Coming up on two weeks ago, a package from Tyndale arrived just as we were finishing up packing for a weekend away with friends in northern Minnesota. Needless to say, my planned reading was left on the shelf (sorry Greg Boyd!) and the new NLT Study Bible (NLTSB) went with me. I had planned to pen some initial thoughts on the blog last week, but the days slipped away between a hectic work schedule and shuttling kids for Vacation Bible School.
In the interim, Bryan Lilly and Rick Mansfield published some detailed “first looks” overviews, while Nick Norelli took us on an in-depth look at the NLTSB’s various study features. There have been a host of other comments and reviews, which Jeff has summarized here.
So rather than rehash ground that has been well-traveled already, I thought I’d enter the comparison arena. One of the big marketing points of the NLTSB has been its claim to be focused on historical context rather than specific doctrinal systems, topical subject matter, personal life keys, literary forms analysis or study methodologies. Historical-critical study Bibles are nothing new, certainly this is ground well traveled by the Oxford Annotated Bible, HarperCollins and even the Oxford Study Bible (REB) I tend to refer to.
In a comment to the above linked post, NLTSB editor Sean Harrison wrote:
[...] you are right that there are some similarities in tone between the NLT Study Bible and the Oxford and HarperCollins Study Bibles. I included those Bibles in my initial review and wanted to achieve a similar tonal level, but within an explicitly evangelical framework (Scripture as divinely inspired, Scripture as historically accurate, etc.).
Since I don’t have an Oxford Annotated or a HarperCollins for fingertip reference, I’m going to reach back to my review of the Oxford Study Bible and use the NOAB notes quoted there from a review published on This Lamp last year. This will limit to some extent the text used in comparison (Ezekiel 1:1-3), but I believe that even this small excerpt will be enough to illustrate the essential approach of the NLTSB.
Ezekiel 1:1-3 – Comparison of three study Bibles
| NLT Study Bible (NLT) | New Oxford Annotated Bible 3rd Edition (NRSV) | Oxford Study Bible (REB) |
| 1:1-3:27 OT prophetic books often begin with a “call narrative” that gives details of the prophet’s commissioning to his office (e.g., Jer 1:4-19). The prophetic call narrative demonstrated that the prophet’s words were legitimate, showing that he spoke as the Lord’s ambassador. It often introduced themes that his prophecy would address in greater detail, just as the overture to a symphony introduces the musical motifs that form the basis for the composition that follows. The focus of Ezekiel’s call narrative is the Lord’s impending judgment of his people. | 1:1-3:27: Part 1: The call of Ezekiel.
[no introductory notes] |
1.1-3.21: Ezekiel empowered. He receives his commission to prophesy doom to the Israelites. |
| 1:1-3 The opening verses locate the prophet’s ministry among the exiles from Judah who had been carried off to Babylon.
1:1 On July 31: Literally On the fifth day of the fourth month of the ancient Hebew lunar calendar. A number of dates in Ezekiel can be cross-checked with dates in surviving Babylonian records and related accurately to our modern calendar. This event occurred on July 31, 593 BC.of my thirtieth year (or in the thirtieth year): Priests begain to minister in the Jerusalem Temple when they were thirty years old. Ezekiel was a priest (see 1:3), but he was with the Judean exiles … in Babylon and was therefore unable to serve in the usual ways. Ezekiel’s identity as a priest in exile is significant to the message that follows. The exiles felt cut off from God and from conventional ways of appealing to him in the Temple. In the ancient world, most gods were closely tied to particular lands, so it was easy for those who were removed from the Promised Land to assume that the Lord was no longer interested in them. That God’s word had come to a prophet among the exiles in Babylon showed that God had not forgotten them and still had a future for them. The Kebar River was probably a large irrigation canal in the Nippur region southeast of Babylon. The Babylonians had deported the previous occupants because of their Assyrian sympathies and replaced them with exiles from elsewhere in their empire, including Judah. The Babylonians generally resettled peoples by ethnic groups and allowed them to retain their identity, unlike the Assyrians, whose policy of exile was to disperse and scatter populations. This difference later made it possible for the remnant of the exiles of Judah to return to their homeland. Those who had been exiled from the northern kingdom by thte Assyrians were not able to return in the same way. |
1:1-3: Superscription. Ezekiel was a Zadokite priest (v. 3, 44:15-31n.), steeped in the traditions of Jerusalemite royal theology (Zion theology; see Introduction). Despite his exile, he never loses his priestly role (cf. 43:12n.). The thirtieth year, probably Ezekiel’s own age. At the age for assuming his duties at the Jerusalem Temple (Num. 4:3), Ezekiel sought solitude outside his settlement (see 3:14-15) to reflect on what course his life might instead take in exile. | 1.1-3: Superscription. 1-2: There is difficulty understanding the thirtieth year, especially in view of the fifth year (v. 2), since both dates seem to refer to the same event, i.e. the call of the prophet. The point of reference for both dates seems to be the capture of Jehoiachin by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in 597 B.C.E. (2 Kgs. 24.10-17). The first date then becomes 568 B.C.E. and the second 593 B.C.E. Scholars think that the thirtieth year refers either to a second call of the prophet, the one in Babylonia (see Introduction); or possibly, though less likely, to the date of the compilation of Ezekiel’s many messages into a single book. Some conjecture that the call of another prophet whose work was in some way associated with that of Ezekiel was added. The river Kebar is probably an irrigation canal mentioned in Babylonian records. It flowed from the Euphrates through the old city of Nippur, where excavations have revealed ancient business contracts with Jewish names. See Ps. 137.1-6. |
| 1:2 This happened during the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s captivity: The word of the Lord first came to Ezekiel in 593 BC, while Judah was still a semi-independent state (see Ezekiel Introduction, “Setting,” p. 1310). Judah had been subjugated by the Babylonians in 597 BC, and King Jehoiachin had been carried into exile in Babylon at that time. Jehoiachin’s uncle, Zedekiah, ruled Judah as a Babylonian vassal (597-586 BC). Ezekiel dates his prophecy with reference to Jehoiachin’s captivity rather than to Zedekiah’s reign because he seems to have viewed Zedekiah as a stand-in for the lawful king, Jehoiachin. Zedekiah later rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 24:20), who besieged the city of Jerusalem (588 BC), destroyed it, and burned the Temple (586 BC). | Fifth day of the fourth month . . . fifth year of the exile would be July 31, 593 BCE. Chebar, a canal, flowing near Nippur, which is mentioned also in Babylonian documents. | There were two groups of exiles. The first, referred to here, was taken to Babylonia with King Jehoiachin. The second was deported by Nebuchadnezzar after his destruction of Jerusalem (12.11-12; 2 Kgs. 25.3-12); this date is set by some at 586, by other at 587 B.C.E. Jehoiachin was considered the rightful king, if a restoration were to take place; hence his captivity is the point of departure for all the dates in the book. |
| 1:3 Ezekiel was a priest by descent and a prophet because the hand of the Lord was upon him. Priests offered sacrifices in the Temple and explained God’s law. Prophets delivered God’s words of blessing or curse to the people and interceded with God for them. Ezekiel’s ministry included aspects of both priestly and prophetic mediation between God and the Israelites. Babylonians: Or Chaldeans. | 3: The name Ezekiel means “God strengthens.” Hand of the LORD (3:14,22; 8:1; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1), Ezekiel undergoes the same sort of divine compulsions and ecstatic trances experienced by Israel’s early prophets, such as Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 18:46; 2 Kings 3:15). Chaldeans, Babylonians. | 3: Ezekiel means “God strengthens.” Hand of the Lord is the symbol for Ezekiel’s consciousness that his activity is divinely motivated. Compare 3.22; 37.1. Chaldaea: southern part of Babylonia. |
In their marketing, Tyndale claims that reading the NLTSB is “like being led through Scripture by a caring Bible teacher.” From the notes reproduced above, I would further suggest that reading the NLTSB is like listening firsthand to that lecture or discussion, while reading the NOAB or OSB is like reviewing the notes that you took from that lecture. All cover similar ground, but the NLTSB has a more conversational narrative than the latter editions’ more abbreviated annotations.
In rereading the NOAB review on This Lamp, I was struck by the similar description that the reviewer, “Larry”, used for the New Interpreter’s Study Bible (NISB):
This passage illustrates well the strengths and weaknesses of the NISB. On the one hand, the annotations are written in a much more conversational style than those of the NOAB or the HSB. On the positive side, one can simply read this study Bible as if it were the transcript of a lecture of a friendly instructor. But on the other hand [...] this is clearly a Christian reading of the Bible – seeking to answer the question “what is the relevance of this passage to us today?”
The NLTSB clearly does not give us a Christian reading in the study notes, nor does it address any modern application of the text to life today. These are good things. That said, I should note that the NLTSB is still a Christian study Bible; the final paragraph or two of the Meaning and Message section of each book’s introduction addresses fulfillment by/in Jesus Christ. I would have preferred that the Christian extrapolations be put it in their own section of the introductory materials, apart from the original “meaning and message”, but their presence is consistent with Sean Harrison’s rejoinder that the NLTSB was created with “an explicitly evangelical framework.”
Much of the discussion of dates in the OSB is covered in the NLTSB’s introductory material. By shifting alternate or disputed elements such as timelines and authorship out of the study notes, the editors have tightened up the study notes narrative and provided a much more continuous thread. Several times in looking at the NLTSB, not just at this passage, I caught myself reading the notes for page after page – this caused me to reflect on an essential difference between the NLTSB and the Oxford editions.
Whereas the latter really are annotated notes to the text, the NLTSB feels more like a commentary, more in line with my Daily Study Bible editions from William Barclay. Yes, the notes are inline with the text, but they really form their own narrative to some degree and can be read separately if so desired. The key is that the NLTSB appears to be a balanced “commentary”, not tipped in a doctrinal bias, but evenhandedly providing the contextual story of the scripture.
As someone who typically does not *use* study Bibles on a regular basis, I enjoyed this approach and found it more engaging than the jottings of the Oxfords, which often leave you wanting more or trying to flesh out a comment. In my next NLTSB review, I will compare it to another commentary-style study Bible, namely the Jewish Study Bible featuring the NJPS Tanakh translation.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not point out a minor error in the NLTSB’s notes. In the first section, the notes describe the “call narrative” that gives legitimacy to the prophet’s words. The analogy is used of an musical overture. However, I must point out that symphonies do not have overtures; I must assume that the notes author meant that “just as the overture to a symphony an opera introduces the musical motifs that form the basis for the composition that follows.” Certainly there are examples of works where the first movement of a symphony contains the motivic seeds for the remaining movements, but these are never called “overture”. Or perhaps the author was thinking of a self-contained symphonic poem, but that is neither overture nor symphony. Change a word or two and this note will be acceptable to music majors everywhere!
19 Comments
Thank you for the interesting review.
All the classical musicians will pick up that error right away unfortunately. But those notes (get it?) look so much more helpful than a typical study Bible which is probably why I’ve never really gotten into them either.
I’ve update the reviews roundup with this review.
Jeff
Your reviews of the NLT are making me rethink my personal bias against the NLT. Of all of the couples that I know, it seems that either the husband or wife have an NLT. However, my first encounter with the NLT established a mental road block which I have been unable to clear.
I was visiting a friend who’s oldest son had been in a terrible car accident a few months earlier, and we had visited and prayed with the family on a regular basis for months. One particular evening we were discussing forgiveness and revenge, and I was prompted by the Spirit to read Romans 12:20, but, rather than go get my Bible, I grabbed my friend’s which was an NLT. I began searching Romans for the “hot coals” verse, and I could not find it. I thought I was losing my mind. To make a long story not quite as long, I spent over half an hour distracted by my inability to find this scripture because of the different translation in the NLT.
I know I need to clear this hurdle, but first impressions… I may give it a second look.
Thanks for the comments, Peter. My wife has an original NLT Life Application SB and loves it, so we fit into your “couples” category too!
I struggled a long time (and still struggle) to get past a kneejerk “but that’s not what the Bible says” reaction to the NLT and other functional translations, so I very much sympathize with your first impression!
Thanks for this review — in my opinion the most detailed and best of the NLT Study Bible reviews.
Based on this review, I have posted on a number of very serious problems with the notes. Based on your review, I cannot recommend the NLT Study Bible.
Here’s the most important question, though: what kind of dogs are those on your coffee mug?
what kind of dogs are those on your coffee mug?
LOL… we were at our friends’ cabin up north and I had just blindly pillaged their cupboards for a coffee mug. Those who know me would laugh even harder because I am *not* a dog person – never have been, never will. Which makes this photo even more ironical.
P.S. aren’t they Cocker Spaniels?
I figured that’s what they were. At first glance the long ears made me think that perhaps they were bassets like my Bessie Mae, but then I could see that they weren’t.
I’m decidedly a dog person to the point that you don’t want to have me in the position of deciding whether I rescue you or Bessie first from the burning building.
Sorry to derail a very good post. Don’t you hate it when people go off topic in the comments?
Well, I think Iyov is of the persuasion that the NLTSB is a “dog” of a study Bible, so maybe that’ll bring things back around on topic…
I haven’t read the NLTSB yet (only the reviews that have been posted of it), but it is true that I don’t care for the NLT translation (both NLT1 and NLT2).
I’m quite fond of the Oxford Study Bibles (Catholic NAB, New Oxford Annotated NRSV, New Oxfored Anotated RSV, and Jewish NJPS) as well as the HarperCollins, and I haven’t seen a study Bible yet that I think is better than those. Esteban may have had a good point, though, when he commented that the NLTSB may be a step up from those who would otherwise use the Life Application SB or the NIV SB (not that I am sufficiently familiar with either of the latter to support his claim.)
One SB that I am going to be carefully looking at is the ESV SB. It has gotten so much hype so far — I’m quite interested to see if it lives up to the hype.
I’m quite fond of the Oxford Study Bibles [...] as well as the HarperCollins, and I haven’t seen a study Bible yet that I think is better than those.
Iyov, I’ve not had a chance to ask you this directly before, but where/how to do you “rank” the REB Oxford Study Bible’s approach to the other Oxford editions that you’ve noted?
Actually, the REB Oxford Study Bible (and the earlier NEB Oxford Study Bible) are quite good — first, there was significant coordination with translators, so both of these are close to being “official” annotated editions. The notes are brief, but as your example points out, they are good and relevant. The trend in more recent SBs is for longer and more annotations, and these editions remind me of the earlier editions of the New Oxford Annotated (second edition and earlier).
I also think the REB is the best of the dynamic translations. The NEB is known for some wild interpretations, and now seems a bit dated, but it is good for stimulating thought.
It is a pity that the REB OSB is now out of print in hardcover. I think it has a market.
I would also add that there is not a lot of overlap among the Oxford annotated SBs I’ve seen — with the exception of the NRSV New Oxford Annotated Bible and the NJPS Oxford Jewish Study Bible (which share a common editor and also some essays) they don’t have overlap (except for the color maps.)
I just think Oxford has high standards for its academic Study Bibles (not true of Cambridge, unfortunately.)
See my comments at Iyov’s post.
Thanks for the excellent review ElShaddai. I just don’t think I could get into the NLT no matter how good the study notes were. I tend to agree with Iyov when he states the following:
“I’m quite fond of the Oxford Study Bibles (Catholic NAB, New Oxford Annotated NRSV, New Oxfored Anotated RSV, and Jewish NJPS) as well as the HarperCollins, and I haven’t seen a study Bible yet that I think is better than those.”
I prefer the “jottings” style notes over and above the long drawn out commentary in a study Bible. I say keep it concise and relevant without a lot of space consuming chatter that is often not very useful. If I need something beyond this I will break out the commentaries on my bookshelves. As for those who don’t have, or can’t afford good commentary sets, there are some excellent one volume commentaries out there, such as The Interpreter’s One Volume, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, and releasing next year The New Interpreter’s One Volume.
Iyov, I have just ordered the NRSV NOASB 3rd Augmented Edition, published in 2007 I believe. Is this the edition you are referring to? I already use the others you mentioned, with the exception of the Jewish NJPS. Do you have a preference among the Oxford Study Bible’s? I also agree concerning the Cambridge, it is the only study Bible I own that I never even bother to take off the shelf anymore.
BTW ElShaddai, I tend to be more of a cat person myself. LOL
ElShaddai, have you seen that Crossway has put online a .pdf of Ezekiel 1-3 from the ESV Study Bible? It might pay to put the notes side-by-side like this!
Ask and ye shall receive…
ElShaddai, I enjoyed reading your review — thanks for your careful analysis and reflections.
Thank you, Sean, for the opportunity to look at the NLTSB early on. I haven’t gotten as much written as I’d like these past few weeks, but I’m hoping to revisit the different study features a few more times. I’m also looking forward to the online notes when they’re available!
You and I both — haven’t written as much as I’d like, since the online edition has been sucking up all of my time. I’m hoping to get back to writing now that the online edition is going live.
2 Trackbacks
[...] Comparing notes on the NLT Study Bible [...]
[...] Edwards has compared the notes of the NLTSB with two other study Bibles and is excellent as [...]