People of God

That's a singular term.  People, as in community.  As in joined as a unit. 

I know that's not a new idea for Christians, but it's a rather foreign idea in our western culture that makes this notion of singular unity easy to forget.  At least it is for me.  And this was brought to my attention (again) reading the article "The Theology of the Old Testament" in the new ESV Study Bible that Crossway generously sent me.  Here's the paragraph that stood out to me:

It is important for Christian readers to sharpen their grasp of how the OT uses words such as "salvation" and "judgment."  When the OT speaks of God "redeeming" his people [why didn't the editor capitalize pronouns referring to God?] (e.g., Ex. 15:13) or "saving" them (e.g., Ex. 14:30), it refers to God's gracious dealings for the sake of this corporate entity, the people:  he calls it, he protects it, he purifies it, in order to foster the conditions under which the life of its members may flourish.  The OT can also speak of God giving "salvation" or "redemption" to particular persons (e.g., Ps. 3:2, 7; 19:14).  Generally in the OT, however, such expressions refer to members of the people experiencing the benefits of covenant membership, whether that be for the benefits of covenant membership, whether that be forgiveness of sins, or deliverance from some trouble or persecution, or something else - tracing everything back to the grace of God that led him to make the covenant originally and now to keep it in effect.  When Christians speak of personal salvation, they usually are thinking of individuals in isolation, and so have a much narrower meaning in mind; they should consider whether the NT usage is closer to the OT usage than they might have realized hitherto, including both every aspect of their lives and their connections to other believers, and thus extending to a wider range of experience than simply their souls.

I really like this Bible.  The articles I've read so far are very helpful in giving the larger scope of understanding the specifics of the text, and the study notes provide insight into the language and history of the original text and culture without pushing toward a particular interpretation or theological system.  I think it's pretty clear that it draws from a Reformed perspective, but the editors and translators come from a range of systematic views so it doesn't strongly lean toward a specific system leaving that work up to the reader.  The ESV translation is a literal and literary one, which I prefer because it limits the interpretive insertion of the translator.  The notes provide linguistic, cultural, and historical insight, which is the primary purpose of a study Bible since I don't have access to the original language and depend on an expert for that.  And I like that the biblical text is printed across the page rather than in columns, which I think makes it more readable, more fluid.  This is the Bible I'm going to keep on my desk now.

The entire ESV Study Bible is available online for free with all the notes, maps, charts, and articles.  And you can create your own account in which you can keep your notes for reading online.

Comments

[Mike Westfall]

You can create your own account if you have a ten-digit code from an ESV study bible that you bought, apparently.

... and why didn't the editors capitalize pronouns referring to God?

[Karen A.]

Our new pre-ordered ESV Study Bible should be arriving at our door any day now, and we are excited about it.

I have used the ESV translation for the past couple years and found it superb. Whenever a speaker or teacher, ususally using the NIV, explains what the original language "really means", the ESV translation has nailed it accurately.

The ESV Study Bible, with its stellar list of editors and contributors and its appealing format, will become a must-have for the serious Bible student.

[Noxil]

I thought the notes were free too! lol
got excited
well
ill have to buy it next paycheck :/

[Jeremy]

I wonder if part of the reason they dropped the capitalization of pronouns was to be more consistent in providing a more literal translation, rather than a more interpretive translation. (Hebrew and Greek didn't generally have capitalization when the Bible was written, if I remember my introductory Greek and Hebrew classes correctly.) I, personally, don't like it similar to how I don't like it that I see many journalists these days using the new form of including the 's' after an apostrophe on the end of a word that ends in 's' to indicate a plural, rather than just "s'" (s-apostrophe). So perhaps some of us are just behind the times on cultural grammar trends, and we shouldn't worry about it.

[James]

Or including punctuation inside the quote marks...
Anyway, I like the clips I have read from the version. I imagine they dropped the capitalization because the Hebrew and Greek didn't use it for pronouns, even of those refering to God, but that seems to be a bit inconsistent if they are going to write "LORD" in place of the Tetragrammaton to me. Do I think it's wrong? No, but I don't like it very much either, no.

I think we should probably not get too carried away by it though. The Word of God may be Holy and Eternal, and even though it is to be treated with the utmost respect, we tolerate (encourage) translations because we know that it isn't the ink on the paper nor the exact word that matters but the Will and Power and Lord that are behind it and the saving grace that works in it. Remember anyway that there are two accounts of the Creation and in the NT, rarely did Paul or Christ, Himself, quote something word-for-word (though most of what Christ says is rewording of the OT).

The Koran on the other hand does not even allow translation - which makes me think they miss the point of a holy writing (or shows that it isn't all that holy to begin with)
Allowing the "book" to be of more importance than its messages leads us to run the risk of turning the pages into idols, holding the words and Laws to be higher than the One Who gave them.