NASB & CSB

[Andrewn]

NASB is usually claimed to be the most accurate translation but in Rom 8:3-4 it adds the word "offering" and lacks the word "righteous:"

Rom 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NASB)

CSB is a new revision of the same pedigree and has the same issues:

Rom 8:3 What the law could not do since it was weakened by the flesh, God did. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh as a sin offering, 4 in order that the law’s requirement would be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (CSB)

The more accurate translations read:

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NKJV)

Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (ESV)

 

[ripple the car]

Thank you for this. I've been trying to find a newer translation which is still accurate, and reverent. The RSV seems close.

 

[Andrewn]

Thank you for this. I've been trying to find a newer translation which is still accurate, and reverent. The RSV seems close.

RSV is a good translation. I think its scholarship has formed the backbone of most newer translations. Only 6 percent of RSV was revised in the ESV.

 

[redleghunter]

I don’t see how the meaning changes. Here’s several examples:

Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh,

 

[paul1149]

The construction peri hamartias can imply the Levitical offering for sin, as it does at Heb 10.6:

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and [sacrifices for] sin You had no pleasure. -Heb 10:5-6​

There, by immediate context, it is clear that the sin-offering is what is being referred to. In Rom 8.3, some translators choose to carry that same concept through by rendering "as an offering for sin" rather than merely "for sin". I don't think we can say that one way is more accurate than the other.

In verse 4, the root word dikaioma primarily conveys righteousness. But because we're talking about law, it's also a requirement. AISI, either word would do, and if I had to pick only one, it would be righteousness - that is, "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled..."

 

[Andrewn]

I don’t see how the meaning changes.

The construction peri hamartias can imply the Levitical offering for sin, as it does at Heb 10.6:

I agree that the expression commonly translated "concerning sin," "on account of sin," or "to deal with sin" most likely means "as a sin offering." Rendering peri hamartias this way would be totally acceptable in a translation that doesn't claim to be "accurate."

In verse 4, the root word dikaioma primarily conveys righteousness.

Most translations render this "righteous requirement" or "just requirement." It's not accurate to not mention "righteousness" in one way or another. It's not the greatest error in the world. But is not consistent with the accuracy claim.

NASB commonly translates "porneya" as "immorality," which is completely inadequate.

 

[Justified Sinner]

Unfortunately, you're going to find issues with every translation. That's what you get when you translate old languages into new ones.

 

[redleghunter]

I agree that the expression commonly translated "concerning sin," "on account of sin," or "to deal with sin" most likely means "as a sin offering." Rendering peri hamartias this way would be totally acceptable in a translation that doesn't claim to be "accurate."


Most translations render this "righteous requirement" or "just requirement." It's not accurate to not mention "righteousness" in one way or another. It's not the greatest error in the world. But is not consistent with the accuracy claim.

NASB commonly translates "porneya" as "immorality," which is completely inadequate.

By the way...thanks for posting an interesting subject. Been scarce around these parts lately.

 

[A.ModerateOne]

NASB is usually claimed to be the most accurate translation but in Rom 8:3-4 it adds the word "offering" and lacks the word "righteous:"

Rom 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NASB)

CSB is a new revision of the same pedigree and has the same issues:

Rom 8:3 What the law could not do since it was weakened by the flesh, God did. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh as a sin offering, 4 in order that the law’s requirement would be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (CSB)

The more accurate translations read:

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NKJV)

Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (ESV)

This seems to me to be more a question of which is better here, Formal Equivalence or Dynamic Equivalence in translation. I'm not a fan of the NASB, but at least they put the added words in italics, which I find is honest on v3. I saw no big difference on v4 where I see "requirement" of law pretty much "righteousness" of law.

What is being "accurate" in a translation? Is it a formal, literal, word for word, from the Hebrew/Greek text? If that is so, just use the literal translation in an Greek/Hebrew-English Interlinear and try to figure out the order of the words.

If being "accurate" means giving a faithful representation of something", then a more dynamic thought for thought may be better.

I believe that using italics to show added translator's words, or using the margin for an alternate rendering is more faithful and accurate considering there are two main understandings of the literal word for word translation of "and for sin". I find the various standard translations do show the two main understandings of the phrase in question in v3 by italics or margin notes.

I admit I have yet to make up my mind on which may be more faithful to Paul's meaning, but I'm not so sure that it is that consequential for me to know. But I admit, your post sent me into study on this question and I find that is ALWAYS good... Thanks

 

[redleghunter]

This seems to me to be more a question of which is better here, Formal Equivalence or Dynamic Equivalence in translation. I'm not a fan of the NASB, but at least they put the added words in italics, which I find is honest on v3. I saw no big difference on v4 where I see "requirement" of law pretty much "righteousness" of law.

What is being "accurate" in a translation? Is it a formal, literal, word for word, from the Hebrew/Greek text? If that is so, just use the literal translation in an Greek/Hebrew-English Interlinear and try to figure out the order of the words.

If being "accurate" means giving a faithful representation of something", then a more dynamic thought for thought may be better.

I believe that using italics to show added translator's words, or using the margin for an alternate rendering is more faithful and accurate considering there are two main understandings of the literal word for word translation of "and for sin". I find the various standard translations do show the two main understandings of the phrase in question in v3 by italics or margin notes.

I admit I have yet to make up my mind on which may be more faithful to Paul's meaning, but I'm not so sure that it is that consequential for me to know. But I admit, your post sent me into study on this question and I find that is ALWAYS good... Thanks

As modern English translations go, the NASB is the most literal word for word translation. I know quite a few people who note this but do not like the NASB because it is difficult to read at times given the literal nature. The same Lockman Foundation which brought us the NASB also in 2015 updated the Amplified Bible. The AMP Bible was never intended to be a 'stand alone' Bible but a companion to the NASB in Bible study. The AMP Bible uses brackets to help bring out the thought for thought within the literal word for word.

For example,

NASB Romans 8:

3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.​

AMP Romans 8:

3 For what the Law could not do [that is, overcome sin and remove its penalty, its power] being weakened by the flesh [man’s nature without the Holy Spirit], God did: He sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful man as an offering for sin. And He condemned sin in the flesh [subdued it and overcame it in the person of His own Son], 4 so that the [righteous and just] requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not live our lives in the ways of the flesh [guided by worldliness and our sinful nature], but [live our lives] in the ways of the Spirit [guided by His power].​

I know some have mentioned the RSV is the scholarly backbone for many of the newer English translations. However, each committee (at least for the NASB and ESV) used the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts for their literal word for word translations. Did they 'look back' to the RSV as a benchmark? I'm sure they did as did the KJV and Geneva Bible committees 'looked back' to the Latin Vulgate on areas where the then 'fewer' Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were scarce.

But please take note on the spectrum of literal word for word translations where the NASB, ESV, RSV and CSB fall:

 

[redleghunter]

I found this graphic helpful:

Dynamic Equivalence: translation's premium is on the thoughts and ideas expressed in passages, rather than translating each phrase word-for-word. The focus of this philosophy is to make the meaning of each Scripture reference accessible to modern readers. This philosophy is necessarily interpretive. Translations that follow this general philosophy: (NLT, CEV, NJB) The NIV uses both dynamic and formal equivalence.

Formal Equivalence translation philosophy places a premium on word-for-word translation - preserving as much syntactical structure from the original languages as possible. These translations are less interpretive than 'dynamic' translations. Translations that are known to follow this general philosophy : KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, RSV, NRSV.

Bible Translation Guide - evangelicalbible.com

 

[Andrewn]

I'm not a fan of the NASB, but at least they put the added words in italics, which I find is honest on v3. I saw no big difference on v4 where I see "requirement" of law pretty much "righteousness" of law. What is being "accurate" in a translation? Is it a formal, literal, word for word, from the Hebrew/Greek text? If that is so, just use the literal translation in an Greek/Hebrew-English Interlinear and try to figure out the order of the words. If being "accurate" means giving a faithful representation of something", then a more dynamic thought for thought may be better.

Word-for-word is really a misnomer. It would produce gibberish and is only suitable in an interlinear. So, I'd rather use the terms "literal" or "formal." The examples I gave show that NASB is not as literal as claimed.

OTOH, thought-for thought translations are good in representing the meaning of OT passages. But I think they're not suitable for studying the NT.

For NT study, there are several good "literal" translations available and it's easy to compare their rendering of individual verses or short sections. What is more important, and more difficult to do, is to compare readability and theological bias.

Would anyone like to comment on the overall readability and theological bias in "literal" translations?

 

[ripple the car]

Word-for-word is really a misnomer. It would produce gibberish and is only suitable in an interlinear. So, I'd rather use the terms "literal" or "formal." The examples I gave show that NASB is not as literal as claimed.

OTOH, thought-for thought translations are good in representing the meaning of OT passages. But I think they're not suitable for studying the NT.

For NT study, there are several good "literal" translations available and it's easy to compare their rendering of individual verses or short sections. What is more important, and more difficult to do, is to compare readability and theological bias.

Would anyone like to comment on the overall readability and theological bias in "literal" translations?

I tried to read an NASB once, on the recommendation of a friend, but found it very, very clunky. I was used to the smooth flow of the KJV, and while the NASB seemed conservative and literal, it wasn't as "fun" to read. Or as easy.

I have also noted that very, very few (if any) 66 book Bibles are willing to tackle Luke 1:28 objectively, literally, and carefully. The Greek text reads

"Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη".

 

[redleghunter]

Word-for-word is really a misnomer.

I hope everyone realizes we are speaking of translations.

 

[redleghunter]

I tried to read an NASB once, on the recommendation of a friend, but found it very, very clunky. I was used to the smooth flow of the KJV, and while the NASB seemed conservative and literal, it wasn't as "fun" to read. Or as easy.

That's why I keep a KJV or NKJV always handy. If we are reciting a psalm, I will always go for the KJV. Even my HS theology teacher a Catholic priest had us learn Psalm 23 word for word from a KJV.

 

[Andrewn]

I have also noted that very, very few (if any) 66 book Bibles are willing to tackle Luke 1:28 objectively, literally, and carefully. The Greek text reads "Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη".

Translations of this phrase seem to be similar. I even included the Catholic NAB.

28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” (RSV)

28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (NRSV)

28 And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (NABRE)

28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” (ESV)

28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” (NKJV)

28 The angel came to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women.” (MEV)

RSVCE is similar to Douai-Rheims:

28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” (RSVCE)

I think the phrase actually means "highly graced" but that would not sound like English.

 

[Andrewn]

I tried to read an NASB once, on the recommendation of a friend, but found it very, very clunky. I was used to the smooth flow of the KJV, and while the NASB seemed conservative and literal, it wasn't as "fun" to read. Or as easy.

Now, I'm convinced that RSV is better than many newer translations.

 

[JM]

In order of use KJV, NKJV, RSV. For deuterocanonical/apocrypha Douay Rheims and the Orthodox Study Bible's translation of the LXX.

My point...it's better to consult more than once source to glean the meaning of scripture.

Your in the Lord,

jm

 

[Daniel Marsh]

NASB is usually claimed to be the most accurate translation but in Rom 8:3-4 it adds the word "offering" and lacks the word "righteous:"

Rom 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NASB)

CSB is a new revision of the same pedigree and has the same issues:

Rom 8:3 What the law could not do since it was weakened by the flesh, God did. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh as a sin offering, 4 in order that the law’s requirement would be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (CSB)

The more accurate translations read:

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NKJV)

Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (ESV)

The newer translations are better because of better manuscripts and more information from study of languages.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Also some of the NT texts are based on the LXX and translators can go back to the Hebrew when there is a quote.