Thursday, April 02, 2020

Another Revision of the NASB

44
Over the last few years, I noted that the NASB, last updated in 1995, is currently undergoing a major revision (see here and here). Today, a video came out from Pastor John MacArthur that faculty at his university and seminary have been working on yet another revision of their own.

It will be called the Legacy Standard Bible. MacArthur describes it as “the expositor’s dream Bible” and says it is bound to be the “most accurate and most consistent translation in English.” So, they are aiming for the fences.

The only changes he mentions in the video are the use of “Yahweh” for the divine name (יְהוָה) and “slave” for doulos (δοῦλος). You may remember that the original HCSB also used Yahweh, but then reversed course in the CSB. As for doulos, MacArthur has previously emphasized why he thinks this is so important (see his book on the subject). MacArthur and his church and schools are well known around the world for their emphasis on the importance of doctrine, which include being cessationist, dispensational, inerrantist, and complementarian. It will be worth seeing if these are reflected in any particular ways in the translation. (My hunch is that most of the original NASB committee shared these views as well.)

The revision committee named in the video includes Abner Chou, William Varner, Jason Beals, Iosif Zhakevich, Mark Zhakevich, and Paul Twiss. New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs is set to be out by next March. He does not mention who will publish it but it is licensed from the Lockman Foundation which owns the rights to the NASB. You can watch the announcement in this video starting around 7:20.


My main reaction to this news is: why is this needed? Are the changes really enough to justify an entirely new translation? In any case, I will be most interested to see what they do text critically in the New Testament, especially with Varner on the committee. This may be one of the first NT translations in a long time to have three different critical editions of the Greek New Testament to work from.

44 comments

  1. I wonder ... no, not really ... what will happen to Mark 16:9-20 in a revision made by an organization led by the man who called Mark 16:9-20 a "bad ending"?

    Regarding the false claims that John MacArthur made as the basis of his rejection of Mark 16:9-20 --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN-L8fxzK1Q

    For those who are patient enough for the fuller three-part review of his careless, inaccurate, and often simply false claims:
    Part 1 -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Q1X0_r5g
    Part 2-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s7ZxsBjtaw
    Part 3 -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU4JNBCckxI

    And a couple of blog-posts:
    http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/10/mark-169-20-is-john-macarthur-liar.html

    http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/10/mark-169-20-quiz-for-grace-to-you.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the NASB is already the most literal (from Sinaiaticus/Vaticanus), why do we need another translation? $$$
      The NASB already has 10 editions. With MacArthur's version and then the 2020 from Lockman, there will be 12. The KJV has 3 editions, and the revisions were only spelling, punctuation and numbers. The KJV is not merely the most accurate (English) translation, but it is the most trustworthy! I have studied NT textual criticism, apologetics and NT Greek for more than 30 years. I can tell you from experience that we do not need another English translation!
      The Byzantine text is the most trustworthy because it is the most consistent. I am not KJV only, but I am KJV first! The greatest confusion/division the church has ever known came in 1881 with Westcott and Hort's Greek translation from the two most corrupt translations in antiquity. It is not a matter of antiquity for me, but that Sinaiaticus came from a Monastery that supports and is protected by Islam. If you wish to trust a Bible that comes from such a source, that is your choice. I will stick with the tried, trusted and true KJV.
      Not only is the Masoretic text of the OT proven by archeology with the Qumran scrolls, but the Byzantine family of Greek manuscripts has over 5,800 copies to compare one with another. The Alexandrian family has 9 manuscripts,but they rely most heavily upon Vat/Sin. MacArthur's claim to be most literal is weak because it's base is literally full of holes. Sinaiaticus itself is missing whole books, while boasting pseudapigripha.
      The church needs to return to its roots. Pick up a KJV Bible and know for certain that you are reading the unchanging, most consistent and most literal English translation we possess. Let the confusion come to an end. May the name of Jesus be magnified. 2 Tim.4:1-4
      In Jesus love,
      Pastor Brett

      Delete
    2. Amen, Pastor Brett. God is not the author of confusion.

      Delete
    3. Amen, Brother. I wholeheartedly agree!!

      Delete
    4. we need newer translations because after 400+ years language changes, and words in the kjv no longer mean what they once meant, examples study in 2 timothy 2:15 is no longer an appropriate translation of the greek because in 1611 it meant to be devoted to, which is a good translation of the greek, but today study doesnt meant that anymore, or let in 2 thessalonians 2:7, in 1611 let could mean to restrain, which is the correct translation of the greek, but today let no longer means that. If you have studied greek for 30+ years you cant deny these are no longer appropriate translations, there are literally hundreds of more examples like these

      Delete
    5. Thank you Bro. Brett!
      Wow! After reading this I really want to re-read Ephesians 4 and be in prayer about how we treat each other. Spelling note: pseudepigrapha.

      “Knowledge Aflame”

      Delete
    6. Agreed. If you want to make a new translation, start with the Byzantine text

      Delete
    7. Amen to that, I love my KJV

      Delete
    8. Paster Brett, you claim you're not KJV Only but you just did a plug for the Onlyists and talk like one, lol. Okay. Why the dishonesty? Just be real about it, you're an onlyist.

      Delete
    9. Agreed, John is a faithful Pastor. Let's just see before we slander counting it as a motive of greed.

      Delete
    10. That philosophy is dangerous. That is what foot notes are for. Readers should adapt to scripture, not change scripture to adjust to the reader. Your free to use any translation you like.

      Delete
    11. At least 18 major translational errors in KJV. Not even close to the most accurate. Was great for its time and accomplished much in getting the Word into layman hands, but now? Most accurate? Certainly not.

      Delete
    12. I've used the KJV for 30+ years, and I also like the NASB. But in so many other versions, including the NASB, they all have footnotes that say "Lit. xyz", and when you check the KJV that's what it says.

      Delete
    13. Thank you Pastor Brett, I purchased the LSB. and found errors such as Luke 4;4 where Satan said to Jesus "if you are the Son of God turn these stones to bread, then Jesus says man shall not live by bread alone. The KJV says by bread alone and every word the proceeds out of the mouth of God. Am I wrong?

      Delete
    14. Except it's not the name of Jesus being magnified. It's the name of the KJV.

      Delete
    15. I count myself to be a flat-lander who speaks somewhat broken simplified English (USA, October 2022). I have enjoyed doing word-studies for the past twenty years. I began with one word from a verse, but the format now is EVERY WORD from EVERY VERSE. Now it is not only the MEANING of words that is important, but also the GRAMATICAL construction. In other words, WORDS mean things, and words DO things. I look forward to my encounters with aorist-subjunctive, and in the past several days, with the LOGICAL IF's. My conclusion of where-we-are is this: if you want hot water, go to the source, do not get it through pipes (Laodicea). Putting it another way, one must MAKE THE EFFORT to make the break from simplified 20th century English, and make the treck to the headwaters, namely KJV1611 with definitions and grammar of the Greek taken into appropriate consideration.
      Respectfully,
      Jonathan jongain@proton.me

      Delete
  2. We are using the NA27, although I had hoped for the THGNT. I will still point out to my colleagues when the texts differ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that info. I assume you are not slavishly following NA27, are you?

      Delete
    2. In every text critical issue, we look at the NA27 (and the NA28 in the Catholic Epistles) and then also take into consideration the SBL and the TH Greek NTs.

      Delete
  3. Ibexdr,
    Perfect, obviously using both of these editions, or at least having someone present to include the THGNT is a great addition. I will be interested to see where or if the THGNT is chosen.
    Tim

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In every text critical issue, we look at the NA27 (and the NA28 in the Catholic Epistles) and then also take into consideration the SBL and the TH Greek NTs.

      Delete
  4. Check the date

    ReplyDelete
  5. This translation is necessary from MacArthur's point of view. In his book "Slave", he actually accused the ESV translators of being involved in a cover-up so that the believer's commitment/duty to Christ would be lessened from "slave" to that of mere "bondservant". His understanding of slavery in the ancient world and his reading of Murray Harris, the TDNT, etc. are appallingly naive and irresponsible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure of your background or understanding of the ANE historical world, Greg, but I would question your questioning of MacArthur on this. You may prefer a typical, modern, Western approach to the topic of slavery, which obviously is a "flashpoint" topic and easy to follow "slavishly," but that typical understanding is far from in line with the Bible (Philemon and Colossians, for example). My question for you is from where you ultimately take your cue on this topic, if it's a question you even would be willing to answer to yourself, let alone publicly.

      Douglas Petrovich
      Prof. of Biblical History and Exegesis
      The Bible Seminary

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, Doug, but I'm not sure I understand your response. Do you understand my complaint against MacArthur's treatment of doulos? I can't imagine someone in the field would defend his thesis that the translators of the ESV are involved in a coverup so as to "lessen" the impact of the "real" meaning of doulos by translating the word "bondservant". The ESV translators went with this translation precisely because slavery in the ANE is so different from what we modern westerners often think of it as.

      MacArthur cites Murray Harris and Edwin Yamauchi, whom I have no qualm with (and "take my cue from" if you prefer), but unfairly applies their scholarly conclusions to the aforementioned thesis. Responsible translation involves more than exegesis of the ancient world, and I believe MacArthur missed that.

      Delete
    3. I wrote John Macarthur off years ago as a spiritual leader when he proclaimed on his radio station that anyone who did not embrace John Calvin's theology was a "heretic" and "destined for hell." Sorry. Lost all credibility there with me....

      Delete
    4. Anonymous, can you provide any evidence that he said what you claim? That strikes me as a likely extrapolation beyond a milder assertion he may have made.

      Delete
    5. Doug essentially asked you to reference your sources that would uphold your statement where you proclaimed that slavery in Greek history was not the same as it is today.

      Since you did not provide this, how am I supposed to verify your statement as fact or fiction?

      Delete
    6. The point Greg is making is slavery in the ANE is complicated, and MacArthur unfairly impugned ill motive to the ESV translators instead of recognizing the translation complexities there. Doug, and apparently you, seemed to miss that point.

      Delete
  6. I enjoy reading formal equiv. English trans. however the Greek is always better as a whole. The NASB is wonderful for those whom have their lexicon beside them because we want what the writer said in the Language not simply a committee opinion. However, douloß in every Greek lexicon has multiple meanings depending upon context, it can even mean devoted minister or one pledged in general. To say it is more consistent is erroneous because context matters.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Any thoughts on translating "doulos" as "slave"? The connotation in modern English, influenced by chattel slavery in the U.S., is not helpful to proper understanding of the term in the Bible. John 15:15 seems to weigh against "slave." Christian douloi are also friends, not property; they are "in the know," not uninformed of what their master is doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doulos as 'slave' seems perfectly fine for several reasons. First, being friends with God does not negate also being His property, ones having been bought with a price, and neither does knowing what He has revealed mean that we are informed on all the things our Master is doing, as Peter was not informed as to the fate of John. Second, any pastor worth his salt and anyone who can read can see that our Master is benevolent, all wise, gracious, showing lovingkindness unlike the image one gets from 'chattel slavery,' of which there were a good number of masters who were kind and treated their slaves as people. Third,using the English text with 'slave' provides ample opportunity to explore the richness of the meaning of the word in regards to our God, especially as 'race' was not a part of the determination of who was a slave: a majority of slaves were apparently 'white' in the Roman world giving American pastors reasons to argue for equality in the past, and point out the meaning to the believer in regard to God in the present.

      Delete
  8. I'd be fine with this if they at least didn't give it the NASB name but rather a different name. I'll be switching over to the NLSB now which is something that pains me to say

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why is it needed? Money, money, money, money, MONEY. (The O'Jays)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nothing will supersede the Net Bible or NIV translations for accuracy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I will take this from another perspective. It has nothing to do with translation per se but has to with MacArthur's contribution to evangelicalism and be part of christian history...of course, he will deny that but we have to understand what william james wrote in his book that we, humans desire to be known and be somebody... That is what JM wants as his LEGACY!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John MacArthur doesn't need this Bible version to have a legacy. He already has a legacy. He is one of the most well known theologians of this day. His online sermons will last decades after he has gone. He also his name on well over 100 books. To top it off, the MacArthur Study Bible has been sold over 2 million times. He is the Charles Spurgeon of our time and like Spurgeon, MacArthur will be known 100s of years after he's gone. So, your statement is MOOT.

      Delete
  12. Glad I still have my 1971 edition!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alexander Thomson6/17/2021 5:15 pm

      Yes! I have the 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977 and 1995 editions....but I never could find the 1972 edition! Any seller or donor out there, please?

      Delete
  13. I have just purchase the LSB, not received it yet. I have always been a KJV Bible believer and it is the one I have always used I hope that I have not made a big mistake and wasted money I am an Anglican from church of England so KJV is what we used.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There are four or five different words in the original languages that all mean different things but are all translated to the same English word, and that English word is "love". There is no English Bible, that I know of, that distinguishes between those different "love"s. I think this is one of the greatest contributors to the inappropriate lovey dovey attitudes people have concerning how Christians should be. Agape (love) which is doing what is best for the one loved regardless of cost to self, is totally different than philia (love) which is brotherly love, is totally different that eros (love) which is romantic and physical, etc., etc. There are also other words that mean different things in the original languages that are translated into the same English word. This should not be the case.

    ReplyDelete