We are all (overly) familiar with the phrase “open the eyes of my heart” from contemporary praise and worship music. In this verse, the phrase from the HCSB FE is found in translations ranging from the NASB to the NIV. The underlying Greek is: ophthalmos hymōn dianoia. Literally, “the eyes of your understanding” (cf. KJV) or “the eyes of your mind” (cf. Jerusalem Bible). So the new HCSB is perhaps moving in a more literal direction rather than more idiomatic, with “perception” as their optimally equivalent translation of ophthalmos (“the eyes of the mind”).

In some ways, this makes the entire verse a little more consistent, drawing together “perception”, “mind”, “enlightened” and “know” all as descriptions of a rational reader. The metaphorical “eyes” and “heart” are put aside, losing the emotional reference in English, as well as the image of “inward eyes” (REB) that are “flooded with light” (NLT), allowing the person to see the hope and share of their eternal inheritance.

So… is “the hope of his calling” to be seen in our hearts or known in our minds? Where does hope reside in English?

Rick Mansfield noted a few weeks ago that the translation itself was completed, while Will at Anwoth confirmed an October 2009 publishing date.

From the sample text provided by WORDsearch, here are the differences from the opening chapter of Genesis between the 1st (2004) and 2nd Edition texts:

As you can see, with just one change in 31 verses (Gen 1:1-31), the revision appears limited in scope. In this case, the text in v.26 has been edited from “animals” to “livestock”, presumably to be in concordance with v.25.

Robert reports a change in 1 Timothy 1, but notes that overall the changes were less significant than he’d hoped.

Update:

For more info and commentary on the HCSB 2nd Edition, check out the following links:

• HCSB 2nd Edition Released by WORDsearch (with Strong’s coding!)
• The HCSB 2nd Edition and the Tetragrammaton
• HCSB Second Edition
• HCSB 2nd Edition - My personal gripes
• HCSB 2nd Edition Ephesians Review

As you may or may not know, I used the NASB almost exclusively for 20 years, until just 4-5 years ago. I also had a NEB from college, which led to the REB, but by and large I was toeing the “literal is best” line. Ironically the first crack in that position was the ESV - implicitly marketed as “a more readable NASB”, I used it for a year or so before continuing to search for “more readable”. I already had the REB in my hands, but spent a year or two comparing it to the TNIV, HCSB and NLT (which my wife uses regularly) before deciding to stick with what I knew.

Coming into this year then, I had resolved to keep using the REB as my primary translation, augmented with the HCSB and TNIV as secondary resources when appropriate. For example, my church uses the NIV as its pew and pulpit translation, so the TNIV comes with me on Sundays more often than not, though it is not my regular private translation. The HCSB more-or-less replaced the NASB and ESV as my preferred “formal” translation, though I still refer to the NASB regularly. For the most part, these are the three translations that I used in 2008, though certainly the blogging world’s spike in interest with the NLT led to increased use there as well.

I do also have to say that I’ve referenced the NEB more this year as well. Whether it’s just checking what has changed in the REB or reading the NEB for its own pleasure, I have definitely given the older translation more visibility in my personal reading and writing here on the blog.

It was at this point in my original draft of this post that I began to speculate on my similar 2009 translation usage: NEB/REB, HCSB, TNIV, etc. etc. However, for Christmas my wife gave me a new gadget “toy”: Amazon’s Kindle e-book reader. I’ve been a hesitant technology adopter in the past, so this normally would be a stretch, but after playing with it for a few hours now, I can see this being very useful, especially on my bus commute to work. I normally have my backpack stuffed with 2-3 books and a Bible for reading, but this would/could replace all of that!

My dilemma is that the REB is not available electronically, so my primary time for reading - if given to the Kindle - would require a different translation choice. The TNIV probably makes the most sense, but I’ve been thinking about the KJV too - having it as a reading resource might finally push me over the edge and “open” it more regularly. In all likelihood, I’ll have multiple translations downloaded - now it’s just a matter of sorting through the reviews and trying to determine which Kindle edition of each translation is the one to get.

As for print Bibles in 2009, I will say that I’m going to make a better effort to use the NJPSV/Jewish Study Bible as a regular reference point for Old Testament studies. Perhaps the NLT or Lattimore as an additional New Testament translation reference. I did end up with a full edition of The Message and I plan to possibly look at The Voice as well, though I suspect those will not be primary translations.

In the meantime - any recommendations on Kindle editions?

I will begin my defense with some quotes regarding the REB’s predecessor, the New English Bible (NEB), from Roger Coleman’s “New Light & Truth: The Making of the Revised English Bible”:

Many of the criticisms of the NEB had to do with the “high” level of the language. The gibe that the NEB was “translated by dons for dons” (i.e. by scholars for scholars) was not altogether fair - it was a translation primarily for the reader with time to think about the meaning and to give the unexpected word a second glance, and not for the listener who must understand the passage as spoken or lost it for ever. Nevertheless there was much greater use of technical, literary, or “dictionary” words than was either necessary or desirable. “The effulgence of God’s splendour” (NEB Hebrews 1:3) came to epitomize for the Joint Committee and the revisers the kind of phrase that might prove a stumbling block to a listener - though there were reservations that “the radiance of God’s glory” (REB) might not quite convey the intensity of image that was wanted. On the other hand, reducing the level of the vocabulary sometimes led to the sense of the original being conveyed in a more exact way, as when “Let your magnanimity be manifest to all” (NEB Philippians 4:5) became “Be known to everyone for your consideration of others.” The Joint Committee took great interest in the level of language used in the revision, and in one of several discussions of the subject, warned against the systematic rejection of polysyllables, reminding the Director and his team of the arresting effect of unusual words and the way they could help to give an appropriate flavour of, for example, solemnity to a particular passage. (pp.48-49)

Coleman goes on to note some particular “donnish” features that the NEB might be criticized for:

1. Overly technical precision when confidence in a specialized term was required. Coleman cites the use of “ruffed bustard” in NEB Zephaniah 2:14 vs. just “bustard” in the REB, a level of species distinction which might qualify as overkill given “the menagerie of alternatives in other translations”.
2. Generous use of footnotes where the translators varied from the base text, especially in the OT and the alternatives presented in the Greek LXX, as well as related words in other Semitic languages.
3. Self-conscious idiomatic writing, that is, “a phrase used which is recognizably idiomatic English when viewed in isolation, but feels wrong in tone or weight when read in context.”
4. Convoluted or inverted phrasing that was the result of  poor communication and over-sensitivity to the text between the translators and publishers. Where, for example, the NRSV’s copy editors ran roughshod over the text, the NEB’s editors and proofreaders did not presume to make changes except for obvious errors.

So, first, to those critics of the REB, my simple defense is this: “It could be worse.” I say that with a wink in my eye since my reading seems equally split between the NEB and REB these days.

However, I do want to flag two items from the quoted paragraph above for future discussion: (1) that vocabulary choices can “convey the intensity of image” desired by the author; and (2) the “arresting effect of unusual words” and the way they flavor particular passages. Just as we use spices and salts to bring out a rich array of flavors in foods, so too is language capable of enhancing our interaction with scripture. How many times do we hear that a particular translation is “bland” or “simple”? Defenders of current DE translations like the CEV and NLT like to use phrases like “natural English” - however, it is not English itself that is naturally simple, but our common use of it. Should the Bible be as common as a simple grocery list or does it serve to inspire us and make us aspire to contribute even greater flavor to the gumbo pot we call God’s creation? In short, the latter is why I use the REB - but more on that later…

After finishing Mark and considering the three or four different ending variants, I turned the page and was confronted with Luke, and especially the prologue (Luke 1.1-4):

Now I was reading in the NEB and verse 3 particularly stood out. Compared to the REB, HCSB and NASB, which all include some variant of the word “order”, the NEB’s “a connected narrative” was a show stopper. Especially in consideration of Luke’s opening verse in which he identifies the “many” other gospel accounts available to him.

We are all aware of the synoptic issues of the gospels and especially the hypothesis that Mark’s gospel seeded those of Matthew and Luke, who both presumably drew on other sources as well - well, actually, doesn’t Luke just come out and say that in these opening verses? That is, Luke’s account is an edited narrative of multiple vetted gospel accounts connected together in an orderly fashion. Luke may have drawn on Q, but why not L, M, N, O and P as well?

I recall a session in a Bible study when our instructor made a comment along the lines of “while Paul was being shuffled around Judean jails, Luke certainly would have had an opportunity to interview the primary players and gather materials for a consolidated gospel. Certainly the opening chapters ring with the voice of Mary, she who “treasured these things in her heart” and kept the memory of the infant Son alive until it could be written down and permanently preserved - that is, “the gospel according to Mary.”

(As for Matthew, I tend to read him as a separate narrative line from Mark - his purposes seem so different and prophecy focused in terms of identifying messianic fulfillment of the OT - perhaps, dare I say, less a literal narrative than Mark and Luke and already bordering on allegorical or typological?!)

1. The previously noted “Methodist Bible” now has a name:  the Common English Bible, presumbably CEB for short. (HT: Gary Zimmerli)
2. Subversive Influence has posted a review and recommendation for The Voice translation (HT: Eddie Arthur)

Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades or loose Orion’s belt?
Can you bring out the signs of the zodiac in their season
or guide Aldebaran and its satellite stars?

The text above is from the REB (similarly the NEB) and appears to be a minority rendering based on comparisons to more mainstream translations. The table below compares this textual choice with that of the TNIV and the ESV, as well as the KJV:

31a: The Pleiades (cf. Job 9.9, Amos 5.8)

There seems to be little disagreement in translation about v.31 referring to the constellations of Pleiades or Orion. According to John C. L. Gibson’s commentary, for the phrase “the sweet influences of Pleiades”, the KJV translators likely “had in mind the genial onset of spring associated with the appearance of the Pleiades preceding sunrise in the east.”

According to JewishEncyclopedia.com, the expression “Can you bind” is a transposition of the following phrase, “the chains”. There doesn’t appear to be any other wordplay in the original, so we might as well just approach this verse straight on, as most translations do. Though I do admit that the consonantal connection of “chains” (or “cluster”) and “cords” in the NRSV (similarly NASB) is a welcome touch. “Binding the Pleiades” certainly seems to anticipate modern astronomy’s observations of the gravitational attractions within this group of stars.

31b: Orion’s belt (cf. Job 9.9, Amos 5.8, Isaiah 13.10)

In Keightley’s Mythology of Ancient Greece and Italy, he notes that “the ancient Hebrews seem also to have regarded [Orion] as a huge giant bound with chains in the sky [...]” So the question is whether it is the belt of Orion, the band of three bright stars across the constellation’s midsection, or the chains of a fettered giant that are being loosened. Gesenius’ Lexicon refers specifically to the state of being bound with respect to the Heb. mowshĕkah (translated above as “belt”, “cords”, “bands”).

Is this an example of one traditional description (”Orion’s belt”, as used by the TNIV and REB) obscuring a different cultural image or reference?

Given that both the Pleiades and Orion are bound in some sense, the point of the verse (other than the obvious questioning of Job’s capabilities) seems to be the celestial contrast between the Heb. qashar (tn. “bind”) and the Heb. pathach (tn. “loose”).

32a: Mazzaroth (cf. Job 9.9, 2 Kings 23.5)

The NET Bible has the following note:

The word מַזָּרוֹת (mazzarot) is taken by some to refer to the constellations, and by others as connected to the word for “crown,” and so “corona.”

The “crown” connection noted by the NET is championed by Ewald, who claims that the reference is to the Northern and Southern Crown constellations, corresponding to the “chambers of the South” in Job 9.9.

Transliterated Hebrew words rarely communicate much meaning in general English, so using “the constellations” (TNIV, also NASB) or “the signs of the zodiac” (REB) is to be preferred, with the understanding that meaning of the underlying Hebrew is uncertain. The REB underscores an astrological connection between the individual constellations and the zodiac by translating the Hebrew as “the signs” rather than “the constellations”. The related Heb. mazzalah in 2 Kings 23:5 is noted as perhaps being derived from a word related to rain - as in a season of rain ushered in by a zodiac sign in the heavens.

It is interesting to note that the Heb. mazzarah (constellations) and the Heb. ‘eth (season) are feminine nouns and the former is plural is a plural feminine noun - thus, the KJV’s use of the pronoun “his” to describe “seasons” (Heb. ‘eth) here seems doubly misplaced, while “their season” used by the other translations is generically appropriate.

32b: The Bear (cf. Job 9.9)

The NET Bible has the following note for Job 9:9, which also lists the same constellations by name:

The Hebrew [in 9:9] has עָשׁ (’ash), although in 38:32 it is עַיִשׁ (’ayish). This has been suggested to be Aldebaran, a star in the constellation Taurus, but there have been many other suggestions put forward by the commentaries.

Arabic has a similar word, na’sh, which means “bear” and an expression where the three stars of the Big Dipper’s handle in the constellation Ursa Major (Big Bear) are referred to as “daughters of the bear”. Thus, a translation reading “the bear with its children” (cf. TNIV, NRSV) would be using Ursa Major as the referent, with perhaps the bowl of the Dipper and the handle being depicted. Also, Ursa Minor (Little Bear) could also be in view here.

The KJV’s reference to Arcturus recalls a common way of finding stars in the night sky: “Arc to Arcturus then speed to Spica.” That is, if you follow the arc formed by the three stars that make up handle of the Big Dipper (away from the bowl itself), you will come to the star Arcturus and then Spica. “Arcturus with his sons” would most likely refer to the star, Arcturus, and the three stars of the Big Dipper’s handle. However, most commentaries seem to dismiss Arcturus as a probable translation.

Aldebaran surrounded by the Hyades is in the middle left. The Pleiades are in the lower right.

The NEB/REB’s decision to translate ‘ayish as Aldebaran is evidently based on a Syriac witness as well as that star’s visual proximity to the Hyades star cluster (”its satellite stars”), which lies between Orion and the Pleiades mentioned in v.31.

Of final note: Aldebaran, the Hyades and the Pleiades are all in the constellation Taurus, which is in astrological battle with Orion. The link between these two constellations is historic and it would be consistent for the Biblical astronomers to focus on some of the brightest and most prominent features of these two constellations.

But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall.

The impish choice of “go forth and skip about” in the NASB piqued my curiosity, as frankly I would have expected the more mundane rendition of “leap about” (cf. ESV, NRSV, NIV, NLTse). The NEB/REB is perhaps a stronger fit with the rodeo image: “you will break loose like calves released from the stall.”

The underlying Hebrew verb is puwsh, which according to Strongs either means (1) to “spring about” or (2) “to scatter” or “be spread”. The Latinate translation variants, N/KJV and the Jerusalem Bible, interpret “be spread” along the lines of growing bigger, e.g. “you will grow fat like stall-fed calves”, which creates an entirely different image altogether. Veal anyone?

We find, however, that the Jews whom this double-dyed villain had consigned to extinction are no evildoers; on the contrary, they order their lives by the most just of laws and are children of the living God, the Most High and Most Mighty, who for us as for our ancestors has maintained the kingdom in excellent order. (REB: Esther 16:15-16)

In my recent reading of 1/2 Maccabees, I’ve run across the idiom again in the description of Nicanor, commander of Demetrius’ army and bitter enemy of Israel:

Thus Nicanor, that double-dyed villain who had brought along the thousand traders to buy the Jewish captives, was with the Lord’s help humiliated by the very people whom he had dismissed as of no consequence. (REB: 2 Maccabees 8:34-35)

And again:

The double-dyed villain retorted, “Is there some ruler in the sky who has ordered the sabbath-day observance?” (REB: 2 Maccabees 15:3)

Interestingly, the NEB also uses the “double-dyed” idiom variant in Maccabees rather than the more hyperbolic “triple-dyed villain” language that was used in Esther. So of the six instances found so far between the NEB and REB, only the NEB passage in Esther uses “triple-dyed”.

That said, while the Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible use “archscoundrel” in the passage from Esther, they *do* translate “triple-dyed scoundrel” in both passages from 2 Maccabees.

The complete Jerusalem Bible was first published in 1966; that of the NEB in 1970. It is well established that the initial work on the NEB Apocrypha was dissolved and the project restarted under the guidance of Professor W.D. McHardy, who also led the work on the NEB OT (cf. About the New English Bible by Geoffrey Hunt). Is it possible that there was literary influence from the Jerusalem Bible project into the later phase of the NEB Apocrypha?

I must also comment that I’ve just noticed one of the members of the NEB Apocrypha Panel under McHardy and a translator of such was William Barclay, one of my favorite theological writers - my affection for the NEB just went up another notch or two!

There’s really no conclusive point to this post other than noting a few more instances of this idiom, plus the Jerusalem Bible variant. I just like blowing the dust off literary phrases that we don’t hear today!

As part of the ESV dialog, I found the following quote from Kenny Pearce somewhat irresistible, as it points to one way to understand and accept the ESV:

The ESV is a lot like the NKJV. It’s not as good in literary quality, in my opinion (I am not an expert on English literature), but most scholars believe that the New Testament text the ESV is based on is more accurate than the one that KJV and NKJV are based on, and ESV also renders certain words which have theological significance more consistently.

This last remark, about theological words, brings me to my final point, which I think is the real reason for a lot of very intelligent people, such as Phil Ryken, use and recommend the ESV. These ESV proponents push the fact that the ESV consistently uses words like ‘propitiation,’ ‘justification,’ and ‘atonement’. Other people will point out that these aren’t really good English translations of the original terms - after all, in English they are technical terms of Christian theology, and in the original Greek they weren’t! However, I think this criticism misses the real point. There is one activity for which I think the ESV is, hands down, the very best translation, and this, I think, is what Dr. Ryken means to endorse it for: it is the very best translation if you are consulting a Bible while reading or otherwise learning Reformed theology. This, I think, is what Dr. Ryken means when he says that when he was teaching from the NIV he would have to stop and say “this should say ‘propitiation.’” He means that when Reformed theologians teach about ‘propitiation’ they mean to be offering a theological explanation of what the Bible means when it uses the Greek word hilasmos (and possibly also hilasterion) and that word occurs here. If you have a Bible that doesn’t say ‘propitiation’ in those places, you won’t be able to figure out how this particular Reformed doctrine is supposed to be derived from Scripture and so you won’t really understand Reformed theology properly.

Certainly the positioning of the ESV as a Reformed translation has been done before, often by its detractors, but Pearce offers a perspective from the ESV side that’s worth chewing on for a while. He concludes:

I think [my explanation] does explain why many reasonable and intelligent people think the ESV is the very best translation out there, and I think it also makes a case that it might not be unreasonable for a church or denomination in the Reformed tradition to adopt the ESV as their ’standard’ Bible [...].