A Comparison of the HCSB with Other Major Translations [Edwin Blum]
A Comparison of the HCSB with Other Major Translations
Abstract: Dr. Edwin Blum
The Holman Christian Standard Bible is a new modern translation based on the latest Hebrew and Greek texts. It was produced with the Accordance Bible software program and widespread use of the internet. Electronic editions of BDAG, K-B, reference tools, and translations greatly aided the development of the HCSB. Over one hundred scholars participated in the translation. The HCSB uses what we call an optimal equivalence translation philosophy and seeks to be gender accurate. In comparison with existing translations, the HCSB has improvements in accuracy, vocabulary choices, formatting, and style. It is the leanest modern translation with a word count of 718,943. It has more footnotes and textual information than any major translation and has a system of Bullet Notes to aid the reader. Yahweh is used in passages where the name of God is discussed in the OT, and Messiah is used in NT passages for the translation of christos where the subject is the Israelite deliverer. The result is a Bible that is accurate for study and reads well for personal use and corporate worship.
Introduction
To compare the HCSB with other major translations, we must define the term. What is a major translation? If this were a paper read at SBL, the major translations considered would be NRSV, REB, NAB, and NJB. These are highly esteemed but are not widely used by evangelical Bible students. For our purposes, the major translations we are using as comparisons are the NIV, NLT (second edition of 2004), and ESV. William Tyndale’s (1494?-1536) tradition, which includes the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, and NRSV, will be represented by the ESV. Some may not be aware of Tyndale’s legacy to the 1611 KJV. Eighty-three percent of the KJV New Testament can be attributed to him. Of the books that Tyndale completed, the KJV Old Testament represents about 76% of his work. The NIV, NLT, and HCSB represent different translation streams. The TNIV, NET, and The Message are omitted from this comparison as they do not have a large market share at this time.
The HCSB was not “planned and sponsored by the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1998” as one website claims. The origin of this translation goes back to Dr. Art Farstad, who was the Executive Editor of the NKJV. On his own, he began working on a modern language edition based on the Majority Text, which he first called Tyndale 21 and later Logos 21. From 1995-1998 this project was funded by a foundation called Absolutely Free. Holman Bible Publishers purchased the rights to Logos 21 and hired Dr. Art Farstad as General Editor in April 1998. However, the translation Art was asked to oversee was not a majority text translation but a new translation based on the critical text. He died in September 1998, and Dr. Edwin Blum was named as his successor. The goals, purposes, and translation philosophy are outlined in the introduction to the HCSB, which can be found in every printed product.
The HCSB was completed in 2004. The NT of the NIV was finished in 1972 and the OT in 1977. This means that the NIV was completed before the days of the personal computer. It was completed before the internet was used to transmit documents between scholars and editors. It also means that the NIV represents the state of scholarship at the time of 1972-77. For example, the standard Hebrew lexicon in use was the Brown, Driver, and Briggs lexicon published in 1906. HCSB was able to use the new 5-volume Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm lexicon (HALOT, 1967-1996).
The theological word books such as Jenni-Westermann’s TLOT, the 15-volume TDOT, the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, NIDNTT, and NIDOTT had not been published when the NIV was produced. Many major commentaries were also published in the interval between 1977 and 2004. For example, many volumes in the Anchor Bible were finished during this period. Milgrom’s three-volume work on Leviticus in the AB, which represents a lifetime of Jewish scholarship on this book, was completed in 2000.
The NIV translation committee changed 7% of the NIV text when they made the TNIV revision. While many of the changes made were gender changes (1.68% according to the TNIV committee), this means the scholars felt that 5.32% of the NIV needed an improvement. This 5.32% included changes that were “textual, programmatic, clarity issues, sentence structure & grammar, and footnotes & headings.” This is according to the TNIV website. So more than 5% of the NIV needed an improvement since 1977. Some of these changes reflect what can be seen in the HCSB.
Translation Philosophy
In practice translations are seldom, if ever, based purely on formal or dynamic/functional equivalence. Rather they are mixed, with a tendency in one direction or the other. Optimal equivalence is our attempt to describe a translation philosophy recognizing that form cannot be neatly separated from meaning and should not be disregarded. It should not be changed unless comprehension demands it. For example, nouns should not be changed to verbs or the third person “they” to second person “you” unless the original sense cannot otherwise be clearly conveyed. The primary goal of translation is to convey the sense of the original with as much clarity as the original text and the target language permit. Optimal equivalence appreciates the goals of formal equivalence but also recognizes its limitations.
Gender Issues
Since 1977 the gender controversy has become a major issue among Bible translators. The goal is to accurately translate Scripture. The ESV and HCSB follow the Evangelical Guidelines of May 27, 1997 for translation of gender-related language in Scripture. The NIV was done before there was a lot of gender sensitivity. One estimate is that there are 800 places in the NT of the NIV that use masculine language where the Greek text would allow a more generic or neutral translation. A classic example is Romans 12:6-8. In this passage, the NIV has inserted nine male pronouns or the word “man” where the Greek text does not require it. The NIV reads, “We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith . . .” The HCSB is gender accurate and has no male language inserted in this passage. The HCSB reads, “According to the grace given to us, we have different gifts: If prophecy, use it according to the standard of one’s faith . . .” The TNIV has gone overboard to avoid gender insensitivity and is more gender neutral. We would claim that the NIV is gender biased, the TNIV attempts to be gender neutral, and the HCSB is gender accurate.
The NLT shares to a lesser degree the gender neutrality of the TNIV. Comparing 17 English translations in 115 gender-sensitive passages, involving various kinds of grammatical constructions, yields the following percentage of gender inclusive translations:
KJV 8%, RSV 10%, NKJV 13%, NASB 14%, NIV 17%, ESV 24%, HCSB 25%, NLT ’04 67%, TNIV 79%, NRSV 84%, CEV 96%. Clearly we believe a gender inclusive translation is correct 25% of the time—more than the KJV, but much less than the TNIV.
The result of a bias toward gender inclusivity is that many masculine terms are removed, muted, or changed. The Greek NT has anthropos 548 times and aner 216 times. Anthropos has a larger semantic field and should be translated as “human” in many contexts, but aner refers to a male person. Of the 216 times it occurs in the NT, NLT has removed, replaced, or changed it 43 times, eg. Ac 27:25 and Rm 11:4.
In the OT there are five major words for humanity. Adam means a man or human, and it occurs 546 times. Ish means male, man, or husband, and it occurs 2,199 times. (The female form is ishshah and occurs 775 times.) The Hb enosh occurs 42 times, and the Aramaic enash occurs 25 times, making a total of 67 occurrences. Gebher means manly or vigorous, and it occurs 66 times. So the total number of Hebrew words for men, males, or man is 2,878. If we only look at the word ish, which is the clearest term for male, it occurs 2,199 times. Yet the NLT only has the words “man, man’s, men, and men’s” a total of 1,617 times. For example, in Lv 20:2-5 ish occurs five times, but they change it to the plural words “they” or “them” instead of using the word “man.”
In many places, the more gender inclusive translations change “fathers” to “parents.” The book of Proverbs is no longer a father’s instruction to his “son”; instead, it’s written to his “children.” The HCSB and ESV have not followed this trend and have translated the text more accurately than the TNIV or the NLT.
Accuracy or Translations of Certain Problematic Words
The following words are representative of the accuracy of the HCSB.
1. The Greek word doulos occurs 124 times in the Greek NT. Many Bibles have translated it as “servant” or “bondservant.” ESV uses servant in the text, but they attach a footnote that reads, “Greek bondservant.” NIV and NLT alternate between “servant” and “slave.” The translation of doulos as servant is faulty (cf. BDAG, p. 260) and causes people to miss a significant Pauline metaphor. HCSB uses slave. There is a significant difference between a servant and a slave. Paul says, “. . . You are not your own, for you were bought at a price . . . ” (1Co 6:19b-20)
2. The key term torah occurs 223 times in the Hebrew Bible. Most Christian Bibles consistently translate it as law. Most Jewish Bibles normally use instruction or teaching. “The majority of present day exegetes translate tora as instruction, education, teaching” (TDOT, XV: 615). If we compare the translation of torah in Ps 1:2; 19:7, and 37:31 in the major Bibles we note the following:
• ESV – law
• NIV – law
• NLT – law and instruction
• HCSB - instruction
3. God’s personal name, YHWH, occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew Bible. In English Bibles LORD is commonly used following the LXX tradition of rendering it with kurios. However, LORD is not a name; it is a title. It has been argued that the use of YHWH (or Yahweh) will offend Jewish people. Very orthodox Jews will not even vocalize the word “God,” preferring the use of “G-D.” However, some modern Jewish translations have used YHWH. French Protestants as well as the Moffatt translation have used “The Eternal” as a name. B. Waltke prefers to translate the name as “I AM” (OTT, p. 365.) If we compare the translation of YHWH in major translations we see the following:
• KJV – Jehovah 4 times
• RV (1881) – Jehovah 10 times
• ASV (1901) – Jehovah 6,777 times
• NJB – Yahweh 6,342 times
• NLT – Yahweh 7 times (all in Exodus)
• REB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, TNIV, ESV – all use LORD
• HCSB – Yahweh 75 times (first printing); currently 467 times; the 467 uses are where the name of God is praised or discussed. For example:
“I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another or My praise to idols.” Is 42:8
“Yahweh is the God of Hosts; Yahweh is His name.” Hs 12:5
“May they know that You alone—whose name is Yahweh—are the Most High over all the earth.” Ps 83:18
4. In the HCSB NT, christos is translated Messiah where there is a Jewish context (cf. BDAG, p. 109). An example is, Mt 16:16, which reads “Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!’” NLT agrees with HCSB, but ESV and NIV translate this as “the Christ.” (TNIV has changed this to “the Messiah”.)
Vocabulary Choices
The NIV, NLT, and the HCSB use a more modern and American vocabulary. The ESV retains some of its British heritage by including dated or archaic language. Here are some examples:
• ails Ps 114:5
• alms Lk 11:41 (8 total occurrences)
• barley was in the ear Ex 9:31
• bosom Ex 23:8 (12 total)
• chide Ps 103:9
• disdained 1Sm 17:1
• ears of grain Gn 41:5 (4 total)
• fodder Gn 24:25 (7 total)
• he-goat Pr 30:31
• morsel Gn 18:5 (13 total)
• she-bear Pr 17:12
• whoredom 2Ch 21:11 (13 total)
The NIV and TNIV also include some archaic or unusual word choices:
| abound |
spurn | |
| alas | strode | |
| astir | suckling | |
| befuddled | thus | |
| bosom | toil | |
| deluged | to no avail | |
| kindred | unkempt | |
| naught | unmindful | |
| profligate | unsandaled | |
| reckon | unto | |
| rend | unwary | |
| self-abasement | upon | |
| shall | vaunt | |
| slew | vilest |
When we compare six specific words among the major translations, we see the following:
1. Tithe - an old English word for a tenth.
• KJV – 40 times
• ESV – 41 times
• NLT – 22 times
• NIV – 15 times
• HCSB – 0
2. Behold
• KJV – 1,326 times
• ESV – 1,106 times
• NIV – 6 times
• NLT – 0
• HCSB – 0
3. Lepers, leprous, leprosy – should not be used today because of the confusion with Hansen’s Disease. Hansen’s Disease does not grow on clothing, walls, or other objects as mentioned in Lv 13-14.
• ESV – 68 times
• NLT – 34 times
• NIV – 33 times
• HCSB – 0
4. Shall – is fast disappearing in modern American usage (cf. B. Garner in Modern Legal Usage, 2nd ed., pp. 939-941).
• KJV – 9,838 times
• ESV – 6,389 times
• NIV – 467 times (TNIV – 480 times)
• NLT – 8 times
• HSCB – 0
5. O – is an old spelling of the word “Oh” and is considered archaic when used before a name in direct address, e.g. “O King, live forever.”
• KJV – 1,065 times
• ESV – 1,129 times
• NIV – 978 times (TNIV - 64 times!)
• NLT – 743 times
• HCSB – 0
6. Strong drink – is a 14th century term. HCSB uses the correct term beer. The average reader would understand strong drink to be a distilled product rather than a fermented one, but distillation was not discovered until the ninth century AD.
• KJV – 22 times
• ESV – 23 times
Verbose or Lean?
The word count of the Hebrew and Greek text in the standard critical editions is 545,202. Let’s compare this to some major translations.
• Original KJV |
774,746 |
• Current KJV |
790,676 |
• ESV |
757,439 |
• NLT |
747,891 |
• NIV |
726,109 |
• HCSB |
718,943 |
That means the ESV uses 38,496 more words than the HCSB to convey the source text of 545,202 words. As a side note, NASB95 is considered by some to be a fairly literal translation, yet its word count is 775,861. So it uses 56,918 more words than the HCSB.
Reader Helps
1. Bullet Notes - the HCSB has an appendix of 145 words or phrases that average readers might need some help in understanding. These words, e.g. Asherah, Ashtoreth, or atone, are marked with a bullet on their first occurrence in a chapter of the biblical text. When readers see a bullet in the text, they can refer to the appendix if they want to learn more about the term.
2. Footnotes – The HCSB has the following notes:
• 1,586 textual notes
• 5,161 alternate readings
• 843 explanatory notes
• 27,565 cross references
• 237 OT citations in the NT
The NIV and ESV have far fewer notes. For example, the NIV has no textual notes in Gl, Php, 2Tm, and Ti. HCSB has 16. The NLT does have extensive notes, but often a critical term like atone or atonement is left without explanation. In Nm 25:3 there is no help given on Baal of Peor. And in Lv 13:39, ESV uses the term leukoderma with no footnote to help the reader.
3. Formatting – In addition to special formats for poetry, dynamic prose, OT quotes, and using new paragraphs for new speakers, care has been taken in the database of the HCSB to avoid what is called widows and orphans in the typesetting process. Single words wrapping to the next line are avoided so that units of thought are kept together. This produces a Bible page that is more readable and pleasing to the eye.
In summary, the HCSB is more accurate than the NIV, ESV, or NLT. It reads well and has a modern, American vocabulary. Particular attention was devoted to clear and contemporary word order and formatting. The HCSB is more up-to-date in scholarship, and it offers more help and notes to the readers so they can understand what God is saying to them.
The most famous verse in the Bible is Jn 3:16.
NIV translates it as:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Similarly, ESV has:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
NLT uses:
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”
However, the HCSB correctly translates the Greek houtos:
“For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”
Craig Keener in his commentary The Gospel of John, Vol. 1:556 supports our translation when he says, "Some could understand English translations (God ‘so’ loved the world) as intending, ‘God loved the world so much’; but John's language is qualitative rather than quantitative. Houtos means ‘this is how God loved the world’; the cross is the ultimate expression of his love." His footnote reads, "On the syntax in 3:16 yielding ‘in this way,’ see esp. Gundry and Howell, "Syntax."
Quantum of Solace
The weekend numbers are in. Quantum of Solace earned over $70 million dollars its opening weekend, a record best for the franchise, even adjusted for inflation. I hope you like the “new” Bond because with this kind of revenue, there will be no other “course corrections” for quite some time. Daniel Craig is under contract for at least two more films.
For my full thoughts on Craig as Bond, see my review of Casino Royale. However, it goes without saying that even with a second movie under his belt, how well Craig fits the role is still a hot topic of conversation and debate. And it’s not so much that Craig is new in the role or even that he’s blond. Rather, the debate continues because of how much the Bond character himself has had a complete makeover.
As I mentioned in my previous review, the old saying about Bond that “Every woman wants him; every man wants to be him” no longer applies--at least not the last part. I would not want to be this Bond. It would be too painful physically and emotionally. But it’s interesting now how many women are interested in Bond than ever before. This is especially true for those women who in the past, simply saw Bond as a “man’s” movie series. This is a Bond who is more vulnerable and can even be pitied. And yet this is also a more dangerous Bond. In one brief conversation about the movie I had yesterday, a friend of mine described Craig’s Bond perfectly in one word: tortured.
As Kathy and I were driving to the movie on Friday, we heard a less than positive review of the movie on the radio. The reviewer pointed out that in the new movie there are no fancy sports cars and the only love interest came in the previous movie. This is partially untrue. Bond does, in fact, drive the characteristic Aston-Martin at the beginning of Quantum, but to copy a title from an earlier Bond film, it gets the living daylights knocked out of it. When Bond arrives back to his MI6 hideout, the Aston Martin is missing a door and is scratched and dented enough to simply have the whole thing totaled. That car, especially the treatment given to it at the beginning of the movie is a good analogy of what’s been done with the James Bond character. He’s being completely deconstructed. No longer will he fight bad guys without getting his tuxedo dirtied. Now it gets dirty, torn, and bloodied--and so does the character himself.
Many will claim that this Bond is much closer to Fleming’s original vision. Maybe, but not quite. I’ve read most of the Fleming books as well as those of his successor, John Gardner. I can tell you that this Bond is probably closer to Fleming’s vision, but he goes even further. He’s much darker than Fleming imagined. Fleming’s Bond still liked his martinis “shaken, not stirred.” The new Bond, as you might remember from Casino Royale doesn’t “give a damn.”
All of this might leave you with the impression that I didn’t like the movie or that I don’t like the new Bond. Not so. But I admit that I think of this Bond differently. Almost as if he’s a separate character, and this is a separate series. In some ways, it really is. And at times I still miss the old Bond, and I will continue to wish that Brosnan could have made one final movie before the reboot. But enough about that.
Quantum of Solace picks up immediately where the previous movie left off, and I mean immediately. I had watched Casino Royale again a few months back, but it wasn’t recent enough. Ideally the best way to view Quantum of Solace is by watching the previous movie at home and then driving immediately to the theater.
Quantum has been billed as “Bond out for revenge,” but that’s too simplistic. Yes, Bond does go a bit rogue in this movie while M, head of British Intelligence is trying to reign him in, but the real question is whether Bond is motivated more by revenge or more by duty. The answer to that question becomes a bit more clear by the end of the movie.
As already mentioned, although there are a couple of “Bond girls” in this movie, the real love interest in Quantum is still Vesper from the previous movie and she’s dead. Bond obviously had feelings for her, but feels betrayed by her in this movie and the feeling stings. Although there are a few quips here and there, the traditional Bond humor is gone in this installment, but the action and suspense is heightened.
As for the villain, there not much I can say without giving away crucial plot points. However, I will say that this Bond villain will not go down in history as the most memorable bad guy James Bond has ever faced. But maybe that’s by design. Maybe Bond’s wrestling with his own inner demons is the more crucial conflict of the film.
My hope is that by now Bond has dealt with his anger and angst over the scenarios created in Casino Royale and that now he and we, his audience, can move on. I don’t expect we’ll ever go back to the Roger Moore days of nearly winking at the camera, but a bit of levity would be appreciated. Too much of what we see in Quantum to the complete exclusion of the “fun” of the traditional Bond movies could become tiring after a while.
Unless I’m mistaken, the title “Quantum of Solace,” one of Fleming’s short stories about Bond, has now exhausted all of Fleming’s original works (the movie had nothing to do with the story other than the title itself). I don’t want to give away the ending of the movie, but it seems to me that for the next time around, it might be a perfect time to start introducing John Gardner’s works beginning appropriately with his first title License Renewed.
ἀλλόφυλος and Psalm 151
PSALM 151 |
||
LXX |
NETS |
NRSV |
1 οὗτος ὁ ψαλμὸς ἰδιόγραφος εἰς Δαυιδ μικρὸς ἤμην ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου 2 αἱ χεῖρές μου ἐποίησαν ὄργανον 3 καὶ τίς ἀναγγελεῖ τῷ κυρίῳ μου 4 αὐτὸς ἐξαπέστειλεν τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ 5 οἱ ἀδελφοί μου καλοὶ καὶ μεγάλοι 6 ἐξῆλθον εἰς συνάντησιν τῷ ἀλλοφύλῳ 7 ἐγὼ δὲ σπασάμενος τὴν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ μάχαιραν |
1 This Psalm is autographical. I was small among my brothers 2 My hands made an instrument; 3 And who will report to my lord? 4 It was he who sent his messengerd 5 My brothers were handsome and tall, 6 I went out to meet the allophyle, 7 But I, having drawn the dagger from him, |
1 I was small among my brothers, and the youngest in my father’s house; I tended my father’s sheep. 2 My hands made a harp; 3 And who will tell my Lord? 4 It was he who sent his messenger 5 My brothers were handsome and tall, 6 I went out to meet the Philistine, 7 But I drew his own sword; |
Our Bible study at church last Sunday came from 2 Samuel 5-7. The curriculum we use drew upon a theme, “When Assessing One’s Work.” With that theme in mind, and because the chief figure in 2 Samuel is David, I thought that I might introduce my Bible study class to Psalm 151. As I suspected almost everyone in my class was unfamiliar with this Psalm as it is not accepted by Jews, Protestants or Catholics, but is considered canon by the Orthodox Church. Traces of this Psalm, found in the Septuagint, have been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, so its origin is probably Hebrew after all.
Unfortunately, my bright idea to use Psalm 151 was practically an afterthought to my preparation of the lesson from 2 Samuel. In fact, as I was walking out the door, I grabbed by copy of the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) and added it to the stack of volumes I was already carrying. I had not looked at Psalm 151 recently, but was merely drawing off my memory of its theme and content.
At our church we have our worship service before our time of Bible study. After getting a bit settled, I opened up my copy of the NETS that I had grabbed as I was leaving the house to take a look at its rendering of Psalm 151. The NETS, released only last year, is the most current English translation of the LXX. Everything seemed fine until I got to v. 6:
I went out to meet the allophyle, and he cursed me by his idols.
Allophyle? What’s an allophyle? I had not read Psalm 151 in a while, but I knew I didn’t remember seeing this particular word in other translations. Now, if you look above at my chart containing the Greek text, you’re better off than I was Sunday morning. I didn’t have a copy of the Greek text with me. And I couldn’t figure out what an allophyle was immediately from the context.
I pulled my iPhone from my pocket, and tried looking up the word in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary app. No dice. The word allophyle was not to be found. I nudged Kathy and pointed to the word, asking if she knew what it meant. She asked for the reference, and I told her “Psalm 151:6.” She picked up her Bible, but then rolled her eyes, put her Bible back down and ignored me, realizing that Psalm 151 was not going to be in her copy of the New Living Translation.
I tried to figure out meaning based on the derivation of the word. I assumed it was created from two Greek words, and correctly guessed that allo- came from ἄλλος/allos, meaning “other” or “another.” But I went in the wrong direction with -phyle. I incorrectly guessed that perhaps somehow it came from φίλος/philos, meaning “beloved” or “dear.” We get words like bibliophile (lover of books) from this word.
But this made no sense. David went out to meet his other lover? And then cut off his head? Well, I knew from both memory and context that the individual in question was Goliath, so I knew something was off from my guess. I ran a search on my iPhone for Psalm 151 on the internet and found the NRSV translation of “Philistine.” That didn’t explain my immediate question, but it did give me another way to read the verse during our Bible study.
Once I was home and able to look up the passage in the Greek of the LXX, I realized that in using allophyle, the NETS essentially transliterates ἀλλόφυλος/allophulos, a word often translated Philistine or foreigner based on the context. I freely admit that I was not familiar with the word as it only occurs once in the New Testament:
“And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner (ἀλλόφυλος/allophulos) or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.” (Acts 10:28, NASB)
How does one get foreigner, Philistine or even Gentile (as some translations render it) from the word? Well, as I said, I was wrong about my guess regarding -phyle. It didn’t mean “beloved” but rather came from the Greek word φυλή/phule (from which we get words like phylum), meaning “race” or “tribe.” So ἀλλόφυλος/allophulos literally means “other race” and thus foreigner.
On p. 246 of the NETS, there is passing reference to peculiar habit of the Old Greek to translate “פלשתים ‘Philistine’ as (ὁ/οἱ) ἀλλόφυλος/-οι ‘allophyle(s),’ first seen in the book of Judges (3.3, 31; for a total of 20x), rather than the transliteration φυλιστιμ (‘Phylistim’ ) found already in Genesis (8x), Exodus (2x), Iesous (Joshua) (1x), Judges (6x) and Sirach (3x).” However, there’s no explanation why the NETS chooses to transliterate the word in question as allophyle. My only guess is that this is done to designate when the the LXX is doing the same, although the word occurs many other times in contexts simply meaning “foreigner” and the NETS does not transliterate it in these instances.
So now there’s only one other question. How common is the English word allophyle? As mentioned earlier, it wasn’t in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and even now as I write it on my computer, a red line underscores it. I wondered if perhaps allophyle is used in biblical or historical studies so I ran a search for it in literally thousands of reference books and journals in Accordance. The only hits I received for the word came from the NETS. Even running a Google search, if limited to English hits, results in only 95 websites, and most of these are questionable regarding any solution to my curiosity.
So, help me out. Have you come across the word allophyle anywhere in English besides the NETS? If you have, please list the source in the comments.
Election Day
No, I’m not going to tell you who that candidate is. Such things are strictly between me and my hanging chad.
However, I do want to make two suggestions. First, if you don’t vote today, you are squandering a very real privilege you possess to have a say in who your governing officials are. Most people in our world today still do not have this privilege and almost no one in history did. Not voting doesn’t mean that you have less right to voice your opinion later (that’s the beauty of the system in which we live), but I, for one, will not listen to you as closely.
Second, regardless of whether the candidate you vote for wins or loses today, I would ask that for those of you who consider yourselves Christians commit to regular prayer for the victor. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus said, “If you greet only your friends, what’s so great about that?” (Matt 5:47, CEV). By extension of principle, if you only pray for the president if you voted for him, what is so great about that?”
In the first century, the Apostle Paul encouraged Christians to pray for their rulers so that they might live in peace. This was in a world in which they had no say over their government. We have been given so much more. Should we therefore, not also pray for them even more?
“The first thing I want you to do is pray. Pray every way you know how, for everyone you know. Pray especially for rulers and their governments to rule well so we can be quietly about our business of living simply, in humble contemplation.” (1 Tim 2:1-2, The Message)