I received a very encouraging comment from Greg this morning on this post. I wanted to share it with you because I think many people may find themselves in Greg’s position.
I grew up in an independent, fundamental Baptist church. Guess which translation we used. When I was a senior in high school, I gave my mother a heart attack (not literally, but almost) when I joined a Southern Baptist church. My translation of choice then and throughout college and seminary was the NIV. When the ESV was published, I couldn’t adopt it quickly enough. I never liked the NIV because I thought (and still think) the translation was a little too loose. Perhaps that will be corrected in the 2011 update.
Two things kept me from adopting the HCSB when it was published, although I liked it very much from the start:
- it had only been about 2 or 3 years since I changed translations and I didn’t want to do it again, and
- I didn’t want to think of myself as a SBC “fanboy.”
I owned a few copies of the HCSB; I just rarely picked them up.
I hold to Reformed doctrine, so the fact that all of the modern “heroes” vociferously approved of the ESV gave me great comfort. But I always thought that Holman had done the best job of any Bible publisher at laying out the page. They simply hit a home run there with typography and textual aids. The ESV, on the other hand, was simply text (albeit good text) printed on the page with little visual appeal.
Still, the HCSB’s stigma as the Southern Baptist Bible held me back. Now, after about 48 hours straight of researching (much of which was aided by your site), I have made the decision that the ESV will move to the back burner as a comparative translation and the HCSB will be the translation I carry around with me and teach from.
I was unaware that there was an update coming. I’m glad to see it. I kind of liked the brackets (I understand your argument against them, but at least liked to have the information they provide) and I wish they had footnoted 1 Cor 13:8 (#4 above mentions that this would be the case, but unfortunately they decided against it; I would probably categorize that as one of the only “Baptist biases” in this translation). But the other updates seem to be a nice improvement.
Thanks for the help in making this decision. It’s not one I took lightly and it was a much harder decision than I thought it would be.
And in a follow-up email, Greg wrote this:
Just wanted to say thanks for your posts on the HCSB and for making a Reformed guy not feel so awkward for using something other than the ESV.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I posted over at New Leaven the other day that after reading the updated HCSB text fairly extensively for weeks as my “only” translation, I was reading the Bible with my family. I only had one HCSB, but had plenty of ESV’s.
As I was reading the text (actually listening to my children) it very much had the feel of the KJV… that became more and more obvious after using the HCSB for a while.
If the study Bible can be as neutral as the NIV Study Bible they will have a winner in the marketplace potentially. The Minister’s Reference Bible is best for layout and quality of the text. It’s “ministerial helps” are mostly useless for non Baptists liturgically and perhaps otherwise in my opinion as a Reformed minister.
Hm, care to explain (or point to a useful article explaining) what you mean by being reformed in this setting?
(Here in Norway we don’t use that label much — I think. I’ve heard of baptists, evangelicals, lutherans, catholics and pentecostals. Is it reformed as in the Reformation/Luther?)
That’s a great question…and one with a fairly complicated answer. But I’ll try to be concise and give you a couple of links that may help you understand what we mean.
There is no one definition for “Reformed” in this context, but it could have several meanings:
1. Many Baptists use the word to indicate that they hold to Calvinistic theology in regards to salvation.
2. Many Presbyterians use the word to indicate that, in addition to be Calvinists, they hold to presbyterian theology in regards to church organization, covenant theology, etc.
3. The word also includes an entire worldview that includes how Christians relate to vocation, the arts, the state, and every other facet of life in a way that views the Kingdom of God as touching all of those areas.
3. Some people use the term and have no idea what they’re talking about!
Here are a couple of links that may help:
1. Westminster Reformed Presbyterian Church, where I work, provides a fairly concise explanation here: http://www.wrpca.org/About-Us/What-We-Believe
2. Tim Challies is a Canadian designer/blogger/theologian who is a quasi-Baptist (I think). He offers a lengthy explanation here: http://www.challies.com/theology/what-it-means-to-be-reformed
Hope that helps give a little context. There has been a resurgence of Reformed theology in the United States for a couple of decades now.
Flips, I am Hungarian Reformed. By “Reformed” I mean the evangelical faith spawned in the Palatinate of Germany. Our Father in the faith were Calvin and Melancthon.
Flips, By “Reformed,” we generally mean we believe in the sovereignty of God over all things, including salvation. In other words, salvation is a gift from God given to whom He chooses. It is not based on a decision I can make because, left to my own devices, I would never choose to follow Christ.
There are other factors to Reformed doctrine (e.g., regulative principle of worship). Many people use the term “Calvinist” to describe the Reformed doctrinal stance. I personally never refer to myself as Calvinist because I don’t follow Calvin; I follow Christ. The views are biblical, and Calvin just happened to be a famous teacher of the doctrines.