James Moffatt (1) (1870–1944)

Can the whole be less than the sum of its parts?

Both the virtues and the defects of James Moffatt's translation of the Bible are well-known: It is clear, forceful, and fluid. But it is also rather radical in its approach, sometimes handling the text in a way that some consider cavalier -- too influenced by Moffatt's notions of history.

This edition takes that sort of handling one step farther. The basic idea is that Moffatt takes the text of the New Testament and arranges it in the order it was written instead of the standard order. He also adds much background material.

There are two problems here. One is that Moffatt's understanding of history is not universally accepted and keeps being modified. The other is that this approach ignores the Church's understanding of scripture. To be sure, there were other orders of the Biblical books (the "Western" order of the Gospels places Mark, not John, last; there was much disagreement over whether Hebrews belonged after Thessalonians or after Philemon, etc). But the Church never mixed up the Gospels and the Epistles; Moffatt puts everything in his own order.

It's a bold book. It can be very informative if you have other, less radical New Testaments -- and good references to check the history yourself. I wouldn't want to have this as my only New Testament, though.… (meer)