Personally, I think the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) is a fine translation. I definitely would recommend it over several touted versions, but I think it tries to play it too safe (I don’t know if too conservative is what I’m trying to say). 
Here’s what I have in mind:
Gen 1:2:
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. (Emphasis added)
As we’ve seen ruach of God can be either “Spirit” or “wind” of God (see the discussion here). The HCSB does not even have a textual note on this contested text like other leading English Bibles (see the NRSV, for 
example). This has led me to the statement: “It tries to play it too safe.”
Isaiah 7:14:
Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel. (Emphasis added)
Now this text is even more contested than Gen 1:2, and still no textual note in the HCSB. The Hebrew word ‘almah, as we know, can either be rendered ”virgin” or “young woman.”
When all is said and done, I tend to favor translations like the NET, RSV, NRSV, REB, and so no, for rending ‘almah “young woman” here.
Again, I believe the HCSB is a fine translation, but I think it might be trying to play it too safe.
So is your argument here basically that you wish the HCSB had footnotes for both verses with alternative renderings? I would agree on your second example certainly, though I’m not sure the first one is really that significant (at least to myself).
Nathan, Why no textual notes? Are they so certain about their translation decisions?
Well, I can certainly see why you favor them — rendering ‘almah as “young man” is quite the feat, isn’t it?
Esteban, thanks for the subtle correction. I love it!
All this is ironic, because the HCSB is one of the better annotated translations available.
“Too safe” is a loaded term, because it depends on the context you’re evaluating it from. Clearly in these examples, the HCSB shows itself to be a conservative evangelical translation that reads the NT back into the OT. For conservative evangelicals, this is the way it (the Bible) is supposed to be. However, someone reading the HCSB from a different perspective might label the translation as “too aggressive” in its textual interpretation.
I wonder if the HCSB’s rendering of John 3:16 is considered “too safe”…
By “too safe” I assume you mean safe from Evangelical Christian criticism??? It that is the case, I doubt the HCSB is the only translation that can be criticized in such a manner. This is not to say that I don’t agree with the point you are trying to make generally, but it is painting with a broad brush stroke.
Back to my agreement, I think theology should be molded to fit what the text says, rather than the reverse. But, I don’t think these examples are so egregious.
Pingback: Is the HCSB “too safe”? at He is Sufficient
“I think theology should be molded to fit what the text says, rather than the reverse.”
Yes . . . but we all come to the text with our theological presuppositions already in place (for better or for worse).
The HCSB rendering of these passages is no more “theological” than the renderings of any other version.
“Too safe” is a loaded term, because it depends on the context you’re evaluating it from. Clearly in these examples, the HCSB shows itself to be a conservative evangelical translation that reads the NT back into the OT. For conservative evangelicals, this is the way it (the Bible) is supposed to be. However, someone reading the HCSB from a different perspective might label the translation as “too aggressive” in its textual interpretation.
El, normally a textual note indicates alternative renderings. With the HCSB’s failure to provide any, What are they really saying?
Maybe for “conservative evangelicals,” but do they really want that narrow a label. From the Dr. Blum interview a year ago, it seems like they wanted to increase their readership. I don’t see that happening with these kinds of textual decisions.
For reading the NT back into the OT in translation, now that’s another animal.
By “too safe” I assume you mean safe from Evangelical Christian criticism??? It that is the case, I doubt the HCSB is the only translation that can be criticized in such a manner. This is not to say that I don’t agree with the point you are trying to make generally, but it is painting with a broad brush stroke.
Peter M, I think they are trying to avoid the criticisms, but I might be wrong.
Back to my agreement, I think theology should be molded to fit what the text says, rather than the reverse. But, I don’t think these examples are so egregious.
As Elshaddai says above, the HCSB is quite annotated, so why no alternative renderings in these debated texts.
I might have to agree with you.
Yes . . . but we all come to the text with our theological presuppositions already in place (for better or for worse).
The HCSB rendering of these passages is no more “theological” than the renderings of any other version.
Stuart, Why no textual notes on alternative renderings? What kind of a message is the HCSB sending with the absence of them when it is known for textual notes elsewhere?
“Why no textual notes on alternative renderings? What kind of a message is the HCSB sending with the absence of them when it is known for textual notes elsewhere?”
I don’t know the translators of the HCSB would answer these questions (and not having read the HCSB, I should not venture a guess).
I would argue, however, that the decision to include or not include textual notes concerning alternate endings is ITSELF a result of theological convictions, just as the decision to translate a particular Hebrew word in a certain way is result of some theological presupposition.
I was not defending the HCSB’s decisions (nor was I criticizing those decisions) with my comments. My point was that while we strive to have our theology shaped by the Scriptures, we cannot escape the fact that our theology also shapes the way we read the Scriptures.
I would argue, however, that the decision to include or not include textual notes concerning alternate endings is ITSELF a result of theological convictions, just as the decision to translate a particular Hebrew word in a certain way is result of some theological presupposition.
Stuart, thanks for the clarifications. Yes, but what does a failure to include textual notes really say about the theology behind a translation?
I was not defending the HCSB’s decisions (nor was I criticizing those decisions) with my comments. My point was that while we strive to have our theology shaped by the Scriptures, we cannot escape the fact that our theology also shapes the way we read the Scriptures.
It’s inescapable, and that is why I think textual notes would go along way. Do you understand what I’m arguing?
At least acknowledge other readings of particular words or texts.
tc,
Yes, I think I understand what you are arguing . . . and to a certain extent I would agree with you.
Yet (once again) my point is that even a desire to have textual notes concerning alternate renderings (not alternate “endings” as my last comment stated . . . guess I’ve watched too many director’s cut DVDs)is shaped by our theology (as would the decision to not include those notes).
My guess (without sufficient knowledge of the HCSB . . . so please understand my opinion may be less than my normal “2 cents worth”) is that on these particular passages (Gen 1:2; Is 7:14) the translators of these passages, while understanding the translational possibilities, rendered these passages the way they did because of a theological conviction coming from their understanding of the Scriptures as a whole and the theology they derived from the Scriptures . . .
e.g., for Gen 1:2 – the Father and the Son were involved in creation, so it makes sense the Spirit was probably involved as well, so instead of wind translate ruach as Spirit . . . for Is 7:14 – the word ‘almah can mean virgin or young woman, but since Matthew 1:20-23 certainly interprets the word as virgin, it makes sense to translate ‘almah as virgin as well.
Such an approach could seem like an open and shut case to those who are operating within the same or similar theological approach to Scripture . . . but to others the decision to translate the passages without alternate renderings may seem a bit arrogant or irresponsible.
e.g., for Gen 1:2 – the Father and the Son were involved in creation, so it makes sense the Spirit was probably involved as well, so instead of wind translate ruach as Spirit . . . for Is 7:14 – the word ‘almah can mean virgin or young woman, but since Matthew 1:20-23 certainly interprets the word as virgin, it makes sense to translate ‘almah as virgin as well.
Stuart, I tend to agree with you that theology does affect transtion of a particular text and so on.
But to translate the OT while reading the NT is a practice I’ve come to dislike.
As you correctly observed, one’s particular theological bent is going to also affect their translation choice.
stuart wrote: Such an approach could seem like an open and shut case to those who are operating within the same or similar theological approach to Scripture . . . but to others the decision to translate the passages without alternate renderings may seem a bit arrogant or irresponsible.
Yes, exactly. That’s what I was trying to say in my comment…
Are you referring to just these verses or the translation as a whole? As someone else mentioned, the HCSB is much more heavily footnoted than most, certainly more than the NRSV, RSV etc that were mentioned.
Jeff
Jeff, these verses are reflection of the whole tone of the HCSB, in my opinion.
Are you referring to just these verses or the translation as a whole? As someone else mentioned, the HCSB is much more heavily footnoted than most, certainly more than the NRSV, RSV etc that were mentioned.
Well, we need both quantity and quality.
“But to translate the OT while reading the NT is a practice I’ve come to dislike.”
hmmm . . .
In one sense I agree with you, but in another sense I couldn’t disagree more.
Our attempts to understand the OT texts in their original context is very important. Too often people “jump to Jesus” way too fast . . . and thus misunderstand the meaning of the OT text (Is 7:14 is one such passage). I would assume the same could be said for translations as well.
Yet if we don’t read something of the NT back into the OT we are not understanding Scripture as the NT writers did (Luke 24:27, 44; 1 Corinthians 10:1-13; Hebrews in general but note especially 11:24-26).
A helpful phrase from my theological tradition which I have willingly embraced as my own is, “Scripture interprets Scripture” . . . and I think it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that if our translations are affected by this hermeneutic we will inevitably translate the OT while reading the NT as well as translate the NT while reading the OT.
This kind of approach makes sense because we translate a word with various meanings based on context . . . and in the Scriptures we have an immediate context (the passage or book) and an overarching context (the Scriptures as a whole). I’m not saying a word group of related Hebrew and Greek words should be translated the exact same way throughout the entire Bible, but I am saying there should be healthy interplay between Old and New Testaments even in our translation.
Out of curiosity . . . what do you make of Matthew’s use of Is 7:14 in his Gospel?
This kind of approach makes sense because we translate a word with various meanings based on context . . . and in the Scriptures we have an immediate context (the passage or book) and an overarching context (the Scriptures as a whole). I’m not saying a word group of related Hebrew and Greek words should be translated the exact same way throughout the entire Bible, but I am saying there should be healthy interplay between Old and New Testaments even in our translation.
Stuart, there are about two possibilities for the immediate fulfillment of Is 7:14, Isaiah and Hezekiah, so “young woman” is in order.
Now when a NT writer applies an OT text to someone or something in his day, then we are given more light.
But I don’t think it is a healthy practice to translate OT texts because of how it is used in the NT. I believe we should let the OT texts speak for themselves within their own context.
Like many of the other NT writers, Mattew seems to the be quoting the LXX at Matt 1:23, and not the Hebrew text.
tc,
I agree with you on the point a letting the OT texts speak for themselves in their own context. I’m simply arguing that the context of any particular OT text is still within the context of the overarching revelation God has given in both OT and NT texts.
And I’m not arguing that we should translate an OT text SIMPLY because of how it used in the NT. My point is that a healthly approach to interpretation (and we both know that translation IS interpretation) of Scripture takes into consideration the whole of Scripture and not simply the immediate context (although the immediate context is very important).
Furthermore, I’m not sure a simple statement like “Mattew seems to the be quoting the LXX at Matt 1:23, and not the Hebrew text” solves the hermeneutic problem raised by Matthew’s use of Is 7:14.
My point is that a healthly approach to interpretation (and we both know that translation IS interpretation) of Scripture takes into consideration the whole of Scripture and not simply the immediate context (although the immediate context is very important).
Stuart, I understand. But here’s a question for us to ponder: Without Matt 1:23, How did a Jew interpret Isaiah 7:14?
Furthermore, I’m not sure a simple statement like “Mattew seems to the be quoting the LXX at Matt 1:23, and not the Hebrew text” solves the hermeneutic problem raised by Matthew’s use of Is 7:14.
What are the hermeneutic issues behind Matt 1:23?
“But here’s a question for us to ponder: Without Matt 1:23, How did a Jew interpret Isaiah 7:14?”
I can’t answer that question (not being a 8th or 7th century Jew).
I could ask a similar question, however . . .
How would a typcial Jew reading the OT have understood what may be termed the Messianic passages?
Or I could ask . . .
How would a Jew understand Isaiah 7:14 with Matthew 1:23?
The issue in contextual interpretation is what constitutes the context . . . and since a good number of Christians would say the Bible from beginning to end is God’s Word and not simply the words of human beings, then we have an immediate context and an ultimate context.
As far as Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 . . . while the Hebrew word ‘almah may be somewhat ambiguous (or as some may argue, more likely rendered as “young girl”), Matthew’s quote certianly seems to interpret the word as meaning “virgin.”
If Isaiah meant “young girl” and contextually this young girl’s child is found in the next chapter or so, but Matthew uses the passage as Messianic fulfillment, then is Matthew above the charge of “prooftexting” in a way that ignores the context?
One of my seminary profs thought so. He even said something like . . . “If Matthew was in my exegesis class, I’d give him a F.”
Personally, I don’t think Matthew should be read in that simplistic manner, but I was wondering how you interpreted Matthew’s fulfillment passage considering your emphasis on Is 7:14 as speaking of a birth from a young girl and not a virgin.
I’ve always wondered… If Isaiah uses the term ‘young woman’ then why does Matthew use it to mean ‘virgin’? Was Mary not a virgin, but a young woman? Does the Isaiah verse really mean virgin but not young woman? Does any of this matter to me?
I’ve not gone to the point of looking into my commentaries on this but I’ve not got an answer that I’m comfortable with yet either. Probably something better served in another post though, and not at the end of a comment thread.
The issue in contextual interpretation is what constitutes the context . . . and since a good number of Christians would say the Bible from beginning to end is God’s Word and not simply the words of human beings, then we have an immediate context and an ultimate context.
Stuart, I’m glad that you emphasize context. In the context of Isaiah 7:14 King Ahaz is asking for a sign, and the Lord grants such a sign, and then read to verse 17 and you’ll see that in its immediate context it’s not about the Messiah, but either Ahaz’s son or the son of Isaiah (see chapter 8).
But I believe Matthew interpreting verse 7 as messianic is perfectly echo, since he was under the inspiration of the Spirit and so on.
Consider Matt 2:15, which is a fulfillment of Hos 11:1, but we would never have gotten that.
Here is Blomberg in the Commentary on the NT use of the OT:
Nathan, Mary was both a young woman and a virgin, which captures the Hebrew ‘almah well.
Commentaries can be quite helpful.
tc,
a few things:
1) yes, the context of Isaiah demands an immediate fulfillment. I was never arguing against that. In fact, I’m probably more of an “immediate context guy” than you would think. We start with the very important immediate context, but we don’t stop there.
2) I too believe Matthew is picking up an echo of Scripture and applying it to Jesus as well. Rather than seeing Matt 1:23 as a “prooftext” I think Matthew sees Isaiah 7:14 as a shadow or type which is ultimately “fulfilled” in Jesus.
3) To my original question more bluntly . . . if Matthew used “virgin” then was he taking too much liberty with the text if the word actually meant “young woman”?
I don’t think so, but my reasons may be different than yours. I wanted to see what you thought.
I think Matthew sees Isaiah 7:14 as a shadow or type which is ultimately “fulfilled” in Jesus.
It’s one thing to be a “shadow” of later fulfillment in Jesus; it’s another to be a direct prophecy of Jesus. If you don’t think the latter is correct, then shouldn’t the approach be to translate the context of the “shadow” and footnote the later fulfillment.
if Matthew used “virgin” then was he taking too much liberty with the text if the word actually meant “young woman”?
No, not too much liberty if we understand that Matthew was interpreting scripture and applying it to Jesus. In that view, the entire NT is one way of interpreting the OT. The question for us, as Christians, is what do we do with other ways of interpreting the OT?
Also, if Matthew was using the LXX, then this question should not lay on his shoulders, but on the LXX translators who understood something other than “maiden” when translating from Hebrew to Greek.
El,
I’m not entirely sure what your point is about translating the cotext of the shadow and footnoting the later fulfillment. Would you mind spelling that out for me?
As for Matthew’s use of “virgin” . . . is Matthew’s inerpretation authoritative or simply “a possible interpretation”? If it is authoritative, then how can we escape translating ‘almah as “virgin”? If it is simply “an interpretation” but not authoritative, how does that affect the doctrine of Scripture (particularly the evangelical version which stresses inerrancy and infallibility)? (Again, I point out how our theology can never be removed from our translatation).
As for the LXX . . . παρθένος could be translated as unmarried woman without the emphasis on whether the woman has had sexual relations. Matthew, however, clearly presents Mary as a virgin and not simply as unmarried. So I would say the question DOES “lay on his shoulders” for those who believe ‘almah in Is 7:14 should not be translated as “virgin.”
To cut to the case . . . one could translate ‘almah in Is 7:14 or παρθένος in the LXX version as “virgin’ and still not demand that the sign given to Ahaz was that this woman would conceive while STILL a virgin. The idea that one who was a virgin at the time of the “prophecy” would conceive is really all that is needed (maybe this isn’t sensational enough for a “prophecy” . . . but it is certainly possible). This interpretation could easily line up with Is 8:3 and the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.
To my original question more bluntly . . . if Matthew used “virgin” then was he taking too much liberty with the text if the word actually meant “young woman”?
Stuart, I take Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 in the same light as Hosea 11:1. Matthew was able to see some sort of double fulfillment. I believe we must agree to that at a minimum.
Also, if Matthew was using the LXX, then this question should not lay on his shoulders, but on the LXX translators who understood something other than “maiden” when translating from Hebrew to Greek.
El, good point. I have seen anyone really taking on the LXX in that light. But Matthew did use it.
As for Matthew’s use of “virgin” . . . is Matthew’s inerpretation authoritative or simply “a possible interpretation”? If it is authoritative, then how can we escape translating ‘almah as “virgin”? If it is simply “an interpretation” but not authoritative, how does that affect the doctrine of Scripture (particularly the evangelical version which stresses inerrancy and infallibility)? (Again, I point out how our theology can never be removed from our translatation).
Stuart, because we are going backwards in our interpretation.
Matthew using the LXX parthenos for ‘almah is both interpretative and authoritative.
To cut to the case . . . one could translate ‘almah in Is 7:14 or παρθένος in the LXX version as “virgin’ and still not demand that the sign given to Ahaz was that this woman would conceive while STILL a virgin. The idea that one who was a virgin at the time of the “prophecy” would conceive is really all that is needed (maybe this isn’t sensational enough for a “prophecy” . . . but it is certainly possible). This interpretation could easily line up with Is 8:3 and the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.
I think we need to read vv.15-17 and we’ll truly get it, and that it is not a direct prophecy to the Messiah, while bypassing either Ahaz or Isaiah son.
Again, I point to Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 as a starting point.
tc,
I think we are missing each other . . .
I agree FULLY with the idea that Is 7:14 is NOT a direct prophecy of the Messiah.
So Matthew is interpreting the passage as having a “double-fulfillment” (your words, I believe) or as a shadow or type of which Christ is the ultimate fulfillment.
However we say it, we’re saying the immediate context points to a fulfillment within the lifetime of Ahaz . . .. Christ’s fulfillment is something “extra.”
On this (I think) we both agree.
If Matthew’s use of “the LXX parthenos for ‘almah is both interpretative and authoritative” then we have to ask the question: did the original passage mean “virgin” as Matthew seems to indicate?
The word ‘almah itself is ambiguous. Is 7:14 could be read to indicate a virgin or simply a young madien. Matthew 1:23 seems to place a specific understanding of ‘almah as “virgin.” If his interpretation is authoritative (as you stated in your answer to my earlier question), should we not translate ‘almah in Is 7:14 as “virgin” as well?
If not, why not?
Also, while I see your point concerning Matthew’s use of Hosea 11 (and I think this proves the point that we must always read the OT with an eye to how it points us to Christ . . . again, see Luke 24:27, 44), I do not think it is relevant concerning the translation issue raised in our discussions because the translation of Hosea 11:1 is not affected by Matthew’s use of the phrase from that passage.
A few more clarifying points, and then I’ll let this go . . .
1) I’m not saying we should ignore the context of the OT text. In fact, I am adamant that we try to understand the text in its original context as much as possible.
2) I’m not saying we should translate the OT text simply based on our understanding of the NT. Our understanding of the NT may be incorrect (just as our understanding of the OT text may be incorrect).
3) This is why I would advocate something akin to the following as an approach . . .
a) We attempt to translate (interpret) the OT text in its original context to the best of our ability.
b) Then take our work to the NT. Does the NT authors bear out our translation (interpretation)? If not, study the NT texts to see what is going on.
c) Then return to the original OT text. Could it be understood a different way in the original context than we first thought? Try thinking through the OT text the way it seems the NT text is taking it. If this works, great! If not, then . . .
d) We take our translations (interpretations) back to the drawing board! We study the NT texts again. We try to understand how the contextual understanding of the OT text fits the contextual understanding of the NT texts.
e) We keep working on this process until we arrive at a translation (interpretation) that makes sense of both contexts of the Old and New Testament texts.
Of course, this kind of process is a lot of hard work . . . but I think it takes into consideration the ideas that Scripture is both written by human beings into a certain context and is at the same time the Word of God to his people.
My 2 cents worth . . . and worth every penny I’m sure. =-)
I’m not entirely sure what your point is about translating the context of the shadow and footnoting the later fulfillment. Would you mind spelling that out for me?
All I’m saying is that if the original context is satisfied by translating ‘almah as “maiden”, then we ought to translate it as such and put later dependencies or interpretations, e.g. “virgin” in Matthew, in a footnote.
As for Matthew, I have to believe that everything in the four gospels was recorded in the context of Jesus’ post-resurrection explanations of his fulfillment of scripture, cf. Luke 24:27, 44-47.
The word ‘almah itself is ambiguous. Is 7:14 could be read to indicate a virgin or simply a young madien. Matthew 1:23 seems to place a specific understanding of ‘almah as “virgin.” If his interpretation is authoritative (as you stated in your answer to my earlier question), should we not translate ‘almah in Is 7:14 as “virgin” as well?
Stuart, because we are still dependent on Matthew’s quotation of the LXX and not the immediate context of ‘almah.
Also, while I see your point concerning Matthew’s use of Hosea 11 (and I think this proves the point that we must always read the OT with an eye to how it points us to Christ . . . again, see Luke 24:27, 44), I do not think it is relevant concerning the translation issue raised in our discussions because the translation of Hosea 11:1 is not affected by Matthew’s use of the phrase from that passage.
No, this is not about the translation, but about how Matthew could find a pointer to Messiah. I think it’s the same about Isaiah 7:14.
I don’t think we need to study the NT before we can translate the OT. I know some might be in favor of that, but I’ve given up that approach.
I think it denies the perspecuity of the OT.
As for Matthew, I have to believe that everything in the four gospels was recorded in the context of Jesus’ post-resurrection explanations of his fulfillment of scripture, cf. Luke 24:27, 44-47.
Now that is a great perspective on the Gospel narratives!
thanks for engaging, tc.
I still think we are missing each other, but as promised . . . I am letting go.
Until next time . . .