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



## manito2000

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


----------



## Bill The Baptist

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."


----------



## ZackF

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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake

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.


----------



## greenbaggins

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Brian R.

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.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## manito2000

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/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reaganmarsh

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid

Brian R. said:


> 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 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.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 6


----------



## Bill The Baptist

reaganmarsh said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

iainduguid said:


> 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..."



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.


----------



## iainduguid

Bill The Baptist said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## greenbaggins

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.


----------



## Jack K

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.


----------



## reaganmarsh

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.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake

Jerusalem Blade said:


> 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.



It is in Matthew 6:14-15



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Mark 15:28 missing: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.



It is in Luke 22:37



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Mark 16:9-20 bracketed as though not genuine



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



Jerusalem Blade said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## ZackF

I'm curious as to if there is any good reason the word _propitiation_ isn't used in Romans 3?


----------



## Taylor

ZackF said:


> I'm curious as to if there is any good reason the word _propitiation_ isn't used in Romans 3?



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.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## hammondjones

iainduguid said:


> 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.



Wish the NKJV had done this....


----------



## Pilgrim

Jake said:


> 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 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.


----------



## Pilgrim

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.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward

Jerusalem Blade said:


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



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


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Okay, now I see it! Sorry, Jake!


----------



## arapahoepark

When does this translation come out?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

arapahoepark said:


> When does this translation come out?


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

The site indicates sometime in 2017.


----------



## bookslover

Taylor Sexton said:


> According to their website, "'Atoning sacrifice' is easier to understand than 'propitiation' and more natural English than 'sacrifice of atonement.'"



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.


----------



## Taylor

bookslover said:


> 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."

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.


----------



## 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

reaganmarsh said:


> 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.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Edward

reaganmarsh said:


> 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?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## 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

Swifty357 said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Berean

Edward said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Contra_Mundum said:


> 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

iainduguid said:


> 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

Taylor Sexton said:


> 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

Swifty357 said:


> 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

iainduguid said:


> (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?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

manito2000 said:


> 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

Dachaser said:


> 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

iainduguid said:


> (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.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## 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.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Dachaser

Taylor Sexton said:


> 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

Dachaser said:


> 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.


----------



## Taylor

Dachaser said:


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



The only one of which I am aware is the World English Bible. I don't know if I would call it a scholarly work, though. I could be wrong, but from what I understand, it is a revision of the ASV both in language usage and the text (i.e., it "corrects" the ASV where it differs from the Majority Text).


----------



## Swifty357

The WEB Bible also uses Yahweh in the OT for LORD like the HCSB. And I admire the translator not getting a copyright on it and depositing it in the public domain. But I think it's just a one man job and it's commendable that he was willing to tweak the ASV'S critical readings with MT readings that are closer to the TR. It's small potatoes when compared to 90 scholars translating the HCSB with the newest critical text and the cutting edge of scholarship. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Silas22

After downloading the CSB Bible app, I'm strongly considering switching from the ESV. I have been an ESV loyalist since my conversion, but for whatever reason I have a difficult time memorizing from that translation. 

I do have a question though, why does the Csb translate the word "blessed" to "happy is" in Psalm 1:1, and yet keep the word "blessed" in the beatitudes? I don't know the original languages, so I'm curious. I know of some modern translations that use the words "happy is" in the beatitudes, so I sort of expected to see the same in the Csb (especially after viewing Psalm 1).


----------



## Dachaser

YRRSBCGuy said:


> After downloading the CSB Bible app, I'm strongly considering switching from the ESV. I have been an ESV loyalist since my conversion, but for whatever reason I have a difficult time memorizing from that translation.
> 
> I do have a question though, why does the Csb translate the word "blessed" to "happy is" in Psalm 1:1, and yet keep the word "blessed" in the beatitudes? I don't know the original languages, so I'm curious. I know of some modern translations that use the words "happy is" in the beatitudes, so I sort of expected to see the same in the Csb (especially after viewing Psalm 1).


The Greek term used as Blessed would seem to give an intended meaning of a person being fortunate, receiving the help and comfort of God in his current situation, so to receive a blessing from God.


----------



## reaganmarsh

For those so inclined, here's Thom Rainer's podcast with Trevin Wax (who was a major player in the CSB's production) discussing the CSB.

http://thomrainer.com/2017/03/691790/


----------



## arapahoepark

Kindle version at all?


----------



## Taylor

YRRSBCGuy said:


> ...why does the Csb translate the word "blessed" to "happy is" in Psalm 1:1, and yet keep the word "blessed" in the beatitudes?



My best educated guess is that there is some lexical nuance that actually makes אַשְׁרֵי different in meaning from μακάριος. Just looking at all of the occurrences of אַשְׁרֵי in the OT (44 occurrences), the CSB translates the term consistently as "happy," except in two places: Psalm 32:1-2 and Ecclesiastes 10:17. As for μακάριος in the NT (50 occurrences), they consistently render the term "blessed," except, again, in two places: Acts 26:2 (the context makes the rendering obvious; no major translation renders this occurrence "blessed") and 1 Corinthians 7:40 (again, context, and the fact that it is in comparative form).

In the end, the best place to go is to a lexicon such as BDAG (Greek) and HALOT (Hebrew/Aramaic).

EDIT: I just looked at HALOT for אַשְׁרֵי; the listing is short and inconclusive, in my view.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

The term "blessed" should not be reduced in meaning or function. As a distinctly religious term it conveys better the intent of the original to show that "true happiness" (not "happiness" in general) is the outcome of being in a state of favour before God. It is in keeping with the biblical teaching that man owes God honour and obedience in the first place. The general idea of "happiness" as an end in itself is foreign to the biblical concept, and with the prevalence of hedonist teaching it is bound to be misunderstood and misapplied.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MW

Note the comments of Leland Ryken on the GNB's translation of Psalm 1 (Understanding English Bible Translation, p. 60):



> The first shock to the system is the replacement of the word blessed with the word happy. The word blessed is one of the evocative words of the traditional English Bible, and for that very reason it is on the “hit list” of a colloquial translation philosophy. The word blessed is the essential feature of the literary form known as the beatitude (“the state or quality of being blessed”). Whenever the word blessed appears in a beatitude, it is understood as actually conferring that quality, in addition to being a prayer or wish that a person be blessed. Compared to the gravitas of the word blessed, the word happy is a trivializing term, replacing the spiritual connotations of blessed with an affective, “feel good” word. We can see right here one quality of the new Bibles: a reduction of the richness of traditional translations to a mundane, one-dimensional level.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Taylor

Just to be clear, I was not arguing that אַשְׁרֵי should be translated as "happy," just in case that was misunderstood. I was merely trying to provide my own rationale for why that might be the case with the CSB.


----------



## iainduguid

MW said:


> Note the comments of Leland Ryken on the GNB's translation of Psalm 1 (Understanding English Bible Translation, p. 60):
> The first shock to the system is the replacement of the word blessed with the word happy. The word blessed is one of the evocative words of the traditional English Bible, and for that very reason it is on the “hit list” of a colloquial translation philosophy. The word blessed is the essential feature of the literary form known as the beatitude (“the state or quality of being blessed”). Whenever the word blessed appears in a beatitude, it is understood as actually conferring that quality, in addition to being a prayer or wish that a person be blessed. Compared to the gravitas of the word blessed, the word happy is a trivializing term, replacing the spiritual connotations of blessed with an affective, “feel good” word. We can see right here one quality of the new Bibles: a reduction of the richness of traditional translations to a mundane, one-dimensional level.



Ironically, this quote highlights the reason why "Happy is..." is in some ways a better translation here. By collapsing the translation of both _ashre _and _brk_ into a single English word, "Blessed," the way is paved for Dr Ryken to make the mistake of transferring meaning from one root to the other. When he says, "Whenever the word blessed appears in a beatitude, it is understood as actually conferring that quality, in addition to being a prayer or wish that a person be blessed," he is taking a concept from the _brk_ group and applying it to _ashre_. _brk_ can be used as a prayer or a wish (see Gen. 14:19), while _ashre_ always describes a state - the state of a person who is to be envied. So CSB here preserves a more literal "word for word" translation in its rendering "Happy is". This translation shouldn't have been such a great a shock to Dr Ryken as it is exactly the same translation that the KJV and ESV use for _ashre_ in Deut 33:29, 1 Kings 10:8 and 2 Chron 9:7 (the ESV also opts for "happy" against KJV's "blessed" in Gen. 30:13, though it reverses the KJV's use of happy in Ps 146:5, Prov 3:13 and 28:14). 

In addition, he commits another common exegetical fallacy when he transfers the "spiritual connotations" of "blessed" back to the Hebrew word _ashre. The _ESV translation of Gen. 30:13 suggests that there is nothing inherently spiritual in the Hebrew word. The "spiritual" connotation comes from the context of the word.That someone as well educated as Dr Ryken can make these mistakes highlights all the more the need for such a distinction to aid in proper understanding by ordinary readers.

The reality is that the task of Bible translation is very hard. There aren't always exact English equivalents for Hebrew terms. As a translator, you don't get to write five pages of explanation to defend your choices, as you might in a commentary. But there are often factors involved beyond a desire to "dumb down" the text.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 4


----------



## MW

iainduguid said:


> This translation shouldn't have been such a great a shock to Dr Ryken as it is exactly the same translation that the KJV and ESV use for _ashre_ in Deut 33:29, 1 Kings 10:8 and 2 Chron 9:7 (the ESV also opts for "happy" against KJV's "blessed" in Gen. 30:13, though it reverses the KJV's use of happy in Ps 146:5, Prov 3:13 and 28:14).



The traditional use of "happy" is used in secular-type contexts, although even here it is still seen as the outcome of life in right relationship with God. That the word carries the simple idea of a happy state in some contexts is no reason that it should be imposed on all contexts.



iainduguid said:


> In addition, he commits another common exegetical fallacy when he transfers the "spiritual connotations" of "blessed" back to the Hebrew word _ashre. The _ESV translation of Gen. 30:13 suggests that there is nothing inherently spiritual in the Hebrew word. The "spiritual" connotation comes from the context of the word.That someone as well educated as Dr Ryken can make these mistakes highlights all the more the need for such a distinction to aid in proper understanding by ordinary readers.



The word conveys the connotation of beatitude in "religious" context. This is especially noticeable in the formation of the inclusio of Pss. 1-2, which has been said to set the tone for the Psalter in general.

The lexicons and theological dictionaries recognise that the idea of pronouncement is evident in numerous contexts.


----------

