“In the beginning, when God created the universe,
the earth was formless and desolate.
The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness,
and the Spirit of God was moving over the water.”
(Gen 1:1-2 GNT)

Thus begins the Good News Translation. The well-read Bible reader immediately notes the change in Gen 1:1 which in standard translations reads, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...." The GNT's use of universe accurately communicates the all encompassing Hebrew idiom, "heavens and earth, and for many readers, this simple rendering allows better understanding of the writer's point that everything that exists was created by God.

When I first compiled my list of top ten favorite translations for this blog, I wanted to include an entry for a common language translation. Part of my selection of the GNT is sentimental, but I hope that I can demonstrate the value of this translation as well.

What's in a Name?
First things first: what exactly is this translation called? The Good News Bible? Good News for Modern Man? Today's English Version? The Good News Translation? Throughout it's history, it's been called all of the above, and frankly it's confusing. In the blog entries where I've mentioned this version, I've probably used every one of those terms at some point.

Well, see if you can follow this. When the New Testament was first released in 1966, it was referred to as The Good News for Modern Man in Today's English Version. Then a decade later when the entire Bible was completed, it became the The Good News Bible in Today's English Version. It was revised in 1992, but the title didn't change. In fact, I didn't even know there had been a revision until last year and I collect translations of the Bible! In 2001 the name was changed again when Zondervan obtained North American publishing rights and asked that the designation be changed to Good News Translation since many perceived the GNT to be a paraphrase and not an actual translation (which it is).

An ironic aside: one of the main features of the 1992 revision was the further use of inclusive language for human references when the context warranted it. After Zondervan obtained publishing rights, one of the titles they resurrected (no doubt for familiarity's sake) was the classic title Good News for Modern Man, although that title is decidedly not inclusive.

Nevertheless, in spite of all the titles, it does seem a bit confusing. Interestingly, my copy of the text in Accordance is labeled "Today's English Version" and abbreviated "TEV" even though it has the 1992 copyright date of the 2nd edition. And when I ordered my copy of the 1992 revision directly from the American Bible Society (the owner of the translation), I noticed that my copy has both "Good News Bible" and "Good News Translation" on both the cover and the spine! Even more confusing, in looking at the most recent online catalog on the ABS website, I observed that there are pictures of the Bible that have both "Good News Bible" AND Today's English Version on them.

In keeping with most recent nomenclature, I will refer to this Bible version as the Good News Translation (or GNT for short) even when referring to the older editions.

What Kind of Bible Is This Anyway?
Back in the summer I came across a blog entry written by a youth leader who had tried to convince one of the young ladies at his church to get a different Bible than the GNT she was reading and for which she had a strong preference. Although in hindsight he regretted this discussion with her, he went on today how much he hated (he literally used that word) the GNT. When I tried to engage him in the comments about his opinion (and I tried my best to do so in a friendly way), he responded back that he was not even going to address my question, but concluded that "from a scholarly perspective, I believe I am on solid ground in saying that the Good News Bible is drivel."

Well, such a response is regrettable and I chose to pursue the discussion no further. But it does reveal ignorance about the GNT, its history, method of translation, and intended purpose.

The GNT started out as a project of the American Bible Society to create a New Testament specifically aimed at readers for whom English was a second language. Very quickly, however, they realized that there was an even broader audience. From the preface to the current edition of the GNT:

In September 1966 the American Bible Society published The New Testament in Today's English Version, the first publication of a new Bible translation intended for people everywhere for whom English is either their mother tongue or an acquired language. Shortly thereafter the United Bible Societies (UBS) requested the American Bible Society (ABS) to undertake on its behalf a translation of the Old Testament following the same principles. Accordingly the American Bible Society appointed a group of translators to prepare the translation. In 1971 this group added a British consultant recommended by the British and Foreign Bible Society. The translation of the Old Testament, which was completed in 1976, was joined to the fourth edition New Testament, thus completing the first edition of the Good News Bible Translation. Through previously known as Today's English Version (TEV) and commonly known as the Good News Bible (GNB), the translation is now called the Good News Translation (GNT).

The GNT was one of the first major Bible versions to apply the translational principles of dynamic equivalence as developed by Eugene A. Nida. A year after the release of the full edition of the Good News Bible, Nida himself wrote a wonderful little book that serves as an introduction to the translation, Good News for Everyone: How to Use the Good News Bible. Although out of print, the book is still obtainable through used book sources. The value in this volume lies not only in its introduction to the GNT, but also as an explanation and defense of dynamic equivalency from the leading developer and proponent of the method himself. On the principle of dynamic equivalency, Nida writes on p. 13,

The principle of dynamic equivalence implies that the quality of a translation is in proportion to the reader's unawareness that he is reading a translation at all. This principle means, furthermore, that the translation should stimulate in the new reader essentially the same reaction to the text as the original author wished to produce in his first and immediate readers. The application of this principle of dynamic equivalence leads to far greater faithfulness in translating, since accuracy in translation cannot be reckoned merely in terms of corresponding words but on the basis of what the new readers actually understand. Many traditional expressions in English translations of the Scriptures are either meaningless or misleading. How many present-day readers would know, for example, that "children of the bridechamber" (Matt. 9:15) really means "the guests at the wedding party" or that "bowels of mercies" (Col. 3:12) is better rendered as "compassion"?

The GNT is also in a category of translations known as a "common language Bible." In regard to this, Nida writes, "...the translation is produced in what is known as 'the common language.' This is the kind of language common to both the professor and the janitor, the business executive and the gardener, the socialite and the waiter. It may also be described as the 'the overlap language' because it is that level of language which constitutes the overlapping of the literary level and the ordinary, day-to-day usage" (p. 11-12).

The GNT is usually rated at about a 5th or 6th grade reading level, which puts it in the same market as similar translations that purposefully avoid larger vocabulary or technical language when possible such as the CEV, NCV, and NIrV. If an in-depth comparison of these specific translations exists I'm not familiar with it, but such analysis would certain be interesting.

To get a feel for the dynamic equivalency of the GNT compared a very literal translation such as the NASB, consider the following passages:

Proverbs 1:8-9
GNT	NASB
8 My child, pay attention to what your father and mother tell you. 9 Their teaching will improve your character as a handsome turban or a necklace improves your appearance. 10 My child, when sinners tempt you, don’t give in. 11 Suppose they say, “Come on; let’s find someone to kill! Let’s attack some innocent people for the fun of it! 12 They may be alive and well when we find them, but theyll be dead when were through with them! 13 We’ll find all kinds of riches and fill our houses with loot! 14 Come and join us, and we’ll all share what we steal.” 15 My child, don’t go with people like that. Stay away from them. 16 They can’t wait to do something bad. Theyre always ready to kill. 17 It does no good to spread a net when the bird you want to catch is watching, 18 but people like that are setting a trap for themselves, a trap in which they will die. 19 Robbery always claims the life of the robber—this is what happens to anyone who lives by violence.	8 Hear, my son, your father’s instruction And do not forsake your mother’s teaching; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, “Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,” 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors.
Matthew 6:1-8
GNT	NASB
1 “Make certain you do not perform your religious duties in public so that people will see what you do. If you do these things publicly, you will not have any reward from your Father in heaven. 2 “So when you give something to a needy person, do not make a big show of it, as the hypocrites do in the houses of worship and on the streets. They do it so that people will praise them. I assure you, they have already been paid in full. 3 But when you help a needy person, do it in such a way that even your closest friend will not know about it. 4 Then it will be a private matter. And your Father, who sees what you do in private, will reward you. 5 “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites! They love to stand up and pray in the houses of worship and on the street corners, so that everyone will see them. I assure you, they have already been paid in full. 6 But when you pray, go to your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what you do in private, will reward you. 7 “When you pray, do not use a lot of meaningless words, as the pagans do, who think that their gods will hear them because their prayers are long. 8 Do not be like them. Your Father already knows what you need before you ask him.	1   “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.    2   “So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 3 “But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.    5   “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6 “But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.    7   “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. 8 “So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
Rom 7:15-25
GNT	NASB
15 I do not understand what I do; for I don’t do what I would like to do, but instead I do what I hate. 16 Since what I do is what I don’t want to do, this shows that I agree that the Law is right. 17 So I am not really the one who does this thing; rather it is the sin that lives in me. 18 I know that good does not live in me—that is, in my human nature. For even though the desire to do good is in me, I am not able to do it. 19 I don’t do the good I want to do; instead, I do the evil that I do not want to do. 20 If I do what I don’t want to do, this means that I am no longer the one who does it; instead, it is the sin that lives in me. 21 So I find that this law is at work: when I want to do what is good, what is evil is the only choice I have. 22 My inner being delights in the law of God. 23 But I see a different law at work in my body—a law that fights against the law which my mind approves of. It makes me a prisoner to the law of sin which is at work in my body. 24 What an unhappy man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is taking me to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who does this through our Lord Jesus Christ! This, then, is my condition: on my own I can serve God’s law only with my mind, while my human nature serves the law of sin.	15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.     21   I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

These are standard passages I look at for readability in a translation. I always look at the Romans passage because I still remember my confusion as a child after reading it in the KJV. One thing you might note above in the passage quoted from Proverbs is the loss of the Hebrew poetic doublet. Whereas the NASB's literal rendering reads "Hear, my son, your father’s instruction / And do not forsake your mother’s teaching;" the GNT translators were more concerned with communicating the message of Prov 1:8 than reproducing the poetic form. Thus the GNT simply renders the verse "My child, pay attention to what your father and mother tell you." This accurately communicates the message of the Hebrew, but does not follow the poetic form. That might be bothersome to some people, but keep in mind the original purpose of the GNT to provide God's Word first to those to whom English is a second language and to communicate in common language. Common language probably does not include understanding of how Hebrew poetry functions. If a person is going to study the form of Hebrew poetry, a more traditional translation might be preferable, although the GNT used alongside would aid with understanding the text itself. Having said that, however, poetic form is often retained in many passages, including those in Job, Psalms, and elsewhere.

I could have just as easily placed the text from the NIV in the passages above instead of the NASB. Although critics of the NIV/TNIV like to refer to it as a dynamic equivalent translation, in reality, it is not purely dynamic, but more of a halfway point between formal and dynamic equivalency. The GNT easily shows off the nature of what is a truly dynamic equivalent, or meaning-driven translation; and is in fact, even a bit spunkier (for lack of a better term) in places than the NIV/TNIV.

The original 1976 edition was one of the first translations to concern itself with gender inclusive issues. Consider Psalm 1:1 in which traditional literal translations begin with "Blessed is the man..." The GNT rendered this phrase, "Happy are those..." The second edition in 1992 took this a step further by changing "evil men" to "evil people" since, after all, women can be evil as well as men.

Psalm 1:1
NASB	GNT (1st ed.)	GNT (2nd ed.)
How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!	Happy are those who reject the advice of evil men, who do not follow the example of sinners or join those who have no use for God.	Happy are those who reject the advice of evil people, who do not follow the example of sinners or join those who have no use for God.

I should note that like other mainstream versions that pay attention to gender concerns (NLT, NAB, NJB, REB, NCV, NRSV, CEV, TNIV, the Message), inclusive gender is only applied to humans when the context is appropriate and never to God. The 1992 revision brought not only further changes related to gender, but also concentrated on "passages in which the translation had been seen as problematic from either a stylistic or an exegetical viewpoint. Two examples are given below:

Genesis 1:2
GNT (1st ed.)	GNT (2nd ed.)
...the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was ingulfed in total darkness, and the power of God* was moving over the water. *or the spirit of God; or a wind from God; or an awesome wind.	the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God* was moving over the water. *or the power of God; or a wind from God; or an awesome wind.
Philippians 2:6
GNT (1st ed.)	GNT (2nd ed.)
He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God. *or remain.	He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain* equal with God. *or become.

I certainly agree with the changes made in the above verses, but it's worth noting as I've pointed out in some of my translation reviews before that this is yet another example of a revision of a translation becoming more conservative and less risky than an earlier edition. I've demonstrated this in the NEB/REB, the NIV/TNIV (gender issues aside) and especially in the NLT1/NLT2.

What--There's Controversy?!
I suppose it would be unfair to write about the GNT without at least briefly mentioning some of the controversy surrounding it. Some controversy is hardly worth mentioning. Some people don't like the GNT simply because they don't care for dynamic equivalency. And then there's also that crowd that makes a fuss about any new translation, no matter what it is.

One of the charges made early against the GNT was that it removed all mention of the blood of Jesus. First, this claim is simply not true. The blood of Christ is indeed rendered literally in a number of places in the GNT:

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “I am telling you the truth: if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in yourselves. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them to life on the last day. 55 For my flesh is the real food; my blood is the real drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me, and I live in them.

Heb. 9:14 Since this is true, how much more is accomplished by the blood of Christ! Through the eternal Spirit he offered himself as a perfect sacrifice to God. His blood will purify our consciences from useless rituals, so that we may serve the living God.

Heb. 10:29 What, then, of those who despise the Son of God? who treat as a cheap thing the blood of God’s covenant which purified them from sin? who insult the Spirit of grace? Just think how much worse is the punishment they will deserve!

Heb. 13:12 For this reason Jesus also died outside the city, in order to purify the people from sin with his own blood.

1John 1:7 But if we live in the light—just as he is in the light—then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from every sin.

But there are indeed some passages where blood is being used as an idiom for death (physical or spiritual) and these are rendered somewhat differently for the sake of clarity (don't forget the purpose of the GNT). Compare these passages from the GNT with a more traditional/literal translation:

Matt. 27:24 When Pilate saw that it was no use to go on, but that a riot might break out, he took some water, washed his hands in front of the crowd, and said, “I am not responsible for the death of this man! This is your doing!” 25 The whole crowd answered, “Let the responsibility for his death fall on us and on our children!”

Acts 20:26 So I solemnly declare to you this very day: if any of you should be lost, I am not responsible.

Just as I remember claims that the GNT removed the blood of Christ from the Bible, I am also reminded of the controversy years ago when the claim was made that John MacArthur denied the blood of Jesus. I was in college at the time working in a small independent bookstore, and we had a woman come in declaring that we had to immediately pull all John MacArthur books from our shelves. Such claims are nonsense and stem from ignorance of the issues involved.

The only real controversy, in my opinion, associated with the GNT had to do with remarks made by Robert Bratcher, the chief translator for the GNT New Testament. Speaking in 1981 at a Bible conference sponsored by the Southern Baptist Convention, Bratcher, then head of the American Bible Society said,

"Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. To qualify this absurd claim by adding 'with respect to the autographs' is a bit of sophistry, a specious attempt to justify a patent error ... No thruth-loving, God-respecting, Christ-honoring believer should be guilty of such heresy. To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false God ... No one seriously claims that all the words of the Bible are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications ... Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek 35 to 50 years later do not necessarily wield compelling or authentic authority over us today. The locus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. It is Jesus Christ as THE Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do."

(quote retrieved from Michael Marlowe's review of the GNT)

Obviously, to use a technical term, this was a boneheaded thing to say, not only as the head of the ABS, but also at an SBC-sponsored conference. Soon thereafter the ABS board requested Bratcher's resignation. But even these statements should not unduly take away from the value of the GNT because not only did Bratcher work on the GNT New Testament with an editorial board (and therefore not in isolation), but he was also a good and honest translator in spite of his personal theology.

2 Tim 3:16 is still rendered accurately in the GNT:

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living,

Marlowe says this blunder by Bratcher led to the rejection of the GNT by evangelicals. Although some undoubtedly did have nothing to do with the version after Bratcher's remarks, the evangelical world did not totally reject the GNT; although undoubtedly, it lost much of its momentum.

The Wikipedia entry on the GNT notes the popularity of the GNT in Evangelical, Mainstream Protestant, and Roman Catholic circles, marking it as truly a translation for nearly all faith expressions:

The GNT has been a popular translation. By 1969, Good News for Modern Man had sold 17.5 million copies. By 1971, that number had swelled to 30 million copies. It has been endorsed by Billy Graham and Christian groups such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). The GNT is one of the authorized versions to be used in the Episcopal Church. Excerpts from the New Testament were used extensively in evangelistic campaigns, such as the Billy Graham crusades and others, from the late 1960s right through to the early 1980s. In 1991, a Gallup poll of British parishioners showed that the GNT was the most popular Bible version in that nation. In 2003, the GNT was used as the basis for a film version of the Gospel of John.

It's All About the Pictures...
Kathy says I'm partial to the GNT because I simply like the pictures. This is partly, but not wholly true. But I have to admit that I really am taken with the pictures by swiss artist, Annie Vallotton. Because of the millions of copies of the GNT distributed in the last forty years, Vallotton has been designated "the best-selling artist of all time."

Although the claim is often made that Vallotton's work in the GNT is dated, I suppose I'm too familiar with it to even notice. From the memories of my very earliest days, we had multiple copies of Good News for Modern Man in the house. Before I could even read, I spent many hours looking at the pictures in "that book" as I called it.

I am all for illustrations in Bibles, even for adults. But they should be purposeful, not superfluous. A recent edition of another Bible (which will remain nameless) comes loaded with pictures. But when I examined a copy and looked, for instance, at the picture of a very traditional, full-color picture of Noah's ark accompanying Gen 6, I had to wonder what purpose it served. But I never feel that way with the pictures in the GNT. They are certainly not elaborate, but merely simple line drawings, and they say so much. The drawings don't add idolatrous images to the text, but rather pulls the reader in and points to the passage itself. Vallotton's drawings are reflective in nature--never distracting, and perhaps that's why I like them so much.

I won Kathy's favor toward these pictures when I began adding them occasionally to the handouts I make for our Sunday School class. I used the picture accompanying Eccl 5:12 on one of them and Kathy remarked, "It's amazing that I can see the worry in his eyes, his face, his posture."

In his book Good News for Everyone, Nida devotes an entire chapter to Vallotton's drawings with his selected analysis. Regarding the depiction of Zacchaeus in Luke 19, Nida explains,

When artists make pictures of Zacchaeus, they usually put him up in a tree, but Annie Vallotton illustrates this man's real problem, by his small stature, by showing him almost lost on the crowd. Furthermore, by not picturing Jesus, she symbolizes Zacchaeus's plight in not being able to see what is happening.

I really wish the ABS would release a CD with the illustrations by themselves. I know of only one company authorized to distribute these images as clip art. They were kind enough to send me a CD free from the UK, but I was greatly distressed to note that they had colored the images! Adding color to them takes away from their simplicity in my opinion. However, digging into the folders on the CD, I found the original scans they made (without color), all in PCX format. I haven't used PCX format since the old days of my hand scanner, which may have been the original tool to capture these images.

How Do I Use the GNT?
A reasonable question to ask me is "Why the GNT over CEV?" That's a good question. And truthfully, until a year or two ago, I was under the impression that the CEV was merely a revision of the GNT. Here's how that happened...

In the mid-nineties when the CEV was about to be released, Thomas Nelson Publishers had obtained the initial commercial publication rights to it from the American Bible Society, also the copyright holders of the GNT. At that time, I was working as assistant manager at a Baptist Book Store (now Lifeway), and a Thomas Nelson rep gave both me and my manager unedited proof copies of the CEV. For years I referred to this as my "errant Bible" because the cover specifically warned of possible mistakes in the text. However, this rep mislead both of us by incorrectly describing the CEV as a revision and replacement to the TEV. At the time I did not know that the Good News Bible (a.k.a. TEV) had been updated in 1992. And for years when anyone mentioned something about a revised GNT, I assumed they were referring to the CEV.

My preference for the GNT over the CEV is not based on any objective, logical grounds. The fact is that I've just never spent enough time with the CEV because when I was first handed a copy by the Thomas Nelson rep and told it was a revision of the TEV, my first thought was "What, no pictures?" So, the GNT is preferred primarily for sentimental reasons, but I'm sure that one day I will attempt to get better acquainted with the CEV as it certainly comes highly recommended from a number of individuals I respect. And I highly admire the brains behind the CEV, Barclay Newman.

To be honest I don't use the GNT as much as I used to, but it will always have a place in my heart. In recent years when speaking in front of groups not as familiar with the Bible, I've often used the New Living Translation or even the Message. In the old days, I would have used the GNT, but there are a lot more choices for freely rendered Bibles now than there were when the GNT was at its peak.

When I was in college, I used it almost exclusively in my devotions, which were separate from study of the Bible. I also had a friend who DJ'd the local college radio station on Sunday mornings. He invited me to come by and give on-air devotions on my way to church, and thinking of my audience (mostly unchurched college students), I always used the GNT because I felt the dynamic equivalent renderings of the passages would connect better with them.

If I were buying a child of reading age a Bible, I would not hesitate to purchase the GNT. The ease of reading and the addition of pictures makes this the absolute best choice to give to a child. And certainly there is still value in using the GNT with it's original audience: English as a second language readers.

And as I mentioned earlier, I still use the pictures by Vallotton in many of the handouts I make for my Sunday School class.

What's Available in the GNT?
The GNT is available in a number of editions with or without the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. Both my original 1976 edition and my 1992 revision were ordered directly from the American Bible Society. They are both hardback, and sadly, as far as I know there are no current leather editions available that do not say "Catholic" on the cover. This is a shame. Years ago Thomas Nelson published a Good News study Bible of sorts that had the GNT and a number of reference features added, all in bonded leather. And in spite of Zondervan having the exclusive North American rights to sell the GNT, they only offer a couple of communion BIbles and a retro copy of the old Good News for Modern Man paperback (with the 1992 revision).

Your best bet for obtaining a copy of the GNT is through ABS at the link in the above paragraph.

Some Bible software programs offer the GNT as well. I have it in Accordance (of course, as I mentioned earlier, it's incorrectly labeled "TEV"). Sadly my electronic copy does not include the textual notes or proper poetic formatting. And I discovered a couple of typos in it as I was preparing this review.

I suppose the lack of nice editions in print or available electronically probably signals that the GNT has seen its peak come and go, but it will always be in my top favorites when it comes to Bible translations.

---

For Further Reading:
- American Bible Society Website
- Better Bible Blogs page on the GNT
- Wikipedia page on the GNT
- Bible Researcher page on the GNT
- Ken Anderson's GNT page
- Eugene A. Nida. Good News for Everyone: How to Use the Good News Bible. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1977.

---

Next Bible version in series: The Wycliffe New Testament of 1388

Tags: GNT, Top Ten

NOTE: Tables in this blog entry do not render correctly in Internet Explorer 6 for Windows.

Introductory Comments. As I have mentioned in an earlier post, some of my selections for my "Top Ten Versions of the Bible" were of a categorical nature. One could not say that the New Jerusalem Bible is my "seventh most used translation." In fact, there are a handful of translations that I reference more frequently than the New Jerusalem Bible which do not even appear on my list. But as I was creating my top ten Bible versions, I wanted to include a Catholic translation. There was never any question regarding which one I would choose. To me, the New Jerusalem Bible stands out. This is my way of saying that I believe the New Jerusalem Bible is the best Catholic translation available in English, although I'm not a Catholic myself. I also believe the New Jerusalem Bible is a fairly good translation for other reasons which I'll describe below.

Essentially, there are three primary Catholic translations in use in North America today (although there are a few more minor ones and a number of Protestant Bibles which also have editions available with the deuterocanonical books such as the NRSV, REB and NLT). The most widely used Catholic translation in North America is the New American Bible (not to be confused with the Protestant New American Standard Bible). The older and more traditional Douay-Rheims Bible (based on the Latin Vulgate) is often preferred among more conservative Catholics. And the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), while not used as much on this continent, is supposedly the most popular translation in other English speaking countries.

History. The NJB is an update to the older Jerusalem Bible, which incidentally included J. R. R. Tolkein of Lord of the Rings fame who contributed as an English stylist primarily working with the Book of Jonah. However, the NJB, like the Jerusalem Bible before it, is essentially an English adaptation to the French Bible de Jérusalem. According to David Dewey (see comments below), "the NJB differs from the JB in that the latter is a translation from the French with reference to the original languages, whereas the former is a translation from the original languages with reference to the French." The NJB update was released in 1985, and since the French version is now in its third revision, some have speculated that the NJB may receive a forthcoming update as well.

My experience with the NJB began in the late 1980's shortly after its publication when I decided to read through a Bible that included the deutercanonical books. I wanted to do this with a Catholic Bible so that these extra "apocryphal" books would be found in their traditional place in the text as opposed to a separate section where most Protestant Bibles place them. In comparing the NJB to the NAB, I found the former to be a bit more of a smoother read, and I still agree with that summation today. I am not as familiar with these translations as I am with others, but the NAB appears to be more formal equivalent (but not as much so as the more formal Protestant translations such as the NASB or even the ESV) and the NJB more dynamic. But overall in my brief examination of the two translations then and now, the NJB seems to be of a better literary quality as well. I'm not going to take the time to demonstrate the differences between the NJB and NAB, but this is the feel I continue to receive when I compare them.

Use of Yahweh for the Divine Name. What I will demonstrate is the value of one of my favorite features of the NJB: it's use of Yahweh for the Tetragrammaton (the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH) instead of the traditional LORD (all caps). Very few English Bibles tend to designate God's name in any meaningful way outside of the NJB, American Standard Version of 1901, and the New World Translation. The Holman Christian Standard Bible will make use of Yahweh in certain texts, but they primarily use the traditional LORD.

It is my desire that eventually translations will move away from using LORD for the name of God and begin rendering ‏יהוה‎ as something like Yahweh following the example of the NJB. Two passages will demonstrate the value of this method and highlight one of the NJB's greatest strengths. In contrast to the NJB, I could use any version of the Bible, but I will display the NIV in a parallel column since it is still the most popular translation in the English-speaking world.

JOSHUA 24:14-15
New International Version	New Jerusalem Bible
Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.	So now, fear Yahweh and serve him truly and sincerely; banish the gods whom your ancestors served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve Yahweh. But if serving Yahweh seems a bad thing to you, today you must make up your minds whom you do mean to serve, whether the gods whom your ancestors served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are now living. As regards my family and me, we shall serve Yahweh.

In the passages depicted above, Joshua is calling on his fellow Israelites to make a firm decision between serving the old pagan gods of their ancestors and the creator God who rescued them from Egypt. It's significant that Joshua calls the latter God by his name, Yahweh, to distinguish him from these pagan gods. The NIV's use of LORD does not entirely mute this distinction, but I do believe the message is toned down quite a bit. The call for decision is made quite clear in the NJB when Joshua says, "As regards my family and me, we shall serve Yahweh."

A similar situation is found in 1 Kings 18 when the prophet Elijah confronts the priests of Baal. The choice proposed by Elijah is quite clear in the New Jerusalem Bible: "If Yahweh is God, follow him; if Baal follow him." However, the NIV's "If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him" begins to become even less precise when you consider that the name Baal also meant "lord."

Another example of the inadequacies of LORD is found when the OT makes specific reference to the divine name. Consider Psalm 83--

PSALM 83:16-18
New International Version	New Jerusalem Bible
Cover their faces with shame so that men will seek your name, O LORD. May they ever be ashamed and dismayed; may they perish in disgrace. Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD--that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.	Shame written all over their faces, let them seek your name, Yahweh! Dishonour and terror be always theirs, death also and destruction. Let them know that you alone bear the name of Yahweh, Most High over all the earth.

Here the psalmist is referring specifically to the name of the God of the Bible to distinguish him from all other gods. God's name is completely lost in the NIV with the phrase, "Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD... " because LORD is a title, not a name. The NJB brings the original message across much clearer with "Let them know that you alone bear the name of Yahweh."

I would suggest that all English translations in the future follow the NJB's lead and use Yahweh for the Tetragrammaton. As mentioned, the HCSB uses it in places (such as 1 Kings 18:21, but not Josh 24:15), but not extensively enough in my opinion. The use of LORD in all caps in English Bibles is certainly insider code--a signal that here is represented the divine name of God. But I challenge you to find ten average church members who can explain this.

Of course this practice of using another word for God's name goes all the way back to the Jews themselves. Out of reverence for the divine name, when reading a Torah scroll aloud, they would substitute the word ‏אדני‎/adonay ("lord" or "master"). However, as mentioned above, the average church member doesn't understand this, and I would suggest that most Christians don't even realize that God has a name outside of simply "God" or "Lord."

Over the years I've heard two main objections for using Yahweh in the text. The first objection says that "Yahweh" (pronounced "yah-way") is only a guess to the original pronunciation. Originally Hebrew didn't have vowels and pronunciation was maintained merely through the language's use when spoken. Because the Jews avoided pronouncing the name, it's true pronunciation is lost. Plus, who can forget the improper transliteration of "Jehovah" a century ago? However, I would counter that Yahweh is recognized almost across the board in academic writing, and it has begun to be used in popular materials as well, including worship songs. It's use would give more meaning to texts such as those I referred to above.

A second objection states that use of God's name is offensive to Jewish ears. But is it offensive in the text? Would the use of Yahweh in an English text be all that different from יהוה in a Hebrew text? In fact, what I would suggest is that when reading aloud in a context that might give offense to some, the reader could merely substitute the English word Lord in place of Yahweh, in keeping with similar Jewish tradition.

Other Features of the New Jerusalem Bible. Like any translation, the NJB is not perfect and has some quirky features now and then. In John 14:26, the NJB simply transliterates παράκλητος/parakletos as Paraclete, although I'm not sure that this is overly helpful (pun intended; the Greek word means "helper," "comforter," "counselor"). Compare the NIV and and NJB for this verse:

JOHN 14:26
New International Version	New Jerusalem Bible
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.	but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you.

Although there's part of me that's attracted to this use of transliteration, I don't know if it would be all that helpful for the average Bible reader since Paraclete is not part of standard vocabulary outside of more usually academic circles. I don't think it's the same issue as using Yahweh in the Old Testament because Yahweh is a name while Paraclete is a title or functional designation.

On another note, the NJB was one of the first major translations (the first?) to use inclusive gender for humans where the context warranted it. However, I've found that they don't always use it consistently and not as frequently as later translations such as the NRSV, NLT, and TNIV do. For instance, in Matt 4:4, Jesus quotes Deut 8:3 saying, "Human beings live not on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" (and technically, I find the "live not" as opposed to "do not live" a bit awkward), thus avoiding a masculine universal such as the traditional man. However in Gen 1:27, man is retained: "God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female, he created them."

I'm always interested in seeing how a translation committee renders a verse like Rev 3:20. For whatever reasons, this verse often seems to provide a challenge for inclusive rendering and many times comes across a bit awkward. I feel that this is the case for the NJB as well: "Look, I am standing at the door, knocking. If one of you hears me calling and opens the door, I will come in to share a meal at that person's side." I find this rendering especially awkward because at the beginning of the second sentence, the translators use the second person to offer a non-exclusive reading, but shift back to third person by the end of the sentence.

Some renderings have a distinctly British sound which may contribute to the lesser use of the NJB in North America. Consider Luke 22:36's use of haversack: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and the same with a haversack; if you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one... ."



Editions of the New jerusalem Bible. To be honest, I'm not completely up on all the editions of the NJB available today, so investigate carefully before you make a purchase sight unseen. Doubleday is the exclusive publisher of the NJB, but I have difficulty determining from their website or even from Amazon's descriptions exactly what some of these editions look like on the inside. [As an aside: I really wish that Bible publishers would include depictions of full-page spreads on their website for each Bible they publish. Some publishers do this and some do not do it all all, and some do it inconsistently for some products and not others. Tyndale seems to be the worst offender by showing a picture of the cover of a Bible which is absolutely meaningless, rather than showing a two-page spread of the actual text.]

From what I can gather, NJB editions are still available in hardback, paperback and even leather editions, but don't expect a lot of variety with any of them. And I'm not sure if any of these reflect the original edition I obtained shortly after the NJB's release in 1985. My copy is a blue cloth-covered hardback that came in a slipcase due to its rather large size. In fact, I would say that this is the thickest Bible I own, even larger than my newly procured TNIV Study BIble (review forthcoming). The off-white paper is thin, but thicker than your average Bible paper, and the text is represented in a a very nice single-column text. Cross-references are on the outer margins and verse numbers are only represented on the inner margins much like the original editions of the New English Bible. Study notes are included, but only on the right page, even when referring to verses on the left page. The notes are a combination of interpretation, background information, but very few of a devotional or applicative nature. Theologically, the notes are often left-leaning, and perhaps could be compared with those of the Oxford Annotated Study Bible, but with a Catholic flavor.

The New Jerusalem Bible is available for most Bible software packages including Accordance, Logos, Bibleworks, and Wordsearch.

To this day, when I need to do any extended reading of the deuterocanonical/ apocryphal books, I turn to the New Jerusalem Bible first (followed probably by the NRSV in preference). I commend this version to you for this use or for a very good translation to go along beside others in your study. If you are a Protestant who does not have a copy of a Catholic Bible, I recommend the NJB as the best of the primary offerings. And if you are Catholic and take your Bible study seriously, I would feel that the NJB is indispensable.

For Further Reading:
- NJB Publisher's Webpage
- NJB Wikipedia Page
- NJB Better Bibles Blog Page
- NJB Bible-Researcher Page
- NJB Online Text

Redacted: 08/05/2006

---

Up Next: The Good News Translation
Also Coming Soon: This Lamp Review of the TNIV Study Bible

Tags: NJB, Top Ten

I would like to suggest that if you consider yourself an aficionado of Bible translations, and do not have a copy of the Revised English Bible (REB), then your set is not yet complete.

When I wrote my review of the New American Standard Bible, I noted that it would be my desert island Bible. Well, the REB would be a strong contender for that position, too, but for different reasons. When the REB was first published in 1989, I was a junior in college majoring in English. Having been exposed to so much good literature by that point, I immediately noticed the quality of style for which the REB would become recognized. In my opinion--and I am not alone in this sentiment--the Revised English Bible has the best overall literary quality of any modern English translation--the best since the King James Version. When I was working on my M.Div in the early nineties, one of the Old Testament professors at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary required the REB as his main text in his OT intro classes. He believed that the REB best reflected the Hebrew text in modern English, especially regarding the poetic sections.

There are a handful of biblical passages I like to refer to when trying to get a feel for a particular translation. Three are reproduced below as they read in the REB:

Proverbs 1:8-19	Matthew 6:1-8	Romans 7:14-25
Attend, my son, to your father's instruction and do not reject your mother's teaching; they become like a garland on your heard, a chain of honour for your neck. My son, if sinners entice you, do not yield. They may say: 'Join us and lie in wait for someone's blood; let us waylay some innocent person who has done us no harm. We shall swallow them like Sheol though they are alive; though in health, they will be like those who go down to the abyss. We shall take rich treasure of every sort and fill our houses with plunder. Throw in your lot with us and share the common purse.' My son, do not go along with them, stay clear of their ways; they hasten hotfoot into crime, pressing on to shed blood. (A net is spread in vain if any bird that flies can see it.) It is for their their own blood they lie in wait; they waylay no one but themselves. Such is the fate of all who strive after ill-gotten gain: it robs of their lives all who possess it.	'Be careful not to parade your religion before others; if you do, no reward awaits you with your Father in heaven. 'So, when you give alms, do not announce it with a flourish of trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Truly I tell you: they have their reward already. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing; your good deed must be in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. 'Again, when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; they love to say their prayers standing up in synagogues and at street corners for everyone to see them. Truly I tell you: they have their reward already. But when you pray, go into a room by yourself, shut the door, and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. 'In your prayers do not go babbling on like the heathen, who imagine that the more they say the more likely they are to be heard. Do not imitate them, for your Father knows your needs before you ask him.	We know that the law is spiritual; but I am not: I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not even acknowledge my own actions as mine, for what I do is not what I want to do, but what I detest. But if what I do is against my will, then clearly I agree with the law and hold it to be admirable. This means that it is no longer I who perform the action, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me--my unspiritual self, I mean--for though the will to do good is there, the ability to effect it is not. The good which I want to do, I fail to do; but what I do is the wrong which is against my will; and if what I do is against my will, clearly it is no longer I who am in the agent, but sin that has dwelling in me. I discover the principle, then: that when I want to do right, only wrong is within my reach. IN my inmost self I delight in the law of God, but I perceive in my outward actions a different law, fighting against the law that my mind approves, and making me a prisoner under the law of sin which controls my conduct. Wretched creature that I am, who is there to rescue me from this state of death? Who but God? Thanks be to him through Jesus Christ our Lord! To sum up then: left to myself I serve God's law with my mind, but with my unspiritual nature I serve the law of sin.

As essentially a British translation, the REB has never had much of a following in the United States. In fact, the only time I've ever heard it read in public was at an aunt's funeral in 1989 when her associate pastor specifically mentioned that she was reading the 23rd Psalm in the newly released (at that time) REB:

1 The LORD is my shepherd; I lack for nothing.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
    he leads me to water where I may rest;
3 he revives my spirit;
    for his name's sake he guides me in right paths.
4 Even were I to walk through a valley of deepest darkness
    I should fear no harm, for you are with me;
    your shepherd's staff and crook afford me comfort.

5 You spread a table for me in the presence of my enemies;
    you have richly anointed my head with oil,
    and my cup brims over.
6 Goodness and love unfailing will follow me
    all the days of my life,
    and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD
    throughout the years to come.

The Revised English Bible is an update to the New English Bible, originally completed in 1970. The decision to form a joint committee to revise the NEB was made as early as 1973 with the initial goal of publication in 1980. However, the modest goals of the committee grew more extensive overtime. The full revision resulting in what would be the REB was not completed until 1987 and did not see publication for another two years.

I've seemed to notice a trend in Bible versions that as they are revised, they become more conservative. Inclusive language issues aside, the TNIV is more literal in places than the NIV. The second edition of the NLT is much more traditional than the first edition. Both aspects are true for the REB over its predecessor, the New English Bible (NEB). If anything, the REB, while perhaps never gaining as much attention and prestige as the version it replaced, is a much more mature translation than the NEB.

According to the book New Light & Truth: The Making of the Revised English Bible by Roger Coleman, the revision committee had two main goals for updating the NEB: (1) update the formal "thee" and "thou" language (used only for addressing deity in the NEB) to non-formal equivalents and (2) address criticisms and suggestions made for the NEB.

Another significant change had to do with the REB's use of inclusive gender for humans when warranted by the context. The REB was one of the early Bible versions to employ this along with the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) and the New Revised Standard Version (1989). From the Preface:

The use of male-oriented language, in passages of traditional versions of the Bible which evidently apply to both genders, has become a sensitive issue in recent years; the revisers have preferred more inclusive gender reference where that has been possible without compromising scholarly integrity or English style.

The last issue, English style, often becomes the most difficult aspect of gender neutrality. This led to a compromise in the REB. Masculine universals are removed such as "man" and "mankind." Whereas Gen 1:26 in the NEB read "Let us make man in our image...," the REB renders it "Let us make human beings in our image." However, 3rd person masculines are still retained in the REB in verses like Luke 9:23 and Rev 3:20. Adelphoi is consistently translated as "friends" (less preferable to simply "brothers and sisters" in my opinion).

Interesting point of trivia: according to Coleman's book, evidently there were a number of punctuation errors in the original NEB (I've never used the NEB enough to point to a specific one). These errors were caused from a lack of communication between the translators and the publishers. The translators felt that issues of punctuation could be left to the publishers. However, the publishers held the task of Bible translation in such esteem that they felt it inappropriate to change anything the translators gave them, not realizing the assumptions made by the committee.

The NEB had been the first major Bible version to employ dynamic equivalency as a translation method. While the REB still retains this approach, less traditional renderings in the NEB were made more traditional in the REB. Consider Genesis 1:1-2:

Genesis 1:1-2
New English Bible	Revised English Bible
In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters.	In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was a vast waste, darkness covered the deep, and the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water.

The NEB entry on the Wikipedia notes a number of other controversial renderings in the NEB besides Gen 1:2 included above. Below is a comparison of these verses with the the text from the REB:

	New English Bible	Revised English Bible
Psalm 22:16 (note rendering for the more familiar "have pierced my hands and feet" )	The huntsmen are all about me; a band of ruffians rings me round, and they have hacked off my hands and my feet.	Hounds are all about me; a band of ruffians rings me round, and they have bound me hand and foot.
Isaiah 9:6 (NEB rendering "is both interpretational and non-traditional" )	For a boy has been born for us, a son given to us to bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder; and he shall be called in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like, Father for all time, Prince of peace	For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us; he will bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder, and his title will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Nahum 1:12-14 (note verse order in NEB which is said to "render the promises of God interpretively" )	13 Now I will break his yoke from your necks      and snap the cords that bind you. 14 Image and idol I will hew down in the house of your God.      This is what the LORD has ordained for you:      never again shall your offspring be scattered;      and I will grant your burial, fickle though you have been. 12 Has the punishment been so great?      Yes , but it has passed away and is gone.      I have afflicted you, but I will not afflict you again.	12 These are the words of the LORD:      Judah, though your punishment has been great,      yet it will pass away and be gone.      I have afflicted you, but I shall not afflict you again. 13 Now I shall break his yoke from your necks      and snap the cords that bind you. 14 Nineveh, this is what the LORD has ordained for you:      No more children will be born to you;      I shall hew down image and idol      in the temples of your gods:      I shall prepare your grave,      for you are of no account.
Acts 20:7 (traditional "first day of week" is rendered "Saturday night" in both versions)	On the Saturday night, in our assembly for the breaking of bread, Paul, who was to leave next day, addressed them, and went on speaking until midnight.	On the Saturday night, when we gathered for the breaking of bread, Paul, who was to leave the next day, addressed the congregation and went on speaking until midnight.

The NEB's infamous "she broke wind" in Josh 15:18 is rendered "she dismounted" in the REB. However, it should be pointed out that later editions of the NEB had already changed the phrase to a much more vague (and much less fun) "she made a noise" which seems to beg for a redactional insertion of "Let the reader understand."

One can still see the influence C. H. Dodd, who served as Vice-Chairman and Director of the Joint Committee for the NEB, in Rom 3:25 of the REB by referring to Jesus as "the means of expiating sins." The only major translations to use the theological term expiation are the NEB, REB, and RSV. More traditional translations often employ propitiation (KJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB). Many translations in the last few decades have opted to use some form of the the less divisive sacrifice of atonement (NIV, NRSV, TNIV. NLT).

The NEB had been known for its reader-friendly single-column text. Further, verse reference numbers were moved to the margins so as not to create unnecessary mental breaks while reading, although it was often difficult to determine where a verse began and ended. Most editions of the REB use a two-column text and verse numbers are restored to their traditional placement.

As with any translation, the REB is not without it's criticisms. In his 1993 JETS review of the REB, Donald Williams wrote

...the REB is, like its predecessor the NEB, a fluid and interesting rendering and a delight to read from a stylistic point of view. But it is not among the most reliable translations from the standpoint of accuracy. Its revisions create an impression of movement in a conservative direction from the NEB that is not always borne out in detail. Less daring than NEB, less willing to depart from time-hallowed KJV patterns in phraseology, REB loses some of the distinctiveness of the earlier version. You might call it NEB homogenized. The result seems more to blunt the virtues of the earlier volume rather than to ameliorate its vices. It remains worth having on the shelves for comparative purposes but would unfortunately be inappropriate as a primary study Bible.

Elegance versus accuracy should not be a trade-off we accept as inevitable: KJV was both as accurate as its time could have made it and unsurpassable in elegance. But perhaps once in a language is the most we can ask for a miracle like that. For now we must choose between such versions as NASB, accurate but stiff and wooden at times; NIV, fairly accurate but bland; and NEB, elegant and exciting but really too loose.

The criticism regarding accuracy is an interesting one. It may be warranted in a few specific examples, but at least the REB can't really be faulted for ever being too wooden, too bland, or even too loose as the other translations mentioned above. It makes for a stimulating read-through of the scriptures. I personally don't believe it would be inappropriate to use the REB as a primary study Bible, but I imagine not many American readers would adopt it for such. The original NEB had been criticized for too often having what were called "britishisms"--that is, words that reflect peculiar (meaning "belonging exclusively to," not "odd or strange") British usage that many American readers might not understand. While the large majority of these were removed in the REB, an occasional odd phrasing remains such as "he will get nothing but blows and contumely" (Prov 6:33). Contumely, by the way, is an older word meaning "insolent or insulting language or treatment."

The REB is only published by Oxford and Cambridge University Presses. In the UNited States REB Bibles are often more easily found in a bookstore chain like Borders or Barnes & Noble than independent Christian bookstores. Most of the editions are primarily text editions, and available either with or without the Apocryphal/Deutero-canonical books. There is a version of the Oxford Study Bible adapted for the REB, but as far as I know it is only published in hardback editions. This is the only study edition of the REB available to my knowledge. Cambridge Press publishes a rather nice text edition in Morocco leather. I can't really justify purchasing this for myself, but I believe if I ever had purely discretionary funds (ha), that would be the edition to own (I simply use a hardback text edition). I was surprised to find that the REB is not available as an add-on for most Bible study software programs, but it is available for Accordance. If someone knows of other electronic offerrings, please post the information in the comments.

The Revised English Bible is a great selection for reading and study, especially for the person who appreciates literary quality. I personally have never taught directly from it, but I find it very enjoyable for personal reading and comparing with other translations. It would also make an appropriate choice to give to the person who has high literary tastes but generally avoids reading the Bible.

For Further Reading:
- Roger, Coleman. New Light & Truth: The Making of the Revised English Bible. London: Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
- Bible-Researcher webpage for the Revised English Bible
- Wikipedia Entry for the Revised English Bible
- Ken Anderson's Page on the Revised English Bible
- Better Bibles Blog webpage on the Revised English Bible


Redacted: 7/20/2006

Up Next: The New Jerusalem Bible

Tags: REB, Top Ten

A month ago, I wrote a blog entry entitled, "Is a Paraphrase in the Eye of the Beholder?" that wrestled with the sticky issue of defining a paraphrase in distinction to an actual translation of the Bible. In that entry, I referenced David Dewey's definition of a paraphrase from his book A User's Guide to Bible Translations, but found that his definition wasn't as all-encompasing as what I would like. Dewey paid This Lamp a visit and posted some very helpful insights in the comments section:

The line between paraphrase and a free translation is hard to define and is really quite subjective. But there is a spectrum going from literal through free to paraphrase though different people would place the 'borders' in differing places. I would add that paraphrases are less consistent in their rendering than free translations. I remember talking to Barclay Newman, chief translator of the CEV, who says translation is all about rules, rules and more rules. The CEV and GNB are less paraphrastic than the LB or the Message because the former, though very free, do follow certain rules more consistently whereas the latter are more idiosyncratic.

I feel Dewey's comments are extremely helpful here by generally stating that a translation is bound more by rules of translation while a paraphrase is tends to be more what he calls idiosyncratic. Perhaps we say that a paraphraser has more freedom in his or her renderings.

The Question of Use in Worship. A question that has come out of the comments section from my entry on The Message relates to the proper use of a paraphrase. Jeremy Pierce was surprised that I have used the Message for "public reading" in place of a more traditional Bible translation. Further, Peterson himself seems to discourage such a practice, according to Jeremy, because he doesn't want his work confused with the Bible itself. In a 2002 Christianity Today Interview, Peterson said,

When I'm in a congregation where somebody uses it [the Message] in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, "Hear the Word of God from The Message." But it surprises me how many do. You can't tell people they can't do it. But I guess I'm a traditionalist, and I like to hear those more formal languages in the pulpit.

I suppose that part of Peterson's sentiment comes from his own genuine humility. It's understandable that he would be uneasy about having his rendering of the Bible proclaimed as God's Word. Up until recently, most Bible translators remained anonymous and I can see why. It's a weighty responsibility to even teach or preach God's Word, let alone translate it for the use of others.

Is a Paraphrase of the Bible a Bible? But let's back up to another question. Can a paraphrase of the Bible fairly be called a Bible at all--or is it merely a kind of commentary? I know that some people say absolutely not regarding the question of whether a paraphrase is a Bible. But what about the publishers themselves? There are three major modern paraphrases of the Bible in modern English: J. B. Phillips' New Testament in Modern English (revised 1972), Kenneth Taylor's The Living Bible (completed 1971), and Eugene Peterson's The Message (completed 1992). Of these three, only The Message is in widespread use today.

Early editions of Philips NT and The Message came without verse numbers that seemed an attempt to distinguish them somewhat from being thought of as actual Bibles. But later, publishers included verse numbers in both. I don't think The Message had verse numbers until the Remix edition of 2004, but the numberings had already existed for a few years prior for use in Bible software programs. The Living Bible had chapter and verse designations from the very beginning.

Further, the pictures at the top of this entry depicting leather-bound copies of The Message and The Living Bible were selected with s particular motive. When a publisher begins marketing a Bible paraphrase with leather, gold edges, and ribbon markers, it can only mean one thing: these editions are intended to serve as personal Bibles, possibly even primary Bibles. To me, the message (no pun intended) is unmistakable.

To answer my own question, I would say that yes, I consider a paraphrase of the Bible to be a "real" Bible (but I'll qualify that statement in a moment). When I designated a title for my series on my favorite Bibles, I specifically used "Versions" because I believe a Bible version encompasses both translations and paraphrases. Even the Septuagint seems paraphrased in a few places, and no one would doubt it's place as an ancient text representing God's Word. And "representing" is the key thought here. No version of the BIble--translation or paraphrase is God's Word itself. They are merely a vehicles for communicating God's Word.

And here's the qualifier to my "yes" in the above paragraph. As I have stated before, although I would encourage the use of a paraphrase like The Message, I would never recommend it as a primary Bible for study, but rather as a tool alongside an actual translation. However, some do use paraphrases as their primary Bible. A whole generation of church-goers carried those green hardback Living Bibles every Sunday, and I know of a few older members at my church who still do. I regularly see young people carrying copies of the Message to church.

I certainly understand why people do this. Often paraphrases communicate to these readers in a way that they perceive they understand God's Word better than with actual translations. I don't think it's wise to berate people for the Bible they're using. Surely it's better for someone to read a paraphrase of the Bible than no version of the Bible at all. But it's also important to let people know the benefits and cautions of a paraphrase.

The Benefits and Cautions of Using a Paraphrase. The benefits are clear. Paraphrases communicate God's Word in a very easygoing, contemporary style that may enhance understanding of the Bible. Often, it's easier to get someone who's never read the Bible to read a paraphrase first before picking up an actual translation. Sometimes children respond better to a paraphrase (although I like the Good News Bible best for children) than an actual translation. My experience reflected this when as a child often I couldn't understand a passage in the King James Version, but was able to cross-read it in the Children's Living Bible given to me by my grandmother. Teenagers might respond well to a paraphrase, too. When I used to teach high school Bible, I often used The Message for our reading of longer OT passages (but I did not allow them to use The Message as their Bible for classwork). Further, I thoroughly enjoyed reading through the Message in my devotions a few years back, and recommend it to anyone for that use. It took me longer to get through The Message than any previously read version of the Bible because I slowed down to "hear" the words and I tended to reflect on them more.

But there are also cautions. There's no such thing as a committee-based Bible paraphrase to my knowledge. Therefore, any Bible paraphrase is the product of one individual (such as Phillips, Taylor, or Peterson). As godly and as genuine as these men are, they're still human and can make mistakes. The benefit of a committee-based translation lies in the checks and balances of many eyes upon the work. Further, while all translations of the Bible include some amount of interpretation, paraphrases--which by nature have very free renderings--are simply the most interpretive of any kind of Bible version. Since the paraphrase is the work of one individual, that means one mind is interpreting the text for the reader. As masterful as I believe The Message speaks in contemporary language or as clever as I think Phillips NT renders the text at times, I never let myself forget that I'm receiving one perspective on the biblical message.

I've also seen scripture memory cards that use The Message. Although I believe many parts of The Message are quotable and certainly memorable, I personally would caution someone against using The Message strictly as their only choice for memorization. A downside to any version of the Bible that overly depends on contemporary language remains in the reality that the language will not always be contemporary. To me, paraphrases tend to feel dated more quickly than other versions of the Bible.

That brings us back to the question regarding The Message's use in worship. Although I would use it in worship, I wouldn't do it regularly in place of other translations. Further, I believe it's important to let a congregation know when a paraphrase like The Message is being used rather than letting them wonder why "their Bible" doesn't sound like the reader's.

And for the person who still doesn't want to give up use of The Message as a primary Bible, I would recommend at least using one of Zondervan's parallel editions with the NIV, TNIV or NASB.

What are your thoughts? Feel free to share them in the comments.

Tags: Message, Top Ten

Note: I've written about The Message before, and this post is a revision and update of a previous blog entry.

The story may be apocryphal, but supposedly Eugene Peterson initially explained his original concept for The Message as "a Bible for truck drivers." Of course, it's so easy to offend people these days that such descriptions were dropped. But if The Message was said to be for truck drivers, it was a compliment, not an insult. What's meant by such a characterization is that Peterson was aiming his paraphrase of the Bible not at academics or even the overly-churched, but the salt-of-the-earth, regular, everyday American who might be willing to read the Bible if it was written in something that sounded like normal, conversational, American English.

The Message is a paraphrase, not a translation of the Bible. What do I mean by paraphrase? Well, Peterson didn't try to do a word for word translation. Rather, he attempted to put the Scriptures in his own words with a flair for contemporary language. And, in my opinion, he did a very good job. The Message is most easily compared with with Kenneth Taylor's original Living Bible published in the early 1970's. That was a paraphrase, too, but this is so much better. When Taylor paraphrased the Bible, he didn't know the original languages. He took the 1901 American Standard Version and simply put it into his own words. What makes The Message different is that Peterson knows his biblical languages. He sat down with the Greek and Hebrew and created a paraphrase that is masterful in style and form. Truly comparable only to J. B. Phillips' own British paraphrase a few decades ago, Peterson's version is clever, stylistic and begs to be read aloud. I took a longer time reading through The Message than any previous version of the Bible I've read through. I think it's because I got caught up in the wording. I became more reflective, and found myself reading and rereading passages, comparing it to more traditional translations. I would call out to Kathy and say, "Listen to this" and read it to her.

I never recommend a paraphrase to be used as a sole Bible for study. I personally use a number of current Bible translations referenced against the Greek New Testament when I do serious study of the Bible. However, think of a paraphrase such as The Message as an aid, a Bible tool for insight into the meaning of the text. The obvious danger with a paraphrase is that as a person attempts to put the Bible into his or her own words, too much emphasis may be placed on personal interpretation. And, Like Taylor's and Phillips' previous works, paraphrases tend to be done by one person. In fact, I can't recollect any committee-based paraphrases of the Bible, but that's probably a positive in light of its use. The value of a true Bible translation lies in the checks and balances of a committee that works together on the final product. I've read some negative critiques of Peterson's work, including some questions about the way a particular verse reads or what seems to be unnecessary insertions into a verse, but I think overall these concerns are minor. I tend to judge any version of the Bible, whether paraphrase, form-driven or meaning-driven by what the translator(s) were attempting to do. The introduction to The Message states that "The idea is to make it readable--to put those ancient words that their users spoke and wrote into words that you speak and write every day." In regard to that, I believe that Peterson accomplished his purpose.

The Message has now been in complete form for a couple of years. However, it was initially released in portions. I picked up the New Testament in either 1993 or 1994. I remember taking it a number of times to an advanced masters level Greek class "Selected Passages from the New Testament" at Southern Seminary. I remember my professor (who will remain nameless) hated it. In particular, he hated Peterson's phrasings in Galatians. That's ironic because it was Peterson's paraphrases of Galatians from the Greek class he taught himself that first gained him notice and led to NavPress asking him to translate the whole Bible. But if my professor hated it, that's okay. Peterson wasn't writing for professors. He was writing for the regular guy on the street. The same way a missionary might translate the Bible to fit a foreign culture, Peterson seemed to be translating to reach the average American person at the turn of the 21st Century. The Message is one of the few translations that I've ever bought in portions. Usually, I wait until an entire Bible is completed before I pick one up, but Peterson's masterful paraphrase captivated me from the very beginning.

The Message is better experienced than explained. But here's a brief sample of selected passages from The Message itself:
I will admit that my favorite part of The Message is Peterson's rendering of the Bible's wisdom literature. He has a magnificent way of bringing Scripture's wisdom texts into modern contexts. Consider Prov 30:15-16...

A leech has twin daughters
                  named “Gimme” and “Gimme more.”

           Three things are never satisfied,
                 no, there are four that never say, “That’s enough, thank you!”—
 
                  hell,
                  a barren womb,
                  a parched land,
                  a forest fire.”


In some of the earlier editions of the stand-alone OT portions, Peterson used Yahweh for God's divine name. I wish he had stayed with this, but opted to use GOD (in all caps) for the name of God in the final edition. I realize that use of the divine name can be offensive to those in Jewish contexts, but I would suggest that Yahweh could be used in the text and Lord could be read in its place in public readings. I would suggest this for any Bible version as certain passages only make sense if the emphasis is on God's actual name.

Curious as to where Peterson got his title? I figured this out simply by reading through it. The word Message (with a capital M) is used roughly 600 times in Peterson's paraphrase as signifying any divine communication from God. It is used in place of standard renderings such as "Thus spoke the Lord," "vision," "the word of God," etc.

The Message is certainly not perfect, and perhaps a paraphrase makes an easier target than most Bible versions for criticisms. I sometimes found myself wondering how this or that rendering could be justified with even the most extreme meaning-driven approach. But a paraphrase gives one extra freedom. I have also written in the past regarding The Message's deficient rendering of texts relating to homosexuality. I will include a link at the end of this entry.

Recently, as a tool for use with The Message, Peterson has released The Message Three-Way Concordance: Word/Phrase/Synonym.

How I use the Message. I've used The Message on and off for ten years now, usually either for devotional purposes or for public readings. I read selected passages from 2 Timothy when I gave my friend, Jason Snyder, his ordination charge. I've used it occasionally in my Bible study class on Sunday mornings to allow participants to hear familiar passages with "a different ear." I used it frequently with my students when I taught high school-level Bible courses at Whitefield Academy, especially when assigning longer passages of the Bible. When I read a passage from The Message (in a loud and clear voice with lots of drama and annunciation), they soon figured out it was too difficult to follow along in their translations. So they put them down and looked up to watch me. As I looked at their faces, these teenagers seemed to transform into little children listening to Bible stories. Most recently, I've used The Message for a Scripture reading in our worship service at church. The Message is also a good choice to use when speaking to a crowd that may be largely unfamiliar with the Bible, and it is certainly a good choice to give to someone who wants to read the Bible for the first time. I also noticed when we were in Louisiana last week that my mother-in-law is systematically reading through The Message.

What editions of the Message I Use. When the entire Bible was released in 2002, I gave away my portions to a friend and bought a hardback copy of the complete Bible. That's what I used for a couple of years (in addition to a software copy of the text that I have in Accordance).

More recently, I decided to get one of the newer editions that was not only in leather (I think it's leather), but also with verse numbering which was absent from all initial editions. That's how I came across The Message//Remix. It comes in both a hardback printed cover edition and a funky blue alligator bonded leather edition. I have the funky blue one.

How is The Message//Remix different from previous editions? Well, it fixed the one thing that frustrated folks who regularly use The Message--they added verse numbers! Yes, I understand why the original edition (which is still being published) does not have verse numbers. The biblical writers did not include chapter and number divisions in the original works. We have added these to make referencing particular passages easier. Peterson wanted people not to get bogged down the by unnatural interruption caused by verse references. He wanted us to read it as it was meant to be read in one continuous train of thought. Yet, it was often frustrating not to have the references included, especially when using The Message in conjunction with other translations. But the little known secret is that verse numbers have existed for a while in software editions where they are absolutely necessary. In this new edition, the publisher compromised and took a cue from the New English Bible and put the verse references out in the margins rather than interrupting the text with them.

Like the original edition, The Message//Remix keeps a one-column format which I prefer in a Bible. The paper used in this edition is a pleasing off-white. Book introductions have been revised from the original ones written by Peterson. They tend to be a bit shorter, but still just as powerful. I still like how Peterson introduces Ecclesiastes: "Unlike the animals, who seem quite content to simply be themselves, we humans are always looking for ways to be more than or other than what we find ourselves to be. We explore the countryside for excitement, search our souls for meaning, shop the world for pleasure. We try this. Then we try that. The usual fields of endeavor are money, sex, power, adventure, and knowledge."

The Introduction has new information as well, or at least a new layout--a remix--of the information about the paraphrase found in the original edition. But it's in a a more reader-friendly format. There is a section called "Listening to the Remix" that asks the question, "Why does a two thousand-year-old book still matter?" This part of the introduction seeks to distinguish the Bible from other literature such as Romeo and Juliet, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and Catcher in the Rye. There is a section that asks "Who is Eugene Peterson? Most Bibles don't have a person's name on them. So who is Eugene Peterson and why does he get his name on the front page of this particular Bible?" The best part of the introduction, in my opinion though lies in an essay called "Read. Think. Pray. Live" which truly describes how the Christian should incorporate God's Word into his or her life. I've seen the essay starting to show up a few other places outside this Bible lately, too. I don't know where it appeared first--here or somewhere else.

Finally--and some of you may find this silly--this Bible feels good in the hand. This is very subjective, and I don't know if you will even get what I'm saying. I'm just eyeballing here, but it measures about 7 1/2" X 5" and 1 1/2" thick. That's really one of my favorite sizes for a book. If you look at a library shelf of books from fifty years ago or more, lots of books were this size--hand size, I call it. It fits in your hand well. The cover is limp so it hangs (at the least the leather edition) like a Bible is supposed to.  

For Further Reading:
- The Message Web Page (Navpress)
- History and FAQs (NavPress)
- The Message Wikipedia Entry
- Bible Researcher Page on The Message
- Better Bibles Blog Page on The Message (extensive discussion in the comments)

- Is the Message Soft on Homosexuality? (R. Mansfield)
- Follow-Up to the Message: What is the Proper Use of a Bible Translation? (R. Mansfield--added 7/13/2006)

Next entry: The Revised English Bible

Tags: Message, Top Ten

Series note: My early hunch had been that as I got further into this series, the postings would become shorter. Frankly, I don't use the BIbles later in the list as much as I use the earlier ones. And I also assumed this post--the one on the New Living Translation--would mark the point where the entries began to shrink. However, I was mistaken. In the process of reflecting and taking a fresh look at the NLT, I became aware at how little I realized the massive number of changes made between the 1996 and 2004 editions. Whereas before, I had in mind one entity known as the NLT, I now realize that these two editions are quite different. I admit I was simply unaware; I had not been keeping up. Therefore, the focus of this entry is no longer merely on the NLT itself, but a substantial portion of it makes note of the changes made between the first and second editions. And of course, I don't feel that I can ignore some of the history leading up to the NLT, so that's included as well. I have considered breaking this entry up into two or even three parts, but in the end decided it was best left as a single piece.

A reminder that this series is not just a collection of reviews, but more importantly a very subjective take on these Bible versions, including my personal history with them.

Edition designations: I have seen the second edition of the New Living Translation referred to as the NLTse and NLT2. In this blog entry, when referring to the 1996 edition, I will use NLT1; and for the 2004 edition, NLT2. When simply referring to the New Living Translation in general, I will use NLT.

---

The other day, I noticed the elderly lady sitting in front of me at church was carrying a rather unusual looking black Bible. The Bibles people carry always interest me. When we stood to sing, I leaned over and noticed that the black Bible she was carrying was actually one of the original green padded Living BIbles from a generation ago. The Bible had received so much use over the years that it had turned from green to black! Such devotion is characteristic of what the Living Bible meant to a number of people. I've seen similarly worn Living Bibles used by my grandmother, my father, and Kathy's grandmother.

Kenneth Taylor's "Living" Legacy. Supposedly, the Living Bible came from Kenneth Taylor's desire to produce a version of the Bible that his children would understand. The Bible he produced was not a translation from the original languages, but rather a paraphrase, specifically of the 1901 American Standard Version. The complete Bible was published in 1971. For many people, Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible simply spoke their language. It made the Bible real to them and come alive. Complain all you want about the deficiencies of a paraphrase, this is the Bible that many people were willing to read. The Living Bible held the distinction of being the first Bible version to knock the King James Version out of the top spot in monthly Bible sales. Although it was not able to maintain this dominance, it's brief time in the top spot testifies to is acceptance and significance. The Living Bible would remain in the top ten list of Bibles sold, usually in the top five, until it was replaced by Tyndale with the New Living Translation in 1996.

Billy Graham called the Living Bible "the world's greatest evangelist." I've seen firsthand evidence to that declaration. When I was in college in the late eighties, I worked in a small Christian bookstore. Tyndale House Publishers, the publisher of the Living Bible, sent us a display with free samples from their forthcoming Life Application Bible. These were simply gospels of Mark in the Living Bible with the Life Application notes at the bottom of the page. Over the weeks I had worked at the store, I became acquainted with our mail carrier. From our brief conversations, I gathered that he was probably not a believer, had a bit of a rocky past including a number of failed marriages, and there were hints that alcohol had been a recurring problem in his life. While he was in the store one afternoon, he asked if he could take a copy of the Life Application Gospel of Mark with him. The next day, he came into our store absolutely beaming. He said that after he had made his last mail run on the previous day, he went to a diner and began reading the Gospel of Mark in the Living Bible over dinner. He told me that the words seemed to seize him and he couldn't put it down. Sitting in that diner, he read the entire gospel AND the Life Application notes. Feeling overpowering conviction of the Holy Spirit, and convinced that Jesus had died for his sins, he prayed to receive Christ all by himself in the diner that night. Rarely have I ever heard of people coming to Christ in settings where they were all alone. But in a sense, he was not alone. He said that he had never been able to understand the Bible before he read it in the Living Bible paraphrase. I kept up with him over the next three or so years until we moved. From my observances, his conversion was very real and life-changing.

I never used the Living Bible much, although very early on I had a Children's Living Bible (the text was the same, but color pictures were added) that my grandmother gave me. As I've said elsewhere I rarely carried it to church because I was embarrassed of the word "children" on the cover. However, two uses of the original Living Bible stick out in my memory. First, on the number of occasions when I actually did carry it to church, it was often used as a distraction during a boring sermon by looking up 1 Samuel 20:30 (which was definitely rendered into contemporary English) and snickering with my buddies sitting beside me. Later printings of the Living Bible put the offending phrase down into the footnotes.

My most significant use of the Living Bible came, when as a child in Sunday School, I left church absolutely baffled after our study of Romans 7. Verses 14-20, a mental tongue-twister in most translations, really confused my childlike mind. When I got home, I opened the King James Version (which I had in class) alongside the Living Bible and the light bulbs went off.

ROMANS 7:14-20
King James Version	Living Bible
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.	14 The law is good, then, and the trouble is not there with me, but because I am sold into slavery with Sin as my owner. 15 I don't understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I can't. I do what I don't want to--what I hate. 16 I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong, and my bad conscience proves that I agree with these laws I am breaking. 17 But I can't help myself, because I'm no longer doing it. It is sin inside me that is stronger than I am that makes me do these evil things. 18 I know I am rotten through and through so far as my old nature is concerned. No matter which way I turn I can't make myself do right. I want to but I can't. 19 When I want to do good, I don't; and when I try not to do wrong, I do it anyway. 20 Now if I am doing what I don't want to, it is plain where the trouble is: sin still has me in its evil grasp.

Not only did I understand the passage and was able to apply the Living Bible text back to the King James version, but I also discoverd the value of studying the Bible with translations in parallel--a practice that I continue to this day.

One final note about the Living Bible... As I was preparing to write this blog entry, I pulled my copy of the Living Bible off the shelf to re-familiarize myself with its tone and feel. The copy I have with my collection of English Bible translations is not the green padded hardback with which most people are familiar, but rather a black imitation leather text edition. I purchased this Bible around two decades ago as one of the early items added to my collection. Upon looking at the title page, I was surprised to see something I had never noticed before:

THE
LIVING
BIBLE

PARAPHRASED
A Thought-for-Thought Translation

I had never paid attention to the line that reads "A Thought-for-Thought Translation." I find this interesting for two reasons. One has to do with recent discussions (see here and here) trying to distinguish how a paraphrase differs from a translation. I find it interesting that at some point the publishers began defining a paraphrase as a thought-for-thought translation. I don't think (but someone else will have to verify) that this line was used in the green hardbacks. Is calling a paraphrase a thought-for-thought translation a contradiction in terms? I also found it interesting that the very phrase "A Thought-for-Thought Translation" is now used as a marketing description for the New Living Translation, which is never referred to as a paraphrase, although it undoubtedly includes elements of paraphrase here and there.

I've only heard this secondhand from one of the NLT translators, but supposedly in the eighties, Kenneth Taylor had a strong desire to update the Living Bible. Unable to complete the task himself, his son Mark Taylor convinced him to turn the reigns over to a translation committee. The end product of that effort would, of course, be the New Living Translation.

However, before discussing the NLT, it might be worth noting that in 1990, Tyndale published a text simply known as The New Translation that included Romans through Jude (this corresponds to Taylor's Living Letters, the first portion of the Living Bible published in 1962). The copyright is held by "The Society for the New Translation." As of yet, I have not been able to determine exactly how the New Translation relates to the NLT or if the translation committees are the same. But a number of this text's features stand out.

In the preface, written by Ken Taylor, he notes first of all that the New Translation is translated from the Greek; and thus, it's not merely a paraphrase of an earlier version like the Living Bible was in regard to the ASV. Second, Taylor notes that the New Translation will go back to the method of using italics to identify words added to the text for meaning in English (always a bad practice in my opinion since modern readers see italics as indicators of emphasis). He adds that no modern translation uses this practice (and for good reason I might add), but I think he means that no translation outside of the Tyndale/KJV tradition uses italics.

A third, and very significant feature in light of recent controversies, is the use of gender inclusive language (although that phrase is not used). Talylor writes:

Another outstanding feature of The New Translation is its correct translation of such statements as "He who has the Son has life" to become "Whoever has the Son has life." Since God's grace is for men and women alike, a valid translation must reflect this. It may be an unimportant point for many readers, but to others, both in and outside the church, it is important and helpful.

At the time of the New Translation's publication (1990), only the New Revised Standard Version and the Revised English Bible (both released in 1989) featured inclusive language. This indicates that Taylor and the translation committee had a mindset early on in favor of inclusive language. This would later be reflected in the final release of the New Living Translation six years later. The connections between the two seem to end there, though.

On both the back cover and immediately following the preface, Rom 1:5, 7, 14 and 1 Cor 2:7 are paralleled beside other English translations. To give you a flavor of the New Translation in context with Tyndale's other Bibles, let me recreate the chart with the Living Bible and NLT1 included as well.

	Living Bible	Other	THE NEW TRANSLATION	NLT1
Rom 1:5	And now, through Christ, all the kindness of God has been poured out upon us undeserving sinners; and now he is sending us out around the world to tell all people everywhere the great things God has done for them, so that they, too, will believe and obey him.	NIV: Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the oebedience that comes through faith.	Through Christc I have received the gracious gift of being an apostle, to lead people of every nation to obedient faith in Him for the glory of His name. c Greek: "we"	Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and authority to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them, so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name.
Rom 1:7	And you, dear friends in Rome, are among those he dearly loves; you, too, are invited by Jesus Christ to be God's very own--yes, his holy people. May all God's mercies and peace be yours from God our Father and from Jesus Christ our Lord. [note that in the Living Bible, vv. 6-7 are combined]	KJV: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.	This letter is written to all of God's loved ones in Rome, called to be His holy people. may God's wonderful, undeserved favor and peace be yours from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.	dear friends in Rome. God loves you dearly, and he has called you to be his very own people. May grace and peace be yours from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 1:14	For I owe a great debt to you and to everyone else, both to civilized people and uncivilized alike; yes, to the educated and uneducated alike.	NKJV: I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise.	For I am under obligation both to the Greeks and all other Gentiles,c to the wise and simple alike. c Literally, "and to barbarians,"	For I have a great sense of obligation to people in our culture and to people in other cultures, to the educated and uneducated alike.
1 Cor 2:7	Our words are wise because they are from God, telling of God's wise plan to bring us into the glories of heaven. This plan was hidden in former times, though it was made for our benefit before the world began.	NASB: but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory;	but we teach the wisdom of God, hidden in mystery in the past, but planned for our glory from before the beginning of the world.	No, the wisdom we speak of is the secret wisdom of God, which was hidden in former times, though he made it for our benefit before the world began.

Comparing the New Translation to the NLT seems to demonstrate no real influence upon the latter at all. The two are very dissimilar. One might suppose that the New Translation project was completely abandoned in favor of the New Living Translation; however, this may not completely be the case based on information I will present below about the NLT. I wish I had more details about this stage of history at Tyndale House Publishers.

The Old Is New Again: The NEW Living Translation. A couple of Sundays ago Kathy and I were asked to provide a Scripture reading in the worship service. A few days before, our minister of music handed us a copy of Eph 1:2-14 from the NIV Dramatized New Testament., a copy of the Scriptures broken down into "parts" for public reading or performance. Our church has recently gone through the difficult process of combining a declining traditional service with a growing contemporary service. The new format has been called "blended," but probably leans a bit more to the contemporary. As Kathy and I read through the NIV text of Eph 1:2-14, we weren't sure that it was the best translation for the service. Kathy put it bluntly, "It sounds too liturgical."

Now, I should say that upon reflection, I find great irony in thinking of the NIV as "too liturgical." Such an idea three or four decades ago would have been quite laughable. But she was right. This passage in Ephesians has a number of weighty concepts and the vocabulary it contained seemed to be too formal for a passage that was going to merely be proclaimed with no commentary. Immediately, of course, she wanted to use the New Living Translation--her version of choice. But I was more cautious. I wanted to compare a number of Bible versions, especially in regard to how they sounded out loud. We read the CEV and the REB since they are known for their quality when spoken. We read the passage in about half a dozen translations before we settled on the NLT which was, of course, what my wife had suggested in the first place. She was right. The NLT rendered this passage in a manner that was much more like normal people speak in regular conversation than any of the other translations we considered.

This is one of the reasons I like the New Living Translation. Its use of English seems very natural, and in my ear, moreso than most translations. When I was searching for a primary translation of the Bible to use at church in replacement of the NASB, the NLT was a top contender, perhaps behind the HCSB and TNIV. In the end, I eliminated it not because I thought it was necessarily less accurate than these other translations, but because its renderings sounded so natural that I was afraid it would be too different from the Bible carried by the average person I teach. Plus, since Kathy uses it, I am always able to turn to her and have her read a passage.

Tyndale House Publishers released the New Living Translation midyear in 1996. I was just starting the doctoral program at SBTS (first time around), and at that time our school boasted four of the ninety or so translators: Daniel Block, Gerald Borchert, Thomas Schreiner, and Robert Stein. Tyndale gave every student on campus a copy of the new Bible. I was interested in it simply because it was a new translation, but the more I read, the more it impressed me.

I've always been a fan of clever translation, and verses like Mark 2:16 really stood out: "But when some of the teachers of religious law who were Pharisees saw him eating with people like that, they said to his disciples, 'Why does he eat with such scum?'" (NLT1). I'd never seen a word like "scum" in the Bible before, but I felt like that verse accurately captured in English the essence of the original text's meaning. I completely read through the NLT over the next few months and introduced Kathy to it as well. It instantly became her primary Bible version.

The New Living Translation differs greatly from the Living Bible in that not only is it a translation (albeit a fairly loose one) instead of a paraphrase, but it also relied on the work of a translation committee instead of the primary work of one person. The "Note to Readers" in the 1996 edition states that "ninety evangelical scholars from various theological backgrounds and denominations were commissioned in 1989 to begin revising The Living Bible. The end result of this seven-year process is the Holy Bible, New Living Translation--a general purpose translation that is accurate, easy to read, and excellent for study."

The quotation above makes one wonder if the committee referenced is not the same committee that produced The New Translation in 1990 since the above group began work a year earlier. If so, direction seemed to have significantly changed after publication of the letters in the New Testament. Further, whereas the Living Bible (regardless of actual use) was intended as a complementary version for other translations, the NLT was designed to stand on its own as a primary Bible for everyday use.

The introduction to the 1996 edition spends practically the entire first page and then some extolling the virtues of a dynamic equivalence translation, something that the 2004 edition seems to back away from some in its introduction. In fact in the earlier intro, one reads "A thought-for-thought translation prepared by a group of capable scholars has the potential to represent the intended meaning of the original text even more accurately than a word-for-word translation." Strong words in light of the battle over translation philosophies to follow in the years following the NLT's initial publication.

From my perspective, of all the major translations in print today, the English in the NLT seems the most natural-sounding in its use of language. It's one thing to translate the Bible into English; it's another thing to translate the Bible with a contemporary English-speaking audience in mind. With the 1996 NLT, a concerted effort was made to translate ancient designations into terms that would be more meaningful to the English-speaking reader: measures (1 Kings 7:26, "11,000 gallons of water") weights (Ezra 8:26, "24 tons of silver"), calendar days (Ezek 33:21, "On January 8..."), time (Matt 4:25, "About three o’clock in the morning Jesus came to them") and currency (Acts 19:19, "The value of the books was several million dollars"). It's not that this had never been done before, but it cuts against the grain of most major translations, including ones produced in the last five or six years. One has to ask whether the text has been fully translated if the reader is left wondering how much or what time a passage is actually referring to.

The first edition of the NLT is much freer in its translation than the second edition, and it's much freer than most popular translations. I've blogged about this before, such as the entry I wrote about Rom 14:4 in the NLT1. I've also written a post about the NLT's influence from the LXX in Isa 18:1. The dynamic nature of the NLT's translation philosophy gave its translators a great deal of freedom in rendering the biblical text. As I concluded in my post on Romans 14:4, although it's a bit more free than what I prefer in a primary translation for my own use, I cannot say that such renderings are inaccurate. Most of the time when I've had questions as to why a passage has been translated a particular way in the NLT, when I've dug a little deeper, I've received my answer. But that doesn't mean that there's not some paraphrase at play, too, now and then. Consider a verse like Ecclesiastes 9:8, shown here in the HCSB for reference to a literal text with the NLT 1 and NLT2 beside it:

Ecclesiastes 9:8
HCSB	NLT1	NLT2
Let your clothes be white all the time, and never let oil be lacking on your head	Wear fine clothes, with a dash of cologne!	Wear fine clothes, with a splash of cologne!

I have no doubt that cologne communicates meaning well to a modern audience, but it's very difficult to say that this is anything but paraphrase. You find verses like this in the NLT now and then. However, most of the renderings--however free--fall on the border of meaning-driven translation as opposed to actual paraphrase.

You Only Live Twice. The NLT Bible Translation Committee continued to hone their work even after the NLT was published in 1996. A minor revision followed the initial publication. I'm not sure of all the changes, but in a number of places (such as Phil 3:13) in the initial 1996 printing, ἀδελφοί was sometimes rendered "friends." A later printing changed this rendering to "brothers and sisters" which is certainly more accurate.

In 2004 the Bible Translation Committee delivered a second edition of the NLT. I'll admit that I was using the NLT less at this point than I had when it was initially released, and I didn't rush out to get a copy of the update. In fact, I only picked one up earlier this year for my collection. Even then, I didn't take the time to compare the 1996 and 2004 editions other than noting that the Prophets were finally in poetic form, so I had no idea how extensive the changes were.

To be honest, it was when Kathy and I decided to use the NLT in our Scripture reading at church a couple of weeks ago that I first noticed how extensive the changes were. Compare for instance, the passage we read--Eph 1:2-14--in the two editions:

Ephesians 1:2-14
NLT1	NLT2
2 ¶ May grace and peace be yours, sent to you from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 3 ¶ How we praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we belong to Christ. 4 Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. 5 His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. And this gave him great pleasure. 6 ¶ So we praise God for the wonderful kindness he has poured out on us because we belong to his dearly loved Son. 7 He is so rich in kindness that he purchased our freedom through the blood of his Son, and our sins are forgiven. 8 He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding. 9 ¶ God’s secret plan has now been revealed to us; it is a plan centered on Christ, designed long ago according to his good pleasure. 10 And this is his plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth. 11 Furthermore, because of Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us from the beginning, and all things happen just as he decided long ago. 12 God’s purpose was that we who were the first to trust in Christ should praise our glorious God. 13 And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. 14 The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us everything he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. This is just one more reason for us to praise our glorious God.	2 ¶ May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace. 3 ¶ All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ. 4 Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. 5 God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure. 6 So we praise God for the glorious grace he has poured out on us who belong to his dear Son. 7 He is so rich in kindness and grace that he purchased our freedom with the blood of his Son and forgave our sins. 8 He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding. 9 ¶ God has now revealed to us his mysterious plan regarding Christ, a plan to fulfill his own good pleasure. 10 And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth. 11 Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us in advance, and he makes everything work out according to his plan. 12 ¶ God’s purpose was that we Jews who were the first to trust in Christ would bring praise and glory to God. 13 And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. 14 The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us the inheritance he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. He did this so we would praise and glorify him.

I noticed when comparing these passages in the two NLT versions for the first time, that the NLT2 was tighter, less given to unnecessary words. Note in v. 5 that there is a preference for active voice over passive. And yet the second edition was still able to do what the NLT1 had done best--communicate God's Word in a natural, even conversational manner. Some might find it interesting to note that when we put our Scripture reading together, Kathy and I chose to use vv. 2-11 from the NLT2 and vv. 12-14 from the NLT1. The words Jews in v. 12 and Gentiles in v. 13 in the NLT2, while certainly implied in the context of Paul's message, seemed less appropriate for our Southern Baptist congregation. We also liked the freer rendering of the NLT1 for the last sentence in v. 14: "This is just one more reason for us to praise our glorious God." In fact that freer rendering is one of the very reasons I've liked the NLT over the years. I admit that I have not spent as much time as I would like with the NLT2 yet, but I hope that in the desire to streamline the translation, wording such as this has not been lost in too many places.

But such tightening (my term) has certainly been one of the goals for the NLT2. In the FAQ section of the NLT website, one reads, "The translation of difficult terms is made more concise. In the NLT, difficult terms are often made easier to understand by expanding them into longer phrases. The second edition often shortens these expansions--without sacrificing clarity." In most cases, this is probably for the best, but I believe some changes could be debated. Consider, for instance, Romans 3:25.

Romans 3:25
NLT1	NLT2
For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times.	For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past,

What exactly did Jesus do for us on the cross? Well in more traditional translations, specific theological words have been used: propitiation in the KJV, NASB, NKJV, ESV and HCSB and expiation in the RSV, NEB, and REB. However, some translations such as the NIV, NRSV and TNIV have opted simply for "sacrifice of atonement" which can be said to mean either of the two previously stated theological words. When the NLT1 stated that "God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us," the translators are clearly communicating propitiation without using the word. By opting for "God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin," the result is something much more like the NIV or NRSV. Was this the translators' intention or merely the result of making the NLT2's wording more concise?

It's interesting to note the differences found in the first page of the Introduction to the second edition. Whereas the first edition served as a defense for dynamic equivalence translations, most of that wording is now gone, or at least lessened. The new introduction speaks more to the differences, strengths, and weaknesses of the formal and dynamic philosophies of translation. And surprisingly, one reads:

The translators of the New Living Translation set out to render the message of the original texts of Scripture into clear, contemporary English. As they did so, they kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind. On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear and natural English text. Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient metaphors, and word choices ... On the other hand, the translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified metaphors and terms to aid in the reader's understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English ... The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful.

Such give and take between translation philosophies sounds very close to the "Optimal Equivalent" method of the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Regardless, this is a far cry from the principles of the 1996 NLT, and from what I've seen so far, the new text definitely reflects this change in method.

The changes between the two editions are so great, they are for all practical purposes almost two completely separate translations. I corresponded with one of the translators this week and he called the shift between editions "massive." He stated that once the decision was made to restore the prophetic sections to poetical form, entire sections had to be redone. He estimates that the Prophets are 80% changed and the rest of the text somewhere between 30-50%. From what I've read, it seems to be at least 50% if not more. If you lay the two editions side by side, hardly any verse has been left unchanged. I read a good bit of Genesis the other night with both editions side by side, reading one verse in one and then in the other. I'm amazed at the extent of the revision.

Consider, for example, Genesis 1--

Genesis 1
NLT1	NLT2
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God was hovering over its surface. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” Together these made up one day. 6 ¶ And God said, “Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water.” 7 And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below. 8 And God called the space “sky.” This happened on the second day. 9 ¶ And God said, “Let the waters beneath the sky be gathered into one place so dry ground may appear.” And so it was. 10 God named the dry ground “land” and the water “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the land burst forth with every sort of grass and seed-bearing plant. And let there be trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. The seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And so it was. 12 The land was filled with seed-bearing plants and trees, and their seeds produced plants and trees of like kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 This all happened on the third day. 14 ¶ And God said, “Let bright lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. They will be signs to mark off the seasons, the days, and the years. 15 Let their light shine down upon the earth.” And so it was. 16 For God made two great lights, the sun and the moon, to shine down upon the earth. The greater one, the sun, presides during the day; the lesser one, the moon, presides through the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set these lights in the heavens to light the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 This all happened on the fourth day. 20 ¶ And God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every sort of fish and every kind of bird. And God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Let the fish multiply and fill the oceans. Let the birds increase and fill the earth.” 23 This all happened on the fifth day. 24 ¶ And God said, “Let the earth bring forth every kind of animal—livestock, small animals, and wildlife.” And so it was. 25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 ¶ Then God said, “Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life—the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals.” 27 ¶ So God created people in his own image; God patterned them after himself; male and female he created them. 28 ¶ God blessed them and told them, “Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters over the fish and birds and all the animals.” 29 And God said, “Look! I have given you the seed-bearing plants throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. 30 And I have given all the grasses and other green plants to the animals and birds for their food.” And so it was. 31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was excellent in every way. This all happened on the sixth day.	1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 ¶ Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day. 6 ¶ Then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” 7 And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. 8 God called the space “sky.” And evening passed and morning came, marking the second day. 9 ¶ Then God said, “Let the waters beneath the sky flow together into one place, so dry ground may appear.” And that is what happened. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the waters “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. 12 The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day. 14 ¶ Then God said, “Let great lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them mark off the seasons, days, and years. 15 Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And that is what happened. 16 God made two great lights, the sun and the moon—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set these lights in the sky to light the earth, 18 to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And evening passed and morning came, marking the fourth day. 20 ¶ Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And evening passed and morning came, marking the fifth day. 24 ¶ Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. 25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like ourselves. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.” 27 ¶ So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 ¶ Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.” 29 Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. 30 And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life.” And that is what happened. 31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good! And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day.

One thing you'll notice if you read the passage in parallel, is that practically every verse has been changed. Further, in spite of the aforementioned desire for conciseness, the NLT2 passage is actually longer! It's longer because there has been a return to more traditional language. And repetitiveness of the Hebrew style that had been condensed in the NLT1 has been retained in the NLT2. Look at the second sentence in v. 5 in each of the versions. The NLT1 simply has "Together these made up one day." The NLT2 has the more traditional "And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day." Is this an improvement upon the original? I'm not so sure. In v. 27 the more traditional, literal and certainly theological phrase "image of God" has been retained in both versions. Although there has been endless debate regarding the exact meaning of this phrase, the NLT1 attempted to make plain the sense of this concept (to some degree) with the phrase "God patterned them after himself." This has been removed from the NLT2 in favor of more traditional wording.

I had Kathy, who reads the NLT1 as her primary translation and is much more familiar with it than me, compare the two editions. She spent an hour the other night comparing multiple passages. She has a mixed reaction. She acknowledged that some of the changes--poetic forms, more active voice, certain tighter passages (although she prefers Rom 3:25 in the NLT1)--to be an improvement. But she doesn't care for the passages where the translators have attempted to opt for more traditional wording.

I'm not exactly sure why the translation committee made certain passages more traditional. Perhaps they wanted to make the NLT more mainstream. The Tyndale website boasts that the NLT is the fastest growing translation, so maybe the changes have worked. But at this point, I'm a bit on the fence. As I've said--for how I've used the NLT, the freer style of the original better suited my purposes. To me, the changes in the second edition move it closer to the NIV and further away from Kenneth Taylor's "Living" tradition.

Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that the NLT is an extremely valuable translation that most often speaks the Bible's message in a manner like "real" people actually communicate without resorting to paraphrase (most of the time). And the second edition is extremely noteworthy in the history of English Bible translations. Never before have I seen a revision (not just a minor update) come so fast after the initial release (eight years total) and never have I seen changes this extensive between editions.

How I use the NLT. I don't use the NLT that much in personal study, so when I do use it, I use the NLT primarily as a tool in communicating the Bible's message to others. In Sunday School at church, I have Kathy with me, and I often call upon her to read from the NLT, especially when I note that members of the class aren't quite catching what the more traditional translations are saying. I have, on occasion, taught from the NLT, especially when dealing with very familiar passages such as the Sermon on the Mount. I found that a translation like the NLT will help even experienced Christians hear the Bible in a fresh way. I know that when I read the NLT1 for the first time a decade ago, it was so refreshing. I look forward to familiarizing myself with the NLT2 and eventually reading through it as well.

The NLT makes a great Bible to give to an unbeliever or a new believer. A few years ago when I coordinated a specifically seeker-targeted outreach, we ordered NLT's by the case to give away to visitors. I would have no problem giving or recommending the NLT to a believer at any level of growth.

The last few days spent with both editions of the NLT has renewed my interest in the translation. I may have to find excuses to use it more often in a variety of ways.

What edition of the NLT I primarily use. I should have noted already that I have electronic copies in Accordance of every Bible version I've written about so far. When I am writing a blog entry such as this, Accordance is often my tool of choice over a bound copy because with an electronic text, I can cut and paste. I only recently added the NLT to Accordance in preparation for writing this blog entry. I noticed in the Accordance discussion forums that the first edition was no longer going to be distributed on future CD's, so I went ahead and unlocked a copy of it. The upgrade to the NLT2 was only a $10 upgrade on top of that. Now I will be able to use both on my PowerBook.

As for print Bibles, in the NLT1, I have the original yellow marbled hardback that I received free when the NLT1 was first released. I also bought a burgundy bonded leather Touchpoint edition a few years back for public use. Currently, I only have a basic pew/text edition of the NLT2. Kathy uses a burgundy bonded leather Life Application Bible in the NLT1 for her main Bible. She has no immediate plans to "upgrade" to the NLT2.

For Further Reading:
- A User's Guide to Bible Translations by David Dewey, pp. 178-181.
- New Living Translation Website
- New Living Translation Frequently Asked Questions
- Translators of the NLT
- NLT Wikipedia Page
- Bible Researcher NLT1 Page
- Bible Researcher NLT2 Page
- Better Bibles Blog NLT Page

- Addendum to This Review (Added 6/23/06)

Next in series: Eugene Peterson's The Message

Tags: NLT, Top Ten

I can't ever imagine a day when I will engage in serious Bible study and not have the New American Standard Bible close by.

The NASB has been my close companion for over two and a half decades. Perhaps we have spent so much time together, that like a spouse or a good friend, I have trouble seeing the flaws that other more objective individuals might see more clearly. This is my desert island Bible. This is the translation from which I have memorized Scripture, the first translation I read all the way through, the first translation I ever preached from, the translation I have most often used to check my own translation from the original languages. The NASB is the first Bible that really spoke to me--the first one in which I really began to hear God.

In spite of a longtime practice of comparing translations in my personal Bible study, appreciating other translations and reading through them, the S in NASB was just that--it set the STANDARD in my understanding of God's Word. This is why it was such a big deal for me to drop the NASB a few months back in favor of the HCSB and TNIV for public use. Rest assured, I did not make such a change for myself, I made it for those whom I teach.

Brief History of the NASB. Like the NIV, the New American Standard Bible came about as a reaction to perceived liberal bias in the Revised Standard Version of 1956. I won't go into those issues here, especially since many of them now seem much more trivial than they did a half-century ago. The RSV had been a revision of the 1901 American Standard Version, and since the copyright of the ASV had expired, the Lockman Foundation of La Habra, California began work on its own revision in 1959. The entire Bible was published in 1971, and the translation was updated again in 1995.

Almost every evaluation I've ever read of the NASB rates it as the most literal of the major modern translations, and from my experience I would certainly agree. Every chart comparing various translations puts the NASB at the extreme of the form-driven Bible versions. Below is an example from Tyndale House Publishers' website:


The Lockaman Foundation itself makes no bones about this standing. With the 1995 update came the slogan, "The Most Literal Translation is Now More Readable." Having used both the 1971 edition and the 1995 edition, I can vouch for this fact. The original NASB still retained archaic words such as "thee" and "thou" for any texts that addressed deity. The 1995 update removed these words and updated other language as well. An example from the Lockman website provides a good example of the kinds of changes that were made:


The 1995 update also brought in some minor updates regarding inclusive gender, but nothing as far-reaching as the NRSV, NLT, or TNIV. Ultimately, the NASB primarily uses masculine universals, including 3rd person masculine pronouns. However, one example of such a gender change in the NASB is demonstrated in Matthew 5:15--

Matthew 5:15
NASB 1971	NASB 1995
Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house.	nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.

In the example above, also notice the change from "peck-measure" (which I always thought was an odd translation) to simply "basket."

Personal History with the NASB. As I have stated elsewhere, I initially had access to three versions of the Bible in my childhood. I had a copy of the King James Version which was given to me in my third grade Sunday School class so that we could follow along with the pastor. We had multiple copies of the Good News for Modern Man (TEV) paperback New Testament. And my grandmother gave me a children's edition of the Living Bible. Even at a young age, I stressed about what Bible to take to church. Although I could understand the Living Bible and the TEV, I was embarrassed about the word "Children" in former, and the latter looked like a paperback novel. I don't know why I've always wanted a Bible that "looks like a Bible," but such an obsession evidently started quite young. The KJV certainly looked like a Bible, but the Elizabethan English that it contained never communicated to me as a child.

In 1980 when I was thirteen, a friend of mine showed me his Thomas Nelson Open Bible (handsize edition) in the NASB. I pored through his copy during an entire worship service. Not only did I like some of the reference features (the topical index in the front of most editions of the Open Bible is still one of the best I've ever seen included with a copy of Scripture), but more importantly, I could read the translation and it made sense to me. People criticize the NASB for being overly literal and wooden, but it's readability to me, a thirteen-year-old (and granted, I was a strong reader) was light years away from the old King James Version which often came across as unintelligible. Consider also, that this was before so many of the translations that we have now, some of which are specifically aimed toward young readers. For me, my friend's NASB spoke English I could comprehend. This was the Bible I had to have.

The next week, I got off the school bus downtown and made my way to our small little Christian book store. I held $10 in my pocket that I had received earlier as a gift. Once in the store, I walked right up to the counter and told the clerk that I wanted a copy of the Open Bible: New American Standard, in bonded leather. It was in stock AND they could put my name on the cover for free. Everything was set until I went to pay. It was $40, much more than what I expected. In fact, I had assumed that I'd have change left over after the transaction. Seeing my disappointment, he suggested that I put my $10 down and let them hold it as a layaway.

So, I put my Bible on layaway and went home. Later I recounted the story to my parents, and later in the week my father went to the store and paid the rest of the price. There were, after all, worse things that a thirteen-year-old could spend his money on.

For the next 25 or so years, the NASB was my primary translation of choice. I memorized it, studied it, preached and taught from it. I went through four different editions of it during that time, the latter two of which were the standard side-column reference editions. I came to the point around 1990 that I didn't want someone else's study notes in my Bible. I preferred to write my own notes in the margins after my own careful study. I did not initially switch from the older NASB when the update came out in 1995. All of my old notes were written in the Bible I had been using! However, I had begun at some point translating "thee," "thou" and "thy" to "you" and "your" on the fly as I read aloud from it. However, around 2001, I read a passage without making the change, and a ministerial friend kidded me about using such an "old" Bible. So in 2002, I switched to the updated NASB and began a tedious process of transferring my old notes. They still aren't all transferred, and frankly, I don't know if they ever will be.

Evaluation of the NASB. The Lockman Foundation, also the sponsors of the Amplified Bible and two translations in Spanish, promote a "Fourfold Aim" for all their publications:

1. These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.
3. They shall be understandable.
4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized.

These four aims are presented right at the beginning of the Foreword, found in all editions of the NASB. I would think that it's fair to judge the NASB on these criteria.

Starting with the fourth aim, although I've seen these statements countless times, I realized today that I have no real idea what's being communicated here, especially in the statement, "no work will ever be personalized." What do they mean by this? I could find no commentary on the Lockman website for these aims, but I sent them an email asking about it this morning. Perhaps someone reading this blog entry will have some insight. Usually statements like this are in reaction to something else. Was there a translation at some time that did not "give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place"? Was there a translation that was "personalized"--whatever that means?

Points 2 and 3 can be taken together. In my opinion the NASB met these aims better in 1971 than perhaps it does today in light of the explosion of English translations that we've seen since that time. Compared with the King James Version, for me, the NASB certainly was understandable. And grammatically, it fared better then than now. The KJV doesn't use quotation marks for direct quotes, and the NASB did. However, the NASB as a product of its time does two things that can be particularly aggravating to me. I wish that when updating the translation in 1995, they had chosen to cease the outdated use of italics for words not found in the original languages, but added to give meaning in the English translation. As everyone knows, the problem with the use of italics is that in modern usage, it indicates emphasis. I've actually heard people reading from translations that still use italics for added words put stress on these words which usually makes for a nonsensical understanding of the passage. I understand the desire in a strict form-driven translation to make some kind of indication for added words, but perhaps the half-brackets used in the HCSB (which I find totally unnecessary in that translation) would be better suited in the NASB.

Secondly, I would personally prefer that a translation not capitalize pronouns referring to deity. Granted, most of the time, the context makes such a practice clear, but there are some places--especially in the Old Testament--where this would be open to interpretation. In the end, there's no real grammatical warrant for capitalizing such pronouns. Such practice, in my opinion, seems to be left over from the days of retaining "thee," "thou," and "thy" for deity (which also has no grammatical warrant).

There are other uses of language that could be pointed out. For instance, the NASB still regularly uses "shall" and "shall not" even though these words are becoming less used in contemporary English. One can occasionally find odd uses of words such as in Job 9:33, "There is no umpire between us, Who may lay his hand upon us both." Now granted, the word "umpire" is older than the game of baseball and has the meaning of one who is an arbiter, but this seems like such an unusual choice to use in an Old Testament text when the average reader is going to have a mental image of a sports official. Okay, I admit that I've used this verse in just such illustrations, but that's beside the point!

The strength of the NASB lies in the first goal of the Lockman Foundation, that it would be "true to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek." For what it is, as a form-driven, literal translation in the Tyndale/KJV tradition, the NASB cannot be bettered. This is where its value lies. To get a close, but readable, English translation of what the original languages state, the NASB does the job. This is also why I personally favor the NASB over the ESV. I'm not going to use either for public reading, but for personal study, the NASB is simply more literal than "essentially literal."

However, having said that, the NASB's strength is also its weakness. It is so literal that most do not recommend it for public reading. I heard that accusation for a long time before I admitted to it, let alone stopped using the NASB in public. Again, I have used the NASB for so long and am so overly-familiar with it, that I tend (even now) not to notice its literary weaknesses.

And it's worth noting that while I used to be convinced that a form-driven translation is the most accurate kind of translation, I am no longer so easily convinced of that fact. That's been a philosophical change that's been slowly evolving in my thinking. This is evidenced by my use of the HCSB (which uses both form- and meaning-driven methods--what they call "optimal equivalency") at church and my increasing use of the TNIV elsewhere. Clearly, in some places, a form equivalent translation simply does not communicate an intended message. Look for instance at a passage like Genesis 4:6--

Genesis 4:6
NASB	TNIV	NLT
Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? "	Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?"	"Why are you so angry?" the LORD asked Cain. "Why do you look so dejected?"

The NASB accurately translates the literal sense of the text when God asks Cain why his "countenance has fallen." But there are a number of problems with this. First, will the average contemporary reader even know that the word "countenance" refers to one's facial expression? The TNIV is a slight improvement by using the word "face" instead. However, the verse speaks of a downcast face. Is this the way the average person speaks? Has anyone ever noticed you were in a bad mood and asked why your face was so downcast? Probably not. The New Living Translation, a fairly extreme meaning-driven translation, at the other end of the spectrum from the NASB, communicates the meaning of this phrase best by having God ask Cain, "Why do you look so dejected?"

To be fair, in many passages of the Bible, this kind of issue does not come into play. However, a form-driven translation like the NASB is weak when it comes to ancient idioms such as a "fallen countenance" that aren't in use in our culture today. Personally, I like knowing the original idiom, but I also know what a phrase like this means. Many readers may not. This kind of example is especially amplified in poetic sections of the Bible where metaphors and idioms abound. My opinion is that there's room for both form- and meaning-driven translations. And often ones that are somewhere in between, using the best of both translation philosophies, are best suited when reading in public.

I always considered the NASB to be an extremely accurate translation (as far as form-driven translation goes), but I noticed as I began pulling the HCSB into my Bible study alongside the Greek text and the NASB, that often the HCSB seems to be more accurate. I've written about this briefly before, and may have to say more at a later time.

If nothing else, the NASB, which was a great alternative for me to the KJV 25 years ago, seems to suffering from being a representative of a previous translation generation with its uses of things like italics and capitalized pronouns, while at the same time vying for a place with a whole new generation of versions such as the NLT, ESV, HCSB, and TNIV. For what it's worth, the NASB still outsells both the ESV and the TNIV, but how long it will be able to do this is questionable.

I always say that a sign of a translation's acceptance is it's availability in various study Bible editions. Currently the NASB is available in more study editions than at any point in its history. NASB versions of the MacArthur Study Bible and the Scofield Study Bible have been recently released. And the NASB is also available in the Life Application Bible, Zondervan's NASB Study Bible (the equivalent of the popular NIV Study Bible) and Student Bible, Ryrie Study Bible, Inductive Study Bible from Kay Arthur, and a host of other editions.

One final trivial point, this translation is officially known as the New American Standard Bible (NASB), not the New American Standard Version (NASV). I occasionally see this error, even in print. And the worst offense was an entire edition of the Open Bible, published by Thomas Nelson a few years back that had the incorrect designation printed on the spine.

How I Use the NASB. Currently, I use the NASB in my personal Bible study, usually along with the original languages and a more contemporary translation such as the HCSB, among others. I rarely get to go to a class or study led by others, but when I do, I often carry the NASB because that's where most of my handwritten notes are! As mentioned, I am no longer reading from the NASB in public except on rare occasions. I still find it extremely valuable for personal use.

What Edition of the NASB I Primarily Use. I currently use a burgundy wide-margin, Side-Column Reference edition in genuine leather (ISBN 0910618496) published by Foundation Publications (the press of the Lockman Foundation).

For Further Reading:
- David Dewey, A User's Guide to Bible Translations, pp. 156-157, 173.
- Lockman Foundation NASB Page
- List of Translators (scroll to bottom of the linked page)
- Bible-Researcher NASB Page
- Better Bibles Blog NASB Page

Feel free to suggest other links in the comments.

---

Update: Since first posting this entry, I received a reply back from the Lockman Foundation in regard to my question above regarding the 4th Aim:

Dear Mr. Mansfield,

Thank you for contacting the Lockman Foundation.

In response to your inquiry, I have found the following information in our files:

It was F. Dewey Lockman’s policy that in translating the Word of God, praise should not accrue to men, but that all praise should go to the One of Whom the Bible speaks.

For this reason the names of the translators in the past had not been publicized. This thinking followed in the tradition which can be seen in the King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, and others; that a version could stand in quality on its own merits and not on the fame of the translators. However, The Lockman Foundation was continually asked, even years after Lockman’s death in 1974, for the names of the translators. So in the early 1980s, this policy was loosened somewhat, and an all-inclusive list of the translators was given out on a request-only basis. Over the next several years, The Lockman Foundation still fielded a large number of these requests so that a policy was finalized to address people’s curiosity and concerns as to the names of the translators. Thus, the names of the translators publicly appeared in several different distributed brochures detailing the NASB and were, soon after, accessible via our web site at www.lockman.org

As a general policy, The Lockman Foundation continues to not provide background information on their translators such as their individual degrees and positions held with respect to Mr. Lockman's wishes, specifically stated in the Fourth Aim in The Fourfold Aim of The Lockman Foundation: “[These publications] shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized."

Hope this information is helpful.

In His Service,
Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx
The Lockman Foundation

---

On deck: The New Living Translation (Top Ten Bible Versions #4)

Tags: NASB, Top Ten

I assume most people realize that Today's New International Version (TNIV), released in complete form in 2005, is an update to the New International Version (NIV). Therefore, I'm not going to spend much time on history. Further, I realize that there's still an air of controversy surrounding the TNIV. And I also knew that when I selected it as the #2 choice in my picks of favorite that I would raise a few eyebrows in some of the circles with which I interact. The fact that there's controversy at all saddens me. Personally, I believe the TNIV to be a very good evangelical translation of the Bible, and I honestly think that any controversy is overblown. The fact that I can list the HCSB--a translation that meets the Colorado Springs Guidelines--as my #1 pick and then I can turn around and list a Bible that does not meet those guidelines as #2 demonstrates my personal belief that there is room for both of these kinds of translations, and that they can both find use and purpose in the Kingdom of God.

In light of my willingness to use the TNIV, I believe it's only fair to describe here why I would be open to the use of a gender-inclusive translation--or as the TNIV translators call it, a gender-accurate version. Further, as I was looking at Wayne Leman's TNIV links page in comparison with his HCSB links page, I was reminded how much has been written in response to this new translation of the Bible. In fact, so much has been written regarding the TNIV, it's somewhat overwhelming. Therefore, I believe this is a good time to remind readers of my blog that my purpose in this series is not to provide exhaustive analysis of any of these versions. That has been done elsewhere by others more qualified than me. This series is merely my subjective take on a small sample of the large number of Bible translations in print, specifically ones that have been meaningful to me or have been used by me in one manner or another.

Why I find value in a "gender-accurate" translation. A month or so ago, a friend of mine (you know who you are) asked my opinion regarding a potential new Bible purchase. He was especially interested in all the recent translations that have surfaced over the past few years and thought I might have some insights. We discussed the positives and negatives of a number of them, but when I brought up the TNIV, he very quickly held up his hand and said, "I'm not interested in any of that Father-, Mother-God stuff." To say that there's a huge amount of misunderstanding regarding the TNIV's use of inclusive language would be an understatement. Even more disconcerting is that my friend is seminary-trained with a Master of Divinity degree. If he's been influenced with such disinformation, what does that say for the average Bible reader?

I suppose my first experience with an inclusive language translation was the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) published in 1989. Although I bought a copy, I did not use it all that much. However, when the first edition of the New Living Translation (NLT) was released in 1996, every student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was given a copy. A number of the faculty members at SBTS (at that time) had a hand in this translation, including Daniel I. Block, Robert Stein, Gerald Borchert, and Thomas R. Schriener. I immediately read through the NLT over the next few months, and also introduced it to my wife, Kathy, who uses it to this day as her preferred translation. Looking back, the inclusive gender issue in the NLT, and the NRSV before it, was not all that controversial--at least in my experience and in my circles. However, that changed in regard to the inclusive NIV (often referred to as the NIVI) released in Britain with plans for eventual release in the United States. There was a major uproar over this. I well remember reading the World Magazine "stealth Bible" issue. I ordered an NIVI from WH Smith, which at that time was billed as the Amazon.com of Great Britain, paying in the end about $40 for a text copy after international shipping was applied. Although I don't remember all the particulars now, in examining the inclusive NIV, I felt that it was actually more conservative in its approach to inclusive language than the NLT had been. What was all the fuss about?

To this day, I still don't quite get what all the fuss is about. Inclusive language has not been applied to God in any of these versions. Rather, when the audience or subject of a passage includes both males and females, an attempt has been made to make sure the translation reflects that in its language. For instance, it has long been noted that a Greek word like ἀδελφοί (adelphoi), often used by Paul in his letters and traditionally translated "brothers," also included women. Even more conservative recent translations such as the English Standard Version often acknowledge this in the footnotes with the comment "Or brothers and sisters" (see notes for Rom 8:12, 1 Cor 1:10, Gal 3:15, etc. in the ESV). Of course, part of the difficulty is that our language is changing. At one time words like "brothers," "men," and even pronouns like "he" and "him" could refer to both genders, but as a culture we have begun to move away from this. And sometimes it seems very much like a common sense issue. If you have two male siblings and two female siblings and you all have dinner together, would you say, "I ate dinner with my brothers"? Of course not. Some will counter that universals such as "brothers" or "men" in the Bible should be understood as referring to both sexes if the context warrants it, but could one then make the case that such use requires that the reader must then mentally translate meaning from a text to really understand it?

To be fair, the Colorado Springs Guidelines (which were originally drawn up in response to the NIVI) allow for quite a bit of inclusive language. If the context warrants it, translators may render ἄνθρωποι (anthropoi) as "people" instead of "men," τις (tis) may become "any one" instead of "any man," and pronouns such as οὐδεὶς (oudeis) can be translated "no one" rather than "no man." Why then do masculine 3rd person pronouns have to remain so in translation if the context clearly warrants a broader meaning? Many have noted, too, that certain Latin-derivative languages such as French and Spanish don't run into this problem in their translations because they have neuter pronouns that are used in reference to persons.

Further, I don't understand why the TNIV has received so much criticism for its use of gender-inclusive language when I don't remember the same amount of criticism anchored against the NLT, the NRSV, the Message, or even the second edition of of the Good News Bible, all of which employ gender-inclusive language for humans to one degree or another. And why would a bookstore chain not carry the TNIV when it carries these other versions? In fact, my copy of the NRSV that I bought in 1990 was published by Holman Bibles. Nor do I feel that it's fair to accuse the TNIV translators of trying to emasculate the Bible. Are scholars such as Douglas Moo and Bruce Waltke (both of whom are among the TNIV translators) really trying to feminize God's Word? I seriously doubt it.

I won't deny the fact that as someone with a degree in English, I was initially resistant to the changes we are witnessing in our language. What helped me on both an academic and an ecclesiastical level was D. A. Carson's Book, The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. This book was written in response to the controversy over the NIVI, and although I wish Carson would update it for the TNIV, his arguments are still applicable. To familiarize myself with both sides of the argument, I've also read Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress' The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy. In the end, I'm more persuaded by Carson's line of thought.

In my opinion, this is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. With endorsements of the TNIV from D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo (a translator), Darrell Bock, John Stott, Philip Yancy, Tremper Longman III, Klyne Snodgrass, Timothy George, Lee Strobel, Craig Blomberg, and a host of others, no one can make the case that embracing the TNIV is a theologically left-wing move. Nor is this a Complementarian vs. Egalitarian issue because many of the supporters of the TNIV are Complementarians. Ultimately, this is a difference in translation philosophy, primarily word-for-word translations vs. meaning- or thought-driven translations. Differences of opinion in this regard are fair enough, but accusations against the motives of those who translated or support the TNIV seem uncalled for.

I do have one main reason for finding value in the use of a "gender-accurate" translation and it came from my five years experience teaching high school students. From 2000 to 2005 I served as chaplain and Bible teacher at a private Christian prep school. Three, maybe four years ago, I was teaching a sophomore class (15-year-olds) an Old Testament survey. While studying creation, one day we read Genesis 1:27, probably in the NIV.

Genesis 1:27
NIV	TNIV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.	So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

A female student in the back of the class raised her hand and made the comment, "Mr. Mansfield, I didn't know women were made in God's image!" I stared at her incredulously.

"What?" I asked.

"I didn't know that women were made in God's image until I saw the second half of this verse. All I've ever heard is that 'MAN is made in God's image.'"

I still couldn't believe what I was hearing. Was she kidding or serious? Was she just not the sharpest tack in the box? So I asked the rest of the class, "How many of you thought only men were made in God's image?" At least a third of the class (of probably around 24 or so students) raised their hands, and most of them were young ladies.

You should also know regarding this school that in general, these were very smart kids. They always ranked in the top five schools of the county in regard to their test scores, including the public schools. I was amazed that these sharp kids wouldn't realize that when they heard "Man is made in God's image" that it referred to both males and females. Unfortunately, our language has changed. We can't take for granted anymore that everyone--especially those in younger generations--understands masculine universals. Can you imagine what it did to these young ladies' concept of self to think that their male peers were made in God's image, but they were not? Such misunderstandings are extremely disturbing to me.

And that's the issue--this is a misunderstanding based on language. We already have the task of bridging God's Word across language and culture. My greatest concern is that we can communicate the Bible clearly and effectively. It doesn't matter if personally I would tend to be a bit conservative in my use of language. It doesn't matter if my preference in Bibles is a formal equivalent version. What's important is that my audience with whom I'm trying to teach God's Word doesn't have any extra impediment to their hearing the Gospel message. They need to hear it clearly and effectively in language, words, and terms that they understand.

Why I Like the TNIV. In 1993, D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge published a great little book called Letters Along the Way. This book is a collection of fictional letters spanning over a decade's time between a seasoned Christian professor, Paul Woodson (a combination of Carson's and Woodbridge's names) and a fairly new believer, Timothy. In one of the early letters, supposedly written in December of 1978, Dr. Woodson makes a comment to Timothy regarding what then would have been a newly published New International Version:

I read through the NIV New Testament when it came out a few years ago and resolved then that I would switch to the NIV when the whole Bible became available. It still feels very strange to me, but I am convinced we must use twentieth-century language to win twentieth-century people. I do not know what Bible you are using, But I do urge you to buy a modern translation.

This statement, merely by itself would be applicable to the TNIV (and to be fair, a number of modern translations). But listen to what the real Dr. Carson has said in support of the TNIV:

The TNIV is more accurate than its remarkable predecessor, the much-loved NIV, while retaining all the readability of the latter. I am deeply impressed by the godliness, linguistic competence, cultural awareness and sheer fidelity to Scripture displayed by the translators. Thirty or forty years from now, I suspect, most evangelicals will have accepted the TNIV as a ‘standard’ translation, and will wonder what all the fuss was about in their parents’ generation--in the same way that those of us with long memories marvel at all the fuss over the abandonment of "thees" and "thous" several decades ago.

Why do I like the TNIV? I like it (and support it) because I agree with Dr. Carson that it has great potential to become a standard translation not only in this generation, but perhaps even in the one to come. I believe that it will speak to a contemporary audience just as the NIV did over the past two and a half decades.

I'll be honest: I never completely bonded with the NIV--probably from my infatuation with the New American Standard Bible for so many years (to be detailed in the next post). However, I really like the TNIV the more I read it and use it. Some have said that the changes made to it (excluding the gender-inclusive issues) have actually made it a bit more literal than the NIV, and I've wondered if perhaps this is why I've warmed to it as I have. Regardless, it is still extremely readable and as mentioned above, I believe it has the best chance of speaking to American culture in the days to come.

A number of significant changes (beyond gender issues) have been made in the TNIV distinguishing it from the NIV. David Dewey, in his book A User's Guide to Bible Translations, notes the following improvements:

There are small alterations that make the TNIV more precise and generally crisper than the NIV. Some of these remove remaining archaisms; for example, Mary is said to be "pregnant" rather than "with child"; the "sixth hour" becomes "noon"; and the vocative "O" (as in "O Lord") is omitted. Others relate to advances in scholarship and the understanding of technical expressions. So for instance, the "basic principles" of the world become "elemental spiritual forces" (Col 2:8). "Christ" often becomes "Messiah" where this functions as a title; "saints" often becomes "people of God"; and "the Jews" becomes "Jewish leaders" where this is the sense ... One survey suggests that of all the changes made, other than those relating to gender, three out of four move the TNIV toward "a more essentially literal rendering" in comparison with the NIV.

I keep stumbling upon changes made in the wording as well. Note the differences in Phil 3:8--

Philippians 3:8
NIV	TNIV
What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ	What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ

Besides the minor alterations ("compared" becomes "because"; "greatness" becomes "worth") note the Greek word σκύβαλον (skubalon), which carries a fairly crude meaning in the original, is updated from "rubbish" to "garbage." This is certainly more natural language. In my entire life, I don't think I've ever personally known anyone who used the word "rubbish." I don't even think it was widely used in the U.S. in the seventies when the NIV first came out. More than likely, "rubbish" was probably thought of as more suitable for a Bible translation than a word like "garbage."

The other day, I stumbled across Prov 4:23:

Proverbs 4:23
NIV	TNIV
Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.	Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.

Now, granted, "wellspring of life" is certainly more poetic, but how well does it communicate to a contemporary readership? The newer reading in the TNIV leaves very little to question.

Concerns regarding the TNIV. Overall, because I believe the TNIV is an improvement over the NIV, and because I believe it fulfills the purposes its translators had for it, I don't have a whole lot of issues to complain about. What bothered me in the NIV, still bothers me in the TNIV, and that is primarily its simplified language. But that has more to do with me than the version itself. I'm assuming that the TNIV, like the NIV, is on or about a seventh grade reading level (the national average). This was done on purpose and word choices are made accordingly.

The TNIV, like the NIV before it makes minor interpretive choices for the reader that I don't always care for:

Proverbs 5:7
HCSB	TNIV
for we walk by faith, not by sight—	We live by faith, not by sight.

In the above example, there's a wonderful metaphor in the Bible in which one's life is compared to a journey. This is found throughout both testaments, and especially in Paul. There's nothing inaccurate in the TNIV to state "we live" instead of "we walk," but I've always felt something was lost in that translational/interpretational choice.

I've stated before elsewhere, that if I were a translation editor, I would be slightly more conservative than most gender-inclusive translations by leaving messianic prophecies referring to Jesus in their traditional form. Note for example Psalm 34:20, which is quoted in John 19:36:

NIV	TNIV
he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. (Psalm 34:20)	he protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken. (Psalm 34:20)
These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” (John 19:36)	These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” (John 19:36)

The use of inclusive language blurs the prophetic nature of the passage. In my opinion, the choice to alter a verse like this is a distraction and brings unnecessary criticism to the TNIV. I've heard the opposing viewpoint--that an Old Testament passage needs to be treated in its own context, and I respect that. But I also read the OT as a Christian, and it's exactly these kinds of verses that root Christ throughout the Scriptures. I'm also aware that many quotations are slightly different anyway because most often the NT writers tend to quote the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew Scriptures; but again, I would leave such passages alone if I were running the committee.

From a grammatical standpoint, one of the most controversial aspects of the TNIV's implementation of inclusive language is the use of plural pronouns for singular antecedents. This is in keeping with the way we informally speak, but technically it's a grammatical error. Let me demonstrate with Rev 3:20 by using the original NIV, an early inclusive attempt in the NRSV, and then the TNIV:

Revelation 3:20
NIV	NRSV	TNIV
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.	Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me.	Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me.

What you'll notice in the original NIV is that "him" and "he" are both singular pronouns for the singular antecedent "anyone." The NRSV in its attempt to be inclusive of males and females, changes from third person to second person with the use of "you." One could ask if a certain amount of meaning is lost in the NRSV by changing "anyone" to "you." Typical of the TNIV solution to this dilemma, the third person is retained, but note that "them" and "they" are plural and do not agree in person with the singular antecedent, "anyone."

Now, if it took you a minute to catch this, it's because we tend to naturally talk this way. Most of the time, we often avoid specifying a masculine pronoun in our speech when referring to an inclusive antecedent. However, by all modern English grammars with which I'm familiar, this is still incorrect English. I actually even used this as a teaching tool in a writing class recently.

And yet, having said all that, I'm aware--as I've said earlier--that our language is changing. It won't surprise me if in a decade or so major grammar guides begin to allow this mixing of person. Like I said--we already do it in informal speech. Yet it was still a bit shocking for someone like me who has taught writing on and off for a decade when I first saw it. And I've told my students that until I see such usage accepted in a grammar book, I'll still mark it off on their papers!

In regard to marketing, the TNIV came out with a pretty strong push, albeit much was defensive in nature due to the controversy; however, much now has died off. There is a TNIV blog, like the ESV blog, but it has not been updated since last December. In February, I left a comment at the TNIV website asking if there would be future blog entries. An unnamed person responded by saying there hadn't been anything new recently to add to the blog, but there would be forthcoming product announcements in the upcoming weeks. However, as of this writing, nothing new has materialized. I can't imagine that there's nothing to blog about in regard to the TNIV. Like I said of the HCSB, they could learn a lesson from the ESV Blog in this matter. They could put ME in charge of their blog, and I could give them three or four TNIV related entries a week!

The other complaint I've had about TNIV marketing is the lack of Bible covers that don't look like they were designed for a teenager. Although I finally found one, it's difficult to find a simple one-color leather Bible currently in the TNIV. However, there are some very nice leather editions available from Cambridge Bibles in the U.K. Unfortunately these will not be sold by Cambridge in the U.S. (I inquired) because of agreements with Zondervan. There are also currently no major study Bibles available in the TNIV, although the TNIV version of the classic NIV Study Bible is set to be released this Fall.

Finally, the greatest hindrance to the acceptance of the TNIV may not be the controversy over gender-accuracy; nor is it competition from other new translations of the Bible such as the ESV or HCSB. Instead, it's the NIV itself. Personally, I believe that the International Bible Society made a mistake when they promised to keep selling the NIV as long as there was a demand for it. I know that there was pressure from those opposed to the TNIV for the IBS and Zondervan to make this move. However, I would guess that the real factor is monetary. Anytime one looks at the current sales rankings for Bibles, the New International Version is still at the top. That's not near the top, but the very top. The NIV has become the new KJV.

IBS & Zondervan could learn a thing or two from Tyndale Press. When they released the New Living Translation, they moved quickly to phase out the original Living Bible. In fact, as far as I know, the only copy of the Living Bible still in print is the old standard green hardback. Zondervan should do the same thing and keep only a text edition or two of the NIV in print. I'm sure it was very costly for Tyndale to discontinue it's Life Application Bible with the Living Bible text as this had been a huge seller. However, such moves were necessary to move onto a better text. Realistically, though, I don't expect Zondervan to make such a move. The NIV so far outsells other translations, the immediate loss of revenue would be great, even if it was helpful in the long run for gaining acceptance of the TNIV.

How I use the TNIV. I've been using the TNIV with groups that tend to be in settings outside of church. In a Bible study at church, I might have 45 minutes to walk a group through twenty verses, but I don't always have that luxury in other settings. When using the Bible devotionally such as with my night classes that I teach at IWU, I find that the TNIV makes a natural choice. I also used it when I spoke before graduating high school seniors a couple of weeks ago.

What edition of the TNIV I primarily use. I finally found a one-color leather edition of the TNIV. I'm using a TNIV Thinline XL (Larger Print Edition, ISBN: 031093494X). It's black, bonded leather with silver trim. It's not perfect, but it feels good in the hand and has a readable typeface. Like all thinlines, text on other pages can be seen too easily through the paper.

For further reading (links to a variety of opinions regarding the TNIV may be found below):
• Wikipedia Article on the TNIV
• TNIV Website
• About the TNIV
• TNIV Endorsements
• Wayne Leman's TNIV Links Page
• Better Bibles Blog TNIV Page (again, note especially the comments)
• Bible Researcher TNIV Page
• CBMW TNIV Resource Center

• Follow-Up Regarding the TNIV (Added 6/7/06)

Redacted June 3, 12 PM.
Proofed June 4, 6 PM.

---

Of Related Interest:
- Follow-Up Regarding the TNIV
- My Review of Zondervan's TNIV Study Bible

Tags: TNIV, Top Ten

The late 19th Century saw two major projects to update the King James Version: the (British) Revised Version of 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901 in the United States. In spite of the improvements made upon the KJV, neither of these revisions saw much attention outside academic circles. A number of English translation projects were introduced in the first half of the 20th Century including those by James Moffatt (1935) and Edgar Goodspeed (1927). However, the only real modern translation to make any kind of inroad into Protestant Bible reading in this era was the 1952 Revised Standard Version, a substantial update to the 1901 ASV. Yet, even then, most Christians continued to preach and read from the King James Version.

The 1970's however, would signal an explosion in modern translations beginning with the New English Bible (1970), The Living Bible (1971), the New American Standard Bible and RSV II (1971), Today's English Version (1976), New International Version (1978) and the New King James Version (1982). Of this generation of English translations, two Bibles distinctly stand out. The Living Bible is significant in that not only was it an extremely popular paraphrase, but more importantly, it was the first Bible to unseat (for a time) the KJV as the highest ranking in Bible sales. The second Bible of note from this era is the New International Version which was able to sustain a top ranking in sales for the most part over the last two decades. The NIV, like the TEV was a brand new translation, not in the Tyndale/KJV tradition. Moreover, like the TEV and NKJV, the NIV was completely free from archaic vocabulary unlike the RSV II and NASB, which still used "thee" and "thou" when referring to deity. And most significantly, it was during this era that most Christians started to read modern translations--that is, something besides the venerable old King James Version.

In my opinion we are now in a second major generation of translations since the 1970's. I would date this era as beginning in 1989 with the publication of the New Revised Standard Version. This era has also seen an update to the New American Standard Bible (1995); the New Living Translation (1996 and 2nd edition, 2004); a more conservative alternative to the NRSV, the English Standard Version (2001); a paraphrase, the Message (2002); the Holman Christian Standard Version (2004) and the Today's New International Version (2005). A record number of other translations have appeared in this era as well--some better than others--but in my opinion, these that I have listed are the most significant versions. This current generation is marked by two things. First, in this group all archaic language has been dropped. Secondly, the debate regarding inclusive language referring to human beings has taken front and center stage. All of these translations are more inclusive than those of a generation ago, but the NRSV, NLT, Message, and TNIV are more overtly so.

And of this group, the HCSB stands out as the first completely new committee-translated Bible version since the NIV of 1978.

HISTORY. What would become the HCSB started as a project of Dallas Theological Seminary professor, Arthur Farstad. Farstad had previously served as editor of the New King James Version (1982) and co-editor of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. From what I can gather, Farstad wanted to do a brand new translation, presumably outside the Tyndale/KJV tradition. All the sources I've read claim that Farstad wanted to base this translation on the same NT manuscript tradition underlying the King James and New King James Versions (the Textus Receptus). I've often wondered if this is accurate though. Was Farstad working on a translation based on the TR or the Majority Text? To me it would make sense that he would have been working on a translation based on the latter, especially since--as I have said before--there's not a major translation based on the Majority Text.

Regardless, Farstad worked on his project from 1984 until 1998 when Broadman and Holman, the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention offered to financially support the project and retain ownership of it. The SBC was looking to sponsor a translation of its own to use in Sunday School literature and related publications so that it would no longer have to pay licensing fees to use the New International Version. In the same year that the deal was struck, Farstad died. After his death, the editorial responsibilities were turned over to another committee member Ed Blume and the underlying NT text was switched mid-project to the NA27/UBS4. Frankly, I am glad the text was switched because I would have hated to have seen an "official" SBC translation based on either the TR or the MT. I would have certainly not been interested in the HCSB if it had continued on this path, and it wouldn't be on this list. I'm not hiding my textual bias.

Personally, I have a number of questions I've never seen addressed anywhere. First, I am curious about the actual text Farstad was using as I have mentioned above. Was it really the TR, or was it in fact, the Majority Text? Secondly, I wonder why the project went on for fourteen years without any publication. Then as soon as Broadman & Holman took over the project, they changed the textual basis and published the four gospels the very next year (1999). What exactly made the difference after the committee regime change that resulted in such quick publication? Third, and this is just an insignificant curiosity, I wonder what the project was called before the SBC sponsorship. Was it simply referred to by the committee as the Christian Standard Bible?

The complete Holman Christian Standard Bible was published in 2004. A number of various editions exist, but as of this writing, it is not yet available in any true "study" editions.

Why I like the HCSB. From 1986 to 2005, the primary (but never exclusive) translation I used for study and teaching was the New American Standard Bible. I will give credit where credit is due, and will acknowledge the fact that it was the influence of Wayne Leman and the other contributors of the Better Bibles Blog that caused me to question my continual use of the NASB in public. I've never thought there was one Bible that fits everyone and every context. I knew that the NASB, which is perhaps the most literal of the major translations, could at times come across as a bit awkward in its phrasings, but I had used it for so long that I believe I tended too easily to overlook certain aspects that frankly, just didn't communicate that well. This especially came to light when I spent roughly half a year (26 weeks) systematically walking a Sunday School class at my former church through Paul's letter to the Romans. In the course of this study, I realized that I was spending too much time trying to bridge the gap between the NASB and the people in my class.

After moving to a different county and joining a church within walking distance of our home, I was asked to teach a class at my new fellowship. However, I decided to make the momentous leap from the NASB to...well...something else. As many of you know, I collect translations and had eighty-something to choose from. But I purposefully narrowed my choice to that second-generation list of modern translations that I described above, and obviously, I eliminated the NASB update as that's what I had been using since 2002. Finally, I narrowed my choices down to the HCSB and the TNIV. Both are good translations, and both are in my top ten picks. In the end, I decided to go with the HCSB simply because that's what was in the Sunday School literature at our church. Although I certainly encourage participants in my class to bring their own copy of the scriptures, when they don't, at least what I read from is identical to what they have in their Sunday School book. But there's more to my liking of the HCSB than simply its inclusion in the Sunday School literature.

I'll admit that as far as translations go, generally, I prefer a more literal translation--or perhaps what is usually referred to as a formal equivalence translation. However, I also recognize the weaknesses in this translation philosophy. The introduction to the HCSB makes the claim that the translators used a method known as "optimal equivalence." Now, I'll admit that when I first read this term a few years back, I laughed out loud. I thought that the translators were essentially creating another term for some kind of dynamic equivalence method. However, upon closer inspection, I discovered that's not the case. To put it in my own words, optimal equivalence seems to start with a formal equivalent method; however, if formal equivalence does not communicate the biblical meaning of a text to a contemporary audience, the translators feel free to use more dynamic, or idiomatic, methods to get the message across. The more I've read the HCSB, the more convinced I've become that this really seems to work. What the HCSB ends up becoming is a translation that is fairly literal, but without all the awkwardness of a formal equivalent translation. It's readable like the NIV, but in my opinion, much more precise than the NIV.

I've read completely through a number of Bible versions, but I've said before that I don't think you really get to know a translation until you study with it. As I've studied with the HCSB over the last few months--alongside the Greek text and the NASB--I've been surprised, and even delighted with the precision of the HCSB. As some of you know, I returned to school this past Fall to pick up my degree where I left off a number of years ago. This past spring semester, I audited a doctoral-level Greek seminar as a refresher. As I translated the prison and pastoral epistles, I checked my own translation of the text not just with the NASB as had always been my practice in the past, but added the HCSB to the mix. In comparing the Greek text, my own translation, the NASB, and the HCSB, I became more and more convinced that the HCSB better conveyed the biblical meaning than the NASB. Certainly, there were places where the NASB was more literal, but is accurate translation evaluated more on word-for-word accuracy or on the ability to get the biblical writers' meaning across in the most effective manner?

Another enjoyable aspect of the HCSB is that it's not in the Tyndale/KJV tradition. Of course, neither is the NIV, but I never really bonded with the NIV. As stated above, the HCSB is the the first major translation in the last twenty-five years that is completely new and not an update of a previous version. As such, the translators had the courage to break free from familiar, but incorrect renderings of the past. I have previously blogged about the HCSB's correct translating of passages such as 2 Tim 1:12. Most new translations have generally left extremely familiar passages as is because in evaluating a new Bible version, the average person turns to these familiar passages first. But some of these passages needed correcting. Take for instance the 23rd Psalm. In v. 4, the KJV, NASB, NIV, and ESV all refer to "the valley of the shadow of death." Yet, this is over-translation. Most who are familiar with the Hebrew text will tell you that there's really nothing in there about shadows or death. But it's all quite poetic and it was read that way at Aunt Martha's funeral, so most translations have left it alone other than putting the actual phrasing down in the footnotes. Not so with the HCSB which renders the verse, "Even when I go through the darkest valley... ."

Of course the most controversial correction has to do with the HCSB's rendering of John 3:16. Years ago, the NIV translators correctly opted to translate μονογενής as "one and only" instead of "only begotten" which had remained standard phrasing in translations of the Tyndale tradition. However, the HCSB translators went a step further and corrected the "so" of "God so loved the world... ." The average person reads the "so" in John 3:16 as meaning "God sooooooo loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" or that "God loved the world SO MUCH." Now, I won't deny God's perfect love for his creation, but that's simply not what the "so" means. The "so" is from the Greek word οὕτως and simply means "thus" or "in this way." In other words, to paraphrase, what the verse means is "This is the way in which God loved the world: that he he gave his one and only son... ." The HCSB renders John 3:16 as "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

The HCSB also brings in line verse divisions with that in the NA27/USB4 Greek text. Years ago I memorized Gal 2:20 in the NASB from a Navigator TMS card which read "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." Yet, when I sat down with the HCSB a few months back to look up my familiar passages, there was nothing about being crucified with Christ in v. 20. Instead, I found that part in the preceding verse: "¹⁹For through the law I have died to the law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ ²⁰and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." I wondered why the break was made this way and discovered that it is this way in the Greek text. The NRSV also makes the division here, but the other modern translations follow the traditional verse divisions. Since then I have found a consistent pattern in the HCSB to defer to the verse divisions in the Greek text when traditional divisions differ.

To me, the HCSB embodies not only accuracy in translation, but also a freshness in the translator's approach to the text. As I said before, there are sometimes certain renderings that just absolutely delight me. I wrote a few weeks ago about my discovery of the HCSB's use of "slacker" for "lazy" (רָפָה) in Exodus and "sluggard" (עָצֵל) in Proverbs. Even the TNIV uses "sluggard," but which word speaks better to a contemporary audience? In my blog about the HCSB's use of "slacker," one commenter suggested that such a word was slang and would unnecessarily date the HCSB. However, I disagreed because the word has been around almost a century, originally referring to someone who shirks military duty and later having a much broader meaning.

Another feature I really like in the HCSB is the use of "Bullet Notes." Included in the back of most editions of the HCSB is a list of definitions for certain words used throughout the Bible. One common difficulty of translating a text from one culture to another is how to communicate inherent jargon. Certain words carry very specific definitions, but the problem often faced by a translator is that the reader may not know or understand a particular word. Usually this will result in a compromise on some level, often with a translation opting to use a simpler, but less specific term. The use of bullet indicators next to certain words allow the translators to keep very specific terms in the text. Noting that the HCSB translators opted to keep a very theologically loaded term like propitiation, instead of the simpler "sacrifice of atonement" as in the NIV and NRSV, I wrote to the editors of the HCSB in February asking why there wasn't a bullet note for this term. I received an email back stating that bullet notes were being added for both propitiation and redemption, and these will show up in future editions of the HCSB.

What could be improved with the HCSB. In spite of the precision in translation that I mentioned earlier, there are still some places in the HCSB that seem a bit clumsy now and then. And I often wonder why a particular word choice was made. Why, for instance, did the translators opt to use the word deluge instead of the much simpler flood in the Noah story in Genesis? What exactly does deluge communicate that flood does not? I think I would feel like something of an egghead to announce I would be speaking on "Noah and the Deluge."

The HCSB uses "small lower corner brackets ... to indicate words supplied for clarity by the translators." Although this is an improvement over the use of italics for this purpose as in the NASB, the very nature of optimal equivalence makes the entire practice unnecessary and distracting.

Another problem with the HCSB is that the translators chose to capitalize pronouns referring to deity. In most passages, the pronouns are pretty clear, but not in all. A case in point is Micah 7:14 which was part of a larger passage covered in the Lifeway Explore the Bible Curriculum for May 28. The HCSB capitalizes the pronouns, rendering the text, "Shepherd Your people with Your staff, the flock that is Your possession." Thus, the way the pronouns are capitalized, it would lead one to believe that this is a prayer to God from the prophet Micah. But is this the case? Ironically, in the actual SBC curriculum, the writer took the passage much differently suggesting that this was God's commands to earthly kings. Therefore, the curriculum writer disagreed with the HCSB, both of which are from the same publisher. I agree with the writer, but the translators' decision to use capitalized pronouns creates unnecessary problems.

Although I like the decision to use Yahweh in places for the name of God as opposed to the all-caps LORD, I would prefer that Yahweh would simply be used throughout the Old Testament. Why should God's proper name be used in Psalm 68:4, but not in Josh 24:14-28 when Yahweh is being set in distinction to all the pagan gods? One of the reasons I like the New Jerusalem Bible is the decision to use the actual divine name throughout the OT text.

I'm certain that we'll see the HCSB in a variety of editions. In my opinion, once a translation appears in various study Bible editions (even though I, personally don't tend to use them), it has reached a significant level of public acceptance. But I would also like to see academic resources such as an HCSB/Greek text diglot. Zondervan has been very good about doing these kinds of products with the NIV.

Although the HCSB currently outsells the ESV, Broadman & Holman could learn a few lessons from Crossway's ESV marketing handbook. I've suggested on their feedback page that Broadman & Holman start an HCSB blog. They responded by saying they would consider it. I see lots of "ESV: Truth Unchanged" badges on various websites, but there's no HCSB equivalent for bloggers who like this translation. Although there was lots of promotion around the launch of the HCSB, it seems to have died down a good bit in recent months.

The HCSB also needs to branch out beyond SBC circles. Although I said I am certain that the HCSB will appear in various formats, will we ever see something like an HCSB Life Application Bible published by Tyndale Press? Unfortunately, when I've recommended the HCSB, I still sometimes hear it referred to as "the Baptist Bible" or "the Lifeway Translation." This is in spite of the fact that according to the HCSB FAQ, only 50% of the 100 or so members of the translation committee were Baptists, and 17 different denominations were represented in that team.

How I use the HCSB. Currently, the HCSB is my main Bible for teaching in church settings. I also use the HCSB in my personal Bible study in comparison with the original languages and other English translations. The HCSB is currently the translation that I am reading through.

What edition of the HCSB I primarily use. I've been teaching from a genuine leather edition of the HCSB known as The Ministers Bible (ISBN 1586401696). I bought this edition primarily for its single-column format which is handy for writing in my own notes. There are also a number of useful ministry helps including two separate wedding ceremonies, a funeral sermon, pre-marital counseling guidelines, and a host of other resources. Personally, I think these resources should be in the middle of the Bible, perhaps between the testaments instead of in the back. If you were to actually use this Bible to read wedding vows from, it would be simpler to hold your place in the middle than in the last few pages. And speaking of pages, they are way too thin in this edition and tend to curl after writing on them. An attempt was made to create a quasi-thinline Bible, but I would prefer thicker pages in exchange for a thinline form factor that doesn't mean that much to me.



For Further Reading:
General
• David Dewey, A User's Guide to Bible Translations, pp. 192-194.
• HCSB: Wikipedia entry
• HCSB Official Site
• HCSB FAQs
• HCSB Translation Team
• Wayne Leman's HCSB Links Page

Analysis
• HCSB: Bible Researcher Page
• HCSB: Better Bibles Blog Page (see especially comments)

---

Up next: The TNIV's All Right With Me.

Tags: HCSB, Top Ten

I've got a confession to make. When I entered seminary back in the early nineties I had this goal to learn biblical languages so well that I would never have to use an English translation again. Well, I've never reached that level of proficiency. I was fairly naive in this early goal, although I've known a handful of people who could actually do this. But I've also seen seasoned professors stumble over a this or that hapax legomenon.

Regardless, I'm not all that upset that I haven't been able to abandon translations for the original languages. On one hand, besides the naive assumption that I would ever be able to read exclusively from the Greek and Hebrew, there was also an assumption that I would be able to create meaningful translation on the fly in front of a group. If you've ever attempted to do this, you know it's easier said than done.

On the other hand, I really enjoy reading and comparing translations of the Bible. Precise translation excites me. Clever translation impresses me. I read through translations devotionally. I began collecting translations years ago, and frankly I can't imagine ever being at a point where I would not be using them and interacting with them--regardless of any level of proficiency with the original languages.

People get quite attached to translations of the Bible. There are KJV-only people for instance. Some are KJV only because they think that's the original Bible and it holds some special divine authorization. Others are KJV-only because they hold to the Textus Receptus manuscript tradition. Although, I'll be honest--I've never quite understood why those who hold to the Textus Receptus don't favor the New King James Version over the KJV. Most whom I've known who claim allegiance to the TR still favor the KJV. I've also known some who hold to the Majority Text, but what version would they use then? There's actually no major English translation based on the Majority Text, so most of them will still use the KJV. And of course, some hold on to the KJV simply because they like it best. It's this latter form of KJV readers that seem a bit more palatable.

A few years ago when I was in my twenties, a pastor took me under his wing and began incorporating another seminary student and myself in the worship services, letting us preach regularly or read the Scripture passage for the week. This pastor was older and exclusively used the KJV in his messages. However, my friend and I always read from the NASB or NIV, and we had never been told to do otherwise. Then we had a member who had been active for decades decide he was leaving the church because we were reading from a translation other than the KJV. It turns out that when he was a young man and the then-newly-published Revised Standard Version was giving cause for controversy, he made a vow to never read or allow to be read to him a different translation than the KJV! The pastor tried to reason with him, as did the head of the deacons. But he refused to budge. He had made his vow to God, by Jephthah! I was certain that the pastor would cave and tell us from now on to use the KJV, but to my amazement, he decided to let this member go. I've always had great respect for him because of that.

Anyway, it makes me wonder if in a few decades we'll see NIV-only or ESV-only adherents. I'll admit that I went for twenty years studying and teaching exclusively from the New American Standard Bible. Yes, as described above, I appreciated other translations, and other translations interested me, but overall I was convinced that the NASB was the best translation, period--for me, for you, for everyone. I didn't necessarily voice that sentiment, but my actions demonstrated it. Obviously, I no longer think that way, but I'll talk more about that when I get to the entry on the NASB.

Yet, I've never belittled anyone for using a particular translation or accused someone of having aberrant beliefs based on what version of the Bible he or she used. I'm greatly disturbed that Evangelicals are arguing with each other over translations of the Bible, particularly the TNIV which isn't even on the June top ten list from the Christian Booksellers Association (see below). In fact, if you look at that list, all the English translations represented are Evangelical translations. We read the Bible more than any other group in all of Christendom if these figures are any indication.


To say that "The best translation is the one you'll read" might sound cheesy to some, but I really believe that. I have 84 distinct English translations, and off the top of my head, there are only about two that I would seriously not recommend under any circumstances (the New World Translation and the Inclusive Version NT). Some are obviously better than others. I believe I can make a case as to why newer translations in general should be favored over older translations. But hey, if the KJV speaks to you, reading that is better than reading nothing. However, people get really upset over translations, even translations that are being read by others. It's not like anyone makes you read a particular translation. Right now, the TNIV seems to be the negative target of choice, and I really believe the issue is totally overblown. I'll explain more when I write my entry on the TNIV.

If you read my initial post where I announced this series and the top ten versions I am going to write about, you'll notice in the comments where people question WHY I didn't include this or that translation. It's my list, for the love of Margaret! Others are free to write their own list.

Regardless, I may have made a mistake in ranking these from 1 to 10. The first three probably are truly ranked in my mind in terms of my use and admiration of them. However, think of all of them as categorical favorites. The Revised English Bible has some of the best literary qualities, especially for oral reading, for instance. The Wycliffe New Testament is one of my favorite Bibles in the historical translation category. The New American Standard is my favorite formal equivalent translation in the Tyndale tradition. The Message is my favorite paraphrase. You start to get the idea.

So here we go. All of these blog entries are my subjective takes on why these particular Bible versions stand out to me. The exclusion of any particular translation is not a knock against it. Don't take it personal! I'll begin with the Holman Christian Standard Bible followed by the other nine in my list and a few honorable mentions to boot.

By the way, in case you missed it, these are the versions that I'll be covering:

  1. Holman Christian Standard Bible
  2. Today's New International Version
  3. New American Standard Bible
  4. New Living Translation
  5. The Message
  6. Revised English Bible
  7. New Jerusalem Bible
  8. Good News Translation (Today's English Version)
  9. The Wycliffe New Testament (1388)
10. Modern Language Bible (New Berkeley Version)

Honorable Mention #1: New English Translation
Honorable Mention #2: King James Version
Honorable Mention #3: The Cotton Patch Version


Redacted 5/23, 10:00 AM

Tags: Translations, Top Ten