Who's "This Guy"?

One of the stated goals of the Holman Christian Standard Bible is "to provide English-speaking people across the world with an accurate, readable Bible in contemporary English" [emphasis added].

Previously, I blogged about the HCSB's use of "slacker" in certain verses. While some thought this too informal, or perhaps might even date the HCSB, I found it to be the perfect alternative to sluggard which is used in most translations. Further, since the word "slacker" has been in use for a century and is probably here to stay, I didn't feel like the HCSB's use of the word would date it as a translation at all. And of course, it also gives me the excuse to use the word "slacker" in public contexts now and then. I really like that.

Recently, I came across another fairly informal word in the HCSB: guy. The word occurs in only three passages, all in the Old Testament [emphasis added below]:

"But some wicked men said, 'How can this guy save us?' They despised him and did not bring him a gift, but Saul said nothing" (1 Sam 10:27)

"and say, 'This is what the king says: Put this guy in prison and feed him only bread and water until I come back safely'" (1 Kings 22:27).

"and say, 'This is what the king says: Put this guy in prison and feed him only bread and water until I come back safely'" (2 Chron 18:26)

The NIV, TNIV, and REB all use "this fellow." The KJV/RSV/NRSV/ESV use "this man" in the first instance and "this fellow" in the second and third. The NASB has "this one" in the first instance and "this man" in the latter two. The NLT simply has "this man" in all three verses.

Significantly, no direct word for "guy," "man," and "fellow" is in the actual Hebrew text at all. All of these Bible versions are attempting to find the best way to render a simple pronoun, זה /zeh. The phrase is literally "put this ____ in prison" or "put this one in prison."

[As an aside I noticed that in the NASB, man is rendered in italics in 2 Chron 18:26, but not in 1 Kings 22:27. The NASB retains the older practice of placing words not in the original text in italics--a practice that I generally don't care for because modern readers see italics as points of emphasis. The word in question is indeed absent from both verses. The verses are identical except for an extra particle, ‏את in 1 Kings 22:7 which does not affect the rendering in English. I can only assume that the NASB's non-use of italics in 1Kings 22:27 is merely an oversight.]

Personally, I feel that "man" is appropriate in all three instances because the reference is to a male in each case. "Fellow" is a word that is not in much use today. The HCSB's use of "guy" is interesting, but does it detract? At the very least is is certainly a contemporary rendering in line with one of their goals. But what do you think--is it too contemporary? What's the best way to translate this phrase?