@pattube

6 months ago

I love the CSB too! Typically Bible translations are assessed according to three criteria (though there are other criteria that could be added): accuracy, clarity, and naturalness. I'd also add literary elegance. In my view, I'd rate the CSB very high in terms of accuracy, clarity, and naturalness. Like an 8 or even 9 out of 10 in each. The CSB is very accurate to the biblical languages. I'm often surprised it is so accurate because I usually think "hey that can't be correct" when I read the CSB, but then I check the original languages and sure enough the CSB is spot on (e.g. John 3:16)! Regarding the second criterion, I think the CSB is also very clear when read and when read aloud. By contrast, consider the ESV. The ESV is generally understandable, of course, but it is not always as clear what is meant as the CSB or NIV or NLT. It's more like reading an academic textbook where I understand the gist of what's said but the meaning is somewhat obscured, at least on the first read, even though the meaning wasn't necessarily obscure to the original audience. Finally the CSB sounds like natural spoken English, not like Biblish, which again to use the ESV as an example is what the ESV often sounds like. That is, the ESV often uses words and terms which those who have grown up in the church or spent sufficient time in and around Christians would understand, but it is not how people in general speak. Again it is not natural sounding English even though the New Testament is largely written in a natural sounding Greek of the time. Indeed, the Bible, especially New Testament, was largely written in the language of the common people at the time, i.e., koine ("common") Greek, even though it could've been written in more literary Greek since literary Greek did exist and was used in the first century Roman Empire. Literary Greek was used by the upper or elite classes in their works for example. The most elegant style in the New Testament is Hebrews and Luke-Acts or at least the prologue of Luke. But otherwise most of the New Testament is pretty prosaic in terms of style. By the way, I should say I really like the ESV, in case it sounds like I don't! All that said, I'd rate the CSB lower in terms of literary elegance. Not bad, but not great. Maybe average around a 5 or 6 out of 10. Of course, I'm referring to literary elegance in English, not in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Most of the Bible is written in an every day kind of style, but there are some parts that are not, that are more literary. For example, the Psalms are obviously poetic and as such should reflect a more poetic style in English too. But the Psalms in the CSB isn't as literary as, say, the NIV let alone the ESV or others in the Tyndale-KJV tradition. I could say the same about other books in the CSB like Ecclesiastes which arguably is written in a higher register in terms of biblical Hebrew style. Anyway I think literary elegance is the CSB's main weakness. But to be fair, elegance probably shouldn't be considered as significant a criterion as the other three criteria when evaluating a translation.

3 |