Publisher's Weekly and the Southern Baptist Bible

Broadman & Holman, the Bible publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention is marketing its new Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). The new translation is a result of the SBC's irritation with Zondervan's "capitulation" to secularizing and liberalizing forces in marketing Today's New International Version (a name that is shockingly short-sighted—what of tomorrow?), a version that includes more appropriate gender-inclusive language.

According to Publisher's Weekly: "In its official press materials for the HCSB, Broadman & Holman takes a veiled swipe at Zondervan by saying the HCSV was needed . . . 'to safeguard the Scriptures from trends toward cultural pluralism, political correctness and drifting ideology by having a translation controlled by a community of believers, not profit-driven business interests.'"

Hmm...not profit-driven business interests. Publisher's Weekly then goes on, insightfully, to note: "That said, the Southern Baptists don't seem to be above a few corporate stratagems of their own. LifeWay determined it would use the still-not-audience-tested version in all its curriculum materials. And at the same time, the Southern Baptist Convention declared the year of the version's publication The Year of the Bible."

Let me see if I understand this. As an organization you don't like a translation of Scripture because it challenges some of your control-motivated use of language, especially gender-specific language in relation to God and church leadership, so you make your own translation of Scripture. See, when the Jehovah's Witnesses do that, you call them a cult and their New World Translation heretical, but when you do it, you're a faith community safeguarding Scriptures? Sigh...

Comments

[Resident Atheist]

Ya, if they care that much about faithfulness to the manuscripts, they should just bite the bullet and require their membership to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and not use translations at all. Or at least boycott Zondervan's latest and recommend translations that until now were good enough for the leadership. This smacks of nothing more than economic opportunism.

[Scott Jones]

No, RA, I've been watching from the sidelines for years and feel that it is not economic hubris but is further the logical conclusion to their theological positions on the Bible the last 35 years. Given their positions on inerrancy, it was only a matter of time before they released what they considered to be THE authorized version. I knew that their literature would then be based on it. I'm sure they will also do a new commentary series within the next decade or so, giving what is THE interpretation of every questionable text. They try to promote only expository preaching. So, the eventual outcome will be trying to get every pastor in the denomination to preach THE word as translated and interpreted by the SBC. It is all, as I said, the natural outflow of their theological positions, promulgated for years.

[Resident Atheist]

Okay, now that makes more sense. Were they planning to release this edition now anyway, or was this just a convenient time since they could inflame the masses over their competitor's version?

Anyway, as charming as it is to have a new papacy in the making, I can't help thinking that it's been done before.

[Dr. Mike Kear]

I'm a NRSV fan myself, but I own both the HCSB and the TNIV (as well as a plethora of other translations). The HCSB is NOT well translated. It is almost unreadable in certain passages. The translators have gone out of their way to insert the word "man" into passages where it is unneeded and intrusive. The TNIV (which probably will never catch on either) is actually a better translation then the original NIV. And, like the original, it is very evangelical. After reading it for some time, I can't imagine anyone thinking it was liberal in any way (other than its inclusion of women).

Around these parts the HCSB is known as "the Southern Baptist Bible." No one buys it except hard-core Southern Baptists, and not many of them do (most are staying with the NASB). The Sunday School curriculum at my CBF church is from Smith & Helwys and is based on the NRSV. But what it's based on makes little difference. Folks in my class carry everything from The Message to the KJV. Most use the NIV. There are a few New Living Translations, one English Standard Version (an evangelical update of the RSV, which includes footnotes saying that where it translates "brothers" in the letters of Paul, it means brothers and sisters), and one Complete Jewish Bible. No one uses (or has even really heard of) the HCSB.

There may some level of economic opportunism involved in the SBC, but more than that it is the supremacy of the SBC and the subjugation of the masses to a unified theology that is paramount, IMO.

Peace,

Mike

[jvpastor]

This is exactly what I was telling my friends at SWBTS a few years back when they were writing this thing, I actually had a couple of prof's that participated on the Exodus translation and Ecclesiastes, which was reason enough for me not to use it ever! You are completely right in your accusations, JW's got their own Bible and so do we, I have actually shared this with our congregation, and I think enough of them still think that we should be KJV only they didn't get upset with me bashing it.

By the way, they made their own translation so that they wouldn't have to keep paying royalties for using the NIV in the curriculm, it was all money motivated.

[greg]

Jay,

The PW article also mentions the royalties issue. It was very well done. Here's the link to the story.

[Kevin Powell]

Many of my evangelical friends think this sort of nonsense coming from prominant church leaders is appalling. Dismissing the TNIV because of gender language, but not uttering a peep about the New Living, Contemporary English, or even the Message, is nothing but craven hypocrisy and sexism and does not advance the cause of the gospel.

[Monk-in-Training]

I think Greg is on to something, it sounds VERY VERY cultic to have to "tweak" your own groups version of the Bible without other communities being involved. Seems to be a slippry slope to finding out George Bush was born in Bethlehem...

[Jason]

I guess my curiousity would center aroung the thought process of re-making the Bible in the image of a movement. There is much to loathe about biblio-idolators, and for me the SBC in general. But, my main question is what does their decision tell us about who they believe God to be, or not to be?

grace and peace

[Nicole]

Oh dear.

Sounds like you've got the SBC's number. The SBC has always been critical of other sources of teach literature and curriculums, so this jump does not suprise me.

Born and bred in the SBC, with several relatives on staff at SBC churches, I just don't know how to get them to see the light. My mom's church (she's the youth minister) will soon leave the denomination because they have no qualms with women ministers and have a true heart for the poor. Can't be having that in the SBC, it might just be too revolutionary, ya know.

[bobstevens]

Aren't there a lot of SBC KJV-only folks? Won't this piss them off?

For my part, the NASB is where it's at... but I have a friend that knows more Greek than most of us here put together and he thinks the TNIV is super.

In other news, I've always been very amused by those who claim that the Authorized Version has something to do with God's authorization rather than that of King James.

[Joe]

I am saying this out of love and trying to understand. What exactly is the purpose of changing the gender specific language in the bible? Is it because it offended too many people? If that is the case, then I don't get it. I thought I thought the bible was supposed to be offensive/non pc and I thought that what Jesus was about.

[jvpastor]

Joe, I never thought about it much until I had two daughters, most translations use the pronoun him (he) to refer to humanity in general. As a guy it never bothered me, but now that I want my daughters to read about God in Scripture I want them to be able to identify with it. The Bible is full of stories about strong faithful women, but it is clear that the translators prefer a patriarchial worldview. The Bible should be offensive to people who reject God, but it should not be offensive to women and girls who are reading it in order to understand God better.

[Joe]

Okay, it makes sense. I just didn't if people were trying to be more political correct or what.

[Resident Atheist]

JV,

I tend to think that the job of a translation is to communicate the message as understood by its early audiences, to the best of our knowledge of what that message was, and to the best of our abilities as translators. The Bible isn't offensive to me, and I think trying to make it so would be worthless and entirely counterproductive.

Regarding gender, the issue is that anthropos in Greek and ish in Hebrew mean "man or woman" much like "person" does today unless context demands male gender, and until a hundred years ago "man" in English similarly meant "man or woman", context permitting. Since then the combination of womens' movements and countermovements have changed the connotations of "man" to make it essentially masculine rather than neuter. Changing the translation to represent this is to account for the fact that, while Koine Greek (and to an extent OT Hebrew) is a dead language, English is not, and translations are only as good as their ability to communicate with the generations currently alive. Older folks (read: my parents' generation and older) are still okay with the old language, but people fifteen years younger than my parents have trouble reading it, and by the time you get to kids my age it's a serious communication hangup.

Part of the problem that a lot of traditionalist translators don't recognize is that not only does language change (which a great many of them have acknowledged explicitly in their press releases), but language is no longer homogenous across a society: every generation is creating its own specific "dialect", not in the technical sense that two generations can't communicate at all, but rather that every generation has its own distinct moral vocabulary that, while there are a great many commonalities, can differ widely in what connotations a particular loaded word will have. "Man" has become one such word; older folks remember the days where you could say Man and also mean Woman, people my age have only heard stories about such times and it's not quite plausible to us, and people JV's daughters' ages most likely won't understand the concept without a lot of background study.

Anyway, the tack I tend to take is--if the message is so important, and it's contained in the Gk/Heb/Aramaic texts, you don't trust a translation at all except in a very careful, provisional way. No translation will ever be adequate; the technical details of translation are difficult enough without waging a sociological war on the side. What some people want is one specific document (ever so conveniently expressed in their language) that they can put absolute trust in without thinking about it or being careful about whether the conclusions they come to are warranted. They shouldn't have such a thing. Besides the fact that it isn't legitimate, it's too dangerous.

[greg]

RA,

I think you wanted that last addressed to Joe, not JV. However, I was hoping that you would weigh in on the linguistics issue. Thanks.

[jvpastor]

Thanks RA, I was approaching it from a more practical usage perspective. I didn't mean to say that the translators should make it offensive. I would hope as you said the goal was accuracy, if that is possible.

[Resident Atheist]

Thanks Greg, I originally did address the second part to Joe but it got lost in a bad piecemeal copy-and-paste.

[Joe]

Thanks to all for answering my question. I appreciate it. My only concern is that a lot of religions have changed specfic parts of their doctrine because it offended some folks or was no longer acceptable in today's society. I just don't want this to be start of altering christian doctrine because it isn't PC.

[ThePastor]

Let me say Greg, you do have some kind of anger towards the SBC. That being said, I agree with you in certain areas of your post. I think it is an attempt to bring the denomination together to one translation. Will I do it? No way. I love the NASB. It works for me and the folks understand it when preached. I read my copy of the HCSB every now and then. Some of it I like, parts of it i don't. Listen, the SBC is not all bad. Not every pastor is one this Fundamentalist Train. Honest. The leaders are very vocal, but not representative of every pastor or every church in the convention. Remember that. Peace and love.

[greg]

"The Pastor"

Wow. How 'bout you use your name or some other alias. We got tons of pastors around here. Second, I was very explicit on your blog about what I dislike about the SBC, so it seems a little disingenuous of you to begin your post as if we've never discussed this issue before. Third, there are several SBC people that lurk and comment here, and I'm fully aware that all SBC folk aren't bad. Some of the ones that hang out here are trying to effect change within. I admire that, while recognizing it's a quixotic task. The ship is too big to be turned at this point. The moderates have, for the most part, left for other Baptist groups. The reasonable conservatives will be forced into choices they can't make in good conscience eventually. The process the SBC is in right now is called ossification, hardening into a series of litmus tests and doctrinal distinctives preparing the way to being the Amish of 2050. According to their own record-keeping, their membership is down 50-60 percent, yet they still claim the old numbers. The world and the Church is passing them by, it would seem.

[Resident Atheist]

Joe,

When you say "many religions have changed specfic parts of their doctrine because it offended some folks or was no longer acceptable in today's society", which religions and which specific things are you thinking of? It's not really relevant to the discussion at hand, and I wouldn't ask at all except that I have no idea what you mean and I'm kind of curious.

[Joe]

RA,
I was watching a story on the History channel the other day that invovled mormons. I know some about mormons since my wife lived in Utah. What I didn't know is that they have changed their doctrine over the years when people got in a tiff. The specific thing on the History Channel was about a masacure in Southern Utah when some mormons under Brigham Young's instructions slaughtered a group of immigrants because it was in their doctrine written by Joseph Smith for salvation by blood. I believe that means taking their life so they can enter one of the three tiers of heaven. Since then they have removed since it is morally wrong and most mormons have no clue it ever existed. Also, they once believed that Blacks were angels either netural or demons, they have since removed that part from their doctrine. And of course the multiple wives ordeal.
I understand the changing of the language in the bible is not a step in that direction and probably using the mormon religion isn't the best example in the world. It is stil a concern of mine because I believe Christianity to be the faith leading to God. I can't think of anyway else to say that. With these two seperations, the SBC coming out with a correct bible and the Today's New International Version, I see a worthless fight beginning to mount that could ultimately destory a good part of Christianity. I hope I made sense.

[Resident Atheist]

Joe,

It makes sense, although I personally would usually not make a statement about many religions when all my examples are specific to Mormons. Thanks.

[Joe]

Thanks, I need to remember to just say one not many. My bad.

[apostlejohn]

Perhaps the name is shortsighted. I suppose it will be followed up by the Next Day's Newer International Version, then by the Newer Day's Newest Intergalactic Version, then by the Last Day's Final Universal Version, then by... well, perhaps I should find something productive to do with me life.

[James]

OVER 450 JEHOVAH'S WITNESS LAWSUITS, COURT CASES, ETC SUMMARIZED


This website summarizes 300 United States court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witnesses, including dozens of cases where the Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com/



This website summarizes 160 United States court cases and lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against Employers:

EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES

http://jwemployees.bravehost.com

[George L Miller]

Dear Sirs:
I have read many books and have heard many comments about the Shekinah Glory, but that is all they say, some comment. I have never seen a book written about the subject. I wrote on this subject in my seminary thesis. I have simplified it and it is now ready for print. How would you like to be the first publisher to publish The Shekinah Glory of God? I am ready.
Sincerely,
George L Miller

[Dallas Tim]

Will the book have pictures?

[Leighton]

Oo, and diagrams. I can't possibly recommend a book without diagrams.

[Dallas Tim]

I also like the way he "simplified" the topic for book form.

He should title it "The Shekinah Glory for dummies."