The NRSV continues its resurgence as evidenced by the fact that OUP will release a new wide-margin NRSV in February, the first wide margin NRSV published in over a decade. Here is the description from CBD’s website:

---

Product Description
Perhaps you're one of those studious, deliberate readers who likes to underline phrases, create outlines, list cross-references, etc. Now you don't have to resort to cramped lettering or words in the gutter. This single-column text, with 2-inch wide-ruled margins, allows you ample room for making all manner of notes. 1632 pages, hardcover. Oxford University.

Publisher's Description
The Notetaker's Bible offers the perfect format for students of the Bible who wish to make their own notes--whether scholarly notations or spiritual insights--rather than rely on the words of others.

Some wide-margin Bibles have only slightly larger margins on both sides of the page. And writing in the gutter is nearly impossible. In The NRSV Notetaker's Bible, we've eliminated those frustrations by giving you an extra-wide, two-inch outside margin. And because the text is a single column, your notes are always right beside the relevant passage. Moreover, we've added rules make it even easier to keep on track. For more expansive thoughts, you can turn to the back of the Bible for additional ruled pages.

In addition, this is the only available wide-margin Bible to feature the highly-regarded New Revised Standard Version translation, the preferred translation in most academic settings, as well as many churches and homes. So whether you're a student or professor, pastor or lay person, The NRSV Notetaker's Bible will fit your Bible study needs. Its open margins are a perfect match for your open mind.

The NRSV Notetaker's Bible is available in hardcover as well as in deluxe cloth and bonded leather, ideal for presentations and gift giving.

---

Here is a view of a page spread (click image for actual size):


I’d prefer a page without the ruled lines, but maybe that’s just me.


HT: Jay Davis

Tags: NRSV, Wide-Margin

This Lamp reader Dirk Hattingh emailed me a few days ago to let me know about two new HCSB Bibles designed specifically for taking notes. Regular readers of This Lamp know that I strongly advocate the kind of interactive Bible study that wide margin Bibles allow.

There are two new editions in the HCSB, called the HCSB Notetaker’s Bible, set for release very soon (October 8). One is referred to as a Men’s edition (ISBN 158640475X) and comes in a decorative brown hardcover. A women’s edition in mauve/olive green is also available (ISBN 1586404768).

There are no page spreads available for viewing yet, but these images of the covers are available at the CBD website (click on each image to see each Bible’s respective page):

               

Really, B&H should have probably avoided calling these “Men’s” and “Women’s” editions. I’m certain there will be some women who want the brown, and you never know who might want the other edition as well.

The CBD website also includes the following ad copy:

In an age when people can take notes using a variety of electronic media, there has emerged a countertrend whereby people want to journal in their won handwriting. The Notetaker's Bible features wide margins with subtle ruled lines, helpful center-column cross references, a concordance, and best of all, the largest point size among all Bibles of this kind. Handsomly bound for a man's taste. [The women’s edition says “Beautifully bound in with a woman's taste in mind.”]

Features include:

• The largest point size among Bibles of this kind
• Easy-to-navigate center-column references
• An easy-to-use concordance
• Ribbon marker
• Words of Jesus in red
• Translation footnotes, and exclusive HCSB bullet notes

Both Bibles measure 9.38 x 7.25 x 1 and contain 1280 pages. Biblical text will be presented in double columns. Personally, I feel that if a Bible of this sort uses double columns of text, there should be equal amounts of spacing for written notes for each column. We will have to see if B&H Publishing thought of this.

---

While I was on the CBD website, I also noticed an NRSV Notetaker’s Bible (ISBN 0195289226) to be released from Oxford University Press in 2009. There aren’t a lot of details yet, and no image that I could find even of the cover. But according to the CBD site the Bible will be paperback, contain 1296 pages, and measure 8 x 6.3 inches.

Tags: HCSB, NRSV, Wide-Margin

Well, it took a year--maybe I have blogging ADD--but I finally covered all ten of the Bible versions that I suggested were my "Top Ten." Actually, it took quite a bit of time and effort to create some of these posts. The initial entry date for the last post on the MLB was originally 4/22, but it didn't get posted until 5/21!

In hindsight, I don't know if the "Top Ten" designation was all that accurate because these aren't the ten Bibles I use the most. But in addition to the first few which I actually do use a good bit, I also wanted to introduce a few other translations that have stood out to me over the past couple of decades since I began collecting them. There are a few other Bibles that were contenders for such a list. I thought that I could briefly mention them in this follow up post.

---

King James Version.
I would imagine that if most people put together a top ten list, the KJV would be on it. I almost included it, but it seemed too predictable. Plus, I'm in no position to necessarily write anything new on the KJV (not that my other posts were wholly original either). Nevertheless, the KJV does deserve recognition because no other English translation has held the place of prominence that it has in the history of translations. It is still used today as a primary Bible by millions of Christians, still ranks somewhere in the top three positions of sales in CBA rankings, and even for those who have moved onto something newer, it is still the translation that verses have been memorized in like no other version.

I predict this is the last generation in which the KJV will still receive so much attention, but I have no trouble saying I may be wrong. It's difficult to say that one can be reasonably culturally literate--especially when it comes to the standards of American literature--without a familiarity of the KJV. Nevertheless, I cannot in good judgment recommend the KJV as a primary translation for study or proclamation because its use of language is too far removed from current usage. I don't mean that it's entirely unintelligible--not at all. But a primary Bible should communicate clear and understandable English in keeping with the spirit of the Koiné Greek that the New Testament was written in. I also cannot recommend it as a primary Bible because of the manuscript tradition upon which it rests. There's simply too much that has been added to the text. It was certainly the most accurate Bible in its day, but this is no longer true. My exception to this, however, is that I do find the KJV acceptable for public use with audiences made up primarily of senior citizens since this was exclusively their Bible. And the KJV still seems to be appropriate for use in formal ceremonies including churches and weddings--although I have not recently used it for such.

There is some confusion on what is actually the true King James version. Most do not realize that the average KJV picked up at the local book store is not the 1611 edition, but rather a 1769 fifth edition. And the reality is that there are numerous variations of this out there. For those who want a true and unadulterated KJV, the recently released New Cambridge Paragraph Edition seems to be the one worth getting.

---

The NET Bible.
The NET Bible is one of about four translations (including the ESV, NRSV, and KJV) of which I received the most emails asking why it wasn't included in my top ten. The primary initial reason for the NET Bible's exclusion was simply that I had not spent enough time with it. I made the unfortunate decision to purchase a "2nd beta edition" only a few weeks before the final first edition came out (of which I recently obtained a copy).

Everyone I've heard speak about the NET Bible has high remarks about the 60K+ notes that come with the standard edition. And I can honestly say that these notes have become a regular resource for me when I study a passage. I don't hear as much high praise for the translation itself, though I don't hear anything particularly negative about it either. In general, though, I do recommend the NET Bible. I really like the editions I've seen made available--not just the standard edition, but also the reader's edition, and the Greek/English diglot which I'm very impressed with. The notes in the diglot are a slightly different set than what is in the standard edition. The "ministry first" copyright policy and the ability to download the NET Bible for free from the internet are very commendable on the part of its handlers.

I'd like to see the NET Bible get more attention, and I'd like to see more people introduced to it. I'm not sure it will get the widespread attention it deserves as long as it can only be obtained through Bible.org. In spite of the fact that my top ten series is over, I am going to continue to review translations, and the NET Bible will probably receive my attention next. But we have to spend some quality time together first.

---

The Cotton Patch Version.
I decided not to include a colloquial translation in my top ten, but if I had, the Cotton Patch Version of the New Testament would have held the category. Most colloquial translations are fun, but a bit gimmicky. The Cotton Patch Version rendered from the Greek by Clarence Jordan was anything but gimmicky. During the height of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's, Jordan recast the events of the New Testament in the Southern United States. Replacing Jew and Gentile with "white" and "negro," and status quo Judaism with Southern Baptists (of which he was one), Jordan clearly brought the radical message of the New Testament into current contexts. The Cotton Patch Version is certainly fun reading if you are familiar with Bible Belt southern locales, but more importantly, the message is gripping as well.

---

The New Revised Standard Version.
The NRSV is an honorable mention I've added since I first announced the series. Originally, I felt like the NASB represented both the Tyndale tradition and formal equivalent translations well enough, plus at the time my use of the NRSV had become quite rare. Then my little NASB vs. NRSV comparison that I wrote with Larry revived my interest in the NRSV, and I now even have a copy sitting on my desk.

A year ago, I would have thought that the NRSV had seen its last day in the Bible version spotlight--except for academic use, but it seems to have had a bit of a renaissance with new attention and even new editions being published. It is still the translation of choice for the larger biblical academic community, primarily in my opinion because it has the widest selection of deutero-canonical books available of any translation. In its early days the NRSV was also embraced by many in the evangelical community but such enthusiasm seems to have waned. I think than rather than fears of theological bias, evangelical readers simply have too many other versions to choose from since the release of the NRSV.

Yes, the NRSV may be a few shades to the left of evangelical translations, but I've spent enough time with it to state clearly that it is not a liberal Bible. Don't let sponsorship from the National Counsel of Churches drive you away. If that were the only factor in its origin, I'd be skeptical, too, but the fact that Bruce Metzger was the editorial head of the translation committee gives me enough confidence to recommend it--if for nothing else, a translation to be read in parallel with others.

---

Well, is the series done? Not quite yet. I'll come back later this week with a few concluding thoughts about the list and the current state of Bible translations in general.

Tags: Translations, NET, KJV, NRSV, Top Ten

Below is a guest review from This Lamp reader, "Larry."

---

The Benchmark: the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible (3rd Augmented Edition)

A recent post by Rick described the debate in Muscogee County, Georgia over which translation to use in a public high school Bible class. The superintendent of the school was described as leaning towards the New King James Version – an odd choice for a secular setting, an odd choice for a setting desiring the latest scholarship, an odd choice for a high school class. But imagine that you were designing a college course to be taught in a secular school on the Bible. Which version would you use?

The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible (NOAB) aims to fulfill this role by being (as declared on the cover) an “ecumenical study Bible.” (An unfortunately ambiguous phrase – the Bible does not advocate ecumenicism, but rather is meant to be used equally by the various Protestant, Catholic, other Christian, and even in Hebrew Scriptures, by Jewish readers.) It includes not only annotations and book introductions, but a variety of helps (brief essays, maps, and glossary) appropriate to an academic audience. Although it is printed on bible paper and has rather better binding than a typical textbook, this book otherwise screams I am a college textbook in one’s hand. And as such, it was wildly successful, quickly becoming the standard text for academic Bible classes. And it became something of a standard reference for those interested in academic-style self study.

But does the NOAB deserve this praise? This pioneer has come under attack from all directions: there are a variety of new, more heavily annotated study Bibles available; it has been attacked for a leftward turn in its most recent editions; and it no longer seem as ubiquitous as it once was. What has happened to the NOAB? This review will explore the most recent edition, the Third Augmented, of the New Oxford Annotated Bible.

Acronyms

This is the second of my reviews of academic (and a few faith-oriented) study Bibles. Here is a brief list of versions I plan to cover together with acronyms I use.
JSB: Jewish Study Bible (Oxford 2004) [NJPS]
NOAB: New Oxford Annotated Study Bible (3rd Augmented Edition) (Oxford 2007) [NRSV]
NISB: New Interpreter’s Study Bible (Abingdon 2003) [NRSV]
HSB: HarperCollins Study Bible (2nd edition) (Harper San Francisco 2006) [NRSV]
CSB: Catholic Study Bible (2nd edition) (Oxford 2006) [NAB]
OSB: Oxford Study Bible (Oxford 1992) [REB]
WSP: Writings of St. Paul (2nd edition) (Norton 2007) [TNIV]
ECR: Early Christian Reader (Hendrickson 2004) [NRSV]
TSB: TNIV Study Bible (Zondervan 2006) [TNIV]
OSBNT: Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms (Conciliar Press Edition) (Conciliar Press 1997) [NKJV]


Readers may want to look back at my first review in which I discussed the framework for analysis and specifically mentioned that I find the terms “liberal” and “conservative” unhelpful and ambiguous when evaluating study Bibles.

An overview of the NOAB

The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, 3rd Augmented Edition
Michael Coogan, editor
Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, Pheme Perkins, Associate Editors
Translation: New Revised Standard Version
Hebrew Scriptures: yes
Deuterocanon: yes
Christian Scriptures: yes
Current Amazon price: $28.35
xxvii + 1375 Hebrew Bible + 383 Apocrypha +640 New Testament & extras + 2181 + 32 map pages

Extras:
Medium length introduction to books and major sections
60 black and white diagrams and maps
32 page color map section, with 14 large color maps.
Listing of biblical canons
Index and map index
Hebrew calendar discussion
Timeline (Egypt/Israel/Syria-Palestine/Mesopotamia)
Chronology of rulers in Egypt/Assyria/Syria/Babylonia/Persia/Roman Empire/Israel
Table of weights and measures
Listing of parallel texts (synoptic passages) in the Hebrew Scriptures, Apocrypha, and New Testament
Glossary of terms (15 pages)
Bibliography of translations of primary sources
Concordance (66 pages)
72 pages of additional essays

The editors of the volume are

• Michael Coogan (Stonehill Coll.) a former faculty member at Harvard, Michael Coogan for many years served as the director of the Semitic Museum’s publication program. He still maintains a relationship with Harvard Museum. He is well known as a biblical archaeologist. He was involved as a critical reviewer of both the 1991 and 1999 editions of the Catholic New American Bible (whose translation team includes some Protestant scholars.)
• Marc Zvi Brettler (Brandeis) who holds a named chair and chairs the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies. He was co-editor of the JSB, the author of a major textbook on Biblical Hebrew, and is well known for his teaching, which is reflected in a very nice volume he wrote called How to Read the Bible. He is a strong advocate of what he calls “Jewish sensitive” readings of the Bible.
• Carol Newsom (Emory) a faculty member at the Candler School of Theology, the author of several commentaries on Job, and co-editor of the Women’s Bible Commentary. She also actively participates in the Episcopalian Church USA.
• Pheme Perkins (Boston Coll.) is best known for her work in early Christianity. She is a former president of the Catholic Bible Association and is also active in the Society for Biblical Literature.

Notes on the NRSV translation

The NOAB, like many leading academic study Bibles (HSB, NISB, ECR) uses the NRSV translation – a translation that is probably familiar to most of the readers of this blog. The NRSV is popular because it is a moderately formal translation, has the widest degree of acceptability among different denominations, is derived from the dominant strand of English Bible translations (the Tyndale/KJV tradition), and includes the Catholic and Orthodox deuterocanon/apocrypha. The translation is strikingly different in how it treats the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures – the Hebrew Scriptures are translated into more formal language than the Christian Scriptures, reflecting their different source material. The translators explain,

“Another aspect of style will be detected by readers who compare the more stately English rendering of the Old Testament with the less formal rendering adopted for the New Testament. For example, the traditional distinction between shall and will in English has been retained in the Old Testament as appropriate in rendering a document that embodies what may be termed the classic form of Hebrew, while in the New Testament the abandonment of such distinctions in the usage of the future tense in English reflects the more colloquial nature of the koine Greek used by most New Testament authors except when they are quoting the Old Testament.”

The NRSV also attempts, particularly in the Christian portions, to use inclusive language when context dictates that was the original meaning in the Greek. The translators explain,

“Paraphrastic renderings have been adopted only sparingly, and then chiefly to compensate for a deficiency in the English language—the lack of a common gender third person singular pronoun. . . . The mandates from the Division [of Education and Ministry of the sponsoring organization, the National Council of Churches] specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture. As can be appreciated, more than once the Committee found that the several mandates stood in tension and even in conflict. The various concerns had to be balanced case by case in order to provide a faithful and acceptable rendering without using contrived English. Only very occasionally has the pronoun “he” or “him” been retained in passages where the reference may have been to a woman as well as to a man; for example, in several legal texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In such instances of formal, legal language, the options of either putting the passage in the plural or of introducing additional nouns to avoid masculine pronouns in English seemed to the Committee to obscure the historic structure and literary character of the original. In the vast majority of cases, however, inclusiveness has been attained by simple rephrasing or by introducing plural forms when this does not distort the meaning of the passage. Of course, in narrative and in parable no attempt was made to generalize the sex of individual persons.”

In part because of this practice, a number of traditionalists prefer the use of the NRSV’s predecessor, the RSV – and Oxford has accordingly kept older editions of the New Oxford Annotated Bible based on the RSV in print.

Publication History of the NOAB

The NOAB is the latest in a long line of editions:

• 1962: The original Oxford Annotated Bible. Editors: Herbert May (Oberlin/Vanderbilt) and Bruce Metzger (Princeton). The version had the flavor of an “official annotated” version of the RSV – May and Metzger were the Chair and Vice-Chair of the RSV contributions were received from the chair of the RSV committee (Luther Weigle, Yale). Metzger was a leading Evangelical figure of his time.
• 1965: Revised edition of The Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha. Editors: May and Metzger. This edition – not just the translation – but the annotated edition – received the imprimatur from Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston.
• 1973: A major revision – (first edition of) The New Oxford Annotated Bible [editions appeared with and without Apocrypha.] Editors: May and Metzger. The contributors stayed the same as in the 1965 edition.
• 1977: The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, Augmented Edition. Editors: May and Metzger. This version included the newly translated 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151. This version received the approval of approval of Athenagoras (Greek Orthdox Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain, and a well-known supporter of the ecumenical movement). For many traditionalists, this was the high point of this series.
• 1991: The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Second Edition [editions appeared with and without Apocrypha.] Editors: Metzger and Roland Murphy (Duke). Roland Murphy, a Catholic priest, was well known for a variety of contributions to Biblical Studies. This edition featured a major change – it was based on the NRSV. The notes were moderately revised from the 1977 edition. A concordance was added. More controversially, the traditional two-column translation/one-column note format was abandoned for a two-column translation/two-column note format. And unfortunately, the various accents and pronunciation guides found for proper nouns in the earlier edition were abandoned, a feature that was not reappear in later editions.
• 2001: The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Edition [editions appeared with and without Apocrypha]. Editors: Coogan, Brettler, Newsom, Perkins. This was far beyond an ordinary revision of the Second Edition – it was a largely new rewrite. Almost every sentence was changed (except the underlying NRSV translation). A concordance was added, and the volume was larger than previous editions in every dimension. The typesetting was improved (and the format reverted to the older two-column translation/one-column note format was used). By this point, the edition was facing serious competition in the college market from the first edition of the HSB; and Oxford production team made a serious effort to fight back, and made the most easily readable version in the series to date (striking at the one of the HSB’s main weakness – its terrible physical design). Book introductions were much longer; annotations were longer (and featured more complete sentences); and far more contributors participated in the notes.
• 2007: The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Augmented Edition [so far only the edition with Apocrypha has appeared, although an edition without Apocrypha is promised.] Editors: Coogan, Brettler, Newsom, Perkins. This was a very minor update to the Third Edition; a few new black and white maps, charts and diagrams were included (put in at the end of books so the pagination remains the same), the book and section introductions had minor rewritings, and a useful glossary was added (which drew heavily on the glossary that had previously appeared in the JSB). Amusingly, the Oxford production team forgot to update the copyright page correctly (at least in the first printing.)

(Note that Wikipedia’s article on the history of the edition is full of errors – including its misidentification of the editors of the 1962 , 1965, and 1973 editions.)

Review of the NOAB

As I begin to review the NOAB’s annotations think an academic study Bible is likely to see three major uses:

• As a classroom text (here my advice is least meaningful, since a student is likely to have to choose the study Bible chosen by the class instructor)
• For self-study As a reference source.

Now, I will reveal my punchline in advance: in this review and my next two reviews, I will rank the three NRSV study Bibles as follows

• Best for classroom use: NOAB
• Best for self-study: NISB
• Best for reference: HSB

Where did the annotations come from? The NOAB involves a much broader group of people involving much wider range of opinions than previous editions. The diversity can be seen from the range of different annotators – who reflect participants from a variety of theological backgrounds (Jewish, Mormon, Evangelical, Episcopalian, Mainline Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) and a variety of different cultural backgrounds. This sort of diversity is in line with contemporary academic trends, and reflects the widely held belief that the academy – even in theological studies, should mirror society at large.

• Theodore Bergren (U. of Richmond): 2 Edras
• Mark Biddle (Baptist Th. Sem.): Jeremiah, Letter of Jeremiah, Baruch
• Joseph Blenkinsopp (Notre Dame): Isaiah
• M. Eugene Boring (Texas Christian U.): 1 Peter
• Sheila Briggs (USC): Galatians
• Mary Chilton Callaway (Fordham): 1 & 2 Maccabees
• David Carr (Union Th. Sem.): Genesis
• John Collins (Yale): 3 Maccabees
• Stephen Cook (Virginia Th. Sem.): Ezekiel
• Linda Day (editor, Catholic Biblical Quarterly): Judith
• F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp (Princeton): Lamentations, Song of Solomon
• Neil Elliott (adjunct faculty at United Th. Sem., Twin Cities, acquisition editor at Fortress Press): Romans
• Tamara Cohn Eskenazi (Hebrew Union Coll./Jewish Inst. Religion, Los Angeles): Ezra-Nehemiah, 1 Esdras
• Cain Hope Felder (Howard U.): James
• Obery Hendricks (New York Th. Sem.): John
• Richard Horsley (U. Mass., Boston): Mark, 1 Corinthians
• Cynthia Briggs Kittredge (Episcopal Th. Sem. Southwest): Hebrews
• Gary Knoppers (Penn. State): 1 & 2 Chronicles
• John Kselman (St. Patrick’s Sem.): Psalms, Psalm 151, Prayer of Manasseh
• Mary Joan Winn Leith (Stonehill Coll.): Ruth, Esther, Greek Esther, Jonah
• Amy-Jill Levine (Vanderbilt): Tobit, Daniel, Additions to Daniel
• Bernard Levinson (U. Minnesota): Deuteronomy
• Jennifer Maclean (Roanoke Coll.): Ephesians, Colossians
• Christopher Matthews (Weston Jesuit Sch. Th.): Acts
• Steven McKenzie (Rhodes Coll.): 1 & 2 Samuel
• Margaret Mitchell (U. Chicago): 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon
• Gregory Mobley (Andover Newton Th. Sch.): Book of the Twelve (except Jonah)
• Carolyn Osiek (Texas Christian U.): Philippians
• Andrew Overman (Macalester Coll.): Matthew
• Pheme Perkins (Boston Coll.): 1, 2, 3 John
• Iain Provan (Regent Coll.): 1 & 2 King
• Jean-Pierre Ruiz (St. John’s U.): Revelation
• Judith Sanderson (Seattle U.): Exodus
• Leong Seow (Princeton): Job, Ecclesiastes
• Abraham Smith (): 1 & 2 Thessalonians
• Marion Soards (Louisville Presbyterian Th. Sem.): Luke
• Patrick Tiller (unaffiliated): 2 Peter, Jude
• Sze-kar Wan (Andover Newton Th. Sem.): 2 Corinthians
• Harold Washington (St. Paul Sch. Th.): Proverbs, Sirach
• Walter Wilson (Emory): Wisdom of Solomon, 4 Maccabees
• David Wright (Brandeis): Leviticus, Numbers
• Lawson Younger (Trinity Int’l U.): Joshua, Judges

While this list certainly contains many distinguished names, one cannot help but notice that the list of participants is not quite as distinguished on average as the participants in earlier editions. However, the annotations are far more detailed. As an example, consider the annotations in the NOAB of the first chapter Ezekiel (more exactly, Ezekiel 1:1-28a.) First, I’ll compare these with the first edition of the New Oxford, and then with some other study Bibles.

NRSV: [1] In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the river Chebar, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. [2] On the fifth day of the month (it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin), [3] word of the Lord came to the priest Ezekiel son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was on him there.

[4]As I looked, a stormy wind came out of the north: a great cloud with brightness around it and fire flashing forth continually, and in the middle of the fire, something like gleaming amber. [5] In the middle of it was something like four living creatures. This was their appearance: they were of human form. [6] Each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. [7] Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf’s foot; and they sparkled like burnished bronze. [8] Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: [9] their wings touched one another; each of them moved straight ahead, without turning as they moved. [10] As for the appearance of their faces: the four had the face of a human being, the face of a lion on the right side, the face of an ox on the left side, and the face of an eagle; [11] such were their faces. Their wings were spread out above; each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies. [12] Each moved straight ahead; wherever the spirit would go, they went, without turning as they went. [13] In the middle of the living creatures there was something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches moving to and fro among the living creatures; the fire was bright, and lightning issued from the fire. [14] The living creatures darted to and fro, like a flash of lightning.

[15] As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them. [16] As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction: their appearance was like the gleaming of beryl; and the four had the same form, their construction being something like a wheel within a wheel. [17] When they moved, they moved in any of the four directions without veering as they moved. [18] Their rims were tall and awesome, for the rims of all four were full of eyes all around. [19] When the living creatures moved, the wheels moved beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose. [20] Wherever the spirit would go, they went, and the wheels rose along with them; for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. [21] When they moved, the others moved; when they stopped, the others stopped; and when they rose from the earth, the wheels rose along with them; for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.

[22] Over the heads of the living creatures there was something like a dome, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads. [23] Under the dome their wings were stretched out straight, one toward another; and each of the creatures had two wings covering its body. [24] When they moved, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of mighty waters, like the thunder of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army; when they stopped, they let down their wings. [25] And there came a voice from above the dome over their heads; when they stopped, they let down their wings.

[26] And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form. [27] Upward from what appeared like the loins I saw something like gleaming amber, something that looked like fire enclosed all around; and downward from what looked like the loins I saw something that looked like fire, and there was a splendor all around. [28] Like the bow in a cloud on a rainy day, such was the appearance of the splendor all around. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

New Oxford, 1st ed.: 1:1-3:27: The call of Ezekiel. 1:1-3: Superscription. The thirtieth year, perhaps the thirtieth year after Ezekiel’s call, and if so, the date of the initial composition of the book, 563 B.C. (compare Jer. 36:1-2). Fifth day of the fourth month . . . , fifth year of the exile would be July 31, 593 B.C. This is reckoned from a lunar calendar, with the year beginning in the spring. The name Ezekiel means “God strengthens.” Chebar, a canal which is mentioned also in the Babylonian records, flowing southeast from its fork above Babylon, through Nippur, and rejoining the Euphrates near Erech. Hand of the Lord expresses Ezekiel’s sense of divine compulsion (3:14,22; 8:1; 33:22; 37:1; 40.1). 1:4-28a The throne chariot vision. Compare the imagery in 1 Kg. 22:19-22; Is. 6:1-9. 4: Out of the north, a literary figure drawn from Canaanite mythology, according to which the gods lived in the north. Stormy wind (1 Kg. 19:11), cloud (Ex. 19:16), and fire (1 Kg. 19:11-12) are all elements in the theophany (manifestation) of God. 5: The living creatures (Rev. 4:7) are cherubim, guardians of God’s throne (see Ex. 25:10-22; 1 Kg. 6:23-28), namely winged human-headed lions or oxen, symbolizing mobility, intelligence, and strength. 15-21: The four wheels (compare the four faces of the creatures) symbolize omni-direction mobility. 22: In ancient cosmology, the firmament separated the waters above the earth from the earth (Gen. 1:6-8). 26-28: Thus the Lord was enthroned above his creatures; compare the Lord enthroned above the cherubim in Ex. 37:9 (on the ark); 1 Sam. 4:4.

NOAB: 1:1-3:27: Part 1: The call of Ezekiel. 1:1-3: Superscription. Ezekiel was a Zadokite priest (v. 3, 44:15-31n.), steeped in the traditions of Jerusalemite royal theology (Zion theology; see Introduction). Despite his exile, he never loses his priestly role (cf. 43:12n.). The thirtieth year, probably Ezekiel’s own age. At the age for assuming his duties at the Jerusalem Temple (Num. 4:3), Ezekiel sought solitude outside his settlement (see 3:14-15) to reflect on what course his life might instead take in exile. Fifth day of the fourth month . . . fifth year of the exile would be July 31, 593 BCE. Chebar, a canal, flowing near Nippur, which is mentioned also in Babylonian documents. 3: The name Ezekiel means “God strengthens.” Hand of the LORD (3:14,22; 8:1; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1), Ezekiel undergoes the same sort of divine compulsions and ecstatic trances experienced by Israel’s early prophets, such as Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 18:46; 2 Kings 3:15). Chaldeans, Babylonians. 1:4-28a: The throne-chariot vision. Cf. the imagery in 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa 6:1-9. The first two-thirds of Ezekiel’s vision of God merely describes the creatures and wheels below the platform supporting God’s throne. In Ezekiel’s theology of God’s transcendence, God is clearly far removed from earthly perception. 4: Stormy wind . . . cloud . . . and fire are phenomena often associated with appearance of God in the Hebrew Bible (see Ps 18:8-12). Out of the north, because the shape of the Fertile Crescent meant that anything coming from Jerusalem arrived in Babylonia from the north. Something like, Ezekiel uses the word like to suggest the difference between his description and the transcendent reality itself. 5-14: The living creatures are identified as cherubim in a later vision (10:15,20), guardians of God’s throne (see Ex 25:18-22; 1 Kings 6:23-28), namely winged, human-headed lions or bulls. Uncharacteristically, the creatures Ezekiel sees have four faces (v. 10; cf. Rev 4:7). 13: Torches, cf. Gen 15:17. 15-21: The four . . . wheels (compare the four faces of the creatures) to God’s throne are a crucial element in Ezekiel’s reckoning of his central priestly belief that God had elected and now dwelled in Zion with the early Zion’s coming destruction by the Babylonians (see Introduction). Its wheels mean that the real, cosmic Zion-throne has omnidirectional mobility and is not tied down to earthly Jerusalem. See further 1:26-28n. 18: Full of eyes, symbolic of omniscience (10:12, Zech 4:10; cf. Rev 4:6,8) 22-25: A dome, referring to the cosmic firmament of Gen. 1:6-8, which separates earth and heaven. Jerusalem and its Temple mount symbolize the cosmic mountain where heaven and earth intersect at the dome. 26-28: Thus the Lord was still really enthroned atop the cosmos, even though Jerusalem, the symbol of God’s cosmic dwelling (Ps 26:8, 63:2, 102:16), was to be destroyed by the Babylonians. On the glory of the Lord, see 10:1-22n. Appearance of the likeness, the qualified language again emphasizes God’s transcendence and cosmic power (see 1:4n.). God’s self is three levels removed from Ezekiel’s description of God.


As we compare these two versions, we note several things. The later edition contains all the information in the former, but often explained somewhat more leisurely and simply. A few strange notes have been cleaned up (look at the notes to verse 4 – the “from the North” refers to Jerusalem, not to some Canaanite belief – the more recent version is actually the more respectful to the text. And words unlikely to be known by the average undergraduate, such as “theophany” are omitted (on the other hand, were the undergraduate using the earlier edition, she’d learn a new word.) The NOAB is much more effective at verses 26-28 at explaining some of the reasoning behind the vision of the chariot – the idea of a heavenly temple and heavenly Jerusalem. Thus rather than the earlier edition’s brief: “Thus the Lord was enthroned above his creatures,” the NOAB has a more meaningful discussion: “Thus the Lord was still really enthroned atop the cosmos, even though Jerusalem, the symbol of God’s cosmic dwelling was to be destroyed by the Babylonians.”

Recall my three evaluation criteria for academic study Bibles – as a classroom text, as a self-study guide, and as a reference. Here, I would argue that the newer edition, with its clearer explanations, was superior to the older editions as a classroom text and for self-study. But as a reference, perhaps it is a tie – the newer edition contains more material and is easier to understand, but the earlier edition included terse notes especially appropriate for someone who needs to extract information quickly and non-systematically.

Classroom value is further enhanced by the essays were written by the editors (those items in italics were section introductions)

• Brettler: Pentateuch, Historical Books, Poetical & Wisdom Books, Canons of the Bible (w/Perkins), Hebrew Bible’s Interpretation of Itself, Jewish Interpretation in the Premodern Era
• Coogan: Textual Criticism (w/Perkins), Interpretation of the Bible: From the Nineteenth to the Mid-twentieth Centuries, Geography of the Bible, Ancient Near East
• Newsom: Prophetic Books, Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, Christian Interpretation in the Premodern Era, Contemporary Methods in Biblical Study, Persian & Hellenistic Periods
• Perkins: Gospels, Letters/Epistles, Translation of the Bible into English, New Testament Interprets the Jewish Scriptures, Roman Period

An instructor can simply assign these essays, as well as the introductions to individual books, to a class – while I am not certain they would be sufficient reading for a challenging class, they certainly form a starting point. The essays are clear enough, albeit not particularly inspired.

Now, for the sake of discussion, let’s compare the NOAB’s annotations with those of the leading competitors, starting with HarperCollins Study Bible (HSB):

HSB: 1:1-3:15 Ezekiel’s inaugural vision, which may be compared with shorter, though similar, accounts in Isa 6; Jer 1. God calls Ezekiel to act as a prophet and provides him with instructions about fulfilling this task. Other vision reports are in 8:1-11:25; 37:1-14; 40:1-48:35. 1:1-3 The book’s introduction places the prophet in Babylonia and dates his activity by reference to a Judahite king, Jehoiachin, now in exile. 1:1 Thirtieth year, probably Ezekiel’s age when he experienced this vision. The river Chebar, a canal, not a natural river, near Nippur. 1:2 Jehoiachin, Ezekiel, and others were exiled to Babylon in 597 BCE. The fifth year of the exile would have been 593. This is the first of thirteen such chronological notices (1:2; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1; 29:17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1; 32:17; 33:21; 40:1). 1:3 The priest, either Ezekiel or Buzi, though most probably Ezekiel. Ezekiel is defined as a priest because of his lineage, whereas he becomes a prophet because of this visionary experience. The land of the Chaldeans, the plains of southern Mesopotamia, associated with an Aramean-speaking people who had entered this area earlier in the first millennium BCE. The hand of the Lord, a phrase indicative of a spirit possession; cf. 3:14-21; 8:1; 3:22; 37:1; 40:1. This phrase is present at the beginning of each of Ezekiel’s four vision reports. 1:4-28 Ezekiel encounters God. The combination of cloud, fire, creatures, the spirit, and wheels makes it impossible to reduce this vision to some readily understandable phenomenon. 1:4-14 Ezekiel perceives strange creatures. 1:4 Fire and cloud are often associated with the appearance of the deity (e.g., Ps 18). Something like gleaming amber, also in 8:2. 1:5 The author uses like (see also vv. 22, 26, 27) to emphasize the vision is proximate. The prophet does not actually see the deity and his accoutrements. The living creatures are part animal, part human, with the latter dominant, i.e., they have two legs and stand upright. Such winged creatures with animal features are related to the seraphim in Isa 6, another “prophetic call” narrative. Ancient Near Eastern mythology knows such creatures, often minor deities, some of which support the divine or royal throne. Cf. 10:15, 20, where similar creatures are labeled cherubim. 1:7 Bronze, also in the description of a man in 40:3. 1:10 Four faces (human, lion, ox, eagle) on one head is otherwise unattested. The imagery may emphasize alertness: as the wheels turn, the creature will be able to look in any direction. 1:12 The spirit, not the deity, but the spirit of the living creatures in v. 21 (see also v. 20; 3:12.) 1:13-14 The creatures are associated fire or lightning; cf. Gen 3:24 for an analogous creature who brandishes a flaming sword; Gen 15:17, where torches symbolize the presence of the deity. 1:15-21 Crystalline wheels associated with the creatures. Although the writer mentions a wheel (v.15), there are apparently four wheels, one for each creature. Either a chariot with four wheels on one axle (two wheels on each side of the carriage) or a ceremonial cart with two axles (and two wheels per axle) may be presumed in this description. The imagery of wheels emphasizes that the glory of the Lord (v. 28) was capable of movement. The motif of wheels symbolizes the mobility of the deity who will later leave the temple (10:18-19). 1:18 Full of eyes implies the ability see everything (cf. 10:12; Zech 4:10). 1:22-25 Below the dome. 1:22 Dome, the heavenly vault (see Gen 1:7-8). 1:24 Auditory imagery (e.g., like the thunder) rather than visual imagery, fire and light, prevails. Both sound and visual imagery attend the appearance of the deity (e.g. Ex 19:16-19). The sound of mighty waters. Cf. 43:2. In Rev 14:2, the sound is further defined in association with thunder. 1:25 A voice, or “a sound,” from above the dome indicates that even the deafening roar created by the creatures’ wings under the dome is not the ultimate sound. 1:26-28 Above the dome. The throne above the heavenly vault signifies the throne or council room of the deity. The deity enthroned in the heavens truly transcends the temple. Like, used ten times in three verses to emphasize that Ezekiel does not actually see the deity. Sapphire. Cf. Ex 24:10. Like a human form begins the description of the deity above the loins (waist) like amber, below the loins like fire. 1:28 Rather than proceed with a more detailed and hence dangerous description, the author moves to an analogy, the splendor of a rainbow, and the summation This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord, which again emphasizes that the prophet did not see God directly (see note on 1:5).

This excerpt makes clear why the HSB was such a threat to the dominance of the NOAB – it contains substantially more detail and explanation. Still, the explanation is better at the verse level than at the passage level: it is highly repetitive (the annotator mentions repeatedly that Ezekiel did not actually see God) and still misses the main point of the vision (as explained in the NOAB) – namely the enthronement of God above the dome while Jerusalem falls. For these and other reasons which I will detail in my next installment, this study Bible is perhaps not quite as well suited for classroom use; although it is certainly a highly useful reference. (I should also mention that there were two typographical errors in the HSB annotations that I corrected in my extended quotation above – it is not a particularly carefully proofread edition.)
Next, I turn to the version in yet another competitor to the NOAB, the New Interpreter’s Study Bible (NISB), not to be confused with the well-known multi-volume set. Let’s see how it handles this passage. However, because of the great length of the NISB, I only quote here from the sections dealing up to verse 3:


NISB: 1:1-3:27 Ezekiel’s prophetic call stands boldly at the beginning of the book, declaring the Lord as the agent of history and Ezekiel as the responsive steward of the divine word. After a short introduction that sets Ezekiel firmly in time and space (1:1-3), the first chapter offers glimpses of Ezekiel’s enigmatic vision (1:4-28a). Ezekiel’s response (1:28b) leads to his commissioning, which unfolds in several divinely scripted scenes: commissioning (1:28b-3:11), preparation (3:12-15), instructions (3:16-21), and inauguration (3:22-27). 1:1-3 The double introduction (vv. 1, 2-3) answers several implied questions: Where are we? What is wrong? What is the remedy? The Lord provides a vision and speaks a word to a refugee community in the enemy’s land that challenges their cherished theological assumptions and empowers them to re-imagine their identity and mission. In the NT, 1 Pet 1:1, 2:11 reinterprets exile as a disengagement from dominant culture. 1:1 This autobiographical narrative reports on visions of God (only in Ezekiel; see also 8:3; 40:2). The divine perspective is opened as Ezekiel sees behind the scenes to glimpse the mystery of divine presence and absence. The thirtieth year refers either to Ezekiel’s birth (see also the induction of priests in their thirtieth year, Num 4:30) or to Josiah’s discovery of the scroll in the temple (2 Kgs 22). 1:2-3 A third-person narrator now identifies Ezekiel as a priest controlled by God’s hand. In 593 BCE, Ezekiel is commissioned to mediate the divine word that comes to him in a land considered unclean and, through him, to those who have lost everything.

This passage illustrates well the strengths and weaknesses of the NISB. On the one hand, the annotations are written in a much more conversational style than those of the NOAB or the HSB. On the positive side, one can simply read this study Bible as if it were the transcript of a lecture of a friendly instructor. But on the other hand, it speaks throughout (especially in this passage) in the language of social justice, which may be somewhat disconcerting to many readers; and it sounds more than a little like an excerpt from a sermon (e.g., the gratuitous reference to 1 Peter.) In fact, this particular passage is not representative of the annotations of the NISB – the politics are somewhat more dilute in the full text, although they are there. But the overall effect is somewhat anachronistic – and surprisingly applied – this is clearly a Christian reading of the Bible – seeking to answer the question “what is the relevance of this passage to us today?” If one is comfortable with the framework in which these annotations teach, then this is an ideal study Bible for self-study, since it considers simultaneously thematic issues as well as issues at the verse level.

One thing which surprises me about all of the above study Bibles is that they interpret this highly mystical of passages in terms of allegory – or, in the case of the NISB, in terms of societal needs. This surprises me, since a mystical experience is by definition that of an individual – here, as much as any place in the Bible, we have the experience of mysticism from the viewpoint of a prophet himself. The NISB’s reading here is most dissonant with this mystical aspect – it reads what is ultimately an individual (psychological) experience in sociological terms. However, the NISB also reflects the better angels of the Christian tradition, in refusing to miss a chance to learn a moral lesson from a Biblical verse, and ultimately showing the selflessness of the pure Christian worldview.

I will mention here briefly one additional study Bible: Oxford’s Jewish Study Bible (JSB) – see my previous review. This version has such extensive annotations that the annotations for this passage exceed in length the annotations for the NOAB, HSB, and NISB combined, so I will not quote from it here. Instead, I will simply mention that it discusses, alone among these study Bibles, the mystical aspects of Ezekiel’s vision, and also relates it to non-canonical works such as 3 Enoch, as well as covering both the connections with Ancient Near Eastern traditions as well as its allegorical meaning.

Layout and physical design: Oxford University Press produces excellent Bibles – perhaps among major publishers only Cambridge University Press produces nicer Bibles. One of my old editions in this series stayed with me for years, suffering daily abuse, and it stood up surprisingly well to such regular use. The newer NOAB is larger, and has a glossy hardcover (it is also available in bonded leather edition) but the binding is excellent. The typography and print has never been clearer than it is in the third edition – the print is relatively large – larger than any of its NRSV competitors and the spacing in the notes is wide enough to make them easily readable. The paper is slightly translucent, but bleed through is limited and does not cause a problem (unlike the HSB).

A Leftward Turn?

There is something about Bibles that causes a certain sort of person to mutter about heresy. The NOAB has been criticized for being different than the Second Edition, and these charges rose to such a degree that Oxford University Press was forced to make a response :

“This third edition of the classic New Oxford Annotated Bible represents not only a revision of a classic textbook and biblical reference work for the general reader, but nearly an entirely new book. . . . More Catholic scholars, a new group of Jewish scholars, more women, and scholars from a wider diversity of backgrounds (African-American, Latino, and Asian-American), joined the distinguished roster of contributors. The variety of interpretations, liberal and conservative, was increased. . . .

“There has been a focus in certain circles of Christian comment on these changes from traditional understanding. It is important to recognize that Oxford University Press is not aiming at influencing any current social or political trends, whether within secular society or within any church or denomination. The annotators and authors of the essays were given general instructions to guide them in writing their study materials, but except for specific indications of the length of their submissions, and the format in which they were to be submitted, they were left free to determine what they would comment on and how those comments would be shaped. The editorial board and Oxford staff reviewed every submission, and suggested numerous changes, but every revised version went back to the original author for acceptance or adjustment of the changes. No contributor was made to say anything with which he or she disagreed. It would have been impossible for one editor to impose a personal view or agenda on this process, and no editor attempted to do so. The views expressed in any of the annotations are the scholar's own, as that scholar understands the research of colleagues on the particular book of the Bible being commented on.”

What criticism in particular has been made against the NOAB? Well, a summary of the criticism can be found an article published by a conservative group. While the tone of the article speaks for itself, we can examine the claims it puts forwards:

• Claim: The NOAB is soft on homosexuality. I have found no passage in the notes that suggests that Bible permits homosexuality; indeed, the cited annotations make clear that homosexual behavior is unacceptable [Genesis 19:5 “disapproval of male homosexual rape is assumed here”; Romans 1:26-27 “Torah forbids a male ‘lying with a male as with a woman'"]. The comment on 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 appears to be making the same point (in a fashion appropriate for a textbook) that Rick made in this post.
• Claim: The NOAB denies Christ’s divinity. Given that belief in the divinity of Jesus is a central belief of Christianity, it would be quite surprising if this claim found support. Here, a single annotation in the book of John is quoted out of context, ignoring many other annotations which indicate that Jesus is divine in the book of John (e.g., the Introduction “It demonstrates that faith in Jesus is equivalent to faith in God . . . .”; 14:20 “their relationship with the risen Jesus will reflect the union of the Son with the Father.”
• Claim: The NOAB is soft on abortion. The claim is made that Psalms 139:13 is a prooftext for anti-abortion – I am frankly unconvinced of this reading; in any case, Jeremiah 1:5 is a much stronger notion (that God knew and selected the prophet before he was formed in the womb) and the annotation here is quite strong: “Knew, connotes a profound and intimate knowledge.”
• Claim: One NOAB editor has previously worked with member of a Christian outreach group to homosexuals. A claim is made that one of the editors worked on a project with a leader of a ministry group that reaches out to homosexuals. In an academic setting, I don’t feel it is appropriate to engage in such ad hominem attacks.
• Claim: The NOAB is infecting the Christian Mainstream. The claim is made that since the NOAB is the official text of the United Methodist Church’s Disciple Bible Study program. Of course, since this essay was published, the UMC’s publishing house, Abingdon, has produced its own study Bible, the NISB. As my quotation above showed, the NISB sometimes rather explicitly reflects a political agenda. In contrast, the NOAB is a much more neutral annotated text.

A claim is also made in the article that Bruce Metzger wrote “I have read your perceptive comments about the two editions of the Oxford Annotated Bible and am in full agreement with your evaluations.” Unfortunately, we don’t know exactly what evaluations Metzger is in agreement with; this comment appears to me to be taken out of context.
The disconcerting aspect for me is that in some ways the NOAB is a more traditional understanding of the Bible than earlier editions. The passage I analyzed above has in an early edition a reduction of Ezekiel’s experience of a wind from the North to Canaanite myth; in the current edition this is clearly explained as being from Jerusalem. While earlier editions a certain detached skepticism in earlier editions, the newer edition treats the philosophy of biblical inerrancy with much greater respect.

Nonetheless, the approach of this study Bible is historical-critical and it is not designed for devotional purposes. The NOAB’s contributors do reflect a diversity of views, including traditional views. Since the NOAB no longer has a “lock” on the study Bible market, if readers feel that it offends they have many other places to go. But to return to the question I started with, I know of no other study Bible as appropriate for a (secular) college classroom.

Final thoughts

The NOAB no longer looks as special as it once did: the contributors are in some cases less distinguished than their predecessors; and there is a wealth of different study Bibles to choose among. Still, the NOAB remains the most widely used study Bible in college classrooms and with good reason: the annotations are brief and insightful. One way in which it can be measured is that it serves as a benchmark: in marketing literature, publishers measure other academic study Bibles against the NOAB. While for many readers there might be a better alternative, one can certainly do worse than the NOAB. A person who reads it will have an excellent foundation in Biblical studies.

Coming up next: “The contender” – the HarperCollins Study Bible, 2nd edition.

Tags: study Bibles, NRSV

Personal Background with the NRSV
My experience with the NRSV has been primarily over a decade ago. When I went to seminary in the early nineties, it was the translation in vogue at SBTS. I picked up a hardback/pew copy in the campus bookstore (published by Holman no less!), and often used it in my papers. After taking some introductory language courses, I always found that it was more impressive to create my own translation in papers for biblical studies classes. However, in all other classes, that was practically looked down upon, so I always quoted the NRSV for those papers. I learned early on that since many of my teachers and graders were using the NRSV, my use of it often seemed in general to improve my final grade. I guess I had just enough psychology classes in my undergraduate studies to tweak the system to my own advantage.

Initially, the NRSV gained quite a wide acceptance with Evangelicals. Holman Bibles (the Southern Baptist Convention's Bible publisher) was a launch company along with Zondervan, Thomas Nelson and quite a few others. I even have a purple Life Application Bible in the NRSV! But at some point, the NRSV fell out of favor with Evangelicals. Perhaps disfavor came from it's enthusiastic adoption by non-Evangelical groups and denominations that often tend to lean a bit toward the left theologically, and especially its sponsor, the National Council of Churches. Or perhaps even more likely, the boom in evangelical translations in the last few years (NLT, ESV, TNIV, etc.) simply cut into the now almost two-decade old NRSV market.

Back in the days when I was using the NRSV academically in papers, I was not using it personally that much. This was a time when the NASB remained my top choice, and I viewed it as a superior translation. But I never thought poorly of the NRSV as I often hear in some conservative circles. Granted, some of its translational decisions are not near as conservative as a NASB, ESV, or T/NIV, but I was certainly never one to label it a "liberal" Bible like I sometimes hear. Bruce Metzger was at the head of the translation committee, and he's an individual I respected very much.

Lately, with my studies, I've been doing a lot of work in second-temple period Jewish literature, including what is commonly known as the Apocrypha. Although 90% of this kind of work can be done using Accordance modules (original language texts and translations) as my working source texts, I still sometimes need a physical source in front of me. Frustrated a couple of times because I didn't have an English copy of the Apocrypha in my office (my Parallel Apocrypha is more conveniently kept at home), I decided to pick up one of the new printings of the NRSV with the Apocrypha from Harper Bibles strictly to keep at school. Below is a review of the new edition, but not so much a review of the NRSV.

From Out of Nowhere, the NRSV Makes a Comeback
Surprisingly after ongoing declining sales of the NRSV, Harper Bibles has published three new editions of the of what it is calling "Standard Bibles." All three are hardbacks, although I have to admit this is one of the best looking hardback Bibles I've ever seen. The first Standard Bible contains the regular 66 books of the Bible recognized by most Protestant denominations. A second edition, called "Standard Catholic Edition, Anglicized" (which I can't seem to find on Amazon) includes the standard set of Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books recognized by the Cathoilic church. However, the thrid edition is the one I bought: the "Standard Bible with Apocrypha." The NRSV itself is known for having the widest reach in the Christian church for books that are recognized as canonical in some form or another. This Bible contains the widest possible selection of books recognized by the church at large. Where else can you get a contemporary translation of 3 & 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151?! Esther is translated in its entirety from both the Hebrew and Greek texts as there are some differences textually besides just the additional passages.

As I mentioned, this Bible boasts a great looking cover. The Harper Bibles page for these editions calls it "leather-like" and that's exactly right. Each Bible is two toned with a material that at first glance at least looks like a kind of leather and is soft to the touch but not padded. Stitching follows the borders of the material. There's also a ribbon marker, something that doesn't always appear in hardback Bibles.

Text is set in a large typeface, probably around 10 or 11 pt. but the website doesn't specify for certain. Although descriptions on the website boast one column text, this is primarily reserved for books that are mostly prose. Poetic books, such as the Psalms are laid out in two columns. As a fan of single-column text, I find the two-column layout in the poetic books to be a detractor. I understand why they did this as the shorter lines of poetic passages leave quite a bit of blank space and no doubt making this Bible one-column throughout would have dramatically increased the number of pages used. But what about books of the Bible that contain both poetry and prose? Well, it's a mixed bag, based, I suppose on which style is in the majority. For instance, Job which begins and ends in prose text, but is poetic in the middle is entirely in two columns. Oddly, Ecclesiastes is in single-column. Isaiah which contains both poetry and prose is in two columns, but Jeremiah is in single-column! Although this Bible is not a thinline, the pages are thin nonetheless allowing for quite a bit of bleedthrough of text from other pages. Page numbering begins fresh with each section. The Old Testament contains 1129 pages; the Apocrypha, 335; and the New Testament, 351. The concordance runs from p. 352 to p. 383 thus making the entire volume almost 1850 pages.

[This paragraph added based on comments.] Another intriguing feature of the NRSV Standard Edition is a lack of full justification for its single-column text which is a rarity in Bibles that use paragraphed text. This helps the reader because non-uniform line lengths help the eyes go down the page when reading, especially when reading aloud. Prose sections in pages that employ two columns of text still use standard full justification.

These are basic text edition without introductions or cross references, but some visual variety is arrived at through graphic symbols at the beginning of each book. Acts, for instance, begins with the symbol of a dove breathing fire, obviously representative of the coming of the Holy Spirit in the second chapter. There's also a concordance in the back, but it's too condensed in my opinion to be overly useful. There are no maps, and there's no room in the margins to include meaningful self-study notes.

These Standard Bibles are very nice hardback editions of the NRSV if you don't already have a copy. And if you don't have a complete copy of the Apocryphal books, the Standard Edition with Apocrypha is the most "complete" collection you can get. Historically, it was common for Protestant Bibles to contain a section for the Apocryphal books, often in a section between the Testaments as this Bible does. This was common practice among Bible printings up until about the end of the 19th century. Luther maintained that while he didn't consider these extra books to be canon, they were good for purposes of edification. Further, I feel one of their greatest contributions is for bridging the 400 year gap between the testaments, both historically and theologically. It's near impossible to fully understand the cultural and political context of Jesus' day without the Apocrypha as well.

Tags: NRSV, Harper Bibles

(...although we don't actually cover Revelation)

This is the final round of comparisons between the NASB and the NRSV. The fourth round was posted over a month ago, and the info below has been sitting around in the comments of a much earlier post for a while now. You'll remember that this started after I made comments about the literalness of the NASB. This Lamp reader, Larry, challenged that assertion in favor of the NRSV, one of the translations he favors. This extended series of comparisons examined 50 verses from throughout the Bible, randomly selected. Although the NASB took an early lead (as I predicted), I should remind readers that literalness does not equal accuracy. Every verse/chapter/pericope must be evaluated separately. Regardless, here is the fifth round and final results of this series.

Reference	Rick's Evaluation	Larry's Evaluation
Rom 10:21	The versions are very similar and functionally the same in these verses. I give the NASB a slight edge because ten is translated in the NASB in the phrase “all the day long” as opposed to the NRSV’s “all day long.” Also I believe “stretched out” is a better rendering of exepetasa than “held out.”	This is a fascinating verse to consider, because it is one of many verses that quote the Septuagint. To the credit of both the NASB95 and NRSV, they have translated the Hebrew independently of the Greek (although the NRSV is the superior translation of Is 65:2). Now this passage presents a particular problem because it does not even correctly quote the Septuagint we now have. Thus, the footnote in the NASB95 is rather misleading, and because of this reason, I call this for the NRSV.
1 Cor 3:10	At first I was surprised that the NRSV would use “skillful” over the NASB’s “wise” for sophos. But in looking at the BDAG, the first definition for the word is “pert. to knowing how to do someth. in a skillful manner, clever, skillful, experienced.” The second meaning is “pert. to understanding that results in wise attitudes and conduct, wise.” Thus either rendering is correct based on how the translators determined context. At this writing, I’m not sure which rendering I favor. “Wise” is certainly more traditional and also found in the KJV, but that doesn’t mean it’s more correct than “skillful.” The last sentence in this verse is interesting because at first glance, one might suppose that the NRSV’s each builder is an attempt to use inclusive language over the NASB’s each man. But that is not the case. The actual word in the Greek is hekastos which is more correctly translated “each person.” Knowing that the 1995 update of the NASB cleaned up some of the masculine oriented language in these types of verses, I’m surprised to see the NASB’s rendering. There is not a separate word for “man” in this verse, just as there is no separate word for the NRSV’s “builder.” Yet the NASB introduces masculine specificity where it is not represented in the text. The KJV uses “another” and even the ESV renders the word “someone else” (as does the NIV). Based on this, I’m giving the verse to the NRSV.	I agree with Rick. NRSV.
2 Cor 3:4	Neither verse translate de. I don’t really fault the NRSV for inserting “is” although the lack of it in the NASB brings that version closer to word for word literalness. The use of “that” by the NRSV is totally unnecessary. When I teach writing classes, I tell my students that if they can eliminate the word “that” in a sentence and it still makes sense to do so. This verse goes to the NASB.	I don't understand Rick's analysis here. The NASB95 is ambiguous in English (it could be interpreted as "confidence such as this have we ..." or "[wow], such confidence!" ) while the NRSV refers clearly to the pepoithesin just expressed, namely: Paul doesn't need (no stinkin' badges) any credentials other than testimony expressed by the existence of the Corinthian church. Certainly, a translation cannot be regarded as literal if it has a meaning different than the original or unnecessarily introduces an ambiguity. I call this for the NRSV.
Col 2:13	The NRSV includes the kai which the NASB removes for readability purposes. But the NRSV inserts “God” where it does not actually appear in the text. This is offset by the translational note, however. Although this is contextually correct, it does not accurately reflect the text. I don’t personally have a preference for “transgressions” vs. “trespasses” for paraptoma. I’m calling this one a tie.	Since our ground rules were to count textual notes in our analysis, I can't count the extra "God" against the NRSV. For the reasons observed by Rick, I thus weigh the factors towards the NRSV.
Col 3:13	The NASB does a better job of keeping the particples in place, which the NRSV has altered to become simple imperatives. "bearing" in the NASB captures the participle anechomenoi much better than "Bear" in the NRSV just the same as "forgiving" is a closer equivalent to charizomenoi than "forgive." The NASB fails to capture the conditional ean which the NRSV does represent with "if." However, the last phrase in the original, houtos kai humeis is literally represented in the NASB's "so also should you" as opposed to the NRSV's "so you also must forgive." Thus, overwhelmingly, this verse goes to the NASB.	I agree, the NASB95 is more literal here.
1 Tim 6:6	This verse is part of the same sentence as the previous verse (following NA27). The NRSV translators chose to create a break and make a new sentence as opposed to the NASB which follows the structure set in the NA27. Should I even point out that the NRSV begins the verse using a pronoun that lacks an antecedent? The phrase oudeis anthropon would literally be "no one of humans." Neither version chooses to translate this phrase literally. The NASB chooses "no man" while the NRSV chooses "no one," each opting to ignore half the phrase. Of course, neither translation can be faulted as an actual literal translation would prove awkward in English. All that to say, I'm calling this verse a tie (in spite of the NRSV's questionable grammar). The NASB follows the sentence structure better, but the NRSV includes the conditional.	I'm not sure I understand your point about the NRSV's "he" lacking an antecedent -- certainly it is present in the preceding verses. However, I'll go along with your calling it a tie.
Clarification:	I was referring to the NRSV's starting the sentence with it, a pronoun, actually referring to the he that comes after it--which by defintion can hardly be an antecedent to the pronoun. This is hardly good prose, but it didn't affect my scoring for that verse.	That's not ungrammatical, just awkward -- the "it" matches with the "who" clause. The NASB95 uses this sentence structure in its translation of Daniel 2:21, for example. However, the NRSV is not very faithful here to the Greek.
Heb 10:9	There's not much to functionally distinguish between the versions in this verse. However, based on the theological context of the larger passage, I like the NRSV's use of "abolishes" for anairei than the NASB's "takes away." So, I give this verse to the NRSV.	I disagree, and call this for the NASB95 -- largely because of the footnote which more accurately reflects the tense.
Heb 10:19	I have never liked the NRSV's use of "friends" for adelphoi. In my opinion "friends" loses the familial aspect of the word in Greek. I don't know why the translators did this sometimes because in other places such as Rom 1:13, "brothers and sisters" is used which is a perfectly valid translation. I don't think "holy place" vs. "sanctuary" is an issue for hagion since both mean the same thing. Literally the verse reads "the entrance into the holies," but neither version translates it this way. Tie.	I also count this as a tie -- "sanctuary" is closer to the Greek, but so is brethren.
James 2:8	I'm giving this to the NASB for the following reasons: (1) the NASB follows the word order more closely than the NRSV, (2) the NASB translates Ei mentoi whereas the NRSV does not, and (3) the NASB provides an alternate translation and the NRSV does not.	I agree, this goes to the NASB95.
James 2:9	Umm... tie.	This is very close -- the difference is between "commit" and "are committing". Normally, I would say that "are committing" is closer, but the later translation of "are convicted" rather than "are in the state of conviction" (which doesn't sound very good in English) presents a problem. Both egarzesthe and elenchomenoi are present tense in the Greek, but I am not sure how to translate this into English using only present tense verbs. The Vulgate captures this with si autem personas accipitis, peccatum operamini, redarguti a lege quasi transgressores but in English something has to give. Given that, I think the NASB95 and NRSV are both approximately close, so I agree this is a tie.
Final Comments:	Too bad we didn't have any verses from Revelation. My comments will be very brief. The fact that the NASB is more literal than the NRSV is certainly no surprise to me. I like the literalness of the NASB for personal study, but it is no longer a translation I would use for public reading. This is not so of the NRSV, which in my opinion is the most readable of all Tyndale tradition translations. Claims are made that the ESV is more readable than the NASB, but I don't buy it, simply because the ESV is not a consistent translation regarding issues like readability. I will say this, however: our little exercise here has renewed my appreciation for the NRSV. I have not used it much in the last few years, but it is not deserving of the neglect I've given it. Although I prefer the NASB for a literal Tyndale translation, and a version like the TNIV or even NLT for public reading, the NRSV has its place somewhere in between. Thank you, Larry, for suggesting this comparison. I would be interested in comparing some other translations. Next on my plate is the NLT vs. CEV comparison with Lingamish, but after that perhaps we could do an NRSV vs. ESV comparison. Now that would be interesting.	(a) It was interesting to me that when we chose verses at random, small textual issues dominated those that gain the most headlines: gender, "Christianized" readings of the Hebrew, etc. (b) I was disappointed with the great differences in the philosophy of how the Hebrew and Greek were translated. In general, the Hebrew received less attention. Roughly speaking, the Hebrew Scriptures are about three times the length of the Greek (ignoring the Deuterocanonicals for a moment), and it appears to me that translation teams do not proportionally divide their efforts. (c) The difference in literalness between the two translations is not that great. By Rick's count, the NASB95 was more literal only half of the time, while the NRSV tied or was more literal the other half of the time. My count was similar -- with the NASB95 being more literal 42% of the time, with the remainder having a tie or the NRSV being more literal. (d) While this exercise increased my respect for the NASB95, I still think the results are close enough for other factors to be considered in choosing a literal translation: availability of desired editions (e.g., wide margin editions [where the NASB95 has the advantage], academic study editions [where the NRSV has the advantage]), ecumenical focus [NRSV], conservative interpretation [NASB95], availability of deuterocanonicals [NRSV]. (e) Given that the NASB95 and NRSV are relatively literal translations, it is a pity that there aren't more diglots or other original language resources available. To the best of my knowledge, there is no joint edition with the Hebrew. The Deuterocanon has the Parallel Apocryhpa (with the Greek and NRSV), and there are some interlinear editions of the New Testament with the NASB or NRSV as well the convenient, but out of print, Precise Parallel New Testament with the NASB, NRSV, Greek, and five other English translations. (f) I think our method for evaluation was far better than the typical bible comparisons found on the web where only certain "hot button" verses are compared. While the latter allow charges of heresy and bias to be thrown around, I think the method we used gives a better picture overall. I understand that Rick and David Ker will begin a comparison of the CEV and NLT. I don't spend a lot of time with these versions, so I'm looking forward to seeing their insights.
Cumulative Scores:	Torah: 1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB95) - 3 (tie) Nevi'im: 4 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 2 (tie) Kethuvim: 1 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 5 (tie) Gospels & Acts: 1 (NRSV) - 7 (NASB) - 2 (tie) Epistles & Rev: 2 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB) - 4 (tie) Total: 9 (NRSV) - 25 (NASB95) - 16 (tie)	Torah: 2 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 4 (tie) Nevi'im 5 (NRSV) - 3 (NASB85) - 2 (tie) Kethuvim: 2 (NRSV) - 5 (NASB) - 3 (tie) Gospels & Acts: 1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB) - 3 (tie) Epistles & Rev: 4 (NRSV) - 3 (NASB) - 3 (tie) Total: 14 (NRSV) - 21 (NASB95) - 15 (tie)

Completing the Boxed Set:
NASB vs. NRSV
NASB vs. NRSV Round 1: Torah
NASB vs. NRSV Round 2: Nevi'im
NASB vs. NRSV Round 3: Kethuvim
NASB vs. NRSV Round 4: Gospels & Acts
Comments where these discussions were taking place

Tags: NASB, NRSV

As a reminder, we are analyzing which translation is more literal, not which translation is more accurate. In my opinion the two are not always the same; otherwise, we should all use Young's Literal Translation as our primary Bible version.

Reference	Larry's Evaluation	Rick's Evaluation
Matt 13:37	The NASB95 alone translated "de." (Isn't it inconsistent for it to translate "de" but not translate initial vav's in the Hebrew?). Neither version full translates apokritheis eipen. The translation of the KJV is more literal here "He answered and said ...." although it immediately deviates after then because of its use of the TR. Nonetheless, I regard apokritheis as the more important term here, especially as it connects the explanation of the parable to the question of the disciples in the previous verse. So the NASB95 gets the nod for translating "de" but the NRSV has a better translation of "apokritheis eipen" -- tie.	This is a close call. You're right about the deficiencies of both in regard to apokritheis eipen, but both translations made a good call by stripping down what amounts to a redundancy in English. I want to call it a tie as well, but in my opinion, the NASB's translation of de makes it (ever so) slightly more literal than the NRSV. So I'm giving it to the NASB, but BARELY.
Matt 21:27	Well, here the NASB95 translates both words apokrithentes and eipan, so it is more literal, and translates kai consistently in the verse.	Agreed: NASB.
Matt 23:33	The NASB95 (in a footnote) captures the subjunctive in phygete and also finds two one word translations of kriseos. It is more literal.	I agree with your analysis and would add that "sentence of hell" better captures the genitive construction of kriseos tes geennes. NASB wins here.
Mark 8:16	Translating deilogizonto as "said" does not do it justice. On the other hand, why does the NASB95 add the completely unhelpful "began". The NRSV makes this a direct quote, although tries to make up for its previous mistranslation of deilogizonto by inserting, out of thin air, "It is because" and changes echousin to first person plural. There is no contest here. The NASB95 is far more literal.	I agree with the unnecessary additions of the NASB. But like you, overall, I see the NASB as more literal here.
Luke 8:32	Both versions are commendably literal in translating this verse. The NRSV moves up hillside here, but the change is minor. The NASB95 translates "there" twice here, one appears to be from "ekei" but I cannot find from whence it obtained the second "there". I'm calling this one for the NRSV.	I believe the second use of "there" in the NASB is the actual translation of ekei. The first is merely part of the translation into good English. However, the NRSV found a way to keep this literal without it, so I, too, give the nod to the NRSV, but it's a very slight nod.
Luke 18:29	Other than capitalization (not an issue in original manuscript Greek) and "say to" versus "tell", these are identical. Tie.	Agreed. Tie.
Luke 21:7	There is no attempt here to represent the de, but the NASB95 does separately translate the Eperotesan & legontes, pote & oun and more accurately translates the single word (out of context) hotan. On the other hand, it adds an interpolated "things." I give a slight nod to the NASB95.	I agree that the NASB is more literal, but I feel it is a good bit more literal than a simple slight nod. Regardless, NASB gets this verse.
John 3:28	If one includes alternatives, the NRSV and NASB95 are essentially the same here -- it is a tie. I'm not sure why the NRSV and NASB95 put in the footnotes they did given the later use in John 4:25. (Off topic: did other viewers notice how horrible the Aramaic pronunciation was in Gibson's Passion of the Christ? For example, the High Priest pronounces "messiah", repeatedly, in mixed up Hebrew and Aramaic: meshiaha.)	I agree to the tie. I agree that "having gone before" would be a more literal translation than either option in the NASB or NRSV. As to the off-topic question, I didn't notice. However I remember when I saw the movie wondering how mangled the pronunciations were in general with so many non-Aramaic speaking actors. After viewing it at the theater, I've never gone back to watch it on DVD. And I'm not sure I ever will. It's a difficult movie to watch.
Acts 20:13	Here the NASB95 translates the "de", so I don't understand its translation philosophy for Greek -- it appears inconsistent to me. There is a substantial difference in the translation of proelthontes. Since this is an aorist participle, wouldn't the literal translation be "having gone before"? Perhaps the translations intend to capture this by using "ahead", but that seems an inadequate to me. I can't make up my mind which of the verb forms used "going" or "went" is close to "having gone before" -- neither seems particularly accurate to me. In this case, I'd call it for the NASB95 [purely on the basis of having translated the "de"], but neither is as literal as the KJV.	Agreed. The NASB is more literal.
Acts 28:23	Taxamenoi is another aorist participle, so I would translate it "Having set in order." The NASB95 translates ekitheto diamartyromenos as "explaining [to them] by solemnly testifying" while the NRSV opts for "explained the matter" Of course the middle voice doesn't exist in English, so an exact translation is impossible; the NASB95 captures the notion of testifying and adds "solemnly" (which does not capture the clear sense of thoroughness that context demands here, but which is literal enough.) So I call this for the NASB95.	Another agreement for the NASB.
Additional Comments:	A blow-out for the NASB95 I'd like to make some additional comments here. The NASB95 has a decidedly different character in translating the Greek Scriptures than the Hebrew Scriptures; it hews much closer to the text and shows greater care in translation. At the same time, it is neither as literal as the KJV was to the Textus Receptus and certainly is not as elegant as the KJV. The NRSV also changed character in the Greek Scriptures -- it almost adopted an "easy reading" character I identify more closely with the NIV. What accounts for this difference? I have some preliminary speculation. For the NRSV, perhaps because the Gospels and Acts is more straightforward than the more alien, ancient, and ambiguous language of the Hebrew Scriptures, the translators felt more comfortable putting the Scriptures in plainer language -- they didn't think they would go astray so easily. For the NASB95, given that the Greek Scriptures are more important to their audience than the Hebrew Scriptures, I simply think they devoted more time to them. I must say that in reading these verses, I am more impressed than ever with the achievement of the KJV (and Tyndale), which manages to present both Hebraized English and relatively literal Greek while maintaining a consistent tone (perhaps too consistent, since the original differs so greatly in tone) and also maintaining elegance and also using (for its period) simplified English.	Larry, in regard to your final thoughts on this section, I think we are in agreement that both translation committees seemed to have taken more care in their translations of the New Testament. This might explain my earlier comment that analyzing these verses seemed easier than the previous ones in the OT, and I don't think it was simply the fact that my Greek is (much) better than my Hebrew. The difference in character between the testaments in these translations may just be another instance of a long standing tradition of slighting the Old Testament. At some point, it might be interesting to do a similar analysis, although obviously not on literalness, with a translation like the NLT. I know that one of my former OT committee members, Daniel I. Block, was very influential in the translation of the NLT OT, and much of the changes between the NLT1 and NLT2 I woul guess came at his insistence. Regarding the nature of the NRSV NT that you mentioned, I had always thought of the NRSV as being a bit more in flavor like the NIV, and these verses certainly seem to demonstrate. I can only guess that my experience with the NRSV (primarily in my M.Div years) was rooted more in the NT than the Old (see, there's that bias again).
Cumulative Scores:	Torah: 2 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 4 (tie) Nevi'im 5 (NRSV) - 3 (NASB85) - 2 (tie) Kethuvim: 2 (NRSV) - 5 (NASB) - 3 (tie) Gospels & Acts: 1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB) - 3 (tie) Total: 10 (NRSV) - 18 (NASB95) - 12 (tie)	Torah: 1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB95) - 3 (tie) Nevi'im: 4 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 2 (tie) Kethuvim: 1 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 5 (tie) Gospels & Acts: 1 (NRSV) - 7 (NASB) - 2 (tie) Total: 7 (NRSV) - 21 (NASB95) - 12 (tie)

To read more click the following links:
NASB vs. NRSV
NASB vs. NRSV Round 1: Torah
NASB vs. NRSV Round 2: Nevi'im
NASB vs. NRSV Round 3: Kethuvim
Comments where these discussions are taking place

Tags: NASB, NRSV

Harper San Francisco, an imprint of Harper Collins Publishers has launched a new NRSV-centric website, NRSV.net.

A press release on the site states:

February 2007—HarperSanFrancisco, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, is now the publishing home of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The NRSV is widely recognized as one of the world’s finest translation of the scriptures available in English.
...
After many years of allowing various publishers to produce versions of the NRSV, the National Council of Churches of Christ recognized the need for a single lead publisher to direct the NRSV publishing program in a very competitive marketplace and selected HarperSanFrancisco to be the exclusive licensor of the NRSV. HarperSanFrancisco and the NCCC anticipate a new era of growth for the NRSV.

I have to admit this is a bit surprising. A year ago I would have predicted a continued fade out on the almost two-decade-old NRSV. I had confirmed from a source at a major Bible publisher a few months back that sales of the NRSV had fallen to near negligible numbers. But a number of new editions, such as the Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bible, and the NRSV's continued use as the academic translation of choice in mostly non-Evangelical circles, have managed to keep the NRSV alive. The translation has not appeared on the CBA translation best seller list in a number of years, but CBA sales focus solely on member stores which don't always stock NRSV offerings.

In addition to the new website, Harper Collins has released new editions of the NRSV: the NRSV Standard Bible, the NRSV Go-Anywhere Bible, and a forthcoming NRSV XL Bible.

The website itself has a number of interesting features including a podcast page! Podcast #1 features a discussion by Walter Harrelson on the NRSV. There is also a page of endorsements with quite an eclectic mix from the likes of Richard Foster to Anne Rice (yes, that Ann Rice). Some of the endorsers, such as Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan, and Bart Ehrman make this Evangelical feel a bit squeamish, but the NRSV publishers may no longer see Evangelicals as a market with potential (although there is a new NRSV advertisement in Christianity Today).

I don't use the NRSV as much as I used to. It was the recommended translation of choice when I was pursuing my M.Div in the early nineties at a then-less-conservative-than-now SBTS. I used it a good bit at that time. Conservatives tend to often look at the NRSV with suspicion, but in general, I find that to be unfair. Overall, I find the NRSV to be a fairly solid translation (even if I don't use it that much anymore) which had the late Bruce Metzger at its helm, and I tend to respect and trust Metzger quite a bit. The NRSV is certainly a more consistent and readable update to the RSV than the ESV (which in my opinion didn't go far enough). The Conservative/Evangelical Christian community did an about face on the NRSV at some point. My first copy of the translation was printed by the Southern Baptist Holman Bible Publishers, although they don't print any editions anymore. And one Saturday afternoon when I have some time, I'm going to go to the library and wade through the back issues of Christianity Today to find the launch ads that had quite a few Evangelical endorsements at the time of the NRSV's release. When I find it, I'll list their names here.

In the "I-can't-help-but-say-something" department: Since Harper Bibles and Zondervan are both imprints of Harper Collins, perhaps now the marketing department will focus on updating the extremely neglected TNIV.com which has not seen even a complete product listing update in over a year.

Tags: NRSV

By round three, there's not much need for introduction. If you're just arriving and not sure what this is, be sure to read the earlier entries listed at the bottom of this post.

One note of difference from previous posts, though. I have switched myself to the left column and Larry to the right column for this post since I was able to write my analysis first this time.

Reference	Rick's Evaluation	Larry's Evaluation
Psalm 22:26	It's interesting that the NASB renders ‘anaw "afflicted" and the NRSV, "poor" and both offer the other's rendering as an alternate translation. Either word is suitable and part of the glosses included in most Hebrew lexicons. I also found it interesting that the NRSV retains the use of "shall" while the NASB changed its wording to "will" in the 1995 update. These words are used interchangeably in today's vocabulary and any traditional distinction is ignored. Finally, I was about to call this one a tie, when I noticed that the 2nd person plural suffix added to levav is better reflected in the NRSV's "your hearts" than in the NASB's "your heart." So, in light of that, I'll give the nod to the NRSV as being more literal.	I can't agree with you here on the disappearance of the shall/will distinction -- it is still in the (grammar) books, after all. However, more on topic: I also don't completely agree with you on "your hearts". This is one of those phrases that is easily translated into English -- chem is indicating that your is masculine plural but the root levav is actually singular. Thus the BDB translates it as "you yourselves." There is a deeper problem here. There is an ambiguity in the Hebrew text. Who is the subject of your this line? One possibility is that it is the Deity, and "chem" is being used as a royal identifier (or, a Messianic Christian interpretation that views this another triune reference.) The NASB95 translation allows this ambiguity while the NRSV seems to preclude it. For this reason, I would disagree with you and say the NASB95 is more literal here, since it preserves the ambiguity.
Psalm 37:6	I don't feel much detail is needed here, but Larry can challenge me on this if he wants to. Although I would feel that the NRSV brings out the meaning of the verse more clearly, the NASB gives a much more literal, word-for-word translation. And since that is what we are judging on, I claim the NASB to be more literal.	I don't understand why both the NRSV and NASB95 change the word order between k'or and tzidkecha. Nonetheless, I agree that the wording of the NASB95 is more literal here.
Psalm 104:34	Neither one of these verses translate ‘arav literally as "sweet," although "pleasing" captures the meaning of the idiom for English speaking audiences. The NASB attempts to reflect the extra pronoun ’anokhi [literally, "I"] in the phrase "as for me." There's no easy way to do this because samach (I [will] rejoice) is also first person singular and can create an unnecessary redundancy in English. However, it is in the Hebrew for added emphasis and since the NASB attempts to refelct this (albeit awkwardly) and the NRSV does not, I have to claim that the NASB is more literal. Larry may decide to challenge this.	Anokhi is an interesting word, in that it carries special emphasis; famously at the start of the Ten Commandments. Nonetheless, I don't think that the NASB95, although it tries to reflect this emphasis, is a more literal translation -- in fact, it is just odd to me: "as for me" suggests a comparison -- suggesting the NASB95 is translating Anokhi in opposition to the Lord. But this is Hebrew poetry and the parallel structure is not in opposition but in sympathy. Thus, the reading of the NASB95 is opposite to what the psalmist is saying here. I'm not so sure that this is a case of the NASB95 not being literal as it is of the NASB95 simply being wrong. Even worse, the introduction of the extra phrase "as for me", even if it is not interpreted as being in opposition, breaks the symmetry of the poem. For this reason, I regard the NRSV as more literal.
Psalm 118:8	This may be the first verse in which we've truly had to wrestle with the NRSV's inclusive language [i.e. "mortals" as opposed to "man"]. Any regular reader of this blog knows that I am not opposed to inclusive language as it often better communicates the meaning of the original message. This is case in point where I have offered anecdotal evidence in the past that masculine universals do not always communicate well in today's culture. So, on one hand, I have no problem with the NRSV's use of "in mortals" for ba’adam as opposed to the NASB's "in man." However, in terms of literalness, the word "man" is singular (even if representing the plural) like the Hebrew singular absolute, while mortals is plural. Maybe this is splitting hairs, though. In which case, I'll give the nod to the NASB based on the fact that "trust" is word-for-word more literal for batach than the NRSV's "put confidence." So I say the NASB is more literal, but if it's any consolation, I like the NRSV's wording here better.	Had the NRSV included a footnote here, I would have excused the introduction of the plural mortals. (By the way, this is not the first time we've dealt with this -- there is a fathers/ancestors dichotomy in both Deut 13:6 and Isa 64:11 but here it is more intrusive, because of the switch to a plural.) I give the nod to the NASB95.
Prov 6:33	The NASB reflects the word order of the Hebrew in the opening line more closely. However, I've already stated in this series analysis that I don't find fault in translators shifting the verb for better English translation. Therefore, I call this verse a tie.	It is true that the NASB95 better reflects word order here, but I do not understand how the NASB95 derived "not be blotted out" from "lo timacheh". The root M-CH-H is normally translated as wipe (this is particular clear in 2 Kings 21:13) -- and this particular clear in cases of writing (e.g. Moses name in Exodus 32:32-33). The "blot out" sense listed in BDB, for example, is not found in HALOT -- it means in the instances used as "annihilate." I this this is a case where the Evangelical leanings of the NASB95 translators show all too clearly; the translators are perhaps trying to steer the reader away from the metaphor of "washing" sin away. I could call this a draw (word order versus word choice), but I think the word choice here is so misleading that I will call this one for the NRSV.
Job 36:5	These translations are identical except for the way each translates the first Hebrew word, hen. Generally, this is translated "behold" as in the NASB, but according to the BDB, it can be seen as a hypothetical participle propounding a possibility. I'm under the assumption that this is what the NRSV translators had in mind when they rendered hen as "Surely." Therefore, I call this verse a tie.	If I were going to make the rules all over again, I would exclude verses from Job on the basis that the meaning of the text is so unclear in so many places. This verse is a perfect example -- while the words in this verse are clear enough, it has an ambiguous reading: Behold God is mighty and rejecteth not; He is mighty in strength of understanding. Or as the New American Bible translates it: Behold, God rejects the obstinate in heart; he preserves not the life of the wicked. Or as the New Jerusalem Bible translates: God does not reject anyone whose heart is pure. [This appears to be following the Septuagint, but can be read into the Hebrew, i.e., Behold God is mighty but does not despise those with mighty, strong, understanding.] Or as the New English Bible translates: God, I say, repudiates the high and mighty. I must say that I am considerably annoyed at the way that both the NRSV and NASB95 confidently translate the text throughout the book. For lacking what I consider absolutely necessary footnotes here, I am calling this a tie.
Lam 3:59	Let me give my own literal reading for this verse: "You have seen, YHWH, my oppression / judge my judgment [shafeta mishpati]." This is very close, but despite word order on the part of either translation, the NASB is more literal in its use of fewer words in the first line. "Case" may also be more literal than "cause" for mishpat. Therefore, I consider the NASB slightly more literal.	I see your point here, but I was a little surprised you accept an archaic reading of obscure. Of course, I am compelled to accept it, so I agree that the NASB95 is superior here.
Dan 11:23	To me this is a difficult verse to put into English. Regardless, I am going to go for a tie because of the deficiencies of both translations. The NRSV completely leaves out any translation of we‘ala [reflected in the NASB's "and he will go up"], but I don't think the NASB's insertion of the italicised (i.e. added) "force of" is all that helpful or accurate.	I agree with your analysis, but weigh the factors differently, so I'm calling this for the NASB95.
Neh 8:14	The NRSV translates the initial vav that the NASB removed in the 1995 update for readability. And although it's another inclusive issue, I feel that "sons" in the NASB is more literal than "people" in the NRSV for bene. One vs. one creates another tie.	I'd like to point out the KJV uses "children of Israel" here. Gee, even the ESV uses "people of Israel" here. The problem is that bnei-yisrael is a single semantic unit and it everywhere means Israelites. (Semantic units are mistranslated if broken up -- one does not gain insight into "left bank" by translating "left" and "bank".) Indeed, the Rabbinic writings interpreted the commandment to live in a sukah) as binding on women. Now, one of the most silly aspects of the NASB95 is how it translates everywhere in Exodus 1, for example, bnei-yisrael as "sons of Israel" rather than Israelites. Strangely, though, the NASB95 translates yeled as "child" (twice) and in this case, yeled definitely meant a male, since it was Moses. [Perhaps this is an Evangelical choice, to echo a more famous phrase beginning "son of."] Other differences: The NRSV, as you note, translates the initial vav. But it adds an unnecessary "it" after "found". Neither version literally translates the "by the hand of Moses" -- which is particularly odd since the NASB95 went out of its way to translate "sons of Israel" in the same verse. Neither version shows particular fidelity to the text, and I'm calling this a tie.
1 Chron 6:24	Larry, we'll blame your randomizer for this verse. Tie.	Tie.
Cumulative Scores:	Torah: 1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB95) - 3 (tie) Nevi'im: 4 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 2 (tie) Kethuvim: 1 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 5 (tie) Total 6 (NRSV) - 14 (NASB95) - 10 (tie)	Torah: 2 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 4 (tie) Nevi'im: 5 (NRSV) - 3 (NASB85) - 2 (tie) Kethuvim: 2 (NRSV) - 5 (NASB) - 3 (tie) Total: 9 (NRSV) - 12 (NASB95) - 9 (tie)

To read more click the following links:
NASB vs. NRSV
NASB vs. NRSV Round 1: Torah
NASB vs. NRSV Round 2: Nevi'im
Comments where these discussions are taking place

Tags: NASB, NRSV

Welcome to Round Two of the literalness debate between the NASB and NRSV. If you're just tuning in, this comparison began when This Lamp reader and commenter, "Larry," challenged an earlier assertion of mine concerning the NASB's literalness. Larry challenged that the NRSV was just as literal as the NASB, if not more so and proposed a comparison of a number of randomly selected verses from Scripture.

The first round of verses from the Torah proved my original suggestion regarding the NASB. Surprisingly though (to me), this second round has proved much more even between the NASB and NRSV. Here are the results:

Reference	Larry's Evaluation	Rick's Evaluation
Josh 18:21	Bnei as "sons of" is captured in the NASB95 -- this is the more literal version here. [Why the NRSV didn't use Benjaminites here is not clear; much better is the NJPS: "And the towns of the tribe of the Benjaminites, by its clans, were: Jericho, Beth-hoglah, Emek-keziz."]	Larry, I am in agreement that Josh 18:21 is more literal in the NASB. Not only does the NRSV leave out sons, it also leaves out the “and” (for the Hebrew vav) before the last two cities listed. Although these aren’t necessary for good English and the NRSV reads better, the NASB is more word-for-word literal in this instance.
2 Sam 1:3	It is funny that the NASB95 insists on the word order "from where do you come" while filing to put "And said to him" first in the sentence or inverting "From the camp of Israel have I escaped." Both the NASB95, despite liberties with the text, retain the somewhat confusing "and he said to him." Still, the word order in both is unnecessarily confused compared with the original, so I am calling this a tie. Note the KJV is far more literal than both of these versions.	I’ll have to disagree here. I don’t see how awkward word order creates a tie. Plus, the NRSV does not reflect the initial vav of the verse (captured in the word “then” in the NASB), nor the vav that introduces the quotation. That makes at least two places where the NASB is more literal.
2 Kings 4:32	The NASB95 does translate v'hinei as behold, but why does it omit the "and"? Even worse, why does it put an unnecessary "and" before "laid on" which is not in the Hebrew "mat mushkav." In the KJV the "and" is correctly marked as an interpolated word. This could be a tie, but I think the NRSV is slightly more true to the Hebrew here.	Larry, I agree that neither is fully literal here, but I’ll opt for a tie because I don’t see how the NRSV is any more literal than the NASB. To pick up on a couple of your comments, I debated internally whether “lad” was more literal than “child” for na’ar. Although na’ar can mean "male" or "female" according to the context, here it is clearly male. Personally I prefer translating words like this according to the context of the gender, so I would prefer “lad” or perhaps better, “boy,” but I can’t fault the NRSV simply because I would have translated it differently. Technically, “child” is not incorrect. Also, I would guess that the reason “and” is added before “laid on” is because the verse literally reads “the boy was dead laid/lying on the bed.” A comma between dead and laid would have sufficed, but by the NASB’s own rules, “and” should have been in italics. So again, I’m going to call this a tie.
2 Kings 17:23	The NASB95's "carried away into exile" is more complex than the literal Hebrew and does not communicate the idea of golut from the simple word va-yigel. One might think that "spoke through" is more literal than "foretold", but the literal sense of diber is in both phrases. In this case, the NRSV is more literal.	I agree, the NRSV is closer to the Hebrew here.
Isa 24:15	The NASB95 gives the literal meaning of "east", but changes the word order rather dramatically, while the NRSV tracks it accurately. Nonetheless, the NRSV unnecessarily repeats the English word "glory/glorify" while it only appears once in the Hebrew. I'm calling this a tie, with neither version as literal as it could be. Note, that the KJV is far more literal here and superior from a literary perspective.	Larry, I don’t disagree with your general points about the rendering in these verses, and all things equal I would call it a tie as well. However, two issues make me lean the scales in the favor of the NASB. First, the NASB offers a more literal rendering of “region of light” in the notes in place of “east.” Second, in the second line, the NRSV duplicates the first line’s use of khvd by adding the word “glorify.” While this makes for smoother reading, it does not match the literalness of the NASB.
Isa 64:11	First, note that this is a place where the Hebrew and traditional Protestant bible have different verse numbering. I've used the Protestant numbering here. First we notice the gender difference, the NASB95 "fathers" and NRSV "ancestors" for "avoteinu." The NASB95 is more literal here, and I was a little surprised to see no footnote in the NRSV. The NASB95 puts "by" in italics, but somewhat unnecessarily, since a literal reading of lisrefat would be "for burning of" rather than "burned by." I will remark here that I find the NASB95's arbitrary use of italics somewhat disturbing -- it should only be used for words added to the English translation, but it seems to be rather inconsistently used for that purpose (many words added to the English translation are not italicized.) Both "our precious things" and "our pleasant places" are legitimate translations of machmadeinu and I don't find the ruin/ruins distinction significant here. So in this case, I count the NASB95 as more literal.	I’m in essential agreement here that the NASB is more literal. However, on a minor note, is “our pleasant places” a legitimate rendering for machmadeinu? I can’t find any similar gloss in the HALOT or the BDB unless I overlooked it.
Isa 66:11	These are very close. Both are using a modern interpretation of miziz which compares it with the Akkadian zizu or the Arabic zizat which means udder. However, kvodah is best translated as glorious, so the NRSV has a slight nod here.	I agree with the assessment that the NRSV is more literal, not only for what you mention, but also note that the NASB changes the singular shod to a plural [“breasts”].
Jer 31:39	Almost identical; the NRSV gets a slight nod for translating v' as "and".	Agreed, NRSV is slightly more literal for translating the two instances of the Hebrew vav.
Ezek 43:15	Ignoring the rather odd alternative translation proposed by the NASB95 in the footnotes, the major differences are the omission of the initial "and" and the interjection of the bridging phrases "shall be" and "shall" in the NASB95. The first is marked as added words (using italics), the second is not, although I'm not convinced this is necessary. Similar to the last verse considered, the NRSV gets the nod solely for translating the initial v'. However, if Rick calls these ties, I'll understand completely.	No, I won’t call this a tie. As in the last instance, the NRSV is more literal.
Jon 4:5	Sukah is normally translated as "booth", but "shelter" is equally valid. I would have chosen "booth" to remind the reader of the connection with the Festival of Booths, but I regard the variation as insignificant. "Ad asher" is best translated as "till", so the NASB95 gets a slight nod here. Strangely, in this case, the NRSV translates the v' in vaya'as but not in vayeshev, while the NASB95 does the opposite.	I will agree to the tie only because the NASB offers a literal translation of city in the footnotes. Otherwise, in response to the issues you’ve already mentioned, I would have been willing to give the nod of literalness to the NRSV. Translating both instances of 'ir creates an odd-sounding redundancy in English, but it is more literal. But nevertheless, I’ll agree to a tie; although again, I almost gave this to the NRSV.
Cumulative Scores:	Torah: 2 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 4 (tie) Nevi'im 5 (NRSV) - 3 (NASB85) - 2 (tie) Total 7 (NRSV) - 7 (NASB95) - 6 (tie)	Torah: 1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB95) - 3 (tie) Nevi'im: 4 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 2 (tie) Total: 5 (NRSV) - 10 (NASB95) - 5 (tie)

To read more click the following links:
NASB vs. NRSV
NASB vs. NRSV Round 1: Torah
Comments where these discussions are taking place

Tags: NASB, NRSV

My post, "TNIV More Literal than the NASB?" from about a week ago prompted This Lamp reader "Larry" to challenge the NASB's reputation for literalness. In fact, Larry suggested that one of his favorite translations, the NRSV might be more literal, especially if we were to count the alternate literal translations that are sometimes provided in the NRSV. He proposed that we examine ten randomly chosen verses from five sections of the Bible to see which of the two translations were more literal. The results from the first section is below.

Now, I should point out a couple of things. Although we do discuss accuracy of translation, that is not what we are trying to determine. We are strictly attempting to determine which translation was more literal in its rendering of the original text. Having used both translations quite a bit in the past, I am still confident that the NASB is much more literal than the NRSV, but we'll let the chips fall where they may. Further, I've written before that literal is not always to be equated with accuracy. I've already stopped using the NASB in public because of its literalness. I would think that if the NRSV was more literal, that would not really be a good thing.

Our evaluations follow below. Larry began tackling this much sooner than I had opportunity, so although I made my evaluations without his findings in front of me, my responses are in reaction to what he had already posted. You can read our dialogue in the comments of the post NASB vs. NRSV to see the original context for what is below including Larry's rebuttal to my evaluation of Deut 1:34.

Reference	Larry's Evaluation	Rick's Evaluation
Gen 2:8	The NASB95 and NRSV are quite close, but have these differences: The NRSV correctly includes the initial vav ["and"] and the NASB does not. The NRSV keeps together the phrase gan b'ayden ["garden in eden"] and adds afterwards adds miqedem ["in the east"] so in this verse, the NRSV is more literal	Larry, you are right that these verses are very close. The NRSV does retain the initial vav which is very interesting considering most of these were removed in the 1995 revision for sake of readability (along with unnecessary kai/and in Mark’s Gospel, demonstrating that he might’ve been writing in Greek, but he was thinking in Hebrew/Aramaic). I’d be interested to know how many of these are retained in the NRSV vs. the NASB. You’re also right that the word order is closer in the NRSV than the NASB, which I had to admit was surprising when I saw your initial analysis. I concur that the NRSV is more literal in Genesis 2:8.
Ex 18:6	The Hebrew begins vayomer ["and when one told"]. In this case, the NASB95's footnote slightly more correct (although not as literal as it could be.) Also the final imah ["with her"] is only in the NASB95. So in this case, the NASB95 is more literal.	Again, in agreement here. It’s the NASB’s translation of the final phrase ‘immah/with her that pushes it to being slightly more literal. Although the NRSV’s elimination of this unnecessary phrase (in English) certainly makes it more readable.
Ex 30:26	In this case, only one word distinguishes the NASB95 and NRSV. The word, ha-edut, is given three english definitions by the NRSV (which also gives the original Hebrew word). One of the NRSV's translation words is the one used by the NASB95. In this case, I regard the NASB95 and NRSV as exactly equally literal.	Agreed that both are equally literal. The NRSV’s note is more helpful though. I think we’d both agree that the NRSV has better notes that most current English translations.
Ex 38:25	Once again, the NRSV and the NASB95 are very close. NRSV has "of", NASB has "from" -- both are valid interpretations of the Hebrew. NRSV has "measured by" and NASB95 has "according to" -- in both cases for the b' in b'sheqel haqodesh. I think that both are equally valid. However, "mustering" is indeed the more literal translation, and since we are counting footnotes, in this case, I must say that the NASB95 is slightly more literal.	Again agreed that the NASB is more literal here, but only slightly so. On an interesting stylistic note, I find it odd that the numbers are spelled out in the NRSV. When I teach my writing classes at IWU, the general rule I teach is to spell out numbers ten or less and use numerals for anything greater because this is easier to read. I generally find the NRSV to be an easier read than the NASB, and I’m surprised to notice for the first time how large numbers are presented.
Lev 1:7	The only difference his "priest Aaron" vs. "Aaron the priest". Here, Aaron the priest better tracks "Aharon ha-kohen" so the NASB95 is more literal.	Agreed that the NASB is more literal, but barely and insignificantly so.
Num 8:24	Here, both verses are more literal in parts. For the NASB95, "he" correctly captures the singular in "yabo" and also "and upward" is found in the Hebrew. But the word order "do duty in the service" is more correct than "perform service in the work" [ "tsava bavodat"] So, I am calling this a tie.	For the first time, I am going to disagree with your evaluation. Although I do agree with the two different literal phrasings in each translation, I would suggest that “enter” for the Hebrew bo’ is more literal than the NRSV’s “begin.” Therefore, I would suggest that cumulative with the other issues you point out, the NASB is more literal.
Num 10:9	The NRSV and NASB95 are almost identical in this case, but both are in error, because the initial v'chi tavo'u milchmah is ambiguous and unclear (I would have translated it when you are at war.) So this is a tie, with both versions falling short.	I’ll hesitantly side with you that we have a tie here. I wonder though, aside from literalness if “attacks” in the NASB is not a better rendering than “oppresses” for tzrr. If I’m reading the HALOT correctly, warfare is in mind in this word, not the less specific idea of oppression. I want to side with the NASB for being more literal here, but I’m not 100% decided, so therefore I’ll go with a tie.
Num 25:15	The NASB95 translates "umot beit av" literally here, so the NASB95 is more literal.	The NASB is by far more literal here, including it’s use of footnotes. So we are in agreement here.
Deut 1:34	Both the NRSV and NASB95 fail to accurately capture "et qol divreichem." NASB95 attempts to caputre this with "the sound of your words" but sound is not quite right here. NRSV simply translates "your words" but fails to capture the intensifier with the meaning "your loud words" or "your purposeful words." The NASB95 translates v'yishava as "and took an oath" while the NRSV's "and he swore" -- here, clearly, the NRSV finds a single word solution and accurately captures the meaning. However, the NRSV fails to translate the final le'omor. So in this case, we have another tie -- neither version is particularly literal.	Larry, I don’t see how you can say we have a tie here. Et qol divreichem is literally “the sound/voice of your words” so the NASB’s rendering is quite literal—and more so than the NRSV--even if it doesn’t carry the meaning completely across. But that shouldn’t matter because we’re talking about literalness in this comparison, not accuracy of meaning. If we’re going to do that, we stepping into dynamic equivalency, which I have no problem with, but that wasn’t the purpose of this comparison. Further, the NASB renders le’mor as “saying,” which although redundant in English is literal to the Hebrew text. The NASB is undoubtedly more literal in this verse to me. So we disagree here.
Deut 13:6	The NASB95 re-arranges the verse, putting entices in the middle; the NRSV also slightly re-arranges the verse putting secretly near the front. But the NASB95, by moving the first word, does the most violence to the verse. Also, the NRSV here gives more literal textual variants. So I would say this is close, but the NRSV is slightly more literal. Note that Fox's translation is far more literal here (actually, this entire analysis has clearly indicated to me that both the NASB95 and NRSV fall short in contrast with Fox, which closely tracks the Hebrew): When he allures you, your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife of your bosom or your neighbor who is (one) like your (very) self in secret, saying: Let us go, let us serve other gods—whom you have not known, you and your fathers,	I’m going to call this a tie. Although I would decidedly say that the translation from Fox is more literal, I don’t see any harm in the NASB’s moving the first verb which is commonly done in translations because word order in Hebrew doesn’t always make sense in English. The textual variant provided by the NRSV doesn’t have anything to do with the way the text has been rendered. As I said, I’m calling this one a tie, so we disagree here.
Cumulative Score:	2 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 4 (tie)	1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB95) - 3 (tie)

So...round one goes to NASB.

Tags: NASB, NRSV

In the comments of a previous post, regular This Lamp commenter, "Larry" has challenged my assertion that the NASB is more literal than the NRSV. He has proposed that we examine a number of selections to determine which of these two best embodies the literalness of the Tyndale tradition. His suggested method is interesting in and of itself:

We use the most current versions of the NRSV and NASB (in particular, the 1995 edition of the latter). Our comparison is the standard Masoretic text and the NA27. For the purposes of this comparison, we do not consider the apparatuses of the original text. We strive to use the simplest "plain meaning" of the source text, for example, translating idioms literally rather than by meaning. We do not consider poetic issues such as prosody, rhythm, alliteration, multiple meanings but only plain meaning. If there is some point which calls for theological interpretation, we use the simplest and most straightforward interpretation.

We use a random number generator to pick 10 verses each at random from each of the following sections of the Bible, for a total of 50 verses:

Torah
Nevi'im
Kethuvim
Gospels+Acts
Epistles+Revelation

We count footnotes in the translation if they include some indication of "literal meaning" or "Hebrew original" etc. We evaluate the resulting 50 verses to see if the NASB or NRSV are equivalent in their degree of literal, if one translation is more literal than the other, or if they are incomparable for some reason (for example, they are both literal but in different parts of the verse). If we agree, we count it as a point, if we disagree, we briefly explain why. If either of us feels the random selection of verses was not representative, we draw additional verses from the section(s) in question. At the end, we see if we have a general consensus or not.

I'm sure the results will be very interesting, although I've already stopped using the NASB publicly because of its literalness. If the NRSV were to prove even more literal, I don't think that would be a positive aspect for it. But I stand behind my initial statement. I've used the NASB since 1980 and the NRSV was the primary translation I used in my M.Div papers from 1991 to 1994. The NASB is definitely more literal as a whole.

Tags: NASB, NRSV

Some of you might be interested in a good deal I came across today on first edition Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bibles with Deuterocanonicals. New editions are expected by year's end and while supplies last on the first edition, you can get them for half price at $19.99 (regularly $39.95).

This is a hardcover Bible published by HarperCollins featuring the NRSV text. As far as I know, the special half price is available only at the Renovaré website.

If you aren't familiar with Renovaré, be sure to check out their website. If you aren't familiar with the Spiritual Formation Bible, below is the description from the HarperCollins site:

Many people are looking for a fresh way to read the Bible, not as a text to be mastered, but as a story to enter into and a lifestyle to pursue. In this unique Bible, the foremost names in Christian spirituality and biblical scholarship come together to provide a Bible that rediscovers Scripture as living text, rich with insights into how to live our lives more intimately with God.

Spearheaded by bestselling authors Richard J. Foster (Celebration of Discipline) and Dallas Willard (The Divine Conspiracy), The Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bible introduces the concept of the "with-God life," a model for seeing the whole of Scripture as the unfolding story of God's plan for our loving relationship with the Creator. This central theme weaves throughout the essays, introductions, notes, and exercises, powerfully revealing how God is present to his people today and throughout history.

Yet our relationship with God should not be passive. Concrete practices—Spiritual Disciplines—have been used throughout church history to guide disciples of Jesus. This Bible integrates the Spiritual Disciplines into the Christian life by showing how they are central to the Bible's teachings and stories. Abraham and Ruth, Moses and Deborah, Jesus and the disciples all provide amazing examples of the life-changing power of prayer, worship, fasting, celebration, and many other Spiritual Disciplines. Scripture thus becomes a primary means for the discovery, instruction, and practice of these disciplines as well as a tool for spiritual formation.

Combining the highest possible biblical scholarship with the deepest possible heart devotion, this new Bible project seeks to nourish inner transformation by unlocking and revealing the profound resources within Scripture for changing our hearts and characters and bringing them in line with what God wants for our lives. The Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bible will redefine what the Bible means for Christian discipleship.

This is a good price on a very unique Bible. And NO, I don't get a cut--I'm just passing along a good deal.

Tags: NRSV, Bible study