CSB for Preaching and Teaching?

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Hi All,

We haven't had a good translation thread in a little while so I figured it was time:

I've been exploring the CSB lately, and I'm curious if anyone has any experience preaching and teaching from it? I'm familiar, I think, with all of the major points of discussion about the translation, but I'm wondering how it feels for preaching and teaching in comparison to translations like the ESV or NASB. Those more formal-equivalence translations are, as we know, favored for expository preaching and in-depth teaching because of the way they provide a window into the details of the text. When teaching from the CSB, does the amount of work which one must do to accurately convey the details of the text change dramatically? Does it feel quite similar to those other translations, with the added bonus of its smoother language?

TIA for your insights!

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I realize it may simply be that no one here has preached or taught with this translation, but I'm going to try bumping this thread once just in case.

 

[Jake]

Interested to hear more -- it has become my favorite daily reading Bible. Although I like it more in narratives than poetic portions, I've gotten used to it everywhere. I tend to go for the ESV as primary when I teach as it is our pulpit Bible, but sometimes I'll quote from the CSB when it renders a passage more clearly.

 

[iainduguid]

Full disclosure: I'm not a neutral evaluator, since I was one of the original translators of the HCSB and am on the oversight committee that revised it to become the CSB.

I started out preaching from the NIV (84) in the 1980's and 90's; I switched to the ESV in the early 2000's, and then to the CSB in 2015. Now I'm interim pastor in a church that uses the NIV 2011, so I've come full circle.

None of them are "problematic" to preach from; you just end up saying different things as a preacher. When I preach in a KJV church, I find myself frequently saying "or as we would say nowadays [fill in modern translation here]"; when I preach from the NIV, I find myself saying more often "now in the Greek/Hebrew this is more literally [fill in the blank]"; I find that for me, both the ESV and CSB hit the sweet spot of being more literal than the NIV, and they therefore cut down the need to say that as often. The ESV has for me the drawback of being a Bible meant to sound like the Bible (Leland Ryken's influence), which means words like "Behold" and a more elevated style that doesn't always match the original Greek and Hebrew. On the other hand, the NASB goes too far to try to preserve the language and forms of the original language; this is helpful, perhaps, to people who know Greek and Hebrew, but not so helpful to the average reader.

If I were the permanent pastor of the church I'm currently preaching at, I'd be campaigning for a switch. I'd prefer the CSB in an ideal world, but the Reformed world has been largely captured by the ESV, in part because Crossway has put out a lot of great Reformed resources that use it, where the CSB has very little. To take an obvious example, The ESV Study Bible (and. even better, the Reformation Study Bible) are far superior to the CSB Study Bible from a Reformed perspective; the latter has a few Reformed contributors, including myself, but it isn't a Reformed Study Bible. So I'd be very comfortable switching to the ESV. On the other hand, if there were to be a strong pushback from people who love the NIV, I wouldn't lose any sleep over staying with it. I'm really preaching from the Greek and the Hebrew, and I can explain where they differ, when I have to (and you don't always have to, even when a translation isn't perfect - and no translation is).

PS one noticeable difference between the translations is in terms of paragraph length and word complexity. The NIV has the shortest paragraphs, while the ESV has the longest. The result of their different styles is that the NIV requires significantly less reading proficiency than the ESV. If I was still pastoring in my first church, in an area of government funded housing with half my congregation being street kids, I'd definitely still be using the NIV.

I hope that helps.

 

[Polanus1561]

It depends if your church comes from the KJV/NKJV/ESV school of more Tyndale language. This affects any subjective feelings towards a CSB change. Psalm 23:1 saying "I have all I need" can be jarring for some

 

[yeutter]

The only English language Bible my wife used prior to coming to the United States in 2010, was the HCSB. That was the Bible used by the English language congregation at Calvary Baptist Church in Bangkok. She knew the HCSB translation did not match up exactly with the Judson's Burmese Bible and Ola Hanson's Jingpo translation. She sometimes heard English language preachers qualifying the HCSB text by saying "now in the original Greek this is more literally [fill in the blank]".

When she came to the United States and started attending an Anglican Church she recognized that the translation in the Authorized Version lined up closely with her Burmese and Jingpo Bibles than the HCSB did. But she complained the Authorized version was is some places difficult to understand. I tried to get her to use the 1901 ASV, as an alternative to the KJV and eventually got her an ESV. She used the ESV until she could truly grasp and master King James English.

Once she asked me why Calvary Baptist Church Bangkok used the HCSB instead of the ESV. Then she answered the question herself, by saying that maybe it was because the HCSB may be easier to understand for a person whose native language is not English than the ESV.

Now she is trying to teach herself Greek.

Now she loves and defends the English language translation found in the Authorized Version.

She is impressed with how exactly aligned the Trinitarian Bible Society's Nepali language Bible lines up with the Authorized version.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Full disclosure: I'm not a neutral evaluator, since I was one of the original translators of the HCSB and am on the oversight committee that revised it to become the CSB.

I started out preaching from the NIV (84) in the 1980's and 90's; I switched to the ESV in the early 2000's, and then to the CSB in 2015. Now I'm interim pastor in a church that uses the NIV 2011, so I've come full circle.

None of them are "problematic" to preach from; you just end up saying different things as a preacher. When I preach in a KJV church, I find myself frequently saying "or as we would say nowadays [fill in modern translation here]"; when I preach from the NIV, I find myself saying more often "now in the Greek/Hebrew this is more literally [fill in the blank]"; I find that for me, both the ESV and CSB hit the sweet spot of being more literal than the NIV, and they therefore cut down the need to say that as often. The ESV has for me the drawback of being a Bible meant to sound like the Bible (Leland Ryken's influence), which means words like "Behold" and a more elevated style that doesn't always match the original Greek and Hebrew. On the other hand, the NASB goes too far to try to preserve the language and forms of the original language; this is helpful, perhaps, to people who know Greek and Hebrew, but not so helpful to the average reader.

If I were the permanent pastor of the church I'm currently preaching at, I'd be campaigning for a switch. I'd prefer the CSB in an ideal world, but the Reformed world has been largely captured by the ESV, in part because Crossway has put out a lot of great Reformed resources that use it, where the CSB has very little. To take an obvious example, The ESV Study Bible (and. even better, the Reformation Study Bible) are far superior to the CSB Study Bible from a Reformed perspective; the latter has a few Reformed contributors, including myself, but it isn't a Reformed Study Bible. So I'd be very comfortable switching to the ESV. On the other hand, if there were to be a strong pushback from people who love the NIV, I wouldn't lose any sleep over staying with it. I'm really preaching from the Greek and the Hebrew, and I can explain where they differ, when I have to (and you don't always have to, even when a translation isn't perfect - and no translation is).

PS one noticeable difference between the translations is in terms of paragraph length and word complexity. The NIV has the shortest paragraphs, while the ESV has the longest. The result of their different styles is that the NIV requires significantly less reading proficiency than the ESV. If I was still pastoring in my first church, in an area of government funded housing with half my congregation being street kids, I'd definitely still be using the NIV.

I hope that helps.

Dr. Duguid,

Thank you, this is indeed very helpful. First and foremost this statement coming from someone as qualified as yourself puts me at ease a good bit about this issue in general. I do think you point out something really important with your note about the ESV trying to "sound like the Bible" causing unnecessary difficulty (although it may also contribute to its beauty at times). I have a friend who became a believer as an adult and, despite being both a voracious reader and a doctoral student at the time, struggled with the ESV and ended up switching to the NIV. Currently I teach the Bible to high schoolers and they are not infrequently tripped up by the way the ESV puts things.

Obviously, there is a balancing act with translation, but overall it seems like the biggest differentiating factor between the two isn't how "literal" they are, but as you noted, the fact that the ESV is styled to use more traditional language. I'm strongly considering making the CSB my go-to for teaching students and adults where applicable.

Hopefully more reformed resources will come out over time as more people in our world use the CSB!

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

It depends if your church comes from the KJV/NKJV/ESV school of more Tyndale language. This affects any subjective feelings towards a CSB change. Psalm 23:1 saying "I have all I need" can be jarring for some

I definitely agree it is jarring at times when you first read it, but the more I read it the more convinced I am that apart from those occasional aesthetic considerations it seems to do an amazing job getting the meaning of the text across.

 

[Jake]

I definitely agree it is jarring at times when you first read it, but the more I read it the more convinced I am that apart from those occasional aesthetic considerations it seems to do an amazing job getting the meaning of the text across.

What made me first appreciate the HSCSB and then the CSB is that it removes a lot of the "biblish" language and makes you re-consider what is said. The classic is John 3:16, where "so" in the KJV and its descendants is often misunderstood.

 

[Shadow Forge]

In my humble opinion, if a church doesn't preach from a formal translation, it has deficiencies. The CSB does sit right on the line between formal and dynamic in which many traditional pastors won't touch it. The CSB tends to draw more of the younger crowd mostly due in part to the lack of knowledge of the English language.. i.e. native English speakers.

 

[jwithnell]

As a pew dweller, I simply trust that my pastor will do a good job translating the text out of the original languages as he prepares the sermon. It doesn't matter much if the pew Bibles are NIV or if I'm reading my NASB. I note where there are translation difficulties so I don't miss it the next time I'm reading that portion of the Scriptures.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

As a pew dweller, I simply trust that my pastor will do a good job translating the text out of the original languages as he prepares the sermon. It doesn't matter much if the pew Bibles are NIV or if I'm reading my NASB. I note where there are translation difficulties so I don't miss it the next time I'm reading that portion of the Scriptures.

If Dr Duguid were my pastor I would trust him to do a good job with the original languages.
I don't have the same confidence in the linguistic abilities of the majority of pastors though, even in NAPARC churches.
Some have admitted to me that they cannot pick up a Bible in Greek or Hebrew and understand it, and I suspect it's the case with many others.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

If Dr Duguid were my pastor I would trust him to do a good job with the original languages.
I don't have the same confidence in the linguistic abilities of the majority of pastors though, even in NAPARC churches.
Some have admitted to me that they cannot pick up a Bible in Greek or Hebrew and understand it, and I suspect it's the case with many others.

Don't presbytery exams in the PCA and OPC include proficiency in Greek and Hebriew?

 

[LanceJ]

Don't presbytery exams in the PCA and OPC include proficiency in Greek and Hebriew?

Sadly, studying for those proficiency exams is often the last time many of those pastors interact with Greek and Hebrew in any meaningful way.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Don't presbytery exams in the PCA and OPC include proficiency in Greek and Hebriew?

Indeed. Perhaps the rigor of the exams needs to be increased. Something is clearly wrong here.

 

[iainduguid]

Regrettably, the PCA and ARP only require proof that a candidate has passed courses in Greek and Hebrew, not attained, let alone retained, proficiency.

There is a fascinating comparison between Marty Lloyd Jones and Gresham Machen on the importance of the Biblical languages. Both founded seminaries and in their inaugural addresses, addressed the important topics each institution proposed to focus on (Lloyd Jones clearly has Machen's address in view in his own talk). Machen insisted that Biblical languages were absolutely essential; Lloyd Jones downplayed their importance in favor of Church History, especially the history of revivals. Great men tend to found seminaries in their own image, for better or worse.

 

[LanceJ]

Indeed. Perhaps the rigor of the exams needs to be increased. Something is clearly wrong here.

I'm just fine with how rigorous my Greek and Hebrew exams were, thank you very much

 

[TheInquirer]

Those who have preached know that linguistic skill only gets you so far. I would rather consult experts that have devoted their entire lives to the languages than trust in my own translation abilities. There are far more important skills to train in a preacher and you can only do so much in 3 years. Being a language expert is not a silver bullet in understanding and ministering God’s word.

 

[Solparvus]

Indeed. Perhaps the rigor of the exams needs to be increased. Something is clearly wrong here.

Just in case any needs help in formulating New Years resolutions... from the Westminster Form of Presbyterial Government for ordination:

“(2.) He shall be examined touching his skill in the original tongues, and his trial to be made by reading the Hebrew and Greek Testaments, and rendering some portion of some into Latin; and if he be defective in them, inquiry shall be made more strictly after his other learning, and whether he hath skill in logic and philosophy."

“(5.) He shall also, within a competent time, frame a discourse in Latin, upon such a common-place or controversy in divinity as shall be assigned to him, and exhibit to the presbytery such theses as express the sum thereof, and maintain a dispute upon them."

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Those who have preached know that linguistic skill only gets you so far. I would rather consult experts that have devoted their entire lives to the languages than trust in my own translation abilities. There are far more important skills to train in a preacher and you can only do so much in 3 years. Being a language expert is not a silver bullet in understanding and ministering God’s word.

Limiting a pastor's training to 3 years was probably the πρωτη αμαρτια.
In the 17th century the undergraduate curriculum was an important part of a pastor's training, and not just the master's curriculum. So the student would finish their undergraduate studied proficient in Latin, logic, and the basics at least of systematic theology.
Today we don't have the resources for men to study for many years at the expense of the church, but the least we could do is require further study after initial ordination in order to arrive at the level of education pastors once had after some time in the ministry.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Indeed. Perhaps the rigor of the exams needs to be increased. Something is clearly wrong here.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I do see great value in pastors being competent in the original languages, and it is something I aspire to myself; having completed all of my seminary Greek by big goal this year is to read through the entire Greek New Testament.

On the other hand, even with current educational standards seminary is often a huge barrier for people from lower socio-economic classes. I know of some men in the PCA working in inner-city ministry who said they basically see no way forward to get men from the inner-city serving in ordained ministry unless they can waive the language requirements. In reference to Dr. Duguid's post, I suppose I have both an MLJ and a Machen with me on this issue.

On the primary issue of this post, the CSB, I've been reading it for the last several weeks and am now reading it in conjunction with my reading of the GNT and have found it to be really good so far! I am planning to begin using it in my own teaching ministry this semester.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I do see great value in pastors being competent in the original languages, and it is something I aspire to myself; having completed all of my seminary Greek by big goal this year is to read through the entire Greek New Testament.

On the other hand, even with current educational standards seminary is often a huge barrier for people from lower socio-economic classes. I know of some men in the PCA working in inner-city ministry who said they basically see no way forward to get men from the inner-city serving in ordained ministry unless they can waive the language requirements. In reference to Dr. Duguid's post, I suppose I have both an MLJ and a Machen with me on this issue.

On the primary issue of this post, the CSB, I've been reading it for the last several weeks and am now reading it in conjunction with my reading of the GNT and have found it to be really good so far! I am planning to begin using it in my own teaching ministry this semester.

I'm a bit puzzled by this. Is the idea that poor brown skinned folks can't learn Greek as well as middle class white skinned folks, or did you have something else in mind?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I'm a bit puzzled by this. Is the idea that poor brown skinned folks can't learn Greek as well as middle class white skinned folks, or did you have something else in mind?

No the idea is simply that generally speaking men, regardless of race, who come from backgrounds in which they were not given as solid of an educational foundation and where they don't have as much money may struggle either to complete some of the more advanced language work (at least without some hefty remediation first) or to afford seminary at all, which has become incredibly expensive. The PCA guys I was talking to weren't saying the languages don't matter, but they were saying that many of these men who were clearly solid on the fundamentals and seemed to demonstrate genuine gifting for ministry would be prevented from serving for quite some time because of those kinds of barriers. I'm sure some would say that's fine, and they just need to wait until they can complete the "normal" amount of seminary. I'm not sure that should always be the answer.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

No the idea is simply that generally speaking men, regardless of race, who come from backgrounds in which they were not given as solid of an educational foundation and where they don't have as much money may struggle either to complete some of the more advanced language work (at least without some hefty remediation first) or to afford seminary at all, which has become incredibly expensive. The PCA guys I was talking to weren't saying the languages don't matter, but they were saying that many of these men who were clearly solid on the fundamentals and seemed to demonstrate genuine gifting for ministry would be prevented from serving for quite some time because of those kinds of barriers. I'm sure some would say that's fine, and they just need to wait until they can complete the "normal" amount of seminary. I'm not sure that should always be the answer.

If finances are an issue the presbytery needs to step in.
In terms of simply studying Greek, it just takes a textbook (many of which are free online) and time.
It took me maybe 30 minutes of study a day for two years to read the NT in Greek cover to cover and memorize all the vocabulary words. Now, that's actually more than most do in seminary, and it didn't cost me a cent (unless one counts lost wages from not working overtime or something like that).

 

[jwithnell]

I'm just fine with how rigorous my Greek and Hebrew exams were, thank you very much

Thank you for your efforts!

 

[iainduguid]

I can see both sides. On the one hand, I am privileged to teach at one of the best seminaries in the world for instruction in the original languages, and I believe it absolutely pays significant dividends in men's preaching. You see things you would likely miss in a translation. On the other, I have also been privileged to teach pastors in a remote tea picking area in the mountains of Sri Lanka, men who will never read Hebrew or Greek, but who love Jesus and God's Word. Far be it from me to question their qualifications to shepherd their sheep. We should all strive to excel as far as we can in knowing God through his Word, and Hebrew, Greek (and Aramaic) are a great blessing in that pursuit. We who are teachers will be held to account for the opportunities we have had to learn, and from those to whom much has been given, much will be expected.

 

[TheInquirer]

Agree on 3 years being far too short for pastoral training.

The issue we were debating was whether the skill of being able to “translate” from the original languages was necessary for a pastor. I do think some skill in languages is beneficial but think about this:

1) We do not expect or require a pastor to write his own systematic theology
2) Nor write their own creeds and confessions
3) Nor write their own commentaries

Therefore, why must they be expected to translate the Bible from the original languages?

We have at our fingertips tools to access the best Greek and Hebrew minds in world history with the click of a button in software.

Additionally, we are a part of the body of Christ, each given skills for the benefit of the whole. I would rather let the gifted language experts be the gifted language experts and learn how to interact with their findings then go down the rabbit hole of even attempting to reproduce their work. I would also want to read Dr. Duguid’s commentaries than try to write my own.

A pastor does need to learn Bible study and interpretation skills to do some of the work on his own but I don’t know a single pastor who doesn’t consult experts. A pastor simply does not need to be an original language expert. Instead of making him a Bible translator, teach him how the language works conceptually (parts of speech, tense, voice, mood, aspect and what they all contribute to meaning) and then how to consult tools for all the important data. This business of memorizing paradigms ad nauseam (along with all the exceptions) is a waste of time and energy in my opinion when there are far more important priorities to train that are not getting properly trained.

 

[Polanus1561]

In the former centuries... were the students sponsored for their learning? Did they take up part time jobs / take on or avoid debts? Always wanted to know.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

In the former centuries... were the students sponsored for their learning? Did they take up part time jobs / take on or avoid debts? Always wanted to know.

Some students were supported. The term in Scotland for such students was "bursars." Those from wealthy families were general supported by their families.
There were no student loans in those days that I'm aware of, and students were full time.

 

[StevieG]

In the former centuries... were the students sponsored for their learning? Did they take up part time jobs / take on or avoid debts? Always wanted to know.

Here in Northern Ireland the PCI has a fund in place that pays the fees for ministry students and also provides a small (but still very generous) amount to students each month to help pay the bills during full time training.