A Review: The NLT Study Bible
Like many in blogosphere I too signed up for an advanced copy of the NLT Study Bible. Well, a UPS truck just dropped it off (Thanks Laura and the other guys at Tyndale). Now here’s my take:
* Font: the font style and size are fine, making the study bible readable (those are the first things I look for).
* Pages: the pages are white and not too thin.
* Contributors: there’s a list of all the contributors to the study notes and articles (I was esp. pleased to see Douglas Moo on Romans, Colossians, 1 & 2 Peter, and Jude).
* Introduction to Book: along with a concise introduction to a Bible book,you’ll also find Further Reading (on 1 Timothy: Linda Belleville, 1 Timothy in Cornerstone, Biblical Commenatary, vol. 17 (2008); Gordon Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (1988.), and so on…).
* Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Word Studies: this dictionary is coded to Strong’s numbering system. This is a definite plus.
* Maps: I’ve noticed that each of the Gospel narratives, Acts, the Pauline Letters, and so on, maps as part of the introductory section. I like this feature. Besides your usual maps in the back, you have Timeline of Biblical Events, The Temple in NT Times, and Israel and the Middle East Today.
* Study Notes: they are located at the bottom of the page, and sometimes there are short articles just above the notes as well ( on p. 2195, Rev 20:3-8, there’s an article on the Thousand Years (Millennium), featuring the three major positions).
While the NLT may not be your primary text, the NLT Study Bible should be on your desk, getting some worthwhile use (for a pictorial review see Nick Norelli).
Other reviews:
Thanks for letting us know about the paper and font, but I have some questions about the content:
How does it compare to an academic study Bible, such as the New Oxford or HarperCollins? What errors have you found it in it so far? How well proof-read is it? How much does it engage with original languages? To what extent do the annotators engage with the translation and propose alternative readings? What degree of text critical study is found here (discussion of alternative manuscripts, or Vulgate vs. Septuagint vs. DSS vs. Hebrew)? Is there any discussion of reception history? What degree of theological notes are there?
Iyov asked: What errors have you found it in it so far?
I found one that made me laugh – the ignorati might gloss over it, but as it was directly related to my field of study, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
Iyov, you have asked some tough questions.
1. From what I’ve seen so far, I don’t think it is intended to be that academic. It’s more along the line of the NIV/TNIV Study Bible, targeting the average church attendee, looking to dig a bit deeper, but not with the academic stuff.
2. Regarding how well proof-read it is, I can’t really say.
3. It does engage with the original languages, but again it doesn’t seem to be targeting academics. For me, it’s not enough.
4. Regarding alternative readings, I’ve noticed some, but target audience must be kept in mind. There’s a healthy discussion on Isa 7:14.
5. So far I’ve noticed some use of Josephus, Mishna, DSS and LXX, but not in a comparative sense as you’ve asked above.
6. Regarding reception history, What exactly do you have in mind? I thought the interaction with the DSS and son would make that obvious.
7. Well, similar notes to the NIV/TNIV on theology. See my note on Rev 20 above.
What keen eyes you have, El!
E-S, are you going to share it with us?
Reception history would include a discussion of how a particular passage was interpreted by different important historic commentators. For example, for a Jewish Bible, I could imagine a discussion of how a passage was interpreted by the Talmud, medieval commentators (Rashi, Nachmanides, etc.), modern commentators. For a Catholic Bible, I could imagine a discussion based on the Church Fathers, Thomists, the CCC, etc. For a Protestant commentator I could imagine a discussion of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc. For example, you can see how a commentary to Romans would be substantially enhanced by seeing how different groups of Christians had interpreted it over the ages.
Well, mostly in the introduction material to the various books of the Bible.
E-S, are you going to share it with us?
Absolutely. Stay tuned to my blog…
Looks great, I think I might take the plunge next month and get me a copy of the NLT Study Bible. I love the NLT. Even though the NASB is my version of choice, my NLT is always nearby. I have the NLT on cd as well and I love to listen to it in the car or at night. It is such a “natural” translation. It does not contain the wooden language of the NASB or the awkward language of the KJV (apologies to all the KJV lovers out there). It is also faithful to the greek/hebrew texts. It is not a perfect translation, I don’t believe such a thing exists, but it is a very good translation. Mainly for just reading the Word of God. It is a bit weak for study purposes.
Martin.
As you know the TNIV is my main text, but I enjoy reading the NLT.
The NASB is too awkward for me. I use to use it.
Thanks for your post.
I have posted some comments myself, based on an original post by E-S Edwards.
Perhaps you will find them of interest.
I have finally posted my review.
Stan, thanks for the heads up.