In the comments of a recent post, Chuck Grantham outlined his weekly routine of preparing for his Sunday morning Bible study. I asked Chuck if he would be willing to elaborate on his method a bit for This Lamp readers. Below is his standard procedure. Chuck and I have traded comments before about the lessons because he uses the same Explore the Bible curriculum from Lifeway that we use at our church. But I didn't realize until now that Chuck is not the teacher of his class--this is merely his preparation as an attendee! What I wouldn't give to have a few folks in my class who would put in half the time and effort that Chuck does. No doubt conversation with someone so prepared would take on a very different nature than what takes place in the average Sunday School class.

---

A Guest Post by Chuck Grantham

Rick has asked me to expand a bit on how I prepare for Sunday School for those who may not read the comments section.

The first thing I should say is that I do not teach a Sunday School class. I do this primarily for myself. On the other hand, I think any group of believers studying the Bible deserve good answers when they have questions, and the Learner Guide in the Lifeway Explore the Bible series, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Sunday School quarterly, cannot possibly address all the questions that can come up in your average class.

It is also a help to the actual teacher when someone can give a quick answer to those odd, even off-topic questions that come up, so the teacher can get back on topic. You culprits know who you are….

I should also add that this is a new routine for me, and is slowly evolving as I use it. It also varies a bit depending on the genre of the biblical book we are studying. For Old Testament history I do more historical study and less textual work because my Hebrew and my resources aren’t up to it. For the Gospels I do more synoptic comparison and non-canonicals research, because that‘s a scholarly trend right now and I am fascinated by the agrapha, even if Craig Evans dismisses it.

So as they say, this is where I am at right now, in regard to Sunday School preparation. Here are the steps as I can best outline them:

1. Read the lesson passage in the Learner book.
Of course, you’ve got to read the text first. This can involve different amounts of material. The lesson starts off with a title and then two sets of verses:

A) Background passage: the length of material assumed necessary to grasp the context of the lesson.

B) Lesson passages: those verses actually studied and commented upon in the Learner book.

Sometimes the background passage and the lesson passages are the same. Sometimes the background is several chapters and the lesson passages are the highlight verses within the background passage. My strong suspicion is most folk only read the lesson passages, and even that only in the translations provided in the Sunday School book.

Yes, I said translations. The Explore The Bible Learner Guide provides the lesson passages in side by side renderings from the Holman Christian Standard Bible and of course, the King James Version. This selection leads us to my next step.

2. Check HCSB and KJV for obvious differences.
I love parallel Bibles. But they can confuse someone who does not understand the background of translations. Not only do different Bibles read differently because of different translation philosophies (mirroring the original text versus mirroring contemporary speech of the translation‘s day, to grossly simplify) but also because translations are based upon different “original” texts. Speaking strictly of the New Testament, Older Roman Catholic Bibles were based upon the Latin Vulgate, which varied in places from the King James Bible, based upon Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. And both vary again from Bibles published in the last 130 years, when discoveries of massive numbers of Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac and many more language new testament manuscripts have led scholars to create several “standard” Greek New Testaments, which has further led to each new translation’s translator(s) being forced to decide in numerous places which Greek wording seems more original to them.

All of which is to say that the HCSB and the KJV do not always agree, and not only because centuries separate the vocabularies of the two. The venerable old KJV is based on Greek manuscripts from the Middle Ages, which tend to be more verbose in fear of leaving something good out. The HCSB is based on the current scholarly Greek New Testament, which tends to follow the earliest well-produced manuscripts, whose scribes had not yet added wordings to make things clearer or more reverent, and thus tends to be shorter.

So, after reading the HCSB and the KJV, I do a comparison of their wording, and I take a pen and circle the differences I see, either in vocabulary or in text. That gives me a series of verses which I can then use as a guide for the next step.

3. Check NET diglot for textual notes.
This is the first step where level of education rears its head. I personally have what might be described as “word study Greek.” I can read Greek letters and I know a lot of root words in the vocabulary. Thus I can use certain tools an English-only reader cannot. There are tools for the Greek-impaired to do these sort of things, too, though.

For those with Greek or without, the NET Bible First Edition is a great help, if you don’t let yourself be intimidated. With over 60,000 notes (compared to many study Bibles’ 20,000 notes) the NET is either a study Bible on steroids or an emaciated commentary. Besides the inevitable complaints about its translation philosophy, the NET’s chief strength is its greatest weakness: it has notes for every level of user. Simple definitions of terms sit alongside lengthy discussions of textual critical issues using manuscript numbers and Greek wording. Transliterations are provided as well as notes with “literal” translations of phrases, though.

My preferred edition of the NET when dealing with the New Testament (and we Christians usually are) is the NET Diglot. That is, a parallel Bible with the Nestle-Aland 27th (NA27) edition of the Greek New Testament combined with the NET English translation and notes. Why? Because I am a hopeless New Testament textual criticism geek. Reading the New Testament in Greek for most will simply confirm how careful most translations are to get things as right as they can. And because inevitably translators use
the same reference books and read each other’s translations, a good parallel English New Testament will reveal strong similarity in most Bible passages. But when they do differ, there is no better one stop resource than the NET diglot, which combines the mini-encyclopedia of the NET with the second mini-encyclopedia of the NA27, which endlessly footnotes even minor variations in the wording of NA27’s Greek text by citing which important manuscripts differ from the NA27, then which ones agree with NA27, then which important previous editions of the Greek New Testament agree or disagree with NA27. All of this together with an appendix citing the approximate age of the important manuscripts and what text of which New Testament books they contain.

All this can make for information overload, and the chief complaint against NA27 is that it requires one to learn practically another language in the form of NA27’s symbols and abbreviations to truly use it well. There are two solutions to this:

a) NET Diglot comes with a little foldout containing the witnesses, signs and abbreviations used in the NA27 that will be constantly in readers’ hand.

b) NET footnotes on the opposite page contain English sentences stating as simply as possible much the same information as abbreviated in the NA27 footnotes.

So, having found out what the NET Diglot says about the differences between HCSB and KJV, I will usually circle or underline the variation in the Learner book, draw a line out to the margin of the page, and write out a transliteration of the Greek, together with the earliest manuscript or two supporting each variation with rough date.

At this point I will also be mulling over other things I have learned from the footnotes on the NET side of the diglot, which I will have noticed mentions literal translations, other text critical issues, or even translation issues. But now it is time to go back to the Learner Guide for the next step.

4. Read the passage overview in lesson book, noting where the author keys on words, provides definitions or parallel verses.
In other words, grill the author on the assertions he makes. If he defines a word, I’ll circle it, find the Greek term in the diglot, see how NET translates it, and if I’m at all suspicious of the English term, walk over to my book case and pull out my copy of The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: Abridged Edition by Verlyn Verbrugge (NIDNTT) and look up the Greek. If I find the NIDNTT disagrees with the Learner book significantly, I will turn on the printer copier and run off the article. That will be the first of a sheaf of notes I will have before I’m through.

Key words and parallel verses require more work and more tools. I will cross check the English against the Greek so I get one term, then for the key words simply see how often they are repeated in the Greek text. I do this with E-sword, the excellent FREE (mostly) Bible software. By simply highlighting the Greek word and clicking, I can run a search on the word in the current book or the New Testament. With a copy, a switch to the LXX, and a paste, I can further search for the word in the Old Testament. Even with my poor Greek, I can flip through English versions in E-sword and get a sense of the range of meaning for the word, and very often discover parallels to my New Testament text.

If this doesn’t satisfy me (and by now you realize I’m not easily satisfied) I can hit the books again. Specifically Goodrick, Kohlenberger and Swanson’s The Exhaustive Concordance to the Greek New Testament, and Hatch and Redpath’s Concordance to the Septuagint. These will give me more uses of my Greek word in all its variations, as well as a case of eyestrain. Magnifying glasses are recommended with these resources, or electronic versions you can resize.

This is the point scratch paper comes in handy. Among these many verses I will make note of the parallels quoted in the Learner book and my search I find significant. That leads me to the next step.

5. Significant parallels I paste together and print out in Greek and English, particularly where outright quotes from LXX or a usage determining a discussed word meaning occurs.
Simply put, I’ll cross check my scratch list, pick the most important, then make a file of the New Testament and Old Testament parallels in Greek and English which I resize as small as readable, then print up double-sided to be folded up and stuffed in my now bulging Leaner Guide, along with that possible article from NIDNTT.

6. I print out Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament concerning the relevant passage.
Because I need all the Greek help I can get, and because, to borrow from Rick Brannan, A.T. Robertson was a stud. Or to be more technical, because Robertson wrote a still highly regarded Greek grammar and he published Word Pictures after the papyri boom of the 1900s which changed forever our understanding of New Testament Greek.

7. I read Barclay's Daily Study Bible on the passage, as well as The IVP Bible Background Commentary and the abridged Expositor's Bible Commentary.
Yes, it is only here I get to the commentaries proper. Unless I am cheating a bit. Which lately I am. I bought a copy of Thomas Schreiner’s 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude in the NAC series), and I will often read him as a further part of number 4, grilling and cross checking him as well. Usually he simply adds more material to steps 4 and 5.

Anyway, by this time I know enough about the lesson passage that I can run through the commentaries pretty quickly. Mostly I am looking for different material: cultural background, classical references, historical information. Besides the cultural, most of this will not likely come up in Sunday School. I make notes on my scratch paper, which is at least two sides of paper or two sheets by now.

8. I run off the appropriate page(s) from Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament and/or Omanson’s Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament.
Because I’m a textual criticism geek, but also because Metzger sometimes has odd little sidelines and Omanson discusses how segmentation can affect translation. And of course, Metzger is still THE Man.

9. I sit down with all these pages and put short notes in my Learner book.
Basically, I select what I find important, interesting, and/or easy to write briefly and write it up in the book where I will easily remember it. That usually includes Greek transliteration of key words or confusing terms in KJV along with definitions, notations of words not in the Greek supplied for English clarity, parallel verse notations, occasional flow charts of the author’s argument, and almost always questions about multiple interpretations of a phrase or verse. That’s a fair amount of black ink
scribbled in the book, along with that now sizeable sheaf of printouts in the center of the Learner Guide.

10. After a break of a day or two, I go back and review what I've compiled.
Like preparing for a test, I check to see what I remember and what I need to review. I will also likely scratch out some notes and add some new ones, because I see things more clearly after a break.

11. I go to Sunday School and never use ninety percent of what I've learned.
Because I’m not the teacher, and because I want to help my fellow members learn, not confuse them.

12. I come home from Church and after lunch start the process over again for the next week's Sunday School lesson.
Because I really enjoy all this study.

---

Thanks Chuck for sharing all this. I've heard it said (and I agree) that sincere study of the scriptures is just as valid of a style of worship as any other. I know many of This Lamp readers will relate to Chuck's enthusiasm for understanding the scriptures even if they have slightly different steps of their own. I can relate to Chuck because I've always said that I feel most alive when learning, and I feel most in God's will when I am teaching what I've learned.

Chuck Grantham can be reached at chuckgrantham@cableone.net, and I know he would appreciate your feedback in the comments.

Tags: Bible study, HCSB, NET, KJV

Those of you who are interested in issues related to Bible translations, be sure that you don't miss the following:

1. The new TNIV Truth blog. Ben Irwin, former employee of Zondervan, has a must-read post: "TNIV: Basic Idea or Details of Meaning?"
2. Kevin Sam's thoughts on the New Living Translation.
3. Gary at "A Friend of Christ" blog has begun to rethink his position on the TNIV.
4. ElShaddai Edwards examines Genesis 1:28 in the NLTse, HCSB, TNIV, and REB.

Tags: TNIV, NLT, HCSB, REB

“For it was You who created my inward parts;
You knit me together in my mother’s womb.”
(Psalm 139:13 HCSB)

Our passage of study in Sunday School tomorrow is Psalm 139. As I was reading through the leader's guide to the curriculum tonight, a couple of paragraphs related to v. 13 stood out:

The second line in this verse is an example of a common characteristic of Hebrew poetry. The second line repeats the first line, but it does so by the use of synonyms. Hence knit me together is a synonym for created in the previous line. In light of the complexity of the human body the verb knit me together generates a mental picture that fits the context as well. Inside the womb, God wove tissue, bone, and sinew to form a living being.

The average adult body consists of approximately 650 muscles, 50,000 miles of blood vessels, and 206 bones. About 20 square feet of skin tissue covers these components in males and about 17 square feet is required in females. A baby at birth is even more complex than an adult. The infant has 300 bones. During childhood 94 of these fuse together.

Contemplating such complexities of the human body and God's awesome creative ability makes one truly exclaim with the psalmist the next verse:

“I will praise You,
because I have been remarkably and wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful,
and I know |this| very well.”
(Psalm 139:14 HCSB)

---

Minor nitpick about the HCSB in the above verse. My original intent was merely to post what you see above. I used the HCSB because it's what's used in the curriculum, and it matched up to the words in the quotation. Overall, I consider the HCSB to be one of the best of the new translations on the market today; and when it breaks with traditional phrasing, it's usually for the better. However, I don't care for the use of the word remarkably instead of the more familiar fearfully (KJV, TNIV, NASB, NRSV and many more). It's not that fearfully simply sounds more familiar; rather, it's because fearfully is a better translation of the Hebrew word ‏יָרֵא‎/yare which according to HALOT means to be dreaded in a terrible way. I recognize that fearfully is often misunderstood as meaning "carefully," and the change in the HCSB avoids this potential mistake by the reader. But in my opinion, remarkably loses this sense of awe-inspired, jaw-dropping, heart-pounding sense of general FRIGHT that the psalmist experienced as he reflected on the incredible power of God's creative force.

Tags: HCSB, Psalms

For almost two decades I taught from the New American Standard Bible. As a translation, I “connected” to it, when I was only 13 years old. It was a constant companion. And over the years, although I read other translations devotionally, I only taught from the NASB. I believed that a formal equivalent translation method--a word-for-word literalness--produced the best translation. So what if the NASB was on a higher reading level than most translations! So what if some people found the phrasings wooden! What was important was that it clearly communicated the original biblical language texts as closely as possible in the English language...right?

I'll admit that at least as far as five or six years ago from my own study, I realized that the NASB, while technically literal, was somewhat lacking in some places--especially in Old Testament poetic sections--when it came to bridging the language gap between the biblical culture and context and ours. Literal translations have difficulty communicating metaphors and symbolic imagery. It's easy for the meaning to become lost. But I continued teaching from the NASB nonetheless. Then my confidence in the NASB was completely shattered in early 2005 when in the middle of a half-year study on Romans I was teaching at my church, I realized that the translation itself was getting in the way. This was a study separate from any curriculum. It was all me. The problem arose, however, when I found I was having to explain the English of the NASB in order to explain the meaning of the biblical text. That was clearly an unnecessary step. Communication was impeded by the translation itself. Did that make sense? Translations are supposed to be bridges, but what if the bridges themselves are in disrepair?

I knew that there were two primary philosophies of translation: formal equivalent (word-for-word) and dynamic equivalent (thought-for-thought or meaning-driven). At the very least I knew that I needed to move a bit further down the spectrum toward dynamic equivalence. But how far? After spending weeks considering various translations, I settled on the Holman Christian Standard Bible for my Sunday morning translation of choice. It was a good bridge as a translation between the two methods because it was literal when it could be literal, but dynamic when that didn't work quite as well. Plus, our Sunday School literature uses HCSB. So I was teaching from the translation used in my class' quarterly.

And now we're in Hebrews. And I'm using curriculum this time. But sometimes I don't like certain turns the curriculum makes. Today's frustration came from the curriculum writer's decision to leave out nearly half of the verses in ch. 7. Hebrews itself is a complicated book in my opinion which may explain why very few ever touch it outside of the eleventh chapter. In my understanding, the writer is developing a carefully crafted, but complicated argument of why Jesus is better than the angels, the prophets, Moses, the High Priest, the Levitical priesthood, etc., and there's no possible way to go back to an earlier form of faith pre-Messiah.. I suppose that the curriculum writer chose to simplify things for the readers by leaving out a large section of the chapter. But in my opinion, he short-circuited the biblical author's argument in the process.

So I saw my task this morning as one of making my class understand the writer of Hebrews' argument--without leaving out any verses--and in the end creating room for some kind of practical application they could leave with. It's easy to get bogged down in Hebrews and forget that last part. I wrote in this blog a few weeks back that the KJV rendering of Hebrews seems unintelligible in places. I believe this is probably due to the difficulty of the Greek. And while the HCSB was good, and certainly better than the KJV or even the NASB would have been, I was still having some doubts, even as late as this morning about whether I was using a translation that made Heb 7 crystal clear. Somehow between the translation, my teaching ability, and the power of God's Holy Spirit, I wanted my class to have a clear understanding of Hebrews ch. 7 by the time they left the study. And so at the last minute--right around 8:30, a half hour before we had to be at church--I switched translations. I grabbed my TNIV, a translation that I although I have promoted on this blog, I have only used in public for devotional purposes.

Don't tell my pastor, but in the middle of his sermon on Romans 6, I stole over to Hebrews 7 and familiarized myself with the TNIV text. I had looked at it during my preparation, but I had not originally been planning to teach from it. Then when we got to our class after the sermon I began walking my class (the best metaphor for it) through the end of Hebrews 6 and into the seventh chapter. The fact that I was using the TNIV didn't really become a factor until the end when I read the last passage of our study, Heb 7:20-28, myself because we were short on time. Now, it was probably because of momentum built from our journey through the text thus far (I believe they were understanding), but as I read from the TNIV, I felt like they were extremely engaged and fully understanding the words--which in the latter part of ch. 7 do serve as a powerful summation and application of the writer's arguments.

“And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

          “The Lord has sworn
                 and will not change his mind:
                 ‘You are a priest forever.’”

         Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.
         Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
        Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.”

                          (Heb 7:20-28, TNIV)

I actually heard amens and other verbal affirmations while I was merely reading the biblical text (with enthusiasm, mind you). There was an excitement in the room simply as I read the Scripture passage. Amazing--I don't know if I've ever had so many people in tune before with what was being read from the Bible, with only minimal comment from me. Now, while there are quite a few factors involved, I have to think that the translation itself--the TNIV--was a primary contribution to my class' understanding of Hebrews today.

And I didn't plan to write about any of this, although it's been on my mind and heart all day. Then I read Richard Rhodes' post tonight on Better Bible Blogs, titled "What's the Joke?" In this wonderful blog entry, he skillfully demonstrates why literal word-for-word translation is not always the best means for communicating meaning from one culture to another. He does this merely by trying to translate a newspaper cartoon from German to English. The entire article is well worth your time and demonstrates succinctly what's taken me a few years to learn through my experience teaching: literalness ≠ good translation.

Again, please read his entire post, but I must at least repeat his final thoughts here:

Our long use of translations that only approximate the meaning of the Greek (or Hebrew) has dulled our senses. It’s only in live cross-linguistic situations that we are confronted with the fact that language is regularly used with a precision we fail to appreciate from the inside. And it’s that precision that gets washed away in most Bible translations by our preference for literalness. Ironically, that preference all but guarantees that we will get it wrong.

If I think I'm teaching God's Word, but my students can't understand me, ultimately it's my fault. I have not actually taught; I've merely performed, and I've performed poorly at that. A Bible translation is like a tool. Certain jobs demand different tools, and some tools are right for the job while others aren't. I still recommend students of the Bible study in parallel with both formal and dynamic translations. But perhaps, for me, it's again time to go a little bit further down that translation spectrum regarding the tool...the translation I use on Sunday mornings.

Tags: Translations, HCSB, TNIV

Our Sunday School lesson this morning covered Hebrews 3:16-4:13. I've been very pleased with the Lifeway coverage of Hebrews because we've hit almost every verse--no jumping around as is often the case. However, in our lesson today, one verse was conspicuously missing: Hebrews 4:8.

The Lifeway Explore the Bible curriculum uses two translations as its base, the HCSB and the KJV and normally reproduces the verses side by side. Any quick look at Heb 4:8 in these two translations immediately demonstrates a problem:

HEBREWS 4:8
HCSB	KJV
For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken later about another day.	For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Obviously, there's going to be a big difference in the meaning of the passage based on whether the writer is speaking of Joshua or Jesus. What?! You don't remember the Old Testament story about Jesus leading the Israelites into the Promised Land?

For sake of comparison, here are a few other translations of the verse:

"For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day." (NIV/TNIV)

"Now if Joshua had succeeded in giving them this rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest still to come." (NLT)

"For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that." (NASB)

"For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day." (NRSV)

"For if Joshua had given them rest, God* would not have spoken of another day later on." (ESV)

Obviously, the majority consensus is for Joshua, not Jesus. And it certainly makes sense because the context of the writer's argument is an analogy that he's drawing from the Israelite's entrance into the Promised Land. So why the difference in the KJV?

Well, part of the problem with the King James Version is that in the New Testament the translators chose to transliterate the Greek versions of the names of Old Testament characters rather than matching up the spellings with what was used in the KJV Old Testament. So in Matt 24:37, Noah is represented as "Noe," Elijah becomes "Elias" in Matt 11:14, Isaiah becomes "Esaias" in Matt 3:3 and so on. Some of these the reader will catch, but such inconsistency between the testaments can and certainly has created confusion and even misinterpretation in the past. [Consider for example, the blunder made by Mormon "prophet" Joseph Smith in Doctrine & Covenants 76:100, where he writes, "These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch...." It hardly seems fitting for a so-called "prophet" to make such an error that would become part of their sacred and "inspired" writings, wouldn't you think?]

That brings us to Jesus and Joshua. The two have the same name. Jesus is the Greek form (Ἰησοῦς/Iesous) and Joshua is the Hebrew form (‏יהושע‎/Yehoshua) of the same name. So, technically, the KJV translators were being consistent in their method of keeping the Greek form of the names of the Old Testament characters when it came to Heb 4:8. But surely anyone can see the confusion that such a practice causes. The same kind of misreading is caused in Acts 7:45 which again reads "Jesus," when the context is obviously referring to Joshua.

Every major modern translation today has gone to keeping the names consistent between the testaments. And the TNIV has gone a step further in that the translators have chosen to update the spellings of certain names to bring them closer to their Hebrew originals. A chart of such spelling changes is in the back of every TNIV Bible.

Hebrews 4:8 is a perfect example of why I never recommend the KJV as a primary translation for serious study. Even the student who can plow through the Elizabethan English fairly well has a strong possibility of misinterpreting a verse like Heb 4:8 or Acts 7:45. Further, I've noted since beginning our study in Hebrews, as I've been translating some of it, that the Greek is more difficult in this book than most other places in the New Testament. And that is reflected in the KJV rendering of many of the passages in Hebrews which come across as nearly unintelligible (see, for instance Heb 3:16-18 in the KJV).

I suppose it would be controversial for some to hear that the KJV can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the text in a verse like Heb 4:13 or Acts 7:45. Maybe that's why the editors at Lifeway decided to simply leave that verse out of the study. But v. 8 is an essential part of the writer's argument. Plus, for the one or two KJV users in my class, bringing up the issue was a way to gently encourage them to use a newer translation. Therefore, we covered v. 8, and everyone understood that the reference was to Joshua.

Tags: Hebrews, KJV, HCSB, TNIV

Jeremy, over at Parableman, has an excellent post, "Interpretive Translation" about the confusion that is caused when translators capitalize pronouns referring to deity. He notes the irony that the defenders of this practice are often critical of what they call "interpretive translations" (i.e. dynamic equivalent versions) such as the NIV, TNIV, and NLT, but are themselves just as guilty of taking interpretive liberties when capitalizing pronouns. Lest anyone forget, there was no such special distinction in the Greek and Hebrew.

And isn't it downright odd to use capitalized pronouns in the words of Jesus' enemies such as in John 19:6, "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath" (NASB)?

On Sunday mornings, I usually teach from the Holman Christian Standard Bible which also capitalizes pronouns, but this has often caused problems such as the issue I described when I wrote my review on the HCSB:

Another problem with the HCSB is that the translators chose to capitalize pronouns referring to deity. In most passages, the pronouns are pretty clear, but not in all. A case in point is Micah 7:14 which was part of a larger passage covered in the Lifeway Explore the Bible Curriculum for May 28. The HCSB capitalizes the pronouns, rendering the text, "Shepherd Your people with Your staff, the flock that is Your possession." Thus, the way the pronouns are capitalized, it would lead one to believe that this is a prayer to God from the prophet Micah. But is this the case? Ironically, in the actual SBC curriculum, the writer took the passage much differently suggesting that this was God's commands to earthly kings. Therefore, the curriculum writer disagreed with the HCSB, both of which are from the same publisher. I agree with the writer, but the translators' decision to use capitalized pronouns creates unnecessary problems.

My personal opinion is that all translations should abandon the practice of capital letters for pronouns referring to deity. In doing so, they remain faithful to the original text and they prevent unnecessary confusion.

Be sure to read Jeremy's post.

Tags: HCSB

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?

Tags: HCSB, 1 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Chronicles, NASB

NOTE: Tables in this blog entry do not render correctly in Internet Explorer 6 for Windows.

In reading the showdown between Elijah and the priests of Baal today, I noticed a rather unusual expression in the Holman Christian Standard Bible's rendering of 1Kings 18:26--

"So they took the bull that he gave them, prepared it, and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, 'Baal, answer us!' But there was no sound; no one answered. Then they did their lame dance around the altar they had made" [emphasis added].

"Lame dance" is what caught my eye. I am used to reading that they "leaped" around the altar. Below is a table with a number of translations represented. Originally, I was going to include the Hebrew from the BHS, but I am having trouble getting it to display correctly in the table. Nevertheless, the key phrase of importance is וַֽיְפַסְּח֔וּ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָֽׂה׃ and I have emphasized that in bold in the table below:

1 KINGS 18:26
KJV	RSV	NRSV	NASB95
And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.	And they took the bull which was given them, and they prepared it, and called on the name of Ba'al from morning until noon, saying, "O Ba'al, answer us!" But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped about the altar which they had made.	So they took the bull that was given them, prepared it, and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon, crying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no answer. They limped about the altar that they had made.	Then they took the ox which was given them and they prepared it and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon saying, “O Baal, answer us.” But there was no voice and no one answered. And they leaped about the altar which they made.
HCSB	ESV	NLT2	TNIV
So they took the bull that he gave them, prepared it, and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, “Baal, answer us!” But there was no sound; no one answered. Then they did their lame dance around the altar they had made.	And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made.	So they prepared one of the bulls and placed it on the altar. Then they called on the name of Baal from morning until noontime, shouting, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no reply of any kind. Then they danced, hobbling around the altar they had made.	So they took the bull given them and prepared it. ¶ Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

What we see here is that the KJV and NASB95 translate פסח/pasach as "leap" while the RSV/NRSV/ESV tradition uses "limped," NIV/TNIV uses "danced," and the HCSB and NLT seem to combine the concepts of dancing and limping (or "hobbling" in the NLT).

According to the Koehler-Baumgartner Hebrew lexicon, פסח/pasach, when used in the piel form as it is in this verse, conveys the meaning, "to limp about in a cultic ceremony, perform a hobbling dance." While the RSV/NRSV/ESV tradition seems to improve upon the rendering in the KJV and NASB, only the HCSB and NLT incorporate both connotations of dancing and limping/hobbling. I'm not exactly sure what this shuffling dance was like, but it was obviously not ballet. Incidentally, the first edition of the NLT (1996) renders פסח/pasach as "danced wildly," perhaps borrowing from the NEB/REB, but this phrase does not quite capture the meaning of the word either.

I should note, too that the writer of 1 Kings is making a play on words regarding the actions of the priests of Baal. The same word is used in the Hebrew in v. 21 when Elijah asks the Israelites how long they will go on pasach-ing between two opinions. Of the English translations mentioned above, only the RSV/NRSV/ESV and the NLT make the connection of this pun in English, something very difficult to catch outside the Hebrew.

Regardless, except for the HCSB and NLT, most translations do not accurately convey both the dancing and limping elements of פסח/pasach. Perhaps this is a good example as to why sometimes a literal word-for-word translation method is less than effective in conveying the meaning of the original text.

And while the rendering "lame dance" in the HCSB caught my attention, I have to admit that I misread the verse. Lame can mean "unable to walk" or it can mean "ineffective or weak."


When I read, "They did their lame dance..." I mentally heard the voice of one of the high school students I used to teach saying, "That's so lame" about something he thought was stupid. Now while we might agree that the dance performed by the priests of Baal was ineffective and stupid, and perhaps we might have used the same sentiment as the high school student had we been there, this idea of lame is not what the writer of 1 Kings had in mind. Therefore, I have to assert that the HCSB, while attempting to convey the full meaning of פסח/pasach, falls a bit short because the reading might easily be interpreted as contemporary slang. This reminds me of the decision on the part of the CEV translators to avoid using the word "awesome" for God because of how it is so often misappropriated and overused among teenagers.

In the end, I'll have to conclude that the NLT's rendering is the most accurate: "Then they danced, hobbling around the altar they had made." I still don't know exactly what this dance looked like but I tried to demonstrate my best guess to Kathy. I'm sure my presentation was as comical to her as the priests of Baal's dance was to Elijah. And she agreed, it was lame...

Tags: 1 Kings, Translations, BHS, HCSB

Our Bible study at church this morning is taken from Job 28. As I was going back over the passage, the last four verses stood out:

            When God fixed the weight of the wind
            and limited the water by measure,
            when He established a limit for the rain
            and a path for the lightning,
            He considered wisdom and evaluated it;
            He established it and examined it.
            He said to mankind,
            “Look! The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
            and to turn from evil is understanding."
           
            (Job 28:25-28, HCSB)

The last two lines are particularly striking. The choice for humanity was set at the beginning of creation. This same choice was echoed by Moses in Deut 30:19-20.

And I remember another wise person once saying, "In life some people get it; some don't." Me? I want to be one of the ones who gets it.

Tags: Job, HCSB

The late 19th Century saw two major projects to update the King James Version: the (British) Revised Version of 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901 in the United States. In spite of the improvements made upon the KJV, neither of these revisions saw much attention outside academic circles. A number of English translation projects were introduced in the first half of the 20th Century including those by James Moffatt (1935) and Edgar Goodspeed (1927). However, the only real modern translation to make any kind of inroad into Protestant Bible reading in this era was the 1952 Revised Standard Version, a substantial update to the 1901 ASV. Yet, even then, most Christians continued to preach and read from the King James Version.

The 1970's however, would signal an explosion in modern translations beginning with the New English Bible (1970), The Living Bible (1971), the New American Standard Bible and RSV II (1971), Today's English Version (1976), New International Version (1978) and the New King James Version (1982). Of this generation of English translations, two Bibles distinctly stand out. The Living Bible is significant in that not only was it an extremely popular paraphrase, but more importantly, it was the first Bible to unseat (for a time) the KJV as the highest ranking in Bible sales. The second Bible of note from this era is the New International Version which was able to sustain a top ranking in sales for the most part over the last two decades. The NIV, like the TEV was a brand new translation, not in the Tyndale/KJV tradition. Moreover, like the TEV and NKJV, the NIV was completely free from archaic vocabulary unlike the RSV II and NASB, which still used "thee" and "thou" when referring to deity. And most significantly, it was during this era that most Christians started to read modern translations--that is, something besides the venerable old King James Version.

In my opinion we are now in a second major generation of translations since the 1970's. I would date this era as beginning in 1989 with the publication of the New Revised Standard Version. This era has also seen an update to the New American Standard Bible (1995); the New Living Translation (1996 and 2nd edition, 2004); a more conservative alternative to the NRSV, the English Standard Version (2001); a paraphrase, the Message (2002); the Holman Christian Standard Version (2004) and the Today's New International Version (2005). A record number of other translations have appeared in this era as well--some better than others--but in my opinion, these that I have listed are the most significant versions. This current generation is marked by two things. First, in this group all archaic language has been dropped. Secondly, the debate regarding inclusive language referring to human beings has taken front and center stage. All of these translations are more inclusive than those of a generation ago, but the NRSV, NLT, Message, and TNIV are more overtly so.

And of this group, the HCSB stands out as the first completely new committee-translated Bible version since the NIV of 1978.

HISTORY. What would become the HCSB started as a project of Dallas Theological Seminary professor, Arthur Farstad. Farstad had previously served as editor of the New King James Version (1982) and co-editor of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. From what I can gather, Farstad wanted to do a brand new translation, presumably outside the Tyndale/KJV tradition. All the sources I've read claim that Farstad wanted to base this translation on the same NT manuscript tradition underlying the King James and New King James Versions (the Textus Receptus). I've often wondered if this is accurate though. Was Farstad working on a translation based on the TR or the Majority Text? To me it would make sense that he would have been working on a translation based on the latter, especially since--as I have said before--there's not a major translation based on the Majority Text.

Regardless, Farstad worked on his project from 1984 until 1998 when Broadman and Holman, the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention offered to financially support the project and retain ownership of it. The SBC was looking to sponsor a translation of its own to use in Sunday School literature and related publications so that it would no longer have to pay licensing fees to use the New International Version. In the same year that the deal was struck, Farstad died. After his death, the editorial responsibilities were turned over to another committee member Ed Blume and the underlying NT text was switched mid-project to the NA27/UBS4. Frankly, I am glad the text was switched because I would have hated to have seen an "official" SBC translation based on either the TR or the MT. I would have certainly not been interested in the HCSB if it had continued on this path, and it wouldn't be on this list. I'm not hiding my textual bias.

Personally, I have a number of questions I've never seen addressed anywhere. First, I am curious about the actual text Farstad was using as I have mentioned above. Was it really the TR, or was it in fact, the Majority Text? Secondly, I wonder why the project went on for fourteen years without any publication. Then as soon as Broadman & Holman took over the project, they changed the textual basis and published the four gospels the very next year (1999). What exactly made the difference after the committee regime change that resulted in such quick publication? Third, and this is just an insignificant curiosity, I wonder what the project was called before the SBC sponsorship. Was it simply referred to by the committee as the Christian Standard Bible?

The complete Holman Christian Standard Bible was published in 2004. A number of various editions exist, but as of this writing, it is not yet available in any true "study" editions.

Why I like the HCSB. From 1986 to 2005, the primary (but never exclusive) translation I used for study and teaching was the New American Standard Bible. I will give credit where credit is due, and will acknowledge the fact that it was the influence of Wayne Leman and the other contributors of the Better Bibles Blog that caused me to question my continual use of the NASB in public. I've never thought there was one Bible that fits everyone and every context. I knew that the NASB, which is perhaps the most literal of the major translations, could at times come across as a bit awkward in its phrasings, but I had used it for so long that I believe I tended too easily to overlook certain aspects that frankly, just didn't communicate that well. This especially came to light when I spent roughly half a year (26 weeks) systematically walking a Sunday School class at my former church through Paul's letter to the Romans. In the course of this study, I realized that I was spending too much time trying to bridge the gap between the NASB and the people in my class.

After moving to a different county and joining a church within walking distance of our home, I was asked to teach a class at my new fellowship. However, I decided to make the momentous leap from the NASB to...well...something else. As many of you know, I collect translations and had eighty-something to choose from. But I purposefully narrowed my choice to that second-generation list of modern translations that I described above, and obviously, I eliminated the NASB update as that's what I had been using since 2002. Finally, I narrowed my choices down to the HCSB and the TNIV. Both are good translations, and both are in my top ten picks. In the end, I decided to go with the HCSB simply because that's what was in the Sunday School literature at our church. Although I certainly encourage participants in my class to bring their own copy of the scriptures, when they don't, at least what I read from is identical to what they have in their Sunday School book. But there's more to my liking of the HCSB than simply its inclusion in the Sunday School literature.

I'll admit that as far as translations go, generally, I prefer a more literal translation--or perhaps what is usually referred to as a formal equivalence translation. However, I also recognize the weaknesses in this translation philosophy. The introduction to the HCSB makes the claim that the translators used a method known as "optimal equivalence." Now, I'll admit that when I first read this term a few years back, I laughed out loud. I thought that the translators were essentially creating another term for some kind of dynamic equivalence method. However, upon closer inspection, I discovered that's not the case. To put it in my own words, optimal equivalence seems to start with a formal equivalent method; however, if formal equivalence does not communicate the biblical meaning of a text to a contemporary audience, the translators feel free to use more dynamic, or idiomatic, methods to get the message across. The more I've read the HCSB, the more convinced I've become that this really seems to work. What the HCSB ends up becoming is a translation that is fairly literal, but without all the awkwardness of a formal equivalent translation. It's readable like the NIV, but in my opinion, much more precise than the NIV.

I've read completely through a number of Bible versions, but I've said before that I don't think you really get to know a translation until you study with it. As I've studied with the HCSB over the last few months--alongside the Greek text and the NASB--I've been surprised, and even delighted with the precision of the HCSB. As some of you know, I returned to school this past Fall to pick up my degree where I left off a number of years ago. This past spring semester, I audited a doctoral-level Greek seminar as a refresher. As I translated the prison and pastoral epistles, I checked my own translation of the text not just with the NASB as had always been my practice in the past, but added the HCSB to the mix. In comparing the Greek text, my own translation, the NASB, and the HCSB, I became more and more convinced that the HCSB better conveyed the biblical meaning than the NASB. Certainly, there were places where the NASB was more literal, but is accurate translation evaluated more on word-for-word accuracy or on the ability to get the biblical writers' meaning across in the most effective manner?

Another enjoyable aspect of the HCSB is that it's not in the Tyndale/KJV tradition. Of course, neither is the NIV, but I never really bonded with the NIV. As stated above, the HCSB is the the first major translation in the last twenty-five years that is completely new and not an update of a previous version. As such, the translators had the courage to break free from familiar, but incorrect renderings of the past. I have previously blogged about the HCSB's correct translating of passages such as 2 Tim 1:12. Most new translations have generally left extremely familiar passages as is because in evaluating a new Bible version, the average person turns to these familiar passages first. But some of these passages needed correcting. Take for instance the 23rd Psalm. In v. 4, the KJV, NASB, NIV, and ESV all refer to "the valley of the shadow of death." Yet, this is over-translation. Most who are familiar with the Hebrew text will tell you that there's really nothing in there about shadows or death. But it's all quite poetic and it was read that way at Aunt Martha's funeral, so most translations have left it alone other than putting the actual phrasing down in the footnotes. Not so with the HCSB which renders the verse, "Even when I go through the darkest valley... ."

Of course the most controversial correction has to do with the HCSB's rendering of John 3:16. Years ago, the NIV translators correctly opted to translate μονογενής as "one and only" instead of "only begotten" which had remained standard phrasing in translations of the Tyndale tradition. However, the HCSB translators went a step further and corrected the "so" of "God so loved the world... ." The average person reads the "so" in John 3:16 as meaning "God sooooooo loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" or that "God loved the world SO MUCH." Now, I won't deny God's perfect love for his creation, but that's simply not what the "so" means. The "so" is from the Greek word οὕτως and simply means "thus" or "in this way." In other words, to paraphrase, what the verse means is "This is the way in which God loved the world: that he he gave his one and only son... ." The HCSB renders John 3:16 as "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."

The HCSB also brings in line verse divisions with that in the NA27/USB4 Greek text. Years ago I memorized Gal 2:20 in the NASB from a Navigator TMS card which read "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." Yet, when I sat down with the HCSB a few months back to look up my familiar passages, there was nothing about being crucified with Christ in v. 20. Instead, I found that part in the preceding verse: "¹⁹For through the law I have died to the law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ ²⁰and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." I wondered why the break was made this way and discovered that it is this way in the Greek text. The NRSV also makes the division here, but the other modern translations follow the traditional verse divisions. Since then I have found a consistent pattern in the HCSB to defer to the verse divisions in the Greek text when traditional divisions differ.

To me, the HCSB embodies not only accuracy in translation, but also a freshness in the translator's approach to the text. As I said before, there are sometimes certain renderings that just absolutely delight me. I wrote a few weeks ago about my discovery of the HCSB's use of "slacker" for "lazy" (רָפָה) in Exodus and "sluggard" (עָצֵל) in Proverbs. Even the TNIV uses "sluggard," but which word speaks better to a contemporary audience? In my blog about the HCSB's use of "slacker," one commenter suggested that such a word was slang and would unnecessarily date the HCSB. However, I disagreed because the word has been around almost a century, originally referring to someone who shirks military duty and later having a much broader meaning.

Another feature I really like in the HCSB is the use of "Bullet Notes." Included in the back of most editions of the HCSB is a list of definitions for certain words used throughout the Bible. One common difficulty of translating a text from one culture to another is how to communicate inherent jargon. Certain words carry very specific definitions, but the problem often faced by a translator is that the reader may not know or understand a particular word. Usually this will result in a compromise on some level, often with a translation opting to use a simpler, but less specific term. The use of bullet indicators next to certain words allow the translators to keep very specific terms in the text. Noting that the HCSB translators opted to keep a very theologically loaded term like propitiation, instead of the simpler "sacrifice of atonement" as in the NIV and NRSV, I wrote to the editors of the HCSB in February asking why there wasn't a bullet note for this term. I received an email back stating that bullet notes were being added for both propitiation and redemption, and these will show up in future editions of the HCSB.

What could be improved with the HCSB. In spite of the precision in translation that I mentioned earlier, there are still some places in the HCSB that seem a bit clumsy now and then. And I often wonder why a particular word choice was made. Why, for instance, did the translators opt to use the word deluge instead of the much simpler flood in the Noah story in Genesis? What exactly does deluge communicate that flood does not? I think I would feel like something of an egghead to announce I would be speaking on "Noah and the Deluge."

The HCSB uses "small lower corner brackets ... to indicate words supplied for clarity by the translators." Although this is an improvement over the use of italics for this purpose as in the NASB, the very nature of optimal equivalence makes the entire practice unnecessary and distracting.

Another problem with the HCSB is that the translators chose to capitalize pronouns referring to deity. In most passages, the pronouns are pretty clear, but not in all. A case in point is Micah 7:14 which was part of a larger passage covered in the Lifeway Explore the Bible Curriculum for May 28. The HCSB capitalizes the pronouns, rendering the text, "Shepherd Your people with Your staff, the flock that is Your possession." Thus, the way the pronouns are capitalized, it would lead one to believe that this is a prayer to God from the prophet Micah. But is this the case? Ironically, in the actual SBC curriculum, the writer took the passage much differently suggesting that this was God's commands to earthly kings. Therefore, the curriculum writer disagreed with the HCSB, both of which are from the same publisher. I agree with the writer, but the translators' decision to use capitalized pronouns creates unnecessary problems.

Although I like the decision to use Yahweh in places for the name of God as opposed to the all-caps LORD, I would prefer that Yahweh would simply be used throughout the Old Testament. Why should God's proper name be used in Psalm 68:4, but not in Josh 24:14-28 when Yahweh is being set in distinction to all the pagan gods? One of the reasons I like the New Jerusalem Bible is the decision to use the actual divine name throughout the OT text.

I'm certain that we'll see the HCSB in a variety of editions. In my opinion, once a translation appears in various study Bible editions (even though I, personally don't tend to use them), it has reached a significant level of public acceptance. But I would also like to see academic resources such as an HCSB/Greek text diglot. Zondervan has been very good about doing these kinds of products with the NIV.

Although the HCSB currently outsells the ESV, Broadman & Holman could learn a few lessons from Crossway's ESV marketing handbook. I've suggested on their feedback page that Broadman & Holman start an HCSB blog. They responded by saying they would consider it. I see lots of "ESV: Truth Unchanged" badges on various websites, but there's no HCSB equivalent for bloggers who like this translation. Although there was lots of promotion around the launch of the HCSB, it seems to have died down a good bit in recent months.

The HCSB also needs to branch out beyond SBC circles. Although I said I am certain that the HCSB will appear in various formats, will we ever see something like an HCSB Life Application Bible published by Tyndale Press? Unfortunately, when I've recommended the HCSB, I still sometimes hear it referred to as "the Baptist Bible" or "the Lifeway Translation." This is in spite of the fact that according to the HCSB FAQ, only 50% of the 100 or so members of the translation committee were Baptists, and 17 different denominations were represented in that team.

How I use the HCSB. Currently, the HCSB is my main Bible for teaching in church settings. I also use the HCSB in my personal Bible study in comparison with the original languages and other English translations. The HCSB is currently the translation that I am reading through.

What edition of the HCSB I primarily use. I've been teaching from a genuine leather edition of the HCSB known as The Ministers Bible (ISBN 1586401696). I bought this edition primarily for its single-column format which is handy for writing in my own notes. There are also a number of useful ministry helps including two separate wedding ceremonies, a funeral sermon, pre-marital counseling guidelines, and a host of other resources. Personally, I think these resources should be in the middle of the Bible, perhaps between the testaments instead of in the back. If you were to actually use this Bible to read wedding vows from, it would be simpler to hold your place in the middle than in the last few pages. And speaking of pages, they are way too thin in this edition and tend to curl after writing on them. An attempt was made to create a quasi-thinline Bible, but I would prefer thicker pages in exchange for a thinline form factor that doesn't mean that much to me.



For Further Reading:
General
• David Dewey, A User's Guide to Bible Translations, pp. 192-194.
• HCSB: Wikipedia entry
• HCSB Official Site
• HCSB FAQs
• HCSB Translation Team
• Wayne Leman's HCSB Links Page

Analysis
• HCSB: Bible Researcher Page
• HCSB: Better Bibles Blog Page (see especially comments)

---

Up next: The TNIV's All Right With Me.

Tags: HCSB, Top Ten

This semester I've been auditing a Greek seminar in which we've been translating through Paul's Prison Epistles. We had two and a half chapters to prepare for this past Friday's class including 2 Timothy 1. When I got to v. 12, the phrase "οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα καὶ πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν" reminded me of the old hymn "I Know Whom I Have Believed" in which the refrain is based on this verse:

But I know whom I have believed,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I've committed
Unto Him against that day.

I've always liked this hymn's words and it's melodic sway. It's one of those songs that gets in my head, but unlike some songs, I don't mind this one repeating itself over and over. In fact, it stayed with me all weekend long in more ways than one, which I will describe below.

But as I was translating the verse, it seemed to make more sense to translate it as "He is able to keep/guard that which has been committed/deposited TO ME." In other words, Paul is not committing something to God for safekeeping, but rather God is protecting something that he has given to Paul. And of course, exactly what it is that has been entrusted is open to debate, especially considering that the verse can be translated these two different ways. Any quick survey of translations will provide a variety of suggestions including the gospel, Paul's soul, his converts, the grace that God's given to him, his teachings and no doubt a few more.

I have about five commentaries on the Pastorals on my shelf, so I surveyed about three of them which I thought might address the issue. I. Howard Marshall disagreed with me, as did Luke Timothy Johnson. But Donald Guthrie came to the same conclusion I did:

The words translated that which I have committed unto him mean literally "my deposit" (paratheke). the same word paratheke, is used in v. 14 and 1 Tim 6:20, where in both cases it describes the deposit committed to Timothy for safekeeping. But the present verse focuses attention on God's ability to guard. The "deposit" could be understood either of what God entrusted to Paul or what Paul entrusted to God, but since in the other occurrences in the Pastorals the word paratheke is used in the former sense, it is most probably used in the same sense here. In that case the reference is to the work which the apostle was commissioned to do or the doctrine entrusted to him.
Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, TNTC, vol. 14, p. 132.

The consensus of the class was that the hymn (which is based on the KJV) is, in fact, wrong. Paul is speaking of something entrusted to him by God. Later this weekend, I was able to scan a few English translations and find that there's no consensus, even among the more contemporary translations.

Among the translations which favor the more traditional idea (as in the song) that Paul has entrusted something to God for safekeeping, include the NASB, NIV, TNIV, NRSV, and NLT.

Those translations that agree with my conclusion--that God has given something to Paul which God will protect--include the HCSB, ESV, GWT, the Message, and NET.

An example: “But I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to guard what has been entrusted to me until that day.” (2 Tim 1:12, HCSB)

Now, I'm really the kind of person who would rather avoid modernizing old hymns. I disagree with those who would change "Here I raise mine Ebenezer" to "Here I raise to thee an altar" in the wonderful hymn "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing." I think it would be better to have a quick Bible lesson on 1 Sam 7:12 before or after the hymn is sung.

But what do you do if a hymn has been written based on a mistranslation of a Bible verse?

By coincidence, or divine sense of humor (?), guess what hymn we happened to sing this morning at church? I had already discussed some of this with Kathy, and when the words began to flash upon the screen we both looked at each other wide-eyed. Sure enough, it was "I Know Whom I Have Believed." What are the odds of that? Since I had the opportunity to sing it in worship, I wondered how hard it would be to correct the words. I found it quite easy to do, actually. Simply alter the words slightly so that you sing

But I know whom I have believed,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which He's committed
Unto me against that day.

It works with very little violation to the original hymn. Since so many churches use projection screens instead of hymnals these days, it could be done without most people even noticing the change, let alone getting upset.

However, I doubt that's going to happen. Perhaps it's just best to leave an old hymn alone.

What do you think?

Tags: HCSB

I recently switched from my trusty New American Standard Bible (which I have been using since 1980!) to the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Whereas the NASB is pretty literal, all the time, the HCSB is literal most of the time; but the translators gave themselves the freedom to be dynamic in their translation when the literal sense would make no sense.

As I've been teaching from the HCSB and reading through it, too, I enjoy its freshness because it is the first Bible I've ever used as my primary translation that is outside the Tyndale tradition. And although sometimes I find it's renderings odd (like "deluge" instead of "flood" in Genesis), I am also delighted when I come across a word or phrase that communicates a biblical meaning in both a new and precise way.

One of these is the HCSB's use of "slacker" for "lazy" (רָפָה/raphah) in Exodus and "sluggard" (עָצֵל/atsel) in Proverbs.

The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary defines slacker as "a person who shirks work or obligation." See if that definition works in these verses:

But require the same quota of bricks from them as they were making before; do not reduce it. For they are slackers—that is why they are crying out, ‘Let us go and sacrifice to our God.’ (Ex 5:8)

But he said, “You are slackers. Slackers! That is why you are saying, ‘Let us go sacrifice to the Lord.’ (Ex 5:17)

Go to the ant, you slacker!
Observe its ways and become wise. (Prov 6:6)

How long will you stay in bed, you slacker?
When will you get up from your sleep? (Prov 6:9)

Like vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes,
so the slacker is to the one who sends him on an errand. (Prov 10:26)

The slacker craves, yet has nothing,
but the diligent is fully satisfied. (Prov 13:4)

A slacker’s way is like a thorny hedge,
but the path of the upright is a highway. (Prov 15:9)

The slacker buries his hand in the bowl;
he doesn’t even bring it back to his mouth. (Prov 19:24)

The slacker does not plow during planting season;a
at harvest time he looks,b and there is nothing. (Prov 20:4)

A slacker’s craving will kill him
because his hands refuse to work. (Prov 21:25)

The slacker says, “There’s a lion outside!
I’ll be killed in the streets!" (Prov 22:13)

I went by the field of a slacker
and by the vineyard of a man lacking sense. (Prov 24:30)

The slacker says, “There’s a lion in the road—
a lion in the public square!" (Prov 26:13)

A door turns on its hinge,
and a slacker, on his bed. (Prov 26:14)

The slacker buries his hand in the bowl;
he is too weary to bring it to his mouth. (Prov 26:15)

In his own eyes, a slacker is wiser
than seven men who can answer sensibly. (Prov 26:16)


Don't you just love the word "slacker"? What a great word to use in these contexts. You know, when I used to teach high school, I got to use the word "slacker" a lot. Thanks to the HCSB, I'll be able to continue using it!

Tags: HCSB, Proverbs