Worthy of Note 01/30/2008
Says Iyov:
So, with all that extra page space, there is plenty of room for making ample annotations. The paper is significantly thicker than typical Bible paper, so there is much less bleed through from a pen. And, I can add extra paper anytime one wants (in the fashion of Jonathan Edwards' Blank Bible). If I make a mistake, I can always remove the page and replace it with a photocopy from my bound edition of the NOAB. If I want to slip in an entire article, or a copy of a page in original languages -- there is no problem. It seems to me that this is the ultimate in flexibility.
I'm glad to see this finally released, although I doubt I'll personally buy one. Regardless, I've got a number of larger blog projects I'm working on, one of which is an update to last year's survey of wide-margin Bibles. I'm glad that I'll be able to include an entry for the NRSV this year.
But we find ourselves at a point in history when we've never had so many choices, and yet the options are mostly arrayed along a horizontal spectrum -- a thousand different flavors of the same basic thing. I'd like to see more vertical choices, and that might require a shift in perspective. Instead of speaking to end-users as consumers, we might have to start thinking of them as readers.
What is most significant in the post is Bertrand's five-point "Starting Points for Marketing High-End Bible Editions." I can only hope that publishers will pay attention.
My esteem for White dropped significantly a few years ago due to the way he handled a theological disagreement with another individual whom I respect very much. I felt his approach to the issue was uncharitable, far too public, and lacking in the kind of collegiality that should characterize Christian scholarship. Nevertheless, White is usually in natural form when he is engaged in formal debate. However, I often believe that White is rarely pitted in his debates against opponents who are equally skilled. At the very least, Ehrman should provide a worthy opponent to White and this is a subject in which both are well-versed.
Christianity Today has released its list of the "10 Most Redeeming Films of 2007." Some entries on the list may surprise you, but it's a very good list. I remember when we used to do more movie reviews and discussion around here.
Finally, in the I JUST DON'T GET IT DEPARTMENT: 2008 marks the 30th anniversary of the New International Version of the Bible. I've seen references on two other blogs (see here and here; oh, and also here) that Zondervan is planning a special wide-margin, high-end leather edition of the NIV Study Bible as one of the many ways that the NIV's 30th anniversary will be celebrated.
This is in spite of the fact that so many of us have asked for one decent wide-margin edition of the TNIV (the so-called TNIV Square Bible is flawed in three areas: (1) it's paper is too thin for annotations because it is a thinline, (2) the user doesn't have wide margin access to the inner column of text, and (3) the binding is subpar). If the TNIV is truly an improvement to the NIV (which I honestly believe it is), then why does Zondervan (and IBS, Cambridge, and Hodder) keep pushing the NIV and publishing new editions? If in ten years the TNIV turns out to be an also-ran translation, it will only be because publishers didn't know how to fully transition away from the NIV.
My suggestion for celebrating the NIV's 30 year anniversary? Retire it. (My apologies to everyone I just offended, including my friends at Zondervan.)
I would like to find simply ONE decent wide-margin, high quality (see Bertrand's post above for the meaning of high-quality) Bible in a contemporary 21st century translation (HCSB, NLTse, TNIV, or NET). I'm still writing down notes in my wide margin NASB95, but the first translation of those I've listed that is released in a single-column, non-thinline, wide-margin edition, I will make my primary translation for preaching and teaching for the next decade. You heard it here first.
Habakkuk 1:12--You or We?
I've seen you talk about both the NASB and the TNIV, both of which Ihave and I like both of them a lot. In my dialogues with Jewishpeople, they have asked me about Habakkuk 1:12 and I know that it istranslated differently depending on which translation you read from.I was wondering why certain translations use the Masoretic textversion and others don't.
This is a good question, and frankly, a difference in versions that I'd never noticed. To demonstrate the difference, consider the two translations mentioned above:
NASB |
TNIV |
Are You not from everlasting, [no note] |
LORD, are you not from everlasting? *An ancient Hebrew scribal tradition; Masoretic Text we. |
The TNIV makes a break with the Masoretic Text ([MT] the Hebrew clearly says we as does the Septuagint [LXX]!). The question is, Who or what is this ancient scribal tradition? At the time I received this email, I was away from the library, and didn't have the resources to look at the issue in depth. Of course I always have Accordance with me, but I've purposefully chosen at this point not to purchase commentary modules, so I was strictly dependent upon whatever reference resources I could find. Regarding the issue in Hab 1:12, I found two mentions.
First, I found a reference to the you/we issue in Hab 1:12 in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, in the context of an article on "Euphemism and Dysphemism in the Bible" by Marvin H. Pope. Pope makes no reservation in regard to his feelings on the correct reading: "In Hab 1:12, the assurance to God “You will not die” was changed to the patently absurd “We will not die,” to avoid even the thought that God could die."
Another resource I had in Accordance was the NET Bible, which is quickly becoming a first stop resource in regard to textual issues. The note in the NET for this verse states,
The MT reads, “we will not die,” but an ancient scribal tradition has “you [i.e., God] will not die.” This is preferred as a more difficult reading that can explain the rise of the other variant. Later scribes who copied the manuscripts did not want to associate the idea of death with God in any way, so they softened the statement to refer to humanity.
Okay, so the reason behind the change begins to make sense. This becomes a similar issue to "curse" being changed to "bless" in Job 2:9 (the Hebrew of the MT says "bless" (barekh), but nearly all translations render the word "cursed" based on context and the assumption that the original reading was changed by scribes who didn't want to associate cursing with God in the scriptures).
But the question remained: Who is this ancient scribal source?
I consulted a handful of commentaries today, and the most succinct explanation comes from Ralph Smith in the Word Biblical Commentary:
lo’ namut "we shall not die" is one of eighteen passages in the OT called tiqqune soferim "corrections of the Scribes" by the Masoretes. The scribes were supposedly to have corrected the original reading. The original reading of this passage was probably lo’ tamut "you shall not die" referring to God. Even though there is no manuscript or version support for tamut it is probably the best reading.
A number of commentaries with discussions on this issue recommended these sources for further study:
- J. Weingreen, Introduction to Critical Study of the Hebrew Bible, 25-29
- E. Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, 18-19
- C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, 358
- E. R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism, 117-118
There's another question here, though, isn't there? It's a canonical question. What exactly should be considered the final form? How significant is it that both the MT and the LXX agrees on the alteration to "we"? There are no manuscripts with "you" in the text for Hab 1:12. So, what forms the basis of the canon? Our English Old Testaments are primarily based on the MT, in spite of the fact that the NT writers quoted primarily from the LXX. Is the Canon based on the MT? Is it to be based on the LXX (the Orthodox Church takes this position). Is it the MT checked by the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and perhaps even other sources?
I believe it's the last option. And in defense of that, we should remember that modern New Testaments are based on what's called an eclectic text, that is a source that attempts to reproduce the oldest and best (i.e. original) readings, based on manuscript evidence and the methods of textual criticism, and in spite of the fact that no Greek manuscript will completely reproduce the exact same wording entirely. Nevertheless, our English Old Testaments tend to be based on the Masoretic Text, an AD 11th Century document (that's AD, not BC). I've said it before and I will say again: we need an eclectic Old Testament text to form the basis of our English translations.
Recent translations such as the NRSV, NLT, NET, HCSB, ESV, TNIV and others use the LXX and DSS to "correct" the MT in places. How long will it be before we see a true critical edition that incorporates these alternatives into the text?
For point of reference, here are how some other translations treat Hab 1:12:
“Are you not from everlasting,
O LORD my God, my Holy One?
We shall not die.
O LORD, you have ordained them as a judgment,
and you, O Rock, have established them for reproof.”
[no note] (ESV)
“Are You not from eternity, Yahweh my God?
My Holy One, You* will not die.
LORD, You appointed them to execute judgment;
my Rock, You destined them to punish us.”
*Alt Hb tradition reads we (HCSB)
“GOD, you’re from eternity, aren’t you?
Holy God, we aren’t going to die, are we?
GOD, you chose Babylonians for your judgment work?
Rock-Solid God, you gave them the job of discipline?”
[no note} (The Message)
“LORD, you have been active from ancient times;
my sovereign God, you are immortal.
LORD, you have made them your instrument of judgment.
Protector, you have appointed them as your instrument of punishment.”
[note already quoted] (NET)
“O LORD, are you not from everlasting?
My God, my Holy One, we will not die.
O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment;
O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.”
[no note] (NIV)
O LORD my God, my Holy One, you who are eternal—
surely you do not plan to wipe us out?
O LORD, our Rock, you have sent these Babylonians to correct us,
to punish us for our many sins.
[no note, but is this an attempt to incorporate both traditions?] (NLTse)
Are you not from of old,
O LORD my God, my Holy One?
You* shall not die.
O LORD, you have marked them for judgment;
and you, O Rock, have established them for punishment.
[*You — Ancient Heb tradition: MT We] (NRSV)
Lord, are you not from ancient times my God and Holy One, who is immortal?*
Lord, you have appointed them to execute judgement;
my Rock, you have commissioned them to punish.
[prob. original rdg; altered in Heb. to we shall not die. (REB)