ESV vs HCSB

[Ioustinos]

Hi Folks!

I am looking to buy another bible to carry to class and to read in my spare time and I was wanting to know which should I buy an ESV or go with the Holman Christian Standard that has recently come out. I already have an ESV but I want a compact bible to carry around in my bookbag, so I don't know if I should order a smaller ESV or try out the HCSB. What do you guys suggest?


Blessings

Justin

 

[daveleau]

I really like the HCSB. If you already have a ESV, I'd go with the HCSB. My reasoning is that you can go between the two version when you are home. Looking at different version is a superb way of studying and figuring out exactly what is being said.

 

[JM]

Good question, I'd like to know as well.

 

[daveleau]

From what I understand, the ESV is based on the UBS4 Greek and the HCSB is based on the NA Greek. So, TRO/KJO would probably want neither... If you do not hold this view, then the UBS4 and NA are identical except for the number of variants.

 

[daveleau]

^Mod hat on^

I have split the thread into the "ESV vs HCSB" and "KJV discussion". The mention of a KJV-O's desire to not use these or the discussion of the Greek of the ESV/HCSB does not mean that a debate about KJV-O versus other Greek sources can begin in this thread. We don't want to hijack a thread when someone is trying to learn from a direct question. If you don't like either, state why, but do not begin a debate that is off-topic. If you want to discuss the differences and benefits of one Greek source over another, please visit the other thread here: http://www.christianforums.com/t838884

Thank you,
daveleau
CF moderator

^Mod hat off^

 

[JohnJones]

My post, originally intended for Jesaiah, has been moved http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9173047&postcount=1

 

[kitkat60]

I have heard pretty good things about the HCSB too....and from what Ihave read online, I think I like how it flows. I realize that may not be the best criteria, but some of the versions are just plain choppy to me (NKJV, NASB) and some are too simplified (NLT, CEV) and I guess I am just not sure about the NIV....Any plans for HCSB to come out in a study bible? Or for the ESV to come out with a study bible?

 

[Ioustinos]

I have heard pretty good things about the HCSB too....and from what Ihave read online, I think I like how it flows. I realize that may not be the best criteria, but some of the versions are just plain choppy to me (NKJV, NASB) and some are too simplified (NLT, CEV) and I guess I am just not sure about the NIV....Any plans for HCSB to come out in a study bible? Or for the ESV to come out with a study bible?

Hi Kitkat60!

thanks for your reply. I agree with you....from what I have read online of the HCSB it flows well and is said to be a formal equivalent translation. I love the NASB but like you said it is choppy when you want to just read passages but it is great for in depth studies. I like the NIV but would like a more formal equivalent translation than the dynamic translation of the NIV.

As far as a HCSB study bible....I think one will come out soon since it is starting to become a popular translation. Supposedly the ESV is coming out with a study bible but there are no specifics besides that one is scheduled to come out in the fall (the last I heard).


Blessings

Justin

 

[DanielRB]

Hi Folks!

I am looking to buy another bible to carry to class and to read in my spare time and I was wanting to know which should I buy an ESV or go with the Holman Christian Standard that has recently come out. I already have an ESV but I want a compact bible to carry around in my bookbag, so I don't know if I should order a smaller ESV or try out the HCSB. What do you guys suggest?


Blessings

Justin

Hi Jesaiah,

I'd like to know, too. I'm very happy with the ESV, though I've heard a lot of good things about the HCSB.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[StAnselm]

Here in Australia, quite a few people are using (and plugging) the ESV - but I had not so much as heard there even was an HCSB...

 

[Crazy Liz]

Hi Folks!

I am looking to buy another bible to carry to class and to read in my spare time and I was wanting to know which should I buy an ESV or go with the Holman Christian Standard that has recently come out. I already have an ESV but I want a compact bible to carry around in my bookbag, so I don't know if I should order a smaller ESV or try out the HCSB. What do you guys suggest?


Blessings

Justin

If I were making this decision for myself, I'd choose the version I didn't already have. That's why the compact Bible I carry around is NKJV. At the time I needed a compact Bible, it was fairly new, and I didn't already have one. I like to have different versions to compare, and enjoy reading in translations that are not so very familiar to me. A bonus is that the KJV, NKJV and RSV are the versions where the translators paid particular attention to how the words sound when read aloud, so I have been quite happy to have my NKJV in my purse when I make hospital visits.

I'm not one of those people who like to have a main study Bible. If I'm really studying, I will use several versions, plus Greek and Hebrew where necessary. I would advise you to collect more versions so you can compare them when you have questions.

 

[Brian Daniel]

I have read the whole ESV, and I think it is a very good translation to go with. I have used the pocket thinline one, and the concordance in it is actually really good for a non-comprehensive concordance. The translation notes in it are very good. I looked through the HCSB and I found one problem. Words not in the original that have been added for clarity are italicized, but not consistantly. For instance, Jesus is quoted as saying "I am he" many times, which is a reference to Exodus 3:14. My problem is when they are inconsistant with the use of the italicized he, because the Greek word used is the same that is used in the Septuagint for Exodus 3:14's I AM. If they're gonna use the italicized words, that's great, but they should not be so sloppy as to miss some.

Either translation should be good, but I am more familiar with the ESV, and I am confident that it is good because I have read it all.

God bless you,

Brian

 

[filosofer]

I looked through the HCSB and I found one problem. Words not in the original that have been added for clarity are italicized, but not consistantly. For instance, Jesus is quoted as saying "I am he" many times, which is a reference to Exodus 3:14. My problem is when they are inconsistant with the use of the italicized he, because the Greek word used is the same that is used in the Septuagint for Exodus 3:14's I AM. If they're gonna use the italicized words, that's great, but they should not be so sloppy as to miss some.

But there may not be a problem either. That is, without looking at each specific instance in the Gospel of when Jesus is quoted as saying EGO EIMI, it is difficult to determine whether such a statement is, in fact, a direct reference to Exodus 3:14.

 

[filosofer]

No translation is perfect. However, both ESV and HCSB do an admirable job of presenting the intent of the underlying (original) languages (Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek). For the most part I wouldn't hesitate to encourage people to use them.

Having said that, though, there are some problem areas, some in English as the following illustrate, and some in changing the meaning (John 20:23)

Overall, NAS tends to be choppy, but in those specific passages (and others I have found), the ESV is not only choppy, it presents unnatural English.

Isaiah 22:17
ESV "... He will seize firm hold on you"
NAS95 "And He is about to grasp you firmly"

The NAS correctly uses the adverb, while the ESV sounds awkward.

Isaiah 63:10
ESV "therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them"
NAS95 "Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them."

It seems that the ESV is missing the word "he" before "himself" (read it aloud to catch the incongruence).

Jeremiah 10:25
ESV "Pour out your wrath on the nations that know you not, and on the peoples that call not on your name."
NAS95 "Pour out Your wrath on the nations that do not know You and on the families that do not clal Your name."

The ESV is inconsistent in placing the negative. In this case, it is awkward, yet in other places the negative is placed with the helping verb ("do") as in the NAS.

Jeremiah 12:6
ESV "... they are in full cry after you"
NAS95 "...even they have cried aloud after you."

One has to ask what does "full cry" mean to the average speaker/reader of English in this sentence.

Jeremiah 12:11
ESV "... but no man lays it to heart."
NAS95 "... because no man lays it to heart"
NKJV "... because no one takes it to heart"

I would say that both present unnatural English; NKJV does better.

Jeremiah 31:8
ESV "Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the farthest parts of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the pregnant woman and her who is in labor, together..."
NAS95 "Behold, I am bringing them from the north country and I will gather them from the remote parts of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and she who is in labor with child, together..."
NKJV "Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the ends of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and the one who labors with child, together..."

The ESV misses on two counts: The use of "her" is awkward and very unnatural. Also, the other elements in parallel all have the definite article in English, which would suggest that the NKJV has rendered the parallelism best.

----------------

John 20:23



ESV: If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.

NKJV: If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

In the Greek the word KRATHTE has the sense of "hold fast, or retain" (BAGD, 448). The ESV misuses the word "withhold" in this context. Notice that it appears as if the ESV is claiming that disciples are controlling the forgiveness - "they are lording it over someone by withholding forgiveness."

However, in the Greek, it is clear that what the disciples retain or hold against the person are the sins (plural)., not forgiveness.

AN TINWN AFHTE TAS hAMARTIAS AFEWNTAI AUTOIS

if ever of whom you forgive the sins, they are forgiven to/for them

AN TINWN KRATHTE KEKRATHNTAI

if ever of whom .... you retain, they have been (and are still) retained ...

Note, the parallel construction of the sentence. The direct object in the first part is "the sins" (TAS hAMARTIAS); the indirect object is "to them" (AUTOIS) . In the Greek of the second part of the sentence, the direct object and the indirect object are not supplied. But normal Greek structure means that the direct object and indirect object previously mentioned would carry over. Thus, the second line would translate:

if ever of whom [the sins] you retain, they have been (and are still) retained [to them]

Note that ESV changes this, so that it takes the verb of the first part of the sentence and makes it into a noun to be used as the direct object in the second phrase. I don't know of any other case in which such a practice is followed, especially by a translation that favors an "essentially literal" approach.

 

[Brian Daniel]

But there may not be a problem either. That is, without looking at each specific instance in the Gospel of when Jesus is quoted as saying EGO EIMI, it is difficult to determine whether such a statement is, in fact, a direct reference to Exodus 3:14.

I am letting you know this only so you know that I did my homework on the issue before forming my opinion. These particular verses were ones that I had looked up in the Greek, and they were all said EGO EIMI, and other versions, such as the KJV and NKJV had the "he" italicized. Other versions, such as the NIV, NRSV and RSV had it in the margins that it said "I am," or in some other way indicated that "he" was not in the original. Also, the Latin Vulgate said "ego sum" in these passages. The most interesting translation was the New American Bible that says, "I AM!" for all of the verses in question. My French Ecumenical Translation of the Bible says "Je suis" in the verses in question, in case anyone here has at least a minimal understanding of French. It's only a minor problem for most, as long as "I am" is in verse 58. I think that the ESV has greater viability as a translation that will be around in somewhat popular usage for some time. I am waiting to see some notable acceptance of the HCSB. I'm curious; have any major churches or Christian organizations adopted the HCSB yet? I'm not asking to put it down, but I'm simply curious, and would be happy if they did accept it, because it would be much better than some of the paraphrases that are out there.

God bless you,

Brian

 

[filosofer]

I am letting you know this only so you know that I did my homework on the issue before forming my opinion. These particular verses were ones that I had looked up in the Greek, and they were all said EGO EIMI, and other versions, such as the KJV and NKJV had the "he" italicized. Other versions, such as the NIV, NRSV and RSV had it in the margins that it said "I am," or in some other way indicated that "he" was not in the original. Also, the Latin Vulgate said "ego sum" in these passages. The most interesting translation was the New American Bible that says, "I AM!" for all of the verses in question. My French Ecumenical Translation of the Bible says "Je suis" in the verses in question, in case anyone here has at least a minimal understanding of French. It's only a minor problem for most, as long as "I am" is in verse 58.

Hi, Brian. It's good that you check other translations. However, that still doesn't settle each specific passage as to whether it is an allusion to Exodus 3. Even with the obvious John 8:58, there is no firm agreement on that it is a specific reference to Exodus 3 (I think it definitely is).

I think that the ESV has greater viability as a translation that will be around in somewhat popular usage for some time. I am waiting to see some notable acceptance of the HCSB. I'm curious; have any major churches or Christian organizations adopted the HCSB yet? I'm not asking to put it down, but I'm simply curious, and would be happy if they did accept it, because it would be much better than some of the paraphrases that are out there.

The Southern Baptist Convention is the only one I have heard that has approved of it (its publishing house produced it).

 

[kitkat60]

Beth Moore is endorsing HCSB also. She has a pretty big following in the female bible study crowd (never done one of her studies myself, but about to).

I don't know that any of the denominations or sub denominations have approved the ESV, but I believe there are some individuals who are endorsing it also.

 

[filosofer]

While the LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) has not endorsed ESV, it will be using the ESV in the new hymnal project due in late 2006 or 2007. Given the texts used for liturgical worship, that makes sense. Sadly the convention this summer could not agree on a translation consistency across hymnals, catechism, etc.

 

[jrayy]

I have both ESV and HCSB. Both are a really good version to read and study. I am currently in Seminary and I have just ordered the new HCSB Illustrated Study Bible!!!. I have been waiting for a HCSB Study Bible since the translation came out in 2004 and I am excited to have it ship to me.

The ESV is also a great version for those who love the RSV but do not like the gender-inclusive nature of the NRSV.

The HCSB is a product of Lifeway Bookstore which is the strongarm of the Southern Baptist Convention. The Greek text for both the HCSB follows the Alexandrian family which is the current accepted scholarly MS to use. The NIV,NASB,RSV,NRSV,ESV and so forth follow this manuscript.

ALll in all I love the HCSB and hope it really catches on outside of the Southern Baptist Churches. I know some of the more conservative denominations are starting to use either the ESV or the HCSB. You pick but whatever you do pick you will be satisfied with.

 

[Ioustinos]

I have both ESV and HCSB. Both are a really good version to read and study. I am currently in Seminary and I have just ordered the new HCSB Illustrated Study Bible!!!. I have been waiting for a HCSB Study Bible since the translation came out in 2004 and I am excited to have it ship to me.

The ESV is also a great version for those who love the RSV but do not like the gender-inclusive nature of the NRSV.

The HCSB is a product of Lifeway Bookstore which is the strongarm of the Southern Baptist Convention. The Greek text for both the HCSB follows the Alexandrian family which is the current accepted scholarly MS to use. The NIV,NASB,RSV,NRSV,ESV and so forth follow this manuscript.

ALll in all I love the HCSB and hope it really catches on outside of the Southern Baptist Churches. I know some of the more conservative denominations are starting to use either the ESV or the HCSB. You pick but whatever you do pick you will be satisfied with.

Wow! This post has been resurrected from the dead

Jrayy thanks for your input. I didn't know that the HCSB was an SBC product. Most I know either use the NIV, KJV, or NKJV.

If you don't mind me asking, where do you attend seminary?

Blessings,

Justin