T.C. Robinson has a good example of the use of footnotes in the HCSB. An example that demonstrates courage, honesty, accuracy and thoroughness on the part of the editors and translators of the HCSB.
While we’re discussing footnotes, here are some notes about the footnotes in the HCSB:
Footnotes – The HCSB has the following notes:
- 1,586 textual notes
- 5,161 alternate readings
- 843 explanatory notes
- 27,565 cross references
- 237 OT citations in the NT
The NIV and ESV have far fewer notes. For example, the NIV has no textual notes in Gl, Php, 2Tm, and Ti. HCSB has 16. The NLT does have extensive notes, but often a critical term like atone or atonement is left without explanation. In Nm 25:3 there is no help given on Baal of Peor. And in Lv 13:39, ESV uses the term leukoderma with no footnote to help the reader.
(From “A Comparison of the HCSB with Other Major Translations” by Dr. Edwin Blum, General Editor for the HCSB)
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Will,
You just gotta have footnotes, esp. in Paul, given the ongoing debate over what he really means.
Yes, I commend the HCSB guys.
Of course, you and I are both aware of the HCSB’s own failure with “tongues.” However, in general, they definitely do a better job footnoting than most texts do.