Thoughts on the CSB

[Martin Marprelate]

I was at a Christian Conference two weeks ago, and if you bought a book at the bookstall, you got a free CSB Bible, so I am now the proud possessor of one. The publishers must be really keen to promote it in Britain.

I haven't really looked at it much, but I note that it has failed two of my orthodoxy tests. It does not have 'propitiation' in Romans 3:25 etc., nor 'only begotten' in John 3:16 etc.

However, what do brothers think of it? Is it reasonably accurate? Its predecessor never gained any popularity over here.

 

[TCassidy]

However, what do brothers think of it? Is it reasonably accurate? Its predecessor never gained any popularity over here.

I received a free CSB for attending the annual meeting of the ETS. I too prefer "only begotten" and "propitiation" but neither is a deal breaker for me.

As I am Byzantine Preferred and the CSB is Critical Text based I have some other issues with it, but it is very readable and has pretty good cross references and notes.

My 17 year old grandson had worn his old bible out so I gave the CSB to him. He loves it, but he reads it with an open mind, not through the theological squint I have developed over the years.

 

[Deacon]

Outside of religious circles I've never used or heard of "propitiation";
same with "begotten". When do you hear those words outside of bible-speak?
Are there are no better words to communicate meaning to the unchurched?

I'm thoroughly enjoying the Christian Standard Bible!
Sure there are some weaknesses, as with any translation,
But IMO its most notable strength is its readability - it is very smooth and easy when read-out-loud.
It communicates a clear and well-understood message.

Rob

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Outside of religious circles I've never used or heard of "propitiation";
same with "begotten". When do you hear those words outside of bible-speak?
Are there are no better words to communicate meaning to the unchurched?

I hear what you say, but the fact is that the Lord Jesus is not the 'one and only Son.' 'For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus' (Galatians 3:26). He is the only begotten Son.

I'm thoroughly enjoying the Christian Standard Bible!
Sure there are some weaknesses, as with any translation,
But IMO its most notable strength is its readability - it is very smooth and easy when read-out-loud.
It communicates a clear and well-understood message.

Rob

Good. And it doesn't seem to be gender-neutral. Perhaps it will be a replacement for my church's 1984 NIVs when they wear out. For my personal use I think I shall stick to my trusty NKJV.

 

[Rob_BW]

I used the HCSB for quite a few years, switched to the CSB this year. Read through it completely in about 4 or 5 months. I picked up the study bible and a large print personal size, which is in my lap right now as I'm getting ready to teach our RAs.

The footnote for Romans 3:25 says "Or a propitiation, or a place of atonement." I agree with their usual choice to make the text as readable as possible, and putting technical or idiomatic language in the footnotes.

And it's readability and flow are what kept me a fan. Serious study will always involve multiple translations and glimpsing the original languages. But sometimes I just like to take a day and digest a larger portion, and read through an entire book.

 

[TCassidy]

Are there are no better words to communicate meaning to the unchurched?

There are many words that have a unique meaning in Theology that either mean something different in secular usage or, as you noted, are seldom to never used outside their Theological context.

I think such words are very valuable as they have been used for centuries, perhaps millennia, and thus have no ambiguity attached to them.

Just look at μονογενη in John 3:16. Bible translators have been trying for quite a few centuries to find a different way to translate that word into English.

The best they have come up with are: "one and only" which is the most often used as far as I can tell. Then "only" with The Complete Jewish Bible bringing up the rear with "only and unique Son."

The problem is that Jesus is NOT the only son. Or the one and only son. We are all sons of God. He is the "one and unique" son. Good for the CJB.

If translators would bite the bullet and translate the word as "only born son" or something of that nature, recognizing the last part of that word is γενη, a cognate of the word for "born" I think things would be a lot clearer.

But until that happens I will stick to "only begotten" as it comes closer to "only born" than "one and only" or "only."

Oh, and many of the modern text bibles in common use have stayed with "only begotten." (See ASV, NASV, NKJV.)

 

[Van]

Several interesting thoughts have been presented in this thread.

Monogenes is best translated into English as "one of a kind." As noted, "only" is erroneous, as both Adam, and every born anew believer is a son of God.

Now "Propitiation" refers to the act of turning aside God's wrath. At Romans 3:25 the Greek form of the underlying word refers to the place where the wrath is turned aside, specifically "in Christ." My updated choice is "means of salvation" but Martin blows a gasket when I point out that truth. "Whom God set forth as the means of salvation by His blood through faith...."

While at John 3:16, "begotten" is a mistranslation and should read "one of a kind" plenty of other verses have the Greek word that was accurately translated "begotten" way back when. Today, of course, "fathered" is used to convey the idea in modern English.

 

[Rippon]

And it doesn't seem to be gender-neutral.

And neither is the NIV.

 

[Van]

Lets consider 1 Corinthians 7:1

Now in response to the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to use a woman for sex.”

The actual text says it is good for a man not to "touch a woman." But the actual idea behind this idiom appears to be unclear. Since the following verses clearly indicate it is the responsibility of each spouse to satisfy the sexual needs of the other. Therefore the actual idea appears to be to not misuse a woman. Thus Al Franken clearly violated this Christian doctrine.

Once again, it appears the best translations present the idiom in the main text, then provide a footnote to explain what the translators believe is the actual meaning. Here is the CSB "explanation"

“Touching a woman” was a euphemism for sexual relations. Recent research indicates that it did not refer to sex in general, but rather it specified a particular type of sex: sex for pleasure with women other than one’s wife. “Touching” someone was what might be called casual sex; it was also unilateral and sometimes abusive.

 

[Rob_BW]

Once again, it appears the best translations present the idiom in the main text, then provide a footnote to explain what the translators believe is the actual meaning.

You appear to be presenting opinion as fact.

 

[Van]

The fact is "use a women for sex" is a terrible translation. It does not reflect the actual words (touch a woman) nor the contextual meaning. Facts Sir!

You appear to be disparaging my view without providing an alternate view. Nuff said.

 

[Rob_BW]

The fact is "use a women for sex" is a terrible translation. It does not reflect the actual words (touch a woman) nor the contextual meaning. Facts Sir!

You appear to be disparaging my view without providing an alternate view. Nuff said.

Then you appear to have missed post number 5, where I posted my preference.

I can repost it if you like.

But, I am not disparaging your preference. Just noting that it is a preference, and not a fact.

 

[Van]

Then you appear to have missed post number 5, where I posted my preference.
I can repost it if you like.
But, I am not disparaging your preference. Just noting that it is a preference, and not a fact.

I stand corrected, you did indeed indicate you wanted the technical (literal?) or idiomatic language in the footnotes. And the best translations (NASB, NKJV and LEB) do reflect my preference.

But the fact is your CSB readable text is a mistranslation any way you slice it.

The idiomatic phrase "touch a woman" is also found in the LXX in the Old Testament, Genesis 20:6 and Proverbs 6:29. In both these examples of the idiomatic meaning sexual misconduct is in view.

So the actual idea appears to be to not engage in sexual misconduct with any woman. But the CSB, and other "readability first translations" butchered the effort.

 

[Van]

If you look at the CSB translation of Genesis 20:6, and Proverbs 6:29, you will see they went with what it said, touch, rather than their idiomatic translation "use a woman for sex." And at Genesis 26:11, where the meaning clearly refers to violate or injure, the CSB does not substitute the "readability" translation, over the accurate but idiomatic "touch."

As hopefully you can see, putting the "readability" translation inconsistently in the main text destroys the linkage between verses where the idiomatic meaning is found.

The fact seems to be that we should all prefer an accurate and literal translation, and footnotes to explain the possible idiomatic meaning.

 

[Van]

Let us evaluate yet another verse, 1 Corinthians 1:30.

It is from him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom from God for us—our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption,

A more literal translation would read:

Yet out of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God besides righteousness, holiness and deliverance.​

So first "out of Him" refers to an action or actions taken by God, thus the NASB reads "by His doing" and the NIV reads "because of Him." So it appears clarity was sacrificed for "readability."

Second since "sanctification" has two meanings (to set apart or to make holy) neither readability nor clarity was served by that traditional choice.

 

[Van]

Let us evaluate John 1:18,

18 No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him.

Here we have several questionable calls, but the actual message is indeed presented in a very readable form.
First, "No one has ever seen God" is accurate, and ending it with a "period" rather than a semi-colon is just fine.
Next, we have "one and only" which is inaccurate, but "one of a kind" is not in any of the best translations, so hardly a fault of the CSB.
Next, we get a variant reading, "Son" when "God" appears in other versions. But contextually, "Son" seem right, provided it is clear God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity is in view. The CSB provides (adds without italics) that support.
Next, "at the Father's side" again is just fine as a more readable expression of "in the bosom of the Father.
Last, "has revealed Him" is actually more accurate than other translation choices.

In summary, the CSB did a fine job of rewriting the text to make the message clear and readable, but I would prefer presenting the actual text with an explanation in the footnote.

 

[Van]

Let's consider Hebrews 4:2:

For we also have received the good news just as they did. But the message they heard did not benefit them, since they were not united with those who heard it in faith.

Here rather than the traditional "did not unite the message with faith" is presented as "were not united with those who heard it in faith." But the message is not that if you sit next to a believer, you will unite the message with faith.

But in fairness, there does seem to be something in the Greek grammar that goes against the traditional translation. The actual message appears to be those who did not benefit were not united in how they believed with those who heard it in faith.

In any event, I think they should do a better job of presenting the actual message.

 

[Van]

Let's consider Hebrews 12:28:

28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful. By it, we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and awe,

The problem here is that "By it" refers back to something but the something is not clear. Does the "it" refer to the unshakable kingdom, or to God's grace, or to our gratitude or thankfulness?

Commentaries based on the KJV family of translations assert the it refers to holding on to the grace. But nearly all the modern translations have let us be thankful. Their idea is that by being thankful with modesty (or a sense of unworthiness) we might serve God in a way pleasing to God,

What is the idea of an "unshakable kingdom" one that is everlasting, rather than one that would crumble in an earthquake?

 

[Yeshua1]

I was at a Christian Conference two weeks ago, and if you bought a book at the bookstall, you got a free CSB Bible, so I am now the proud possessor of one. The publishers must be really keen to promote it in Britain.

I haven't really looked at it much, but I note that it has failed two of my orthodoxy tests. It does not have 'propitiation' in Romans 3:25 etc., nor 'only begotten' in John 3:16 etc.

However, what do brothers think of it? Is it reasonably accurate? Its predecessor never gained any popularity over here.

It seems to be a more conservative version of the Niv 2011, not quite as gender based, and the interesting thing is that many find fault more with the Csb study bible, as being seen "too Calvinist"

 

[Van]

Summary of verses that should be improved:
Romans 3:25 atoning sacrifice should read means of salvation
John 1:18 one and only Son should read one of a kind God the Son,
John 3:16 one and only should read one of a kind
1 Corinthians 1:30 from Him should read because of Him
1 Corinthians 7:1 use a woman for sex should read touch a woman
Hebrews 4:2 not united with those should read not united in how they believe with those
Hebrews 12:28 By it should read by our thankfulness