Not another Bible, please
Let me quickly get off my chest my detestation for something like the Study New Testament for Gay, Lesbian, Bi, and Transgender about which Peter Kirk comments here. That’s not homophobia: I have an equal detestation for the Men’s Devotional Bible, the Daily Study Bible for Women, the Maxwell Leadership Bible and many more. The idea of customised Bibles for target audiences just appals me, though I make a pedagogical exception for children’s Bibles. It seems to derogate from the universality of the one gospel.
Okay, maybe I’ve expressed myself with incautious hyperbole there. But even worse is my growing feeling that the ever-increasing plethora of translations is moving in the same direction. I had never heard of the Holman Christian Standard Bible, till Suzanne’s most recent Hen Scratches (wish she’d think of a better name for that!) pointed me in its direction.
Looking at it on the web, it seems to me to veer oddly between the colloquial and the cumbersome in its use of English. Suzanne complains about the way it happily translates ταῦτα παράθου πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις (2 Tim 2:2) as “commit [these things] to faithful men” while it translates θέλω δὲ πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν (1 Cor 7:7) as “I wish that all people were just like me.”
The difference between the two is almost certainly because the Timothy quotation is about people teaching, the Corinthians quotation not (although they are somewhat erratic about whether to translate it men or people in non-teaching situations). And for these translators this is an issue:
Some people today ignore the Bible’s teachings on distinctive roles of men and women in family and church and have an agenda to eliminate those distinctions in every arena of life. These people have begun a program to engineer the removal of a perceived male bias in the English language. … The goal of the Holman CSB translators has not been to promote a cultural ideology but to faithfully translate the Bible.
So there you have it: this is a translation as targeted as any of the editions I started with: it is really the Holman Complementarian Standard Bible (which might be a little less arrogant than sticking that Christian in the name). Gay people come off just as badly as women: ἀρσενοκοῖται is translated homosexuals, despite the cultural gulf between ancient and modern conceptions of same-sex male activity. This is the opposite of the gay bible edition I excoriated to start with, and just as misplaced.
Such a quick glance as I have taken may be unfair, (for someone who like it, see here) but browsing, neither OT nor NT samples I examined made me feel I would seek it out again. More off-putting than the translation itself, however, was the website. I am not impressed by the bare, unqualified statement “The Bible is God’s revelation to man [sic].” Nor that, having made such a christologically questionable statement, they should go on to render the words of Jesus in red, which is surely a typographical denial of the inspiration of scripture.
I find their introductory “facts” about the Bible somewhat bizarre, to say nothing of questionable:
- The Bible was written by 40 different authors. And they were not all alike—certainly not just “men of the cloth.” There were politicians, shepherds, a medical doctor, military leaders, assorted tradesmen, and a theologian or two thrown in for good measure.
- “Their times” spanned nearly 16 centuries—from about 1500 B.C. to 95 A.D. After 1600 years in the making, it’s remained the same for even longer. The “canon” of Scripture was settled in the fourth century, and Christians have generally accepted our collection of 66 “little books” to be The Bible ever since.
We don’t know anyone who’s ever disputed any of those “facts”, do we now? It hardly predisposes me to place much trust in their awareness of the cultures embedded and expressed in the languages of the Bible.
Finally (and leaving aside my usual gripe (e.g. here) about no translation of the deutero-canonical books — hardly surprising in the light of second “fact” quoted above) the Dementor’s kiss is finally imparted when I see it is commended by, among others, Pat Robertson.
July 22nd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I’m frightened to say that I feel the same way about all these targeted bibles. They aren’t targeted bibles so much as targeted progaganda. It’s all crap.
July 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I used to think that the Holman Christian Standard Bible was poorly named, but now I’ve changed my opinion: it is perfectly named — the title indicates that it is a sectarian fundamentalist translation, and I cannot disagree with this self-assessment.
July 22nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I’ve joking referred to the HCSB as the “Highly Conservative Southern Baptist” version. Fellow Southern Baptists have told me to be quiet.
It reputedly came about as a way for Lifeway to avoid paying large fees for use of the NIV in church literature.
While I think the trend for these ever smaller and more bizarre target audience bibles miss the point in a big way, I can’t say I blame the publishers for trying to maximize the sales of a limited product line somehow.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Doug, I agree in having serious reservations about “The idea of customised Bibles for target audiences”. It is indeed appalling if there are Bibles for wives, husbands etc etc but none for other groups of people. But it is slightly less appalling if no one is left out. So, given that there are customised Bibles for other groups, it is right that there is also one for gays etc. I say this without intending to take any position on wider gay issues.
the words of Jesus in red … surely a typographical denial of the inspiration of scripture
Well said!
I see it is commended by, among others, Pat Robertson.
I don’t think you should reject something just because it is commended by Pat Robertson, just as I don’t reject this post because it is commended by Jim West.
“Highly Conservative Southern Baptist” version
Chuck, is this name intended to imply that there are Southern Baptists who are not highly conservative?
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Peter, you said:
I don’t think you should reject something just because it is commended by Pat Robertson, just as I don’t reject this post because it is commended by Jim West.
Fair enough, but it is enough to make me very suspicious, not least of the translators’ sanity in soliciting a commendation from him.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
It seems to derogate from the universality of the one gospel.
So what translation, then, do you recommend that does (or should) serve as a universal text? Just curious…
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
ElShaddai, that comment was made about lots of different Bibles being published for lots of different target groups, not about translations as such. I don’t think there is a translation that serves as a universal text, but I am sure that translators should aim for a universally acceptable text rather than a partisan one.
July 25th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
[...] for the HCSB after years with the KJV, NIV and NASB. In contrast, Doug at Metacatholic found little to like in the text or the philosophy behind the [...]
July 25th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
So, Doug, how do they come up with a universally acceptable text when people disagree so vociferously about what is acceptable and what is not?
July 25th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Gary, I’ve tried to explore what needs to be worked at to move in this direction in a more recent post.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
[...] to this interview with Dr. Ed Blum, General Editor of the Holman Christian Standard Bible. I have previously criticised this translation for what I think are inconsistencies and biases, though I’m quite prepared to accept other [...]