An Unexpected Consequence

I am about ⅔ through the book by Dave Brunn, One Bible, Many Versions. The more I read, the more I appreciate his approach and how he presents the material. And it hit very close to home in an unexpected way. While he does not formally advocate it, he very much demonstrates humility in this whole process of translating and evaluating translations.

As I teach seminary classes I remind the men that humility is critical in pastoral ministry. That characteristic goes a long way toward opening doors for bringing God’s Word to people in all circumstances. But it extends beyond even local pastoral care.

Humility goes a long way for all who want to evaluate translations; and so I am speaking to myself as the first subject who needs to be reminded of this.

I am humbled by the fact that while I know Greek and Hebrew, the people who are involved in all aspects of translating the Scriptures are experts in their individual fields. The fact that Dr. Micah Carter (HCSB), Dr. Ray Clendenen (HCSB translator/editor), Dave Brunn, Dr. Ernst Wendland (translator in Zambia), Wayne Leman (reviewer of translations, Cherokee, at betterbibles blog) and others have visited this blog is humbling. They have been kind and gracious in their responses to my questions and concerns. Likewise, Rod Jantzen and the team at Baker Publishing (for God’s Word translation) have been very helpful and responsive over the past year. I am humbled by their approach and willingness to read, listen, and write.

A little history

In late 1980, as I was finishing my nine year commitment to the Navy, but couldn’t leave until the summer of 1982 for seminary, I decided to teach myself Greek. I had taken two years of Latin, three years of German before college, and then a one year evening course of Russian while on active duty. So I had a sense of language structure. And I was able to go through Machen’s book at a decent clip, finishing almost a year ahead of our move.

When it came time to move to the seminary, I was asked to take the Greek qualifying exam. As it turned out I could have easily completed and passed the exam. But instead I opted to take the seminary Greek course with Dr. Robert Hoerber (obviously no credit, but did have to pay the tuition). Best decision I ever made. While it could have been an easy class (it was for me), it was far more. As he taught, my grasp of Greek deepened over that year. It wasn’t about passing a test to get out of a class, it was to better learn the language.

Even more, I began to appreciate how Dr. Hoerber exhibited humility in his teaching. He was a world class Greek and Latin scholar, and still helping young(er) men learn and appreciate the importance of Greek for pastoral ministry. Dr. Jonathan Grothe and Dr. Erich Kiehl were scholars yet gentlemen in the best sense of the word. And I am humbled to have been one of their students.

What does this mean?

That is a good Lutheran question! In humility I could go to a false sense of humility and stop the blogging on translations. Or in my case, this has caused me to reevaluate myself and recommit myself to further study of Hebrew and Greek. Not to nitpick translations, but to get a far better feel for those languages. To continue to learn even more about language structures, syntax, linguistics, etc.

Thank you to all for your encouragement in this process. And a special thank you to Dave Brunn for causing me to reflect on this important attitude when examining translations. An unexpected consequence of his writing. But just what I needed. May God grant this verse be true of me today.

This is the Lord’s declaration. I will look favorably on this kind of person: one who is humble, submissive in spirit, and trembles at My word. (Isaiah 66:2b HCSB)

Is “acknowledge” enough?

In my translation work for our Sunday morning Bible study (Matthew), I was working on 10:32-33 this morning. 

32 Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν °[τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς·  33 ⸂ὅστις δ᾿ ἂν⸃ ἀρνήσηταί με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀρνήσομαι ⸉κἀγὼ αὐτὸν⸊ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν °[τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς.

My first step in translating is to examine each word, then the relationship between the words (where the real action takes place!). The two highlighted words indicate my focus in this post. Over the past 30 years I have always translated the word in most contexts as “confess” (see BDAG, #4 under ὁμολογέω).

Raphael, St Paul Preaching in Athens

As usual, after translating and thinking about it, I began looking at translations for these two verses. Then I discovered two primary English words to translate this word in the Matthew passage: confess and acknowledge.

Matthew 10:32

NAS  “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.”

NKJV “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.”

ESV “So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,”

HCSB   “Therefore, everyone who will acknowledge Me before men, I will also acknowledge him before My Father in heaven.”

NIV “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.”

NET “Whoever, then, acknowledges me before people, I will acknowledge before my Father in heaven.” (“confess” in footnote)

NAB “Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father.”

NLT  “Everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.”

GW “So I will acknowledge in front of my Father in heaven that person who acknowledges me in front of others.”

NJB  ‘So if anyone declares himself for me in the presence of human beings, I will declare myself for him in the presence of my Father in heaven.”

As I thought about this, I wondered whether “acknowledge” in English is strong enough to carry the sense of the word. The Greek word seems to have more intended than a recognition, especially in light of 10:33 where the opposite is denial. That is, are “acknowledge” and “denial” opposites?

For instance, If I walk into a room and look around and see someone I know on sight, I may acknowledge the person. That may be nothing more than a tip of my head to acknowledge that I recognize the person. But my denial would be unmistakable in the room. (Consider another illustration of how “acknowledge seems to be weaker: “acknowledgement of receipt.”)

I also observe that “confess” is used infrequently in this sense in every day English. While I might be understand the word, many may not. It appears that NJB offers a viable alternative for this verse.

Interestingly, when we examine other similar texts, such as Romans 10:9-10, several of the above translations then use “declare” as the translation of ὁμολογέω, and a couple switch to “confess” (ESV, HCSB, NAB, and NLT).

Romans 10:9-10

NAS that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

NKJV  that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

ESV because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart othat God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

HCSB If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation.

NIV If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

NET because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation.

NAB  for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.

NLT  If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.

GW If you declare that Jesus is Lord, and believe that God brought him back to life, you will be saved. 10 By believing you receive God’s approval, and by declaring your faith you are saved.

NJB that if you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and if you believe with your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved. 10 It is by believing with the heart that you are justified, and by making the declaration with your lips that you are saved.

Interestingly, not one translation uses “acknowledge” in Romans 10:9-10. It appears that “confess” and “declare” are the preferred translations. It seems that either choice would also be better in Matthew 10:32–33. Jesus is preparing his disciples for the opposition they will encounter as he sends them out. The persecution will not be based on a simple or mere acknowledgement, rather on a positive statement: confessing or declaring Jesus before others.

If anywhere, the translation choice in Matthew 10:32 should be a stronger one than “acknowledge.” Notice I am not advocating the practice of having one Greek word translated identically everywhere. Rather, the two passages (Matthew 10 and Romans 10) offer very similar contexts. See also the following passages:

John 9:22; John 12:12; 1 Timothy 6:12

1 John 2:23; 4:2; 4:15; Revelation 3:5

One Bible, Many Versions

If you have read this blog over the past two years you know my interest in Bible translations and the theory behind each.

One of the major debates/controversies in Bible translation is the approach taken, usually divided into two sides: formal equivalence (“word-for-word”) and functional equivalence or dynamic equivalence (“thought-for-thought”). From the rhetoric, it would appear as if any who uses the “other” method/approach is no longer faithful to God’s Word.

Yesterday I received another book on this topic:

Brunn, Dave. One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal? IVP Academic, 2013.

One Bible, Many Versions

This is not strictly an academic book, rather it is the result of the work of a missionary translator from 1980–2001. He translated the Bible into the language of the Lamogai people in Papua New Guinea. Thus, his experience directly and practically relates to finding the best way to communicate the truths of Scripture in the language of the people.

This is very refreshing because he is not another arbiter of which side is better, but rather he looks at the whole debate with new eyes. This is summarized in his Introduction:

Rather than emphasizing the difference between Bible versions, I will highlight the similarities. Rather than making a case for one philosophical position, I hope to bring the philosophical positions closer together. Rather than describing dissimilar Bible versions as mutually contradictory, I aim to demonstrate that they are mutually complementary—even mutually dependent. (p. 17)

I also like the fact that he uses appropriate visual tools!

As you read this book you will find that it includes a significant number of examples, charts, and illustrative diagrams. My intention is to let the real evidence speak for itself rather than arguing theoretical ideals. (p. 17)

He quickly shows that even “word-for-word” translations use “thought-for-thought” principles. He presents a table that is five pages long, with examples of two translations (NKJV and ESV) that are on the “word-for-word” side of translations. But then in the final column he provides the NASB, considered the most “literal” of all English translations, which in every case provides a “thought-for-thought” translation of the same passage.

Further, he provides evidence of three other translations, NIV, NLT, and GW, which are considered firmly in the “thought-for-thought” realm, but give essentially literal renderings while NASB, ESV, and HCSB give “thought-for-thought” translations in the same passages.

While I have only read the first 40 pages, I appreciate what he sets out to do, his approach, and his insights. His reasoned voice is necessary. I look forward to reading and studying the rest of the book.

Several years ago I began teaching about translations. I made the statement that we cannot set up one English translation by which to judge all other English translations. Rather, we have to always go back to the original language texts (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek). Thus, we can look at the English translations as aids in helping us understand what the underlying text is saying/meaning.

Do each of us have our favorite translations? I would expect so. I grew up with KJV, then for the past 36 years have used NASB, and also served in the testing of GW translation from 1987 to 1995. But I am not absolutely glued to those translations. I live in an area which is 98% unchurched; thus, the use of a translation is critical because we can be precise, yet not communicate with people at their level.

Jeremiah 23:6 and NIV 2011

NIV 2011 offers many improvements in its translation over NIV 1984. Yet there are puzzling changes that seem odd at best. I wrote about the lack of a consistent translation of αγιοι, NIV eliminating “saints” totally from the New Testament. 

Another one is the change in Jeremiah 23:6

בְּיָמָיו֙ תִּוָּשַׁ֣ע יְהוּדָ֔ה וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל יִשְׁכֹּ֣ן לָבֶ֑טַח וְזֶה־שְּׁמ֥וֹ אֲֽשֶׁר־יִקְרְא֖וֹ יְהוָ֥ה ׀ צִדְקֵֽנוּ

It is the last line that is of concern.

NIV
In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteous Savior.

NIV 1984
This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.

NAS
And this is His name by which He will be called, ‘The Lord our righteousness.’

HCSB
This is what He will be named: Yahweh Our Righteousness.

ESV
And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’ 

CEB
And his name will be The Lord Is Our Righteousness

NLT
And this will be his name: ‘The Lord Is Our Righteousness.’

Comments:

The Hebrew for the final phrase is rather straight forward: Yahweh tsidquenu. For most translations the distinction is whether the verb “is” should be supplied or not. Hebrew allows that addition, but does not require it. Some claim that the supplied verb “is” becomes a play on the name of the king Zedekiah, “Yahweh is righteous.”

But the NIV 2011 change involves more than a supplied verb. In fact, it adds a noun “Savior” and then makes the noun “tsidqenu” into an adjective. Yes, there is the mention of “saving” in the first part of the verse, but is a verb form. Thus, it seems forced, at best, to add “Savior” and then to change the noun into an adjective.

This seems like a departure from making the NIV more helpful to understanding the text of Jeremiah 23:6.

NKJV Single Column

I have become a fan of single column text Bibles. Of the single column Bibles available, I think God’s Word (GW) translation has the best layout of any Bibles published. If you haven’t seen one, go to a bookstore and look at one.

Recently I saw a new addition to the NKJV line of Bibles, a single column text only Bible, and since the genuine leather binding was ½ price ($23.95) I bought it. I wanted something with decent font size and readable typeface, as well as format for personal devotional reading and possible public reading. It also had to be in paragraph format, not individual verse layout like most NKJV and NAS Bibles. This one fit the bill.

Bible Specifics:

Leather, Black
Pages 1,798
Font size: 9 pt
Width 6.1 / Height 1.8 / Length 9.2
Publication Date   04/19/2011

This is strictly a reading Bible, so no cross references, no study notes, no maps. Interestingly on the box it indicated that there are “in-text references and explanatory footnotes.” However, that can be a little misleading because there are only reference notes for specific OT quotes in the New Testament (as footnotes, not in-text), and the explanatory notes deal only with manuscript issues (comparing textual basis of Textus Receptus (TR) vs. NA/UBS text). For my use that is all I wanted, but some might be a little disappointed in that.

Helps for Reading the Bible:

Read Your Bible Through in a Year

30 Days with Jesus

90 Day Overview of the Bible

Passages for the Christmas Season

Passages for the Easter Season

Concordance  to the New King James Version

(obviously the concordance is nowhere complete, but it is serviceable)

Looking at the Physical Characteristics

Bleed-through is a little worse than I wanted. However, after reading for a few days it is not as distracting as it was initially. Also, the bleed-through shows up more in this photo than it appears in real life (see illustration).

NKJV Poetic section

While the text is single column and in paragraph style, the indentation and spacing between paragraphs need improvement. (see illustration)

NKJV paragraphing

Even though NKJV has an awkward (no indent) style for poetic and prophetic sections, at least there is separation between units of thought. Thus, it is still easier to read than say the HCSB in poetic sections.

Conclusion

I find this size Bible, font size, and overall feel to be exactly what I wanted. The bleed-through can be a distraction. But this is what I was looking for in NKJV regarding a reading Bible.

Genesis 40-41 HCSB

Genesis 40:19, 22

Gen. 40:19 In just three days Pharaoh will lift up your head—from off you—and hang you on a tree. Then the birds will eat the flesh from your body.”

Gen. 40:22  But Pharaoh hanged the chief baker, just as Joseph had explained to them.

The footnote gives the alternate translation for “hanged” as “impaled.” NIV 2011 also opts for this translation in the text itself. I think in the traditional translations, the use of “hanged” has been so ingrained that at first glance it seemed a little odd to translate תָּלָה as “impaled.” But upon further investigation, the footnote makes sense.

As I looked at a few sources, I found that this sense of “impaled” makes some sense, even though several references are much later than the time of Moses. In TWOT the author references at least thee ancient pagan nations (Egypt, Persia, and Mesopotamia) and their use of impaling.

Since Herodotus (History, 3.159) indicates that impaling was a common method of execution in Persia (see also Ezr 6:11 ASV and RSV), perhaps תָּלָה עַל עֵץ, traditionally rendered “he hanged on a gallows/tree,” means rather “he impaled on a stake,”

 The same notion underlies Gen 40:19, 22; 41:3, reflecting Egyptian practice. A somewhat similar sense underlies Lam 5:12 reflecting Mesopotamian practice. (TWOT, para. 18613)

Other passages where “impaled” fits is Ezra 6:11 (even NAS95 uses “impaled”). One wonders why there is not a footnote then for Genesis 41:3, which is the same context as the original text above.

At first glance in checking other passages, HCSB seems inconsistent in translating this word. Then looking at the context, it appears that “impale” is used when the context is one of the three pagan nations, and “hang” is used for Israelite contexts (Deuteronomy 21:22, 2 Samuel 4:12; Joshua 8:29; Joshua 10:26). However, if that were the case, then HCSB did not follow that pattern in Esther 7:9 (“hang”) and Lamentations 5:12 (“hang”), which clearly take place in the pagan nations..

So, the footnote makes sense, and perhaps the text and footnote could be reversed, and update 41:3 to reflect the same.

Missing Emphasis

Genesis 41:29 (28–30 for context)

HCSB 28 “It is just as I told Pharaoh: God has shown Pharaoh what He is about to do. 29 Seven years of great abundance are coming throughout the land of Egypt. 30 After them, seven years of famine will take place, and all the abundance in the land of Egypt will be forgotten. The famine will devastate the land.

NAS95 29 “Behold, seven years of great abundance are coming in all the land of Egypt;

What is missing is at the beginning of v. 29. In Hebrew, the word הִנֵּ֛ה “ calls attention to the following noun.” In the older translations (and still in NAS95) the word “behold” (or occasionally “look” but which seems weaker, see HCSB Gen. 31:51) is used to function in this way. See also,

Genesis 15:15

HCSB When the sun had set and it was dark, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch appeared and passed between the divided animals.

NAS95 It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces.

Genesis 31:51

HCSB Laban also said to Jacob, “Look at this mound and the marker I have set up between you and me.

NAS95 Laban said to Jacob, “Behold this heap and behold the pillar which I have set between you and me.

Genesis 22:7

HCSB Then Isaac spoke to his father Abraham and said, “My father.” And he replied, “Here I am, my son.” Isaac said, “The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

NAS95 Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” And he said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

Genesis 34:21 (follows a noun to emphasize it)

HCSB “These men are peaceful toward us,” they said. “Let them live in our land and move about in it, for indeed, the region is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters as our wives and give our daughters to them.

NAS95 “These men are friendly with us; therefore let them live in the land and trade in it, for behold, the land is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters in marriage, and give our daughters to them.

Note that in each case, HCSB does not translate the Hebrew word, whereas generally NAS 95 does; and when it does translate the word, it does so with “look” or “indeed.” While “behold” is not commonly used in contemporary English, the role the Hebrew word plays is important, emphasizing the following in some way. To not translate הִנֵּ֛ה in any way seems to miss that point. “Look” does not seem to carry the emphatic role of הִנֵּ֛ה and suggests a visual action, which is not necessarily intended in the Hebrew. “Indeed” could work in certain contexts.

Bottom line: I have not found an adequate translation for הִנֵּ֛ה that is still understandable in contemporary English. In my mind I still prefer “behold” over nothing in the English text.

The Ten Words: HCSB and GW

As I have been reviewing both translations over the past seven months, I have found many good things about the translations. Interestingly, where I tend to disagree with one, the other does an admirable job. But reviewing Exodus 20 the past few weeks, I find that both HCSB and GW disappoint, specifically in how the verbs are translated. Here are some thoughts about that.

I will not include the entire text of 20:2-17, but the specific wording of the verbs (and I am not paying attention to how they are numbered, because the text doesn’t tell us). The Hebrew verbs in each case are Imperfect, except 20:8 which uses the Infinitive Absolute, and 20:12, which uses the Imperative.

Ten Commandments (Photo credit: glen edelson)

GW

2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in Egypt.

3 “Never have any other god.

4 Never make your own carved idols or statues that represent any creature in the sky, on the earth, or in the water.

5 Never worship them or serve them,

7 “Never use the name of the Lord your God carelessly.

8 “Remember the day of worship by observing it as a holy day.

12 “Honor your father and your mother

13 “Never murder.

14 “Never commit adultery.

15 “Never steal.

16 “Never lie when you testify about your neighbor.

17  “Never desire to take your neighbor’s household away from him.

 “Never desire to take your neighbor’s wife, his male or female slave, his ox, his donkey, or anything else that belongs to him.”

HCSB

2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the place of slavery.

3 Do not have other gods besides Me.

4 Do not make an idol for yourself,

5 You must not bow down to them or worship them;

7 Do not misuse the name of the LORD your God

8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy:

12 Honor your father and your mother

13 Do not murder.

14 Do not commit adultery.

15 Do not steal.

16 Do not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 Do not covet your neighbor’s house.

Do not covet your neighbor’s wife, his male or female slave, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor

Both translations give only a negative view of the commandments. Why is that critical?

1) Notice that I included 20:2 in both translations. That is a statement of Gospel: What God does for the saving of His people. What follows is a description of how “delivered people” live. Thus, it is a positive description of how they live.

2) These are not technically the ten “commandments” according to the usual understanding, but rather the “ten words.”

Exodus 24:28 And he wrote on the tablets the words ( הַדְּבָרִֽים) of the covenant, the Ten Words ( הַדְּבָרִֽים).

3) Notice that these are translated as straight imperatives, and rather strongly at that.

4) The Imperfect can be translated as an imperative, which it is in this case (see below).

Thus, both GW and HCSB give only one side of the ten “words”—negatively. And I think that does not do justice to the text, the use of the Imperfect, and the context of 20:2.

The Solution?

How should they be translated in light of each of these considerations? I suggest that the older form English future translates the Hebrew Imperfect rather well, and retains an element of command behind it: “You shall not…” (still evident in NAS, NKJV, NIV 2011, ESV, etc.). This appears to be the best option for translating this section of Exodus 20. Here is the translation from NAS 95.

NAS95

3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol,

5 “You shall not worship them or serve them;

7 “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain,

8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

12 “Honor your father and your mother

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house;

you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Extending the “words”

Thus, the question really becomes “How do the words/commandments function? Notice that when someone sins, that person no longer is living as a “delivered person.” Thus, the positive impact of the “word” (commandment) of Exodus 20 changes, and the word functions in a condemning way. Often this is designated the 2nd use of the Law. So as a person is convicted under that 2nd use of the Law, the person is led to repentance (1 John 1:8-9). The solution to that predicament under the Law is forgiveness in Christ. Now the question for the person becomes:

“Now that in Christ I am free from sin, guilt I never want to be under that condemning Law again. But how can I please you, Lord? Not to earn Your favor, because I already have your favor.”

Now, the original intent of the Ten Words becomes significant. They describe how a forgiven person in Christ lives. And so, the Law functions as a description of life in Christ, much as the Ten Words/Commandments function in Exodus 20.

Does God visit? —HCSB

Visiting seems to be a lost art. When I was young we had no computers, no cell phones, no TVs, and the telephone was a nine-party line. We kept in touch and cared for one another in the farming/logging community by visiting people. Rarely, the visit was for a serious confrontation. Thus, a visit wasn’t a 30 minute drop-in, drive-by kind of stopping. No, the whole family would get in the car or truck, and we would spend hours at the other’s person’s house. Visiting was refreshing, many times soothing, and even a great aid when bad things happened.

Sunday I preached on Luke 7:1-17, which contained the word “visit.” It brought back many memories for me. When the people evaluate Jesus in light of what He has done, we read:

Then fear came over everyone, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen among us,” and “God has visited His people.” (Luke 7:16 HCSB)

The people understood that Jesus’ miracles could only happen if God himself visited the people. And in this case, the visiting was positive, for healing and raising the dead.

The Greek word translated “visited” is ἐπεσκέψατο. From BDAG we find two likely meanings: a) to go to see a person with helpful intent, visit someone, b) to exercise oversight in behalf of, look after, make an appearance to help, of divine oversight. With the first of these, we also find this statement: “special suggestion in the context on care to be bestowed: look after widows and orphans ἐν τῇ θλίψει αὐτῶν in their distress” (James 1:27). Most translations of Luke 7:16 reflect the latter option.

We find another significant use of ἐπεσκέψατο (“visit”) in the NT related to God visiting for saving purposes.

Luke 1:78–79: Because of our God’s merciful compassion, the Dawn from on high will visit us to shine on those who live in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

In the Old Testament

Sadly I found that several Old Testament passages that have historically been translated “visit” are not translated that way in HCSB. It seems that an important connection with regard to this concept. Several Old Testament texts use the Hebrew word: פקד (paqad). According to HALOT, there are also three possible meanings, but essentially coming down to two: 2. to see something remarkable, 3. to seek, seek out, visit.

While the Greek and Hebrew words do not overlap in meaning everywhere, nor do they encompass the full range of the English word “visit,” in some contexts the best translation of both words seems to be “visit.” The LXX seems to confirm this connection; in the following texts (except Exodus 20:5), it translates the Hebrew with ἐπεσκέψατο (same word in NT).

God visiting His people would involve either visiting (God is present) for judgment or salvation. For the former situation consider

Exodus 20:5 You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing [“visiting”] the children for the fathers’ sin, to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me

For the latter salvation understanding in several contexts God “visits” in particular related to His saving, intervening purpose.

Gen. 21:1 The LORD came to [“visited”] Sarah as He had said, and the LORD did for Sarah what He had promised. (HSCB)

Gen. 50:24–25  Joseph said to his brothers, “I am about to die, but God will certainly come to your aid [“will surely visit you”] and bring you up from this land to the land He promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” So Joseph made the sons of Israel take an oath: “When God comes to your aid [“visits you”], you are to carry my bones up from here.”(HCSB)

Ex. 4:31 The people believed, and when they heard that the LORD had paid attention to [“visited”] them and that He had seen their misery, they bowed down and worshiped. (HCSB)

Ruth 1:6 She and her daughters-in-law prepared to leave the land of Moab, because she had heard in Moab that the LORD had paid attention to [“visited”] His people’s need by providing them food. (HCSB)

Jer. 29:10 For this is what the LORD says: “When 70 years for Babylon are complete, I will attend to [“visit”] you and will confirm My promise concerning you to restore you to this place.

Zeph 2:7 And the coast will be for the remnant of the house of Judah, they will pasture on it. In the houses of Ashkelon they will lie down at evening; for the LORD their God will care for [“visit”] them and restore their fortune.

1 Sam. 2:21 The LORD paid attention to [“visited”] Hannah’s need, and she conceived and gave birth to three sons and two daughters. (HCSB)

Overall it seems that something is lost by not translating each of these as “visit.” Sadly NAS in 1995 moved away from this, too. The 1977 NAS retained the word “visit” in most of these contexts. While “visit” may be an older term it is still understandable in today’s usage. I would recommend HCSB translation team reconsider this option.

Genesis 37-39 HCSB

Genesis 37:3

“coat of many colors” reflects the traditional rendering. The footnote has “Or, robe with long sleeves.” However, no source is listed as to why that could be a valid translation, or if that is a translation of something else. It would help to include in the footnote, something like: “Hebrew meaning uncertain; Septuagint and Vulgate (and Syriac): robe with long sleeves.”

GENESIS 37:30

Upon discovering Joseph’s disappearing, Reuben asks, “The boy is gone! What am I going to do?” Footnote: Lit And I, where am I going?

This may be a matter of style, but the “literal” question seems more pertinent. The only place they were going (prior to this incident) is back to their father, Isaac. But now with Joseph gone, the question is “And I, where am I going?” In other words, the context seems to fit this question more than “What am I going to do?” Certainly that will be the process he goes through when he faces his father, but at this moment, the “where” is center. Thus, I would recommend the switch of the text and footnote to give better clarity to what Reuben was struggling with.

GENESIS 37:35

“No,” he said. “I will go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.”

This is a case of awkward wording, especially for oral reading. Notice that the way it is written, it could be that “my son” is the one who is mourning. Granted the comma helps in the written word, but read it aloud, even with a pause, and it is confusing.

But it could also be misleading. Do we know that he is claiming that his son is in Sheol? Nothing in text supports that view (at least what I could find). The Hebrew suggests that Jacob will go to Sheol, and will be mourning in the process of getting there (i.e. the rest of his life). It seems that it should be “No, I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my son.”

38:26  “She is more in the right than I…” (with footnote, “more righteous”). For me, “more right” just doesn’t sound appropriate in this text. I would switch the text and the footnote.

GENESIS 39:3, 4, 6, 8 “in his hand”

The same phrase occurs in each verse. But HCSB misses what seems to be a critical connection with v. 3

MT (39:3, 4, 6, 8):  בְּיָדֽוֹ׃ ( “in his hand”)

HCSB: When his master saw that the LORD was with him and that the LORD made everything he did successful

39:4 under his authority

39:6 under Joseph’s authority

39:8 under my authority

Granted, for vs. 4, 6, 8 HCSB offers the footnote “in his hand” it does not do so for vs. 3. Thus, the critical connection with God’s blessing “in his hand” is lost.

 

 

 

Genesis 28-36 HCSB

Genesis 28-31

Two items. The stark contrast in using Yahweh and LORD now comes to the forefront.

Yahweh was standing there beside him, saying, “I am Yahweh, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your offspring the land that you are now sleeping on. (28:13)

When Jacob awoke from his sleep, he said, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.” (28:16)

In such close proximity to each other, yet not providing the reader the connection that Yahweh = LORD. This illustrates my continuing complaint with HCSB and the name of God.

The second item is more awkward than being wrong. The Hebrew word הִנֵּה, (hineh from root “see”) has the sense of drawing attention to what is said or done. Thus it is often translated “behold,” (NAS, ESV) or “remember” (GW), “what’s more” (NLT), “know” (NAB, NRSV) and even not translated (NIV 2011). NET offers this footnote:

Heb “Look, I [am] with you.” The clause is a nominal clause; the verb to be supplied could be present (as in the translation) or future, “Look, I [will be] with you”

For me, “look” is the least effective translation, almost a colloquial, to the point of being faddish. “Pay attention” seems to be more effective translation.

Again, HCSB offers a readable translation throughout this section.

Genesis 32-36

HCSB continues to alternate between the Hebrew name for a place and the translation. In 33:20 the translation is given in the text (“God, the God of Israel”), and the Hebrew name is given in the footnote (El-Elohe Israel). Notice the opposite in 32:30 with Peniel in the text and “face of God” in the footnote. We also see this switch in 35:7 where HCSB has “God of Bethel” and in the footnote “El-bethel.”

In 33:19 we read:

HCSB: He purchased a section of the field where he had pitched his tent from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for 100 qesitahs

NAS (ESV/NRSV/NET): He bought the piece of land where he had pitched his tent from the hand of the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for one hundred pieces of money.

NIV 2011 (GW): For a hundred pieces of silver, he bought from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, the plot of ground where he pitched his tent.

HCSB offers the least satisfactory solution. While the specific word is unknown in terms of equivalent money, HCSB does not help the English reader. It includes this footnote:

The value of this currency is unknown.

Unfortunately that explains what is going on, but still does not help the English reader.

Overall still a readable translation.