CSB - Christian Standard Bible - HCSB minus the H :)

Discussion in 'Translations and Manuscripts' started by manito2000, Jan 18, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. manito2000

    manito2000 Puritan Board Freshman

  2. Bill The Baptist

    Bill The Baptist Puritan Board Graduate

    Thanks for the link. I am always interested in a free Bible, plus I'm interested to see the changes. I've heard that they have moved away from the use of "Yahweh" and "Messiah" in place of "Lord" and "Christ."
     
  3. ZackF

    ZackF Puritan Board Graduate

    Yeah....well...Alas, check out Romans 3:25 :( Why can't they get verses like that right?
     
  4. Jake

    Jake Puritan Board Junior

    I hope this is good: I'll have to take a look at the CSB on-line. I always have thought they did a great job with John 3:16 in the HCSB (and it looks the same in the CSB) in breaking convention to make it more understandable in modern English.
     
  5. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    The HCSB has long been one of my two favorite translations, and I have been disappointed that it has not had a wider distribution. I think taking the "Holman" off the title can only help. Maybe if they do a better job marketing (like Crossway has done with the ESV), then more people will give it a try. In my opinion, it has the very best translation philosophy of any translation ever.
     
  6. Brian R.

    Brian R. Puritan Board Freshman

    I'm not very familiar with the HCSB, so I skimmed the website. Sounds like some of you enjoy the HCSB. How would you say it's superior to the NIV or ESV? I assume those are the translations with which you might compare the CSB.
     
  7. Bill The Baptist

    Bill The Baptist Puritan Board Graduate

    From what I have read, many of the things that people currently appreciate about the HCSB are going away. It seems they may lose some current readers in an effort to gain many more.
     
  8. manito2000

    manito2000 Puritan Board Freshman

    I noticed that WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) had submitted a significant amount of translation recommendations to the translation committee. I went through a few pages of their recommendations for the book of Genesis and confirmed some where incorporated into the most recent revision.

    The WELS website allows you to download the various translation recommendations in PDF that also contain a rationale for the recommendation. Very useful info.

    http://bibletranslation.welsrc.net/...ions-for-the-holman-christian-standard-bible/
     
  9. reaganmarsh

    reaganmarsh Puritan Board Senior

    Thanks for the heads-up. I ordered a review copy and will be interested to examine the changes/updates they've made.

    Based on their description of the changes, I'm not sure that they haven't just nailed their own coffin shut...not at all saying they're being unfaithful, but rather that the reason folks used the HCSB (other than being a Hard Core Southern Baptist!) was for its translation uniqueness: YHWH, slave, etc. -- which they've apparently just eliminated.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2017
  10. iainduguid

    iainduguid Puritan Board Sophomore

    I am part of the oversight committee for the CSB, so was involved in the revision of the OT. It is similar to the ESV on the scale of literal vs functional equivalence (so significantly more literal than the NIV). For me, the big difference from the ESV is the ESV's love of archaic terminology, such as "Behold" and "maiden". I would never say to my wife, "Behold I was at the grocery store today and the maiden behind the counter said to me..." We had some excellent suggestions from our Lutheran brethren, all of which we evaluated and many of which we adopted (the oversight committee is made up of Presbyterians and evangelical Lutherans as well as Baptists).

    We moved away from the innovative use of Yahweh rather than Lord chiefly because it was impossible to be consistent. The HCSB has passages where it alternates back and forth, which may be confusing when the underlying Hebrew is the same. Capitalizing divine pronouns also forced translators to make exegetical choices that we felt were properly the role of the preacher, so we have dropped those. We have still retained Messiah and slave (rather than servant) where we felt it more accurately represented the force of the original. Some of the improvements (from my perspective) include rendering the traditional "Lord of Hosts" with a more transparent "Lord of Armies" (since not everyone realizes the connection) and in many places rendering "bene Adam" more literally as "children of Adam" rather than a more generic word like "people". I preached on Ecclesiastes 3 recently and the rendering "children of Adam" was striking in a context full of allusions to Genesis 3. It also helps to dispel the widely held idea that Adam is only mentioned in a few places in the OT.

    It is true that the ESV is likely to remain the "Reformed" translation because of the multitude of excellent resources Crossway has produced to go with it. But as a translation, the CSB is definitely worth considering.
     
    • Informative Informative x 6
    • Like Like x 2
    • List
  11. Bill The Baptist

    Bill The Baptist Puritan Board Graduate

    I'm sure they are aware of the risk of alienating their current readers, but it is likely that their research revealed that more people were turned off by those features than were attracted by them.
     
  12. Bill The Baptist

    Bill The Baptist Puritan Board Graduate

    Dr. Duguid,

    Thank you for your informative response and for your work on this translation. That being said, regarding your quote above, isn't that the point? That God's word should be higher and better than ordinary speech. Just my opinion.
     
  13. iainduguid

    iainduguid Puritan Board Sophomore

    Well if that were so we would expect that the Greek and Hebrew would have an elevated style and be archaic. There are certainly places where that case could be made (some psalms for example and perhaps Genesis 1; Luke in the NT), but most of the Hebrew at least seems to be regular, ordinary everyday language. I think it is a mistake to try to make the English version "higher and better" than the original languages. But there is no doubt that that is part of the desire of the ESV: to have a Bible that "sounds like the Bible."

    Having said that, in our church we continue to use the ESV often for liturgical use (Call to worship etc.) where the heightened style is attractive. I prefer to preach from the CSB, though, since I think it provides a closer rendition of the original.
     
  14. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    Iain, I had forgotten that you were on the team of the CSB. I actually like it better than the ESV. The ESV ridiculously uses "and" to connect the last five or so of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5. It is not good English. The CSB is far better English in my mind.
     
  15. Jack K

    Jack K Puritan Board Professor

    Thanks for the explanation of the translation philosophy and advantages of this version. I will confess that I never took the time to really understand what made the HCSB distinct. From their marketing, I got the impression that using the translation was little more than a way to be a good Southern Baptist, or for folks who get all tingly when they see the word "Yahweh." I think there was some weak marketing there, because I simply had no interest since I don't fall into either of those categories.
     
  16. reaganmarsh

    reaganmarsh Puritan Board Senior

    I'd also forgotten that Dr. Duguid had a hand in the HCSB. This discussion has given me a better picture of the translation, and I look forward to reading through the updated review edition when it arrives.
     
  17. Jerusalem Blade

    Jerusalem Blade Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Despite any good translation improvements, it nonetheless has the defects of the standard Critical Text; to list but three larger ones:

    Mark 11:26 is simply missing: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
    Mark 15:28 missing: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
    Mark 16:9-20 bracketed as though not genuine

    I might get a copy just to see translational differences, but the flaws accompanying the text departing from the
    Reformation standard—the Textus Receptus editions—are significant.
     
  18. Jake

    Jake Puritan Board Junior

    It is in Matthew 6:14-15

    It is in Luke 22:37

    It only says "[Some of the earliest mss conclude with 16:8.]" which is true, regardless of whether you think it's original.

    Apparently the original HCSB was to be based on the MT/TR, but the leadership was handed over to those preferring CT after the original editor died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_Christian_Standard_Bible#Beginnings

    But in general, it doesn't claim to be a translation of the TR, so it should not be treated as such.
     
  19. ZackF

    ZackF Puritan Board Graduate

    I'm curious as to if there is any good reason the word propitiation isn't used in Romans 3?
     
  20. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    According to their website, "'Atoning sacrifice' is easier to understand than 'propitiation' and more natural English than 'sacrifice of atonement.'" Is this a good reason? I don't think so. Heaven forbid someone pull out a dictionary to find out what "propitiation" means. However, I will give them credit that, unlike the NIV (which I also really enjoy reading), at least the CSB has "propitiation" in a footnote. The NIV gives us nothing, which is troublesome.

    For anyone interested, I have given a brief, surface-level review of the CSB on my blog.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  21. hammondjones

    hammondjones Puritan Board Sophomore

    Wish the NKJV had done this....
     
  22. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Puritan Board Doctor

    The picture the Wiki article gives is not strictly accurate based on what I remember from an interview with the general editor (Ed Blum) that is apparently no longer online. Dr. Farstad started working on it, (it was originally called Logos 21) but when the Southern Baptists came into the picture, the decision was made to produce a CT translation and Dr. Blum and maybe some others came into the picture around that time. At that point, Farstad was also going to work on a parallel MT translation (I think with their $$ and blessing) but this was dropped when he died. He also stated that the Southern Baptists had previously tried to buy the NASB. At that time (8-10 years ago) he said that the plan in the future was to change the name to the CSB and that they had not done that originally because there was a small publisher named Christian Standard.

    The impetus behind the SBC wanting a translation of their own was the impending switch of the NIV to gender neutral language. They had been using the NIV in their Sunday School material and didn't want to license another translation only to have unacceptable changes made once again. Thus, Dr. Mohler's quote about now having a translation that they can "control."

    I haven't come across any more of a Baptist bias in the HCSB than I have a Calvinist bias in the ESV. (It could be argued that the NIV actually shows more of a "Calvinist bias" than the ESV does.) I'm not sure that I've ever found one rendering in the ESV that has a Calvinist slant in the sense that you can't find a similar rendering in other translations.
     
  23. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Puritan Board Doctor

    The bullet points are gone also, I think. Regarding what was noted above about Rom 3, propitiation was used in Rom 3 and elsewhere in the HCSB. It had a bullet point (which referred the reader to an appendix) in which the meaning of the term was given.

    I wonder if the many textual and marginal notes will be retained? That was another thing that set the HCSB apart. The NET is the only translation I know of that had more notes.

    The change to the more literal and traditional rendering of Psalm 1 (i.e. walk, stand, sit) is welcome.

    HCSB: "How happy is the man who does not follow the advice of the wicked or take the path of sinners or join a group of mockers!"

    CSB: "How happy is the one who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the pathway with sinners or sit in the company of mockers!"

    I never spent as much time with the HCSB as I wanted to. This is probably in part because no one I knew used it and because I've focused more on reading the KJV in recent years. Most churches and preachers I know, even Southern Baptists, use the NASB, ESV, KJV or NKJV instead.

    Some have expressed the view that they basically aren't interested in switching to a version (i.e. as their "main" Bible) that sees several major changes within 10-15 years and which states in the preface that "each generation needs a fresh translation of the Bible in its own language." (A lot of the people who were already of that opinion stuck with the NIV (gender neutral language is today's language, like it or not) or were already using something like the NLT.) Thus, many of those who reacted against the changes to the NIV (or who only used it grudgingly in the first place) weren't interested in switching to a translation that from the outset stated that it would always be in a state of flux. This militates against memorization, etc. Whether or not we agree with the idea that a translation should use "elevated language" or should dispense with as many archaisms as possible, it seems clear to me that versions that use more pedestrian prose like the HCSB, the NIV (and to some extent even the NASB) aren't as easy to memorize because they are often simply less memorable. (That being said, the impression I got was that the HCSB was more striking or vivid than the NIV in the prophets and maybe some other places.)

    I'm also hoping that Holman will come out with more black letter editions, which would be in keeping with dropping the capitalization of pronouns. There are interpretive issues with that as well, not to mention more serious issues such as encouraging the idea that the red letters are more inspired than the rest of the Bible.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2017
  24. Jerusalem Blade

    Jerusalem Blade Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Hello Jake (I did not have access to your profile [?], so your background is hidden), when you say,

    "But in general, it doesn't claim to be a translation of the TR, so it should not be treated as such."​

    I think that's beside the point; what it claims to be a translation of is the New Testament. Neither would it be legitimate to excuse the removal of readings just because they are present in other gospels. But I don't want this to be a debate between CT and TR—I only wanted to show flaws from a Reformation text viewpoint.
     
  25. Edward

    Edward Puritan Board Doctor

    Jake's profile shows up for me. Sure it isn't operator error?
     
  26. Jerusalem Blade

    Jerusalem Blade Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Okay, now I see it! Sorry, Jake!
     
  27. arapahoepark

    arapahoepark Puritan Board Graduate

    When does this translation come out?
     
  28. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable

    You can read it online now: http://csbible.com/

    The site indicates sometime in 2017.
     
  29. bookslover

    bookslover Puritan Board Doctor

    The problem there is that "atoning sacrifice" and "propitiation" don't mean the same thing. Appeasing God's righteous anger (which is what "propitiation" is) is one of the effects of the "atoning sacrifice." So, I guess their website gives the impression that those two terms are equivalent in meaning, which they're not.
     
  30. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    I agree with your assessment. I so, so wish they had left it in the text. At least they have it in a footnote. My only other guess is that I suppose atonement is more than merely propitiation, and includes things like expiation, as well—hence the more encompassing term "atoning sacrifice."

    I do like the translation a good bit. I just wish they hadn't have done this one thing. But, I have to give them credit for at least putting "propitiation" in the footnote, which the NIV (a translation I also like) completely neglects to do.
     
  31. reaganmarsh

    reaganmarsh Puritan Board Senior

    My review copy arrived yesterday. Not being critical here at all, but I'll be doing my comparisons online. The print is small...like reading an entire book of footnotes...smaller than the font in my BOT edition of The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Yikes.

    That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with its content or accuracy of translation. Just an initial impression of the review copy. My $0.02, For what it's worth.

    Okay, as you were. :lol:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page