In this post I will not discuss the translation itself. Rather I will observe things about actually using the CSB translation in church settings.
I began using CSB for our lectionary readings beginning with Lent, for both Sunday and Wednesday worship. Generally, the lectors have done a good job. Sentence structure and oral comprehension aid the listener to understand the text.
Sentence Structure and Readability
At the same time, our Saturday morning Bible class has studied 1 John (6 weeks, then continue after Easter). I would pass out one chapter of CSB each week printed so that each participant could write notes in the right hand column.
I conducted the class differently than all previous studies. This six week study was focused only on what the text says. We used only that text, no study aids, etc, nor other translations. This proved effective because we all had the same text, and we had to wrestle with what the text stated. It also allowed each participant to see connections in the texts.
The sentence structure of CSB helped in this approach. Sentences were not overly long, which aided students in reading the thought progression. If questions arose, everyone was seeing the same thing in the text. That formed the basis of the study. The CSB translation was a positive experience for all participants.
After Easter, we will return to 1 John, for a more extensive examination, but this time focusing on application of the text.
My edition is: CSB Large Print Ultrathin Reference Bible.
While I like the font size for personal study, I found that 9.5 font size was too small for me to use in a preaching and teaching environment. This particular edition says it is “Large Print.” Here is the description from CSBible.com
I looked at the CSB web site for other options. They have a Giant Print edition with 14.75 point size. That is too big for my purposes.
I have several other translations and many publishers have a size in between that is Large Print, namely 11 pt. That is exactly the size I find comfortable for reading in public, for preaching, and for teaching (my NAS Reference Bible is that size font).
Corrected: CSB publishers do offer a true Large Print Bible with 11 pt font size; but it is not available on their web site; found it on Amazon. (Special thanks to Diego and Gary)
Strange that CSB offers several different font sizes, all identified at Large Print:
8 pt [Compact]
9.5 pt [Ultrathin Reference], and
11.25 pt [Larger Print Personal Size]).
That is less than helpful. I would think that Large Print from the same publisher would designate all Bibles regardless of the edition.
Despite this being a “Large Print” edition, and the text size is not true large print, the real problem comes with the cross references. Sadly I have to use a magnifying glass for most of the cross reference texts. We have two other people in the congregation who use the same Bible. Their first comment after talking about liking the translation is on the size of the cross references.
Sadly, these cross references are essentially useless, whether personal reading or especially when teaching/preaching and looking for a cross reference.
Single Column Text
Over the past several years I have picked up 3-4 translations (ESV, NKJV, GW) in single column format. It really is much easier to read in that format. This is especially true in poetic sections in the Old Testament. Because of the narrower columns in a double-column format, it is harder to follow the thought and connection.
CSB for Isaiah 64
God’s Word translation still offers the best single column format with indentation in poetic sections that makes reading silently and orally much easier. Here is Isaiah 64 in GW:
I think CSB would be much more user friendly in offering a single column edition in 11 point font size with cross references that are readable and with indentation in poetic sections to clarify relationships and help readers.
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,
ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἡρῴδης ἐταράχθη καὶ °πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, (NA28)
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.
Some translation oddities
Reading the daily lectionary, I have found some odd translation choices in terms of English usage in some different translations. The following readings come from today’s (Sep. 21) readings. With earlier readings from other days I noticed other odd or awkward phrasings. My goal is not to extensively deal with each text, but look at the English word choice and style used to translate the Hebrew.
Hebrew: וַיִּמָּלֵ֨ךְ לִבִּ֜י עָלַ֗י, roughly “my heart was counseled upon me.”
NAS I consulted with myself
ESV I took counsel with myself
NRSV After thinking it over
NAB After some deliberation
HCSB After seriously considering the matter
NIV pondered them in my mind
NET I considered these things carefully
NLT After thinking it over
GW After thinking it over
Lutheran Study Bible using the ESV has this alternative in a footnote: “mulled over in his mind what to do” (p. 745).
NAS and ESV maintain the Hebrew sense, but in the process provide an awkward/unusual rendering in English to do so. Most of the other translations adapt the thought into common English usage.
Hebrew: וַיִּפְּל֥וּ מְאֹ֖ד בְּעֵינֵיהֶ֑ם, roughly “their eyes fell greatly”
NAS they lost their confidence;
ESV fell greatly in their own esteem
NRSV (so also RSV-RCC) fell greatly in their own esteem
NAB our enemies lost much face in the eyes of the nations
HCSB lost their confidence
NIV lost their self-confidence
NET they were greatly disheartened
NLT they were frightened and humiliated
GW lost their self-confidence
Note that ESV/NRSV/RSV-RCC use an odd way to express the Hebrew text. Most of the others show the reflexive (Niphal) sense, with “lost confidence.” NAB is unique in that the focus is not their own eyes that matter, but the eyes of the nations.
Hebrew: יִשְׁמַ֤ע ׀ אֵ֨ל ׀ וְֽיַעֲנֵם֮, roughly “God hears and will afflict them”
NAS God will hear and answer them (footnote: “afflict them”)
ESV (so also RSV-RCC) God will give ear and humble them
NRSV God…will hear, and will humble them
NAB God…will hear me and humble them
HCSB God…will hear and will humiliate them
NIV God…he will hear them and humble them
NET God,…will hear and humiliate them
NLT God…will hear me and humble them
GW God will listen. The one…will deal with them
Most translations offer a readable and understandable English rendering of the Hebrew. But notice ESV and RSV-RCC “God will give ear.” Aside from the original RSV and now lately ESV, I have never heard the use of “God will give ear.” My first humorous thought is “how many ears does God have.” With some practice, a reader might catch what is written. But what of an oral reading (i.e. in worship), will that communicate clearly and easily?
This is not an academic exploration but a simple look at translation choices and how that fits the register of understandable (and primarily oral) English. Over the past several years as I have reviewed translations, I have found that ESV is problematic in this specific area. And it follows the RSV, NRSV, and RSV (RCC) pattern. This also makes me more aware of how I preach and teach and at what level (vocabulary, etc.) I do so.
Hope to explore more on this topic.
In daily readings through the Bible, I also include the Psalm related to the day in multiples of 30 (7, 37, 67, etc.); so reading one Psalm a day I can cover the entire Psalmody in five months (days with 31 days I read Psalm 119). Yesterday (03/07) I read Psalm 7, and came across an unusual expression. Try reading aloud and see how it sounds, then ask others to listen (only).
Arise, O LORD, in your anger;
lift yourself up against the fury of my enemies;
awake for me; you have appointed a judgment. (Ps. 7:6 ESV)
Surprisingly HCSB and NAB have the same:
awake for me; You have ordained a judgment. (HCSB)
Wake to judge as you have decreed. (NAB)
It is the last line that caught my attention, because it is awkward at best. It doesn’t even make sense in context, and seems incomplete at best (filling too many gaps required). English style does not lend itself to such a translation. So I checked some other translations of that last line:
And arouse Yourself for me; You have appointed judgment. (NAS)
Rise up for me to the judgment You have commanded! (NKJV)
awake, O my God; you have appointed a judgment. (NRSV)
Wake up for my sake and execute the judgment you have decreed for them! (NET)
Awake, my God; decree justice. (NIV 2011)
Wake up, my God, and bring justice! (NLT)
Wake up, my God. You have already pronounced judgment. (GW)
Awake, my God, you demand judgement. (NJB)
My God who ordered justice to be done, awake. (REB)
Notice that several still use “awake” or “wake up” but add the intended recipient, i.e. God, which makes it a little easier to understand. I checked other uses of the Hebrew word (עור) and found most of them provide better translations in both ESV and HCSB.
This is not a major issue, but for readability and oral comprehension, I think a rewrite for ESV and HCSB is needed.
Translating any text from one language to another faces many challenges. Simplisticly some want one word in language A to match perfectly with language B. Some might be tempted to say this is the most “literal” translation. Interlinear translations follow this technique. However, it doesn’t take more than a couple examples to demonstrate why this approach fails.
Another approach claims a “general gist” of the original work, commonly known as “paraphrases.” These translations remove any semblance of translation (word context). Perhaps the two most common are The Living Bible from the 1970s and The Message of more recent vintage. Neither would be good for serious study.
In between those extremes we have two general groups of Bible translation approaches:
1. Formal Equivalence (sometimes called Word-for-word, but that is a misnomer)
The following translations represent this approach: NAS, NKJV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, HCSB, NET
2. Functional Equivalence (or meaning based)
The following translations represent this approach: GW, NLT
Some translations are difficult to categorize. Probably NIV is the best example. Sometimes the translation follows the Formal Equivalence and sometimes Functional Equivalence. Unfortunately the translators provide no basis to understand which approach is being used in a specific context and why the change. In that sense, NIV fits somewhere between the two groups.
Translation choices and connections made by the reader
This post is specifically about how a translation choice may be acceptable, but cause confusion about the connections between the thoughts of the text. I have chosen 1 Peter 3:21 as an example of where the connection can fail based on translation choices.
Greek: ὃ καὶ ⸁ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, δι᾿ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
I have given several translation choices and grouped the translations based on that word choice.
NKJV: There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
NAS: Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you — not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
HCSB: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
ESV: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
NJB: It is the baptism corresponding to this water which saves you now—not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience given to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
GW: Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn’t save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life.
NRSV And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
NET: And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you–not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
NAB: This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
NLT: And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
NIV: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God
REB: This water symbolized baptism, through which you are now brought to safety. Baptism is not the washing away of bodily impurities but the appeal made to God from a good conscience; and it brings salvation through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
WEB: This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you – not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
As we look at each of the translations, it is apparent that word choice is not skewed based on the translation philosophy. Formal Equivalence and Functional Equivalence translations fall into the same choice (i.e. NAS and GW, or NIV and NET).
So what is the text in Greek saying? The Greek has ἀντίτυπον, transliterated as “antitype” in NKJV. Thus, something in the Old Testament serves as a “type” and points ahead to a greater fulfillment in the New Testament, the “antitype.” There are several examples:
David the Lord/King (type) —> Jesus as Lord/King (antitype) (Matthew 22:42)
temple in Jerusalem (type) —> Jesus is temple of God (antitype) (John 2:19-21)
Atonement sacrifices (type) —> Jesus is perfect sacrifice (antitype) (Romans 3:24-25; 1 John 2:2; Hebrews 9:23-26)
So, in the context of 1 Peter 3:21, we find that Peter is giving us the type as the saving of people through the water at the time of Noah.
For Christ also died for sins bonce for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (1 Peter 3:18-20 NAS)
Thus our diagram would look like this:
Saving of eight people through water (type) —> Baptism now saves (antitype)
So, “Baptism now saves…” and is the antitype, which is a greater thing than the saving of the eight people in the flood. Note this from BDAG: “A Platonic perspective is not implied in the passage.”
So where is the confusion?
The confusion is exemplified by the NIV translation choice (“and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also.”). But because of the popularity of the NIV it reflects a misunderstanding even for those who use other translations.
The text is often read this way:
Saving in the flood (type) —> baptism, which is a symbol of saving (antitype)
The conclusion is that baptism does not save because it is only a symbol of saving, not the real act of saving. Having taught this passage for the past 30+ years, I found everyone coming from a “baptism is a symbol of my action” background understands the text this way. Of course, there is another problem with this reading of the text, and that is the presupposition of the reader, prior to reading this text. The presupposition is that baptism is “my act showing my faith.” Unfortunately, this presupposition leads to different understanding this specific text, but also Acts 2:38-39; Romans 6:1-11; Ephesians 4:4-6;.
So, in this case a translation choice can easily be misunderstood to support a wrong view of baptism, hence, translating confuses connections.
Baptism really does save.
Background on GW
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.