HCSB website
HCSB online
Send feedback on the HCSB to the publisher
HCSB links
Information about the HCSB, from its publishers:
“Broadman & Holman Publishers is proud to sponsor the development of the all-new Holman Christian Standard Bible translation (Holman CSB). This fresh rendering of God’s Word is translated directly from the original biblical languages with a reader-friendly style geared to contemporary English usage. The approach of combining accuracy and clarity makes the Holman CSB a translation that any reader can enjoy.
Originated in 1984, the complete Holman CSB was released to the public in April 2004 and already is one of the best-selling Bible translations on the market. It is the first all-new Bible translation from a major publisher in more than 25 years.
The Holman CSB translation was created based on the belief in Scripture as the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God. A team of 100 scholars from around the world representing more than 20 different Protestant denominations worked together translating from the original biblical languages of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic to arrive at what aims to be the most accurate and readable modern English translation available today.”
Categories: HCSB
55 Comments
Acts 15:3 they created great joy among all the brothers
Collocational clash: according to the lexical rules of English, one does not “create joy.”
Is. 50:1 “Where is your mother’s divorce certificate that I used to send her away?”
Inaccurate: “send her away” is not an accurate English wording to communicate the original Hebrew (figurative) meaning of what is done when divorcing someone.
Suggested revision: “get rid of her” or, simply, “divorce her”
The HCSB does accurately translate the non-literal meaning of the Greek word apolusai as ‘divorce’ in Matt. 1:19, even though this Greek word has the same literal meaning as that of the Hebrew word in Is. 50:1, namely, ‘to send (someone) away.
Rom. 1:5 see comment under NRSV
Gen. 4:1 “Adam knew his wife Eve intimately”
Obsolescent: Use of the literal English “knew” for “had intercourse with” is largely obsolescent today, even with the additional help of HCSB’s adverb “intimately.”
Ps. 110:105
“Your word is a lamp for my feet
and a light on my path.”
As I understand English, it is inaccurate to include the English word “and” in this verse. The English conjunction “and” joins different items. As far as I have been able to determine, it cannot conjoin words which mean the same or refer to the same thing. For instance, it is not grammatical (proper) English to say:
“My son is sick and ill.”
Using English “and” in Ps. 119:105, then, invites the understanding from the translation user that there are two kinds of light being described in this verse, first, “a lamp,” and, second, “a light.” But, in reality, the verse is describing the Word of God as being one light, expressed through Hebrew poetic parallelism with two synonymous words for that light.
The Hebrew conjunction in this verse did not have this restriction that English does, at least not in Hebrew poetic parallelism which is beautifully displayed in this verse. The Hebrew conjunction does not block the interpretation that what is conjoined can be synonymous or nearly synonymous or co-referential. English “and” does. It is, therefore, not accurate to translate the Hebrew conjunction here with the English word “and” because the two conjunctions do not have the same meaning and do not function the same.
Instead, the accurate English equivalent to the Hebrew conjunction of Ps. 119:105 is to have an appositive construction. With the appositive, a comma is used instead of the conjunction “and.” And the appositive construction, by definition, says essentially the same thing about something. It is a form of synonymy.
The HCSB wording would be more accurate if it simply left out the “and” and were worded like this:
“Your word is a lamp for my feet,
a light on my path.”
Most other major English versions include the “and” in this verse, like the HCSB, including: KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NLT, ESV, NIV, TNIV, TEV, GW, NCV, NAB.
The only English versions I have found so far that express Ps. 119:105 with the appositive construction are the NJB:
“Your word is a lamp for my feet,
a light on my path.”
and the Tanakh:
“Your word is a lamp to my feet,
a light for my path.”
and the REB:
“Your word is a lamp to my feet,
a light on my path”
Luke 20:34 “the sons of this age”
This wording does not accurately communicate the meaning of the original Semitic idiom which refers to ‘people who are now living.’
Mark 14:34 “My soul is swallowed up in sorrow–to the point of death.”
It is not English to speak of a soul being “swallowed up” nor even, figuratively, “swallowed up in sorrow.” The Greek word perilupos of this verse has nothing to do with swallowing. It simply means ‘very sad.’
English and Biblical Hebrew differ in many ways, one of which is in their syntax of adjectival noun phrases. In English if we have an adjectival noun phrase it only has a plural referent. In Hebrew an adjectival noun phrase can have either a singular or plural referent.
The HCSB properly follows English syntax in this regard in many places, as in Prov. 10:10:
“The wise store up knowledge”
There is plural subject-verb agreement in the HCSB wording which is correct for plural subjects. It would not be proper English to say:
“The wise stores up knowledge”
Although the HCSB uses correct English syntax when its translators understand the Hebrew adjectival noun phrase to be about a plural referent, there are a number of passages where the HCSB uses improper English syntax where the Hebrew adjective noun phrase is a about a singular referent.
For instance, HCSB Prov. 11:8 says:
“The righteous is rescued from trouble;
in his place, the wicked goes in.”
Proper English requires some kind of “filler” noun or pronoun to be part of the adjectival noun phrase when there is a singular referent as there is in Prov. 11:8. Revision to grammatical English syntax is simple, with possibilities such as:
“The righteous one is rescued from trouble”
“The righteous person is rescued from trouble”
Eph. 4:15 see under NET
Acts 28:31 “…teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with full boldness and without hindrance”
Collocational clash: The English lexicon does not sanction the collocation of the adjective “full” with the noun “boldness.” That is, in English boldness is not referred to by the modifier “full.” The HCSB collocational clash does not follow English language lexical rules, so, in some sense the translation wording here is ungrammatical.
James 5:18 “the sky gave rain”
Collocational clash. In English the sky does not “give” anything. It is inappropriate English to speak of the sky “giving” rain.
1 Peter 2:6 “it stands in Scripture”
In English one does not speak of anything “standing” in Scripture. Instead, it is accurate and grammatical English to translate the Greek word, periexei, as “is contained in” (NASB). The RSV, NRSV, and ESV have the same English error here.
Rev. 1:12 “I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me.”
Collocational clash: “see the voice” is improper English. In English one cannot “see” a voice.
1 John 3:17 “shuts off his compassion from him”
In English one cannot “shut off” compassion from someone, just as we cannot “shut off” love, or help, or justice from someone.
James 5:5 “You have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter.”
Collocational clash: The English lexicon does not sanction combining the verb “fatten” with the noun “heart.” This word combination has no meaning in English, therefore it does not accurately communicate the meaning of the original Greek, since a meaningless wording, by definition, cannot transfer any meaning, let alone the correct meaning.
Gal. 2:13 “Then the rest of the Jews joined his hypocrisy”
Collocational clash: In English one cannot speak of “joining” anyone’s hypocrisy. The two words do not combine according to English lexical rules.
It would be proper English to say:
“Then the rest of the Jews became hypocrites along with him”
or, even better”
“the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him” (ESV)
7:51 “You stiff-necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the Holy Spirit; as your forefathers did, so do you.”
The second sentence strikes me as unnecessarily repetitious. It seems to me that no accuracy would be lost if the last three words were deleted and the semicolon changed to a comma.
1 Sam. 2:7 The LORD makes poor and makes rich;
He brings low and lifts up.
The verb phrases of this verse seem like odd English to me:
“makes poor”
“makes rich”
“brings low”
“lifts up”
I would normally expect there to be a syntactic object for these verbs, such as:
“makes people poor”
“brings people low”
Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed what we have heard?
And who has the arm of the LORD been revealed to?
The second sentence of the verse drives me nuts. Why did they end the sentence with the word “to”? Did the translators really feel this would be the best way to translate this verse? I think a more traditional rendering, “And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” would have been much better.
Just because people use improper English doesn’t mean our Bibles should, does it?
Gary
Romans 11:2, “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the Elijah section—how he pleads with God against Israel?”
No one says “the Elijah section” it just sounds weird, especially in a dynamic translation
What is the latest news on the HCSB 2nd edition? When can we expect it to arrive in bookstores?
What is the latest news on the HCSB 2nd edition? When can we expect it to arrive in bookstores?
No one at this blog knows.
We do know now, thanks to this news from our friend ElShaddai, and this from John Gillis: the text is available in electronic form, but not yet in print.
Leviticus 4:19
Compare HCSB:
“He is to remove all the fat from it and burn it on the altar.”
with ESV:
“And all its fat he shall take from it and burn on the alter”
HCSB seems to say that the bull is burnt on the alter, not the fat.
HCSB – Rev 19:6 says, “Hallelujah – because the Lord God, the Almighty, has begun to reign.”
All other modern translations I looked at say, “The Lord God, the Almighty reigns.”
I see this is in the aorist subjunctive but still don’t understand why the translators decided to go with, “has begun to reign,” while all others go with, “reigns.”
Can someone explain this to me?
Another question from Isaiah 40:31 – “But those who trust in the LORD will renew their strength.” HCSB
All other translations either say, “Wait on the LORD,” or “wait for the LORD.”
Did the HCSB translators think wait on the LORD is just an idiom for trusting in Him? If so, is that true? Can that term but thought simply to mean trust in Him?
Dan Vacco asked about Rev 19:6.
It’s not an aorist subjunctive. Though, perhaps there’s a textual issue here. I didn’t look.
The aorist subjunctive would be βασιλεύσῃ. We have the 3rd person singular aorist active indicative which is ἐβασίλευσεν. Aorist subjunctives aren’t augmented.
Since it’s an aorist indicative, I would have translated it as the majority–reigns. It’s a simple statement of fact with little reference to time.
Why did HCSB go against the majority? Don’t know. Perhaps they thought it made the ingressive nature of the entire event more clear. Though I think that is contrary to their underlying translation philosophy. Perhaps it was motivated by an underlying eschatological position. Again, I’m speculating.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for the response Mike. You are right, I was mistaken in saying it was aorist subjunctive. I will claim to have very little understanding of Greek, which is why I am asking these questions.
However, in regards to your response I have another question. Doesn’t the fact that it’s augmented indicate past tense? From what I have read, I thought when an aorist is augmented, it is usually translated past tense. Also it is undefined, in that it doesn’t claim any temporal meaning. So (again I am speaking from ignorance) but just based on some things I have read, it seems that rendering this, “reigns,” doesn’t necessarily convey that it’s augmented. Could this be why they went with, “has begun to reign,” in the HCSB? I agree that perhaps they went with some contextual help, or as you put it, wanted to make, “the ingressive nature of the event more clear.” However, from what I have read, it seems, “reigns,” would be the more odd translation of an augmented aorist. I understand I could be completely wrong on that and am open to correction.
Dan, You’re asking good questions!
I’m not going to claim to be a Greek expert; however, I think I’m a bit further along than “enough to be dangerous.” Let’s see if I can help.
Tense (the “time-ness”, if you like) of the verb in Greek is a concept under a fair amount of scrutiny nowadays. I hesitate saying ‘controversy’, because that has negative connotation. Let’s just say there’s a fair amount of highly focused discussion by brainy people.
The too simple view is that aorist in Greek means past in English. No Greek scholar holds to this so simple a view. (And, for what it’s worth, this is yet again another example of how what it says in the Greek can’t be simplistically brought over into English in a literal fashion.) The reality of it is that the Greek verb presents some combination of tense and aspect (and even this is a bit too simple). Stated succinctly, the Greek verb may take on one of several grammatical aspects. Aspect is type of action. It is not the when of the action.
The aorist has undefined aspect. What this means is that the action of the verb as viewed by the author is a simple event. While continuative aspect presents the action as an ongoing process–much like a motion picture–the undefined aspect is more like a photograph.
Think about a photograph of a person running. You know the person is running–an ongoing action. And yet, the verbal concept conveyed by the photograph is that the running is to be thought of as a simple event. In other words, a simple statement of fact: The man ran. That’s the aorist.
It turns out that conceptually a simple event aspect action syncs up rather nicely with past tense action. Continuous aspect action syncs up quite nicely with present tense action. It’s not perfect, but the partnership, if you will, appears to hold more often than not. And that is why the grammars teach first year Greek students as they do.
If you want to talk about something in the past which is also continuous, you use the imperfect. However, someone like Porter says the imperfect is used to refer to the ongoing state of the verbal idea and is therefore a different kind of aspect (but, this is getting a bit deep).
Eventually, you get further along and the grammars start introducing things like historical present which is a fancy way of explaining what’s going on when a verb is morphologically “labeled” as a present when the context shows the action actually happened in the past. It’s a lot like the jokes that start out with, “This man walks into a bar….” That verb is present tense, and yet the event happened in the past. The intent of the present “tense” verb in this case is to draw the reader into the story. That “drawing into” has more to do with the continuous aspect than it does the tense. Punctilliar (or perfective) aspect doesn’t have the “pull” that draws the reader in.
Then there’s the lexical aspect of a word. That is, the continuative, perfective, etc. nature of the word itself. What I was talking about above was grammatical aspect. Lexical aspect is similar, but different
For example, can we refer to someone who ran for an infinitesimally small length of time–a punctilliar moment of reality as it were? Can someone run for the length of time of a photograph? No, that makes no sense. Run by its very nature is an action which exists over a period of time. It has continuous lexical aspect. Popped is punctilliar (or perfective) by its nature. In fact, if we try to make it continuous, it comes out iterative, which is another aspect. This type of aspect–lexical aspect–also interacts with the context in which it is interpreted. The lexical aspectual meaning intertwines and coheres with the other words around it.
So, what is John doing in Revelation by using the aorist? He’s making a simple statement of fact. Is that happening in the past, the present, the future? Did it just start at the time when the “great mass of beings started saying…” The HCSB translators appear to think it did. That translation is possible.
However, John is not focused on whether or not it just started. He’s making a simple statement of fact–“The Lord, our God, the Almighty reigns.” John’s statement of fact is true at the time conveyed by those speaking in the text (but that’s a whole ‘nuther topic called deixis
Lastly, I sincerely hope I haven’t discouraged you from getting into this more deeply. I hope I haven’t overwhelmed you. Keep diving in. Drink only a little and you’ll be in a drunken stupor. Drink deeply and be wonderfully sober (with thanks to Alexander Pope).
Just to clarify, when I said above, “Tense…of the verb in Greek is a concept under a fair amount of scrutiny…”, I wasn’t so much referring to the tense as to precisely what the morphology of the verb means.
Thanks Mike,
I really appreciate that detailed of an answer. That is a lot to take in, but I think I worked my way through it enough to understand your point. I know it will all make more sense in time. Don’t worry either, you didn’t discourage me. I think it is awesome and something I hope to grasp more and more over time. I appreciate the various versions of the bible for these very reasons. I just like to try to understand why there are differences. Especially, knowing the translators probably don’t just throw their hands in the air and pick a certain translation randomly. So thanks again, I appreciate your time and willingness to explain so much. I’m sure I will have more questions over time.
Thanks again Mike
Check out my reviews of the HCSB here. I think the HCSB is the most unbiased translation ever to come along in English. It is currently #2 on the Christian Booksellers Association top 10 English Bible translations. It is a popular version but it is a scholarly version. It’s readable and accurate. It doesn’t conform to the typical theological biases since it is the first committee translated Bible (from about 80 denominational backgrounds) since the NIV in 1978 (?). As I compare the ESV, NIV, NASB, and HCSB to the Greek in my sermon preparation and personal Bible study, the HCSB consistently outshines them all.
1 Pet 1:13 “Be self-disciplined,”
I was just looking at an electronic version of the 2nd edition where this was translated, “Be serious.” I can’t find a reason that would have been translated that way. I was kinda hoping somebody on this blog might have some idea about why. Even if it is not the best translation, is it a possible one?
Thanks
Nathan,
I concur with your assessment of the HCSB. Unfortunately, many Christians (and pastors) get emotionally attached to certain practices and words. The more I study the HCSB, and compare it with the Heb/Greek, the more I’ve come to appreciate the translators not capitulating to the emotionally attached words.
I’m convinced that the spike in sales the last few months is not due to better marketing (hardly), but because of pastors such as you and I slowly realizing what a grand and accurate translation the HCSB really is.
WF
Wayne, the phrasings above from 1 Sam 2:7 (you have 2:77), are not in the HCSB.
Rick, re: 1 Sam 2:7, thanks for noting the reference error. I have corrected it. I think the wordings I noted must be from an earlier edition of the HCSB, perhaps even a pre-publication copy. The printed version I have before me now has:
“The LORD brings poverty and gives wealth;
He humbles and He exalts.”
This is an improvement, although “brings poverty” doesn’t sound quite like standard English to me.
I have read and appreciate your blog comparison of the 2004 and 2009 texts.
Ok.. not to be off topic here but I was wondering if someone on this site could help me. I am reading DA Carsons exegetical fallacies and he has talked about the mistake in assuming different words always have different meanings. His example is that Phileo and agape are used interchangably and the scope of their definitions do see significant overlap. Well I have been running into gnosis and epignosis quite a bit and people seem to want to force a difference in meaning and say gnosis is a lesser form of knowledge. Paul however says in Phil 3:8 that he counts all things lost for the, “surpasing value of knowing Christ,” (gnosis is the word). Also he Colossians 2:3 in him are, “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (gnosis again). I guess I am doubting Paul is saying he counted everything lost for some lesser form of knowledge. Any thoughts? Now if this is more an exegetical issue than a translation issue I understand but I thought I would take the chance. Thanks
oh by the way. This becomes important because both words are used in 2 Pet 1. I guess I am trying to figure out if Peter is using synonyms or there actually could be a difference in meaning there. Again, I understand this question is probably more exegetical….
I have notices that the HCSB dropped the word Christ in a large number of verses, particularly where Jesus was addressed as Lord Jesus Christ. Can anyone tell me why that would be? The three names used simultaniously seems to be the most complete way to address Jesus!
Larry, can you offer a specific reference or two for point of discussion?
Yes I can be more specific. But first, my sources (all internet) indicated that KJV used the word Christ 537 times; NIV, 531 times; Amplified, 699; NKJV, 584; and 21st Cen. KJV, 540. HCSB used it only 425 times. Regarding the words Jesus Christ: KJV, 258 times; ESV 242; NKJV, 266, and HCSB, only 219. Regarding the words Lord Jesus Christ: KJV, 81; Youngs, 83; and HCSB, 61. Now many of those may overlap but that taking a lot of ‘Christ’ taken out of the Bible. Examples of leaving out Christ (and this just a few) John 9:35, Acts 16:31, Romans 1: 16, I Corinthians 16: 22, 23, Ephesians 3: 14, I Thess. 2: 19, 3: 11, 3: 13. As I said these are just a few.
Larry wrote:
I have notices that the HCSB dropped the word Christ in a large number of verses
Do you mean ‘dropped’ in comparison to other translations, or ‘dropped’ in comparison to Greek manuscripts?
I can’t speak for their translation committee, but I would guess that they ‘dropped’ the word Christ on many occasions because there was insufficient textual evidence that it should be there.
“Do you mean ‘dropped’ in comparison to other translations, or ‘dropped’ in comparison to Greek manuscripts?” Of course, I meant dropped in comparison with other versions. Many time they didn’t just drop the name ‘Christ’ but would substitute the word Messiah. As I understand the basic Greek word can mean either and Messiah is a good word. But, the word ‘Christianity’ is a form of the word ‘Christ’ and I regard it as an extension of Christ. So, I guess one’s reaction would be based somewhat on their religious beliefs. The thing is that versions go to the extremes in the use of the word both ways. Why is it that so-called experts can’t agree on what the manuscripts day and yet they can agree on the number of verses. Amazing? Why are there so many versions in our age? Are we in the Apostasy? OK, I’ll hush and leave it with the more educated!
Larry, regarding your comment on June 24–
The issue is not really how often an English word is used in a translation, but rather how well that translation reflects the meaning from the original language text.
As for the specific verses you suggested,
In John 9:35, I don’t see Christ in any translation.
Acts 16:31 – Χριστός is not in the Greek text, unless you’re looking at the TR which was based on late manuscript copies with scribal additions.
Rom 1:16 – same as above
1 Cor 16:22-23 – same as above
Eph 3:14 – same as above
1 Thess. 2:19; 3:11, 13 – same as above
So, in regard to the HCSB. It did not “drop Christ” from the text, but rather it reflects what the writers of the New Testament actually wrote.
I find it odd that sometimes people get upset about parts of the Bible supposedly being left out, but no one seems to get have a problem with words being added.
“The issue is not really how often an English word is used in a translation, but rather how well that translation reflects the meaning from the original language text.” ‘Thislamp’ you replied as indicated above. Yes, I was comparing English editions. It is wonderful to be educated but I do not think God phrased the Bible so that only 1% or 2% of the readers could understood it. I was converted over 40 years ago through the KJV of the Bible and salvation is in it for me (and millions of others)or it is not. I am very comfortable with the belief that it is. It is my personal belief that the KJV is the Word of God and I choose to rely on it. Not only do millions, maybe billions, of Christians feel the same way, but we resent it being changed so much. Even the so-called educated sholars cannot seem to agree on the meaning, as each one of their versions read differently. To copyright a book it has to be original to some degree. So, who do you believe. That’s where faith comes in, unless one chooses to ignore them all. Regarding John 9: 35, you are correct the word Christ is not in it in any translation. It was my mistake as I was looking on another list that involved the translations changing words in the phrase “Son of God” (when compared to the KJV). So, let me ask you, which translation do you prefer and which do you consider to be the ‘most’ accurate? And, if I can be permitted, which forms the basis of your religious beliefs? Thanks for your comments. Regardless, they make me think which is a good thing. Larry
Larry, feel free to call me Rick
A few interactions with your comments:
On a broad level, I have no problem agreeing with you that salvation is found in the KJV. I was say the same for the NASB, NIV, HCSB and other translations. On a particular level, however, salvation is ultimately found in Christ, and if the Bible (or any translation of the Bible) serves as a vehicle for that salvation, we can only praise God.
I have no problem with your calling the KJV the Word of God or someone else calling the TEV the Word of God. The reality is though that these are translations of the Word of God. It’s important not to forget that fact in the big picture.
However, I don’t know if I’d agree that billions look to the KJV as the Word of God. That might be aiming a bit high.
As for copyright, two things: (1) Contrary to a lot of popular belief in the US, the KJV is not completely without copyright. While it is in the public domain in the US, this is not true in the UK where the copyright is still maintained by the crown.
(2) In many KJV-only circles, there is a myth that states that because of copyright laws, not translation of the Bible can read the same way in any verse. Thus, it’s questioned as to how accurate a rendering could possibly be if there is an attempt made to circumvent the exact wording of previous versions. But this is simply not true. Consider (chosen pretty much randomly) Matt 5:3 in the KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV, and TNIV. They all read the same, but multiple copyright holders are represented in that list.
As for most accurate? I have maintained that most mainstream translations are accurate in their faithfulness to the original languages. Tomorrow I’ll be teaching from the HCSB, but I occasionally teach from others. Sometimes, I merely use my own translation.
The KJV translators themselves couldn’t agree on the rendering of some words or phrases which is why there are alternate translations in the margins. Plus, in the preface to the KJV (you do have an edition with the preface, I hope), the translators agree with Augustine that biblical study is best practiced with use of multiple translations.
Now, let me ask you the same questions you originally asked about the HCSB over on my website [ http://thislamp.com/?p=54&cpage=1#comment-5428 ]…
Since you prefer the KJV (which I agree is a good and time-honored translation), “Which of the two is the real [KJV] text”–the 1611 edition or the 1769 edition (or one of the many editions in between)? “Which of the two translation committees was supposedly correct?”
Rick, in reference to your post of 27 Jun I agree with most of what you have said, particularly “ultimately salvation is found in Christ.” I also agree that many different translations could be the vehicle that get some there. We also have a number of translations in our home which I refer to sometimes as I study. However, in critical areas I do not teach what is translated, nor do I recommend their purchase or even their validity to anyone I teach. When I say teach, it is a simple Sunday School class.
There is no doubt whatsoever that your are much more educated that I, have more resources, and probably know a lot more. I commend you on having ‘your own translation’. However, one only needs to look at the condition of the US and the world today to see that many have fallen away from Christ, even from good moral principles. I believe that the modern educational trend (although My children have a basic education) has a lot to do with it. Many of the so-called experts teach in seminaries and I feel that religion is watered-down and there are more skeptics than I have ever seen in my lifetime. Therefore, a person has to believe in something, so I have a great mis-trust for many of these modern translations.
One can find many, many verses in the translations that are just alike, word for word. However, you can’t convince me that consideration is not given to changing some words before copy righting. If they were all correct and the same, they there would be only one copyright. Thus it is a huge reason to questions the validity of a translation when they C/R and trademark. Is their motivation getting the correct Word of God out to the public or is it a profit motive? Since the translations are all different, again, which is correct. I suggest that none of them are!
As mentioned motivation is a real question. That’s when publication by a denomination becomes a real problem. I find little difference in advertisements by the various publishers to sell their books. To hear them tell it they all have the best, most accurate, translation ever produced. In time it becomes just what it is. Selling books! How can a denomination do that? That is my biggest problem with the HCSB.
I can’t answer your question on the edition of the KJV. I suspect it is the 1769 edition. They both have the scriptures necessary to come to salvation. I know you will say, “well aren’t you doing the same thing with the versions?” The answer is yes I am. I certainly do question the validity of all versions since there are now hundreds in the market place. I think I’ve answered why above concerning the motivation, profit motives, etc. So, I guess I’m saying what you said in your reply to me, both of them probably are good. At least in the USA they were not C/R eliminating the profit motive.
Larry,
For the sake of clarity, I should say that I have not produced my own translation of the entire Bible. I was referring to my practice for when I am teaching a passage, provided I have enough time, I like to work through the text myself from the original languages. For what it’s worth, I’m much more capable at this in the New Testament than the Old Testament.
As for determining the motives of Bible publishers, I think that’s an impossible game. Better Bibles Blog even has a policy restricting speculation of others’ motives, including that of Bible translators, posted on the homepage:
Do not question the intelligence, spirituality, beliefs, or motives of anyone, including Bible translation teams or those who post or comment on this blog.
I’d want to ask you if you know any Bible translators personally? From the ones I know, I can assure you profit is never the motive. Do publishers want to make a profit after a translation is completed? Certainly. Good translation is expensive. And often millions of dollars are invested into producing a good translation.
The King James Version is no different. Not only was it produced by a denomination (Church of England) which you seem to disapprove of, there was also a very vested interest by the original sponsors and publishers to recoup their investment. And as I already mentioned, the KJV is still under copyright in the UK. As someone reminded me only yesterday, if you simply look at any Cambridge edition of the KJV, you’ll see a copyright notice.
Moreover, copyright ensures you get an accurate copy of a translation. If I want to buy an NIV Bible and I know that it’s under copyright protection, I know that when I buy it, I’m getting the true NIV.
There are currently multiple variants of the KJV circulating because it is not under copyright protection in most places of the world. You can come closest to getting a “true” KJV if you buy a Cambridge imprint, but then you will be paying a percentage to the copyright holders.
This issue of copyright as a mark against Bible translations is really a red herring. Why is there different wording in different translations? Here are the real reasons (and they have nothing to do with copyrights):
(1) The English language changes. What is contemporary for one generation is not contemporary for the next. This is one reason I do not recommend the KJV as a primary Bible for study, although I would recommend it for parallel reading.
(2) The understanding of biblical languages improves. When the KJV was translated in the early 17th century, there were a handful of words that the translators admitted they weren’t certain of regarding their meaning. The birth of archaeology in the intervening centuries has allowed us to have a much larger cache of ancient documents for comparison. And I’m not talking just about biblical manuscripts, although that’s very significant, too. Rather, when we see the same words used in the contexts of other documents, we get a better understanding of the way these words were used and the intended meaning of the author.
(3) There is no direct word-for-word correspondence between the biblical languages and the English language. You state, “If they were all correct and the same, they there would be only one copyright.” But it just doesn’t work that way. A Greek or Hebrew word usually has multiple meanings just as our English words do. Meaning is based upon context, but even then, this can sometimes be difficult to determine. Thus, very godly people, all with good intentions, sometimes disagree on how a particular word or phrase should be rendered. Is it impossible to know the meaning then? No, I don’t think so, but it might take some study. With all the tools available today, even a person without a direct education in biblical languages has access to them on a certain level.
(4) Finally, there is more than one method of translation. This isn’t just a biblical issue, but an issue relating to translation of any document in one language to another. If literalism and word-for-word correspondence was primary, I suppose we should all use Young’s Literal Translation, but I’ve never met anyone who wanted to do so. Based upon the method of translation (formal vs. functional vs. median etc.), versions will have inevitably have different outcomes.
(5) Translations themselves, including the KJV, are the result of fallible people. We don’t like to think about this sometimes, but it’s true. Translators can do the best job they are capable of, but no translation is perfect. The KJV translators admitted as much in their preface. This, again is why reading translations in parallel is very important, especially if you do not have training in original languages.
A translation can be evaluated on how well it met its own goals in relation to its method and how well it communicates the message of the biblical writers. Personally, I’m thankful that we have more than one choice in translations, although you and I might have at least some overlap in agreement that English speakers are “blessed” with perhaps too many Bible versions in comparison to the rest of the other languages in the world.
Again, I would commend to you the words of the original KJV translators (who would have never been adherents of exclusivity of their own translation): “Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…”
I heartily agree.
I’d also commend to you Better Bibles Blog where we are having this conversation. I’ve learned much here about the nature of Bible translation. I can tell you one thing—good Bible translation is no easy process. It takes a lot of prayer, hard work, study, debate, and sometimes even compromise. That’s simply the nature of it. That was true in 1611 and it’s true today.
Rick, Thanks again for you patient responses. I sense that you are either a minister, an educator, or perhaps even a translator. I have told you before your are much more capable than I and you are right, the instructions do say posters are not to questions the motives of others. Motivation does, however have a lot to do with publications that, as you say, have millions of dollars invested in them. It is also present within people such as myself, and yourself also. My comments were not directed to any person in particular, or any particular organization. People do have to make a living, have jobs, and sometimes spend thousand of dollars and hours getting to a certain level. You seem very honest and dedicated, and I commend you for that. So, I have concluded that I do not need to be posting on this public forum and will cease to do so.
It is easly to get caught up in this sort of thing and it is very time consuming. I have other things that I am working on which deals more directly with some of these things we have discussed. I have a good bit of text (which I feel you would regard as very elementary)that will be put in the form of a book (small one) but probably never copyrighted, and just used as a handout to some I think it would help. It generally is very critical of versions, and one in particular. Most of the content has or will be directed to responsible individuals. We all have to act within our own consciences, I think. As I’ve said before I rely on the KJV because it is where I found my beliefs, my Christianity, and it just happens to be the most revered, respected, and best selling book of all time. Now we have a different translation on every corner and find society questioning the diety of God more that ever before in this country. I trace it back to the 1950′s beginning with the NIV and continuing through many other translations. I know the history of some. And no, translations are not the only problem, but you can parallel the decay in morality with the advent of so man translations. Sometimes mankind ought to leave well enough alone! Sorry, but thats how I feel, and I will spare you of having to read anymore posts from me. May God bless you. Larry
-Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina
“Levin had often noticed in arguments between the most intelligent people that after enormous efforts, an enormous number of logistical subtleties and words, the arguers would finally come to the awareness that what they had spent so long struggling to prove to each other had been known to them long, long before, from the beginning of the argument, but that they loved different things and therefore did not want to name what they loved, so as not to be challenged. He had often felt that sometimes during an argument you would understand what your opponent loves, and suddenly come to love the same thing yourself, and agree all at once, and then all reasonings would fall away as superfluous; and sometimes it was the other way round: you would finally say what you yourself love, for the sake of which you are inventing your reasonings, and if you happened to say it well and sincerely, the opponent would suddenly agree and stop arguing.”
Larry, thanks for sharing your love of the KJV and how it has impacted your life.
There are many confusing and complicated issues surrounding copyright. I believe that it is good and appropriate that translation teams keep their copyrights, but not that they should utilise their rights to the full extent they can.
Firstly it is expensive to do a full Bible translation! It is right and appropriate to try to recoup some of the costs of such a task, and so charging royalties to commercial publishers is fair enough. But I think more translation teams should give up this right for non-commercial purposes, and some do, like the NET and the ESV.
There is also a mistaken belief that enforcing all the copyrights will help with theological integrity… that there won’t be any chance of someone subtlety distorting the text. But that is much better handled under trademark law. I believe that a good copyright policy would allow unlimited publishing (in any media) for non-commercial purposes, with the restriction that the trademarked name of the translation can only be used if the text is not changed.
I’d like to add one thing to what Rick said: the KJV is pre-Dead Sea scrolls (which means it’s also pre- a great many other things!) Any translation which does not take advantage of such wonderful things as the Dead Sea scrolls is greatly inferior in my opinion.
Larry, you make a theological mistake as well as a logical fallacy in saying “but you can parallel the decay in morality with the advent of so man translations.” If anything, we see moral decay because of the many decades in which a hard to understand translation was widely used. It is unsurprising that children who grew up with a translation they could hardly read would be uninterested in knowing God, and would teach their children to be even worse.
@Larry, my goal was not to cease dialogue with you, and thus, I would hate to see you stop posting your comments. If anything our discussion on this matter has been very civil, and I appreciate that from you just as you expressed a similar sentiment toward me. When you get your book finished, please send me a link at RMansfield@mac.com.
Dannii is correct when he points out the fallacy in your statement “but you can parallel the decay in morality with the advent of so many translations.” This is correlation, not cause and effect. Decay in morality has many causes, but I doubt a variety of translations (something that has always existed and directly referenced in a positive light by the KJV translators) has anything to do with it. I could just as easily say that the rise in KJV-onlyism in the 20th century has paralleled the decay in morality, or the advent of air travel has paralleled the decay in morality, or a dozen other possibly absurd correlations, but again these do not equate to direct cause and effect. This is Sociology 101 stuff.
And a minor quibble, but the NIV saw its beginnings in the 1970s, not the 1950s.
@Michael Nichols, respectfully, I find you reference and application from Anna Karenina absurd in light of the actual conversation that has taken place here the last few days. If Larry was merely voicing his appreciation and love of the KJV (an appreciation and love I also hold), he could have simply left his comments on the Versions page of this blog. But he came here to the HCSB page, just as he did on my blog, This Lamp, with a particular agenda against the HCSB. He did this peaceably and civilly, but he had an agenda against both modern translations and denomination-supported translations, as well as a desire to promote a KJV-only agenda. There’s simply no way around that.
Thanks Rick. Respectfully, I’ve found all of your posts on this thread to be well thought out, governed by reason, on topic, and helpful.
I was wondering how Larry would respond to your well written points, but he didn’t. I got the sense that he felt strongly about his positive experience with the KJV in finding salvation, about the poor state of society and morality in his country, and about the apparent confusion he sees in the many different translations that are available today.
It reminded me of the Karenina passage, not because I saw his love for the KJV and “all reasonings [fell] away as superfluous,” but because I felt that his response showed me what was important to him, and why (IMO) he disengaged himself from the discussion. I simply wanted to acknowledge what he shared and wish him well.
Sorry for my absurdities.
@Michael, no you owe me no apology, but I owe you one. I responded too strongly and too harshly to you.
I didn’t understand your point, and I thank you for the clarification. I take blame for the miscommunication and my disagreeable spirit in response to it.
I hope there’s no hard feelings.
No worries Rick. I can see how my quote without much context could be taken all sorts of ways. I should have made it clearer.
One Trackback
[...] Few Others More comparisons will have to come later, but I did take a moment to look at the HCSB page over at the Better Bibles Blog. In the comments, a number of people suggested certain phrasings/renderings in the 2004 text that [...]