Attendees to last year’s ETS meeting were given nicely bound copies of the new Christian Standard Bible (CSB) translation which releases in March of this year. The CSB is basically a revision of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), now without the “H.” I have always thought of the HCSB as basically “the Southern Baptist Bible.” I think others did too and the CSB looks to be an attempt to move the translation away from that identification.
The website explains that the Holman Christian Standard Bible was updated “with the goals of increased fidelity to the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts and increased clarity for today’s readers.” Specific changes mentioned are the non-capitalization of pronouns referring to God, the use of “tongues” rather than “languages” to translate λαλειν γλωσσα, The use of “LORD” rather than “Yahweh,” etc.
In light of our earlier discussion about what translators will do with the NA28/UBS5 changes, I should point out that the “pastoral FAQ” page says:
What I find unhelpful is the sequence of notes in the CSB. Since both notes are given back-to-back, I think most people will naturally read them together as “some manuscripts read ‘will be burned up’ and some manuscripts read ‘will not be found.’” This is not what the second note explicitly says, of course, but how else are people expected to read it?
The problem is that the two alternate readings are here presented to the English reader as if they are on par with one another when they really aren’t. The reading of NA28 is attested by a few Syriac and Coptic witnesses which means this note breaks the translation’s own policy that “the Christian Standard Bible uses textual footnotes to show important differences among Hebrew manuscripts and other texts such as the Septuagint and the Vulgate for the Old Testament and between various Greek manuscripts for the New Testament.”
Don’t misunderstand me. I do not expect translation footnotes to do full justice to the external evidence. They can’t; that’s what critical editions are for. But I don’t see how the CSB’s current note can do anything other than mislead its readers here. It either needs to be revised to something like “some Coptic and Syriac manuscripts read...” or be taken out altogether. As it is, it’s counterproductive.
One other new reading in the CSB was pointed out to me by Maurice Robinson. John 1.18 reads:
The website explains that the Holman Christian Standard Bible was updated “with the goals of increased fidelity to the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts and increased clarity for today’s readers.” Specific changes mentioned are the non-capitalization of pronouns referring to God, the use of “tongues” rather than “languages” to translate λαλειν γλωσσα, The use of “LORD” rather than “Yahweh,” etc.In light of our earlier discussion about what translators will do with the NA28/UBS5 changes, I should point out that the “pastoral FAQ” page says:
The textual base for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition, and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 5th corrected edition.... Where there are significant differences among Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek manuscripts, the translators follow what they believe is the original reading and indicate the main alternative(s) in footnotes.Given this, I wondered what the translators did at 2 Peter 3.10 where the NA28 has changed quite noticeably. In particular, I wondered if they followed the NA28’s conjecture. The answer? No, they did not. The CSB text is exactly the same as it was in the HCSB (my emphasis):
But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed.So the new editors have not been bound to the NA28 text just as the website says. But this does not mean they have ignored the NA28’s change altogether. You just have to look at the footnotes to see the change. Whereas the HCSB includes a single note saying, “Other mss read will be burned up,” the new CSB adds a second footnote immediately after this which reads, “Or will not be found.” This is almost certainly a reference to the conjecture found in NA28: ουχ ευρεθησεται.
What I find unhelpful is the sequence of notes in the CSB. Since both notes are given back-to-back, I think most people will naturally read them together as “some manuscripts read ‘will be burned up’ and some manuscripts read ‘will not be found.’” This is not what the second note explicitly says, of course, but how else are people expected to read it?
The problem is that the two alternate readings are here presented to the English reader as if they are on par with one another when they really aren’t. The reading of NA28 is attested by a few Syriac and Coptic witnesses which means this note breaks the translation’s own policy that “the Christian Standard Bible uses textual footnotes to show important differences among Hebrew manuscripts and other texts such as the Septuagint and the Vulgate for the Old Testament and between various Greek manuscripts for the New Testament.”
Don’t misunderstand me. I do not expect translation footnotes to do full justice to the external evidence. They can’t; that’s what critical editions are for. But I don’t see how the CSB’s current note can do anything other than mislead its readers here. It either needs to be revised to something like “some Coptic and Syriac manuscripts read...” or be taken out altogether. As it is, it’s counterproductive.
One other new reading in the CSB was pointed out to me by Maurice Robinson. John 1.18 reads:
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.Notice anything odd?
Ooh me me me... It just adds the phrase 'only son'... That's not there in the greek. It says monogenes, which implies it I guess.
ReplyDeleteAm I close?
You're on the right track, Phil.
DeleteThey're trying to have their cake and eat it too, it appears to me. If the proper reading is μονογενης θεος, then why add "who is himself God"? If the proper reading is μονογενης υιος, then why not just say "the only God" or "the only begotten God"?
DeleteOops - I have the exactly backwards. But my point stands...
DeletePlease explain the John 1:18 issue for your readers who are just learning textual criticism.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteCertainly, the committee could have done a better job with the footnotes! The more accurate they are the better, yet at least now if someone happens to be reading from the NA text or a translation based on it and a listener is using the CSB they won't be totally confused.
Tim
It appears that they have conflated the reading μονογενης θεου with μονογενης υιος and then added "who is himself" in order to make the conflation grammatical, a reading not found in any of the readings offered in the the NA28. Though my Latin is not yet good enough to fully make it out, Tischendorf appears to offer a reading that could possibly be translated in that way, so the conflation may not be original to them. It is still quite odd.
ReplyDeleteThis conflation of rival readings is just one more example of how ancient scribal practices are still being perpetuated by Bible translators, even in the computer age.
ReplyDeleteOne could add to the matter the problem of "Other MSS read," when the user who is not simultaneously consulting NA28 would have no idea whether those "other MSS" may be a single MS, a small handful, a more significant group, a divided majority, or the vast majority; nor whether the footnoted reading may in fact be a NA28 reading displaced by editorial preference (as with the 2Pet 3.10 footnote as mentioned by Peter).
ReplyDeleteOne would think that a translation boasting of having more text-critical footnotes than all or almost all others would be more circumspect in that regard.
Actually, the reading for John 1:18 is also noted in the NET Bible ("The only one, himself God"). Here is the most pertinent NET note info on it as given in Accordance:
ReplyDeleteJohn 1:18
45 tc . . . As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεοσ as in apposition to μονογενησ, and the participle ο ωη (ho oœn) as in apposition to θεοσ, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενηουσ in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενησ is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενην alone, without υιοσ, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεοσ is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεοσ ην ο λογοσ (theos eœn ho logos) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ο ωη occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.
If I recall correctly, the discussions on this centered on whether to go with "one and only son" or "one and only God" for the HCSB, but the option in the CSB was also considered due to the info as noted in the NET notes. So this is not really a conflation of readings but rather an option that others have noted and used (NET Bible). Just wanted to clarify that.
On the textual notes, we all would wish for more clarification on those (I had quite a bit of clarification originally, but then was told to just put "other mss have/read" instead of giving more info). That's the editor's decision based on user feedback, space, etc., so that's what we did on the HCSB and the same is seen in the CSB. But I agree that the note on 2 Pet. 3:10 is confusing in that it can be read that the conjecture is on a par with the "other mss" note, as Peter noted. On the other hand, overall it seems to me that the CSB is indeed a good revision and improvement on the HCSB--the nickname at least will change from Hard Core Southern Baptist to something else. :-)
William: μονογενην alone, without υιοσ, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc.
DeleteIt then would seem that in order to arrive at the CSB rendering, the expected Greek phrasing should have been something like μονογενης, ο ων θεος, εις τον κολπον του πατρος -- but that also is equally unattested. In the end, the CSB reading at best remains a conflationary conjecture as noted earlier.
William, Maurice, fellows, what's with the mid-word sigma appearing at the end of a word? Dear oh dear. It's e.g., υιός.
DeleteIndeed. Properly, μονογενής is not "only begotten," but fundamentally something more like the Latin "sui generis," so "one and only" isn't a bad attempt.
DeleteAnd whether θεός or υἱός, the phrase μονογενὴς [___] ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς is strictly bound up with that noun. All speculation that μονογενής should be a substantive by itself flies in the face of the language used, in which it is attributive and not merely apposite. Whether God or Son, that noun is described as both "sui generis" and also "enfolded by the Father."
One would have to do as Dr. Robinson shows, syntactically separating the noun from μονογενὴς by association exclusively with ὁ ὢν κτλ., to place them in opposition and not in attribution.
Maurice, I personally don't agree with the CSB reading on Jn. 1:18 (I prefer "only begotten God" or however one wishes to translate this phrase), but at least wanted to point out the reasoning behind the CSB reading. I still don't see it as a conflation since it is a grammatical/syntactical difference versus actually combining two readings per se. Does this outcome result in something similar to a conflated reading, yes. But did it originate as a conflated reading, no. It originated from the argument as noted in the NET Bible and some other settings. Hope this clarifies my post a bit.
ReplyDeleteThe CSB reportedly has in John 1:18: ". . . The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side . . ."
ReplyDeleteBoth Son and God are present. Of course translators can add words to fill out the sense. Is it certain that Son was added in order to fill out the sense of μονογενης then? As it is, I see only Eusebius (De ecclesiastica theologia; cf. Tischendorf) having what is rendered in CSB: θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ἢ μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
Jonathan C Borland,
ReplyDeleteHm. And if one is going to adopt a unique mangled recollection from Eusebius in John 1:18, it's only a matter of time before a unique mangled recollection from Eusebius will be promoted in Matthew 28:19, and when that happens perhaps someone will say, "If it was good enough for John 1:18, it's good enough for Mt. 28:19."
But, such forecasts aside -- the CSB, like the NIV before it, basically adopts a conjectural emendation in John 1:18. And the CSB's textual footnotes need a thorough overhaul, not only in the passages mentioned in the post and footnotes, but in other passages as well, too numerous to review here.
Good discussion of John 1:18 and CSB's handling of the textual criticism issues. Going back to the introductory remarks about the reasons for "updating" the HCSB to the CSB, I must say I find the editors' choices disappointing, other than the correcting of the capitalization style to current usage when referring to God. When God tells Moses זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר
ReplyDelete"This is my name forever, and how I am to be remembered from generation to generation" (Exodus 3:15), at the very least God is giving permission, if not a command, to use Yahweh as one way of referring to him. And when you look at the Hebrew original and see how Yahweh is repeatedly used in conversations with God and in prayers, and even in cases where we might say "God bless you" (Ruth 2:4), it surely is more in accord with "fidelity" to the text to use Yahweh where it occurs in the original. As for "clarity", a brief discussion in the introduction and a note the first time or two Yahweh is used take care of that. It surely must be confusing to the reader to take the more typical approach that says something like "Yahweh, the covenant name of God is used more than 6000 times in the original text, but we are going to substitute LORD, even though there is no good reason other than tradition". Surely this must make at least some readers question the translators' devotion to accuracy. And while I applauded the HCSB's editors decision to use Yahweh in the text, I had to withdraw half the applause when I read that they were not going to use the term everywhere it is used in the Hebrew, but only when they judged it had some special emphasis (never mind that most Bible scholars I've read say that the very reason YHWH is used is to make a special emphasis, on God's qualities of covenant faithfulness and mercy, among others, as opposed to using Elohim or Adonai, for instance.).
As for readers not following Yahweh vs LORD, this is bogus. They have no trouble recognizing a deity is referenced when pagan gods such as Baal, Asherah, Molech, Chemosh, Bel, Nebo, are mentioned. Not to mention Zeus and Hermes and Artemis in the New Testament. Why is it we can mention pagan deities names but not the name of the true and living God, especially in light of Ex. 3:15? Makes no sense to me, never has.
As for "tongues", this is not current English, this is Biblish. Γλώσσα is simply the normal Greek word for language, often "foreign language", and there is no reason other than interpretive bias in favor of a particular religious view that insists on using "tongue" when "language" is meant. Paul's argument in 1 Cor. 14 clearly depends on γλώσσα referring to a language that can be understood and interpreted, or else an interpreter would superfluous. The fact that he commands that one be used when "tongues" are used in the worship or the speaker must remain silent shows this.
I appreciate your blog as a resource for conservatives who are also concerned about text-critical issues and the role that this plays in making faithful translations. Am looking forward to reading more posts as I have time. As I am working on my own translation of John, I do spend some time researching and noting variant MSS readings, and am always glad to have an additional resource for this.
Thank you,
Dewayne Dulaney
“Yahweh, the covenant name of God is used more than 6000 times in the original text, but we are going to substitute LORD, even though there is no good reason other than tradition”.
DeleteThere is a good reason. I don't agree with the mispronunciation Yahweh and won't buy a Bible that uses it. And they sure aren't going to put Jehovah in the text. So since half their target audience may want Jehovah and half Yahweh, the solution is to use neither and say LORD. This is, after all, why using LORD is traditional, because people can't agree on vocalization.
It’s almost certainly Yahweh. We have the first syllable preserved in many Hebre names. It’s certainly not Jehovah as there is no J sound in Hebrew.
DeleteExcept that Jehovah is Germanic, and the J is pronounced Y as in English "yay". So indeed YHVH or YHWH could sound like Yehovah, Yahovah, Yahweh, Yahveh
DeleteThis whole conversation makes me want to return to the KJV.
ReplyDeleteMe too.
DeleteI agree.
DeleteI could not agree more---these critical texts are so minor in number and carry too much influence.
DeleteI did.
DeleteNot me. ESV is rightly rendered.
DeleteI love the same person most likely advocates to return to the KJV
DeleteWhile comparing the CSB to the Hebrew Bible, (Specifically, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,) I noted something very interesting: In.Jeremiah 1:9 the tetragrammaton occurs twice, yet the CSB only translates it once as (LORD). The second instance of YHWH in the same passage is left untranslated, except for the use of the pronoun "he." I am not sure why this was done, but it is strange that a translation that claims to be based on the philosophy of "optimal equivalence" would treat the tetragrammaton in this manner. YHWH occurs in the Hebrew Bible 6828 times, and to my knowledge, all other committee translations/versions represent it with LORD, YAHWEH, or other terminology.
ReplyDeleteDewayne, I completely agree with everything you said and will continue making use of the HCSB, which strikes me as the superior version between the two. Exactly like you, I find it frustrating that English translators appear terrified of using "Yahweh." Since there's debate as to how the Heb. 'YHWH' is to be transliterated and pronounced, I'd have no problem if a given translation selected one version - e.g., "Yehovah" is another option - and simply explain their choice in the introduction. Problem solved.
ReplyDeleteI've just made up my mind that whenever I read Scripture in public, I'm going to purposely say "Yahweh" when I come to "LORD."
I don't like the CSB bible. It took out Gods name in many places. Also, it made for example Psalms 1:1 "Blessed is the MAN" to "Blessed is the ONE"
ReplyDeleteYou think bibles would especially true christians would avoid this gender neutral garbage which is coming from the LGBT crowd. Highly disappointed in this. I understand the whole "well it doesn't contextually mean only men it means both". Well sorry if it was "one" that the Hebrew God Yahweh meant then he would have made it say that.
From the NKJV to the newest CSB there is just too much "Tinkering with the text" quotes are mine as I compare various modern English Bible translations. That tinkering in some cases changes the meaning of the text when comparing versions. To me all versions are to be compared to the KJV. In fact the RSV states it tries to keep the style of the KJV while throwing out the Textual Recrptus NT. Sorry, but I find all versions fall short of the KJV. Show me a modern version that has sparked a National or Global revival? It seems to me the versions are too interested in sticking with textual critics or modern social issues like gender neutrality or some other such nonsense! I honestly don't think these things should change Bible translations to the degree that they have. The Word of God is eternal and unchanging unlike the multiple versions of the English Bible today. I just find it hard to read any other version than the King James which has stood the test of time for over 400 years! I feel its a waste of my Bible reading time. I may be simple and unlearned in Academia. Tinkering with the Bible text does nothing to make better Christians. I don't think it unites the body of Christ but can be used as another tool in Satan's tool chest to divide the body of Christ. We can all agree on one thing - the King James Bible has been blessed by God for over 400 years. It's not changed every 5 to 10 years like these other versions. We live in the church age of Laodiceans church. We think we are rich and have need of nothing but Jesus says we are wretched and miserable and naked and poor and blind! But this is to be expected as the falling away approaches before Jesus returns.
ReplyDeleteIf you compare all versions to the KJV, you’ll find that almost all of them are better.
Delete...and which TR are you referring to? There are multiple versions of the TR out there.
DeleteI agree. the KJV has stood the test of time.
ReplyDeleteI am not a Bible student as far as Greek and Hebrew go; I understand neither one. So...there is much you all are saying that I do not understand. However, I know one thing...when words are added or deleted, we are treading on dangerous ground. I believe the KJV (or the Scofield KJV) are the truest translations ever made. As J. Vernon McGee said, the KJV is probably the closest to the original because it was the first. Over the years man has tampered with the Greek and Hebrew and come to "different conclusions" about what the original meant. I have never liked the Holman but, of course, Southern Baptist literature uses that one. Since I am head of our volunteer church library staff, I have difficulty with shelving different translations.
DeleteComplete nonsense. The KJV is full of errors.
DeleteSmh! I would rather take the KJV over top of any Bible any day compared to the junk we have coming out.
DeleteThe KJV is neither first nor free of errors. I mean this kindly and specifically: to make such statements shows ignorance. No translation will ever be perfect, and most of them have done very well. Careful comparisons among translations by responsible readers will often result in new insights. One insight that I would commend to Anonymous, Yeoberry, and T.D. Hale is that words most often have ranges of meaning, not single meanings. Context must be carefully considered when translating, and well-meaning translators may rightly make different contextual decisions.
DeleteWell said. It should also be noted that the KJV translators themselves did not regard their work as perfect, above critical inspection, or the final standard of Bible translation. This is all set forth in the preface "From the Translators to the Readers," which, unfortunately, is deleted from almost every contemporary edition of the KJV.
DeleteIf people following the KJV-Only teachings would be intellectually honest enough read that preface, they would soon realize their veneration of that translation which borders on bibliolatry is not a tenable belief.
We are discussing the problems with CSB. There are many more problems with the KJV, not least textcritical, but this is not the place to debate that. For readers who want to know more about the problems with so-called "KJV-onlyism," I recommend this archived blog, https://kjvodebate.wordpress.com.
ReplyDeleteOk. Reading the CSB I can already see problems with the text. Reading through Proverbs the word "Man" has been changed to "Person". CSB is not alone in this as it is also changed in the NET and NLB. Also the word anthropos has been changed from "man" to mean "brothers and sisters" why didnt they just add "Mothers" to be all inclusive since they are adding words to the Greek text that are not there at all! Also there seems to be a common rejection of the words "anthropos" and "adelphos" to mean something other than "man" and "brother". If we go that way then Philadelphia will be called the city of "personal love" instead of "brotherly love"!
ReplyDeleteI expect a quick revision of the text of the CSB because of the gender issue and addition of words not in the Greek text. Maybe the new revision will be called the New Christian Standard Bible or the Great Commission Bible!
Actually, "Anthropos" can mean just men, but mostly means all people. Same udea with "adelphos," which more than often included sisters as well as brothers. Neither mean specifically male unless there is another word there to explain it, or you can tell from the context. Most translations now realize that we do not use the word "men" as an inclusive in modern language. Therefore an attempt is being made to be more accurate to the meaning and not just limiting things to word as it used to be used. Your new translation of Philadelphia is just silly. A better translation would be City of Family Love!!
Delete"1 Corinthians 7:1 CSB “It is good for a man not to use a woman for sex.”
ReplyDeleteExplanation: “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."
What is the new research about the verse to which this refers to?
Here is a 9 minutes video by Roy Ciampa discussing this new research:
Deletehttps://vimeo.com/221969545
My wife and I have been reading Psalms through the year. I've been using the New English Bible from 1974 which she gave to me as a Christmas present then. This year she gave me a copy of the Chistian Standard Bible for a Christmas gift. It's an impressive publication. The Psalm we read this morning is 148. Verse 9 uses the term Resident Alien instead of stranger or foreigner. I'm not a Bible scholar, but I'm pretty sure that the Hebrew word for stranger or foreigner isn't Resident Alien. I don't like seeing this contemporary, politically correct, worldly legal language that might have come out of U.S. government immigration laws being used as representative of the Word of God.
ReplyDeleteYou mean Psalm 146
DeleteI totally agree. I think the CSB is worse than the TNIV and I expect it will be totally revised very soon, if not,it's the most liberal and politically correct version of God's Holy Word so far.
ReplyDeleteThe CSB translation which reads, "The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him" seems odd grammatically (aside from the text critical issue) and should have been rendered something like: "The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side[,] ... has revealed him." Right?
ReplyDeleteAlthough not as much a text critical observation, in my preview/ gift copy that I received from "Pastor Resources" there is an error in a footnote in 1 John 2. It is supposed to say "C 2:2 Or the propitiation" (they translated ιλασμος as "the atoning sacrifice"), but instead it reads "C 2:10 Or the propitiation."
ReplyDeleteThe online edition does not have this issue, but their free copy does.
All translations are full of errors. Currently I am using David Jeremiah's NIV Study Bible, and between that and the NKJV, I am happy with what I use, and I am not a KJV only either. Not impressed with CSB, and I am a strong Southern Baptist.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, a lot of verse's are so re-written, the meaning is gone.
Example: Ephesians 4:30 tells us "we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of Redemption."
The New Living Translation says "Guaranteeing that you will be saved on the day of Redemption"
Major difference. I've been sealed by Christ after I received salvation.
Don't fix what's not broken.
I was must wondering if any of you guys have time to discuss how many angels one can get on the head of a needle?
ReplyDeleteThe latest findings from the Bulletin of Underlining Assumptions 53.5 (2018):12-56 has the count at 100,000,516.2. Now, if we include the pseudopigraphal works 1 and 2 Opinions, then the number jumps significantly. (I think to the 10th power)
DeleteI thought it was how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If that is so, it depends on the dance. Viennese waltz takes a lot of space, whereas Argentine Tango does not.
DeleteI just got a CSB and I am not happy about it at all. I am especially having difficulty with the parallel passages. Some of them just don't make sense. Ex: Mt 1:5 has parallel passages of 1 Sm 16:1 and 17:12??? Mt 3:6 has parallel passages of Mt 23:37 and Jn 15:22??? I think I will be looking for a new version.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have a suggestion of the most accurate translation?
40 years with the KJV And no "problem" yet with the:
Delete"Harmonious Accuracy." JW's were rude and obnoxious
when i brought that up. :(
ESV. Most faithful to the original languages without interpretive bias.
DeleteCan someone explain which edition is meant when the CSB reads 'Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia' 5th edition? Do they mean 'Biblia Hebraica Quinta' or is there actually a BHS 5 that I'm missing.
ReplyDeleteIMHO there is an alternative to the divine name known in English as YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah. The actual Hebrew basis of the name speaks of "being" and the name is sometimes understood as "I Am" but that would be highly cumbersome in a translation. However, "Eternal" is a viable alternative, as in "Thus says the Eternal . . ." This would be close to the actual meaning of YHWH, and it at least conveys some of that meaning to the reader. I first encountered this usage in the Moffatt translation (which I do not otherwise recommend) and it immediately struck me as a powerful description of the Almighty.
ReplyDeleteIt is always interesting reading comment sections and trying to guess the intent of the specific comment (sincere/subject matter expert, sincere/learner, sincere/ignorant(but expert in own mind), disingenuous, or just making sport of poking the bear or stirring the pot). In the short comment section above, I think there may be all of these represented. For those of you are interested in the intent of the translators or think translators have a politically correct agenda, the following article may be of interest.
ReplyDeleteI think this Q&A gives insight into the translators' intent (regardless of whether you think they were successful).
https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2017/june/gender-hscb-csb-christian-standard-bible.html
Interesting. I guess I'll stick to reading KJV, ASV, and NKJV for English; Chinese Union for Chinese (but I don't have much choice there). OT a little, but is the NA 3d edition still acceptable if I wish to do more formal study in old age? Mine's a little ragged at the edges and rebound, but still useable.
ReplyDeleteDo you guys know that the CSB counts for only two or three percentage points among the Bible’s preferred by Bible readers both in the US and also in the UK?
ReplyDeleteI don't know what's wrong with you guys. I read the 1599. All y'all need to take it back a few more years and come hang out with me and John Owen.
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, God has given us so many fantastic resources today, in 2020, to employ to His glory. Lets use them all in our study and preaching and let God bring the growth.
The CSB is another Westcott and Hort foundation. Look at Daniel 3:25 in the KJV and then in the CSB, 2 obvious different views- Hope you can see how Satan is attacking the KJV, which he has for years now, with all the "new" versions. The JW's will like the CSB view of this verse. I am a KJV man, My studies have taken me to Masters degree, Masters in Ministry ( 1985), I'm not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but I have had 2 yrs. of Greek / 1 Hebrew, since 1985 when I received my degree, I have continued to study God's Word, and the different "garbage translations", we are not to be ignorant of Satan's devices. He has been attacking God's Word since Adam and Eve. See also Deu. 4:2 in the CSB "..not add or take away... it does what God says not to do !
ReplyDeleteRenderings and readings will always change, which Greek text, or which MS one prefers also change. Nevertheless, each public translation requires scrutiny, which itself involves doctrinal biases. There is always room for improvement, but most of all a translator should be a true Spirit-filled person, submitting as best he/she can to that still small inner voice. However one renders the Greek of John 1:18, one should KNOW that Jesus Christ is God (YHWH). period.
Delete