Legacy Standard Bible

Status
Not open for further replies.

Timotheos

Puritan Board Freshman
Did you hear that MacArthur and Co. are trying to improve on an older version of the NASB, calling it the Legacy Standard Bible?

Start at the 7:25 mark

 

KSon

Puritan Board Junior
What I found interesting, all other things aside (do we need yet another translation, etc.), is the fact that Lockman would allow another update of the '95 NASB while they themselves are in the process of updating it as well.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
Much of the video was edifying, thank you for sharing, I do share his hope that this pandemic will drive people to fear not the virus, but the God they will some day face.

The comments about what he desired in a translation was interesting. Although I should say that this year I have been using the "World English Bible", which was a copyright-free project. The three major benefits were 1) It uses the Robertson-Pierpont Byzantine Text for the NT, which I admire, 2) It seems to be a fairly literal and still highly readable translation, and 3) it translates God's name as Yahweh.

I had been wondering for a while why we traditionally translate God's name as "LORD". I admit "Yahweh" was a little jarring at first but it makes some passages a bit more personal and eye-opening, at least in my experience. So far I'm learning to like it.

I'll be interested to see what happens with this LSB.
 

Jonathco

Puritan Board Freshman
Translating God's name as Yahweh was one of the few things I really liked about the HCSB back in the day; sadly, they discontinued this when they updated to the CSB. Having said that, it does seem a hard sell to me that we need yet another English bible translation when there are so many out there already. With so many solid translations readily available (e.g. NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV), wouldn't it be more beneficial to focus on languages that do not yet have a translation?

Having said that, as a translation junkie, I will most likely purchase a LSB when it's available. :moneywings::lol:
 
Last edited:

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
The problem with transliterating the divine name as "Yahweh" is that it's a completely speculative way to transliterate it. There's no historical evidence for the pronunciation.

The only historically attested way to transliterate it is Jehovah/Yehovah/Yehowah. This is based on the vowel points in the Hebrew. Modern scholars have speculated that these points were carried over from Adonai, and that they don't represent the original pronunciation of the divine name--but again, that's speculation.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
The problem with transliterating the divine name as "Yahweh" is that it's a completely speculative way to transliterate it. There's no historical evidence for the pronunciation.

The only historically attested way to transliterate it is Jehovah/Yehovah/Yehowah. This is based on the vowel points in the Hebrew. Modern scholars have speculated that these points were carried over from Adonai, and that they don't represent the original pronunciation of the divine name--but again, that's speculation.
This is simply false.
To begin with, we know exactly how the first syllable was pronounced because of its incorporation into names like Isaiah, Jeremiah etc and phrases like Hallelu-yah: Yah not Yeh.
Second, it is not a speculation that the common scribal practice of Kethiv/Qere was applied to the divine name - using the vowels of the Qere ("what is read") under the consonants of the Kethiv ("what is written") - in this case the vowels of "Adonai" with the consonants of Yahweh. It is clear because on some occasions where the divine name is preceded by the word Adonai, they substituted a different set of vowels, namely those of 'Elohim, so the reader would read Adonai Elohim (in English translations, Lord GOD).
Third, the confirmation of this - and the reason why I suggest it is better to use "Lord" than the divine name in translating Scripture - is that this is what the NT universally does when it translates OT passages. It never transliterates them, whether as "pipi" (an attempt to render the four Hebrew characters into the nearest greek letters) or as some Greek version of the divine name. If kurios is the choice of Jesus and the NT authors in rendering OT quotations, why isn't it good enough for us?
One further comment on the LSB: I am bemused by Dr Macarthur's insistence in his new translation on the distinctive feature of always translating doulos as slave. First, because the NASB very often translates it this way anyway and second, because any linguist will tell you that it is very rare for the semantic range of a word in one language to exactly match that of a word in another language. There are many instances where slave is an excellent translation for doulos; there are others where in our context at least (where the meaning of "slave" is significantly colored by the American experience), servant is a better rendering. Wooden literality and one-for one word equivalence doesn't always give you the best translation.
 

B.L.

Puritan Board Sophomore
Did you hear that MacArthur and Co. are trying to improve on an older version of the NASB, calling it the Legacy Standard Bible?

Start at the 7:25 mark

Thanks for posting this. I really appreciate John MacArthur's ministry and am thankful to God for him. However, I'm a little disappointed in this launch video for the "Legacy Standard Bible." In my opinion we don't need another English translation and when I hear MacArthur tout this future work as being destined to be the "most accurate" and "most consistent" Bible translation ever it sounds like the same marketing lingo I hear about every other new or revised translation that comes out. It's tiresome to me.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
This is simply false.
To begin with, we know exactly how the first syllable was pronounced because of its incorporation into names like Isaiah, Jeremiah etc and phrases like Hallelu-yah: Yah not Yeh.
Second, it is not a speculation that the common scribal practice of Kethiv/Qere was applied to the divine name - using the vowels of the Qere ("what is read") under the consonants of the Kethiv ("what is written") - in this case the vowels of "Adonai" with the consonants of Yahweh. It is clear because on some occasions where the divine name is preceded by the word Adonai, they substituted a different set of vowels, namely those of 'Elohim, so the reader would read Adonai Elohim (in English translations, Lord GOD).
Third, the confirmation of this - and the reason why I suggest it is better to use "Lord" than the divine name in translating Scripture - is that this is what the NT universally does when it translates OT passages. It never transliterates them, whether as "pipi" (an attempt to render the four Hebrew characters into the nearest greek letters) or as some Greek version of the divine name. If kurios is the choice of Jesus and the NT authors in rendering OT quotations, why isn't it good enough for us?
One further comment on the LSB: I am bemused by Dr Macarthur's insistence in his new translation on the distinctive feature of always translating doulos as slave. First, because the NASB very often translates it this way anyway and second, because any linguist will tell you that it is very rare for the semantic range of a word in one language to exactly match that of a word in another language. There are many instances where slave is an excellent translation for doulos; there are others where in our context at least (where the meaning of "slave" is significantly colored by the American experience), servant is a better rendering. Wooden literality and one-for one word equivalence doesn't always give you the best translation.

Completely agree. This is an unnecessary translation at best and it seems to me a reaction to the NASB update.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
This is simply false.
To begin with, we know exactly how the first syllable was pronounced because of its incorporation into names like Isaiah, Jeremiah etc and phrases like Hallelu-yah: Yah not Yeh.
Second, it is not a speculation that the common scribal practice of Kethiv/Qere was applied to the divine name - using the vowels of the Qere ("what is read") under the consonants of the Kethiv ("what is written") - in this case the vowels of "Adonai" with the consonants of Yahweh. It is clear because on some occasions where the divine name is preceded by the word Adonai, they substituted a different set of vowels, namely those of 'Elohim, so the reader would read Adonai Elohim (in English translations, Lord GOD).
Did anyone hold this theory before the 19th century?
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
Did anyone hold this theory before the 19th century?
The short answer is, Yes. There has been debate since at least the beginning of the 17th century. It is often discussed in conjunction with the question of the date of the Hebrew vowel points, though the argument for the pronunciation of the divine name does not depend on a particular view of that question. It is true that some notable Reformed divines were on the wrong side of this debate, such as John Owen. However, they didn't have access to some of the data that is now available. Can you give me specific reasons (apart from the fact that the opinion is more popular now than in the 17th century) why you think the near universal agreement of scholars, conservative and critical, Christian and Jewish is wrong on the question of the pronunciation of the divine name? And, more pertinently, why we need to depart from the universal usage of the NT writers and translate the divine name as anything other than "LORD"?
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
Which is odd in itself, as Zondervan has already received permission to continue publishing the NASB95 after the NASB2020 is released.

I have a feeling good old fashioned marketing is also playing a part. I suspect people can sense that many NASB fans will prefer the older version, and now they can not just have the old one, but an even better old one. At one point in the video, Macarthur said this new version would be “the Expositor’s dream Bible.” Sounds like marketing to me.

P. S. I am an expositor, but it is not my dream Bible.
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
One of the strengths of a good translation committee is that it will be comprised of translators from a variety of conservative evangelical traditions so as to avoid sectarian bias. I fear the LSB will end up with a dispensational bias.
 

spunky01

Puritan Board Freshman
One of the strengths of a good translation committee is that it will be comprised of translators from a variety of conservative evangelical traditions so as to avoid sectarian bias. I fear the LSB will end up with a dispensational bias.
I was thinking the same thing with regard to the concern of a possible dispensational bias. It pains me to say that because I highly respect John MacArthur due to the fact that he was so pivotal in my coming to a biblical understanding of the Doctrines of Grace before I embraced Reformed Theology as a whole. I hope those concerns will not be realized.
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
Sounds like a rerun:

Just as Crossway took the 1971 version of the RSV and re-tooled it into the ESV, now MacArthur's team is taking the original version of the NASB and re-tooling into the LSB.

Since I don't like the NASB, I probably won't like the LSB, either.

Also, I smiled when John said that they were being "given" the opportunity to do this. They were probably "given" the opportunity after paying a hefty licensing fee.
 
Last edited:

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
Sounds like a rerun:

Just as Crossway took the 1971 version of the RSV and re-tooled it into the ESV, now MacArthur's team is taking the original version of the NASB and re-tooling into the LSB.

Since I don't like the NASB, I probably won't like the LSB, either.

Also, I smiled when John said that they were being "given" the opportunity to do this. They were probably "given" the opportunity after paying a hefty licensing fee.

Considering how well this worked out for Crossway, you can hardly blame them for using a similar tactic here. Regardless, this seems unnecessary to me. Whereas the RSV was a very good translation that was spoiled by a slight liberal bias, and thus fixed by a slight revision, there’s nothing particular wrong with the NASB. Changing the way in which certain words like YHWH and doulos are translated is unnecessary and gimmicky, and has been done before without much success in terms of popularity.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
The short answer is, Yes. There has been debate since at least the beginning of the 17th century. It is often discussed in conjunction with the question of the date of the Hebrew vowel points, though the argument for the pronunciation of the divine name does not depend on a particular view of that question. It is true that some notable Reformed divines were on the wrong side of this debate, such as John Owen. However, they didn't have access to some of the data that is now available.
Thank you. That's very informative.

Can you give me specific reasons (apart from the fact that the opinion is more popular now than in the 17th century) why you think the near universal agreement of scholars, conservative and critical, Christian and Jewish is wrong on the question of the pronunciation of the divine name?
First, "the fact that the opinion is more popular now than in the 17th century" is no reason to discount a view. I haven't made that argument.

My two reasons for rejecting the popular theory are that there is no evidence for the pronunciation "Yahweh" (nor any hard evidence that the vowel points have been carried over from Adonai), and that I'm convinced that the vowel points (or at least the inflections, etc., that they signify) are inspired.

And, more pertinently, why we need to depart from the universal usage of the NT writers and translate the divine name as anything other than "LORD"?
I don't see a reason to make the change, either.
 

Don Kistler

Puritan Board Sophomore
My goodness, the judgment of charity seems pretty absent in this discussion. I can assure you all that MacArthur does not need the money at this point in his life.
 

B.L.

Puritan Board Sophomore
My goodness, the judgment of charity seems pretty absent in this discussion. I can assure you all that MacArthur does not need the money at this point in his life.

I agree the driver for this new translation project likely isn't financial gain. The opinion I expressed, which could have been written better, is that we don't need another English translation.

I know many talk about how blessed we are to have so many good English translations available at our fingertips. This is indeed true in a sense and fuels part of my questioning the necessity of yet another translation. Do we not have enough options to choose from? Will the LSB really provide enough of a difference to distinguish itself from what is already a strong lineup? Obviously the views of many will differ on this.

Personally, I'm tired of the flood of new/revised translations. My church recently switched to a newly revised translation for all of its preaching/teaching/reading. This has happened a couple of times to me in the last 15 years. My wife and I follow along in our Bibles the best we can, but my children are the ones who are really impacted the most and unless we purchase them Bibles of the currently favored translation they're out of step with others during Bible studies, scripture memorization, and have to navigate between two or more translations when at home or at church. For me it's all quite exhausting. I wish there was a single standard version used in our churches, but I'm probably in the minority.

To each his/her own I reckon. If the future LSB excites people that's wonderful! I just hope it's not the translation of choice for my future pastor or the brand new pew Bibles our church recently purchased will need to be given away and swapped out again.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
If we "need" anything translation-wise, we "need" a good translation, completed by a committee of confessional Reformed scholars, that uses the Majority Text for the New Testament. But for me that's more of a desire rather than a necessity, which is why I put "need" in quotes.
 

Citizen

Puritan Board Freshman
Will be interested to see the result!

As far as the question of financial motives are concerned, I can see how some may be ready to question Pastor MacArthur's motives (with this and other endorsements/projects)...I am always reminded and heartened, though, by Grace to You's readiness to distribute so much of their material, in print and online, totally free of charge. But I do imagine the folks who make the MacArthur designed 'Preacher's Bible' may feel caught in the lurch!

(Incidentally, Pastor MacArthur's most recent sermons in light of the current crisis are - like so many of his expositions - worth a listen.)
 

Timotheos

Puritan Board Freshman
One of the strengths of a good translation committee is that it will be comprised of translators from a variety of conservative evangelical traditions so as to avoid sectarian bias. I fear the LSB will end up with a dispensational bias.
I wondered the same thing.

But then I wondered what that dispensational bias even look like. Can you think of an example?
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
I wondered the same thing.

But then I wondered what that dispensational bias even look like. Can you think of an example?
It can really only happen if it's annotated or chain-referenced. If all they do is translate the text without marginal or footnote commentary, I don't see a way to insert dispensationalism into the translation--the text is what it is.
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
My guess is that MacArthur is offering an update without gender inclusiveness, which I've heard will be included in the 2020 revision. He has seen where revisions of other translations have gone, and wants to remain traditional.

One thing I hope his committee doesn't do in terms of translating to Yahweh is follow in the footsteps of the ASV and translate every occurrence of God as Jehovah. I searched and searched for a clean textblock, had it rebound, and then found the 'consistency' very annoying.
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
But then I wondered what that dispensational bias even look like. Can you think of an example?
I have not looked at the specifics for some time, but recall this being discussed a few years ago. 2 Thess 2:7
ESV: For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
NKJV: For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.

I know some have argued that the NKJV shows a pre trib dispensational bias. Robert Thomas discusses this in his book "How to chose a Bible translation" Revised ed. I am in self isolation so I cannot check my copy. But I recall the book has a very helpful chapter on this.
 

Delahunt

Puritan Board Freshman
An LSV edition coincides with MacArthur's work on the intra-dispensational debate on Lordship Salvation. Such an translation works well with "The Gospel According to Jesus" and "Slave", two popular books he has authored. I highly doubt it is done for the money, but rather provides additional consistency with his own legacy (said with pun intended, no cynicism intended).
The use of Yahweh is common with a number of TMS grads in the various TMS online watering holes. Jesse Johnson, head of the DC TMS extension campus and regular contributor to Cripplegate, very consistently chooses Yahweh over LORD in his writings.
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
So, I guess we're going to wind up with three versions of the NASB available simultaneously:

1. The original, from 1973 (I guess that's the one he's using), as updated by MacArthur.

2. The 1995 update, which Zondervan will continue to publish.

3. The 2020 update, forthcoming from the Lockman Foundation.

So, take your pick! We're awash in NASBs!
 

Jonathco

Puritan Board Freshman
So, I guess we're going to wind up with three versions of the NASB available simultaneously:

1. The original, from 1973 (I guess that's the one he's using), as updated by MacArthur.

2. The 1995 update, which Zondervan will continue to publish.

3. The 2020 update, forthcoming from the Lockman Foundation.

So, take your pick! We're awash in NASBs!
It's actually more than that even; the NASB 1973 is still being published by several entities as well, so there will be the 73, the 95, the 2020, and the LSV all being published and available simultaneously.
 

B.L.

Puritan Board Sophomore
It's actually more than that even; the NASB 1973 is still being published by several entities as well, so there will be the 73, the 95, the 2020, and the LSV all being published and available simultaneously.

Hopefully nobody dreams up making a parallel Bible out of those! That would be pretty boring. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top