You’re right that his saying the grammar underscored the immediacy of the repentance was incorrect. I simply meant that stating the repentance was immediate could be a logical inference since sequentially that’s how it happens. He preaches, they repent and nothing else is given in the narrative in between. So technically, he was making a legitimate inference. Supporting it as he did with an appeal to the grammar was wrong.

If you’re considering study bibles, you might want to give the NLTSB a look. I’m also waiting for a chance to see more of the ESVSB before making a decision on it.

Doug, I think some kind of engagement with critical scholarship would be nice to see in a study Bible. I use the ESV as my primary English translation, and I’d love an ESV study Bible I could recommend to people. I’m very interested to see how things shape up with the rest of ESVSB, outside of Jonah. But I have to say that making statements such as “Believed is the first word of the Hebrew text of the sentence, and the grammar underscores the immediacy of Nineveh’s repentance,” qualifies as “flat out wrong” in my book. I hear what you’re saying, and I think caution is in order in making any sweeping judgments on the ESVSB quite yet. Here’s to hoping we see less of this in the rest of the study Bible. I’m actually thinking of purchasing the ESVSB, which would be my first study Bible purchase in a long time.

Thanks for your comment. I do agree that the inferences weren’t *necessarily* wrong in and of themselves; I was specifically speaking of interpretations that are claimed to be based on grammar. (And, just to clarify, I’m not pounding on the ESVSB, I was speaking more about study bibles in general at that point, not about the ESVSB in particular. I have to see more of the ESVSB before I know if I need to pound on it or not!)

It really comes down to the fact that, sadly, many people reading study Bibles will take as fact pretty much anything the notes say (based on original language or not), even if the interpretation postulated might be contested by the wider scholarly community; this leads to lay people only ever knowing about what other moderate-to-conservative Christians say about the text, rather than the breadth of opinion out there or even the most common opinion out there – the Archaeological Study Bible is a good example of this. Of course, study Bibles only have so much room, I know…but now I’m betraying my bias toward the depth of study I really expect (wish) that Christians should desire.

Thanks for reading my review. I agree with you that those of us who read the original languages need to approach our work as the great responsibility that it is. If you can only read a translation, you have to trust that the translator understood the source text and is being straight with you in telling you what it means. The same goes for the writers of commentaries and study bible notes.

However, I kind of cringed when you said the claims of the ESVSB were “flat out wrong.” Granted you added the caveat “highly tenuous.” I’m really conflicted over the issue because technically everything that Futato said about Jonah was a reasonable inference from the text. (I think I might have commented on this in the comments of one of my review posts.) He didn’t say anything that was patently false. The problem is that it’s misleading to hang those types of inferences (which are always necessary when interpreting) on the grammar of the original language. You’re exactly right that the poor reader who can’t check up on it is left with the impression that the inference was based on some sort of hard evidence.

From what I’ve seen of the ESVSB so far, I think it’s fair to say it looks worthwhile. However, I will be disappointed if I find the entire study bible takes that grammatical theology approach. In that regard, I was much more satisfied with the NLTSB, largely because it lets its inferences be inferences without trying to hang them on something that’s not there.

I was initially against Calvin’s idea that everyone should learn the biblical languages, but I’m starting to come around to it.

I forget to share this tidbit of info. I found (ages ago) a PBB for Calvin’s commentaries on Genesis for Logos. While I am sure you would prefer to read the paper copy, having an electronic version handy for quoting sure is nice. Next time I see you and Calvin, I will get you guys a copy.