Critique of James White & Wretched TV #1326

[Bill The Baptist]

I want to make one last comment regarding the assertion that the NKJV is not translated from the TR. This assertion is demonstrably false on three fronts. First, it is an assertion that is wholly unprovable. How would one even go about proving such a thing? Merely attempting to reverse engineer a translation against a manuscript or another translation establishes nothing. If one were to do the same with the ESV in comparison with the NASB, they would no doubt discover many of the same differences that Macgregor allegedly found between the NKJV and the KJV. Does this therefore establish that the ESV is not also translated from the CT? Hardly. Pseudo scholarship never helps. Second, such an assertion impugns the reputation of those who translated the NKJV. Dr. Farstad was a man of great integrity and scholarship and it is wholly unwarranted and offensive to suggest that he would knowingly and intentionally mislead as to which manuscript his version was translated from. It is impossible to make the former assertion without also making the latter. Conspiracy theories do not belong is serious scholarship. Finally, such an assertion is wholly ridiculous in light of the nature of the NKJV. If it was not translated from the TR, then from what was it translated? From the CT? How then do we explain the copious variances from the CT that are outlined in the footnotes that do many seem to disparage? From the majority text? Again, how do we explain all the variances that are so clearly catalogued? If one finds the NKJV to be an inferior translation, then I have no problem with someone expressing this, but please do not resort to ridiculous assertions in an effort to needlessly impugn a fine translation.

 

[MW]

Winzer, I have no interest in continuing to defend myself against confusion over something I didn't say. Here is what I said, and if you find it unclear then I can't help you.

The reason I (and Dr White) bring up TR variants, is because some seem to present the "TR" as though it is one document from which all the Reformation Bibles and of course the KJV, was translated from, and that it 100% represents the autographa, being perfectly preserved without error. If you present it this way, then you must have picked one, because there is no one "TR", it is better described as a family with variants within it.

Here you acknowledge you said "because there is no one 'TR'." When I said, "the 'TR' indicates an accepted text within which to discuss variants," you replied "that's pretty much the point I was making." So you stated there is no one TR, and then you claim you were "pretty much" saying the TR indicates an accepted text (singular). This is what created the confusion.

 

[Logan]

Note the words I helpfully bolded: "'TR' as though it is one document", "If you present it this way" the quotes around the "TR" in both places, and the final bolded section.

I can't make myself any more explicit than that and all indications so far are that no one else shares the "confusion". Who are you "clearing thing up" for? I can't help but wonder what you think is profitable in beleaguering me.

 

[Phil D.]

Within the overall context of the thread, how Logan's expression "a [text] family with variants within it" can be construed as saying a "text (singular)" is rather baffling.

 

[MW]

I can't help but wonder what you think is profitable in beleaguering me.

Please don't make this personal again. I have no interest in "beleaguering" you, nor is that my intention. This is a thread discussing facts which affect the way people see the textual issues relating to the Bible, and the Bible is our supreme standard. You made a claim that was misleading. When it was corrected you said the correction is pretty much what you were saying while still standing by your original claim. In the interests of clarity, why not simply confess your original claim was poorly stated? Clarity is profitable when discussing any issue.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

I want to make one last comment regarding the assertion that the NKJV is not translated from the TR. This assertion is demonstrably false on three fronts. First, it is an assertion that is wholly unprovable. How would one even go about proving such a thing? Merely attempting to reverse engineer a translation against a manuscript or another translation establishes nothing. If one were to do the same with the ESV in comparison with the NASB, they would no doubt discover many of the same differences that Macgregor allegedly found between the NKJV and the KJV. Does this therefore establish that the ESV is not also translated from the CT? Hardly. Pseudo scholarship never helps. Second, such an assertion impugns the reputation of those who translated the NKJV. Dr. Farstad was a man of great integrity and scholarship and it is wholly unwarranted and offensive to suggest that he would knowingly and intentionally mislead as to which manuscript his version was translated from. It is impossible to make the former assertion without also making the latter. Conspiracy theories do not belong is serious scholarship. Finally, such an assertion is wholly ridiculous in light of the nature of the NKJV. If it was not translated from the TR, then from what was it translated? From the CT? How then do we explain the copious variances from the CT that are outlined in the footnotes that do many seem to disparage? From the majority text? Again, how do we explain all the variances that are so clearly catalogued? If one finds the NKJV to be an inferior translation, then I have no problem with someone expressing this, but please do not resort to ridiculous assertions in an effort to needlessly impugn a fine translation.

Bill I have looked at these similar claims before and found them ridiculous. Even the most "questionable" TR readings are present in the NKJV. Even Rev 16:5 is there, if they were going to divert from the TR, Rev 16;5 would be the time. I have no doubt it was translated from the TR and In my humble opinion does an excellent job doing so. Even Michael Marlowe, a big critical text supporter, highly recommends it for close study, even slightly over the NASB.

 

[alexandermsmith]

If the NKJV has over 1200 differences to the KJV, I fail to see how it can claim to be translated from the same text. Indeed various modern translations which are translated from the same family of texts have differences: because copyright requires these differences so they have to be there. Hardly a ground for trustworthiness. (The CT is also a a diverse groups of texts.)

One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.

Finally, I'm less concerned with the reputation of scholars than I am with upholding the dignity of God's Word. Scholars should not bother meddling with such things if their reputation is so precious to them and should leave well enough alone.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

If the NKJV has over 1200 differences to the KJV, I fail to see how it can claim to be translated from the same text. Indeed various modern translations which are translated from the same family of texts have differences: because copyright requires these differences so they have to be there. Hardly a ground for trustworthiness. (The CT is also a a diverse groups of texts.)

One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.

Finally, I'm less concerned with the reputation of scholars than I am with upholding the dignity of God's Word. Scholars should not bother meddling with such things if their reputation is so precious to them and should leave well enough alone.

As I said, if you feel that the NKJV is an inferior translation, then I have no problem with that. But please don't make ridiculous and unnecessary allegations that are self-evidently false. There are over 1200 differences because it is a different translation, just as I am sure there are many differences between the NASB and the ESV. The loss of distinction between singular and plural pronouns is indeed regrettable, but has nothing to do with the underlying manuscript. It is simply a translation choice. If you prefer the KJV, as many others do, then make your arguments based on the strength of the translation and not on unproven conspiracy theories.

 

[Logan]

One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.

This is one of the most puzzling textual claims I've ever seen.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.

This is one of the most puzzling textual claims I've ever seen.

 

[alexandermsmith]

One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.

This is one of the most puzzling textual claims I've ever seen.

The Preface to the NKJV reads:

"Readers of the Authorised Version will immediately be struck by the absence of several pronouns: thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you, while your and yours are substituted for thy and thine as applicable. Thee, thou, thy and thine were once forms of address to express a special relationship to human as well as divine persons. These pronouns are no longer part of our language."

Comments Mr. MacGregor (in his "obscure" book, which isn't obscure as I'm holding it in my hand right now and it's easily obtained): "I accept that some brethren may argue that the purpose of the NKJV was to bring the language up to date. I also understand that some may have regarded it as a failure on the part of the NKJV translators if they had not used modern speech. Such brethren may argue that the use of thee and thou is purely a matter of individual preference. This however, brings us back to the issue of placing ease of reading above accuracy. While the above pronouns may not be in everyday use now, they do serve the useful function of showing the reader whether the subject is singular or plural." Referenced is a quote by Dr. Oswald T. Allis: "The important fact is this. The usage of the AV is no ordinary usage of the early 17th Century [language]: it is Biblical usage based on the style of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures... It is undeniable that where the Hebrew and Greek use the singular of the pronoun the AV regularly uses the singular, and where they use plural it uses plural... the AV reproduces the style of the text with fidelity."

Alan J. MacGregor, Three Modern Versions, The Bible League, 2004, p.63 (HB)

Discarding the older pronouns has also undoubtedly contributed to their falling out of use in prayer as well, with "you" being used increasingly frequently nowadays to address God rather than "thee" or "thou" &c.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.

This is one of the most puzzling textual claims I've ever seen.

The Preface to the NKJV reads:

"Readers of the Authorised Version will immediately be struck by the absence of several pronouns: thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you, while your and yours are substituted for thy and thine as applicable. Thee, thou, thy and thine were once forms of address to express a special relationship to human as well as divine persons. These pronouns are no longer part of our language."

Comments Mr. MacGregor (in his "obscure" book, which isn't obscure as I'm holding it in my hand right now and it's easily obtained): "I accept that some brethren may argue that the purpose of the NKJV was to bring the language up to date. I also understand that some may have regarded it as a failure on the part of the NKJV translators if they had not used modern speech. Such brethren may argue that the use of thee and thou is purely a matter of individual preference. This however, brings us back to the issue of placing ease of reading above accuracy. While the above pronouns may not be in everyday use now, they do serve the useful function of showing the reader whether the subject is singular or plural." Referenced is a quote by Dr. Oswald T. Allis: "The important fact is this. The usage of the AV is no ordinary usage of the early 17th Century [language]: it is Biblical usage based on the style of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures... It is undeniable that where the Hebrew and Greek use the singular of the pronoun the AV regularly uses the singular, and where they use plural it uses plural... the AV reproduces the style of the text with fidelity."

Alan J. MacGregor, Three Modern Versions, The Bible League, 2004, p.63 (HB)

Discarding the older pronouns has also undoubtedly contributed to their falling out of use in prayer as well, with "you" being used increasingly frequently nowadays to address God rather than "thee" or "thou" &c.

Alexander,

If you wish to argue that the absence of a distinction between singular and plural pronouns makes the NKJV inferior to the KJV, then I have no objection to this and I would even agree on this point. What I am asking you to do is to stop inferring that this in any way establishes that the NKJV is not also translated from the TR because it does not. The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is present in every Greek manuscript, and so this is a translation issue and not a manuscript issue. Please stop conflating the two.

 

[jandrusk]

I thought the presentation was very well done and I see nothing wrong with using the word, "****", when the OT writers routinely used the synomously term "dung". I could thing of several stronger nouns that could have been used His argument that it was a Q&A session is lame in that he was asked a very specific answer and gave an answer that had nothing to do with the question.

 

[jandrusk]

I would also recommend reading, "Crowned with Glory" by Dr. Thomas Holland, which can be found: http://www.amazon.com/Crowned-Glory...1440521532&sr=8-1&keywords=crowned+with+glory

 

[JimmyH]

If the NKJV has over 1200 differences to the KJV, I fail to see how it can claim to be translated from the same text.

In my very basic self study of koine Greek I was surprised to see the variant definitions one word might have within the language. For example ;

επι ( epi) ; (+genitive) on, over, or when ; (+dative) on the basis of, or at; (+accusative) on, to, against or for.

παρα (para) (+genitive) from, (+dative) beside, in the presence of, or with (+ accusative) alongside of, or other than.

κατα (kata) (+gen) down from or against. (+acc) according to, throughout, or during.

Translation may not be as simple as we English speakers imagine. I've read that Greek is a much more nuanced language than Hebrew or English, with richness of meaning. Hence the differences translations have may be as a result of that. Add to that the discovery of the papyri in the late 19th century, and the additional understanding of how words were used in the NT times probably accounts for some differences. The examples above are from Danny Zacharias 'Flash Greek' app.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Jimmy,

It's not a matter of nuance, per se, but one of language in general.

A study of just the Genetive form of a noun is mind boggling. It's why some get into debates over whether certain verse speak to faith in Christ or the faith of Christ. The form of the noun won't tell you which it is (nor even knowing the word definitions) but a host of issues factor into the equation (including theological issues).

For instance, the NIV translators did not like to use the word propitiation. I think that is theologically motivated.

I don't much care for a lot of Tremper Longman's stuff but one thing I agree with that he stated is to the effect that every translation is an extended form of commentary by the translators.

The point is well taken that Alexandar is confused about the difference between a textual source and the translation that results.

I think those that some who defend the AV will point out that if we leave aside the manuscript issue for a moment that the interpreters were of a sounder theological sort than some modern translation committees.

 

[MW]

The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is present in every Greek manuscript, and so this is a translation issue and not a manuscript issue.

I agree, but I think this was just an example of his overall point relating to "differences."

Would you accept that some of the differences in translation reflect an accommodation to a text other than the TR even though the TR is the underlying text of the translation? I am not saying this would have been the deliberate intention of the translators of the NKJV, but it appears to have been the result in at least some places.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is present in every Greek manuscript, and so this is a translation issue and not a manuscript issue.

I agree, but I think this was just an example of his overall point relating to "differences."

Would you accept that some of the differences in translation reflect an accommodation to a text other than the TR even though the TR is the underlying text of the translation? I am not saying this would have been the deliberate intention of the translators of the NKJV, but it appears to have been the result in at least some places.

Yes I suppose this could be possible or even likely. It is perhaps impossible to do the work of translation nowadays without being at least somewhat influenced by the dominant text critical theories of the present era. That is not, however, what was originally being asserted.

 

[Robert Truelove]

While I prefer the KJV for a number of reasons (mostly literary), I don't hesitate to recommend the New King James Version for folks wanting a solid translation in modern English. The NKJV fits the bill very nicely for that. Arthur Farstad and his team did a fantastic job on it. Farstad was perhaps the most productive textual scholar of the 20th century who was also an advocate for the Traditional Text.

For those wanting to learn more about the NKJV, I recommend this http://www.amazon.com/The-New-King-James-Version/dp/0785251758

I can certainly find fault with the NKJV, but I can find fault with the KJV as well. If we seek perfection in any particular translation we are asking too much at best and usurping the authority of the word of God in the original tongues at worst.

My acknowledging the NKJV as an excellent translation in contemporary English in no way robs anything from the venerable King James Version. Personally I think most of the anti-NKJV fits are simply misplaced zeal for the KJV.

I don't think ANY modern version will replace the beauty and elegance of the KJV because contemporary English cannot accomplish such a thing (for much the same reason that Shakespeare can't be improved upon with contemporary English). This however is a literary observation and not to be confused with the ill-conceived notion that contemporary English is an unfit vessel for Bible translation.

Finally, for those interested, here's my recent unboxing of a Schuyler NKJV...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C_n2MvWUVM

 

[alexandermsmith]

The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is present in every Greek manuscript, and so this is a translation issue and not a manuscript issue. Please stop conflating the two.

OK fair enough. However, it is, to my mind, disingenuous to call the NKJV merely an "updating" of the AV. To me, updating means rendering "runneth" as "runs". It is not removing distinctions between plural and singular; nor calling into question whether certain portions of Scripture should even be there; nor using texts other than the TR to solve translation issues.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is present in every Greek manuscript, and so this is a translation issue and not a manuscript issue. Please stop conflating the two.

OK fair enough. However, it is, to my mind, disingenuous to call the NKJV merely an "updating" of the AV. To me, updating means rendering "runneth" as "runs". It is not removing distinctions between plural and singular; nor calling into question whether certain portions of Scripture should even be there; nor using texts other than the TR to solve translation issues.

I would agree that the NKJV is really a whole new translation and not merely an update, although there was a degree of effort made to keep some familiar language the same.

 

[Robert Truelove]

The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is present in every Greek manuscript, and so this is a translation issue and not a manuscript issue. Please stop conflating the two.

OK fair enough. However, it is, to my mind, disingenuous to call the NKJV merely an "updating" of the AV. To me, updating means rendering "runneth" as "runs". It is not removing distinctions between plural and singular; nor calling into question whether certain portions of Scripture should even be there; nor using texts other than the TR to solve translation issues.

Agreed. The NKJV goes way beyond the former "revisions" of the KJV. It's different enough that the name "New King James Version" is warranted to distinguish it from the historic English text.

 

[iainduguid]

One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.

This is one of the most puzzling textual claims I've ever seen.

The Preface to the NKJV reads:

"Readers of the Authorised Version will immediately be struck by the absence of several pronouns: thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you, while your and yours are substituted for thy and thine as applicable. Thee, thou, thy and thine were once forms of address to express a special relationship to human as well as divine persons. These pronouns are no longer part of our language."

Comments Mr. MacGregor (in his "obscure" book, which isn't obscure as I'm holding it in my hand right now and it's easily obtained): "I accept that some brethren may argue that the purpose of the NKJV was to bring the language up to date. I also understand that some may have regarded it as a failure on the part of the NKJV translators if they had not used modern speech. Such brethren may argue that the use of thee and thou is purely a matter of individual preference. This however, brings us back to the issue of placing ease of reading above accuracy. While the above pronouns may not be in everyday use now, they do serve the useful function of showing the reader whether the subject is singular or plural." Referenced is a quote by Dr. Oswald T. Allis: "The important fact is this. The usage of the AV is no ordinary usage of the early 17th Century [language]: it is Biblical usage based on the style of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures... It is undeniable that where the Hebrew and Greek use the singular of the pronoun the AV regularly uses the singular, and where they use plural it uses plural... the AV reproduces the style of the text with fidelity."

Alan J. MacGregor, Three Modern Versions, The Bible League, 2004, p.63 (HB)

Discarding the older pronouns has also undoubtedly contributed to their falling out of use in prayer as well, with "you" being used increasingly frequently nowadays to address God rather than "thee" or "thou" &c.

The last comment illustrates precisely the problem with continuing to use an old translation as language moves on. Presumably, for you "thee" and "thou" convey a proper sense of formality in coming to the Great King in prayer, or something to that effect. I respect that motive, but of course in old English "thee" and "thou" were simply ordinary regular terms to address an individual. The Lord of the Manor would have addressed the humblest peasant as "Thee" and "Thou". Even more pertinently, there is no special formal "you" in either Greek or Hebrew by which to address God, in the way that Spanish and German use a more formal plural for strangers or those in authority. So there as absolutely no Biblical reason to address God as "Thee" and "Thou" rather than "You". I doubt anyone is ever in any doubt when they are praying as to whether God is singular or plural.

In addition, we may lament the imprecision that modern English has over singular and plural you, but we seem unaffected by the equally significant fact that in Greek and Hebrew we can distinguish the gender of a pronoun as well as its number. So in Greek or Hebrew we can say "You (masculine)" differently from "You (feminine);" this is equally significant in Biblical texts, but for some reason God in his wisdom chose to give us a language that doesn't make those distinctions. Perhaps we should be content with the plethora of excellent translations that we have, and be thankful for preachers who read Greek and Hebrew and can make things clear that our translations can't.Having been personally involved in English Bible translation and revision projects, I can only say the process is a lot harder than it looks. Please pray for those who have such monumental responsibilities.

 

[Robert Truelove]

One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.

This is one of the most puzzling textual claims I've ever seen.

The Preface to the NKJV reads:

"Readers of the Authorised Version will immediately be struck by the absence of several pronouns: thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you, while your and yours are substituted for thy and thine as applicable. Thee, thou, thy and thine were once forms of address to express a special relationship to human as well as divine persons. These pronouns are no longer part of our language."

Comments Mr. MacGregor (in his "obscure" book, which isn't obscure as I'm holding it in my hand right now and it's easily obtained): "I accept that some brethren may argue that the purpose of the NKJV was to bring the language up to date. I also understand that some may have regarded it as a failure on the part of the NKJV translators if they had not used modern speech. Such brethren may argue that the use of thee and thou is purely a matter of individual preference. This however, brings us back to the issue of placing ease of reading above accuracy. While the above pronouns may not be in everyday use now, they do serve the useful function of showing the reader whether the subject is singular or plural." Referenced is a quote by Dr. Oswald T. Allis: "The important fact is this. The usage of the AV is no ordinary usage of the early 17th Century [language]: it is Biblical usage based on the style of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures... It is undeniable that where the Hebrew and Greek use the singular of the pronoun the AV regularly uses the singular, and where they use plural it uses plural... the AV reproduces the style of the text with fidelity."

Alan J. MacGregor, Three Modern Versions, The Bible League, 2004, p.63 (HB)

Discarding the older pronouns has also undoubtedly contributed to their falling out of use in prayer as well, with "you" being used increasingly frequently nowadays to address God rather than "thee" or "thou" &c.

The last comment illustrates precisely the problem with continuing to use an old translation as language moves on. Presumably, for you "thee" and "thou" convey a proper sense of formality in coming to the Great King in prayer, or something to that effect. I respect that motive, but of course in old English "thee" and "thou" were simply ordinary regular terms to address an individual. The Lord of the Manor would have addressed the humblest peasant as "Thee" and "Thou". Even more pertinently, there is no special formal "you" in either Greek or Hebrew by which to address God, in the way that Spanish and German use a more formal plural for strangers or those in authority. So there as absolutely no Biblical reason to address God as "Thee" and "Thou" rather than "You". I doubt anyone is ever in any doubt when they are praying as to whether God is singular or plural.

In addition, we may lament the imprecision that modern English has over singular and plural you, but we seem unaffected by the equally significant fact that in Greek and Hebrew we can distinguish the gender of a pronoun as well as its number. So in Greek or Hebrew we can say "You (masculine)" differently from "You (feminine);" this is equally significant in Biblical texts, but for some reason God in his wisdom chose to give us a language that doesn't make those distinctions. Perhaps we should be content with the plethora of excellent translations that we have, and be thankful for preachers who read Greek and Hebrew and can make things clear that our translations can't.Having been personally involved in English Bible translation and revision projects, I can only say the process is a lot harder than it looks. Please pray for those who have such monumental responsibilities.

Iain,

In this context you've nailed it regarding the need to keep translation(s) somewhat current. On the other hand, I've heard people call for an update to the NKJV because of the changes in English since the early 80s. I find that rather silly (and realize the only significant change is the Egalitarian influence on the English language—no more male oriented words as inclusives).

I believe there is wisdom in both retaining the historic English Bible (due to where modern scholarship continues to head) AND using a good modern version as well.

 

[MW]

The last comment illustrates precisely the problem with continuing to use an old translation as language moves on.

That "last comment" was only added as an extra consideration at the end of the post; it should not be treated as if this was the sole or central point being made. The use of singular-plural distinctions in translation and the use of thou and thee in prayer are related in some ways but ultimately two different issues.

 

[jeclark71]

Great conversation here and you see the passion brought out in James White on the issue. Even if he is to (borrow a term) snarky. One brother who has helped me with this very issue is a brother Robert Paul Weiland here on the board and has some very well done video's on you tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNArjGjsw9Q.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Iain: "Perhaps we should be content with the plethora of excellent translations that we have, and be thankful for preachers who read Greek and Hebrew and can make things clear that our translations can't."

Robert: "I believe there is wisdom in both retaining the historic English Bible (due to where modern scholarship continues to head) AND using a good modern version as well."​

While fluent in neither Hebrew nor Greek, I have ample lexical tools—and word studies by those who are—to both understand, preach, and teach the word of our God, His Spirit enabling me.

I do put to good use the “plethora of excellent translations we have”, yet my gold standard in textual matters are the texts of my Reformation forebears, which were “by God, [through] his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages” (WCF 1.8).

I realize that other translations of these texts are possible (including translations of slightly differing texts), though I trust the reliable AV’s translation whereas I don’t have that level of trust in more modern translators’ efforts, though they have value—which I can gladly testify to, as, for example, Iain’s, Ezekiel: The NIV Application Commentary, which I love, and has been a help to me. (If I get some spare money, Iain, and spare time, I'll look to get your newer P&R commentary on Daniel as well, as that's an important book to me.)