I believe it’s the hope and desire of the good folks behind the HCSB, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, for the this this Bible to be taken seriously.
In 2010, a few revisions will be reflected in the HCSB. But I think it’s current strategy is lacking.
For example, Will Lee, over at Anwoth.org, an ardent HCSB supporter, posted on Why the HCSB goes for “Messiah” instead of “Christ” in Jewish contexts, and then made a comparision with the HCSB and four other versions:
HT: Anwoth
Now this same table is on the HCSB website, supposedly, as a selling point. But I really don’t think explaining the difference between “Christ” and “Messiah” is going to do much for this translation, as good as it may be.
It needs another selling point.
A big part of its selling point may depend on how the 2011 NIV handles gendered language. If it’s seen as upholding the TNIV practices, I suppose the HCSB might gain traction as the “non-gender-neutral” alternative to the NIV. If, on the other hand, the updated NIV is more acceptable to the TNIV critics, I could see the HCSB losing ground to the NIV.
Tim,
The NIV 2011 will really try to get it “right,” this time around.
I believe the ESV is a better option than the HCSB right now, and it seems like that will continue to be the case.
I don’t see the gaining of traction of the HCSB, as you seem to think is really possible.
In the end, I might be wrong.
They need to drop that “Holman” though.
The key selling point to me is the HCSB is seemingly the only translation out there that consistently uses traditional theological terminology *AND* modern grammatical English.
The ESV/NASB has the former, but not the latter. The NIV/TNIV has the latter, but not the former. I don’t think that the NIV’11 will be any different.
EE,
I must confess that I like some of the traditional theological terms.
It HCSB has great potential. But it needs a bit more work. My blog is replete with suggestions.
I think ElShaddai sums up one of the HCSB strengths well. I’m fearful, however, that the translation won’t gain more gound unless its publisher improves its visibility and its availability. They would do well to look at how Tyndale has really promoted the NLT. Not only did they promote the strengths of the translation, but they also have made it easy to find on the shelves of bookstores. The HCSB is difficult to find anywhere other than a LifeWay store, and few people know anything about it.
I would like to see all translations use Messiah.
I would also like to see Jahweh used instead of LORD.
Darrell,
Yes, EE, captured it quite well. Believe it or not, but I’ve seen the HCSB at Barnes and Noble.
But yes, they will need to follow both the ESV and NLT vigorious campaigning strategy.
In fact, I’m in amazing at the multiple editions of the ESV already there. I just saw an Oswald Chambers “Utmost for His Highest” Edition.
Stan,
I don’t think every texts demands “Messiah.” Now Yahweh instead of LORD is good.
The only HCSB’s in bookstores around here — Christian or otherwise — are the niche specialty editions (and I include the Apologetics Study Bible), e.g. the Fireman’s Bible. There are no “everyday text-only or reference editions for normal people to buy and use.
What ElShaddai said is why I like it.
They’ve come up with a couple of very create videos. Let’s hope there is more to come and more marketing as 2010 rolls around.
Jeff
TCR, we agree on several things. For one, I wish they would drop the Holman in the title, but from what I understand, there are some legal issues that will make that impossible.
Second, they definitely need to get beyond Lifeway stores in a more visible way.
Third, they need some credible editions other than things like the Bride’s Bible, the Golfer’s Bible, the Celtic Bible, etc.
I also agree with you, EE, that the language of the translation is a big selling point, and I think they’re trying to highlight that.
However, TRC, to say that HCSB has no traction may or may not be correct depending on what’s driving its sales numbers. As of the Nov. 2009 BSL list, the HCSB tops ESV in dollar sales and is only one spot behind ESV in unit sales.
I have to admit that even though I am “an ardent HCSB supporter” I’m frustrated with some of the decisions that have been made about the HCSB, but most of those course-setting decisions were made too many years ago to correct now.
I hope the HCSB makes better progress moving forward, though, because I think it has the potential to be a great translation for decades.
Will, Legal issues? That’s weird!
Well, we’re in agreement on a lot.
Will, in the end, I said I could be wrong about it’s traction.
I don’t think might statement means “no traction” altogether.
Yes, it has the potential but needs to move beyond some idiosyncrasies.
I would also like to see Jahweh used instead of LORD.
Yahweh instead of LORD is good.
I used to think the same way, but now I’m not as sure. The reason for being less certain is the way the NT picks up “Lord” language in reference to Jesus that was clearly about YHWH in the OT.
For example, Joel 2:32 – everyone who calls on the name of the LORD (YHWH) shall be saved.
Romans 10:13 – everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (kurios) shall be saved.
If the NT writers can quote from the LXX using kurios instead of transliterating YHWH, then it would appear to give at least some level of legitimacy to using LORD instead of YHWH.
If the NT writers can quote from the LXX using kurios instead of transliterating YHWH, then it would appear to give at least some level of legitimacy to using LORD instead of YHWH.
Meto, but we’re speaking of Hebrew, not Greek. There’s a difference.
Unless there’s really no semantic difference difference between YHWH and kurios.
we’re speaking of Hebrew, not Greek. There’s a difference.
Really? Hmmm. That explains why I made a D in Hebrew.
Seriously, the point I was trying to make was this . . . if the translators of the LXX used kurios for YHWH, and NT writers used kurios as well, AND we believe these writers were “inspired” by the Holy Spirit, then we have some legitimate reasons for translating YHWH as LORD in the OT.
John Frame in his Doctrine of God (pgs 36-46, 671-672) makes an argument that at the heart of what YHWH means is Lordship, and thus LORD is a good translation of the tetragrammton.
Meto,
Perhaps I should research the meaning of YHWH some more. But I did stumble upon that nuance of YHWH in a reading of mine before.
Shouldn’t context have a say in the matter?
TC, I am being hopeful that the new release will be much better, but we will know soon. I am still looking forward to the NIV 2011, can’t wait!
Robert, I thought you already had access to the updated text?
Metachostuchristou writes:
Seriously, the point I was trying to make was this . . . if the translators of the LXX used kurios for YHWH, and NT writers used kurios as well, AND we believe these writers were “inspired” by the Holy Spirit, then we have some legitimate reasons for translating YHWH as LORD in the OT.
John Frame in his Doctrine of God (pgs 36-46, 671-672) makes an argument that at the heart of what YHWH means is Lordship, and thus LORD is a good translation of the tetragrammton.
The use of Adonay (LORD) for YHWH arose during the so-called Intertestamental times as a way of safeguarding the holiness of God’s personal name by substituting another term. It was not a matterof interpreting or drawing a theological inference from the name itself. Centuries later the Masoretes took to pointing (assigning vowels) to the radical YHWH to remind perople not to pronounce YHWH.
This is ironic because one of the things YHWH asks and invited his people to do is “use” his name, that is, to call upon him as divine saving presence, the best understanding of the term and its cognates as derived from a Hebrew verb of being. I am that Iam or (He is) is what is called an idem per idem construction in Semitic grammar which probably connoted intensity. In the context of Ex. 3 it answers the Moses question about God’s absence during the time of slavery. Thus it means “I am really present” (to save my people). The whole book of Exodus fleshed this out. Yes, we are not to misuse that name because it is powerful and holy but we are to call upon the YHWH, who is salvation. We do this when we call upon (use) the name of Jesus, that is, (Y’shua, Joshua)=YHWH is salvation.
Yes, I am aware of how the use of Adonai became a substitute for YHWH. That fact has little to do with the argument I am presenting.
Basically, what I’m trying to say is this . . .
IF (and I realize this “if” may be the issue for some) we start with the idea that all Scripture is God-breathed (NT as well as the OT), then the interpretations of the OT we find in the NT are God-breathed as well.
Numerous times, the NT authors use the word kurios when they quote passages from the OT where the Hebrew reference is YHWH (ex., Joel 2 used in Romans 10). Yes, these NT authors probably picked this practice up from the LXX, but was their using the term “kurios” as a substitute for YHWH “God-breathed” or not?
If we answer, “Yes.” to this question, then I’m not certain we can make hard and fast rules concerning always rendering the tetragrammaton as YHWH in our English translations.
If we answer, “No.” then we may have to revisit our view of the inspiration of the NT.
Furthermore, I would recommend reading Frame’s thoughts about the meaning of YHWH. Whether one agrees with him or not in the end, he makes an interesting argument based on contextual usage in the Scriptures.
Meto,
In our English translations, should we work back from the NT to translate terms in the OT? What of the perspicuity of the OT? What of their immediate worldview?
TC, I do but I heard that they were still going to make more changes, and that what they released was not final. Not sure where I read this.
Scott said:
The use of Adonay (LORD) for YHWH arose during the so-called Intertestamental times as a way of safeguarding the holiness of God’s personal name by substituting another term. It was not a matter of interpreting or drawing a theological inference from the name itself. Centuries later the Masoretes took to pointing (assigning vowels) to the radical YHWH to remind perople not to pronounce YHWH.
Thanks for reminding us of that fact. Yes Adonay for YHWH.
I am that Iam or (He is) is what is called an idem per idem construction in Semitic grammar which probably connoted intensity. In the context of Ex. 3 it answers the Moses question about God’s absence during the time of slavery. Thus it means “I am really present” (to save my people). The whole book of Exodus fleshed this out.
Do you see a Lordship nuance as Frame argues?
Robert said:
TC, I do but I heard that they were still going to make more changes, and that what they released was not final. Not sure where I read this.
Ok, more changes? It seems like they want to really get it right this time, whatever that means. But I do hope they move away from some of their idiosyncrasies.
Meto,
Working from doctrine of Scripture to engage historical questions is bit wise, since “inspiration” in a real sense is a theolougomenon which arises out of the Church and its faith, and that’s not even dealing with theological assumptions behind ways people use this language of “inspiration” and what that really means.
I’m an Orthodox Christian, thus I accept that the LXX is OT, which is an historical judgment and not simply a ecclesial/theological one. My thing is this: each testament has its own integrity. Translate the texts for what they are; if one is doing the Hebrew text, I think we should render the Tetragrammaton as it is. As Christian communities we don’t have to follow the spiritual practices of Judaism. One thing that turned me off to the NIV was its assimilating of OT texts from to the Hebrew text to quotations in the NT, which more than often are from the LXX. That’s historically and theologically wrong, based on a mistaken notion probably derived from some Evangelical concept on biblical inspiration.
Scott,
A few thoughts . . .
1) Since I don’t know what differences there may be between an Orthodox view of biblical inspiration and an evangelical view (not to mention any differences between those two views and my own!), I cannot address such concerns. If you’re willing, I’d love to find out what differences there may be.
2) I’m also unclear as to the Orthodox view of the relationship between the LXX and the Hebrew Scriptures. So again, instead of arguing from ignorance, I’ll have to ask you to enlighten me.
3) In a way, I agree with your thoughts on translation . . . “Translate the texts for what they are.” The issue I am raising, however, is over the question of “what they are.” The OT is not complete without the NT and vice versa. I would argue that the interplay between the “testaments” is complex, and thus the way we interpret and even translate them is complex.
4) Please understand that I am not arguing that we SHOULD NOT render the tetragrammaton as YHWH in our English translations. I am simply saying that the issue is more complex than some kind of hard and fast rule (at least that’s the way I understand these issues).
5) I’m not advocating that any Christian HAS TO follow any Jewish practice per se. Again, I am simply advocating that we reflect on the “God-breathed” nature of what is found in the OT (whether Hebrew or LXX) and the NT and how that may affect the interplay between the “testaments.”
6) I’m ignorant of the sins of the NIV as you expressed them. Mind giving some examples so I can better understand what you’re saying?
Thanks!
TC,
Shouldn’t context have a say in the matter?
Short answer . . . yes. Jumping off from Frame’s points, I would say what YHWH means in the both more immediate contexts of the OT and in the larger context of both the OT and the connections made in the NT indicates Lordship. So in that way, I don’t have a major problem translating YHWH as Lord (although I don’t have a major problem leaving the word as YHWH either. . . see #4 in my comment above to Scott).
In our English translations, should we work back from the NT to translate terms in the OT?
Generally speaking, no. Yet the point I’ve been trying to make is that I don’t think a general approach to this issue is adequate. The use of kurios in the NT quotations of the OT texts that use YHWH raises some questions that would be need to be pondered.
What of the perspicuity of the OT?
A few things . . .
First, my understanding of perspicuity is not that everything that can be understood about the Scriptures is clear to everyone, but that the main message of the Scriptures and what is needed for salvation is clear. So I’m not certain what I’m saying damages perspicuity.
Second, in my view perspicuity is more a doctrine aimed at the Scriptures as a whole than the parts (although it is true that at least some of the parts have to be clear in order to understand the whole). So in my view, to understand the OT correctly we must have the NT, and to understand the NT we must have the OT. Thus I’m not certain I’ve violated any rule of perspicuity by my formulations.
What of their immediate worldview?
I’m not entirely clear on what you are implying with this question, so I’ll refrain from making any further comment that would honestly be done in ignorance.
Jumping off from Frame’s points, I would say what YHWH means in the both more immediate contexts of the OT and in the larger context of both the OT and the connections made in the NT indicates Lordship.
Meto,
I always understood YHWH as referring to God as “the existing one in convenant faithfulness with his people Israel.”
The use of kurios in the NT quotations of the OT texts that use YHWH raises some questions that would be need to be pondered.
I agree that such is instructive, esp. in light of Paul’s use of the LXX.
So in my view, to understand the OT correctly we must have the NT, and to understand the NT we must have the OT.
Yes, this side of the canon. Sure! But what about the world of the original hearers and readers of YHWH? What was the significance of the term to them? We’re talking way before the LXX.
what about the world of the original hearers and readers of YHWH? What was the significance of the term to them?
Those are important questions . . . but any answer we might give will be more complex than simply lo0king at etymology or even looking certain contexts of the OT texts only. What a Jew during the time of Christ might understand about what YHWH means may be a little different from what a Jew thought during the time of exile, which may be a little different from what a Jew during the time of David thought, which may be a little different from what a Jew thought during the time of Moses. Obviously there would be some correspondence and overlap, but the redemptive-historic unfolding of revelation necessitates that the further along one goes on the trajectory of revelation, the fuller one’s understanding should be.
Obviously there would be some correspondence and overlap, but the redemptive-historic unfolding of revelation necessitates that the further along one goes on the trajectory of revelation, the fuller one’s understanding should be.
Meto,
While I’m with you regarding the ongoing trajectory of fuller revelation, I must part ways over the seemingly changing of the basic meaning of YHWH from epoc to epoch.
In fact, the prophets’ clarion call to return to Torah and covenant faithfulness with YHWH argues against your contention.
I think you’ve misunderstood me, or I haven’t made myself clear (or possibly both!).
I don’t think the basic meaning of YHWH changed from epoch to epoch. I’m saying there is a core understanding that may be expanded so that its meaning reaches greater fullness.
On a smaller scale I would equate what I’m saying about the meaning of YHWH with the meaning of the word “gospel” in my own faith sojourn. I’ve always understood the gospel as the good news about Jesus, but over the years that same good news grew in my understanding so that it included more than simply forgiveness of sins.
In a similar way, I imagine the first Jews who heard the name YHWH understood something central about that name, but as time went on the Jews understood more and their views became fuller.
I don’t think the basic meaning of YHWH changed from epoch to epoch. I’m saying there is a core understanding that may be expanded so that its meaning reaches greater fullness.
Ah! That may be the case, but how do we prove it?
Ah! That may be the case, but how do we prove it?
Proof is an interesting animal. What proves the case for one person doesn’t always seal the deal for another.
I would contend the fact that the Scriptures themselves did not fall out of the sky complete but were progressively revealed strongly indicates the meaning of many things were expanded and reached greater fullness.
This is certainly the case between the OT and the NT. OT passages that were about YHWH are applied to Jesus in the NT. To me, that’s enough “proof” . . . but you may not be convinced. And that’s OK, because on matters like this we can have differences and still be unified by our shared beliefs in Christ and the glorious gospel of the kingdom.
Meto,
Yes, while YHWH has the basic meaning of “I AM,” I simply cannot ignore the LXX translation of it and its application to Jesus.
But some have argued convincely that those texts from the OT via LXX and their application to Jesus, has in mind his deity, not so much his lordship.
I guess in my view I wouldn’t put such a sharp dichotomy between deity and lordship. They seem to go hand in hand.
The frequent refrain in the OT of “then you (or they) will know that I am YHWH” is a reminder to me that whatever else YHWH means, it is certainly connected to Lordship.
Meto,
I decided to consult Walke’s OT Theology. In it he renders YHWH as “I AM” and adds that it “invites the hearer to enter into intimacy in his protective nearness and to stand in awe of him in his eternal being in contrast to human mortality. (p. 11)
Part of the problem with interpreting YHWH lies precisely on what the term “invites the hearer” to believe. There are differences among us as to what we “hear.”
“I AM” is somewhat standard, although in Exodus 3:14, the part of God’s reply to Moses has been interpreted with various renderings such as “I am what I am” “I will be what I will be” “I am the one who is” “I Will Become Who I Will Become” etc., and even when one sticks with one of these phrase the interpretations can vary.
But even if we go with Walke’s (?) view, God’s “eternal being” in the biblical sense sets him up as “Lord.” So I don’t see a real problem.
Part of the problem with interpreting YHWH lies precisely on what the term “invites the hearer” to believe. There are differences among us as to what we “hear.”
Not primarily for our ears but the ancient Jews.
In the end, I guess YHWH came to mean something more.
I thought the revision of the HCSB was to be released in the Fall of 2009? What’s going on with B&H Publishing?! They have a modern translation that has the potential to be an excellent translation. They seem to be lacking in marketing, advertising, promotion. Accessibility is also an issue because they don’t respond to e-mails. Is there an official Blog on their website? They don’t have good choices of Bibles either. They can learn from the organizations for the ESV and the NLT. For example, when you purchase an ESV bible, you then have access to download free computer software of the complete ESV text. Their website is also very user-friendly and full of info. and features.
Rod, it’s now 2010.
Well, they now have an HCSB website, which they didn’t have.
It seems like they’re trying to put things together.
I agree they need to learn from Crossway and Tyndale.
It is a fine translation!
T.C.,
What is the address to the HCSB website?
Oh yeah, another issue I have with the HCSB and other modern translations is the manuscript issue. I’m no expert on the issue, just a end-user. The modern translations use manuscripts that have verse “omissions” and parts of verses missing. I know that the verses in debate (omitted vs. added) don’t change Christian Doctrine. However, it just makes me unsure and suspicious when the verses are not there, for example, Mark 9:44, Acts 8:37
This is one of the reasons I cling to the NKJV. However, if any of the modern translations would not “omit” verses, I would change translations because modern translations provide more clarity. Even though the NKJV is much better than the KJV, the NKJV is still a little “King James sounding” in many of its renderings and sentence structure. I guess this is why I wish the HCSB could make some changes to solve these issues for me.
Protege Rod,
I think that you’ll find those ‘omitted’ texts in the HCSB, but in brackets with a footnote stating that some manuscripts don’t have this text. So you can go either way with it. I still find the HCSB the best ‘all around’ modern English translation. I think the main problem with it is the marketing from Lifeway and Holman. I can see that eventually people will recognize it as an excellent translation, but better marketed ones, like the ESV, will do better just because of the marketing.
Rod,
Here’s the address: hcsb.org.
The modern translations use manuscripts that have verse “omissions” and parts of verses missing.
Yeah, that’s a whole new discussion. But I John pointed out, the HCSB does utilize the MT.
At any rate, it’s not really a matter of “omitting” verse.
You are right T.C., the verse “omissions” is a separate subject that will probably never stop being debated.
As you and John mentioned, the HCSB does not “omit” verses like many other translations. This is one of the reasons I like the HCSB. I too believe the HCSB has the potential to be one of the best all around translations because it balances readability and accuracy. The built-in reference system and footnotes are great.
Since the next revision will not come out until 2010, does anyone think there is still time to make suggestions to the editors? There seems to be significant interest in the translation. The sales rankings at http://www.cbaonline.org each month is an indication of the interest.
With a few translation changes, it could be my main translation. For example, “tongues” should be in the text with a footnote indicating “languages”, “heavenly language”, etc.
As you and John mentioned, the HCSB does not “omit” verses like many other translations. This is one of the reasons I like the HCSB. I too believe the HCSB has the potential to be one of the best all around translations because it balances readability and accuracy. The built-in reference system and footnotes are great.
Rod,
I too like the HCSB. Yes, it does have a lot of potential.
With a few translation changes, it could be my main translation. For example, “tongues” should be in the text with a footnote indicating “languages”, “heavenly language”, etc.
They need to up marketing as well.
Yes, I’m with you on the “tongues” issue. I believe I have a post on that.
TC,
The. HCSB has pretty much replaced the ESV for me. I use the TNIV as my primary bible and the HCSB as main secondry, followed by the NLT.
This is my first comment using my HTC Droid Eris from Verizon.
Robert,
You’re up on technology, man.
That’s a good list:
1. TNIV
2. HCSB
3. NLT
Mine:
1. TNIV
2. NRSV/HCSB
3. NLT
HCSB could replace NRSV altogether, but I have to see the 2010 text.
TC, this conbination has been working very well for me. 2010 & 2011 are going to be good years for us.
Yeah the browser automatiacally goes into mobile mobile when possible.
Yeah, those are two good years for Bible translations. But a lot more riding on the NIV.
Well, I have to throw my list our there now:
1. HCSB – this is the translation I read daily and take with me on Sundays to church. I love the Ultrathin Reference edition.
2. NRSV – this is the translation I consult when doing more indepth study.
3. NLT – I read this translation to my kids and will consult at times for a different translation approach.
I’m done with NIV and TNIV for now until I see the new revisions in 2011.
Nice list. TNIV still for me, per its merits.