Apocrypha
An ESV Apocrypha??
03/10/2007 17:22 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Is the ESV translation team working on, or at least planning an ESV version of the Apocrypha?
There's a very cryptic message on Crossway's ESV FAQ page:
Wow. Another publisher may. I have no idea how long this information has been on the FAQ page, or perhaps if it's always been there.
Until the 19th century, most, if not all Protestant translations included the Apocrypha, usually in a separate section between the Testaments. The Apocrypha is indispensable for understanding the cultural setting of the New Testament, although the large majority of Protestants do not consider these books canonical.
I'm intrigued by the idea of an ESV Apocrypha because I simply would not have expected it from the team behind the ESV. However, the ESV is based upon the old RSV which included these extra OT books, so this is certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. And such a decision is not without precedent. Not too long ago the publishers of another evangelical version, the New Living Translation, quietly introduced an edition with the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books.
On a related note, recently, I made the suggestion that we need a TNIV Apocrypha.
Nevertheless, interesting stuff. If anyone knows anything specific about an ESV Apocrypha in the works, be sure to let us know.
HT: Larry
There's a very cryptic message on Crossway's ESV FAQ page:
Will there be an edition that includes the Apocrypha?
Crossway Bibles won’t be publishing an edition with the Apocrypha, but another publisher may. As we learn more, we will post it here.
Wow. Another publisher may. I have no idea how long this information has been on the FAQ page, or perhaps if it's always been there.
Until the 19th century, most, if not all Protestant translations included the Apocrypha, usually in a separate section between the Testaments. The Apocrypha is indispensable for understanding the cultural setting of the New Testament, although the large majority of Protestants do not consider these books canonical.
I'm intrigued by the idea of an ESV Apocrypha because I simply would not have expected it from the team behind the ESV. However, the ESV is based upon the old RSV which included these extra OT books, so this is certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. And such a decision is not without precedent. Not too long ago the publishers of another evangelical version, the New Living Translation, quietly introduced an edition with the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books.
On a related note, recently, I made the suggestion that we need a TNIV Apocrypha.
Nevertheless, interesting stuff. If anyone knows anything specific about an ESV Apocrypha in the works, be sure to let us know.
HT: Larry
|
A Call for a TNIV Apocrypha
02/24/2007 17:27 Filed in: Faith & Reason
In my previous post, I wrote, "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."
In the comments section of that post, Peter Kirk challenged my suggestion for the necessity of a TNIV translation of the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha:
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.
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.
The Parallel Apocrypha
07/25/2006 10:14 Filed in: Books & Literature
Kohlenberger III, John R. (ed.). The Parallel Apocrypha. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
When Martin Luther translated the Bible into his native German, he included the disputed books--commonly known as the Apocrypha--in a section between the Old and New Testaments. In defense of doing so, he added this comment: "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read." Add to that Augustine's sentiment (as quoted in the preface to the KJV) that "variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures," and you have The Parallel Apocrypha from Oxford Press.
Although published in 1997, I did not stumble across The Parallel Apocrypha until earlier this year. The book is edited by John Kohlenberger III, who at some point seems to have made parallel editions of just about every combination of the Scriptures imaginable. This work is considered parallel because over a two-page spread (for most texts), the Apocrypha is presented in Rahlfs' Septuagint Greek beside four Catholic translations (Douay, Knox, New American Bible and New Jerusalem Bible) and three Protestant translations (King James Version, Today's English Version, New Revised Standard Version).
Until I obtained this volume, I didn't realize that all traditions do not hold identical lists of what is considered apocryphal (or deutercanonical in Catholic and Orthodox traditions). For instance, Roman Catholic, Greek and Slavonic Bibles all include Tobit, Judith, Greek additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Greek additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews/Bel and the Dragon), and 1 & 2 Maccabees. But 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees are only found in the Greek and Slavonic Bible, but are not in the Catholic Canon. 2 Esdras only appears in the Slavonic Bible and 4 Maccabees appears only as an appendix to the Greek Bible.
Interestingly, the only English translation included in The Parallel Apocrypha to cover all of these books is the NRSV, thus (I assume) making it the most ecumenical translation of the Bible in existence. The only book in the list not to be represented in the Greek is 2 Esdras because no complete Greek manuscript for it exists. Therefore, 2 Esdras is represented with Weber's edition of the Latin Vulgate (alongside only the KJV, TEV, and NRSV).
A very useful bonus to the texts themselves are a number of introductory essays. Judith Kovacs writes on "The Contents and Character of the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books" which provides an excellent introduction to the history, content and literary style of these books. Kohlenberger himself contributes an essay regarding the texts and translations found in The Parallel Apocrypha. If you've ever read any histories of the Bible in English, you may very well be interested in this short history of the Apocrypha in English. Finally, essays are included from a number of different faith traditions: Jewish (Sarah J. Tanzer), Orthodox (Demetrios J. Constanelos), Catholic (John J. Collins), Anglican/Episcopalian (Mary Chilton Callaway), Protestant (Walter J. Harrelson) and Evangelical (D. A. Carson). The addition of these essays helps to take the Apocrypha beyond its status as merely an historical religious document and places it squarely into a faith context.
The book itself is almost 1200 pages long, but the publishers used thin "Bible" paper, so The Parallel Apocrypha is only about one-inch thick. One translation that I wish Kohlenberger included is the Revised English Bible. I would have preferred the REB over the Knox Translation, however, I understand that the Knox Translation is significant because it is a more dynamic translation of the Latin Vulgate and sits well beside the more formal-equivalent Douay version, also from the Vulgate. And I suppose that there was a concerted effort on the part of the editor to include one more Catholic translation (four) over Protestant translations (three included) since these books take a more significant status in the Catholic tradition. Of course, if one considers that there are also renderings of the Apocrypha in the Revised Standard Version and the New Living Translation, it would seem that Protestants often pay more attention to these books than Catholics do themselves. Currently, there is no translation of the Bible in English from the Greek Orthodox tradition, but from what I understand, one is in the works.
In spite of all the Protestant translations in existence, I believe that generally, Protestants are the most guilty for neglecting the Apocrypha. Regarding the Apocrypha, I am in agreement with those who have gone before me in my own faith tradition that these books are not considered to be inspired Scripture. Even the writer of 2 Maccabees admitted as much when he wrote, "...So I will here end my story. If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do" (2 Mac 15:37-38, NRSV). Such sentiment hardly seems up to the level of being "God-breathed."
However, I would agree with Luther that these books are profitable and good to be read for two reasons. First, they are written by believers in the God of the Bible. Just as one might walk into a Christian bookstore and buy devotional literature or even historical fiction, the Apocrypha can be read in the same way (plus, I've always suggested the reading of Tobit to discover where Frank Peretti borrowed his best stuff). Further, and more importantly, the historical books of the Apocrypha, especially 1 & 2 Maccabees fill in the 400 year historical gap between the Old and New Testaments. If it's true that the New Testament cannot be understood apart from the Old Testament, it might be equally true that the culture and the historical situation of Jesus' day cannot be properly understood without the information derived from reading the Apocrypha.
When Martin Luther translated the Bible into his native German, he included the disputed books--commonly known as the Apocrypha--in a section between the Old and New Testaments. In defense of doing so, he added this comment: "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read." Add to that Augustine's sentiment (as quoted in the preface to the KJV) that "variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures," and you have The Parallel Apocrypha from Oxford Press.
Although published in 1997, I did not stumble across The Parallel Apocrypha until earlier this year. The book is edited by John Kohlenberger III, who at some point seems to have made parallel editions of just about every combination of the Scriptures imaginable. This work is considered parallel because over a two-page spread (for most texts), the Apocrypha is presented in Rahlfs' Septuagint Greek beside four Catholic translations (Douay, Knox, New American Bible and New Jerusalem Bible) and three Protestant translations (King James Version, Today's English Version, New Revised Standard Version).
Until I obtained this volume, I didn't realize that all traditions do not hold identical lists of what is considered apocryphal (or deutercanonical in Catholic and Orthodox traditions). For instance, Roman Catholic, Greek and Slavonic Bibles all include Tobit, Judith, Greek additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Greek additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews/Bel and the Dragon), and 1 & 2 Maccabees. But 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees are only found in the Greek and Slavonic Bible, but are not in the Catholic Canon. 2 Esdras only appears in the Slavonic Bible and 4 Maccabees appears only as an appendix to the Greek Bible.
Interestingly, the only English translation included in The Parallel Apocrypha to cover all of these books is the NRSV, thus (I assume) making it the most ecumenical translation of the Bible in existence. The only book in the list not to be represented in the Greek is 2 Esdras because no complete Greek manuscript for it exists. Therefore, 2 Esdras is represented with Weber's edition of the Latin Vulgate (alongside only the KJV, TEV, and NRSV).
A very useful bonus to the texts themselves are a number of introductory essays. Judith Kovacs writes on "The Contents and Character of the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books" which provides an excellent introduction to the history, content and literary style of these books. Kohlenberger himself contributes an essay regarding the texts and translations found in The Parallel Apocrypha. If you've ever read any histories of the Bible in English, you may very well be interested in this short history of the Apocrypha in English. Finally, essays are included from a number of different faith traditions: Jewish (Sarah J. Tanzer), Orthodox (Demetrios J. Constanelos), Catholic (John J. Collins), Anglican/Episcopalian (Mary Chilton Callaway), Protestant (Walter J. Harrelson) and Evangelical (D. A. Carson). The addition of these essays helps to take the Apocrypha beyond its status as merely an historical religious document and places it squarely into a faith context.
The book itself is almost 1200 pages long, but the publishers used thin "Bible" paper, so The Parallel Apocrypha is only about one-inch thick. One translation that I wish Kohlenberger included is the Revised English Bible. I would have preferred the REB over the Knox Translation, however, I understand that the Knox Translation is significant because it is a more dynamic translation of the Latin Vulgate and sits well beside the more formal-equivalent Douay version, also from the Vulgate. And I suppose that there was a concerted effort on the part of the editor to include one more Catholic translation (four) over Protestant translations (three included) since these books take a more significant status in the Catholic tradition. Of course, if one considers that there are also renderings of the Apocrypha in the Revised Standard Version and the New Living Translation, it would seem that Protestants often pay more attention to these books than Catholics do themselves. Currently, there is no translation of the Bible in English from the Greek Orthodox tradition, but from what I understand, one is in the works.
In spite of all the Protestant translations in existence, I believe that generally, Protestants are the most guilty for neglecting the Apocrypha. Regarding the Apocrypha, I am in agreement with those who have gone before me in my own faith tradition that these books are not considered to be inspired Scripture. Even the writer of 2 Maccabees admitted as much when he wrote, "...So I will here end my story. If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do" (2 Mac 15:37-38, NRSV). Such sentiment hardly seems up to the level of being "God-breathed."
However, I would agree with Luther that these books are profitable and good to be read for two reasons. First, they are written by believers in the God of the Bible. Just as one might walk into a Christian bookstore and buy devotional literature or even historical fiction, the Apocrypha can be read in the same way (plus, I've always suggested the reading of Tobit to discover where Frank Peretti borrowed his best stuff). Further, and more importantly, the historical books of the Apocrypha, especially 1 & 2 Maccabees fill in the 400 year historical gap between the Old and New Testaments. If it's true that the New Testament cannot be understood apart from the Old Testament, it might be equally true that the culture and the historical situation of Jesus' day cannot be properly understood without the information derived from reading the Apocrypha.