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.

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

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.

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.

Bryon, yeah, I just noticed the HCSB at Mark 1:41. A textual note would have been good. And yes, I cry, “too safe!”

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?