of these sections is sans-serifed and easier to read in my opinion than the main scripture text. The text of the mini-dictionary is the largest continuous text in the entire Bible.
The "What's In the Bible" section contains brief introductions to the various books of the Bible. The information is very basic and short (about one paragraph per treatment) and not meant to be a scholarly introduction. Some books are treated together such as 1 & 2 Samuel, Ezra and Nehemiah and the four gospels.
The mini-dictionary is arranged topically, but includes both a section index and an alphabetical index. I like these kinds of features in Bibles of any sort (similar to the HCSB bullet point dictionary or the Dictionary of TNIV terms in Bibles of those translations). The meaning of some words, especially those of a cultural or historical nature are impossible to fully communicate in a translation. These kinds of dictionaries are the answer in my opinion, barring notes at the bottom of the actual text. An example of one of these entries in the CEVOEB is that for Amalekites which is under the heading "Cities, Nations, and Groups of People." Here the Amalekites are simply explained to be "A nomadic nation living mostly in the area south and east of the Dead Sea. They were the enemies of Israel." The mini-dictionary contains more than just definitions for mere words, however. It also includes items such as important dates in biblical history (designated using "BC" and "AD") and there is also a listing of the months in the Hebrew calendar.
Following the mini-dictionary the reader will find ten black and white maps: four on the OT and six for the NT, although four of the latter are half-page maps. An index to these maps would have probably been helpful.
USE AS AN OUTREACH EDITION
The CEVOEB has almost all of the standard features one would expect in an outreach Bible. Some outreach Bibles include "plans of salvation," but since such plans have come under scrutiny in recent years, perhaps it's best to let the presenter decide how to communicate the Good News.
One of the greatest strengths of this edition is the Contemporary English Version itself, an excellent "introductory" translation and one that has enough solid scholarship behind it that it can receive continued use even as a person matures as a believer. This review is not designed to be one for the CEV, although I would expect that I will do that eventually (right now I'm working on a review of the NET Bible). Personally, I would never give away a formal equivalent translation in an outreach situation, but rather offer median to dynamic equivalent translations instead. But even median translations often presuppose a certain amount of biblical literacy, so a purely dynamic translation like the CEV is ideal for the unchurched and in situations in which the presenter simply doesn't know the receiver's background.
The only real complaint I've ever had with the CEV is its flattening of Hebrew parallelism. However, discussion on Hebrew poetic structure are probably not going to come up in outreach situations, so this would not be a concern here for me.
In the past, I've given away outreach editions of the NIV, NLT, and GNT. I'd have no qualm in giving out this edition. It's a very good choice.
Because of its size and format, the CEVOEB looks more like a paperback book than a Bible, also making it ideal for outreach purposes. It can be thrown into a backpack easily, and because of the price, one will not worry too much about it getting banged up a bit.
As mentioned earlier, the American Bible Society offers these Bibles for $2.15. However, looking up the same ISBN on Amazon shows them going for as low at 1¢ (yes, one cent). Now, buyer beware as often resellers find what they believe is an equivalent ISBN for what turns out to be a different product; but nevertheless, if you are wanting to find the CEVOEB at an even cheaper price, this might be the ticket.
Regardless, David, this is a good choice and an excellent outreach Bible. Sorry the review took so long to post!
Here's the timeline:
- On December 12, 2007, Lingamish (a.k.a Lingermush, a.k.a. Flingafish, a.k.a David Ker) emailed me asking if I'd be willing to review the CEV Outreach Edition Bible, which he was willing to send me for free. Since I think David is a swell guy, and because I have a psychological inability to turn down a free Bible, I agreed.
- On December 13, David announced on his blog that he was giving away a case of CEV Outreach Edition Bibles.
- On December 15, Steve Ker (David's father) emailed me saying that he had mailed the Bible.
- On December 21, Kathy and I left for Louisiana for the holidays. I looked in my mailbox one last time before we pulled out, but sadly the Bible had not yet arrived.
- Late Monday, December 31, we returned. The Bible had arrived when I got my mail from my neighbor on January 1.
- Today is the first chance I've had to write something. My apologies. Hope it isn't too late.
When David originally emailed me asking me to review the CEV Outreach Edition Bible (CEVOEB from here on), he stressed that he wanted my opinion primarily on three factors: (1) strength of binding, (2) attractiveness, and (3) suitability for a Bible to give to an unbeliever. So, I'll follow that general outline, perhaps slightly altering the categories.
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
The CEVOEB is a paperback Bible of approximately 840 pages. It measures 5 1/4" x 8 1/4" and looks to be about an inch thick. The paper is newsprint and the binding is glued. I wouldn't think that the CEVOEB is designed to be a legacy Bible, but that doesn't mean it will disintegrate overnight. I still have a paperback Good News for Modern Man NT that belonged to my parents and dates from the late sixties or early seventies. All pages are intact and it has the same binding as the CEVOEB. Further, I have a paperback NRSV that I got at the Urbana '96 Missions Conference which I've carried in my vehicle ever since I got it for times when I needed a Bible and didn't bring one of my "regulars." It's even withstood rainy weather at the Cornerstone Festival and keeps on going. All that to say, that although the CEVOEB is designed as an economical (they sell for $2.15 each on the ABS website) outreach, there's no need to fear that it might not stand up to continued use.
FEATURES
The biblical text of the CEVOEB is presented in two columns. To conserve space (i.e., take up as few pages as possible), there is very little margin between these columns, but a vertical line is used to divide them. The text includes the full complement of CEV textual notes at the bottom of the page in a single column. In what I believe is a standard feature of the CEV itself, the only technical abbreviations in these notes beyond those for the books of the Bible, are c. (CIRCA), OT, NT, and LXX.
Considering the purpose of this Bible (an economical outreach edition), my only real complaint for this edition is the size of the print. However, that may just be me, as regular readers of this blog will note that I almost always complain about text size. I would guess that the text is about a 7 pt. size, but it may be smaller. It uses a serifed font with bold type for chapter and section headings. I can read it without my reading glasses if I try, but it's much better with them on. I personally, would not want to spend long periods of time reading text this size, but again, that's me, and a younger person's eyes probably wouldn't have any problem with this text (I used to carry a pocket Bible when I was in high school and college, but don't use it anymore).
One feature of this Bible I really like is that it separates the biblical texts from the helps which are included in the back of the Bible. I know from experience working with people who have little or no background with the Bible that often the helps get confused with actual scripture. That shouldn't happen with this edition, but I do believe it would be a good idea for the person giving away this Bible to point out the helps in the back.
Following the Book of Revelation, one finds three helps, a section called "What's In the Bible," a mini-dictionary, and maps. The text of these sections is sans-serifed and easier to read in my opinion than the main scripture text. The text of the mini-dictionary is the largest continuous text in the entire Bible.
The "What's In the Bible" section contains brief introductions to the various books of the Bible. The information is very basic and short (about one paragraph per treatment) and not meant to be a scholarly introduction. Some books are treated together such as 1 & 2 Samuel, Ezra and Nehemiah and the four gospels.
The mini-dictionary is arranged topically, but includes both a section index and an alphabetical index. I like these kinds of features in Bibles of any sort (similar to the HCSB bullet point dictionary or the Dictionary of TNIV terms in Bibles of those translations). The meaning of some words, especially those of a cultural or historical nature are impossible to fully communicate in a translation. These kinds of dictionaries are the answer in my opinion, barring notes at the bottom of the actual text. An example of one of these entries in the CEVOEB is that for Amalekites which is under the heading "Cities, Nations, and Groups of People." Here the Amalekites are simply explained to be "A nomadic nation living mostly in the area south and east of the Dead Sea. They were the enemies of Israel." The mini-dictionary contains more than just definitions for mere words, however. It also includes items such as important dates in biblical history (designated using "BC" and "AD") and there is also a listing of the months in the Hebrew calendar.
Following the mini-dictionary the reader will find ten black and white maps: four on the OT and six for the NT, although four of the latter are half-page maps. An index to these maps would have probably been helpful.
USE AS AN OUTREACH EDITION
The CEVOEB has almost all of the standard features one would expect in an outreach Bible. Some outreach Bibles include "plans of salvation," but since such plans have come under scrutiny in recent years, perhaps it's best to let the presenter decide how to communicate the Good News.
One of the greatest strengths of this edition is the Contemporary English Version itself, an excellent "introductory" translation and one that has enough solid scholarship behind it that it can receive continued use even as a person matures as a believer. This review is not designed to be one for the CEV, although I would expect that I will do that eventually (right now I'm working on a review of the NET Bible). Personally, I would never give away a formal equivalent translation in an outreach situation, but rather offer median to dynamic equivalent translations instead. But even median translations often presuppose a certain amount of biblical literacy, so a purely dynamic translation like the CEV is ideal for the unchurched and in situations in which the presenter simply doesn't know the receiver's background.
The only real complaint I've ever had with the CEV is its flattening of Hebrew parallelism. However, discussion on Hebrew poetic structure are probably not going to come up in outreach situations, so this would not be a concern here for me.
In the past, I've given away outreach editions of the NIV, NLT, and GNT. I'd have no qualm in giving out this edition. It's a very good choice.
Because of its size and format, the CEVOEB looks more like a paperback book than a Bible, also making it ideal for outreach purposes. It can be thrown into a backpack easily, and because of the price, one will not worry too much about it getting banged up a bit.
As mentioned earlier, the American Bible Society offers these Bibles for $2.15. However, looking up the same ISBN on Amazon shows them going for as low at 1¢ (yes, one cent). Now, buyer beware as often resellers find what they believe is an equivalent ISBN for what turns out to be a different product; but nevertheless, if you are wanting to find the CEVOEB at an even cheaper price, this might be the ticket.
Regardless, David, this is a good choice and an excellent outreach Bible. Sorry the review took so long to post!