http://patmccullough.com/2009/07/12/review-the-harpercollins-study-bible-part-1-contributors/ a blog exploring Christian origins, biblical studies, social/cultural history, method, education and the journey through academia Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:53:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 http://patmccullough.com/2009/07/12/review-the-harpercollins-study-bible-part-1-contributors/comment-page-1/#comment-948 Review: HarperCollins Study Bible (Part 2) « kata ta biblia Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:36:27 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/?p=1028#comment-948 [...] The only books that we know for certain have been revised are those with two authors assigned (see my previous post on HCSB contributors). Here is a list of those books that have apparently been revised–to some extent–by a [...] [...] The only books that we know for certain have been revised are those with two authors assigned (see my previous post on HCSB contributors). Here is a list of those books that have apparently been revised–to some extent–by a [...]

]]> http://patmccullough.com/2009/07/12/review-the-harpercollins-study-bible-part-1-contributors/comment-page-1/#comment-949 slaveofone Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:40:24 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/?p=1028#comment-949 That list of scholars makes me salivate. Surely this bible must be incredibly strong in terms of critical study supplementing the text. And yet I have to wonder how useful it is in terms of the text itself. I have not spent much time with the NRSV translation, but what little time I have, in referencing it to see how it dealt with one or another parts of the Hebrew, I have either been unimpressed or disappointed, which has further alienated me from interaction with that translation. If I can remember some of my complaints, I seem to recall thinking it was smoothing out the Hebrew too much so that the details and intricacies of the language were either barely visible or hidden, and that it veered away from the Hebrew at many points serving either to give a false impression of what the Hebrew said or to confound the one looking at the Hebrew. The few areas where I have seen the NRSV getting it right (such as its gender inclusiveness) are done just as well in other translations (like the ISV). Furthermore, I believe it uses as its base text for the Deutercanonicals the antiquated Ralfs edition, which has been superseded by the Gottingen Septuagint, and its translation has been updated and replaced by the New English Translation of the Septuagint (based on Gottingen and revised from the NRSV). My ignorance of New Testament, however, leaves me unaware of how well the NT translation holds up in the NRSV. I wonder if you will be doing a review of the translation itself (particularly how well it translates the NT since that is your area of expertise) at any point in your multi-part review. For excellent critical, historical, linguistic, AND theological study notes, I have been very pleased with the NET Bible, although its conservative slant is sometimes annoying and unhelpful. That list of scholars makes me salivate. Surely this bible must be incredibly strong in terms of critical study supplementing the text. And yet I have to wonder how useful it is in terms of the text itself. I have not spent much time with the NRSV translation, but what little time I have, in referencing it to see how it dealt with one or another parts of the Hebrew, I have either been unimpressed or disappointed, which has further alienated me from interaction with that translation. If I can remember some of my complaints, I seem to recall thinking it was smoothing out the Hebrew too much so that the details and intricacies of the language were either barely visible or hidden, and that it veered away from the Hebrew at many points serving either to give a false impression of what the Hebrew said or to confound the one looking at the Hebrew. The few areas where I have seen the NRSV getting it right (such as its gender inclusiveness) are done just as well in other translations (like the ISV). Furthermore, I believe it uses as its base text for the Deutercanonicals the antiquated Ralfs edition, which has been superseded by the Gottingen Septuagint, and its translation has been updated and replaced by the New English Translation of the Septuagint (based on Gottingen and revised from the NRSV). My ignorance of New Testament, however, leaves me unaware of how well the NT translation holds up in the NRSV. I wonder if you will be doing a review of the translation itself (particularly how well it translates the NT since that is your area of expertise) at any point in your multi-part review. For excellent critical, historical, linguistic, AND theological study notes, I have been very pleased with the NET Bible, although its conservative slant is sometimes annoying and unhelpful.

]]>