CSB Translation of Torah

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Hi All,

I've used the CSB a lot the last couple years, and overall I greatly appreciate it! One question that has been on my mind, however, is the CSB's choice to usually translate "Torah" as "instruction" instead of law. I know that many scholars would argue that this is a better reflection of the semantic range of the word as it is used in English; but I wonder if it causes problems in drawing the connections with the New Testament, where Torah is generally "translated" or represented as "nomos"; "law". It seems that this would make it much harder to connect the concepts for English-only readers, or those trying to teach to them from the CSB.

I know as with everything in translation, this is a trade-off. But I'm wondering if it is a good trade in this case.

So, I wanted to get some thoughts from you all; is this a serious weakness/issue, a negligible issue, or not an issue at all?

Thanks!

 

[iainduguid]

Hi Andrew,
As you may know, I'm on the oversight committee for the CSB so I'm interested in your question. First, do you have any data on the usage for torah? Doing a quick look, I see law, instruction, a ruling (Hag 2:11, where it is used in a technical sense), and there may be other translations. So the translators and the oversight committee have made context specific decisions about how to translate the word. So where it occurs next to commandments and statutes, it is likely to be translated "law". Likewise, where it is a compound phrase "torah of [Moses, burnt offering etc), it is usually law. But in other contexts it seems to have a broader scope in view: for example Psalm 1:2, when the Psalmist mutters torah to himself, is he simply reciting the commandments and statutes? Or is it more likely that he has memorized the entire Pentateuch (the Torah, of course)? In this context "law" seems too narrow a translation (and we should probably adjust our translation of nomos in the NT if necessary, since given this background, it likely has a broader sense, reflective of the LXX). In Matt 5:18, for example, it would be wrong to understand nomos as simply meaning God's commandments (evej though all the translations (including the CSB!) render nomos here as "law" - though note that ESV, NAS and NIV capitalize it as "Law".

As a result, most (but not all) of the uses of torah in the Pentateuch and Historical books are translated "law", while many (but not all) of the uses in the Psalms are translated instruction. It's up to the preacher to do some of the work here and connect the dots for the hearer; you can't do everything in a translation that you would do in a commentary. That doesn't mean we always got it right, or were always consistent. We're always on the lookout for improvements, so if you have particular contexts in mind where you think we could have done better, I'd be happy to hear them. It may be that this is an area we need to review.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Hi Andrew,
As you may know, I'm on the oversight committee for the CSB so I'm interested in your question. First, do you have any data on the usage for torah? Doing a quick look, I see law, instruction, a ruling (Hag 2:11, where it is used in a technical sense), and there may be other translations. So the translators and the oversight committee have made context specific decisions about how to translate the word. So where it occurs next to commandments and statutes, it is likely to be translated "law". Likewise, where it is a compound phrase "torah of [Moses, burnt offering etc), it is usually law. But in other contexts it seems to have a broader scope in view: for example Psalm 1:2, when the Psalmist mutters torah to himself, is he simply reciting the commandments and statutes? Or is it more likely that he has memorized the entire Pentateuch (the Torah, of course)? In this context "law" seems too narrow a translation (and we should probably adjust our translation of nomos in the NT if necessary, since given this background, it likely has a broader sense, reflective of the LXX). In Matt 5:18, for example, it would be wrong to understand nomos as simply meaning God's commandments (evej though all the translations (including the CSB!) render nomos here as "law" - though note that ESV, NAS and NIV capitalize it as "Law".

As a result, most (but not all) of the uses of torah in the Pentateuch and Historical books are translated "law", while many (but not all) of the uses in the Psalms are translated instruction. It's up to the preacher to do some of the work here and connect the dots for the hearer; you can't do everything in a translation that you would do in a commentary. That doesn't mean we always got it right, or were always consistent. We're always on the lookout for improvements, so if you have particular contexts in mind where you think we could have done better, I'd be happy to hear them. It may be that this is an area we need to review.

Thank you for your reply Dr. Duguid. I should have nuanced my question more because you are absolutely right that it varies with context. Saying it is most of the time is probably not accurate. What I had in mind was some major uses with reference to the Torah as a unit and a covenant document, such as Deut. 17, Josh. 1:8, 2 Kings 10:31, as well as noticing it in the Psalms, such as Ps. 1, 119, etc.

And certainly I agree often “instruction” makes more sense in the original context. It’s just an interesting case of thinking through how intertestamental connections should (or shouldn’t) influence translation. It’s definitely something I’ll be paying more attention to as I read the CSB now! Your suggestion about adjusting the translation of “nomos” in the NT is interesting as well!

 

[MW]

"Instruction" is appropriate in teaching contexts such as Proverbs, where torah clearly carries a pedagogical sense. But in legal contexts, that rendering softens what the Hebrew is doing. Within a covenantal setting, torah consistently functions as binding legislation, so much so that the entire Mosaic economy can be described as a dispensation of "law." This is how it is understood in the Reformed theological tradition in the well known distinction between law and gospel. In light of current debates in evangelical theology, one should be cautious about any translational shift that leans towards the "law-gospel continuum" framework.

In the Psalms, moreover, the "law" should not be detached from its Mosaic foundation as though it referred to a generic idea of instruction. The Psalter participates in a clear movement of progressive revelation, building upon the covenantal structures already established. Keil and Delitzsch famously observed that Psalms 1 and 2 form a deliberate pairing of "law" and "prophecy," setting the theological agenda for the entire collection. While torah certainly includes the idea of instruction, translating it that way in the Psalms obscures the canonical development that arises from the interplay of Mosaic law and prophetic promise.

 

[iainduguid]

"Instruction" is appropriate in teaching contexts such as Proverbs, where torah clearly carries a pedagogical sense. But in legal contexts, that rendering softens what the Hebrew is doing. Within a covenantal setting, torah consistently functions as binding legislation, so much so that the entire Mosaic economy can be described as a dispensation of "law." This is how it is understood in the Reformed theological tradition in the well known distinction between law and gospel. In light of current debates in evangelical theology, one should be cautious about any translational shift that leans towards the "law-gospel continuum" framework.

In the Psalms, moreover, the "law" should not be detached from its Mosaic foundation as though it referred to a generic idea of instruction. The Psalter participates in a clear movement of progressive revelation, building upon the covenantal structures already established. Keil and Delitzsch famously observed that Psalms 1 and 2 form a deliberate pairing of "law" and "prophecy," setting the theological agenda for the entire collection. While torah certainly includes the idea of instruction, translating it that way in the Psalms obscures the canonical development that arises from the interplay of Mosaic law and prophetic promise.

Hi Matthew,
I can assure you that there is no desire on the part of the committee to move toward a "law-gospel continuum". And it's not as if the KJV always translates torah as "law" either, nor does the ESV or NASB (nor does the LXX always translate it as nomos). Everyone agrees that there are some times when it is better to translate it "instruction" (the Geneva Bible uses "instruction" far more often than the KJV).

Most readers of the Bible are not reading it through your sophisticated lens and are, in our view, likely to misunderstand "law" in Psalm 1:2 as simply the commandments. Is the wise man in Psalm 1 simply meditating on God's commandments, narrowly conceived? I'm sure you would agree that he is not; it is plausible that torah here specifically refers to the five books of Moses, which the Psalter matches with its five books of praise. The question is how to communicate that reality in a translation, where you don't get two paragraphs to explain your translational choices.

Having said that, reviewing the CSB usage, I do think there is a case to make that it would be better to use "law" more often, so thank you Andrew for bringing the matter to my attention. Did I mention that translation is difficult?

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Did I mention that translation is difficult?

Because of your repeated usage of this phrase (and my continual reading and browsing on the PB) it's worked it's way into my usage at church on the Lord's day! And I only know one other language and it's nothing as difficult as the biblical languages!

 

[MW]

Most readers of the Bible are not reading it through your sophisticated lens and are, in our view, likely to misunderstand "law" in Psalm 1:2 as simply the commandments.

The Bible itself stops at a certain point because it recognises the need of one to explain such things. That is where people need ministerial teaching. Jesus speaks of "the law" as a sub-set of canonical writing. There is no reason why that should not be the basic association one makes with the word. If the conventional "law" is retained it at least gives ministers the opportunity to use it as a connective bridge without having to do so much extra work.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Hi Matthew,
I can assure you that there is no desire on the part of the committee to move toward a "law-gospel continuum". And it's not as if the KJV always translates torah as "law" either, nor does the ESV or NASB (nor does the LXX always translate it as nomos). Everyone agrees that there are some times when it is better to translate it "instruction" (the Geneva Bible uses "instruction" far more often than the KJV).

Most readers of the Bible are not reading it through your sophisticated lens and are, in our view, likely to misunderstand "law" in Psalm 1:2 as simply the commandments. Is the wise man in Psalm 1 simply meditating on God's commandments, narrowly conceived? I'm sure you would agree that he is not; it is plausible that torah here specifically refers to the five books of Moses, which the Psalter matches with its five books of praise. The question is how to communicate that reality in a translation, where you don't get two paragraphs to explain your translational choices.

Having said that, reviewing the CSB usage, I do think there is a case to make that it would be better to use "law" more often, so thank you Andrew for bringing the matter to my attention. Did I mention that translation is difficult?

And thank you, Dr. Duguid, for your interaction on this board on the CSB specifically, and Bible translation in general. It has certainly been edifying for me!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I appreciate this conversation. I do with that we had a single word that Christians would associate with the multiple senses that Torah conveys.

I agree that we ought to always have able ministers who can make those differentiations. This conversation does demonstrate how rich a single word was. In a real sense, its "density" is its strength in the Scriptures. It combines Covenant history with commands, legislation, and instruction.

We see the first Gospel and the Promises in the Torah. I can write that without confusion, whereas if I wrote "We find the Gospel in the Law, it would confuse people.

I think that's the strength and productivity of Paul's writings in his Epistles because he has a dense concept in view and can toggle between its different senses. This ends up confusing the unlearned and unstable, who miss this nuance because they don't have a full theology in view.