Customer Reviews

Double Jeopardy: The New American Standard Bible Update

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

It doesn't take a Hebrew or Greek scholar to pinpoint the inaccuracies in Mr. Vance's book. Although there is a place for most of the major Bible translations(even the KJV), it is sickening at times listening to the Shakespearian want-abys bashing the other excellant works. Mr. Vance's opening historical references are a little interesting, but overall his introduction is boring. The argument lies in the apparent differences of the Hebrew and Greek text used; that would be another whole argument! What is of interest is that upon checking the Hebrew and Greek(Septuagint) Old Testament writings and the different sources of Greek New Testament writings, most of Mr. Vance's arguments were unwarranted(nit-picking). One case in point: he says that the NASB changes the word "Hell" to "Hades." Sorry Mr. Vance, you missed your daily-double; read your concordance! There are actually two distinct greek words: 'Hades' for hades, and 'geenna' for hell. The KJV misinterperets by combining themas one. Also the KJV incorrectly combines 'ge' for earth, and 'kosmos' for world into one definition; "world." these are but a few such named. So please, Mr. Vance, if you can insult a novice like me, how much more the educated?

Laurence Vance seemingly always writes with a single agenda: his own. His focus in his books is always based on his personal feelings and not objective reasoning. As is the case with this book on the Updated New American Standard (NASB).

It is true that throughout the book you get the feeling that Vance is upset that modern translations are replacing his beloved King James Version. Therefore Vance writes to try to persuade you to stay with the KJV over the modern translations. This book, unlike other KJV only books, does not pick on the NIV or the NKJV but he sticks with the NASB. He probably does this because, while the NIV is the best selling, the NASB is famed as the most literal Bible around. In our Greek classes in Bible college we used the NASB because of its literal translation.

The book dives into the history of the NASB and then proceeds to compare the 1977 NASB to the update 1995 NASB. I personally like this. In fact, I still prefer the 1977 NASB over the updated NASB simply because of the literallness of the 1977. The book ends with Vance trying his best to trash the NASB. However, he fails to deal with this in a scholarly fashion but likens himself to the KJV only camp with personal and irrational attempts to discredit the NASB. He fails.

Buy the NASB but more than that live it!

The reviewer below has no clue what he's talking about ... what evangelical seminaries study today IS Koine Greek, not modern Greek. Any biblical linguist can tell you that. My piece of advice for the previous reviewer: don't talk about what you don't know; it helps avoid embarassments like this.

When I first started daily Bible reading I used contemporary translations. I enjoyed them. My studies included NRSV, NIV, ESV, and NASB. Gradually I was pulled to the Authorized Version (aka King James Version). One of the reasons was that I discovered that modern translations are unstable. By unstable I mean that they are regularly updated, revised, renewed, refreshed, rewritten, and reissued. In practice what this meant was that when I used a modern translation I was unable to communicate with others in a simple way about a Bible passage because, even though they were nominally using the same translation, the wording differed.

In contrast, I found the AV to be stable not only with those who shared the AV in their reading, but also with those who do not use the AV; because it was recognizable as a biblical passage. The AV was also stable in terms of time and cultural influence; for example, at Christmas when I listened to Handel's `Messiah' I would know where some of the passages came from.

I think of this drift to an unstable biblical text as the `commodification' of scripture, so that scripture is sold in the same way that cars or clothes are sold. Almost every year there is a newer more up-to-date, niftier, more `idiomatic' version released and this new release, in order to maintain its market share, will be constantly updated so that it can compete with the new releases that are yet to come.

`Double Jeopardy' is a meticulous documentation about one such updating of a widely used modern version. Vance is to be commended for the rigor of his analysis and the methodical manner of the presentation. It is a good example of how completely commodification has taken over Bible production and sales, to the loss of meaning and translation authenticity.

Vance lists thousands of changes between the first NASB and its official Update. One thing I immediately noticed is that the Update removes the word `And' in many hundreds of places, possibly thousands; I gave up counting. This may seem trivial, but the originals use this conjunction effectively to unite a flow of thought. Starting a sentence with `and', or another conjunction, signals to the reader that this sentence is intimately connected to the previous sentence, more so than when the conjunction is absent. I think the removal of these conjunctions leads to a loss of meaning in the update.

This is a reference work. It is for those who have an interest in translation issues. Although Vance writes from the perspective of someone who prefers the KJV, the analysis has wider implications and should be of interest for anyone delving into questions of translation method and philosophy.

Some people,sadly a vast majority have not realized languages change down through the years. The Koine Greek used 2000 years or so ago is no longer the Greek language many bible institutes study,and even the Strongs Concordance uses. Also "The Greek manuscript" is not accurate either there is more than one Greek manuscript out there. So for these critics to listen to their modern scholars and use thier modern Greek, and modern bibles to criticize it is sad the ignorance out there. I recommend anything Laurence Vance writes,unless you follow down the slippery slope of modernism.