Since the Protestant Reformation (remember to celebrate it’s 500th anniversary this year!) and the invention of the printing press, translations of the Bible have abounded in multiple languages around the world. This fact is good news. That the Good News can be made accessible to as many tribes and nations by getting God’s word into the common languages of so many people is a blessing to the church fulfilling our Great Commission calling.
We especially have no dearth of English translations, and with these translations we have seen, at times, translation wars–King James only…the ESV of Reformed spirituality (I jest. Just needed another ‘example.’). I will admit that I have had and continue to have very definitive opinions on Bible translations. Back in my seminary days, I remember joking that I carried an NIV Bible because it fit more easily into my brief case (yes, I attended seminary in the waning days of the ‘kingdom kits’) since they had left so much out of it. Having a strong opinion has not kept me from switching which translation I have used as my primary reading, teaching, and preaching Bible over the years. I have used the NASB, NKJV, ESV,…and now the CSB.
When word first came out that LifeWay/Holman was coming out with a revised update to the HCSB, I was immediately intrigued. I had liked the HCSB but it had a few quirks I just could not handle. The inconsistent use of Yahweh was a big one. Anyway, once the buzz began to increase and the momentum built toward its publication, I found myself ready to use it. I now have it in my OliveTree app, in my Logos study software, the CSB Study Bible, and a treasured favorite–a CSB I received for being part of the SBC Pastors’ Conference 2017 team. I have been preaching from the CSB since April of this year.
BUT…is there a problem with the CSB? I was unaware of any controversy with this new translation until I got to Phoenix. While sitting in the convention hall I had two pastor friends back home in Kansas City message me about concerns that someone at the annual meeting was trying to promote a gender-inclusive or even transgender Bible. They told me they had read an article claiming the SBC was promoting a new Bible translation which was intentionally gender-inclusive. Since getting back home the same controversy has popped up on my LinkedIn wall disparaging Southern Baptist for doing this very thing.
All of the controversy stems from an Atlantic article penned by Jonathan Merritt and Garet Robinson in which they essentially accuse the CSB translators of being hypocritical, by what they did with the CSB translation, to what the convention had spoken against back in 2011 regarding the gender-neutral update to the NIV. At first-glance the accusations seem troubling. Upon further investigation I found excellent articles from Ed Stetzer who interviewed Trevin Wax, the translation team member responsible for promoting the CSB as Bible Publisher, and states the team’s approach to translation for the CSB; from Denny Burk who states what other members of the translation team stated regarding the biblically faithful approach the team took to utilizing the Colorado Spring Guidelines for translating gender-related pronouns. These guidelines have been used by many recent and faithful English translations of the Bible; and from Doctors Thomas Schreiner and David Allen, who each served as the Co-Chairs of the CSB Translation Oversight Committee and state that the translators chose to update to modern usage words like “brothers” to “brothers and sisters,” where context clearly indicate such was the intent of the original author, as well as keeping “man” in 2 Timothy 3:17 and “faithful men” in 2 Timothy 2:2 where the context indicates male pastoral leadership for local churches. Additional information is also available on the CSB website.
The only conclusion I can reach for the Atlantic article from Merritt and Robinson is the conclusion asserted by Schreiner and Allen: “Unfortunately, the article misrepresents the CSB and may be intending to create controversy at the Southern Baptist Convention meeting this week in Phoenix.” That being the case, I believe the article failed miserably.
I would encourage everyone to consider the CSB for use in your churches. Yes, it is one among many good choices which are out there. Let me share with you what has happened at my church since I have begun preaching from the CSB. I have had people ask me where they can get that translation for themselves…and they went out and bought it. Two of our children’s Sunday School classes have asked for that translation to be on hand in their classes. I just picked up the Children’s Big Picture Interactive Bible (CSB) for them to use. I also picked up pew Bibles for our church auditorium while at the annual meeting. LifeWay is running some really good deals on those right now.
I have often heard the best translation is the one you will actually read. If I can define the context of that statement to fit within a linguistically and doctrinally faithfull framework (for instance, avoid the Message and the NRSV like the plague!), then I am fine with that statement. In that regard, I really like the informal nature of the translation style. Truth in advertising though…it did catch me the first couple of times I read a contraction in the biblical text (I guess chalk that up to years spent with Turabian), but now that I am used to it, I really like that this translation reads more like the way people talk. I think that is the primary appeal of the CSB…faithful and true…accuracy and readability. With what I am seeing related to the new CSB, I would urge you on a personal level, and my fellow pastors on a shepherding level to seriously consider the implementation of the CSB in your lives and ministries.
Pretend all you want: We all know that you preach from The Message.
Don’t you mean that he gives “talks” from The Message?
I preach from the massage version. 😉
Bart, I have a message…never from “The Message.” 🙂
?
That was supposed to be a lol!
I am out of the habit of scheduling and I made a mistake here, putting this up too early. Since Bart and Adam have already insulted Scott, something I heartily endorse, I may pull Dave Choi’s sermon and reset it for a little later.
Not only am I rusty, I’m an old guy working with an accursed Apple product.
I just assumed that all Yankee fans give talks from The Message.
Dave Miller,
Apple
Are you saying that the iconic bitten apple symbol for Apple products is glorifying the sin in the garden- Therefore making apple satanic?
Dave,
Thanks for the mistaken posting in schedule….and no thanks for endorsing the harassment from the Cardinal and Oriole fans.
Dude, we who endorse historic, classic baseball as seen in the Bronx Bombers must stick together.
Jonathan Merritt’s article borders on journalistic malpractice and was designed to stir things up. It did not advance truth,
I may address Merritt more directly, but for now let me just echo the article – loving the CSB. And, for the record, they were a sponsor of the PC but I bought my own CSB bibles.
Dave,
Is the CSB what you use in the pulpit?
As of the start of my current sermon series, yes.
What is your current series on?
This is the same discussion that has gone on for years with a few differences. I have used the KJV since childhood. When teaching a class I always invite anyone to read any other version that seems to be different and we discuss.
My choice of version is based upon what to me seems to have the fewest problems. If anyone is interested I will list a series of tests or checks I use. We should also remember that Christians start with milk and hopefully mature to meat. What is a good Bible for a nursing Christian might not always be the best for a weaned Christian.
As a general comment I am sure that feminists will like the CSB, at least from very few passages I have looked at.
Mike Crane,
Seems like your last sentence is a dig at the CSB. Are you saying you concur with the authors of the Atlantic article?
Scott,
The first of the tests I use is Matthew 5:22 and the phrase “without cause”. But that passage also contains one of the brother and sisters which to me is questionable in that context, early in the ministry of Jesus. The context does not mean either family members or fellow believers in Christ. To me the more traditional nouns are a better fit in that context.
So yes it is, although I have not looked at the CSB version very much. But that does not mean I agree with the Atlantic article, I only read part of it.
But thank you for asking.
Thanks Scott for sharing that. Will get me a copy soon.
Surprise, Surprise…..Jonathan Merritt busting on something that is connected to the SBC….is anyone really surprised? Same song different verse from him.
Whether one uses the CSB or not – IMO, its hardly fair or reasonable to accuse the translators of “caving in” on gender neutrality because they translated a few passages that are obviously dealing with both males and females as “brothers and sisters”, instead of simply “Brothers”.
C’mon man!
I completely agree. Merritt is the proverbial moth to the flame when it comes to anything SBC.
I like The Message sometimes, as a paraphrase though. The re-wording often helps me see a passage with fresh eyes. I don’t always agree with it, and it should never be taken as authoritative, at least to me. But it can make a passage come alive. Also Eugene Peterson’s A Long Obedience in the Same Direction is a really helpful book. Came out a long time ago though, so I don’t know if his theology has gotten weird.
I think these translations are coming out faster than they can be assimilated.
Over ten years ago Lifeway came out with the New American Commentary [NAC] which, I believe, was slated to have 40 volumes and be based upon the New International Version. Here we are over a decade later and since the introduction of the NAC we have had two editions of the HCSB [each with different wording in selected passages] and now we have the CSB from Lifeway [more accurately from Lifeway’s publishing operation Holman].
What’s going to happen to the NAC? Is Lifeway ever going to publish the few remaining volumes of the set — including Psalms?
I don’t know if it is a good idea to tie a series of commentaries to a particular English Language translation. But I think when a publisher starts a commentary series based upon a particular translation they have made an implicit commitment to finish the series.
What’s next? A multivolume commentary set based upon the CSB?
I think these new versions are going overboard. But modern computerized composition and “typesetting” technology makes publishing printed books much less labor intensive. I put “typesetting” in quotes because, of course, printing does not involve physical lead or steel type any more.
My dad was a printer. I remember going into places where he worked. They had Linotype machines for setting columns of text. But they still used pieces of type for headlines which were manually set based upon a guy wearing a green eyeshade in front of a type case. I still have a couple of those type cases for Caslon Bold 16 point. My wife has them nailed to the wall and she puts thimbles in them from various places all over Europe and North America. [Well actually they are made in China — nothing like a thimble from the Zugspitze on the German / Austrian boarder that was actually made in China]
Roger
Question: How are these new translations going overboard? What are some examples?
I too am ready to have the complete NAC set. I really, really like all the volumes they have produced to this point. I also like the Holeman NT Comentary series. I wish a similar OT series would be produced.
Scott:
When I say that these new translations are “going overboard” I don’t mean there is anything wrong with the translation. I am not a Bible Scholar, I don’t know anything about the original Greek and Hebrew Text. I look at lexicons and for the NT the English text that accompanies the Greek in Nestle Aland.
When I say “going overboard” I mean that I don’t think there has been enough change in the corpus of Hebrew / Greek texts [such as texts recently discovered] in the last decade to warrant a new English Translation.
Isn’t Nestle Aland used as the NT text for the CSB? If so then what are the changes to the Nestle Aland editions in the last several years to warrant a different English language translation? If the Greek NT text is Nestle Aland for both translations, and if the target language [American English] has not changed in the last decade that much, then why a new translation?
All these translations cause too much confusion for the guy in the pew because whatever version the guy has it is likely to be different than the words on the screen and/or the text being used by the pastor.
Roger
Roger,
Although the Greek text for the CSB is NA28/USB5, I don’t think there were major textual issues between those and the previous Greek texts. Same holds true for the Hebrew which for the CSB is the BHS5. This matter, however, is not what I see as a primary value in developing new English translations.
In my opinion, the value of periodic (I’m not sure how frequent it should be) translation updates or new translations is in keeping God’s word clearly and immediately accessible to as many people as possible.
I’ve got to say, I’m with Roger on this.
New English translations do not come out because the populace is crying out for them. They do not come out because people are perishing for the lack of access to a good Bible translation.
Is there anyone, anywhere in this comment stream who, if asked a decade ago the question, “Can you recommend a good English translation of the Bible for me to read?” would have answered, “Somebody really needs to produce one, because none of the ones presently on the market quite measure up”?
But, accusations that the CSB is guilty of the same hijinks pulled in the TNIV? Balderdash.
Yeah, Bart….my cynical side wants to point out that there is also great market and financial benefit to new English translations being developed….namely royalties paid when the text is used in books and such.
And, dare I type this: especially (it would seem) with regard to Lifeway….
No payment of royalties by Lifeway in the development of their hugely and successfully marketed VBS and Sunday School Material…
But that is quite cynical I admit.
I also appreciate Scott’s point to about updating of language with some degree of frequency as words and their culturally understood meanings do change over time.
Regarding the “informal nature of the translation style”, I felt the same way when first reading the New English Translation (NET). I have at times described the NET’s style as “coloquial”.
I’ve got the CSB on my Olive Tree app, and I’m debating whether to use it for my next “through the whole bible” Olive Tree reading plan. However, having just finished a plan in HCSB, I’m inclined to go though another translation first.
Ben,
Yes as a read through the Bible plan I think the HCSB and CSB would be quite similar…though the CSB improvements would make that better. O:-)
In my humble opinion no need to translate “brother” as “brother and sister” as context and common sense dictates this means both men and women. But i have a bigger problem with translating “man” as “human,” “people,” and “ones.” This to me is gender PC.
Kenneth,
Why do you object to translating man as humanity? I think our word choice must ensure that we are clearly communicating to people. I am against removing all gender nouns or forcing the issue, but I see no reason to quibble about man being translated as humanity or mankind as it helps ensure that we are talking about the whole of humanity and not a singular man in those instances.
Grace and peace,
Chad Dougless
Chad,
I’m with you on that, and so is the CSB translation team.
Do you think the change in the use of “Yahweh” from the HCSB to the CSB, from inconsistent to not at all, was a good change? I was a bit disappointed with Dr. Schreiner’s explanation in this interview, as well as several other places where he basically said that the CSB decided to become aligned with other English translations. Why should I buy and read this Bible if it’s basically the same as the other Bibles on my shelf?
https://blog.logos.com/2017/01/interview-tom-schreiner-christian-standard-bible/
Stephen,
I think the use of Yahweh is too unusual for English translation. Novelty for novelty’s sake is not beneficial. If you have to explain it each time, it’s getting in the way. The inconsistent application of it in the HCSB only made it worse.
Thanks Scott. I agree with you in general that we should not translate for novelty’s sake. I notice that the CSB also changes “propitiation” to “atoning sacrifice.”
Discussing different preferences of Bible translations is challenging because each translation has strengths and weaknesses. The English language probably has more good translations of the Bible than any other language on earth. There are some languages that have no complete translation or the one they have is inadequate. I wish we would invest more money in translating the Scripture into languages that need translating then developing new English versions (or revisions of existing translations) to try to gain a greater market share. Of course, updates to make a version more accurate and helpful is a worthy investment and the CSB appears to be a very fine translation.
Just sitting over here with my ESV eating ? and not buying another denominationally produced translation. It’s not about accuracy it’s about money fellas. They got all they could out of the HCSB and now they needed to give you another reason to buy another Bible.
As far as Merritt’s article goes, it was poorly titled and poorly written- and I generally like Merritt’s articles. I read it and thought “This is much ado about nothing.” And about as far from “gender inclusive” as you can get.
The CSB is probably a fine translation. So was the HCSB. So is the ESV and the old NIV before Zondervan lost their minds. But for my money, the best Bible is the one you can read and understand.
…steps off soapbox…
Dang it my popcorn emoji didn’t come thru!!!
🙁
I agree with what you have to say about the translations issue. At least the ESV has a number of free downloads like in Esword.
Ryan,
To step on my own soap box…
Mr. Merritt has seldom written anything of value regarding the SBC. He is an ax grinder with a vindictive agenda. His article on the CSB is like so many other of his…set in the same historical time as events which he describes with intentionally manipulated and erroneous information.
…stepping back off soapbox.
As for your admiration of the ESV, I still utilize it, especially to maintain my Reformed soteriology card. 😉
I just chuckle about Southern Baptists celebrating the Reformations birthday. Thr Reformers would have persecuted us, and maybe even would have tied a millstone atound our necks and thrown us into a river.
David
Yeah, but we’d have some pretty stern reactions to those slave-supporting founders of the SBC too (though we still appreciate the things they were right about).
Correction: “slavery-supporting founders”
I had almost forgotten about them evil old slavery supporting men. Does the CSB still contain the commands for slaves?
Just wondering …
Martin Luther sure would have. Or put us to the sword as he did entire villages. #throwdown
Calvin was but one of the reformers – I mean really – is the cal disdain so deep that one can’t even appreciate the Solas for example?
I mean come on! Amazing.
Dave Worley,
I know you are not cal – and you rarely miss a chnace to take a shot at cals – 😉 but come on – you poo poo the reformation? Really?
There would be no Baptists (southern or otherwise) without it – you do know that, right?
Tarheel,
Only a prophet would know what would have happened without John Calvin. I am sure that all Calvinists will agree that the Lord would have used someone else …
I’ll keep my Extra Sovereign Version as my primary preaching text, but I have to say the CSB is a wonderful translation. I so enjoyed using it during the pastors conference for the very first time. I’m definitely going to be reading through it in detail devotionally starting in August.
“Extra Sovereign Version”! LOL
Steve in Birmingham makes a good point. Publishers in the USA produce yet another translation, while 2,000 languages still lack any part of the Scriptures, and many other languages have only a portion of the Bible. As to the HCSB, now the CSB, back in the day Lifeway was printing the NIV in its Sunday school literature. That cost a lot of money. They did a cost analysis and discovered that it would be cheaper to publish their own Bible, thus the HCSB was born. When I was a student at Southwestern Seminary, Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton University came to campus to deliver some lectures. He edited the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament and its apparatus. In an open forum someone asked him which English translation was the best. He laughed. Then he said that any translation produced by a committee of competent scholars would be fine. I know that Steve Gaines preaches from the NASB, and he often quotes from the New Living Translation (NLT). My pastor preaches from the New King James, but we have the NIV in the pews. I’m guessing those NIVs are left over from a previous pastor.
Mark,
I don’t think this has to be an either/or. We have been and are doing both. Could we do better in working on and improving other language translations? Yes. This does not preclude us, however, from continuing to develop an English translation(s) commiserate with the common usage of the language in our day. To make God’s word accessible in any and all languages must be our goal.
The scenario you describe in the latter part of your comment is why I moved our church to put ESV pew Bibles in our auditorium a year or so after I got here. I wanted guests who came without a Bible to be able to pick one up from the back of the pew and be reading what I was reading. Now switching to CSB, that’s what we just put in our auditorium.
Similarly, the NET was intended, in part, to deal with legal issues that copyright has for quoting scripture in large studies:
“The NET Bible project was commissioned to create a faithful Bible translation that could be placed on the Internet, downloaded for free, and used around the world for ministry.” – from the NET Bible, Preface to the First Edition (for more details, see said preface, available online).
The issue wasn’t that there wasn’t a good enough translation available, the issue was that copyright issues were getting in the way of ministry.
I agree with you, Scott, that the Bibles in the pew racks should match the translation the pastor uses. Speaking of pew racks, how many churches still have hymnals in their racks?
Ours does!
I’m not against the praise choruses, but I do miss singing hymns.
Agreed Mark.
It is my strong belief that a good worship music director/pastor leader can both introduce theologically rich new music to congregation, instrumentalists and vocalists while not abandoning the theologically rich timeless and treasured hymns of the past.
Well said, Tarheel, or rather, well written.
Why don’t you like the NRSV?
The NRSV is truly a gender-inclusive, gender neutral translation. The article to which I linked by Denny Burke contains a cogent example…
Postscript: For readers unfamiliar with this debate, I thought it might be helpful to illustrate the kinds of “gender-inclusive” renderings that the Colorado Springs Guidelines were designed to eliminate. For example, the NRSV is a gender-inclusive revision of the RSV. Consider the NRSV’s gender-inclusive revision of 1 Timothy 3:2:
RSV: Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…
NRSV: Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once…
The RSV rightly renders the underlying Greek term as “husband” (Gk. andra). The gender-inclusive NRSV mutes the fact that Paul is not talking about married people in general but about a “husband” in particular. By eliminating the clear masculine meaning of the underlying Greek, the NRSV obscures the fact that Paul intends for pastors to be qualified men.
Gender-inclusive translations of scripture routinely do this kind of thing. They obscure masculine oriented details of the source text. By following the Colorado Springs Guidelines, the CSB translators have taken pains to avoid this kind of thing. For Merritt and Robinson to suggest otherwise is to misrepresent the CSB.
Thanks, Scott.
I was wondering whether you had NRSV concerns apart from gender-inclusiveness, since you said to avoid it like the plague, and grouped it with The Message.
Josh,
The gender usage is theologically significant. Not only in the example I quoted from Burke’s article, but also in another area like Isaiah 7:14…
CSB: Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign: See, the virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
ESV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
NRSV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Deliberately broadening the translation of the Hebrew alma in this verse opens up a significant theological nightmare.
I didn’t mean to imply that neutering the text isn’t theologically significant.
I really thought you would have to have some altogether different concern with the NRSV to pair it with The Message, which distorts the text in myriad ways besides and beyond taking liberties with the pronouns.
Josh,
Ok, I understand now. No problem.
I put them both together since they both create problems for clear understanding by the way they treat the text in translation. I could add a further one, the Amplified Bible, which often would have the reader read every possible translation of key words in every occurrence of the word any time it appears in the biblical text. If you haven’t been blessed by the AMP, don’t. 😀