Initial look at CSB17

I have reviewed the HCSB over the past 4+ years. I have anticipated the update to HCSB for the past year. Holman recently published online the update to the HCSB translation, now renamed as CSB (Christian Standard Bible). Printed versions are due out this month.  I have not received a preview copy CSB17, so this comparison is based on the electronic version. I am comparing CSB, ESV, and NET. The reason I used NET as it seems very close in purpose and translation style to CSB.

This is a first step in evaluating Christian as a translation. I am looking at specific verses to see how it translates words/phrases. Further study will focus on readability and oral comprehension.

John 3:16

John 3:16

The traditional (ESV/NAS/NKJV) translation of οὕτως as “so.” CSB and NET (and GW) translate the Greek word as “in this way” or “this is the way.” There is debate about which is the better way to translate. Note how each translation handles the same Greek word οὕτως, in John 21:1. ESV seems inconsistent in its translation.

1 John 1:9

1-john-1,9

The key translation issue is how to translate the Greek word, ἵνα. Here is the NET note regarding this:

The ἵνα (hina) followed by the subjunctive is here equivalent to the infinitive of result, an “ecbatic” or consecutive use of ἵνα according to BDAG 477 s.v. 3 where 1 John 1:9 is listed as a specific example. The translation with participles (“forgiving, …cleansing”) conveys this idea of result.

I think it better to use the infinitive form (“to forgive … to cleanse”) because it could be infinitive of result or infinitive of purpose. The use of participles can be confusing (attendant circumstances, etc.). The NIV confuses even more, because it is no longer clear whether there are two characteristics of God (faithful and just) or four (faithful and just and forgive and cleanse).

1 Peter 3:21

1-pet-3,21

The primary challenge here is how to translate (and interpret) the Greek word: ἀντίτυπος; the sense is that the first item (type) points to the second item, the greater thing (antitype). NKJV does not translate the word, but transliterates the Greek: ἀντίτυπον  as “antitype.” Here NIV is the most confusing. People read “symbolizes” and interprets this to mean that baptism is a symbol of something. However, the symbolizing goes back behind that.

baptism not symbol

And the greater thing is saving in baptism. Thus, it is not that baptism symbolizes , but rather actually does what it says, namely saves.

Much more to follow.

Posted in Biblical studies, CSB, Greek, New Testament | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

Forty Years—Changes in Life

Forty years ago this month was a monumental time for me and my wife. I was in the Navy, had just been picked up for regular Navy, had been selected to attend Naval Postgraduate School (Monterey, CA), and we were making plans to move in August. We also had begun the application process for adoption. All of that was put on hold, though.

naval_postgraduate_school

That all changed during February 1977. After extensive tests I was diagnosed as insulin-dependent diabetic. I began taking insulin shots once a day. My diet, which wasn’t horrible, changed. I wasn’t overweight, but they put me on 1200 calories/day. My weight went from 165 to 149 in the first month. Eventually they had to move my calorie intake to 2200 cal/day.

gettyimages-98550998-diabetes-ballyscanlon-opener

The first Navy lawyer I spoke with said that I would be out of the Navy within 3 weeks—get prepared. My doctor was much more supportive; he advised me to go through a medical board evaluation. Over the next 6 months I went through 5 medical boards (each at a higher level) to see what my status would be. Each board reversed the previous board’s decision. So first board (NAS Miramar): recommended full unlimited sea duty in the Navy. The next one (don’t remember specific command): No dismiss from Navy immediately. Back and forth for 6 months.

In mid August the final medical review board met in Washington, DC, consisting of five members: three line officers and two medical doctors. The vote: 3-2 approving me for full unlimited sea duty. That meant I was the first person in the Navy to serve on unlimited sea duty while still taking insulin. Many were shocked, although my wife and I had trusted whatever decision would be from God, we were relieved.

So how did we celebrate? Had a great evening out. We began packing for our move to Monterey at the end of the month.

Oh, I also had another kidney stone! Yep, when the Intelligence detailing officer (the one responsible for assignments) in DC called me, he had to call the hospital. He was shocked. He said something to the effect that why would I mess up all that everyone had done by ending up in the hospital??? Ah, sir, that was not in my plan of the day!

We moved a week later. I drove the moving truck, and apparently it helped the stone move, because that first week of orientation at NPGS I was back in the hospital (Ft. Ord Army hospital). Surgery was not successful. But the stone finally shot out two days later at 1 AM in the hospital. Got out of the hospital and began classes at NPGS that week.

============

The Rest of the Story

In 1980 I was serving at Fleet Combat Training Center Atlantic (FCTCL) as intelligence instructor. By this time God was moving me to consider seminary. In late December 1980 my wife and I agreed that I should do so. However, I had to serve another 1 ½ years because of NPGS commitment.

In the first week in January, 1981 I forgot to take an insulin shot. I checked the urine and it was ok. I went another day, and then another. I was due for a doctor’s check up (every month since Feb. 1977) that next week. He ordered the usual blood tests and my blood sugar was normal. The Dr. said, well, we might consider dropping your amount of insulin (I wasn’t on a real high dose to begin with). With fear and trepidation I told him I have not taken insulin in 10 days. I was prepared for the slap on the back of my head. Instead, he was enthusiastic and wanted me to go two more weeks, checking urine every day.

So in January, 1981 was my last shot of insulin. I have been insulin free since then, and blood sugar tests throughout the past 36 years have been normal. While I was still in the Navy I had to have monthly checkups. If the doctor was new, he began researching my records and claimed that they must have done the tests wrong initially. They wanted to explain how this could happen medically. My reply was: I think God healed me. Every doctor said, “That’s a lot more believable than anything I can do in explaining.”

That dramatic change allowed me to start seminary in September, 1982, without the worry of insulin and the complications of diabetes.

concordia-seminary-st-louis

Yes, a lot has happened in the last 40 years. Thank God for all of that.

Posted in Personal Reflection | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Who heard and was troubled?

I again have the privilege of teaching Matthew this quarter in our seminary. As part of my preparation I read four chapters a day, hence the entire book of Matthew every week. Each week I use a different translation. So this week (starting on Friday) I began reading in God’s Word (GW) Matt. 1-4.

Matthew 2:3

Appropriately I read the section that fits with the Epiphany (January 6), namely the visit of the wise men to Jesus in Bethlehem. I noticed something different about this verse:

Matt. 2:3 When King Herod and all Jerusalem heard about this, they became disturbed. (GW)

So, it appears according to this translation that King Herod and all Jerusalem were together in hearing and reacting to what they heard. But is that accurate? Looking at the Greek text,

ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἡρῴδης ἐταράχθη καὶ  °πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, (NA28)

The first word is an aorist participle, nominative singular (“having heard” implying “he” or a singular noun of the sentence).  After the conjunction, δὲ (“now” “when”) we find the subject of the sentence: “[The] King Herod,” which is followed by the main verb (ἐταράχθη) which is aorist indicative, singular, “he was troubled.” So we could easily translate the first part of the sentence:

“When having heard [about the wise men] King Herod was troubled.”

The second part of the sentence is an additional clause, not a complete sentence, which can be translated:

“and all Jerusalem with him.”

This suggests that “all Jerusalem” did not hear [the report] but was reacting to King Herod who heard and was troubled. When the king is troubled, then all Jerusalem is troubled with him. Thus, the threat of a king-challenger is of immediate concern to Herod. It is a troubled Herod that is of immediate concern for the people.

Other translations:

I could find only one other translation that was even close to GW, namely NLT:

NLT King Herod was deeply disturbed when he heard this, as was everyone in Jerusalem.

Unfortunately the way the sentence is awkwardly constructed in NLT, the additional clause at the end is closely connected with “hearing” and not “deeply disturbed.” Yet the helping verb (“was”) suggests a relationship with “deep disturbed.” But who would stop and analyze that structure?

The following translations catch the sense of the Greek sentence, that Herod heard the report, and that was troubling to him, and that then as troubling to all Jerusalem, contrary to GW (and NLT).

NAS When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

NET When King Herod heard this he was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him.

NIV When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

HCSB When King Herod heard this, he was deeply disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

NAB When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

NJB When King Herod heard this he was perturbed, and so was the whole of Jerusalem.

REB King Herod was greatly perturbed when he heard this, and so was the whole of Jerusalem.

It seems that GW (and somewhat NLT) confuses the problem by making Herod and the people as the ones equally who heard and are troubled.

Posted in Greek, GW, Languages, Matthew, New Testament, Translations | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Nostalgia in music

I have been a country music fan my entire life. We received our first 78 record player in 1951. A few months later we got a record Lefty Frizzell, “Mom and Dad Waltz.”

images

I was not quite 3 years old and could’t read. But I loved that the song so much that my mother placed a large X (in pencil) so I knew which side to place up to listen to the song. I played it so often, I knew the words by the time I was 3, and sang my heart out. Note: I am not a good singer, but at age 3 who cared? That song began a 65 year love of old (now) country and bluegrass music.

Mimic Nostalgia

Over the decades I have listened to recordings of it. I have listened to many who have tried to mimic the sound of Lefty. But it still doesn’t quite make it. When the internet came along I checked out this song very early. Loved it again like 1952.

But mimic nostalgia leaves me feeling a little disheartened. Obviously I have to ask myself, can I ever listen to Mom and Dad Waltz apart from Lefty himself? For several decades I decided I couldn’t.

Nostalgia, New Again

About two weeks ago I as I was listening to Jamie Lin Wilson (superb singer I heard live in back porch series a year ago), I noticed another singer with her: Brennen Leigh. Excellent singer. And then found out she had recorded some of Lefty’s songs, including Mom and Dad Waltz.

Of course, I listened! I purchased through iTunes immediately!!

As I listened there was something intriguing about her voice and song choices. Yes, it was nostalgic but her voice also is contemporary. And she didn’t try to mimick. Rather, she has a voice that rings true, brings out the soul of the song in her own way. She is spot-on in her singing, in her instrumentals (great guitarist). Listening to her sing the song was like going back 64 years and capturing that moment for me.

Not often I write about music, but this song has a special place in my heart. And Brennen Leigh reignited memories and joy. Thank you.

Mom and Dad Waltz by Berennen. Check out many others that she sings.

Posted in Personal Reflection | Tagged , ,

Family Reflection 2016

This photo is of my great grandfather (Joseph Brown) and great grandmother (Jenny Smith), married June 29, 1900. My parents married on June 29, 1946. Joseph and Jenny had 11 children, and Jenny died at age 37.

Joseph Brown and Jenny Smith wedding, June 29, 1900.

Joseph Brown and Jenny Smith wedding, June 29, 1900.

Jenny Smith’s parents (Emma Cooper and Sam Smith) were married in 1870.

This photo is a Jenny Smith’s Cooper grandparents (photo may have been taken at the 1870 wedding of their daughter, Emma Cooper).

Cooper's my great-great-great grandparents. Photo most likely taken at the wedding of Emma Cooper and Sam Smith in 1870

My grandmother, Gladys, is on the far left in this photo below.

Joseph and Jenny Brown with  8 oldest children.

Joseph and Jenny Brown with 8 oldest children.

Gladys and Paul Carlson were married June 29, 1932 (second marriage for her).

Wedding of Paul Carlson and Gladys Brown, June 29, 1932

Wedding of Paul Carlson and Gladys Brown, June 29, 1932

And my parents were engaged on June 29, 1946 and married September 29, 1946.

Wedding, Arthur Shields and Phyllis Staley, September 29, 1946

Wedding, Arthur Shields and Phyllis Staley, September 29, 1946

And then this happened.

Wedding: Richard Shields and Cindy Mischke, February 20, 1971.

Wedding: Richard Shields and Cindy Mischke, February 20, 1971.

And yes, it got down to -40° that night. Good thing we got married at 1 PM, it was 10° above zero!

And our younger son …

Our younger son

Our younger son

met this beautiful lady.

Our wonderful daughter-in-law

Our wonderful daughter-in-law

And together they have five children. Is that why he is sleeping at work?

She is more than a DIL to us, she is like our own daughter. Love her so much, just as we love our sons, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

Love is the story of our family.

Posted in Personal Reflection | Tagged , , , ,

Matt. 18 mercy, binding, and loosing

Daily reading today is Matthew 17-20. Here are some thoughts on MEV translation.

Matthew 18:33

οὐκ ἔδει ⸂καὶ σὲ⸃ ἐλεῆσαι τὸν σύνδουλόν σου, ὡς κἀγὼ ⸄σὲ ἠλέησα

MEV: Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, even as I had pity on you?

Note that same Greek word in a parallel construction is translated two different ways. NKJV does the same as MEV.

NKJV: Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?

Consider other translations

NAS: Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?

NET: Should you not have shown mercy to your fellow slave, just as I showed it to you?

ESV: And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?

HCSB: Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?

NIV: Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?

GW: Shouldn’t you have treated the other servant as mercifully as I treated you?

ἐλεέω

Other uses of the same word (“have mercy”) in Matthew in MEV:

5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy

9:27 “Son of David, have mercy on us!”

15:22 Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David

17:15 Lord, have mercy on my son

20:30 Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David

Every occurrence of ἐλεέω in MEV in Matthew is translated as “have mercy.” It is even more strange then, in this passage (18:33) that it be translated two different ways, and neither consistent with the way it was translated throughout the book. Since the intent of the entire pericope (Matthew 18:21-35) is the parallel response between the master and the unforgiving servant, it would make better sense to translate the word the same way in this context (“have mercy”) especially within the same sentence.

Matthew 18:18

This verse has been a sort of litmus test. How do we translate the future perfect passive participles?

ἔσται δεδεμένα (bind)

ἔσται λελυμένα (loose)

The MEV translates as simple future passives, as do most other translations

MEV Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven

NKJV Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven

HCSB I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.

(with footnotes: earth will be bound… earth will be loosed. The text version catches the passive sense and prior action by God, “already done”)

========

ESV Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

(with footnote: Or shall have been bound . . . shall have been loosed, which indicates future perfect passive)

NIV Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

(with footnote: Or will have been, in both uses, which indicates future perfect passive)

I think NAS offers a consistent translation of the verb forms:

NAS Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

What difference does this make?

In one sense it doesn’t seem to make much difference. As we explore the options, notice that most translations offer a future passive sense (“will be bound” “will be loosed”). Such a translation makes the authority rest on the person making the declaration. “I declare it… it will be done.”

Looking at NAS (and ESV and NIV with footnotes) the the focus of authority resides with God and His prior action, not the person making the declaration. In essense, when the person declares “it is bound,” he or she can do so because “it will have already been bound in heaven (by God) prior to the declaration.” Likewise, when the person declares “it is loosed” he or she can do so because “it will have already been done in heaven (by God) prior to the declaration.” It is God’s prior authority and declaration that is being announced, not the individual’s own authority. The person announces God’s already determined response.

This frees the person making the declaration from being the source of authority. And it let’s God Word be determinative.

Posted in Greek, Languages, Matthew, MEV, New Testament, Translations | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Psalm 11 Who sees whom?

As I was reading devotionally yesterday I came across Psalm 11 (MEV), which I have included to see the context.

1 In the Lord I seek refuge;
how do you say to my soul,
“Flee as a bird to your mountain,

2 for the wicked bend their bow;
they make ready their arrow on the string,
that they may treacherously shoot
the upright in heart.

3 If the foundations are broken,
what can the righteous do?”

4 The Lord is in His holy temple,
His throne is in heaven;
His eyes see,
His eyes examine mankind.

5 The Lord tests the righteous,
but the wicked and one who loves violence
His soul hates.

6 Upon the wicked He will rain
coals of fire and brimstone and a burning wind;
this will be the portion of their cup.

7 For the righteous Lord
loves righteousness;
His countenance beholds the upright.

Hebrew (Psalm 11:7): כִּֽי־צַדִּ֣יק יְ֭הוָה צְדָק֣וֹת אָהֵ֑ב יָ֝שָׁ֗ר יֶחֱז֥וּ פָנֵֽימוֹ׃

I didn’t think much about it until I read it in NAS as well. The challenge was Psalm 11:7 (“His countenance beholds the upright” MEV and “The upright will behold His face” NAS). Who is the subject of the sentence (doing the action) and who is the direct object (receiving the action)? It depends on which translation you use.

God is the subject, “upright ones” are the direct object and hence “His countenance beholds the upright” (MEV joins KJV, NKJV, KJ21, REB)

Or:

People (“upright”) are the subject and God is the direct object and thus: “The upright will behold His face” (NAS joins most modern translations: ESV, NIV, HCSB, NET, etc.)

 

Some textual observations

Robert Alter (The Book of Psalms) offers this as an explanation for why he favors the second translation:

With the wicked disposed of in the previous verse, the psalm ends on this positive note of the upright beholding God—even as God from the heavens beholds all humankind. In the Hebrew, the noun is singular and the verb is plural; presumably one of the two (probably the verb) should be adjusted. The Masoretic text reads “their face,” with no obvious antecedent for the plural, but variant Hebrew versions have “His face.” (p. 34)

Leopold in his commentary (Expoistion of the Psalms) offers a different view of the data and favors the first option.

Since the whole emphasis lies in what God does and is, and that alone constitutes the solid basis of comfort, we have translated the last clause: “His countenance beholds the upright,” implying that same watchful care that was stressed above. The words could have been translated: “The upright shall behold His face.” But panemo, which equals panaw, His countence, being plural, can readily take the verb in the plural, yechesu, which is easier to construe than to regard the singular yahsar as a collective plural and so make it the subject of the verb. (p. 128)

As both authors note, the text is not as clear or simple as we would like. As I reflected further, I noticed that in Psalm 11:4-7, the emphasis on God’s actions, especially as He “examines mankind” (v. 4) and “tests the righteous ones” (v. 5) [God is the subject]. The wicked receive the crush of God’s disfavor (vv. 5b-6), and then the Psalm ends with a return to the “righteous ones.” The subject is God in vv. 4-6. It makes sense now in v. 7 that the same God who examined and tested the righteous now looks upon the righteous (“upright”) [same Hebrew word: צַדִּ֪יק [tzaddiq] used in v. 5 and v. 7.] without any judgment.

So What?

At this point I find that either option can work, but the first option (“His countenance beholds the upright/righteous”) seems more consistent with the flow of the entire Psalm. I think it also reflects the Aaronic benediction (Num. 6:24-26), specifically v. 25: The LORD make His face shine on you.”

An another point in favor of the first option is the application. What is more comforting? To look upon God’s face or to have God look upon us? From the prospective of God looking at examination of us (v. 5), it carries more weight that God looks again at us with no judgment attached.

Further study…

Posted in Biblical studies, Hebrew, Languages, MEV, NAS, Old Testament | Tagged , ,