From a local review of the new movie, Revolutionary Road, based on a novel by Richard Yates:
The Wheelers are trapped in a milieu of stifling conformity, he commuting daily amid a crush of cattle in gray flannel to earn their bread, she tied tight in an apron at home, baking it.
A nicely turned sentence, I thought.
A big HT to Robert Jimenez at Inquiring Minds who discovered that the long-awaited 2nd Edition of the HCSB is currently available electronically for WORDsearch or Bible Explorer software. The base software appears to be free, but the translation module will cost you just under $20.
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:
| 1st Edition | 2nd Edition |
|---|---|
| 25 So God made the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and creatures that crawl on the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the animals, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.“ |
25 So God made the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and creatures that crawl on the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.“ |
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:
As I mentioned in a previous post, my wife surprised me with an Amazon Kindle e-book reader for Christmas. I’ve been playing around with it as time allows, but haven’t bought a book yet – instead, I’ve been downloading the free samples and getting a feel for the gadget.
These are some initial thoughts and impressions on physically using the Kindle:
Of course, the real value is in interacting with content. As I mentioned above, I’ve downloaded several samples, including HCSB, NLT, TNIV, NASB, KJV and NET translations of the Bible. I think it’s important not to make the Kindle be something that it’s not – i.e. dedicated electronic Bible software. The Kindle is first and foremost for reading. For example, the Search feature allows you to look up words in the text, but searching for “Genesis 17″ will give you results in the Table of Contents index, not the actual chapter in the book.
The following are some brief impressions of the translations that I’ve looked at so far:
All that said, I wonder if the Kindle would shine more with some of the daily reading Bibles, like the One Year Bible or the new 24/7 Chronological Bible from Tyndale. The latter doesn’t appear to be available for Kindle yet, so I’ve sent a note to Tyndale wondering when/if they plan to make an electronic version available. I’d also be interested in an electronic version of a daily devotional like Oswald Chambers’ My Utmost for His Highest, which is also not available yet for Kindle.
Tis the season for lists and a few bloggers have been posting [here, here, here] on which Bible translations they’re settling on at the end of 2008. This year was pretty settled for me in that regard – certainly not as much flux as ’07 when I started this blogging experiment as a way to track my ongoing search for a modern Bible translation.
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?
Continuing the discussion of Matthew’s appropriation of OT scripture as prophecies fulfilled in Jesus Christ, we turn to these exegetical questions found in yesterday comic section of the newspaper. The passage in question come from Matthew 2.16-18 (REB):
When Herod realized that the astrologers had tricked him he flew into a rage, and gave orders for the massacre of all the boys aged two years or under, in Bethelem and throughout the whole district, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the astrologers. So the words spoken through Jeremiah the prophet were fulfilled: “A voice was heard in Rama, sobbing in bitter grief; it was Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted, because they were no more.”
The fulfilled passage in question is from Jeremiah 31.15 and in its original context has nothing to do with Jesus, Herod or the slaughter of young children. William Barclay describes the situation as this:
Jeremiah was picturing the people of Jerusalem being led away in exile. In their sad way to an alien land they pass Ramah, and Ramah was the place where Rachel lay buried (1 Samuel 10:2); and Jeremiah pictures Rachel weeping, even in the tomb, for the fate that had befallen the people.
Remember that Rachel was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin; Ramah was located in the area allotted to Benjamin, just north of Jerusalem. The NET Bible has this further note:
Ramah is a town in Benjamin approximately five miles (8 km) north of Jerusalem. It was on the road between Bethel and Bethlehem. Traditionally, Rachel’s tomb was located near there at a place called Zelzah (1 Sam 10:2). Rachel was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin and was very concerned about having children because she was barren (Gen 30:1-2) and went to great lengths to have them (Gen 30:3, 14-15, 22-24). She was the grandmother of Ephraim and Manasseh which were two of the major tribes in northern Israel. Here Rachel is viewed metaphorically as weeping for her “children,” the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, who had been carried away into captivity in 722 b.c.
Whether Rachel was weeping for Jerusalem (Barclay) or the northern kingdom tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (NET) is evidently disputable, though the latter seems more appropriate. Regardless, we do now have the specific “who”, “where” and “why” that Linus seeks.
We often caution about taking a verse-by-verse view of scripture – applying individual passages to whatever we want by interpreting them outside of context – yet at first blush it seems that this is what Matthew is doing here and elsewhere in this second chapter of his gospel (cf. Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:23 and Isaiah 11:1) when he uses the literal words themselves to communicate, outside of original context or metaphorical meaning. Or is there something else here? In comments to my previous post on Matthew, Damian noted that:
Regarding Matthew’s use of the OT, I’m of the school that tends to assume that an OT quote implies the relevance of the entire passage that quote is within. In Matthew, especially early Matthew, this approach works quite well, and so I don’t think he misappropriates prophecy at all.
So we return to Jeremiah and tackle the larger picture. Chapters 30 and 31 fall under a general categorization of promises and hopes for the restoration of Israel and Judah. So while Rachel is weeping in 31.15, the overall trajectory of the passage is positive; keep reading in Jeremiah 31.16-17 (REB):
These are words of the Lord to her [Rachel]:
Cease your weeping,
shed no more tears;
for there will be a reward for your toil,
and they will return from the enemy’s land.
There will be hope for your posterity;
your children will return within their own borders.
In the face of bitter lamentation and exile from wrongdoing, there is the ultimate promise of hope and consolation:
The days are coming, says the Lord, when I shall establish a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. [...] I shall set my law within them, writing it on their hearts; I shall be their God, and they will be my people. No longer need they teach one another, neighbour or brother, to know the Lord; all of them, high and low alike, will know me, says the Lord, for I shall forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I shall call to mind no more. (Jeremiah 31.31, 33-34 — REB)
Again, these verses were originally specific to the exiled Israelites, but Matthew is surely calling to mind the promises of the covenant for all people, Jew and Gentile alike. That is, Herod has slaughtered the children of Bethlehem and there is much weeping, but like the exiled kingdoms, the Christ has survived and will return (out of Egypt) to establish a new covenant with all people and for all time. If we view Matthew’s scripture quotations in this light, then we perhaps understand that he is telling the gospel story as a massive typological argument, using huge blocks of Hebrew scripture to underpin the good news message of Jesus Christ as the annointed Messiah and fulfillment of all scripture.
In the introduction to his commentary on the gospel of Matthew, William Barclay quotes an early church historian named Papias:
Matthew collected the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue.
The hypothesis would be then that the narrative portions of Matthew’s gospel were edited from Mark’s account and merged with the above mentioned “sayings of Jesus” collected by the apostle Matthew. Who the author/editor of the gospel is remains shrouded, but why not consider Matthew himself as the author of Q?
Thanks to my blessed wife, we started up a tradition this past year that I grew up with, that being a subscription to National Geographic magazine. I remember stacks of yellow dating back to the ’70s in our house in Alaska, so the small pile here is a welcome addition.
The December issue has an article on “The Real King Herod” of Biblical lore and his influence and positive contributions to the architectural layout of Israel. The article, written by Tom Mueller, is centered around Israeli archaeologist Ehud Netzer’s discovery of Herod’s tomb. Embedded in the first paragraph is this quote:
Yet today he is best known as the sly and murderous monarch of Matthew’s Gospel, who slaughtered every male infant in Bethlehem in an unsuccessful attempt to kill the newborn Jesus, the prophesied King of the Jews. During the Middle Ages he became the image of the Antichrist: Illuminated manuscripts and Gothic gargoyles show him tearing his beard in mad fury and brandishing his sword at the luckless infants, with Satan whispering in his ear. Herod is almost certainly innocent of this crime, of which there is no report apart from Matthew’s account.
Scholars have long tried to line up the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, accounting for the differences and unique items reported. However, how do we approach this claim, that one of the unique items – Matthew’s report of Herod’s killing of the infants and presumably the subsequent flight of Joseph, Mary and Jesus to Egypt – is “almost certainly” false?
In matters of OT concordance, I’ve been using the maxim that the gospels were written after Jesus’ resurrection and subsequent time teaching the disciples and followers “in the whole of scripture the things that referred to himself.” (Luke 24:27) If the gospel accounts were vetted as accurate by the apostolic eyewitnesses within the first century church (cf. Luke 1:1-4), then the accounts we still have today must have their roots in this post-resurrection teaching. However, this presupposes that the events actually happened… or else Jesus was making stuff up!
Now, thanks to a comment from Esteban in a previous post, I’ve become familiar with the case of Bob Gundry, an expelled member of the Evangelical Theological Society. Gundry was expelled from ETS in 1983 for publishing an account of Matthew that claimed that “the four Evangelists, especially Matthew and Luke, have adapted the deeds and words of Jesus to fit the life and experiences of their readers” and that ” in the ‘infancy narratives’ (Matt. 1, 2) and elsewhere Matthew uses a Jewish literary genre called midrash. Like many preachers today, the writer of a midrash embroidered historical events with nonhistorical additions.” (Source) In particular, Gundry claims that Matthew changed the role played by the Jewish shepherds to that of Gentile astrologers in order to better bookend their arrival at Jesus’ birth with Jesus’ final commission that the apostles go to the nations/Gentiles at the ends of the earth.
I’ve not read Gundry myself, so I don’t know the extent of his claims that are based on the scholarly technique known as “redaction criticism.” But I recently speculated that the flight to Egypt might similarly be an allegorical or typological addition to the narrative, especially as Matthew concerns himself with messianic fulfillment of OT prophecy. Which of course then lays bare the question of what prophecy means and how it is fulfilled.
In matters of liberal scholarship, I tend to reference William Barclay. However, that bastion of liberal evangelicalism and skeptic of Jesus’ divinity makes this note:
There is not the slightest need to think that the story of the coming of the Magi to the cradle of Christ is only a lovely legend. It is exactly the kind of thing that could easily have happened in that ancient world. When Jesus Christ came the world was in an eagerness of expectation. Men were waiting for God and the desire for God was in their hearts. They had discovered that they could not build the golden age without God. It was to a waiting world that Jesus came; and, when he came, the ends of the earth were gathered at his cradle. It was the first sign and symbol of the world conquest of Christ. (Matthew, Vol. 1, p. 27)
Barclay goes on to state that Matthew’s use of the quote from Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 is
typical of Matthew’s use of the Old Testament. He is prepared to use as a prophecy about Jesus any text at all which can be made verbally to fit, even although originally it had nothing to do with the question in hand, and was never meant to have anything to do with it. [...] When we read a passage like this we must remember that, though it seems strange and unconvincing to us, it would appeal to those Jews for whom Matthew was writing. (Matthew, Vol. 1, p. 36)
So on one hand, Barclay accepts the historical accuracy of the Magi’s visit, but also notes Matthew’s tendancy to appropriate prophecy as needed in order “to convince the Jews that Jesus was the promised Annointed One of God”. There is a balance of veracity and verisimilitude – the question is does the balance between the two really matter?
As I sit here in the first hour of the day, sipping my thrice-steeped cup of tea, easing a sore throat and persistent cough, I find myself indirectly under attack by the keepers of the Dynamic Equivalent (DE) gate for daring to fawn over a translation that defines itself as idiomatic, but unfettered in its choice of English expression. That translation being, of course, the Revised English Bible (REB).
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:
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…
One of the Advent challenges at church this year is to read through the gospels and think about how and why they are different. Not a particularly earth-shattering endeavor, but it gave me an opportunity to read the gospel that I’ve spent the least amount of time in: Mark (who always make me chuckle when I come to Mark 14.51-52). But that’s not today’s post…
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):
| NEB | REB |
|---|---|
| The author to Theophilus: Many writers have undertaken to draw up an account of the events that have happened among us, following the traditions handed down to us by the original eyewitnesses and servants of the Gospel. And so I in my turn, your Excellency, as one who has gone over the whole course of these events in detail, have decided to write a connected narrative for you, so as to give you authentic knowledge about the matters of which you have been informed. | To Theophilus: Many writers have undertaken to draw up an account of the events that have taken place among us, following the traditions handed down to us by the original eyewitnesses and servants of the Gospel. So I in my turn, as one who has investigated the whole course of these events in detail, have decided to write an orderly narrative for you, your excellency, so as to give you authentic knowledge about the matters of which you have been informed. |
| HCSB | NASB |
| Many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us. It also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed. | Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who afrom the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. |
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?!)
Beyond the eyes of your heart
I was just reading with interest Robert’s recent summary of the changes between the HCSB 1st Edition and 2nd Edition in the book of Ephesians. One change in particular jumped out at me:
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?