CSB 2020 Footnotes Revision

[MWJ '90]

Hello everyone, I was wondering if any of you who are Bible Translation nerds like myself could answer this question. I recently learned that the CSB was slightly revised earlier this year. Upon reading an extensive PDF of the CSB revisions (I've attached a copy for anyone who's interested) I must say, from what I've read so far, I for one am pleased with the results for the most part. However, one of the things that struck me was the amount of footnotes that were removed from the 2017 edition. One of the strong points for the CSB in my humble opinion, is its extensive use of marginal notes, especially in the Old Testament. This is one of the many reasons that the CSB along with NKJV are two of my top 3 favorite English translations, the other of course, is the ESV even though I've found that the NKJV and CSB do a much better job in this department.

So my question is, why were so many of the footnotes, particular those with the more "literal" rendering removed?


(side note: I really do miss the bullet notes that were in the HCSB. I thought that was a very helpful and unique feature for the general reader. But that is a post for another day lol)

Anyone who is able and willing to answer this, please by all means feel free. I'm all ears.

 

[Taylor]

By God’s good providence, we actually have one of the committee members of the CSB (and HCSB) translation committee, Dr. Iain Duguid (@iainduguid) as a member here. He is even an OT scholar. So I think he will be able to answer your question well. He will probably chime in soon.

 

[MWJ '90]

I am aware of him. I'm looking forward to hearing from him soon

I trust all is well with you. Blessings.

 

[Jonathco]

(side note: I really do miss the bullet notes that were in the HCSB. I thought that was a very helpful and unique feature for the general reader. But that is a post for another day lol)

Yes, same here. I thoroughly enjoyed the HCSB for numerous reasons - the bullet notes being one of them. I do like the CSB and it is one of my regular secondary references during study. Typically, it's the ESV, followed by CSB, NASB95, and the NKJV for my cross reference translation comparisons.

I had not heard about the 2020 update; thanks for sharing this!

 

[iainduguid]

The translators and translation committee generally wants more footnotes (you should see my original submission for Ezekiel 26-48!); the publisher (and many readers) want less. It's always a bit of a balancing act. We did consciously remove a number of "Lit." notes where we felt that the English words were actually pretty similar, or that the "Lit." note ended up being slightly misleading. Sometimes, the "literal" meaning of a word is not actually what the word means in context. For example, you could in theory add a footnote to "Israelites" (bene yisrael) that says "Lit. "sons of Israel". But that doesn't really clarify the meaning of the verse, and potentially allows people without much hermeneutical sophistication to think that it does and head off in an entirely wrong direction. So we generally avoided those kinds of notes. But invariably some people who could make good use of such notes will be disappointed and wish for more.

 

[MWJ '90]

Yes, same here. I thoroughly enjoyed the HCSB for numerous reasons - the bullet notes being one of them. I do like the CSB and it is one of my regular secondary references during study. Typically, it's the ESV, followed by CSB, NASB95, and the NKJV for my cross reference translation comparisons.

I had not heard about the 2020 update; thanks for sharing this!

Hey no problem at all! I think the HCSB had many features that I wish would've made it in the CSB, but overall the CSB is a step in the right direction.

 

[MWJ '90]

The translators and translation committee generally wants more footnotes (you should see my original submission for Ezekiel 26-48!); the publisher (and many readers) want less. It's always a bit of a balancing act. We did consciously remove a number of "Lit." notes where we felt that the English words were actually pretty similar, or that the "Lit." note ended up being slightly misleading. Sometimes, the "literal" meaning of a word is not actually what the word means in context. For example, you could in theory add a footnote to "Israelites" (bene yisrael) that says "Lit. "sons of Israel". But that doesn't really clarify the meaning of the verse, and potentially allows people without much hermeneutical sophistication to think that it does and head off in an entirely wrong direction. So we generally avoided those kinds of notes. But invariably some people who could make good use of such notes will be disappointed and wish for more.

Dr. Duguid, thank you so much for your prompt response. This is very helpful! I want to personally thank you and the rest of the committee for all of the countless hours you all have sacrificed in producing one of the best English translations to date. I thoroughly enjoy the CSB and am glad to have it among my repertoire.

Grace and peace.