Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: 2017 Christian Standard Bible

  1. #1

    Default 2017 Christian Standard Bible

    So Broadman & Holman publishers have recently published a revised edition of their 2009 Holman Christian Standard Bible (CSB in BW10) which is now simply called the "Christian Standard Bible" (without the name Holman any more). Is this newer 2017 CSB available yet in BW10?

    I'm intrigued by this article in the Atlantic to do some comparisons of passages.

  2. #2


    Be sure to plug in my friend Denny Burk's preliminary response to that article:

  3. #3


    Another, from Drs. Schreiner and Allen:

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004

    Default Holman CSB 2017

    This version is available now in the BW10 updater.

  5. #5


    First: Thank you, Mike!

    Second: I know the CSB has made the disappointing decision to step back from presenting "Yahweh" accurately, regressing to the "LORD" subterfuge -- except that in this, even that's missing, and it's just Lord. So an English reader couldn't even use his decoder ring to know that the inspired writers had written "Yahweh." See Exodus 3:15, Psalm 1:2 — all of them.

    Put more briefly: there's a typo perpetuum that misses the capitalizations of LORD and GOD where Yahweh is in the underlying Hebrew text.

    CSB17 Psalm 1:2 Instead, his delight is in the Lord 's instruction, and he meditates on it day and night.

    CSB Psalm 1:2 Instead, his delight is in the LORD's instruction, and he meditates on it day and night.
    Last edited by Dan Phillips; 06-14-2017 at 12:35 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004

    Default LORD and Lord

    Hi Dan,

    We are awaiting files from B&H that contain the Strong's numbers. Once we have those, then we will be releasing a replacement text for this newly-released text. I will see about how the word LORD is treated in the new text, and try to retain the capitalization.

    Thank you for point this out!

    PS: I just looked at the input files, and it appears that I did not process capitalization tagging for the word LORD. So, this was my fault, and does not indicate a change in how B&H is treating the text. I will make sure to process the word LORD so that it is all-caps in the Strong's-tagged text when we receive it. I'm sorry for any problems that this may have caused.

    Last edited by Glenn Weaver; 06-15-2017 at 09:24 AM. Reason: further info
    Glenn Weaver

  7. #7


    Thanks yet again, Glenn!

  8. #8


    Quote Originally Posted by MBushell View Post
    This version is available now in the BW10 updater.
    Awesome work, Mike! Now it's so easy to make some comparisons... just use shortcut e and open CSB and CSB17... and boom, there you go. Many thanks!

  9. #9


    So here are some of the differences that I'm observing between CSB (Holman CSB 1999) and CSB17 (CSB 2017):

    Regarding gender inclusivity:

    HCSB 1999 has "brothers and sisters" only 2x (Mk 10.30; Lk 14.26)... only when both adelphoi and adelphai are explicitly expressed in Greek.

    CSB 2017 has "brothers and sisters" 151x. The additional usages in the NT (often in Paul) are rendering adelphoi (masc plur) to include both men and women... as it should. If you address a group of 98 women and 2 men, the Greek word would be adelphoi. You can clearly see this in Phil 4.1-2 where Paul uses adelphoi and in the very next verse addresses 2 women by name.

    Also regarding gender inclusivity: Phil 2.7...

    HCSB 1999 has "taking on the likeness of men"
    CSB 2017 has "taking on the likeness of humanity"
    Yes, Jesus was male, but Paul's point is that he became incarnate as a human to whom men and women both can relate.
    In the second half of the verse, CSB 2017 retains "he had come as a man"... but now HCSB 2017 adds "in his external form."

    A big difference I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere is moving away from "slave" as a translation of doulos.
    For example, "slave" (sing.) occurs 91x in HCSB 1999 NT... but only 29x in CSB 2017 NT.
    "Slaves" (pl.) occurs 64x in HCSB 1999 NT... but only 24x in CSB 2017 NT.
    Of course, there is no great way to render doulos in English translations used in America. To render doulos as "slave" is racially charged. American readers tend to read racism into the term "slave" since American slavery had been race-based... but slavery in the Roman empire was *not* race-based. But to render doulos as "servant" is weak because it doesn't imply obligation and lack of freedom. And to render it as "bond-servant" is odd because that is not common English.

    Fwiw, the new CSB 2017 did not go with the much-debated new reading in NA28 at 2 Peter 3:10 in which ouch is now the reading of the text (cf. NA27 sans ouch) as a conjectural emendation (i.e., without Greek manuscript support), although it is the reading of the Sahidic version.

    I will be curious to read what other differences BW10 users find. You can quickly find differences by opening CSB and CSB17... and then press F6 and then simply "e"... all differences will appear in green.
    Last edited by tabiblia; 06-18-2017 at 05:08 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts