I have reviewed the HCSB over the past 4+ years. I have anticipated the update to HCSB for the past year. Holman recently published online the update to the HCSB translation, now renamed as CSB (Christian Standard Bible). Printed versions are due out this month. I have not received a preview copy CSB17, so this comparison is based on the electronic version. I am comparing CSB, ESV, and NET. The reason I used NET as it seems very close in purpose and translation style to CSB.
This is a first step in evaluating Christian as a translation. I am looking at specific verses to see how it translates words/phrases. Further study will focus on readability and oral comprehension.
The traditional (ESV/NAS/NKJV) translation of οὕτως as “so.” CSB and NET (and GW) translate the Greek word as “in this way” or “this is the way.” There is debate about which is the better way to translate. Note how each translation handles the same Greek word οὕτως, in John 21:1. ESV seems inconsistent in its translation.
1 John 1:9
The key translation issue is how to translate the Greek word, ἵνα. Here is the NET note regarding this:
The ἵνα (hina) followed by the subjunctive is here equivalent to the infinitive of result, an “ecbatic” or consecutive use of ἵνα according to BDAG 477 s.v. 3 where 1 John 1:9 is listed as a specific example. The translation with participles (“forgiving, …cleansing”) conveys this idea of result.
I think it better to use the infinitive form (“to forgive … to cleanse”) because it could be infinitive of result or infinitive of purpose. The use of participles can be confusing (attendant circumstances, etc.). The NIV confuses even more, because it is no longer clear whether there are two characteristics of God (faithful and just) or four (faithful and just and forgive and cleanse).
1 Peter 3:21
The primary challenge here is how to translate (and interpret) the Greek word: ἀντίτυπος; the sense is that the first item (type) points to the second item, the greater thing (antitype). NKJV does not translate the word, but transliterates the Greek: ἀντίτυπον as “antitype.” Here NIV is the most confusing. People read “symbolizes” and interprets this to mean that baptism is a symbol of something. However, the symbolizing goes back behind that.
And the greater thing is saving in baptism. Thus, it is not that baptism symbolizes , but rather actually does what it says, namely saves.
I again have the privilege of teaching Matthew this quarter in our seminary. As part of my preparation I read four chapters a day, hence the entire book of Matthew every week. Each week I use a different translation. So this week (starting on Friday) I began reading in God’s Word (GW) Matt. 1-4.
Appropriately I read the section that fits with the Epiphany (January 6), namely the visit of the wise men to Jesus in Bethlehem. I noticed something different about this verse:
Matt. 2:3 When King Herod and all Jerusalem heard about this, they became disturbed. (GW)
So, it appears according to this translation that King Herod and all Jerusalem were together in hearing and reacting to what they heard. But is that accurate? Looking at the Greek text,
The first word is an aorist participle, nominative singular (“having heard” implying “he” or a singular noun of the sentence). After the conjunction, δὲ (“now” “when”) we find the subject of the sentence: “[The] King Herod,” which is followed by the main verb (ἐταράχθη) which is aorist indicative, singular, “he was troubled.” So we could easily translate the first part of the sentence:
“When having heard [about the wise men] King Herod was troubled.”
The second part of the sentence is an additional clause, not a complete sentence, which can be translated:
“and all Jerusalem with him.”
This suggests that “all Jerusalem” did not hear [the report] but was reacting to King Herod who heard and was troubled. When the king is troubled, then all Jerusalem is troubled with him. Thus, the threat of a king-challenger is of immediate concern to Herod. It is a troubled Herod that is of immediate concern for the people.
I could find only one other translation that was even close to GW, namely NLT:
NLT King Herod was deeply disturbed when he heard this, as was everyone in Jerusalem.
Unfortunately the way the sentence is awkwardly constructed in NLT, the additional clause at the end is closely connected with “hearing” and not “deeply disturbed.” Yet the helping verb (“was”) suggests a relationship with “deep disturbed.” But who would stop and analyze that structure?
The following translations catch the sense of the Greek sentence, that Herod heard the report, and that was troubling to him, and that then as troubling to all Jerusalem, contrary to GW (and NLT).
NAS When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
NET When King Herod heard this he was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him.
NIV When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.
HCSB When King Herod heard this, he was deeply disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.
NAB When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
NJB When King Herod heard this he was perturbed, and so was the whole of Jerusalem.
REB King Herod was greatly perturbed when he heard this, and so was the whole of Jerusalem.
It seems that GW (and somewhat NLT) confuses the problem by making Herod and the people as the ones equally who heard and are troubled.
MEV: Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, even as I had pity on you?
Note that same Greek word in a parallel construction is translated two different ways. NKJV does the same as MEV.
NKJV: Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?
Consider other translations
NAS: Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?
NET: Should you not have shown mercy to your fellow slave, just as I showed it to you?
ESV: And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?
HCSB: Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?
NIV: Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?
GW: Shouldn’t you have treated the other servant as mercifully as I treated you?
Other uses of the same word (“have mercy”) in Matthew in MEV:
5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy
9:27 “Son of David, have mercy on us!”
15:22 Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David
17:15 Lord, have mercy on my son
20:30 Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David
Every occurrence of ἐλεέω in MEV in Matthew is translated as “have mercy.” It is even more strange then, in this passage (18:33) that it be translated two different ways, and neither consistent with the way it was translated throughout the book. Since the intent of the entire pericope (Matthew 18:21-35) is the parallel response between the master and the unforgiving servant, it would make better sense to translate the word the same way in this context (“have mercy”) especially within the same sentence.
This verse has been a sort of litmus test. How do we translate the future perfect passive participles?
ἔσται δεδεμένα (bind)
ἔσται λελυμένα (loose)
The MEV translates as simple future passives, as do most other translations
MEV Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven
NKJV Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven
HCSB I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.
(with footnotes: earth will be bound… earth will be loosed. The text version catches the passive sense and prior action by God, “already done”)
ESV Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
(with footnote: Or shall have been bound . . . shall have been loosed, which indicates future perfect passive)
NIV Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
(with footnote: Or will have been, in both uses, which indicates future perfect passive)
I think NAS offers a consistent translation of the verb forms:
NAS Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
What difference does this make?
In one sense it doesn’t seem to make much difference. As we explore the options, notice that most translations offer a future passive sense (“will be bound” “will be loosed”). Such a translation makes the authority rest on the person making the declaration. “I declare it… it will be done.”
Looking at NAS (and ESV and NIV with footnotes) the the focus of authority resides with God and His prior action, not the person making the declaration. In essense, when the person declares “it is bound,” he or she can do so because “it will have already been bound in heaven (by God) prior to the declaration.” Likewise, when the person declares “it is loosed” he or she can do so because “it will have already been done in heaven (by God) prior to the declaration.” It is God’s prior authority and declaration that is being announced, not the individual’s own authority. The person announces God’s already determined response.
This frees the person making the declaration from being the source of authority. And it let’s God Word be determinative.
Almost two years ago I purchased an Modern English Version (MEV) Bible. Then I provided serveral posts about the translation itself. See: MEV Part 1, MEV Part 2, MEV Readability. One of my criticisms was the size of the print: small print size is not exaggerating. I could not use it on a daily basis.
So two weeks ago I purchased the Large Print MEV. What a difference in reading! It is readable even in low light environments. I have been reading it every day for 10+ days. The size of the Bible is not a burden to carry. I could also use regularly in teaching/preaching without the size or weight being a problem. My preference is a single column text, but MEV does not come with it. But I will happily read this large print Bible.
The bleed through seems less of a problem, not being a distraction at all (it looks worse in this photo than in real life). I also noticed that the red letter in this font works well. I am not a fan of red letter editions due to readability problems. But this is one of the best red-letter choices (font design, size, and red color choice). The paper color is a faint off-white, which makes reading easier.
There is one drawback to making it as large print, the editors removed all cross references (see above photo). In an ideal world, a little smaller print with those retained would be best. But that is a technical publishing issue.
Now that I can read it easily, I am reading it daily for devotional reading. But I am also reading to see if there are any translation issues. One stuck out immediately (reading John 1-3).
Translation Choice: Only or Only-begotten
The Greek word, μονογενής, had been traditionally translated as “only begotten” (KJV, NKJV, NAS) while many more contemporary translations have used one of the following translation choices: “one and only son” or “unique son” or “only son” (NRSV, TSV, NIV, NET, HCSB, NLT, GW).
BDAG (2000) offers this about the divided view of which is the best translation choice:
μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here
[Several scholars] prefer to regard μονογενὴς as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.)
NET has an translation note:
Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).
Since MEV follow the KJV text base and generally its translation choices, I discovered it wasn’t as clear-cut as I thought.
μονογενής in MEV
The Greek word appears 9 times in the NT. I am comparing MEV choice in translation to NKJV since they share a common heritage
NKJV: a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother;
MEV: a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother
NKJV: for he had an only daughter about twelve years of age, and she was dying.
MEV: for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying.
NKJV: saying, “Teacher, I implore You, look on my son, for he is my only child.”
MEV: saying, “Teacher, I beg You, look upon my son, for he is my only child.
NKJV: and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
MEV and we saw His glory, the glory as the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.
NKJV The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
MEV The only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him known
NKJV For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
MEV For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
NKJV because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
MEV because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God
NKJV he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son [Isaac],
MEV he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son [Isaac]
1 John 4:9
NKJV God has sent His only begotten Son into the world.
MEV God sent His onlybegotten Son into the world
The two that stuck out in mind are John 1:14, and 18. Why change in those two verses to “only Son” and yet in John 3:16, 18 use “only begotten Son”? It would seem that when dealing with the same author and there are four verses that deal with the same concept, and Greek word, why not translate all four the same way “only begotten” as in NKJV, or “one and only” as in most modern translations.
I would question both NKJV and MEV in translating Heb. 11:17 as “only begotten.” It would be more consistent with the translation decisions in the Lukan passages listed above.
Overall, I am still impressed with the translation choices. Even a small change in John 1:14 seems like a positive using “and we saw His glory” rather than “and we beheld His glory.”
From time to time I get requests from pastors, students, and laity about good resources for preparing to study or teach Revelation and eschatology. Another request came in this week. Here is the list of resources I recommend.
An excellent resource written by an LCMS pastor many years ago. He developed it teaching in his congregation in the 1970s. Includes some very helpful diagrams. I have referenced several times in the last 25 years. Even had the privilege of talking to him on the phone about his book and approach before he died.
In between is this excellent Roman Catholic book by Michael J. Gorman: Reading Revelation Responsibly: Uncivil Worship and Witness following the Lamb into the New Creation. I used this about three years ago when I was laying out the ground work for studying and teaching Revelation.
I have written before about the God’s Word (GW) translation. This includes my background as serving pastor of three different congregations that were test congregations for checking readability, oral comprehension, etc. For the most part it is a very good translation, especially as it was being published from 1988 to 1992.
The interim published translation was called New Evangelical Translation (NET) first in 1988 and then 1992); it covered only the New Testament. From 1992 to 1995, when the entire Bible was published under the name God’s Word, the translation team shifted emphasis. The biggest change in the translation was to translate δικαιοσύνη as “God’s approval” instead of the previous “righteousness.” I protested that change during the testing phase (1992-1995), and I repeatedly have sent letters/emails since 1995. All to no avail.
The reason for the change was defended by the translators, noting that in contemporary usage “righteous” and “righteousness” had lost any semblance to its usage in the New Testament, so an alternative had to be found, and they chose “God’s approval.”
My objection to such a change was two-fold. 1) It is better to teach the concept of “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη). Since teaching would be involved in understanding “God’s approval” why not teach regarding the use of “righteousness.”
2) The GW translators retained “righteousness” in the Old Testament for the Hebrew, צְדָקָֽה , LXX (Greek OT) using δικαιοσύνη. So the supposed advantage of “God’s approval” fails in this inconsistency. Notice how this is problematic when looking at NT usage of an OT passage.
Romans 1:17 God’s approval is revealed in this Good News. This approval begins and ends with faith as Scripture says, “The person who has God’s approval will live by faith.” (GW)
Notice that it quotes from the prophet:
Habakkuk 2:4 But the righteous person (וְצַדִּ֖יק) will live because of his faithfulness. (GW)
So, how does a learning student of the Bible make the connection with how GW handles “righteousness” in Habakkuk vs. “God’s approval” in Romans? It actually leads to more confusion rather than clarity, because it makes a distinction between “righteousness” and “God’s approval.” Now, notice that when translating δικαιοσύνη as righteousness in Romans 1:17 the translation removes the additional layer of confusion, actually aiding the student in understanding.
Here is the NET (1992) translation of Romans 1:17
For it reveals the righteousness which comes from God by faith to bring people to faith, as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
Thus, my theological and translational concerns about God’s Word choices still stand, and why the 1992 NET was far better. But now I have come across a practical reason to not use “God’s approval” as a translation for δικαιοσύνη.
In Bible class recently this confusion caused by the use of “God’s approval” came to bear in a very personal way. One person has been caring for an elderly loved one for more than a decade. For many years the care was demanding but the elderly family member was her usual considerate loving self.
But in recent months the demeanor changed, and the burden on the caregiver with little sleep over the past few months (up every 1-2 hours). This meant the caregiver was working on the thin edge of care, and occasionally began to respond with less than kind words and attitude. The caregiver felt a heavy burden, because God was obviously not pleased (God did not approve of the attitude displayed).
The caregiver then was reading the usual GW translation Bible for comfort but kept running into “God’s approval.” The more the phrase appeared the more demanding it became, the more condemning it felt. The caregiver had come to the conclusion that God was not approving of the words and actions of the caregiver, leading to serious questions about God’s lack of approval. The person knew about righteousness but could never connect it to God’s approval. Other problematic texts in GW: Romans 3:22-24; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9.
Notice that in the process, the supposedly more helpful translation “God’s approval” was no longer speaking God’s approval, but the very opposite; “God’s approval” was not “God’s approval” for this person. The Good News of righteousness was replaced by the demands of a righteousness, earning God’s approval through performance that was flawed. And that was overwhelming. Thankfully this person asked the right question about that in Bible class. After the explanation of what righteousness is and what it means in many contexts, the tears of joy and relief flooded this person, the fear of not meeting “God’s approval” was gone.
For this person, “God’s approval” could only be understood in light of righteousness that is a gift from God. Thus the person is righteous by faith, not by performance. Others in the class began to understand the challenge and problem with GW’s use of “God’s approval.” Thus, the title, “When God’s Approval Isn’t.”
So I had to teach the concept of δικαιοσύνη, righteousness for the good news to sink in. How much longer it took than if the person had read “righteousness” in the translation GW?
Of course, I realize that changing GW is impossible now. Twenty-three years have passed since I first opposed the use of “God’s approval” and I have repeatedly done so for 23 years. And still no acknowledgment that there is even a problem with the translation choice, “God’s approval.”
Sadly all the good points of GW (oral comprehension, Old Testament translations, etc.) cannot compensate for this translation problem. For that I am sad.
For the new realization and relief for this caregiver, that the person is righteous before God, not having to worry about God’s approval any more. In Jesus Christ, His righteousness has been accredited to the person’s account. And for that everything the person does is pleasing in God’s sight because of Christ’s work. God’s approval is not earned and no longer the cause of fear, discouragement, despair.
Nothing but joy and celebration when the good news truly becomes good news.
We began our Lent observance on Ash Wednesday, which leads to Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. The central place of the Lord’s Supper within the worshiping community is highlighted throughout Lent and culminates in Maundy Thursday. I serve a congregation that celebrates the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, every service, which reflects the importance of it among God’s people, and especially for our people.
As Lutherans we confess the Lord’s Supper that in it we receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, a teaching that is different from Protestants(the bread and wine are symbols/representatives of the body and blood, which are not present).
One issue related to the Lord’s Supper is how to understand διαθήκη (diatheke) and how to translate it, whether “testament” or “covenant.” As I have been reflecting on this heritage of theology, some history of translation is helpful. In 1963 William Beck published his NT translation called An American Translation (AAT), but popularly know as Beck’s Bible (Beck died in 1966, but his OT was published in 1976 with two scholars [Schmick and Kiehl] finishing his work). In 1963 I was a freshman in high school, and our church began using Beck’s NT for Sunday School. Rather different than KJV for understandability!
Regarding this topic, the KJV used the word “testament” for διαθήκη. In 1986 the process of revising AAT began. Soon, the project became known as God’s Word to the Nations. I remember the “testament/covenant” issue that faced the translators of God’s Word to the Nations (GWN, 1986-1988), later New Evangelical Translation (NET 1988-1992), and eventually God’s Word (GW 1995).
I had the privilege of serving congregations from 1987-1995 that were testers for GWN, later NET, eventually GW. In 1992 there was a change in translation direction, much to my frustration about translating specific words in context. So when it was finally published as God’s Word (GW 1995), I opposed several of these changes because I thought they weakened the translation and changed the focus of the underlying Greek. Beginning in 1992 I had written repeatedly over the years to ask that the GW translators revert back to the 1992 NET renderings.
Several critical changes: (original refers to the NET; change refers to the GW move in 1992-1995).
διαθήκη original: “last will and testament” changed to “promise”
χάρις original: “grace” changed to “good will”
ἅγιοι original: “saints” changed to “holy people” or “God’s people” or “believers”
This article explains the reasoning for using “testament” in the NT rather than “covenant” as a translation of διαθήκη.
Here is the NET (New Evangelical Translation) of Matthew 26:26-28
While they were eating, Jesus took bread and gave thanks. He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take and eat; this is My body.”
Then He took a cup and spoke a prayers of thanks. He gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you. For this is My blood of the last will and testament, which is being poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
So, what is the significance of translating διαθήκη as “last will and testament” (or “testament” as in KJV)rather than “covenant.” I think it becomes clear in Matthew 26:26-28 (and parallels and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26) regarding the Lord’s Supper. It is also why when speaking the words of institution, I use “testament” (and occasionally “last will and testament” —with explanation) not “covenant.”
Regardless of this discussion, in the Lord’s Supper Jesus offers his body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. For that we rejoice.