One of the questions I occasionally get asked is “Which translation of the Bible is the best?” Now, this question is one that doesn’t have an answer. Ideally, people would learn Greek and Hebrew, but that isn’t realistic for everyone.
So we are forced to make a choice, to trust a particular translation committee and the decisions they have made.
Because of that, I encourage Christians to own a couple of different translations and to read through the Bible in each translation over the course of their lives. This helps to mitigate any problems that any particular translation has, by exposing them to other translations that do not have these same problems.
My usual go-to translations are the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the 1984 New International Version (NIV84),[ref]It can sometimes be difficult to find the 1984 edition. The 2011 edition is not terrible, but it has a tendency to flatten out gendered language, which less accurately represents the original text.[/ref] and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). Recently, Broadman and Holman have revised the HCSB and replaced it with the Christian Standard Bible (CSB).
In order to assess if I should continue to recommend it, I have been working my way through the translation as part of my daily devotional reading. Today I wanted to offer a few thoughts on the translation.
The Good
The CSB has so far proved to be a readable and pleasant translation. Their word choices reflect an appropriate reading level, and they are clearly intended to try to make grammar, idiomatic language, and other features of language accessible to the masses. They work hard to avoid any linguistic challenges that might inhibit someone from reading the Scriptures, which is commendable. They also do a good job of formatting the text to indicate changes in genre between prose and poetry, while at the same time not interrupting the flow of the text unnecessarily. Overall, it is a faithful translation of the Scripture that I would have no hesitancy using or recommending.
The Bad
There are, however, several issues in translation that I want to talk about. These things do not rise to the level of saying not to use this translation, but the reader should be aware of them.
Inconsistency in Translation
Now, anyone who has worked on any kind of translation work —and especially translation from one language group to another, like from Semitic languages to English— understands that there is not usually a simple 1-1 correlation between words. Often a single word in Hebrew has multiple possible translations in English. Because of this, it is important to understand the intended semantic meaning and to translate accordingly. However, we also acknowledge that it is not the concept broadly that are inspired by God, but the very words and word order.
This presents a challenge for the translator, and there is no perfect answer. However, my personal take is that wherever possible, we should seek to represent Hebrew or Greek words with a single English word. This is important linguistically, but also because the flow of ideas throughout the Scriptures is often traced by repeated use of a single word or word group. When we unnecessarily translate a single word in an unjustified plurality of ways, the English reader does not see this movement of thought.
The starkest example of this problem in the CSB is their inconsistent treatment of the Hebrew word מִצְרַ֫יִם. This word is sometimes transliterated by the CSB as Mizraim (Genesis 10:6, 13, 50:11 [as part of a compound word], 1 Chronicles 1:8, 11), but is more often translated as Egypt or Egyptians. It appears as though the distinction they make is that they use the transliteration as Mizraim when it refers to the person from whom the nation was named, and the word Egypt when referring to the nation or peoples that descend from him. In Genesis 50:11, they translate the word in two different ways!
When the Canaanite inhabitants of the land saw the mourning at the threshing floor of Atad, they said, “This is a solemn mourning on the part of the Egyptians.” Therefore the place is named Abel-mizraim. It is across the Jordan.
However, they do not follow this principle consistently. They always transliterate the Hebrew word כּוּשׁ as Cush, regardless of if the word refers to a geographical region, or to the person from whom that region was named.
This may not seem like a problem, except that there is a thematic connection between the so-called Table of Nations in Genesis 10, and the biblical theological theme of the Seed of the Serpent and its opposition to the Seed of the Woman. Many of the nations which descend from Noah’s son Ham would become Israel’s greatest and most persistent enemies (Including Egypt, Canaan, Philistia). Similarly, in the line of Shem, we not only have Abraham and thus Israel itself, but we also see that one of the nations descending from Shem was Uz, where Job resides. The conflict between Shem and Ham is used thematically in the text to carry the promise that God would deliver his people from the power of the serpent through the text. The fact that Mizraim where they were just delivered from, and Canaan where they would be soon battling to claim is thematically connected to the fact that Mizraim and Canaan were both descendants of Ham. The fact that just as God’s power delivered them from the land of Mizraim and would soon deliver them into the land of Canaan flows naturally from this connection. The CSB obscures this theological line of development from English readers, which would have been completely clear to the original audience of the text.
Strange Translation Choices
As someone who has made a regular practice of reading multiple translations, there are some things which stick out to me almost instinctively. Once I started digging into some of them, my concerns started to be validated.
The example I want to highlight here is Psalm 8:5. The CSB here translates this way
You made him little less than God and crowned him with glory and honor.
Now, the Hebrew word which stands behind the word God here is elohim. As the reader is probably aware, this word can be variously translated as God, gods, heavenly beings, angels, etc. Although Michael Heiser goes a little crazy with this concept, the generally refers to spiritual beings which primarily inhabit the spiritual realm. The context has to be our clue. Unfortunately… the context of Psalm 8 doesn’t really give us a lot of help. In the Old Testament, we know that this word refers to the one God of Israel in instances where a singular verb or adjective describes it. That isn’t the case here.
So where else may we go for help?
One place is the Septuagint (LXX). The LXX is a translation of the Old Testament which was produced in Alexandria in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC. It was produced by Jewish scholars living in Greek-speaking Egypt, who were experts in both Greek and ancient Hebrew. chose to translate this word as angels (ἀγγέλους). There could be three main reasons why this is the case.
- The LXX translators were working off a no-longer-extant manuscript which had the Hebrew word for referring to angels
- The LXX translators interpreted the word elohim here to refer to angels and were correct
- The LXX translators interpret the word elohim here to refer to angels and were not correct
Now, my assumption is that the CSB committee has opted to prefer the Masoretic Text (MT) over the LXX. This is typical, and in general, I favor this approach. After all, it is the Hebrew text which is inspired, not the Greek translation of it. Further, the most common use of elohim in the OT is to refer to the one God of Israel, so absent any contextual reasons not to translate it in another way this is a good decision.
But wait, there’s more.
We also can go to the New Testament text. The author of Hebrews appeals to this text as a prophetic reference to the incarnation of Jesus Christ uses it to justify that Christ was both eternally God, and became human in the incarnation. The CSB renders Hebrews 2:7 this way
You made him lower than the angels for a short time
The author of Hebrews follows the LXX rendering of the word elohim here as angels (ἀγγέλους). Now, the common understanding is that the author of the book of Hebrews here is using the LXX, and I think that is probably right.[ref]Although it is possible that the author of Hebrews had a Hebrew text in front of him which had the Hebrew word for angels in this passage, it is so unlikely that it is barely worth noting[/ref]
This use of the LXX here confirms for us that the proper way to understand elohim in Psalm 8 is as a reference to a plurality of spiritual beings which operate primarily in the spiritual realm, and not as a reference to the one God of Israel.
While I think that this proves that this text was simply translated wrong, and it creates a situation where the Holy Spirit inspired the author of Hebrews to replicate an erroneous translation… it also does theological damage. The point of Hebrews two is to say that Psalm 8 is a prophetic Psalm which points forward to the incarnation. If the CSB understanding of Psalm 8 is correct, instead of understanding that God the Son was for a time made lower than the angels (in his estate of humiliation), it seems to imply a kind of kenotic emptying of God the Son so that he was no longer God but instead was lower than God.
Over Translation
Over translation is something that happens most often when an idiomatic expression is interpreted into a recipient language, rather than actually translated. Sometimes this is necessary, but more often than not it is better to handle this with a footnote.
For example, if I were to say “I’m feeling a bit blue today,” I am using an English idiom to express that I am sad or depressed. If I were translating this to Spanish, I probably wouldn’t translate it directly. I’m guessing since I don’t know Spanish, but most likely the idiom does not carry over.
Similarly, there are expressions in ancient languages which are difficult to translate, and direct translation may cause confusion. The Greek idiom for feeling discouraged is “I am small of heart.” I wouldn’t want someone to send me to a Cardiologist!
However, because we affirm not only that concepts are translated, but the very words and grammar themselves, it is important to attempt to preserve the actual words of Scripture when we translate. This sometimes leads to an unclear and clunky translation.[ref]Incidentally this is one of the critiques I have of the NASB[/ref]
The primary example and one that is commonly understood is found in Genesis 4:1
The man was intimate with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. She said, “I have had a male child with the LORD’s help.”
The word in Hebrew is יָדַע and it refers to a familiar knowledge of a person or thing. Here, it is used idiomatically to refer to the sexual union between a man his wife. So, what has happened here is the translators have interpreted the word and then translated the concept that they believe (correctly) stands behind that word. However, the word in Hebrew is used intentionally. There are Hebrew words which indicate sexual union that could have been used. Instead, Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, used a word that refers to the intimate personal knowledge that a man has with his wife during the sexual union.
While this may seem nit-picky, we’re talking about the word of God here. Idioms are difficult to translate, and while I can respect the desire not to confuse readers… I think it is much more theologically consistent with the commitment to verbal plenary inspiration which they affirm in the preface to the translation.[ref]The merits of [the Formal Equivalence] approach include its consistency with the conviction that the Holy Spirit did inspire the very words of Scripture in the original manuscripts. (vii)[/ref]
Only Begotten?
Now, this is actually the most significant, but it probably takes up too much time for an already too long article.
The CSB follows the standard modern understanding of the Greek word μονογενής, which has historically been understood to refer to the eternal generation of the Son in the Gospel of John. Rather than translate this as “Only-begotten”, they preserve the modern rendering of “one and only.”
This is based on a faulty understanding of the etymology of μονογενής and has been a significant cause of the degredation of the orthodox understanding of the Trinity by many modern evangelicals.[ref]See Irons, Charles Lee. “A Lexical Defense of the Johannine “Only Begotten”.” Retrieving Eternal Generation. Ed. Fred Sanders and Scott Swain. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017. 98-116.[/ref]
Wrapping it All Up
As I said in my opening thoughts, I think that overall the CSB is a decent translation. Although I think the issues I have pointed out (there are others, but this is a blog article… not a dissertation) are significant and bear addressing in future revisions, they do not rise to the level of distorting the text or failing to be a proper translation. I do, however, think that the ESV and NASB still do a better job on the whole, and would thus recommend using those translations over the CSB as a primary option.