If you enjoyed this video, you may wish to read Mr. James Snapp's review of the Evangelical Heritage Version at www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/12/the-evangelical-heritage-version-new.html .
I tend to get enthusiastic about Lutheran translations of the full Bible or N.T., but some (like Beck and Anderson) pall upon use. It is pleasing to see that this version accepts so many of the Septuagint and desert scrolls and is not enslaved completely to the Masoretic Text of the O.T. So, while it departs from readings that I would accept, it seems lika a pretty decent version all around and IT IS LUTHERAN!
I hope that the EHV will add the Apocrypha of the O.T. eventually. In translation projects, the Apocrypha often follows later to appear, separately or with the rest of the version. Lutherans have a traditionally favourable regard of those writings, so, hopefully, the E.H.V. will add them eventually.
I have received the E.H.V. copy of the book from Northwesstern Pub. House that I mentioned earlier. The rendition is still too chatty in tone to be at all inspiring to use in devotions. In study, though, it can be worth comparisons. There was some good sense involved in that regard. I am glad to have it, for what it is worth.
Do you have the EHV on the chart you made showing the spectrum of literall/dynamic-ness of translations? I'm curious where this falls, specifically with an objective comparison to the ESV. Thanks!
Thank you for the question. No, I haven't scored the EHV yet. I hope to do that this year. My purely subjective guess is that it will end up somewhere in the 4 to 8 range, perhaps near 5, where the CSB, NRSV, NET, and NAB are congregated. But I'm often wrong.
Hello, Dr. Jones. What is your overall opinion of the adoption of Dead Sea Scroll readings by certain translations? Such seems to be an issue of controversy at times, but I’m curious to hear your thoughts on it. As always, thank you for the terrific content. God bless.......
With the caveat that I'm not qualified to write on questions of textual criticism, I very much like the idea of including material from the DSS and LXX in OT translations. It seems inconsistent to insist on translating the OT from the Masoretic Hebrew when the New Testament authors quoted from a source, whatever language it was written in, that agrees more closely with the LXX. The EHV editors openly announced their decision to create an eclectic translation which reflects the judgments they made on a case-by-case basis regarding the source text to translate. I have no objection to that approach. But what I personally would like to see is a translation project that relies on the LXX for the OT and conforms readings in the two testaments, to make connections between them clear.
@@RGrantJones That's exactly what I want and what we need. Isn't it weird that within our Bibles there is disagreement between the NT quoting an OT passage and the passage in the OT itself? Hebrews 8,8-10 and Jeremiah 31,31-33 would be an example.
Very well said. I agree that it would be good to see a translation which adopts the LXX readings. The writings of Paul alone make it abundantly clear that the New Testament writers, inspired by the Spirit, relied on the Greek translation heavily. Thank you again.
R. Grant Jones I wonder which modern translation relies the most on the LXX when translating the Old Testament? I may be wrong but I think the Jerusalem Bible makes significant use of the LXX, but not sure. On a different note, putting the lack of archaic language aside, would you agree that as a whole this EHV may be the best translation out there?
@@FernandoSerna1654 the OT of Nicholas King's translation comes entirely from the LXX. Although, R. Grant Jones' review of it isn't a glowing recommendation.
@@RGrantJones Thank you for sharing a healthy sense of humor. Here is a link that led up to the "RSV" Revised Standard Version. During the 1950's, this new version of Gods' Holy Word, was horrifying for many in my home state of North Carolina. Isaiah 7:14 revealed there is no original "Hebrew" word for "Virgin". "The Bible Under Fire" documentary > ua-cam.com/video/uhMApkYHoTY/v-deo.html
Isaiah 14:12 Did Jesus fall from heaven? EHV How you have fallen from heaven, you bright morning star,[a] son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground,you who laid the nations low! KJV How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
If you enjoyed this video, you may wish to read Mr. James Snapp's review of the Evangelical Heritage Version at www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/12/the-evangelical-heritage-version-new.html .
I tend to get enthusiastic about Lutheran translations of the full Bible or N.T., but some (like Beck and Anderson) pall upon use. It is pleasing to see that this version accepts so many of the Septuagint and desert scrolls and is not enslaved completely to the Masoretic Text of the O.T. So, while it departs from readings that I would accept, it seems lika a pretty decent version all around and IT IS LUTHERAN!
I hope that the EHV will add the Apocrypha of the O.T. eventually. In translation projects, the Apocrypha often follows later to appear, separately or with the rest of the version. Lutherans have a traditionally favourable regard of those writings, so, hopefully, the E.H.V. will add them eventually.
I have received the E.H.V. copy of the book from Northwesstern Pub. House that I mentioned earlier. The rendition is still too chatty in tone to be at all inspiring to use in devotions. In study, though, it can be worth comparisons. There was some good sense involved in that regard. I am glad to have it, for what it is worth.
Do you have the EHV on the chart you made showing the spectrum of literall/dynamic-ness of translations? I'm curious where this falls, specifically with an objective comparison to the ESV. Thanks!
Thank you for the question. No, I haven't scored the EHV yet. I hope to do that this year. My purely subjective guess is that it will end up somewhere in the 4 to 8 range, perhaps near 5, where the CSB, NRSV, NET, and NAB are congregated. But I'm often wrong.
Thank you for doing this. I am considering getting this Bible.
Hello, Dr. Jones.
What is your overall opinion of the adoption of Dead Sea Scroll readings by certain translations? Such seems to be an issue of controversy at times, but I’m curious to hear your thoughts on it.
As always, thank you for the terrific content. God bless.......
With the caveat that I'm not qualified to write on questions of textual criticism, I very much like the idea of including material from the DSS and LXX in OT translations. It seems inconsistent to insist on translating the OT from the Masoretic Hebrew when the New Testament authors quoted from a source, whatever language it was written in, that agrees more closely with the LXX. The EHV editors openly announced their decision to create an eclectic translation which reflects the judgments they made on a case-by-case basis regarding the source text to translate. I have no objection to that approach. But what I personally would like to see is a translation project that relies on the LXX for the OT and conforms readings in the two testaments, to make connections between them clear.
@@RGrantJones That's exactly what I want and what we need. Isn't it weird that within our Bibles there is disagreement between the NT quoting an OT passage and the passage in the OT itself? Hebrews 8,8-10 and Jeremiah 31,31-33 would be an example.
Very well said. I agree that it would be good to see a translation which adopts the LXX readings. The writings of Paul alone make it abundantly clear that the New Testament writers, inspired by the Spirit, relied on the Greek translation heavily.
Thank you again.
R. Grant Jones I wonder which modern translation relies the most on the LXX when translating the Old Testament? I may be wrong but I think the Jerusalem Bible makes significant use of the LXX, but not sure. On a different note, putting the lack of archaic language aside, would you agree that as a whole this EHV may be the best translation out there?
@@FernandoSerna1654 the OT of Nicholas King's translation comes entirely from the LXX. Although, R. Grant Jones' review of it isn't a glowing recommendation.
Is this edition smyth-sewn?
Yes. You may want to view this video: ua-cam.com/video/HrW2nmh1MwQ/v-deo.html . I mention the binding at about the 9:30 point in that video.
@@RGrantJones I was about 7 minutes in. Not far enough! Thank you :-)
If the "King James" Bible was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then "KJV" is good enough for me. :) :)
I sometimes wonder whether Paul preferred the Oxford or the Cambridge KJV text :)
@@RGrantJones Thank you for sharing a healthy sense of humor. Here is a link that led up to the "RSV" Revised Standard Version. During the 1950's, this new version of Gods' Holy Word, was horrifying for many in my home state of North Carolina. Isaiah 7:14 revealed there is no original "Hebrew" word for "Virgin". "The Bible Under Fire" documentary > ua-cam.com/video/uhMApkYHoTY/v-deo.html
@@gilbertalphin6797 - thanks for the link. I added it to my "Watch Later" list.
@@gilbertalphin6797 - That was an excellent video. Good background information.
Isaiah 14:12 Did Jesus fall from heaven?
EHV How you have fallen from heaven, you bright morning star,[a] son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground,you who laid the nations low!
KJV How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.