After mentioning the prize in yesterday’s post, I received the Zondervan Academic catalog in the mail which has info about the “NIV Archaeological Study Bible.” As I mentioned before, I wrote about 13 articles and contributed more than 100 photos, so I’m interested in its publication. A few comments for any others who might be interested.
1. The translation is now the NIV. Originally it was to be in NASB but apparently the major donor to the project allowed Zondervan to use the (more popular) NIV instead.
2. The working name was the “Archaeology Study Bible,” which has now been changed to “Archaeological.” I think both names are awkward and mis-leading. Many of the articles are about things that aren’t related to archaeology at all, but more to geography and history. There is a sense in which “archaeological” can mean “pertaining to things which are old,” and in that case, the title works.
3. Listed as authors are Walter Kaiser and Duane Garrett. The latter was the project coordinator as far as I ever saw in my work in writing and supplying photographs. I wonder if Kaiser actually did anything or if he is the “name that sells.” Because of Kaiser’s published plagiarism, I’m sad that his name is associated with the project. That doesn’t mean that the Bible won’t be good.
4. The Bible will be printed in 4-colors throughout (is this a first for a Bible?), and will include 500 photographs and 520 articles.
5. The entire content of the Bible, including photos, maps and charts, will be included on a CD that is included with the Bible.
6. The retail price is $50 in hardcover; about $80 for leather.
7. The Bible will be released in March 2006.
Based on what I have seen, I expect that the Bible will be very useful. I saw a list of articles when I had the opportunity to choose and there were many that I thought would be quite interesting. The downside: the articles had to be short and consequently don’t have much depth. But it’s a study Bible and not a Bible dictionary.
It’s a shame that they switched to the NIV. It shows that the publisher is more interested in book sales than Biblical scholarship.
What’s the deal with Kaiser and plagerism?
David: So does ANY publication of the NIV reveal that the publisher is “more interested in books sales than Biblical scholarship”?
I use the NAS, and I too would love to see the Archaeological Study Bible in that version. I also fully agree that almost all publishers are very much more interested in book sales than in producing the best biblical and clear books. Still, there ought to be some back-up to your assessment. Bare assertions are not enough.
So does ANY publication of the NIV reveal that the publisher is “more interested in books sales than Biblical scholarship”?
Sorry, I suppose that was a rather quick hit-and-run comment.
Yes, I guess I would have to apply it to all NIV sales.
I suppose it might mean something other than sales is more important than scholarship. I just took Mr. Bolen’s parenthetical more popular and assumed it was an accurate assessment, and I think it probably is. It could be something else, like “dude, it’s, like, easier to read!”
Dynamic Eqivalents like The NIV do not transmit accurately the actual words of the original text, nor do they even claim to. They claim to transmit the meaning of Scripture, which means the meaning in the translators opinion. True, the NIV is definitely the best of its kind, but it’s not a literal translation.
In this case, it is an odd juxtaposition. This Study Bible is intended to tie Scripture to its origins, using a translation that is as far from the original as it is safe to go.
David – I guess I am glad that publishers don’t act as censors, deciding what is good for us and what is not. That is, when there are about 10x as many sales of NIV as NASB, it would be rather arrogant to say – you can’t have it in the translation that you want. You can call it sales and thus pursuit of profit, but I call it demand – this is what people want. The problem is with the people and not the publishers. You could argue that they should publish it in both translations – but why, when the costs are quite high and the NASB is going to sell very little in comparison.
Personally, I think the NIV is a superior English Bible to the NASB, and I’m glad I’ll be able to get this Bible in the NIV.
Eric – there are numerous documented instances of plagiarism by Kaiser in History of Israel. I talked to the publisher (at a convention) and later mailed what I found to the publisher (no response). I have since seen a published review documenting many others. But the reality is that you can’t simply fix a few paragraphs – the whole book was appears to have been written in haste, dependent upon two sources. Dead give-aways are when they copy an error in their source (e.g., Merrill says that Mizpah (en-Nasbeh) is west of Ramah and Kaiser repeats the error). There is much more. I recently asked Merrill if Kaiser had either apologized or mailed him royalties; he had not. Kaiser has done some great work on OT theological subjects, but now he’s back to the OT history arena, which gives one reason for pause.
Todd, Thanks for the heads up on this coming out. I have been looking for it in CBD ever since you wrote the article(s?) in Fall 2002. I can’t wait to look through it and see what use it may have in teaching Bible studies, etc. with the youth at my church.
I wrote some of those articles too, and figured it should have been called the Evangelicals Strike Back with their own Historical Critical Study Bible. But that would be too long for sales, especially with the NAS.
Was reading over the comments about the NIV Archaelogical Study Bible and although I am not a biblical scholar in so much as I do not have a PhD nor have I studied in a seminar; however; I must comment that the NIV is an extremely accurate translation of the Old Testament. I cannot speak for the translation of the New Testament as I do not speak Greek, however, I do speak, read, write and type fluent Hebrew and have found the NIV to be far more accurate than some of the other translations. Just a point to ponder.
Perhaps the publisher was more interested in having more people and more Christians learn about the Word of God,the times and the places that it took place.
By publishing the book in the NIV translation, it appeals to a wider audience and therefore more people will be educated on the subject. just a thought.
I find the discussion of the NIV interesting. I have a M.Div. in New Testament, an M.A. in Classical Archaeology, excavated in Greece, Turkey (at Troy!) and Jordan. I also completed everything but my dissertation on a Ph.D. in classical archaeology, which required a great deal of languages.
I was the graduate teaching assistant (in graduate-level Advanced Greek) for one of the NIV translators, one of the most godly men I know. The misunderstaning in this discussion is the assumption that there is such thing as a “literal” translation that does not involve the translator’s “opinion” (or interpretation). ANY translation depends on the translator’s interpretation – they make choices in EVERY sentence. If the original text read poorly and sounded like the person who wrote it didn’t speak the language, then you can make a good argument for many of the translations that people consider “literal”. However, if the text reads naturally in the original, then shouldn’t an “accurate” translation read naturally in the receptor language, as well? I, for one, will take the NIV any day…