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).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.
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.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.
Dr. Duguid,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..."
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."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.
It is in Matthew 6:14-15Despite 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.
It is in Luke 22:37Mark 15:28 missing: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
It only says "[Some of the earliest mss conclude with 16:8.]" which is true, regardless of whether you think it's original.Mark 16:9-20 bracketed as though not genuine
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#BeginningsI 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.
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.I'm curious as to if there is any good reason the word propitiation isn't used in Romans 3?
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.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.
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.
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."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.