alexander284
Well-Known Member
What are your thoughts regarding the Christian Standard Bible (CSB)?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
- Thread starter alexander284
- Start date
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
It's a fine translation. But some of the very same people who denounced the TNIV are now in support of this translation. Some of what they considered primary defects in the TNIV are commonplace in the CSB. Hypocrisy abounds.
IF one wanted to get a version that reflected inclusive languages, would prefer this one over the Niv !
The best translation if one likes inclusive language , but much prefer more formal ones such as Nas 1977/95 and esv. Nkjv!
I don't care for it. It attempts to be gender neutral where it should not be.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I don't know much about the CSB, do you have an example?
Through and balanced review here
ttps://reformedarsenal.com/assessing-the-csb/
I could look some up. I looked at it when it first came out.
CSB Compared to Greek in a few verses
John 1:1-10
CSB from: Christian Standard Bible
For the comparison, I used the Byzantine Textform Greek NT (Pierpont and Robinson)
1 There was a man from the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
1 Ἦν δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων, Νικόδημος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων·
Pretty literal and accurate. I have no problems here.
2 This man came to him at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one could perform these signs you do unless God were with him.”
2 οὗτος ἦλθεν πρὸς αὐτὸν νυκτός, καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ῥαββί, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ σημεῖα δύναται ποιεῖν ἃ σὺ ποιεῖς, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ ὁ θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ.
Left out “to him” after “said.”
Left out “which” before “you do.”
The more literal rendering of the last clause is, “If God were not with him.” (Not a big deal, but “if…not” is perfectly good English.)
3 Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
3 Ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.
As is typical with a lot of modern versions, this verse leaves out “and said to him” after “Jesus answered.” My problem with that is it is anachronistic. In other words, it takes a 20th century English convention (redundancy is bad), and sticks it back into the way Jesus talked, which was in Aramaic translated into Greek.
Then, same rendering of “unless” instead of “if…not.”
4 “How can anyone be born when he is old? ” Nicodemus asked him. “Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born? ”
4 Λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Νικόδημος, Πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων ὤν; Μὴ δύναται εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ δεύτερον εἰσελθεῖν καὶ γεννηθῆναι;
An extra space after the question marks (A typo? But they do it throughout. How come?)
By the way, this verse renders "person" for ἄνθρωπος (anthropos, often translated "man"). That's not necessarily a mistranslation, since the word is often used generically. There is no grammar in this verse demanding "man."
5 Jesus answered, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
5 Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.
Leaves out the second “truly.” So, the 21st century translator wants Jesus to talk like a modern American rather than like He actually talked.
6 Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit.
6 Τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν· καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν.
No complaints here.
7 Do not be amazed that I told you that you must be born again.
7 Μὴ θαυμάσῃς ὅτι εἶπόν σοι, Δεῖ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν.
No complaints here.
8 The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
8 Τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος.
A small matter, but it translates “or” instead of “and” which is και in the Greek. Doesn’t make sense to do that. It is perfectly good English to keep it literal with “and.” And I know of no place in the Greek NT where και means "or." There is a perfectly good Greek word for "or," which is ἤ.
9 “How can these things be? ” asked Nicodemus.
9 Ἀπεκρίθη Νικόδημος καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Πῶς δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι;
Again, the original says that Nicodemus “answered and said,” but the CSB leaves out the “and said.” So in the CSB the target language (modern English) and culture is more important than the original. Something strange just hit me. That is exactly the way a Ruckmanite thinks: the KJV is more important than the original Hebrew and Greek!
10 “Are you a teacher of Israel and don’t know these things? ” Jesus replied.
10 Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις;
Here the original says, “Jesus answered and said to him.” So they left out both the “and said” and the “to him.” Again, they want Jesus and Nicodemus to sound like modern Americans—but they were not.
Conclusion: I would not call the CSB a total dynamic/functional equivalence version, but it certainly makes some compromises in that direction.
John 1:1-10
CSB from: Christian Standard Bible
For the comparison, I used the Byzantine Textform Greek NT (Pierpont and Robinson)
1 There was a man from the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
1 Ἦν δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων, Νικόδημος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων·
Pretty literal and accurate. I have no problems here.
2 This man came to him at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one could perform these signs you do unless God were with him.”
2 οὗτος ἦλθεν πρὸς αὐτὸν νυκτός, καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ῥαββί, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ σημεῖα δύναται ποιεῖν ἃ σὺ ποιεῖς, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ ὁ θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ.
Left out “to him” after “said.”
Left out “which” before “you do.”
The more literal rendering of the last clause is, “If God were not with him.” (Not a big deal, but “if…not” is perfectly good English.)
3 Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
3 Ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.
As is typical with a lot of modern versions, this verse leaves out “and said to him” after “Jesus answered.” My problem with that is it is anachronistic. In other words, it takes a 20th century English convention (redundancy is bad), and sticks it back into the way Jesus talked, which was in Aramaic translated into Greek.
Then, same rendering of “unless” instead of “if…not.”
4 “How can anyone be born when he is old? ” Nicodemus asked him. “Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born? ”
4 Λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Νικόδημος, Πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων ὤν; Μὴ δύναται εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ δεύτερον εἰσελθεῖν καὶ γεννηθῆναι;
An extra space after the question marks (A typo? But they do it throughout. How come?)
By the way, this verse renders "person" for ἄνθρωπος (anthropos, often translated "man"). That's not necessarily a mistranslation, since the word is often used generically. There is no grammar in this verse demanding "man."
5 Jesus answered, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
5 Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.
Leaves out the second “truly.” So, the 21st century translator wants Jesus to talk like a modern American rather than like He actually talked.
6 Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit.
6 Τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν· καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν.
No complaints here.
7 Do not be amazed that I told you that you must be born again.
7 Μὴ θαυμάσῃς ὅτι εἶπόν σοι, Δεῖ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν.
No complaints here.
8 The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
8 Τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος.
A small matter, but it translates “or” instead of “and” which is και in the Greek. Doesn’t make sense to do that. It is perfectly good English to keep it literal with “and.” And I know of no place in the Greek NT where και means "or." There is a perfectly good Greek word for "or," which is ἤ.
9 “How can these things be? ” asked Nicodemus.
9 Ἀπεκρίθη Νικόδημος καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Πῶς δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι;
Again, the original says that Nicodemus “answered and said,” but the CSB leaves out the “and said.” So in the CSB the target language (modern English) and culture is more important than the original. Something strange just hit me. That is exactly the way a Ruckmanite thinks: the KJV is more important than the original Hebrew and Greek!
10 “Are you a teacher of Israel and don’t know these things? ” Jesus replied.
10 Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις;
Here the original says, “Jesus answered and said to him.” So they left out both the “and said” and the “to him.” Again, they want Jesus and Nicodemus to sound like modern Americans—but they were not.
Conclusion: I would not call the CSB a total dynamic/functional equivalence version, but it certainly makes some compromises in that direction.
Last edited:
First of all, thank you for taking the time to break this down like this, and also for the years you spent on the mission field, they do not go unnoticed by me.
Now to my question, seeing I am not very good at Greek at all...I do have Dr. Mounce's "Greek for the Rest of Us" that I need to get back into...when I read that portion of John 3 that you posted from the CSB, I do not personally see any comprise in what is written. Has there been any harm to that passage in the CSB?
alexander284
Well-Known Member
Initially, I didn't care for the CSB, but after spending more time in it, it's "starting to grow on me."
I've been reading the Book of Romans in the CSB, alongside the ESV (English Standard Version.)
To my surprise, the CSB has compared favorably to the ESV (in my opinion.)
And, yes, I find that I favor the CSB over the NIV (New International Version) nowadays.
I've been reading the Book of Romans in the CSB, alongside the ESV (English Standard Version.)
To my surprise, the CSB has compared favorably to the ESV (in my opinion.)
And, yes, I find that I favor the CSB over the NIV (New International Version) nowadays.
Thank you!First of all, thank you for taking the time to break this down like this, and also for the years you spent on the mission field, they do not go unnoticed by me.
I see no great harm in the way the CSB rendered things. What I do see is that, in the age old controversy about how to translate, the CSB slants its renderings toward the target audience rather than the authorial intent, and I disagree strongly with that. (This is the simplest method to describe translation theory: towards the target or towards the original.) But the points I mentioned in my brief analysis would not make anyone into a heretic or an apostate.
The Csb tries to be a "Mediating Translation". and as such, does the same as say the 2011 Niv, but appears to be somewhat more literal!
The Csb, Niv 2011, and the Nas 2020 all seem to be now occupying the same place for translations!
Seems to be more dynamic then literal in some of its chosen renderings!
I just compare them to the Greek. It's what I do.
kathleenmariekg
Active Member
I think the trend is for every publisher to have their own Bible translation, so they have more control over their study Bibles and commentaries. I have assumed that the CSB is merely an inhouse replacement for the NKJV.
alexander284
Well-Known Member
I remember teaching an adult Sunday School class at a Southern Baptist Church at the time that the HCSB was released.
The Sunday School materials, up to that point, had always used the NIV.
But the materials changed to the HCSB (the predecessor to the CSB).
It was explained that Zondervan (the publisher of the NIV) was now charging an exorbitant fee for the use of the NIV in our Sunday School publication.
Hence, the switch to Broadman & Holman's own HCSB.
alexander284
Well-Known Member
I suppose I have somewhat of a love/hate relationship with the CSB.
I appreciate what the translators are attempting to do, but (at times) it appears they are "trying too hard" to sound modern or contemporary.
I'll be reading the CSB, and thinking, "this is pretty good," but then I find myself thinking, "what an odd rendering that was."
I guess what I'm saying is: it's a "mixed bag." It reminds me of the old adage, "too many cooks spoil the soup."
I appreciate what the translators are attempting to do, but (at times) it appears they are "trying too hard" to sound modern or contemporary.
I'll be reading the CSB, and thinking, "this is pretty good," but then I find myself thinking, "what an odd rendering that was."
I guess what I'm saying is: it's a "mixed bag." It reminds me of the old adage, "too many cooks spoil the soup."
alexander284
Well-Known Member
I believe you make some very valid points here.