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

[reaganmarsh]

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.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

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.

I received mine as well. If you look at the back, you will notice that the price of this particular edition is $2.99, so likely the small print is to keep the page count down. It seems that Holman is attempting to position the CSB as a more accurate, more conservative, less gender neutral version of the NIV. We will see if this is effective.

 

[reaganmarsh]

Bill,

I had noticed that price point, and I think you're right. Context: the preview edition is an outreach edition. I'm certain they'll offer normal-to-large print options in due time.

 

[Edward]

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.

That's actually a quite helpful review. It tells me all I need to know to make a decision.

 

[joebonni63]

I really like how they handled the end of Mark 16 much like the new King James. We can find something wrong with every translation that's easy but just going through the CSB I find it to ok and maybe even better then that.

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't know how it was decided who got what, but some reviewers ended up getting Goatskin Large Print Ultrathin copies. I think those may have been among the first to receive a copy.

I've started seeing more positive comments. It seems that Bill's comments about it being more accurate and less gender neutral than the NIV is accurate. One reviewer said that with the HCSB you could see that some parts were obviously more "formal" and others were more "dynamic" whereas this one is more uniform. Perhaps it has been more thoroughly edited and revised to reflect their aim of "optimal equivalence."

 

[Swifty357]

This CSB thing is breaking my heart. It seems like eons ago when I went to Books a million to buy the esv study bible but walked out 25 minutes later with a HCSB study bible because they had a few of each bible out of the cellophane and after looking through both I was so impressed with the HCSB all the big names in theology giving glowing recommendations to the esv sb couldn't stop me. I had never even heard of the HCSB before. As a matter of fact I was a closet case KJV Only at the time.

 

[Swifty357]

To a make a long story short I fell in love with the HCSB and it taught me so much more about the Bible . I thought it was cool they used Yahweh. And the HCSB was more literal than the niv but still dynamic enough to be fresh. I ended up reading it more than any other Bible ever. I sung it's praises to aanyone

 

[Swifty357]

Who would listen. No one besides me had one. I even read a kindle book on its making and it really opened my eyes to the word of God. It was more literal than the Niv, NLT bibles but sounded just as fresh without the compromise of gender pronouns. And while still keeping words like propitation. I can't believe they are replacing it soon. I'm bbuying

 

[Swifty357]

As many HCSB In all formats I can find and all I can afford. It's the best Bible I ever saw, and I need to buy a lifetime supply there is noway I'm giving it up. Why the CSB if its just like all the other dime a dozen new translations. No yahweh, pc gender language , and replacing traditional words for being too hard for people to learn . Why dumb down such a beautiful translation ? I hadn't heard of this CSB till today and it has ruined my day for sure .

 

[Swifty357]

I can't believe Holman would abandon the HCSB it's still a baby in bible years. Way younger than the NASB, NIV, Nlt, NKJV, nrsv, ect. The KJV lasted 400 plus years. ALREADY being replaced by the CSB which sounds like a niv/ nlt wannabe. I've bought Holman dictionaries , handbook, time lines, chart book, the Holman atlas. Converting my references to Holman products I had never owned anything Holman prior to the HCSB. All those books are great but I was building everything around the HCSB . And developing brand loyalty. Very disappointin .

 

[Swifty357]

Luckily II've already been stockpiling HCSB bibles. I upgraded the brown and simulated leather hcsb study bible with the premium black cowhide one. Ive also got a compact personal size reference bible with bonded leather. A thinline version. A hardcover pew edition for when I'm reading in bed.. and of course a camouflage one in case I ever have to go to war. I have been coveting the apologetics study bible for awhile but Iwas biding my time to buy my wife thinks iI'vegot a sscrewloose as it is.

 

[Swifty357]

But now that time is of the essence I'm going to have to get cracking. I should get a couple of those HCSB iillustrators notetaking bible. And a couple large giant print ones for when I get old, I'm already 40 so it's just around the corner . So now I'm going to be like the weird guy at church who is always buying used 1901as ASV's at thrift shops and having them rebound in Orange Kangaroo leather for tons of money. I've clowned him numerous times for getting all these old crusty paged ASV leather lined in endangered species which I thought was horrific and bizarre. But now that I see what this feels like having to worry if you can buy your favorite bible I've never make jokes about hhim again.

 

[Edward]

Swifty - trying to get your post count up?

 

[Swifty357]

No I thought it had a character counter like twitter. I just joined today. I was in shock that when I saw the hcsb is being replaced by the csb. I saw on the webpage they are bringing in another 100 scholar team. This is insanity as far as business moves go. And I don't think the hcsb is outdated. I actually like it a lot. It just got that big Yahweh update 5 years ago. Am I supposed to believe the English language has changed enough to require a new translation. English changes in centuries not less than a decade. I can't believe the higher ups at BH publishing would foot the bill for another big new English translation. Especially when the hcsb was so good a translation that no doubt had taken another 100 scholars years to do. These translations have to be expensive.

 

[iainduguid]

No I thought it had a character counter like twitter. I just joined today. I was in shock that when I saw the hcsb is being replaced by the csb. I saw on the webpage they are bringing in another 100 scholar team. This is insanity as far as business moves go. And I don't think the hcsb is outdated. I actually like it a lot. It just got that big Yahweh update 5 years ago. Am I supposed to believe the English language has changed enough to require a new translation. English changes in centuries not less than a decade. I can't believe the higher ups at BH publishing would foot the bill for another big new English translation. Especially when the hcsb was so good a translation that no doubt had taken another 100 scholars years to do. These translations have to be expensive.

Swifty, as a translator for the original HCSB and part of the oversight committee for the revision, I'd encourage you not to panic. The CSB retains the strengths of the HCSB and (in my opinion) improves on them. Yes, we have followed the NT and most English translation in going back to the LORD for Yahweh, largely because we felt the previous attempt ended up in inconsistencies. But it is a revision, not a wholesale new translation. Many passages have been left untouched because we felt we got them right first time around. In other places, we have sometimes moved in a more literal direction, for example "Lord of Armies" instead of "Lord of hosts" and "Children of Adam" for "ben adam", which gets translated in many different ways. No translation is perfect, and people are sure to quibble over some decisions, which is why at Westminster Seminary we insist on the virtue of learning the original languages so that preachers are not dependent upon translations.

 

[Berean]

Swifty - trying to get your post count up?

Signature and biography needed also.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Dipping into my newsprint quality free copy (and breaking out my SherlockHolmes gear)...
Almost immediately came across this, jumped out at me, bit me...
Why the decision to go with English contractions, like won't, can't, shouldn't? Those really clank, It seems to me.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Dipping into my newsprint quality free copy (and breaking out my SherlockHolmes gear)...

I thought the same thing, but I did appreciate the free, if a bit unreadable, copy. As someone who prefers a more traditionally worded translation, the CSB is not my cup of tea, however I do think it would be a good version for those who prefer a more idiomatic translation. Certainly better than some other similar type translations available today.

 

[Swifty357]

Ianudugid thanks for putting my mind at was
ease a little. It is good to know they at least have some of the same scholars working on this Csb bible. I'm not giving up on the hcsb though. It took the KJV almost 100 years to surpass the Geneva bible. Wish they would have been more patient with it for its a marvelous translation. It sounds like they want to make the CSB more dynamic and free. But there are already many translations filling that market NIV, NLT, and even the Message. The HCSB was filling an important market in between the NASB and NIV. It found a happy median and it was such a joy to read and study from. The use of Yahweh in the old testament was refreshing. It was literal accurate but not wooden. Also a very daring translation in not being afraid to change well known verses to be more accurate to the Greek like the hcsb take on john 3:16. And how it used slave in the epistles. And didn't change the words if the pronoun was masculine it said he, act. Not bowing down to the liberal media, feminist pressure, and limp wristed ministers trying to do away with proper gender roles, and make everything unisex eunuch sterilized politically correct social gospel. With the hcsb we didn't have to worry about that agenda the translators made it read in English just like the Greek.

 

[Taylor]

Swifty, as a translator for the original HCSB and part of the oversight committee for the revision, I'd encourage you not to panic. The CSB retains the strengths of the HCSB and (in my opinion) improves on them. Yes, we have followed the NT and most English translation in going back to the LORD for Yahweh, largely because we felt the previous attempt ended up in inconsistencies. But it is a revision, not a wholesale new translation. Many passages have been left untouched because we felt we got them right first time around. In other places, we have sometimes moved in a more literal direction, for example "Lord of Armies" instead of "Lord of hosts" and "Children of Adam" for "ben adam", which gets translated in many different ways. No translation is perfect, and people are sure to quibble over some decisions, which is why at Westminster Seminary we insist on the virtue of learning the original languages so that preachers are not dependent upon translations.

Dr. Duguid,

Thank you so much for your service to the Church in your work with the CSB. I really do enjoy the translation. I do have one question, though—one you have probably been asked a lot, so I apologize in advance. Should someone who is a paedobaptist feel apprehension about using a translation published by a Baptist publishing company, whose two co-chairs of the translation committee are Baptist (one of which being a rather staunch anti-Calvinist, from my reading), and whose entire endorsement base (it seems to me) is Baptist? I know this may seem trivial to many, but I have honestly felt apprehension about using the CSB for these reasons. Is this irrational on my part? (Feel free to be frank.) I realize that the SBC had nothing to do with the process, but still.

I also notice you preach from it at your church, so what are your feelings about it (you part in the translation process aside)?

Thank you, sir!

 

[iainduguid]

Dr. Duguid,

Thank you so much for your service to the Church in your work with the CSB. I really do enjoy the translation. I do have one question, though—one you have probably been asked a lot, so I apologize in advance. As someone who has for years been convinced of covenant theology and has just recently been convinced of paedobaptism, should I feel apprehension about using a translation published by a Baptist publishing company, whose two co-chairs of the translation committee are Baptist (one of which being a rather staunch anti-Calvinist, from my reading), and whose entire endorsement base (it seems to me) is Baptist? I know this may seem trivial to many, but I have honestly felt apprehension about using the CSB for these reasons. Is this irrational on my part? (Feel free to be frank.) I realize that the SBC had nothing to do with the process, but still.

I also notice you preach from it at your church, so what are your feelings about it (you part in the translation process aside)?

Thank you, sir!

Hi Taylor,

From my perspective on the OT side, there was no denominational bias at all; we had a Lutheran, two baptists (one a WTS PhD) and myself and even though none of us had met each other ahead of time, we worked really well together. Each one brought their own individual strengths and no one seemed to have an axe to grind. Technically, it was the most fascinating task I've ever worked on: an awesome responsibility and privilege. Our goal was always to provide the most accurate representation of the original text into contemporary English. (By the way, that's why we used contractions in reported speech; that's how ordinary people talk in contemporary English. Don't they? Or should I say, "Do they not?").

There is no perfect translation, but I personally like the end result. It's distinctly more word for word than the NIV and without the egalitarian agenda - though we did work through Proverbs and distinguish between proverbs that explicitly use ish and those that use a participial form. For example, in Prov 1:5 HCSB had "A wise man will listen..." and CSB has "Let a wise person listen..." (ESV has "Let the wise listen..." which sounds like a plural in English). We have avoided the deliberate archaisms that the ESV loves, like "maiden" and "Behold". The result is a Bible that doesn't sound as much like the Bible to some people, but which more accurately and comprehensibly renders ordinary Hebrew into ordinary English.

 

[Edward]

No I thought it had a character counter like twitter.

You can't have serious intellectual exchanges at a Twitter pace. And how would we ever do the college football pool in the Fall?

 

[Taylor]

(By the way, that's why we used contractions in reported speech; that's how ordinary people talk in contemporary English. Don't they? Or should I say, "Do they not?").

I understand that, and I certainly appreciate it. I guess one of the things that's bothered me about it, though, is seeming inconsistency concerning contractions. For example, in the passage from which my pastor is preaching this upcoming Sunday, Jesus says to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me because you're not thinking about God's concerns but human concerns" (Matthew 16:23). What is the guiding principle for determining what is contracted and what is not? What about the case of this verse? Is it just "how it feels spoken"? The same thing goes for Martha's reaction to Jesus' late arrival (John 11:21) versus Mary's reaction (John 11:32). My guess there is that Mary's greater distress caused her to articulate every word, hence the absence of a contraction. Am I close?

 

[Dachaser]

Hello everyone, I came across a site to request a pastor's review copy of the soon to be released CSB.

http://csbible.com/choose-your-csb/#request-review-copy

What is interesting on this bible version was that it originally was to be based upon the Greek Majority text, but the person behind that passed away, and was switched to be based upon Critical Greek text!

 

[Taylor]

What is interesting on this bible version was that it originally was to be based upon the Greek Majority text, but the person behind that passed away, and was switched to be based upon Critical Greek text!

Yes, I do find that somewhat sad. I think it is high time we produce a good, scholarly, modern translation of the Majority Text.

 

[MW]

(By the way, that's why we used contractions in reported speech; that's how ordinary people talk in contemporary English. Don't they? Or should I say, "Do they not?").

As the translation of the Bible is literature and it intends to convey the sense of the original one should adhere to the formal customs of the language as will be expected by its readers; but in conversation or on a discussion board informality is part of the setting and understood accordingly. Simply by introducing informality into the translation a sense is being conveyed to the reader which is not original and no part of the intention of the author.

 

[Robert Truelove]

The HCSB was originally a project began by Arthur Farstad with the purpose of providing a contemporary English translation of the Farstad & Hodges Majority Text. With Dr. Farstad's passing, the project became just another in the plethora of new Critical Text translations. What a tremendous, missed opportunity.

That's my 2 cents on the HCSB/CSV.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes, I do find that somewhat sad. I think it is high time we produce a good, scholarly, modern translation of the Majority Text.

Are there any at the present time that uses the Majority Greek text as its source though?

 

[Pilgrim]

Are there any at the present time that uses the Majority Greek text as its source though?

The only ones I know of have been produced by individuals, such as Gary Zeolla's Analytical-Literal NT.

The recently published Modern English Version is a "modern language" version that is said to be translated from the TR. Almost everyone involved in it is charismatic and it is published by charismatics, so I don't know that it will ever catch on beyond that camp.

The NKJV is largely based on the TR with the Hodges-Farstad MT notes in the margin. I understand that it is said to depart from the TR in a handful of places. But it isn't "based" on the MT (much less the CT) even though that's what the General Editor (Farstad) would have preferred to do.