cs lewis.JPG

It's August 2009, but for you it might be August 9002; that is if the Internet still exists, and Theology Web still exists.

This one is for all ye students, laymen, scholars, and all ye wizards (not the sort that peep!)...

The Best Study Bible is..........?





HH

I enjoy the Reformation Study Bible. But in general I'm not a huge fan of the whole "study bible" concept. It started out OK, but these days it's turning into a marketing ploy to make everyone buy multiple copies of a given Bible translation just to get the commentary. Kind of like how there are 100 versions of Monopoly now. Better to just get a basic Bible and then supplement it with good commentaries ancient and modern.

To be honest you'd be best starting with a good translation (such as the NASB) then supplimenting it with a greek interlinear, a greek dictionary and a good general commentary.

J

Some years ago, I learned about Mr. Wiese's translation work and have read some of his work on other New Testament books.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ Translated From the Byzantine Textform by Charles Wiese.

A translation of the Book of Revelation from the Byzantine textform collated by Dr. Maurice Robinson (2004 edition). This work is based upon Reformed methods of textual criticism and Bible translation and contains an introduction which explains the principles.

[...]

Throughout much of the New Testament the Textus Receptus is very close to the Byzantine text, but there are many differences in the book of Revelation. There is currently no major translation based upon the Byzantine Textform and this is intended to fill the need for such a translation.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, translated from the Byzantine Textform

Sincerely,
HH

International Standard Version

In some cases, the translation is excessively literal, many of the phrases are unnatural and heavy, and the language is archaic. In other cases, the general language and style of the translation are fully adequate, but the level of paraphrasing is so high that people have difficulty using the translation in preaching, teaching, and personal study.

In both cases, the need is for a translation that is both accurate and readable, dignified and literary. In other words, it is the coherence of the text as a whole and the accuracy of information provided to the reader that need to be corrected. This can never be done on a piecemeal or haphazard basis.

In view of this situation, a new translation of the Bible in contemporary English seems to be justified. This new translation will be called the International Standard Version (ISV®). The ISV will embody the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of Scripture, and will express this meaning in clear and natural English.

[...]


For the Tanakh, or Old Testament, the Masoretic text as published in the latest editions of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and Quinta is used as the base text, in consultation with other ancient Hebrew texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and a select number of ancient versions (the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Targums). All significant departures from the base text, as well as all significant textual variants, are indicated in footnotes.

For the New Testament, the main text of the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and the main text of the 4th Revised Edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament is used for the base text. The ISV New Testament does not rely solely on one family of manuscripts, such as the Textus Receptus redaction (commonly known as the Received Text), or the Westcott-Hort redaction. Instead, a wide choice of manuscript traditions was consulted. All significant departures from the base text, as well as all significant textual variants, are indicated in footnotes.

International Standard Version

Sincerely,
HH

The Peshitta New Testament in Aramaic/English Interlinear format by Paul D. Younan

Preserve and further the knowledge of Aramaic

Provide the English-speaking world a tool to study the Scriptures in the Language of our Lord and his Apostles

Correct errors in the several translations of the Peshitta which have preceded this work

Restore access to the Semitic and Jewish background of the New Testament, lost in its translation to Greek and other non-Semitic languages

The Khabouris Codex by S.P. Silver

The transcribing of the Khabouris Codex began in September 2004, as a comparison with the 1905 Peshitta. In a careful reading of the entire manuscript during the time of transcription, I noted several grammatical differences, and some few synonyms, but there are only a handful of errors in the entire manuscript. All but one have been corrected by another, later scribal hand. I have pointed out one scribal error which the scribes didn't.

English Peshitta Translation by Dr. George Lamsa

Dr. Lamsa was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East. He was a strong advocate of one of that Church's beliefs: Peshitta primacy (a form of Aramaic primacy). His hypothesis was that for the New Testament, the Aramaic Peshitta was the original text, and the Greek version was translated from it. In support of this, he noted that Aramaic was the language of Jesus, His Disciples and the earliest Christians, including the authors of the Bible.

There is considerably more, but this is my contribution to this thread ( for now ).

Sincerely,
HH.

I was sitting in the sun room, this morning and got a sort of alchemy going with 'The Message Bible', 'The Jerusalem Bible' and 'The King James' ... I did not even need my online resourses. Could this be the beginning of a new way of entering in to prayer ?

When I was 19 ( a million years ago ) I had my loose leaf - New American Standard - a gem back in 1977 and my New Bible Commentary...and it was enough. Steen told his brother that all he needed as a copy of the Revised Version (Westcott and Hort Greek) and a Concordance...(for a beginner) and one would be ready to take that journey.

So when you go into 'the closet' (prayer) which copy do you take with you... a 'thought by thought' edition like 'The Message', or 'Living' or do you take a 'word by word'...Don't be shy testify. ;)

Originally posted by headheart

So when you go into 'the closet' (prayer) which copy do you take with you... a 'thought by thought' edition like 'The Message', or 'Living' or do you take a 'word by word'...Don't be shy testify. ;)

I can't use paraphrases such as The Message any more. While it may flow well as an English text, it does take some horrible liberties. I favour a scholarly approach exclusively now, hence the NASB, as recommended to my by a Greek scholar.

J

The Message is simply awful.

I use the NASB as well, since it is the best translation of the original manuscripts thus far.

Why is the 'thought for thought' Message 'simply awful' ?
I notice that quite a few here are NASB Only! So what is the big attraction ? Does it take into consideration all the latest Textual Criticism ? Which manuscripts are you referring to ?
(I'd be interested to notice how long it takes other NASB Only devotees to come to your aid...)

Sincerely,
HH

Well seeing as it is a 'thought for thought' - have you read 1 Peter 1 - it certainly flows ! It is meant to be more along the lines of a Pastor preaching as oppossed to a 'word for word' delivery. I chatted to a few serious students and they smiled and said it is pretty close to the Greek. Which Greek I did not ask ? I'm enjoy the Living Bible (Paraphrase, not Parrot Phrase) too, but that is because it was the first Bible handed to me in my jail cell in 1976. It's kind attatched itself to me.

I could say that about James Moffat's New Testament but I was told it was a bad Greek manuscript. ( I checked that out, and it seems that he insisted on using a crooked manuscript. I guess he did not think so back then. It still is a good read in some places.)

What I am interested in is the wonderful new insights that are being gleaned from the Aramaic in particular the Peshitta (linked above). It does seem that it runs right along with some of the best translations, and the claim is that it preceeded the Greek. So now days we might even get something that is less tampered and more on the pulse of the early writers. Hey, whadda I know, I am just the guy who gets kicks out of the Message BIble...

Sincerely,
HH

You can read The Message, but for study, it's useless, because it is only a paraphrase. And frankly, I don't even like the way it reads.

For me, who was brought up on the KJV, the poetry and wordage in that version is my preference for simply reading, especially the nativity story and Psalms, etc.

If you are looking for study, the NASB is the closest translation, NOT paraphrase, of the original manuscripts. That's the best reason I know of for using that version as a study bible.

Originally posted by headheart

Why is the 'thought for thought' Message 'simply awful' ?
I notice that quite a few here are NASB Only! So what is the big attraction ? Does it take into consideration all the latest Textual Criticism ? Which manuscripts are you referring to ?
(I'd be interested to notice how long it takes other NASB Only devotees to come to your aid...)

Sincerely,
HH

Because it is a paraphrase, and paraphrases reflect the personality of the paraphraser. The Message is a solo effort by Eugene Peterson, whereas Bibles like the NASB are the result of multiple scholars which mitigates against individual biases. Furthermore, the NASB New Testament was published two years after the Message NT, which makes it by definition more current.

Here's a good example of how bad the Message is compared to translations:

Lockman.org

Matthew 4:19
NASB And He *said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
ESV And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
NIV “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”
HCSB “Follow Me,” He told them, “and I will make you fish for people!”
NLT Jesus called out to them, “Come, follow me, and I will show you how to fish for people!”
M Jesus said to them, "Come with me. I'll make a new kind of fisherman out of you. I'll show you how to catch men and women instead of perch and bass."
AMP And He said to them, Come after Me [as disciples--letting Me be your Guide], follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men!
KJV And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
NKJV Then He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."

---

© source where applicable

Peterson has injected exposition into the text (definition, inclusive language, non-existent clauses) which is a complete no-no when it comes to exegesis.

As to your other questions, they are answered on the homepage of the translators, the Lockman Foundation.

J

Originally posted by mossrose

[...] I don't even like the way it reads.

For me, who was brought up on the KJV, the poetry and wordage in that version is my preference for simply reading, especially the nativity story and Psalms, etc.

If you are looking for study, the NASB is the closest translation, NOT paraphrase, of the original manuscripts. That's the best reason I know of for using that version as a study bible.

I like to keep my options open.

Sincerely,
HH

Originally posted by Jnthn

Because it is a paraphrase, and paraphrases reflect the personality of the paraphraser. The Message is a solo effort by Eugene Peterson, whereas Bibles like the NASB are the result of multiple scholars which mitigates against individual biases. Furthermore, the NASB New Testament was published two years after the Message NT, which makes it by definition more current.

Here's a good example of how bad the Message is compared to translations:

Lockman.org

Matthew 4:19
NASB And He *said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
ESV And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
NIV “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”
HCSB “Follow Me,” He told them, “and I will make you fish for people!”
NLT Jesus called out to them, “Come, follow me, and I will show you how to fish for people!”
M Jesus said to them, "Come with me. I'll make a new kind of fisherman out of you. I'll show you how to catch men and women instead of perch and bass."
AMP And He said to them, Come after Me [as disciples--letting Me be your Guide], follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men!
KJV And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
NKJV Then He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."

---

© source where applicable

Peterson has injected exposition into the text (definition, inclusive language, non-existent clauses) which is a complete no-no when it comes to exegesis.

As to your other questions, they are answered on the homepage of the translators, the Lockman Foundation.

J

What's wrong with inclusive language in this case? It fits the wider meaning of the Apostles' calling?

Originally posted by headheart

The Peshitta New Testament in Aramaic/English Interlinear format by Paul D. Younan



The Khabouris Codex by S.P. Silver




English Peshitta Translation by Dr. George Lamsa



There is considerably more, but this is my contribution to this thread ( for now ).

Sincerely,
HH.

Lamsa was kind of a fruitcake in general. He was into Mind Science crap and spoke for Way International. He also pretty much a Nestorian.

Some years ago, I learned about Mr. Wiese's translation work and have read some of his work on other New Testament books.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ Translated From the Byzantine Textform by Charles Wiese.

The Byzantine Text is not without it's problems even when it's freed from Erasmus' errors. It's best to focus on an eclectic text like that behind the NASB (and no, I'm not advocating "NASB Only", I mean for serious study; not just reading).