My friends at Intervarsity Press sent along Bailey’s The Good Shepherd: A Thousand-Year Journey from Psalm 23 to the New Testament. Psalm 23 was one of the first Bible passages I memorized as a child. As an adult, I discovered just how prominently political the language of “shepherd” was. I hope to put this book to good use.
It is far better to say that a translation is more accurate than to say literal. To say that a translation is more literal is to limit the number of genres a biblical text may or may not be a part of (dreams of the prophets, parables, etc.) which in turn, use FIGURATIVE language that may #1, have plural meanings, and #2, may at times be untranslatable apart from knowing other ancient languages. Really, can poems be taken literally? Joel knows of a group of people who like to take the Psalms as a means of inciting violent political action.
So in sum, my case for the NRSV (that appeared on my post last Thursday).
1. The NRSV is more accurate, translation wise.
2. The NRSV is ecumenical, and therefore useful for Christians in all spectrums.
3. The NRSV is gender-inclusive for the sake of understanding both historical context and recognizing gender particularities.
It’s not like I am sipping some NRSV kool-aid here (mainly because it does not exist); in my post, I clearly pointed out the weakness that the NRSV is geared towards an adult audience, which is why I did not recommend it for children.
Perhaps my scathing commentary concerning the NIV got under Mark Stevens’ skin? Me thinks so.
*EDIT: CORRECTION, IF THE NRSV-FLAVORED KOOL-AID DID EXIST, IT WOULD BE ME WHO INVENTED IT.