NLT Study Bible or Devotional Bible?
I continue to enjoy reading through the New Living Translation Study Bible. The introduction to Genesis has a fabulous summary of literary genre including myth, etiology, history, theology and more. I expect a study Bible like this to be critically conservative and to say things like, “Though some have dismissed this as simply a reworking of an earlier creation myth, there is strong reason for accepting this as a historical account…” or some such argument. I’m fine with that. [In fact, I tend to side more with the maximalists since it helps me to sleep better at night.] But a study note caused me to pause today and wonder if this is a study Bible or a devotional Bible.
Check out this note expounding on Lot’s wife who looked back on the destruction of Sodom:
This is definitely a place for a cross-reference to the passage in Luke but I wonder if this explanation isn’t more homiletical rather than exegetical. When I think of a study Bible I suppose I’m expecting notes that will help to exegete the original passage. But lines like “intense gazing toward the world she loved” and “lingered on the valley slopes” have a distinctly Matthew Henry sound to them. Then finally an extended apocalyptic application on Christ’s return seems out of place in an Old Testament note.
What do you think? Am I overreacting here?
The CEV Learning Bible is more circumspect, limiting itself to a cross-reference and a photo of a salt formation:
Update: New images.
Am I overreacting here?
No.
Sometimes I wonder if I read the bible enough! Salt is good – so did Lot’s wife become a salt lick for the rest of us lingapottami? I have no idea what to make of this image of a pillar of salt! Give me a less obvious interpretation.
What Iyov said!
David, as you know, I’m in the process of reviewing the NLTSB, too. Go to the other end of the Bible and look at the notes in Revelation. Gerald Borchert wrote these notes. I have read all of them, but they very much tend to stay with the text, illuminating yes, but not falling into homiletical application. The notes on Revelation also refreshingly tend to avoid any overt connections with interpretational schemes.
Sorry, I meant to say, I have NOT read all the notes yet in Revelation. But I was referring, rather, to what I had seen so far.
Why does the picture show the text in red?
Nick, ’cause Jesus said it. I think that’s how that works….
I agree with Rick – what I’ve read in Revelation has been refreshingly neutral, other than the assumption of late-date (~AD 95) authorship. There’s a small bone tossed in the introductory section for early-date (~AD 65-67) adherents, but the study notes all stand with the late-date position.
Nick, I’ve updated that image and also added the CEV sidebar note and image.
Thanks all for comments.
David, thanks for pointing this note out.
Thanks for your post.
I have posted some comments myself, based on an original post by E-S Edwards.
Perhaps you will find them of interest.
Heading there right now…