# HCSB - Gal. 6:16



## Taylor (Dec 12, 2015)

Greetings, all.

I like the HCSB a good bit. However, I have been pointed to a possible bias (in regards to Dispensationalism) with the rendering of Gal. 6:16. Quite honestly, I like the NIV rendering best. Check it out:

Greek Text:
καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος, *καὶ* ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.

HCSB:
May peace come to all those who follow this standard, and mercy to the Israel of God!

NIV:
Peace and mercy to all those who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

The point of contention is how to interpret the last καὶ (which I have put in bold above). It seems that the NIV interprets it as "even," meaning "those who follow this rule" are "the Israel of God," while the HCSB interprets it as denoting two distinct groups: "those who follow this standard" and "the Israel of God."

Now, this seems troublesome within the context, and could possibly be a Dispensational bias. Does anyone else feel this way? If so, are you bothered? Is it possible to read the HCSB (not the Greek) a different way?


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 12, 2015)

I do not use or recommend using the HCSB, but the reading does not strike me as incompatible with understanding the Israel of God and "those who follow this standard" to have the same intended referent. Switching descriptive terms of the same group is a common feature of language and is very common in Scripture.


----------



## jprince (Dec 12, 2015)

Austin, why don't you recommend the HCSB? Asking out of curiosity.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 12, 2015)

The HCSB rendering indeed strikes me as offering a reading in support of a distinction between those whom Paul addresses in the first part of the verse (those fully accepting his teaching), and a separate blessing upon a latter-mentioned group, "Israel of God."

The HCSB eliminates the third "kai" (coordinating conjunction) completely, as superfluous to its distinctive English translation. This seems a bit tendentious. The first "kai" (beginning of v.) is left off by both proposed translations, but given in many others (see KJV, ASV, ESV, etc.). The NIV achieves the sense of "even" in the third case by replacing the word with a dash (--) punctuation.

It's hard for me to read Paul dividing up the recipients of the traditional benediction. "Peace for you guys; and mercy even for you (other) guys." Grace is explicitly mentioned in v18; ergo Grace, Mercy, and Peace. Hard for me not to see the intentionality behind that combination. Why think that he's segmenting his audience?

Of course, if it is _theologically_ necessary to reinforce an immovable barricade between Jew and Gentile, even amid a world of professing believers in a single Christ, then effort is likely to be made to soften whatever supporting _identification_ this verse (among others) might offer to those who conceive of a single people of God, whether it goes by the name "church" or "Israel."

The natural Gk reading is "...peace upon them and mercy and...." An uninitiated reader/hearer might instantly expect a third element of blessing following the first and second. Certainly at this moment he has not divided the recipients. But then comes another "upon," thus reduplicating or intensifying the prepositional phrase as a whole.

The flow of the sentence, therefore, is that Paul _expands_ his blessing from including the recipients _*alone*,_ to the greater body to whom they belong, to whom belongs the gospel he spent his whole letter defending, without which the people of God don't have any identity whatsoever. That is the most natural disposition of the syntax. v18 flows easily from the end of v16, making v17 a kind of parenthetical inside the complete benediction. v11 indicates Paul writing at minimum his final sentences by his own hand. So, if he inserted a closing comment, this by no means lessens its inspiration.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 12, 2015)

jprince said:


> Austin, why don't you recommend the HCSB? Asking out of curiosity.



Hi Jonathan,
The short answer is that I prefer a common English Bible that allows the English-speaking church to speak the same Scriptural vocabulary rather than a multiplicity of translations with varying degrees of accuracy and conflicting underlying texts. I think that currently the AV serves this purpose well, and the church today is not in a suitable state for preparing a reliable revision. I do not think the HCSB filled a real need in the church for yet another translation, and it seems to be fairly dynamic in places.

One thing I do appreciate about the HCSB is that, as far as I know, it was translated under the authority of a church (the SBC). I do think that Bible translation should be under the oversight of the Church rather than subject to marketing influences. But the SBC being the source does weaken my confidence in the translation philosophy.

Thanks for asking and have a blessed Sabbath tomorrow.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 13, 2015)

au5t1n said:


> jprince said:
> 
> 
> > Austin, why don't you recommend the HCSB? Asking out of curiosity.
> ...



Austin,
For better or for worse, the HCSB is not under the authority of the SBC. I am part of the oversight committee, which is made up of two Presbyterians, two Lutherans, and four Baptists. There's certainly no Dispensationalist bias on our committee, and we do try to fix issues with the translation, where possible. Translation is a tricky business, and we would appreciate your prayers for our work.


----------



## MW (Dec 13, 2015)

iainduguid said:


> Translation is a tricky business, and we would appreciate your prayers for our work.



A work made unnecessarily harder by rejecting standard translations, as appears by the case under consideration.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 13, 2015)

iainduguid said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> > jprince said:
> ...



But since Broadman and Holman publish it, doesn't this allow Lifeway to bypass paying copyright fees to Zondervan, which they would to do if they were still using the NIV?

I like certain parts of the HCSB OT, but parts of the NT seem to "chatty."


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 13, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> iainduguid said:
> 
> 
> > au5t1n said:
> ...



Indeed the chief motivation for undertaking a new translation was to avoid paying licensing fees to Zondervan. While the HCSB was indeed published by the publishing arm of the SBC, it cannot truly be said that it was commissioned under ecclesiastical authority, at least not in the way that most of us would understand that term. It is often frustrating how little control the SBC has over its own entities. For example, a few years ago a resolution was adopted by the convention condemning the updated version of the NIV, however Lifeway continued to sell the revised NIV and continues to do so.


----------



## AThornquist (Dec 13, 2015)

I love the HCSB and several local churches use it a bit in my town. Good question from the OP.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 13, 2015)

iainduguid said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> > jprince said:
> ...



I knew there was a reason I liked the HCSB! I don't think I knew you were on it, Dr. Duguid. But the translation philosophy laid out in the beginning of the Bible is the very best, most sensible translation philosophy I have ever seen, and, in my opinion, very successful. Also, in terms of its English style, it is better than the ESV, with all its ridiculous "and's" at the beginning of sentences (I still like the ESV, by the way, and use it quite a lot).


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 14, 2015)

iainduguid said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> > jprince said:
> ...



Dr. Duguid,
Thank you for the correction. I thought I had read that in several places. Did the SBC at least commission or request it, or was what I heard just completely off?


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 14, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > iainduguid said:
> ...



Bill,
Sorry, I posted my reply to Dr. Duguid before reading your post. That answers my question.

I probably should not have derailed the thread. I stand by my original statement that the phrasing can be read in a non-dispensational manner, while also agreeing with Rev. Winzer that not reinventing the wheel would have avoided the confusion.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 14, 2015)

Thanks everyone for the replies. Like I said, I really like the HCSB, as least so far with what I've read from it. I think it is the only major translation that gets John 3:16 right. And, having thought about Gal 6:16 a good bit, I have found that I can read it without hearing it like a Dispensationalist, especially given the context. In my opinion, it is impossible to read Gal. 6:16 within the context of the preceding material and think that Paul is addressing two separate entities. After all, "if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29 | HCSB). I also like that the HCSB does not shy away from technical terms like "propitiation," "predestination" (notice Acts 4:28 in the NIV), and others.

There are just a few quirks I've encountered thus far reading the translation:

- Gal. 6:16 (again, only a problem if you rip it out of context)

- This is a small thing, I think, but in Ps. 23:2, the HCSB reads "He *lets* me lie down." This doesn't seem to reflect the Hebrew all that well, from my understanding. The verb there is in the Hiphil stem, meaning it denotes the causation of an action. The "traditional" rendering is preferred, I think: "He *makes* me (or 'causes me') to lie down."

- Of course, everyone knows about Mal. 3:6. Again, this is only a problem if you base (or try to negate) an entire doctrine on the grounds of one verse, which is immature at best, highly foolish at worst. I think I understand why they rendered the verse the way they did in the HCSB. The context allows for it, and so does the verbal stem (I believe). However, it is indeed a departure from the "traditional" rendering, which would be far more useful in defending the doctrine of divine immutability. But, again, in light of Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 33:11; and Jam. 1:17, one could not then determine that, based on the one passage (Mal. 3:6) that God might be able to change in the future.

That's just my take on the translation. I will post about other quirks I see in the future as they come.


----------

