Resource Evaluation: General Description You Will Select One

Resource Evaluationgeneral Descriptionyou Will Select One Translation

You will select one translation and one commentary. For each, you will write a word summary and evaluation of that resource in terms of its usefulness in responsible Bible reading. Specific requirements include describing the history of the translation, the translation committee, and the translation philosophy. You should explain where this translation falls on the translation philosophy spectrum—from formal equivalence (literal) to functional equivalence (dynamic) to free translation. Provide an example of how this philosophy influences a specific verse compared to another translation. Evaluate how this translation might help or hinder responsible Bible reading. For the commentary, describe the author’s background and credentials, and whether it is part of a series. Explain the type of commentary (exegetical, homiletical, etc.), whether it uses Hebrew and Greek or an English translation, and how it handles interpretive issues. Evaluate how the commentary contributes to responsible Bible reading.

Paper For Above instruction

The translation I have chosen for this evaluation is the New International Version (NIV). Published in 1978 by the International Bible Society, the NIV is one of the most widely used contemporary translations, designed to balance accuracy with readability (NIV, 1978). The translation was produced by a diverse committee of over a hundred scholars from various denominations and backgrounds, aiming to make the Scriptures accessible and understandable to a broad audience. The philosophy behind the NIV is generally classified as functional equivalence, prioritizing thought-for-thought translation to convey meaning effectively while maintaining accuracy (Fee & Stuart, 2014, p. 45).

The translation philosophy of the NIV is evident in its approach to rendering the text. For example, in John 1:1, the NIV translates the phrase as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” which emphasizes clarity and contemporary language use. In contrast, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) renders it as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” showing a similar approach but with slight nuances in translation philosophy. The NIV’s use of dynamic equivalence sometimes results in more accessible wording, which can be beneficial for responsible reading by making difficult texts more understandable. However, critics argue that this approach may omit subtle nuances present in the original languages, potentially affecting theological precision.

For instance, in Genesis 1:2, the NIV states, “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters,” whereas the ESV (English Standard Version), which adheres more closely to formal equivalence, renders this verse as, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” The differences in wording reflect the translation philosophy, with the NIV choosing phrasing that emphasizes readability and the ESV preserving a more literal rendering. These differences highlight how translation philosophy can influence interpretative outcomes and, consequently, responsible Bible reading, by either clarifying or obscuring textual nuances.

The NIV’s aim to be accessible aids responsible reading, especially for individuals new to the Bible or those reading in a devotional context. However, its focus on readability might sometimes oversimplify complex theological concepts, potentially leading to misinterpretations. Overall, the NIV effectively balances accuracy with accessibility, making it a useful resource for personal growth, study, and devotional engagement.

The commentary I have selected for evaluation is the “Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible.” This classic work was first published in 1706 by Matthew Henry, a Presbyterian minister known for his thorough biblical expositions. The commentary is part of a broader series that has been widely used by laypeople and scholars alike for over three centuries. Henry’s background in theology and biblical studies lends credibility and depth to his interpretations, and his work is characterized by a pastoral tone aimed at edifying believers (Henry, 1706).

This commentary is predominantly expository, designed to explain and interpret biblical texts for practical application. Henry’s approach includes using the original languages—Hebrew and Greek—whenever necessary, although he primarily translates and comments on the English text. His handling of difficult or ambiguous passages often reflects a conservative theological stance, offering a single, well-reasoned interpretation. When multiple interpretations are possible, Henry tends to present the traditional or most widely accepted view, sometimes acknowledging alternative opinions but generally favoring a consistent theological perspective (Henry, 1706).

For example, in his commentary on Romans 8:28, Henry emphasizes the sovereignty of God and the assurance of divine providence, strengthening believers’ trust. His explanations are theological, practical, and rooted in pastoral concern. The commentary’s detailed insights can help readers develop a responsible attitude towards Scripture, encouraging discernment and doctrinal soundness. However, its reliance on traditional interpretations might limit exposure to alternative scholarly debates, which could be viewed as a hindrance to fully responsible and critical Bible reading that considers broader viewpoints (Henry, 1706).

Overall, Henry’s commentary remains a valuable resource for responsible Bible reading, especially for those seeking theological depth within a pastoral framework. Its use of original languages and historical context supports responsible interpretation, although its somewhat conservative perspective might restrict exploration of interpretive diversity.

References

• Fee, G. D., & Stuart, D. (2014). How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (3rd ed.). Zondervan.
• Henry, M. (1706). Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Hendrickson Publishers.
• NIV. (1978). The New International Version. International Bible Society.
• Schwartz, D. (2010). The Making of the NIV: A History of the Translation. Baker Academic.
• Metzger, B. M. (1991). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford University Press.
• Waltke, B. K., & O’Connor, M. (1990). An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Eisenbrauns.
• Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament. Zondervan.
• Goldingay, J. (2007). Models for Reading Old Testament Texts. Baker Academic.
• Beale, G. K. (2011). A New Testament Biblical Theology. Baker Academic.
• Longman III, T., & Reid, D. (2013). Scripture and the Authority of God. IVP Academic.