Comments on: A three-legged survey of Bible translations

By: Gentle Wisdom » Complementarianism: Sola Scriptura or Sola Traditio?

Gentle Wisdom » Complementarianism: Sola Scriptura or Sola Traditio? — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:29:38 +0000

[...] by more than one of these. In fact, if we borrow (in an adapted form) the analogy of a stool from ElShaddai Edwards, the conclusion will be all the more stable and certain if it has more than a single [...]

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:33:17 +0000

Sure, though in the end I may only betray how little I’ve used the HCSB lately. I referred to the tradition of “Biblish” in this post, meaning (to me) the use of theological language like justification, elect, propitiation, sanctification, etc. I was trying to contrast it to English translations that use alternate language to describe these terms, e.g. sacrifice of atonement. As far as I’ve been able to tell, the HCSB uses “Biblish” language, though I’ve not been through the NT exhaustively with the HCSB.

When I reviewed this passage from Romans 7 a while back, I looked at the ESV and HCSB translations. What I found is that the two translation shared quite a bit in common in terms of word use and phrases, with the biggest difference being some grammatical constructions.

Certainly the HCSB is not in the Tyndale tradition, inasmuch as that tradition reflects a certain sound of language, i.e. how phrases are constructed to sound archaic (in my opinion) rather than contemporary when spoken. If we were to restrict the “tradition of interpretation” leg to just the Tyndale line, then I would agree with your thought that the HCSB should not be included. As it is, I was just thinking more in terms of the use of theological terminology when I wrote this post.

By: Iyov

Iyov — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:18:22 +0000

E-S: Could you defend your classification of the HCSB in the “Tradition of Interpretation” list? I am surprised by that choice, because the HCSB is not in the Tyndale tradition and uses a fair amount of informal language.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:48:05 +0000

You show excellent choice in your blog theme by the way.

Thank you, you too. I’ve used the CSS editing feature to make a little more room for myself, but overall it’s a good theme to build on.

By: Malformed Equivalence in Matthew 23:2 « Lingamish

Malformed Equivalence in Matthew 23:2 « Lingamish — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:13:33 +0000

[...] ElShaddai at He is sufficient: A three-legged survey of Bible translations [...]

By: lingamish

lingamish — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:11:16 +0000

This kind of classification is needed because it helps us understand why different translations make different choices. Otherwise we end up with apples and oranges in the same basket.

You show excellent choice in your blog theme by the way.

By: Kristie

Kristie — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:08:02 +0000

I admire your desire to study and research translations. I recently found a resource online called Bible Study Tools that I use to compare translations. The reason I like it so much and want to share it with you is because I can read so many commentaries, 29 translations, lexicons, Greek and Hebrew, devotionals and more all for free. I could never afford these books nor would I have the time to search through all of them! I also like that I can highlight text and save notes. The screen is split-panel that lets you compare versions, commentaries, etc. so it's really easy to use. I hope you get a chance to check it out! It's been a blessing for me and I want to let others know that they can find tools to understand the Bible without having to go to seminary! Bible Study Tools

By: John Hobbins

John Hobbins — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:31:42 +0000

That’s a very acute observation you make about NRSV. If NIV/TNIV gets it act together, translates the so-called Apocrypha, and produces a study Bible that is attentive to the history of interpretation, it might become a worthy competitor of NRSV.