Why I switched to CSB from the NIV as my primary preaching and teaching translation:
Short explanation
In short, it's a modern language translation with a high level of accuracy and a good reputation.
Medium explanation
It is just as accurate (if not more so) than the translation I was using before, just as vernacular, but a lot less baggage/stigma—plus, a lot of our members are using it anyway.
Long explanation
I recently switched my main preaching and teaching translation to the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). Any time a pastor or church switches from one translation to another, it could be fodder for controversy. So let me explain my reasons. (If you're wondering which translation I switched from, I’ll get to that in a moment.)
First, a clarification. I’m not of the opinion that there’s one “best” translation. We have scores of good ones like NASB, ESV, NET, and even the NLT (yes, I know the Message is not really a translation).
Why not one best translation?
For one, English is a moving target (which is why I can’t endorse the KJV as a helpful translation anymore), changing as time progresses. Did you use "thees" and "thous" the last time you ordered food at a restaurant? I didn't think so. While there's legitimate debate about how much English has changed, you have to admit that English has changed to some degree over the past few centuries. It's hard to declare one translation the G.O.A.T., like quarterback Tom Brady, when the game keeps changing.
Also, scholarship makes minor advances too, like Jesus being born in a “guest room” instead of an “inn”—that is, hotel—as many used to think (Luke 2:7). Translating from one language to another is not like math, where there's only one right answer. Different translations help you look at the diamond from another angle. So there’s not one translation that’s superior to all the others.
As linguist and Bible translator David Brunn once put it in an interview, “‘What’s the best translation?’ Tell me which verse, then I’ll tell you what I think the best translation is for that verse!” (See Working for the Word Podcast).
We have an embarrassment of translational riches at our disposal, as Mark Ward says. You like the ESV? Fantastic. Big fan of the NASB? More power to ya. Has the NIV been your sweet spot for the decades? Good for you.
It's important to remember that any doctrinal point can be made from nearly any translation. There’s a reason why there’s no such thing as denominational translations—the Baptists use this one, the Presbyterians use that one, and the Methodists use something different altogether (see Randy Leedy's Logos Blog article called "Should the Differences in Biblical Manuscripts Scare Christians?"). The evangelical translations at our disposal are all incredibly solid. You can trust them.
Ok, so why the CSB?
1. Accuracy:
It is an accurate English translation. That’s the biggest one, right? But, as I just said, it’s not like the other ones are bad. Each of the evangelical translations are good enough for preaching and teaching—yes, even the NIV. Since you may be wondering how that can be, you should know I used to preach from the NIV. I did it for years at our church without having to wince each time I opened the book. I actually enjoyed it, believe it or not. The CSB a wonderfully faithful English translation among many others. It does a fantastic job with textual criticism and lexicography, and does an excellent job with footnotes, I may add.
2. Vernacularity or Intelligibility:
It is a modern English translation, suitable for even children or those who speak English as a second language. I will grant that it has less of a Tyndale/King James feel than the ESV or NKJV, or even the NIV or NASB. But I would argue the power of the Bible is not in its traditional prose or artistic poetry, it’s in the truth of the Word itself. If the message is able to be communicated clearly to those of all ages and backgrounds, then that’s a win in my book. The CSB does that.
3. Commonality:
For one, it's becoming more and more commonly used translation. It's consistently in the top 6 translations for the last several years according to the ECPA best selling translations ranking. Also, more practically, many of our church people are already using it. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say.
4. Acceptability:
It is a translation that has a good reputation. It has made some wise translational decisions, such as its mild use of inclusivity. Yet I admit it helps that other translations took one for the team by introducing aspects that were controversial at the time. Overall, the CSB has a good reputation, albeit that it’s not as popular as many other translations like the NIV, NLT, and ESV.
5. Supportability:
It is as translation I want to support by my use of it. Publishers have to make money if they’re going to continue to publish a translation. If that sounds odd to you, consider that if people don’t buy a translation, it will be buried in the translation graveyard. (Surely that's a real place, right?) From what I hear, the ESV almost didn’t make it out of the gate to due to lacking enough financial backing. Even the ubiquitous NIV had a similar problem decades ago. Bible publishing is a tough business, apparently. I like getting behind an evangelical publisher like Holman (interestingly, the oldest Bible publisher in North America), in hopes that the CSB is a helpful and useful translation for many years and decades to come.
6. Immunity (for lack of a better word):
There are KJV-only people out there, and there are even—believe it or not—NASB-only and ESV-only people out there—at least functionally (no pun intended). DA Carson calls it "linguistic conservatism." I don't know of anyone who could be described, even functionally, as CSB only or even NIV-only, but maybe there's someone like this out there. In fact, even people who love the CSB don't think it's the greatest translation since the Sliced Bread Translation (note: not real translation). Using the CSB is an odd and unexpected kind of immunity against such often intense, sometimes scary, and, sadly, divisive people.
7. Footnote...ity:
Formal equivalent translations most often give the formal equivalent rendering of that word or phrase, but if it's hard to understand, they give no help as to what that phrase might mean. On the other hand, translations on the functional side of the equivalency scale often don't tend to tell you what the more formal rendering is (do they assume we don't care?). Then there's the NET Bible which overwhelms you with 40,000 translators notes! The CSB does a good job balancing what the reader needs to know. They give the formal rendering if at all possible, but if not possible they'll give a functional rendering, often with a footnote about the formal translation.
8. Familiarity:
Imagine you visit a church with a NASB in your hand, not knowing which translation the preacher is using, but it's the CSB. Will you feel like he's reading something completely out in left field compared to what you have in your lap? Not likely. The same goes for the ESV and NIV. The CSB sounds familiar enough that it still feels like Bible, even though the wording is slightly different (and even though it's less artistic).
That’s not to say the CSB is perfect. I won’t get into its weaknesses right now, but let’s just say that I think other translations have their strengths too, and CSB might not be as strong in those areas. There are pros and cons with every translation, of course.
The NIV is still my personal favorite for reading. I could preach from it in good conscience. I've also enjoyed the BSB recently. But as for my preaching and teaching at my church, I’m enjoying using the CSB so far and hope to continue using it for many years.
But if you'd like to hear more about Bible translations, I did a 15 or so part series for our adult Sunday school class that you can watch/listen to here.
Comments