I have not read the CSB. Like many people, I saw Holman imprintur and figured “Southern Baptist Bible”. Seems I was wrong. There’s an interview with Dr. Blum, a Presbyterian, about its distinctives, history, translation and marketing. I think the distinctives and translation are the most interesting. They introduce a new term in the translation debate- optimal equivalence. There is a new section on gender issues tacked onto the translation section. If you are in the market for a new Bible, this may be worth considering.
He goes after the ESV for being in the King James tradition, and continuing to use some outdated language. I like the ESV, but I’m not married to it. The ESV gained popularity in many conservative circles during the gender controversy with the TNIV. I’m taking this to mean Dr. Blum views the ESV as the main competition.
They used the Critical Text, not the Textus Receptus or Majority Text. So it is based on the Nestle.
There is an interesting anecdote about the Gideons. They are an interesting group. Well meaning, but their marriage to the KJV (some do use the NKJV) is frustrating to me.
They chose to use Yahweh rather than LORD at times. That would be the difference between a name and a title. I would prefer if they just used YHWH, but that’s me. Too bad they didn’t decide to go with Messiah over Christ, since Christ has morphed into a last name via ignorance.
He gets into the “red letter” issue and how marketing is often in conflict with theology/scholarship on this matter. There is a Minister’s edition that does not have red letters.
They chose to be “gender accurate” rather than gender neutral.
HT: Jolly Blogger
Thanks for the link to my interview. Just to clarify, the CSB does use Messiah in places instead of Christ, when appropriate. And the 2009 update will include more instances of Messiah.
I didn’t notice that in your interview (of course, I was multi-tasking, getting ready for my fantasy baseball draft). Thanks for the info, glad to hear it. That’s one of the things I like about the NLT. At times they NLT is not gender accurate, missing some of Paul’s intention. But I like it.
I got a CSB last year – it came with a book I bought. For the most part, I’ve liked it, though Holman’s rationalization for yet another translation struck me as cow paddies.
You know, the whole ‘variety of translations” thing going on in the English speaking world is a little frustrating to me. Part of me wants to ask all these scholars why they don’t put their energies into seeing that all the languages of the world have the Word of God before putting them into seeing that we English speakers have ONE MORE TRANSLATION that surely will help us be more Godly people! It strikes me as arrogance – it’s worth all the time and energy and expense because I can offer something in a translation that has never been offered before… It’s also true, I guess (though it PAINS ME GREATLY to admit it), that these scholars do provide a canvas of material that is immensely helpful to others who are trying to make sure that the other languages of the world have the Word of God.
Still, I can’t help but think that Americans are as gluttonous with their Bibles as they are with food, and many are oblivious to the needs of the rest of the world – be it physical or spiritual food.
Interesting. I’ll have to check it out.
I’ve recently started blogging again, Cavman, and I just made a post about sermon preparation. Your comments are solicited.
Thanks!
ML,
Yes, some points well-taken there. We are very much into designer Bibles. Soon we’ll start having the Post-mil study Bible, the Pre-mil, Post-wrath Bible, the “Just Dating” Bible, the I’m a Caffeine Addict Bible, and every other niche that could possibly be used to wring out a few more $ instead of giving to the poor & missions.
Translations are also the battleground for the areas of divisiveness found in the larger church culture. Sometimes translators go too far and undermine the meaning of texts. And it is good to have faithful, accessible translations out there.
Here too is the mixture of the tension between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Me.
I won’t say I’m married to the ESV…because I haven’t even made it through the ‘Just Dating’ Bible
, but I do like my ESV contrasted with my lightly-driven NIV. Lord-willing, I’ll get many good miles out of this one.
I would like to see a lot less translations [and even fewer (or none) of the paraphrases that have become the norm for reading/study by those who don't know better and by those who are just lazy...sorry...work-challenged] and a lot more personal and pastoral meditation on the Word.
What does a new believer think when the screen up front keeps jumping from one group of initials to the next (NIV, NLT, NASB, TLB, KJV…)
Admittedly, I did purchase 5 new ESV’s for my family so we can all be memorizing from the same translation…a good investment, but so is missions!
hmmmm… kingdom of God, kingdom of me…I’m gonna have to read that one soon.
watch your “language”, TimW! I never use the “M” word!
Hello Nashua,
I switched over to the HCSB about a year ago, or less, and use it as my primary reading / study bible. Just wanted to make a note about your comment
“Too bad they didn’t decide to go with Messiah over Christ, since Christ has morphed into a last name via ignorance. ”
Actually they do use the term Messiah in the New Testament. Unlike other translations that consistently translate the Greek Christos “Christ,” the HCSB interchanges between Messiah and Christ. The translators explain their reasoning: “Where the NT emphasizes Christos as the name of our Lord or has a Gentile context, ‘Christ’ is used … Where the NT has a Jewish context, the title ‘Messiah’ is used.”
Also the Minister’s edition is Single Column for those that prefer it.
I own several HCSB bibles, and will be doing a side by side comparison soon.
You may also be interested in reading:
http://collegeblog.midbible.ac.uk/brief-thoughts-on-the-holman-christian-standard-bible/
Another interview with Dr. Blum, Editor HCSB
http://www.midbible.ac.uk/content/view/121/
I’m not sure you can argue well for the position that Paul means something (or Peter, John) fundamentally different by Christos depending on the context. All his uses convey something various aspects of the long-awaited Messiah who would rule over Jew & Gentile. Christos is merely the Greek used to translate the Hebrew term.
The NLT does something similar, they are inconsistent in their use of Messiah. However, this is still an improvement over the use of only Christ.
Hey Cavman,
I got a kick out of the “optimal equivalence” term.
Our friends against the dark, evils of the NIV who were frequently heard to be against new translations, however, had no trouble blowing the proverbial trumpet to declare the unveiling [yes, Revelation imagery
] of the ESV.
Touted as the Bible for this generation, for Reformed congregations.
Suddenly those who had been heard campaigning “We don’t need any more English Translations right now” five years later, were touting the ESV. Suddenly it appears we did after all need another translation in English.
It is a fine translation, no doubt. It revised and moved the RSV in a conservative direction and for that I am thankful. But it still appears to me, through all of the fanfare, and ticker-tape parades of the release of the ESV, the ESV is still to a large degree a formal equivalence translation. Ok, so we have revised our formal equivalence translations several times now in our lifetime [NASB, NKJV, UNASB, NRSV, ESV], but does the ESV provide substantial improvement? Is it so much better than even the NIV?
Both sides I’m afraid err because marketing is often about hurting the other guy not telling the truth.
a. Formal equivalence advocates label all other translations too closely together under unfair labels like “meaning” translations, “paraphrases”, intentionally “dynamic” regardless of meaning or “not literal” or simply “liberal”.
b. Those favoring Functional Equivalence too often label too many translations as wooden, stiff, too formal, when this too is on a continuum. For example the UNASB reads better than the NASB, and the ESV better than the NASB, KJV, UNASB, NRSV. Yes, the ESV is an improvement in many places…
As for Gender?
Are there Gender Neutral versions out there? Absolutely.
But irresponsibly many conservatives fail to admit this too is on a continuum and knowingly continue to use the quite alarming / negative term “Gender Neutral” though they have been shown to be wrong in such usage. The correct term for what has transpired in the NLT, TNIV is not Gender-Neutralizing, but a Gender-Inclusive philosophy in translation.
They also knowingly continue to use dynamic equivalence in irresponsible ways, instead of actually debating functional equivalence.
The irony?
In reading the ESV, I have found Gender Inclusive Translation! And I also see places where the intention was a more functional equivalent than formal equivalent translation.
So you tell me, who is really winning on the issue?