Good Bible Study and Good Study Bibles
Coram Deo is a church that is built on the Bible. We want you to study the Bible, read the Bible, love the Bible, learn about Jesus from the Bible, shape your life according to the Bible.
So good Bible study is a discipline that should mark every follower of Jesus. And the #1 rule of good Bible study is: just read your Bible. A lot. Read it in context. Read it fast. Read it slow. Read it out loud. Read it silently. Just read it. We are out to become a church that just reads the Bible and prays. Wouldn't that be unique?
The best tool for Bible study is just a good translation of the Bible. No study Bibles, no notes, no Internet searches. All these things give you someone ELSE'S view of the text; which is good and helpful, but only AFTER you've wrestled with it for yourself. Will quotes Tom Nelson as saying, "There are two types of people: prophets and parrots. Prophets tell people what God has said; parrots tell people what someone else said." Don't be a parrot. Study the Bible for yourself.
Having said that, a good study Bible can be a great resource. Along with many Coram Deo folks, I am reading through the entire Bible this year - something I have not done for quite a few years. In the past, I followed rule #1: reading my (non-study) Bible. This time around, I am using my Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible - an NIV-based study Bible with research notes edited by one of my favorite seminary professors, Richard Pratt. I am finding the notes very helpful, especially in the Pentateuch. For instance, Exodus 36-40, about the construction of the tabernacle, becomes much clearer as I view an artist's rendering of what the tabernacle probably looked like. And Pratt's helpful theological articles, steeped in the Reformation tradition and cross-referenced to creeds like the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession, offer a wealth of information on some really important questions. There are lots of lame study Bibles out there, and most of them I would caution against. But this one has been really helpful. So check it out if you're considering a purchase.
Regarding translation: Mark Driscoll and the elders of Mars Hill Church recently published a paper on why they prefer the ESV translation of the Bible as the starting point for good study and preaching. Though I don't agree with every point, I find the paper to be excellent food for thought. You can find it here.
So good Bible study is a discipline that should mark every follower of Jesus. And the #1 rule of good Bible study is: just read your Bible. A lot. Read it in context. Read it fast. Read it slow. Read it out loud. Read it silently. Just read it. We are out to become a church that just reads the Bible and prays. Wouldn't that be unique?
The best tool for Bible study is just a good translation of the Bible. No study Bibles, no notes, no Internet searches. All these things give you someone ELSE'S view of the text; which is good and helpful, but only AFTER you've wrestled with it for yourself. Will quotes Tom Nelson as saying, "There are two types of people: prophets and parrots. Prophets tell people what God has said; parrots tell people what someone else said." Don't be a parrot. Study the Bible for yourself.
Having said that, a good study Bible can be a great resource. Along with many Coram Deo folks, I am reading through the entire Bible this year - something I have not done for quite a few years. In the past, I followed rule #1: reading my (non-study) Bible. This time around, I am using my Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible - an NIV-based study Bible with research notes edited by one of my favorite seminary professors, Richard Pratt. I am finding the notes very helpful, especially in the Pentateuch. For instance, Exodus 36-40, about the construction of the tabernacle, becomes much clearer as I view an artist's rendering of what the tabernacle probably looked like. And Pratt's helpful theological articles, steeped in the Reformation tradition and cross-referenced to creeds like the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession, offer a wealth of information on some really important questions. There are lots of lame study Bibles out there, and most of them I would caution against. But this one has been really helpful. So check it out if you're considering a purchase.
Regarding translation: Mark Driscoll and the elders of Mars Hill Church recently published a paper on why they prefer the ESV translation of the Bible as the starting point for good study and preaching. Though I don't agree with every point, I find the paper to be excellent food for thought. You can find it here.
posted by Bob | 1:51 PM
28 Comments:
Anyone find it ironic that the starting text for the ESV was the RSV? The RSV was rejected by many leading conservatives because of its liberal leaning interpretation of several Old Testament passages. It also traces its lineage back to the KJV, another version roundly criticised by conservatives over the past 20 year. I realize the ESV boys cleaned up all the problems, but still, a little funny to think the ESV, fast becoming the version of choice among conservative and manly evangelicals, has a liberal ancestory.
"Anyone find it ironic that the starting text for the ESV was the RSV? The RSV was rejected by many leading conservatives because of its liberal leaning interpretation of several Old Testament passages. It also traces its lineage back to the KJV, another version roundly criticised by conservatives over the past 20 year. I realize the ESV boys cleaned up all the problems, but still, a little funny to think the ESV, fast becoming the version of choice among conservative and manly evangelicals, has a liberal ancestory."
Where did you see that the starting text for the ESV is the RSV? I'm fairly certain that the starting text for any translation of the bible are the original greek and hebrew texts.
Trace the lineage back to the KJV? Again, how so? As far as I can tell, the KJV is the first official full english translation of the bible so I guess you could say all our different versions could trace their lineages back to the KJV! ;)
Bob,
I'd be curious (perhaps this isn't the forum) to know what your thoughts are on the ESV. I think Bible translation of choice is an area of freedom for believers. . . but I found the ESV arguments pretty compelling. Just curious,
Aaron
travisty383 - This quote appears on the ESV website (http://www.esv.org/about/kjv)
"The words and phrases of the ESV grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for the ESV text."
To be honest, the concept of RSV, ESV, KJV, NIV (comparing and contrasting) is way beyond me right now. But I do think that being a church that is known for reading the bible and praying would be very sweet. Lets get into it and like Eugene Peterson says and: "read, meditate, pray, and contemplate the word of God."
"Anonymous said...
travisty383 - This quote appears on the ESV website (http://www.esv.org/about/kjv)
'The words and phrases of the ESV grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for the ESV text.'"
Ah, I see where you got that now. I thought you read that in Driscoll's article somewhere and I was all sorts of confused.
That quote makes it sound like the ESV editors simply took the RSV and updated the language to more modern english. However, this quote from the same page helps clarify I think:
"The translators of the KJV understood the value of the English translation work that had been done before their time, and they wisely referred to the earliest English Bible translations, dating back to William Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament, in addition to the manuscripts in their original languages."
I've got to weigh in on this one. It’s helpful to recognize the difference between a translation from one language to another and subsequent revisions which take advantage of the work already done in an English translation, while going back to the original Hebrew and Greek themselves. translation considerations can get so involved it’s easy to lose track of the fact that the vast majority of English translations out there are excellent ; the purity of the original manuscripts and the quality of the translation work are outstanding. They all flow out of different translation philosophies which make them better for different uses: for in-depth study of the epistles NASB or ESV are hard to beat. For reading through the old testament, the NIV, which tends to do a better job of grappling with Hebrew expressions, is one of your best options.
Bob-I haven’t seen that particular study Bible, but I love how it grounds reading the Bible in the community of the people of God, informed by the knowledge gained through study [maps, diagrams] and the experience of the Church throughout history [creeds, confessions]. The purpose of the reformation was to put God’s word in the hands and language of each person so they could read it for themselves but not so they could read it alone . The reading, studying and living of Scripture must be a community affair. Sounds like your study Bible recognizes that.
Ah, so the ESV is simply a revision and not a "translation" per se? Thanks for that clarification hooley. I did not know that.
Hooley... good stuff.
Trav... the ESV is a translation in the common sense of the word, unless you're a biblical languages nerd like Hooley.
Aaron... translation is definitely an open-hand issue where Christians are free to disagree. I do think some of the arguments for the more literal translations (ESV and NASB) are good ones: words mean things, and any time a translator takes liberties to try and render the "sense" of the original text into the receptor language, he is taking that task out of the reader's hands. That's why a good student of the Bible always compares multiple translations and even uses tools to get back into the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Never rely on only one translation.
You also gotta remember that there are some biased viewpoints in this conversation... the loudest voice for the excellence of the ESV is Leland Ryken, who also happens to be its editor. On the other side, the loudest proponents of "gender-inclusive" translations are (surprise, surprise) evangelical feminists. So: learn to study the Bible for yourself, and learn to be a critical reader.
I think it's also important to note that despite how much one wants to believe in the idea of a "translation," any text that has been "translated" is actually an "interpretation." Especially with a text the size of the Bible, an absolute pure and accurate translation (which is the rendering of one language into another) is nearly impossible. That is why I would emphasize that every "form" of the Bible that is not in its original language is an interpretation.
With that said, go learn foreign languages and then analyze it all yourself!... and then maybe with Bob too.
tf,
Is it fair to say, though, that there are degrees to which the translators have interpreted? Because it seems like the NIV, though valuable in my own life, has done more "interpreter work" than some other translations. I agree with your post. . . .but without taking away anyone's freedom, is it wrong to make a value statement on this issue?
Aaron
I highly recommend reading Gilles Gravelle's response to the ESV. It is found in a post at the bottom of Driscoll's blog item entitled "Preaching and Teaching from the ESV":
http://tinyurl.com/yvhqgl
tf, you will find support for your position there.
Gilles' response is both balanced and cautionary. The "balanced" aspect seems to be rather hard to come by these days when it comes to views on Bible translation.
There are several points by which the quality of a translation can be measured:
1. Accuracy (= follows the original text without adding, subtracting, or changing meaning).
2. Clarity (= easy to understand).
3. Naturalness (= sounds like my daily language, not stilted or foreign).
4. Perceived authority (= a subjective sense about its "ring of authority".)
The more literal translations generally score HIGH on Accuracy and Perceived Authority, but LOW on Clarity and Naturalness -- meaning they are less understandable (or "less communicative", as Gilles Gravelles wrote).
Interpretation is needed to make a foreign text more understandable -- and that applies to ANY Bible translation. With literal translations, the interpretation may be provided by a preacher or teacher. The more dynamic translations have put some of the interpretation into the text itself.
Now we encounter the limitation of the dynamic translations: interpretations limit the ambiguity or nuances which might also be understood from the original text. And this, in turn, can impact the Accuracy and Perceived Authenticity.
Obviously the challenge is to have the right balance on all four of the points, without unduly sacrificing on any of them. Where that balance should lie depends in part on which points the user emphasizes.
Since we want to be missional (or TransforMissional, as my pastor says), we really need to look at Bible translations from yet another perspective. And that is: will my unchurched and unsaved friends understand the Bible translation I share with them?
Let me tell you a secret: sometimes _I_ have a hard time understanding the more literal translations myself, especially in the Epistles -- and I've been a Christian for over 36 years, have been to Bible school, studied Biblical Greek, and now work in the fields of linguistics and Bible translation. If that's the case for me, pity the nonbeliever or young believer.
Someone did a study in which they tested how well the average modern church-goer understood typical Biblical terms. The results were pretty poor--and that was IN the Church. What do you think the results would have been if the same test were done with people OUTSIDE the Church?
So my plea (call it a bias) is for us to use the more understandable and communicative translations, _especially_ when it comes to shareing with nonbelievers. And that generally means translations from the more dynamic end of the spectrum.
If we care about _communicating_ what the Bible says, then we need to take our audience into consideration. For example, the ESV and NIV are generally too difficult for non-native speakers of English. The CEV (Contemporary English Version) is done in a simpler level of English that is much more understandable for this audience, as well as for English speakers with lower reading abilities.
Having said all the above, we must return to the most basic point. This has been well said by John Piper
http://tinyurl.com/2vz8d8
"The privilege of having God's Word in our own language is of incalculable worth. I would rather have you read _any_ translation of the Bible—-no matter how weak—-than to have you read no translation of the Bible. If there could be only one translation in English, I would rather it be my least favorite than that there be none. God uses every version to bless people and save people."
So as Bob began this post, let's be people who read, study, and love our Bibles.
Okay, so Bob, what do they mean when they say that the ESV used the text if the RSV as it's starting point? I always thought that a new english translation/version of the bible started fresh with original languages. This seems important to me because using previously existing versions as starting point would seem to lend itself to the "telephone game" error.
Nobody thinks that reinventing the wheel is a good idea. The only true "translation" into English was William Tyndale's Bible back in 1526. "Tyndale's version of the New Testament provided the basis for all the successive revisions between his day and ours" (Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 551).
Trav, a good rule to remember is that Bible translation is sort of like "open source code" in the computer world. There are so many good Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available out there, and so many good scholars around the world who work with these texts, that any textual variants or inaccuracies in translation are usually brought to light very quickly. This makes it possible to put together a very accurate version in the English language by consulting the original manuscripts, but without re-translating from scratch. Make sense?
For a much more thorough overview, I highly recommend Geisler and Nix's book which I quoted earlier.
New blog rule: when a linguistic expert who works with Wycliffe Bible Translators posts a comment on Bible translation: the rest of us would do well to shut up and listen. Scott Y, thanks for the insights. And I agree with Piper's comment. To get back to the original point: just read the Bible!
"when a linguistic expert who works with Wycliffe Bible Translators posts a comment on Bible translation ..."
Agreed, that's a pretty big trump card. I'll be quiet now and go read the Bible, whatever translation it happens to be.
scott y-
thanks so much for your comments and the link. that's great stuff.
Amen to shutting up. . .
thanks Scott,. . that was helpful, . . and I agree that venue and audience should inform which translation we use. Thanks for speaking that in a meaningful way to me.
Aaron
Werd, thanks Bob.
Back to the Bible! :)
travisty, John Piper's two messages at
http://tinyurl.com/2vz8d8
http://tinyurl.com/3a8o6t
are also a good place to go for answers to your questions about the KJV-RSV-ESV lineage.
Scott, thanks for those links. I definitely found Piper's perspective and explanation helpful.
brenda says----this is good stuff you guys--thanks!.....Using different translations over the years has been invaluable for reading and studying and understanding. And I agree that the translation has to "fit the situation". For example in the jail, I have seen the Word come alive for women switching to the New Living Translation (Life Recovery Study Bible). When a passsage is read there are at least 3 translations we work from, "what word is used in your translation?" etc... (I work from ESV--but like the notes and creed references from The Spirit of the Reformation Bible). So just wanted to reinforce the importance of matching the translation with the person. But yes, the bottom line is read, read, read.....
Okay, I have a related question. I was just reading in 1 Corinthians 14 and in verse 22 in my ESV bible it looks like this:
"22Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign[a] not for unbelievers but for believers.
Footnotes:
[a]1 Corinthians 14:22 Greek lacks a sign"
What's the deal with that footnote? It seems that the phrase "a sign" would be insinuated there by the context anyways, but isn't that still a case of interpretation rather than straight translation?
Excellent point, Travisty, and your conclusion is right on.
Since the Greek text does not say exactly what prophecy "is" for believers, completing the thought (if indeed it even needs to be completed) does require a bit of interpretation.
But interpretations vary slightly: NLT says prophecy is "for the benefit of believers", TEV says it is "proof for believers", and NIV, NET, and CEV don't add anything.
The nice thing about ESV is that it tells us up front what it added here, which enables us to study and form our own conclusions.
Since Bob's original post is about Study Bibles, I'll mention here the NET (New English Translation). It's not billed as a study Bible per se, but it is nevertheless packed with notes on grammar, exegesis, and even why the translation adds a word or leaves one out.
These notes essentially bring the reader alongside the translation team as they made their decisions in the process of translation. I find that this makes NET a highly transparent version--meaning that the nature of the original text is easily accessible and, in a sense, almost visible.
And for my own tastes, NET is the most natural and easily readable of the literal style translations.
You can read NET online at
http://www.bible.org/netbible/
I'll leave the Translation/Version discussion aside, and I'd like to know about which study Bibles you use and reccomend.
I'm using the Thompson chain reference, the Life Application Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible (the Thompson and the LAB are in the RVR1960 (Spanish). I also have a Cambridge KJV and the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. These 2 are text only.
I've been considering A Ryrie study Bible (RVR1960). What's your opinion on this one and the ones I already have?
Pax, Juan
Post a Comment
<< Home