TC recently took a look at the HCSB’s footnotes (or lack thereof) for two common conservative evangelical “prooftexts”: Genesis 1:2 (“Spirit of God”) and Isaiah 7:13 (“virgin”).
He labels the HCSB as “too safe” for failing to footnote possible alternatives in these verses. I think that “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 (non-evangelical) perspective might label the translation as “too aggressive” in its NT-centric interpretation of the texts.
With that in mind, I want to spotlight a few more verses from the HCSB that I haven’t seen discussed yet and see if they are appropriate (“too safe”) for its target audience:
And not only that, but also when Rebekah became pregnant by Isaac our forefather (for though they had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to election might stand, not from works but from the One who calls) she was told: The older will serve the younger. (Romans 9:10-12)
“He said to me, ‘I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting!’ Now those who were with me saw the light, but they did not hear the voice of the One who was speaking to me. (Acts 22:8b-9)
Grace and peace to you from the One who is, who was, and who is coming; from the seven spirits before His throne; and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead and the ruler of the kings of the earth. (Revelation 1:4b-5)
Similar examples can be found in Revelation 2:1, 8, 12; 3:1, 7; 4:9, 10; and 5:1, 7, 13. According to my source article, the HCSB is more likely to translate masculine participles that refer to God in a gender-neutral manner than the TNIV. Even the the NRSV uses masculine language in two of the three examples above (the Acts passage matching the HCSB).
I wonder what conservative evangelicals think about references to God being translated with gender-neutral language? I doubt that “too safe” would be the first response…
I’ve found that it does fail to footnote alternative renderings and sometimes its footnotes appear careless. It seems to me, rushed in some parts. I don’t think the HCSB is a bad translation, but I think there’s other choices out there that don’t have these weaknesses.
Bryon – do you have some more examples of missing footnotes, other than what TC pointed out? I’m not disputing the issue, just curious where you saw a failure to document translation alternatives.
I’ve found the HCSB to be a nice alternative to the ESV and NRSV for someone who wants something a little more on the literal side, but with the modern language (grammar) of a functional translation. I think of it as a “more literal NIV”. What else do you propose in this niche?
I don’t keep a “hit list” but Mark 1:41 would be one that comes to mind. I also feel the HCSB rendered John 1:18 weaker than other translations have. There’s many who would dispute that with me though. For a John 1:18 comparison see the NASB, NIV, NRSV, TNIV, ESV, etc. As for what I would propose in place? probably the NRSV or TNIV. Again, I don’t dislike it, there’s just other choices out there that suit my needs.
El, I would think that “the One” would nullify all suspicion. But that’s a good observation against the TNIV’s “him” at Rom 9:12 (see NRSV).
Bryon, yeah, I just noticed the HCSB at Mark 1:41. A textual note would have been good. And yes, I cry, “too safe!”
Perhaps with “the One” the HCSB translators weren’t so much choosing to be gender generic as translating after watching The Matrix!
It seems to me, rushed in some parts.
I agree. If we look back at the period of time when the HCSB was being produced, there was a great deal of agitation in some quarters about gender language revision of the NIV. So there was a rush to get two versions to market, the HCSB and ESV to combat the perceived ills of the TNIV. I was able to observe some of the HCSB rush internally since their team paid my way to meet with them. I presented a list of problems with the HCSB that I had seen to that point (I think the N.T. had been published). They hired me to give them editorial input to address the problems. In the meeting and in subsequent months as I worked with them, I could sense how rushed they felt. I don’t know how much of that was simply a desire to get the job done quickly to save money or for other reasons, and how much was a desire to combat what they saw as gender-language problems. My time working with the HCSB folks was short-lived.
Still, I think the final product is reasonable. It just could be even better, which is true of all Bible versions, but especially those which are rushed.
I think that the bulk of the revision of the RSV to create the ESV was done in two years. That’s not much time for doing a quality job on a Bible translation. IMO, the odd English and inconsistent revisions reflect the ESV rush job.
But God can use rush jobs, as well as he can use those which take longer.
Wayne, thanks for this input. I really appreciate it.
@Peter: Perhaps with “the One” the HCSB translators weren’t so much choosing to be gender generic as translating after watching The Matrix!
Well… maybe “Neo” is an Southern way of pronouncing “Nero” – might be something nefarious there!
@Wayne: thank you for that valuable insight on the HCSB – I hope that the alleged update coming out next year is thoughtfully done.
Wayne, if you don’t mind saying, was the publisher in on the committee meetings? With clock in hand and keeping track of money spent? If not no need to respond.
I can’t remember if it was Zondervan or Tyndale that said the publisher doesn’t sit in on the translation committee meetings.
I’ve noticed you’re part of the ISV team. I’m going to be looking into that one more in the near future.
Jeff
Wayne, if you don’t mind saying, was the publisher in on the committee meetings? With clock in hand and keeping track of money spent?
I doubt it. But I did sense urgency among the team for getting the translation done quickly.
I can’t remember if it was Zondervan or Tyndale that said the publisher doesn’t sit in on the translation committee meetings.
That would be Zondervan. Neither the publisher (Zondervan) nor copyright holder (IBS) sits in on meetings of the CBT that revises the NIV and TNIV.
I’ve noticed you’re part of the ISV team.
Well, only as a volunteer reviewer. I have nothing to do with translation decisions made by the ISV team itself. Anyone can help review the ISV. Those who do a fair amount get their names listed on an ISV page for reviewers.