HCSB Acts 17:26 – ADDING Male Representation?

HCSB Acts 17:26 – ADDING Male Representation?

Besides doing my morning reading from various versions, on those days when I read from the original languages, I sometimes have one of the English versions out for comparison. Today I noticed something rather interesting.

In Acts 17:26, where the Greek reads ex henos, the HCSB reads “From one man”. In addition they footnote it, but not for the addition of the word “man,” but for the textual variant “from one blood.” Now the textual variants are interesting here. Though USB4 gives this a B rating, and the evidence looks pretty strong to me that it should be just ex henos, there were two different suggestions for “one what?” given by the scribes.

First, of course, is “one blood” which is also the reading of the KJV. Second is “one mouth” probably best translated here as “one source.” Somehow none of the scribes thought of clarifying this with the word “man.”

Now “man” is hardly impossible. “One” can be masculine or neuter in this case. But it seems odd that we should wait for the 21st century to get an emphasis on the man rather than the woman whose “one” blood flows through all humanity.

Oddly enough, as I looked at a few difficult to translate passages, I also came across this excellent translation from the HCSB:

And who will harm you if you are passionate for what is good? — 1 Peter 3:13 (HCSB)

I haven’t compared it to my whole collection of modern English versions, but I consider that an excellent rendering. Thus far my impression of the HCSB is that it is quite variable, sometimes seeming clumsy, sometimes having odd renderings, and at other times having some truly excellent stuff, all according to my opinions, of course!

4 thoughts on “HCSB Acts 17:26 – ADDING Male Representation?

  1. I just thought of something that I think makes sense of these conflicts a little better to me. A myth is an icon. Think of Rublev’s Trinity or the Icon of the Anastasis. Here again we see something far different than we would with a photo – either of the hospitality of Abraham, or in Christ rising from the dead. But it is no less true for that.

    I think calling Genesis 1-11 an icon of creation is about perfect. Here we see the key people and events with which to understand our origins, the nature of God, and man. Dostoyevsky called it “a carven image of the world, and of man, and of human characters, and everything is named and set forth unto ages of ages” and I think that exactly right.

    Like icons, I think it folly to interpret Genesis with “literalism” – that is, asking questions like “how did Cain find a wife” or “how did the Dinosaurs fit on the Ark”. These are not questions the icon is addressing, anymore than the icon of the Anastasis is meant to show the viewer the architectural layout of Hades or the relative size of Satan and Jesus’ big toes. “Ah”, someone might say, “but if the icon draws their big toes at different sizes, and this is not indeed so, is not the icon in error?” The answer is “no” – any more than the Bible would be in error by tasting bad when baked into a cake.

Comments are closed.

Comments are closed.