HCSB Text Differences?

[bobnlyne]

I'm a daily Accordance user, but mostly for comparing texts and for simple original language searches during my morning "quiet time." I typically have four parallel panes running, and one of the texts in my mix is the HCSB. Another is the NIV. But there are a couple things I've encountered which have left me scratching my head. I'm sure they are addressed somewhere, but so far I haven't been able to dig them out.

 

1. The frequent difference in the OT Hebrew word from which the HCSB and NIV English is translated. As an example, the English "worship" in the same HCSB and NIV passage is translated from different Hebrew words. It was my understanding that both versions are based on the BHS. Or am I somewhere out in left field?

 

2. The frequent difference between the text of the Accordance HCSB and my hard copy HCSB. 

 

Just wondering, and thanks.

GB

[R. Mansfield]

1. Can you provide a verse reference or two where you find different Hebrew words? Sometimes there are different transliteration schemes that might affect what you see in Instant Details between the two versions. 

 

2. The HCSB was revised in 2009 (?); and although I just noticed our copyright information doesn't reflect it, I do know that we have the up-to-date text. It could be that your hardcopy of the HCSB is the 2003 or earlier copyright. 

[Tony Lawrence]

I did a quick check of what bobnlyne posted and found what he was referring to in Gen. 22:5. In the NIV11 with enhanced G/K, worship is tagged as  GK H02556   חָוָה  chawah  and in the HCSBS it is tagged asworship  H7812   שָׁחָה  shachah. The distinction is not just the difference between the G/K and Strong's numbers. 

[Alistair]

These are different tagging/numbering systems, aren't they? The Strong's and the Goodrick/Kohlenberger?

[Daniel Francis]

Yes numbering/tagging is very different in g/k compared to strongs and g/k is more accurate in my understanding. It is also a system copyrighted by Zondervan so not the most accessible apart from their products. (NKJV works great under strongs since it is following the receptus).

 

-Dan

[Helen Brown]

The word השׁתחוה has been tricky for scholars to analyse. The newer HALOT derives it from חוה like the GK system, but earlier scholars like BDB and Strong decided it was derived from שָׁחָה. The problem is that several of the letters could be ones that are added to the root, or could be part of the root. As the Brits say: "you pays yer money and you takes yer choice."

[bobnlyne]

R. Mansfield, on 11 Aug 2015 - 09:40 AM, said:http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/public/style_images/master/snapback.png

The HCSB was revised in 2009 (?); and although I just noticed our copyright information doesn't reflect it, I do know that we have the up-to-date text. It could be that your hardcopy of the HCSB is the 2003 or earlier copyright. 

 

Although I received my HCSB for Christmas in 2011, it is indeed copyrighted 2003. I'm sorta surprised there would be so many word changes in the space of six years, but at least the meanings haven't changed. Actually, I think I prefer my older "hard copy."  

 

I did a quick check of what bobnlyne posted and found what he was referring to in Gen. 22:5. In the NIV11 with enhanced G/K, worship is tagged as  GK H02556   חָוָה  chawah  and in the HCSBS it is tagged asworship  H7812   שָׁחָה  shachah. The distinction is not just the difference between the G/K and Strong's numbers. 

 

The word השׁתחוה has been tricky for scholars to analyse. The newer HALOT derives it from חוה like the GK system, but earlier scholars like BDB and Strong decided it was derived from שָׁחָה. The problem is that several of the letters could be ones that are added to the root, or could be part of the root. As the Brits say: "you pays yer money and you takes yer choice."

 

The discussion about the source Hebrew still throws me a bit. Referencing (numbering/tagging) systems aside, it sounds like, at least in this example, that the difference in derivative words is based on additions or changes made by Hebrew scholars to Hebrew texts through the centuries. So they now appear as entirely different, although possibly related words from one source text to another. (?) Just displaying my ignorance here.

 

Many thanks to all,

GB

[A.D. Riddle]

GB,

 

There are no "additions or changes made by Hebrew scholars to Hebrew texts through the centuries" (in this particular case). Rather, it is a question of how to analyze what is there. The source Hebrew is the same for both. The word in both is הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה.

 

Most Semitic words have a three-consonant root, and since this word has so many consonants, it is not clear which three consonants are the root. Is the root שׁחה or is it חוה? There is not any disagreement about the word or what it means (to bow, worship, etc.), only about what the root is. Is the שׁ part of the root, or part of the conjugation?

 

It turns out that other Semitic languages (Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Arabic) have a Št conjugation, so it appears that is also what we have in Hebrew in this instance. Furthermore, in Ugaritic, I believe this conjugation occurs only with one verb, yšḥwy, tšḥwy, which is cognate to Hebrew הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה.

 

I hope that clears it up. You are not dealing here with two different source texts. The source text is the same.

 

A.D.

 

 

 

Here are some additional notes I compiled while playing with this:

(1) The Hištafʿēl conjugation is used for only one verb in Hebrew, namely הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה.

(2) This conjugation only occurs with one verb root, and this verb root occurs only in this conjugation (also the case for Ugaritic; Sivan 2001: 109).

(3) In Accordance, there are 173 occurrences of this root and 173 occurrences of this conjugation in BH.

 

Are there other occurrences of חוה that are not Hištafʿēl? Accordance lists this is as the only conjugation in which this verb appears.

(1) There is another root חוה “to declare” which occurs 6 times.

(2) There is a verb שׁחח “to be bowed down, bow, crouch, come down, collapse, sink down” which occurs 18 times.

(3) There is a verb שׁחה “bow down, get down, descend, crouch” which occurs 2 times: שְׁחִי Isa 51:3 and יַשְׁחֶנָּה Prov 12:25. DCH discusses הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה under this entry with the notice that הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה might be forms of חוה.

(4) The Greek words προσκυνέω or προσκύνησις appear some 204 times, but always appear to translate הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה. (Curious cases are Deut 32:43; Josh 5:14; Jdg 2:2; Jdg 6:19; 1 Sam 1:28; 1 Ki 2:19 and 2:23; 1 Ki 11:33; 1 Ki 19:18; Isa 36:7; Isa 60:14; Jer 7:2; Ps 45:12 = LXX Ps 44:12.)

(5) Biblical Aramaic uses the verb סגד.

Edited August 12, 2015 by A.D. Riddle

[bobnlyne]

 

GB,

 

There are no "additions or changes made by Hebrew scholars to Hebrew texts through the centuries" (in this particular case). Rather, it is a question of how to analyze what is there. The source Hebrew is the same for both. The word in both is הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה.

 

Most Semitic words have a three-consonant root, and since this word has so many consonants, it is not clear which three consonants are the root. Is the root שׁחה or is it חוה? There is not any disagreement about the word or what it means (to bow, worship, etc.), only about what the root is. Is the שׁ part of the root, or part of the conjugation?

 

It turns out that other Semitic languages (Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Arabic) have a Št conjugation, so it appears that is also what we have in Hebrew in this instance. Furthermore, in Ugaritic, I believe this conjugation occurs only with one verb, yšḥwy, tšḥwy, which is cognate to Hebrew הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה.

 

I hope that clears it up. You are not dealing here with two different source texts. The source text is the same.

 

A.D.

 

 

It does help immensely, and thank you for bringing it down to my level and making it understandable. My curiosities are now satiated, and I am thankful to know that there is only one source text.

 

GB (grandbob)

[Michel Gilbert]

 

Furthermore, in Ugaritic, I believe this conjugation occurs only with one verb, yšḥwy, tšḥwy, which is cognate to Hebrew הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה.

 

 

 

A perfect example of the need for A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition in Accordance. I hope Peter is still interested in tagging the Ugaritic texts and linking them to DULAT, with cross references to HAL, etc.

 

 

Regards,

 

Michel

[Ιακοβ]

 

R. Mansfield, on 11 Aug 2015 - 09:40 AM, said:http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/public/style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Although I received my HCSB for Christmas in 2011, it is indeed copyrighted 2003. I'm sorta surprised there would be so many word changes in the space of six years, but at least the meanings haven't changed. Actually, I think I prefer my older "hard copy."  

 

 

The HCSB seems to always be being revised. Perhaps they avoid the issue NIV had about rejection of newer versions by not announcing it?  

 

At any rate, I know that the HCSB is currently in the process of another update, which will be interesting since they have chosen to include people that are significantly progressive in terms of gender inclusive language.

[Daniel Francis]

The HCSB seems to always be being revised. Perhaps they avoid the issue NIV had about rejection of newer versions by not announcing it?

 

At any rate, I know that the HCSB is currently in the process of another update, which will be interesting since they have chosen to include people that are significantly progressive in terms of gender inclusive language.

 

This is very typical for modern translations. NIV came out in 1978 but had a very significant update in 1984, the same with both the NLT and the ESV. The flaws in a text are not always apparent till it gets wider exposure. I am one who favours gender inclusion (I find it utter poppycock that one has a translation like the ESV constantly annotating in it's notes the greek indicates both men and women or see the preface, in many ways the KJV version was at times more gender inclusive than a great deal of our modern translations....in the RSV for example the KJV's children of God became sons of God and fishers became fishermen… reading sermons from the last century it seems to have been common to refer to your congregation as brothers, or to speak of "all men", but our language has changed and it is not a horrible thing in my mind ). My apologies for my little rant and I do appreciate those who want a extremely literal translation I use them at times myself but the NRSV NJB or NIV2011 are my choice translations for reading (the NJB may be one of my favourite translations but despite their attempt to be more gender neutral I do love how they consider brothers as gender inclusive, kin i could see but brothers is a real stretch in my mind, although I know there is no real good single word since siblings seems so cold).

 

-Dan