Review of NIV 2011 by Daniel Wallace

In late July, 2011, Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary completed a four-part review of the NIV 2011, the latest major entry in English Bible translations. It is well worth your time to read his views. I forewarn you that when you first land on his blog, Dan’s picture makes him look like a Scottish mullah — however unlikely you find that description. Don’t let that stop you!

In Part 1, Dan provides a brief history of English Bible translation in order to set the NIV 2011 in its historical context. That is a helpful way to begin, especially for those who have no knowledge of trends in the production of such translations. Please don’t be one of those people who think history does not matter, because this field would prove you wrong.

In Part 2, Dan gives his now-familiar spiel on how literal translation is totally inadequate for idioms, and I suppose he does so to forestall those who demand that a translation always be literal. His argument is convincing, though it fails to address the legitimacy of less-than-literal translation in the vast territory outside of idioms.

One key statement says, “The primary focus of the NIV 2011 is an accurate translation (more on this later), and one has to admit that they have accomplished this objective admirably.” Another summary conclusion says: “The scholarship behind the NIV 2011 is probably as good as it gets. And the textual basis [Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic text within the Bible] is both bold and exceptionally accurate.” This is high praise from someone of Wallace’s standing among textual critics.

In Part 3, Dan discusses weaknesses of NIV 2011. The most important finding, in my opinion, is stated this way: “In this instance [1 Tim. 3:2], as in many instances throughout the NIV, I would have preferred that the translators retained a more interpretive-neutral stance as long as the English rendition wasn’t nonsense.”

Wallace offers “husband of one wife,” in 1 Tim. 3:2,  but NIV 2011 has “faithful to his wife.” This translation by NIV 2011 picks a favored interpretation from “a myriad of views.” The translation “husband of one wife” is what Wallace calls “an interpretive-neutral stance,” but the reader who has no skill with New Testament Greek reads the narrower “faithful to his wife” and does not realize that a choice has been made when other viable choices were available. NIV 2011 does not even provide a footnote, which would have been preferable here.

Wallace has some other material you will not want to miss, including a table that compares the NET Bible, NIV 2011, ESV, KJV, RSV, NRSV, RV, ASV and NASB in relation to elegance, accuracy and readability. Fascinating! One thing Dan did not do was to sum up all the scores and see how they stood in relation to each other. Out of a possible 30 points, ESV took the honors with 24, closely trailed by NET Bible and RSV at 23 points and NIV 2011 at 22 points. Remember that I am the one who summed up the points; Dan would probably say that elegance, accuracy and reliability are only three factors among many ways to compare translations. But it was still fun!

In Part 4, Dan puts a nice bow on the package: “As with the handful of other exceptional translations, the NIV 2011 definitely should be one that the well-equipped English-speaking Christian has on his or her shelf, and one that they consult often for spiritual nourishment.”

For what it’s worth, that is my conclusion as well.

Copyright © 2011 Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide.

Exposition of Genesis 1–11: Genesis 9:12–15

Genesis 9:12–15
And God said, “This is the guarantee of the covenant I am making with you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all subsequent generations: 13 I will place my rainbow in the clouds, and it will become a guarantee of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 then I will remember my covenant with you and with all living creatures of all kinds. Never again will the waters become a flood and destroy all living things.”(NET Bible)

 A commitment to calm fears

On one level it is astonishing that the all-powerful Creator makes a binding agreement with the living things he has made. But he did so in unmistakable terms.

What is the significance of God making a covenant with humankind? What was the idea behind making known what he expected of us and what he would do in return?

The language of Genesis 9:12 seems formal in its careful enumeration of the covenant parties. The Hebrew text makes very clear that God is establishing a covenant “between me [God] and you [Noah, his sons and their wives] and every living being that was with you for farthest generations” (Gordon Wenham).[1] We should be equally careful in considering the covenant parties, but ordinarily we ignore the animals, whom God always includes! Perhaps this blind spot is a demonstration of how we have lost sight of our stewardship for God over the earth and its life forms.

The first words of Genesis 9:13 are “my rainbow” to emphasize it. But the time-sense of the verse, is an issue between translations:

NET Genesis 9:13 “I will place my rainbow in the clouds, and it will become a guarantee of the covenant between me and the earth.” (emphasis added)

ESV Genesis 9:13 “I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.” (emphasis added)

NET is alone among major translations in saying “will . . . will,” placing all action in the future. ESV joins NIV 2011, The Jewish Bible, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible in some variant of “have . . . shall/will,” placing the initial action in the past and the subsequent action in the future.

I consider the ESV and other translations better than NET here, because rainbows would have already existed as a matter of physics (sunlight falling on water droplets at a certain angle); the newly introduced element was the significance God was giving the rainbow as a sign.

For God to bless Noah and his sons, rain would have to fall on the earth to nurture crops. But imagine the potential for panic when a storm rolled in. To provide peace of mind during his new start with Noah, God re-brands the meaning of a storm (Gen. 9:14). Instead of being a reminder of judgment, a rainbow would serve as a reminder of God’s covenant promise (Gen. 9:15). It is God who brings the necessary rains, and in doing so he provides rain for both the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:45).

Copyright © 2011 by Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide. Derived from material created for Christ Fellowship, McKinney, Texas. Used by permission.



[1] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Word Incorporated, 1987) 151.

Exposition of Genesis 1–11: Genesis 9:4–7

Genesis 9:4–7
“But you must not eat meat with its life (that is, its blood) in it. 5 For your lifeblood I will surely exact punishment, from every living creature I will exact punishment. From each person I will exact punishment for the life of the individual since the man was his relative. 6 ‘Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God has made humankind.’
7 But as for you, be fruitful and multiply; increase abundantly on the earth and multiply on it.”
(NET Bible)

Matters of life and death

Life is cheap, they say. But they don’t say it in heaven!

How will God curb the spread of violence that led him to destroy the original creation? How will justice be done on the earth? Who will be summoned to give an accounting to God for the loss of human life?

In the previous post we considered the general provision God made in allowing the animals for food (Gen. 9:3). Victor Hamilton explains how Gen. 9:3 relates to Gen. 9:4 when he says, “The pattern in this verse [9:4] and the preceding one is the same as that of 2:16–17: a generous permission (‘every tree of the garden,’ ‘every creeping thing’) followed by a single prohibition (‘of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,’ ‘flesh together with its lifeblood you shall not eat’).”[1]

There is an equating here of “blood” with “life” that does not resonate with contemporary readers. Perhaps the easiest way to understand this idea is that God is associating the shedding of blood with death. On one hand, this idea emphasizes the sanctity of life, which comes from God.

On another level the equation of death with shedding blood sets up the theology of the entire sacrificial system. Ultimately, Jesus’ blood was shed on our behalf; that is, he died in our place to pay for our sins (Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7).

The explanation above explains why Gen. 4:10 speaks of Abel’s blood crying out to God from the ground. The personified blood was crying out about Abel’s death at the hands of Cain.

Genesis 9:5
“For your lifeblood I will surely exact punishment, from every living creature I will exact punishment. From each person I will exact punishment for the life of the individual since the man was his relative.”

When we are reading the Bible, certain phrases should make us step on the brakes. “I will surely exact punishment” is certainly one of those phrases! Further, the phrase “exact punishment” is repeated three times in this verse, heightening its importance. A word study will help.

Word study: “require (someone’s life)”

The Hebrew verb darash, used three times in Gen. 9:5 for God’s personal response to someone taking a human life, means: “require (someone’s blood, life).”[2] The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says: “Finally, our root is used of divine vengeance on those who take a life. God will diligently seek restitution of a life for a life (Gen. 9:5).”[3]

So, NET translates the verb darash three times in Gen. 9:5 as “exact punishment.” In Genesis 9:5, to exact punishment is to require someone’s life. The only problem with the NET Bible’s translation choice is that the reader may wrongly think that the punishment falls short of death. NIV 2011 says “I will demand an accounting,” which is an abstraction similar to the NET. The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) translates, “I will require the life,” which finally sets matters straight. The New Living Translation (NLT) says, “I will require the blood … anyone who murders a fellow human must die.” That last is a paraphrase, but the meaning is correct.

Kenneth Mathews says, “The general rule is that human life when violated, either by animal or fellow human, required the life of the offender.”[4]

A second issue in Genesis 9:5 is the translation “lifeblood” (NET, ESV, NASB, and NIV 2011). You might think that this term translates a single word, but that is not the case. The NET Bible Notes say, “Again the [Hebrew] text uses apposition to clarify what kind of blood is being discussed: ‘your blood, [that is] for your life.’”[5] By “apposition” the Notes mean that “blood” and “life” are nouns which have a grammatical relationship to one another; in this case the relationship is expressed in the following way: “your blood . . . for your life.”

The result of this analysis is shown by Gordon Wenham’s translation of Genesis 9:5, which says: “But I shall require your blood for your lives, from the hand of every wild animal I will require it; and from man’s hand, from each man his brother’s life, I shall require the life of man.”[6] Genesis 9:5 makes an intentional reference to Genesis 4 and the murder of Abel. This verse directly implies that Cain was his brother’s keeper, and the rest of us are put on notice!

Perhaps you noticed that Wenham’s translation used the word “brother” instead of the NET’s “relative.” All human beings are made in God’s image; there are no exceptions.

Genesis 9:6 (ESV)
“‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.’”

As usual, the ESV, shown above, sticks closer to Hebrew word order. Wenham says, “The tight chiastic formulation (shed, blood, man, man, blood, shed) repeating each word of the first clause in reverse order in the second emphasizes the strict correspondence of punishment to offense.”[7]

On the other hand, the NET correctly stands with NLT and CSB among major translations in saying of the slayer “by other humans must his blood be shed” (NET) rather than “by man shall his blood be shed” (ESV, NASB, NIV 2011, and RSV).[8] Such details may seem beneath mention except for the fact that this verse forms the primary biblical basis for capital punishment. Details matter in God’s inspired Word!

The one who upholds the dignity of humanity is God; we are made in his image, and he takes that very seriously. God strongly upholds the value of man in spite of man’s tendency to rebel and sin. Think about that the next time you hear someone demean a person or make light of human death.

Copyright © 2011 by Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide. Derived from material created for Christ Fellowship, McKinney, Texas. Used by permission.



[1] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990) 314.

[2] L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1994-2000) darash, require (someone’s blood, life), q.v.

[3] R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, (TWOT) 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody, 1980) darash, require (someone’s blood, life), q.v.

[4] Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996)  403.

[5] NET Bible Notes for Genesis 9:5.

[6] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Word Incorporated, 1987) 151.

[7] Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 193.

[8] E. Kautzsch, ed., A.E. Cowley, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910) 323 (§ 109i).


 


 

NIV 2011: Craig Blomberg analyzes Philippians 2:4

Craig Blomberg, a noted New Testament scholar at Denver Seminary, has produced another fine analysis that compares NIV 2011 — which Craig calls the “updated NIV” — with other major English translations. This time his focus is on Philippians 2:4, which says, “ . . . not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.”

Take advantage of this opportunity to understand how these English translations of the Bible compare and why Craig Blomberg believes NIV 2011 to be the best of all those now available.

Copyright © 2011 by Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide.

Exposition of Genesis 1–11: Genesis 6:11–13

Genesis 6:11–13
11 The earth was ruined in the sight of God; the earth was filled with violence.  12 God saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined, for all living creatures on the earth were sinful.  13 So God said to Noah, “I have decided that all living creatures must die, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. Now I am about to destroy them and the earth.”
(NET Bible)

Deeper Study: The phrase “God saw . . . and indeed” (NET) or “God saw . . . and behold” (NASB, KJV) occurs in Genesis for things that are surprising or shocking. The same phrase is also used for Noah, Abraham and others. Examples (best ones are bolded) include: 8:13; 18:2; 19:28; 22:13; 24:63; 26:8; 29:2; 31:2; 31:10; 33:1; 37:25; 40:6; 42:27. Note that NET frequently drops the word “behold” while NASB always includes it. Based on this usage what was God’s reaction in Genesis 6:12 to what he saw?

To become ruined . . . to ruin

Anyone who follows world events must see that violence and oppression are a constant feature in world events. One area sells human beings, another features child slavery and child soldiers. Some nations are dominated by narco-violence and one is ruled by a rich junta which will not permit relief for poor hurricane victims. Piracy threatens the shipping lanes, and bombs explode daily.

In our own country the poor are frequently stigmatized as lazy or malicious so as to justify not helping them. And violence is hardly unknown in our midst. What does God think about all this violence, evil and neglect? What might he do about it? What has he done in the past?

A single Hebrew verb dominates all three verses in today’s section: Sh?T (roughly shakat) means “become ruined” in one form and “destroy” (to intentionally ruin) in another form.[1] The verb is used four times in Genesis 6:11–13 as illustrated by Victor Hamilton:

To capture this consistency of word choice we may render the above as ‘gone to ruin was the earth . . . indeed, it had gone to ruin . . . all flesh had ruined its way . . . I will ruin them.’ The choice of the same word to describe both the earth’s condition and the intended action of God must be deliberate.[2]

Genesis 6:11 tells us what constituted the ruin of the earth. Instead of being filled by the multiplication of humankind and animal life, it was filled with violence instead! This violence may not only include brute force (Jer. 51:35) but also oppression of the weak by the strong (Amos 6:1–3) or the abuse of a neighbor (Prov. 16:29). Some who commit sin are going to be surprised that God is offended by oppression of the weak in addition to what we call violent crime.

By comparing three different translations of Genesis 6:12, we learn something interesting:

NET Bible: God saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined, for all living creatures on the earth were sinful.

ESV: And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

NIV 2011: God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.

NET says “all living creatures,” while the more literal ESV has “all flesh.” NET informs us that all the living creatures “were sinful” — demonstrating the frequent tendency of the NET Bible to use abstractions — while the ESV says all flesh “had corrupted their way.” NIV 2011 is close to ESV for Genesis 6:12, but it’s translation using the word “people”  leaves out the animals (see below)!

Have you previously considered the participation in sin or the corruption of the animals as well as humankind? The NET Bible Notes say:

The phrase “all flesh” is used consistently of humankind and the animals in Gen. 6–9 (6:17, 19; 7:15–16, 21; 8:17; 9:11, 15–17), suggesting that the author intends to picture all living creatures, humankind and animals, as guilty of moral failure. This would explain why the animals, not just humankind, are victims of the ensuing divine judgment. The OT sometimes views animals as morally culpable (Gen. 9:5; Exod. 21:28–29; Jonah 3:7–8).[3]

To grasp this unusual idea, it may help to recall that the serpent was used as part of the deception of the woman (Gen. 3:1), and we may have in Genesis 6:12 a hint that the invasion of earthly life by angelic beings involved more than intercourse with the daughters of men.

Genesis 6:13  So God said to Noah, “I have decided that all living creatures must die, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. Now I am about to destroy them and the earth.” (NET)

When the NET translates God’s words as saying “I have decided,” it removes to the marginal notes certain details that may include a glimpse of God reaching a decision before the heavenly council:

Hebrew “the end of all flesh is coming [or ‘has come’] before me” . . . . The phrase “end of all flesh” occurs only here. . . . The phrase “come before” occurs in Exod. 28:30, 35; 34:34; Lev. 15:14; Num. 27:17; 1 Sam. 18:13, 16; 2 Sam. 19:8; 20:8; 1 Kings 1:23, 28, 32; Ezek. 46:9; Ps. 79:11 (groans come before God); 88:3 (a prayer comes before God); 100:2; 119:170 (prayer comes before God); Lam. 1:22 (evil-doing comes before God); Esth. 1:19; 8:1; 9:25; 1 Chron. 16:29. The expression often means “have an audience with” or “appear before.” But when used metaphorically, it can mean “get the attention of” or “prompt a response.” This is probably the sense in Gen. 6:13. The necessity of ending the life of all flesh on earth is an issue that has gotten the attention of God.[4]

Beyond doubt the Bible teaches God’s awareness of all that happens (Hebrews 4:13; Psalm 139), but when a matter “comes before” God, it takes on the sense of a formal hearing. This one ended with God’s decision to destroy all life on earth due to rampant violence.

While God’s mercy is the leading component of his character (Exod. 34:6), there is a limit to his patience and tolerance (Exod. 34:7). And what happens all over the world can affect us too!

Copyright © 2011 by Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide. Derived from material created for Christ Fellowship, McKinney, Texas. Used by permission.



[1] L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1994-2000) sha?at, become ruined (niphal) [Niphal forms are usually passive voice], destroy (hiphil) [Hiphil forms are usually causative], q.v.

[2]Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990) 278.

[3] NET Bible Notes for Genesis 6:12.

[4] NET Bible Notes for Genesis 6:13.

NIV 2011 is defended by Craig Blomberg

All who want to know more about the updated NIV (“NIV 2011″ in this blog) should be sure to read the recent post by Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary.

Craig presents a discussion of 1 Timothy 3:11, which says, “In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything” (NIV 2011). The whole issue revolves around the word translated “women” and how various translations handle this text. Even more important, Blomberg explains how the claims made by the ESV to offer a “literal” translation seem to have been ignored by ESV in favor of a translation determined for theological reasons.

All in all, Blomberg gives a useful account of how various influences affected the translations produced in the last ten years.  I especially like it because Blomberg hammers those who give an English translation that forecloses other interpretive options and may not even let the reader know they have done it. Very good stuff!

Copyright © 2011 by Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide.

Choosing a Study Bible

Among the most important choices a Christian makes is selecting a Bible translation for daily study. You may be saying, “I thought they were all the same.” No, and that is why you need more information!

To discuss different translations, you will need a key to their abbreviations. The year shown is the year of first publication as a full Bible.

ESV                      English Standard Version (2001)

NET                      New English Translation (1996)

HCSB                   Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004)

NIV                       New International Version (1978)

NASB                   New American Standard Bible (1963)

KJV                      King James Version (1611)

The Crux: What Type of Bible?

The English Bible is found in two forms: translations and paraphrases. First, we will describe paraphrases and then translations.

Bible Paraphrases

One dictionary says a paraphrase is: “A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.”[1] Clarity is certainly the main goal of a Bible paraphrase, but you have to understand the original text correctly in order to paraphrase it. If everyone saw the same original meaning in a Bible verse, there would be no need for commentaries; there are tens of thousands of them!

We usually want things that are easier to understand, so what is the limitation of a paraphrase? New Testament scholar Daniel Wallace says, “If the translator’s interpretation is correct, it can only clarify the meaning of the text; if it is incorrect, then it can only clarify the interpretation of the translator!”[2] If the translator’s interpretation is correct, you get a paraphrase of God’s Word; if not, you get a paraphrase of the translator’s word.

One of the most popular paraphrases is The Living Bible. It first appeared in 1971 as the literary effort of Kenneth N. Taylor. Taylor initially wrote The Living Bible for his children, never intending it for serious study, yet it achieved great popularity.[3]

Another widely distributed paraphrase is The Message, the effort of Eugene H. Peterson. The full Bible as paraphrased by The Message became available in 2002. One notable scholar considers The Message even freer than a paraphrase, calling it devotional literature.

So, the two most popular paraphrases are each the product of one man. Further, we note that some question exists as to when clarification becomes invention. Compare these paraphrases with a translation for one of Jesus’ statements in the Sermon on the Mount:

PARAPHRASE: Matthew 5:3 (The Message) “You’re blessed when you’re at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and his rule.”

PARAPHRASE: Matthew 5:3 (The Living Bible) “Humble men are very fortunate,” he told them, “for the Kingdom of Heaven is given to them.”

TRANSLATION: Matthew 5:3 (English Standard Version) “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

You will notice immediately that the two paraphrases are quite different. If you had not been told they were paraphrasing the same verse, you might have guessed otherwise. Paraphrases have their uses, but serious Bible study is not one of them. You need an accurate Bible translation.

Bible Translations

Here is a reasonable definition: “Translation is the interpreting of the meaning of a text and the subsequent production of an equivalent text, likewise called a ‘translation,’ that communicates the same message in another language.”[4] In our case the Bible was recorded in Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament), with a few chapters in Aramaic (Old Testament). Producing an equivalent text in English is what results in our Bible translations.

We all want a Bible that shows fidelity to the original text and clarity in our language because we want to know exactly what God has revealed to us. So, what is the challenge? Wallace says, “Idioms and colloquialisms in a language need to be paraphrased to make sense in another language.”[5] In addition, some translations attempt to distinguish themselves by incorporating a measure of paraphrase to enhance readability. The degree to which this paraphrasing is done leads to some debate.

The most famous translation of all time is the King James Version of 1611, a product of scholars from Oxford and Cambridge. Due to the passage of time and the discovery of thousands of additional biblical manuscripts, the need arose for fresh translations; all languages change over time. The English Standard Version (2001) is a successor in the tradition of the King James Version. Other notable translations include the NET Bible (1996), the New International Version (1978 and 2011), the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004), and the New American Standard Bible (1963). We have already mentioned the New Living Translation (1996).

Because of their greater fidelity to the biblical text, translations are the right tool for a Bible student or growing Christian.

Notes to the Max

Contemporary study Bibles have an amazing amount of information in the notes at the bottom of each page. They usually contain maps, diagrams and charts at various locations.

Since some translations (ESV, KJV or NASB) emphasize transparency to the original text, they do not put much interpretation directly into the translation. For such translations the notes are a great help in bridging the historical and cultural gap between us and biblical times. For example, John 18:28a (ESV) says, “Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters.” The ESV Study Bible has a long note to tell you all about the Roman governor’s quarters at Herod’s old palace or a possible alternate location.

By contrast, the NIV says, “Then the Jewish leaders led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor” (John 18:28a, NIV 2011, emphasis added). Note the words in italics. The word “Roman” is not in the Greek New Testament here, but it appears in the NIV 2011 translation as a clarification. Similarly, “they” (ESV) has been changed to “the Jewish leaders” (NIV 2011) to make certain you know who took Jesus to the palace, but the words “Jewish leaders” do not occur here in the Greek text. The NIV Study Bible — available at this writing only for NIV 1984 — also has a long note to tell you what is going on in this scene.

In relation to resource materials provided along with the translation, the ESV and NIV study Bibles differ in two significant ways. First, the NIV Study Bible has a concordance about double the size of the one in the ESV Study Bible. On the other hand, the NIV 1984 needs a much bigger concordance since it uses a much greater variety of words to translate individual Greek or Hebrew words, and that makes concordance research more complicated. [Note: A concordance is an alphabetic list of words used in a specific translation matched to a list of the Bible verses where that word occurs. A concordance is essential for doing word studies without special Bible software.]

The second significant difference is that the ESV Study Bible contains a large number of articles (e.g. “The Character of God” and “Marriage and Sexual Morality”) dealing with many subjects at greater length than notes allow. These materials are not replicated in the NIV Study Bible.

For those intrepid few who cannot get enough about the linguistic matters that underlie our English translations, the NET Bible First Edition is a must-have. This Bible has a unique set of Translators’ Notes that justify the translation. These Notes can be technical in relation to original languages, but they are a great help to understanding the original meaning and options for translation. The NET Bible has fine maps but few charts and diagrams and no concordance. Still, it is unique. The NET Bible and all its Notes may be downloaded free at www.Bible.org, and I recommend you do that.

Recommended Study Bibles

I recommend the following study Bibles according to your need:

ESV Study Bible published by Crossway Bibles (2008)

The ESV emphasizes transparency to the original text over clarity in English. The ESV Study Bible has outstanding notes, maps, and concordance along with good articles. It gets my vote as the best general-purpose study Bible available in May 2011.

The NIV Study Bible, Updated Edition published by Zondervan (2008)

The NIV 1984 emphasizes clarity in English, so it has more interpretation in its translated text than either the ESV or the NET Bible. The NIV Study Bible has outstanding notes and maps along with a sizable concordance. It is also a sound choice for a general-purpose study Bible. It seems reasonable to expect that a revision using the NIV 2011 text will be available sometime in 2011. That will be an upgrade!

NET Bible, First Edition [with over 60,932 Notes] published by Biblical Studies Press (2005)

The NET Bible takes a middle position between the NIV and ESV on the balance between transparency to the original text and clarity in English. The NET Bible is highly recommended for those interested in the Translators’ Notes. It also has unique maps based on earth-satellite imaging.  Available at www.Bible.org .

Copyright © 2011 by Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide. Derived from material created for Christ Fellowship, McKinney, Texas. Used by permission.


[1] “paraphrase.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 22 Nov. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paraphrase>.

[2] Daniel B. Wallace, “Choosing a Bible Translation,” Bible Study Magazine (Nov. & Dec., 2008) 24.

[3] More recently the New Living Translation has replaced the earlier paraphrase with a widely accepted translation done by a team of scholars.

[4] “Translation.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 18 Nov 2008, 09:08 UTC. 23 Nov 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation&oldid=252537344>.

[5] Wallace, “Choosing a Bible Translation,” 23.