My Conversion to the HCSB, Sorta!
Here’s the rub: If you do a search of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) on this blog, you’ll find posts upon posts critiquing certain translation decisions of the HCSB.
But I spent three days reading the HCSB:
- Saturday and Sunday: I spent parts of Saturday and Sunday reading through Paul’s Letters. I began with Paul’s Letter to the Romans and so on, in the ESV and NRSV. When I got to Galatians, I switched to the HCSB.
- Monday: I decided to reread Romans in the HCSB.
My Impressions:
1. Readability. The HCSB is highly readable. I had heard about its readability, but my journey through Paul confirmed such. It’s quite smooth!
2. Gender-Issue: Here and there, the HCSB has opted for more gender-inclusive terms like “people,” “person,” rather than “men,” “man.” But in some places, you find “men,” “man” where “people,” “person” should have been.
Good decision with ”his people” at Eph. 4:8 but bad decision with “men” at 2 Tim. 2:2. A bit of inconsistency, I might add.
Throughout, the HCSB uses “brothers” for the Greek adelphoi. Before I watched the X-Men Trilogy last week, I would have been fuming. But Magneto softened me up to “brothers.”
In X-Men Magneto uses “brothers” or “brotherhood” to refer to all Mutants. Of course I started thinking Bible translation.
3. Format Frustration. Those [brackets] and *bullets! They are so annoying. Well, if the report is reliable, the brackets and bullets should be gone from the updated text, which is schedule for 2010.
I believe Elshaddai Edwards summed up the general feel of the HCSB when he said:
The key selling point to me is the HCSB is seemingly the only translation out there that consistently uses traditional theological terminology *AND* modern grammatical English. Related post and comments
Now I’m looking forward to the HCSB with a bit of Bible translation adrenaline.
Just a minor note: The brackets apparently will be gone, but not the bullets. I agree that the bullet formatting is a little annoying (at least in most of the editions I’ve seen). However, in the Apologetics Study Bible, the bullets are much smaller and less obtrusive.
To echo some of what you’ve said, I’ve read through the whole thing and use it as my primary translation. It has little “hiccups” here and there, but that’s precisely why they’ve delayed the release of the updated edition–to iron out some of those things.
Even if the HCSB is never really the mainstream Christian Standard, I hope it’s around for a long time.
Will,
No bullets either. They just need to put a glossary of terms in the back of each HCSB edition and be done with it.
But it does have potential.
I don’t get why everyone hates the brackets. For me that is one of its best selling points. Can someone explain to me why the brackets are so bad?!?!?!
On a side note, I am going through show must strife trying to pick a reading/bible study (what I bring to a bible study or church) bible. I am conflicted between the HCSB, ESV, NASB, NKJV and NIV. Sometimes even the NLT and NRSV is added to that. It is driving me insane. Absolutley totally insane.
Tory,
Why the brackets?
Anyone of those Bibles might work. It depends on what you’re looking for in a translation.
I had decided to stick with the NRSV, but I kept having a difficult time with the out of date English, especially in the OT. So, I decided to give the HCSB a spin again, and I was pleasantly surprised with the modern language AND the theological terminology (flesh, justification, propitiation, etc.). I have made a complete switch over to the HCSB, but I do wish they would drop the “H” and just go with CSB.
Nothingman,
Yes, I know how devoted to the NRSV you were. Well, that comes a quite a surprise to me. Ha!
Yes, it’s the prayer of most that they’ll drop the “H.” But it seems like it’s not going to happen.
I’m looking for a translation that I can read but also do basic study with. Of course, if I am going to do indepth study with multiple translations. But I want a Bible that I can do morning devotions/study with and be able to underline important verses and such. Also, a Bible that I can use to memorize scripture with.
I like the brackets because it is extra useful information. It helps me realize that this particular word should not be considered a KEY word in the text, but rather is an EXPLANATORY word in the text. That’s why I like it. It’s not needed, but it’s nice.
Tory,
My first choice is the TNIV. It’s almost irreplaceable (Ok, that’s another post).
Have you looked into the NET (see Bible.org for more info)?
Yes, the brackets are for “clarity,” but they are hardly needed, given the translation philosophy of the HCSB – there are some obvious inconsistencies with their applical of this approach.
Isn’t this a post about how you’re choosing the HCSB, not the TNIV :p
Yeah, I’ve looked at the NET. With the notes I think it is amazing, but without the notes (readers edition) I’m not so sure the translation is so great.
The sucky thing about the TNIV is that it is being discontinued. It also never really had an edition with a readable font. Most TNIV bibles have really small font. I have the TNIV Study Bible, and the size of the font is a little too small. I’ve seen that size work in other styles of fonts, but not whatever font the TNIV uses.
It sucks because since I’ve become obsessed with trying to find a translation my Bible reading has taking a drastic cut.
I actually can read greek and hebrew with help (I have two years training in both languages) but in actuality I think that knowledge just makes things more complicated!
AHHH!!!
Here is a TNIV with large print. I don’t have one so I can’t comment but it might be worth checking out.
http://www.ibsdirect.com/p-637-tniv-large-print-bible.aspx
Tory,
The NET readers edition still has notes but not as much.
Did you get the impression that I’ve switch to the HCSB from the TNIV? Hmm!
What gave you that impression?
I use the TNIV XL. It is more or less a large print. Great from read! Not a reference Bible – even better!
Since you’re proficient in the biblical languages, then choosing a translation shouldn’t be that difficult.
But it is difficult! I keep on thinking “do I want as much as possible what the biblical authors SAID or what the biblical authors MEANT.”
I guess the title of your post “My conversion to the HCSB” kind of made me think you were converting to the HCSB on top of the complete lack of mention of the TNIV in the post… :p I feel like maybe I am missing something though!
Tory,
Don’t forget that translation involves a kind of an interpretation.
On the translation spectrum you have: formal (NASB, NRSV, ESV)/mediating (T/NIV, NET, HCSB)/dynamic (NLT, NCV).
Don’t forget that at the end of my title I have “Sorta.”
So I take it from your recommendation (NET) and your liking of the T/NIV and HCSB you are a mediating kind of guy?
So what do you like about the T/NIV over the HCSB?
Yes, I’m a mediating “sorta” guy.
Why do I like the TNIV over the HCSB? Here we go:
1. Readability (more so).
2. Gender issue. I rather read “brothers and sisters” and “people” and so on (this will take a post).
3. Translation of certain texts and words (Romans 3:25; 1 Cor. 16:2; again, another post).
4. Those brackets and bullets are a turn off. Ha!
But it depends on how the HCSB 2010 turns out, since I prefer to read “flesh” than “sinful nature.”
WHAAAAT!!!!
I told you the HCSB isn’t so bad, but you did convert me to the TNIV so don’t you dare switch. Just kidding, I am really looking forward to seeing what the HCSB 2nd edition will look like when it is finalized. I do have the electronic version of it but I have not read it much, I can’t read for long periods on the computer.
Robert,
I’m still down with the TNIV. But the HCSB is quite readable and not too different than the TNIV. There are striking similarities in a lot of places.
Will says that they have done some more revisions. But it’s still hard to beat the TNIV.
Maybe I’ll do what you did and just sit down and read a whole book in each translation and whichever one I walk away from feeling that was the best that will be the one I choose.
I went through a Bible Translation Frenzy a few months ago as I began studying the Bible for the first time. It seems to me that most of the well known translations are all good. I chose the ESV and the NLT. It has helped me to have a formal translation and a dynamic translation for both reading and studying. I also check a few of the other translations on E sword when really digging in! I have been checking out the TNIV online and do like the way it reads!
TC, I still think that the HCSB is a great translation, but there I do prefer the TNIV, maybe it is Gordon Fee’s influnce on various places. It is clear that many of his objections in the NIV in his commentaries have been implemented in the TNIV.
Anyhow, looking forward to the HCSB 2nd edition as it will keep me busy and distracted until the NIV 2011 comes out – CAN’T WAIT!
Tory,
For me, it really came down to readability and reliability. I found both in the TNIV. Readability is key, esp. if you’re a pastor. I wanted a Bible reflecting current English usage. Reliability as far as the original languages go. They TNIV was done by top notch biblical scholars and translators, and of course based on the legacy of the NIV
Robert,
Yes, that Fee is all over the TNIV – not a bad thing!
I’m not even sure the NIV 2011 will be better than the TNIV.
NIV 2011 is about appeasing the critics.
But I’m looking forward to it, nevertheless.
Besides the gender corrections, how much correction did the TNIV do?
Would you sill consider a NIV accurate if the reader knew to replace “brother” as brother and sister?
Tory,
A few noticeable changes in sentence structures, a few logical connectives restored, and a few other improvements here and there.
Finally!
+1
Jeff, just some long over due love.
Hmmm. Maybe I’ll give the HCSB a shot. Was avoiding it because it seems to be “owned” by a single denomination unlike the T/NIV. But as a pastor must stick w/ NIV family of Bibles since that is what the people are using! :0) waiting for the NIV 2011.
I think you’ll find that the HCSB works *very* well in a NIV setting. The “formal” theological terms will be the biggest difference – otherwise there’s a lot of NIV in the HCSB.
R,
I feel you with that ownership thing. That’s why they need to drop that “H,” Holman.
But I don’t think it’s going to happen.
The committee wasn’t made up of people of one denomination though which is the important thing.
Jeff
Jeff, that might be the case, but keeping the “Holman” is room for continuous prejudice of this kind.
At one time, the HCSB was my primary and then I moved to the TNIV. After the nixing of the TNIV, I admit to having a bit of a bad taste left in my mouth. You know how much I promoted it.
Anyway, in our Psalms study at church over the last three months, I’ve gone back to using the HCSB and have realized how good of a translation it really is. Yes, it could be a bit more inclusive in places (brothers, man, etc.), but as long as I’ve looked at the passage beforehand, I can usually adjust the text in my public reading of it or in my explanations.
Rick, yes, I’m quite aware. I accept the TNIV on its own merits (despite the money-driven nixing of it).
Well, in experienced how good it was about a week ago while going through Paul’s Letters.
Let’s hope they’ll make even better before Oct. 2010.
My understanding is that “Holman” is in the name mostly to avoid confusion with a magazine named the Christian Standard (see http://www.christianstandard.com). That magazine is connected with the restoration movement (Christian Churches) and has been around for many decades. It’s edited by Mark A. Taylor, not to be confused with Mark D. Taylor, who is head of Tyndale House Publishers.
As for the HCSB vs. the TNIV, I find the TNIV jarring in some places, partly due to the “brothers and sisters” language and the singular “they.” I realize that other people will react differently.
I much prefer the HCSB, even though I’m frustrated by the translation of one particular verse, Acts 22:16, which assumes that washing away sins is divorced from water baptism instead of being part of the same process. That’s the only HCSB verse I’ve noticed that would take a position more suited to Baptists than to other evangelical Christians. Over-all, the HCSB is my favorite translation, but no one translation is best for everyone. For example, most elderly Lutherans would probably not prefer the same translation as most teenage Baptists.
Jim,
But we’re speaking of CSB, not simply CS. They can afford to drop the Holman.
Regarding Acts 22:16, commentators debate the issue all the time and favor the HCSB’s text. The HCSB was courageous enough to include it.
Here’s the quote from my interview with Dr. Blum about the “H”:
Will: Along those lines, why did Broadman and Holman decide to call the translation the Holman Christian Standard Bible? Why not just the CSB?
Ed: That’s a very good question. If you’ll notice, more recent editions on the spine say “Holman” in small letters and in big letters “CSB.” There is a small publishing company called “Christian Standard Publishing.” They had published a magazine for maybe 70 or so years. They objected to “Christian Standard” being used. It actually went to arbitration, and the arbitration went in favor of Broadman and Holman. But they felt like they would use “Homan Christian Standard Bible” to help these people with their objection. But I think legally in the future you’ll see it being used as CSB.
Will: So we may see editions in the future that are just called the Christian Standard Bible.
Ed: Right.
—-
Since that interview I have heard from various sources at B&H that the “H” will most likely be staying, but we’ll see about that.