Back in 1989, the NRSV, New Revised Standard Version, a revision of the early Revised Standard Version (1952), aimed for the following:
It is the hope and prayer of the translators that this version of the Bible may continue to hold a large place in congregational life and to speak to all readers, young and old alike, helping them to understand and believe and respond to its message.
—For the Committe, [the late] Bruce M. Metzger
But the NRSV has remained confined to a few mainstream denominations and the classroom of academia.
Now we have the CEB, the Common English Bible, touted as the successor of the NRSV. It too has high hopes:
In our quickly changing world, we need a translation of Scripture that connects with the kind of people who worship and study the Bible in our congregations. The Common English Bible can connect people to God once again. What happens next, when we study the Scripture, can take our passion for loving God and neighbor to the next level. from CEB homepage…
Now toward this end, the CEB has made Matthew’s Gospel narrative available for free download. I’ve read portions of it. I’ve joined the conversation over at Better Bibles blog. I see the great potential of the CEB.
But I’m afraid that conservative evangelicals are not going to like it too much. Why? Certain terms are “sacred.”
For example, the CEB renders the Greek ho huios tou anthropou, not the traditional “the Son of Man,” but The Human One.
Now, while linguist and Bible translator Wayne Leman thinks “The Human One” communicates far better to almost all English speakers than does the traditional translation of “the Son of Man,” I’m afraid he’s not speaking for the many Aunt Sallys from Texas and the many Uncle Joes from Alabama, who are used to their traditional “the Son of Man.”
It seems like the CEB is going to be just another NRSV—a great English translation but largely confined to a few. My take.
I used the CEB this morning, comparing it to the NRSV, for the Gospel reading from today’s lectionary reading. It had bit of a “foreign” feel to it and, in places the syntax seemed to be a bit awkward or could be improved. It surprised me how, on the whole, it syntax stayed fairly close to the text.
Because of the target reading level, there is a limitation when it comes to descriptive terms being used. One thing I thought they did was choose renderings not commonly done; for example for the exorcism of demons ekballo is rendered “thrown out” instead of “cast out”, which is good. And in Jesus’ baptism the Spirit “flys down” instead of “descends” in rendering katabainein(?).
Part of what makes a translation is a familiarity, the rhythms of the text which one gains from reading. It’s not like the TNIV in this regards, as my first impressions go.
Scott,
Way to go!
Yes, that foreign feel would need some getting use to. I can’t say I’m at all surprised at it staying close to the syntax of the text.
I too looked at Matt. 3:16. It sure does a better job than the TNIV.
“Thrown out” vs “Cast out” for ekballo, let me chew on that one.
It sure has potential.
But I still need to feel the rhythm to see where’s headed.
Why is it touted as the successor to the NRSV?
Jeff
In reading chapter five today I did not care for “Happy” in the Beatitudes.
I’m with you on 3:16. I also liked 3:17.
Jeff, that has been the word since I’ve heard about the CEB.
Plus, the CEB website does not deny this. Check it out, and you’ll see the interplay between the two.
Yeah, “Happy” is not particularly good, esp. since the American culture has such a warp concept of “Happiness.”
The underlying greek word is a tough one. I prefer blessed and used to hate happy, but I’ve come to understand why happy is often used.
The first thing I read was the Beatitudes and I didn’t like it. But in reading much of the other stuff I like it a lot so far. Esteban has a pretty scathing review of the marketing stuff. If you don’t like the ESV because of their philosophy, just read what they have to say.
Jeff
Jeff, CEB is considered an ecumenical Bible. I guess “happy” works.
But what do we really mean by “happy”? Is it the same thing the ancients meant?
Which comes closer to what they meant, “Happy” or “Blessed,” or maybe there’s another option?
So is this a “liberal” Bible? And what would “liberal” mean in relation to the CEB as opposed to “conservative”?
Thanks beforehand for everyone’s input. :0)
R,
“Liberal” and “Conservative” tend to be relative terms. But the CEB, according to its own website, is considered an ecumenical Bible.
T.C. R,
I was referring to the following quote on their website. They set themselves up, as it were, as the opposite of “conservative” Bibles like the ESV or NIV/TNIV/NIV2011
–Quoted from CommonEnglish[dot]com–
OTHER TRANSLATIONS
Several Bible translations were produced over the past 20 years. However, most of these translations represent a particular conservative theology and are revisions or updates from prior translations (e.g., ESV from the RSV, NKJV from KJV, TNIV from NIV). The revision is generally less than 5 percent. Or they are paraphrases of the biblical text (e.g., The Message or The Voice or the Living Bible). The NIV will be marketed again in this crowded conservative field in 2011, by merging the TNIV with the aging NIV, which originated among Reformed groups in the 1970s.
R,
See the section “A Translation for Mainstream Christians.”
Where did you get that quote from this site? I’m not seeing it.
TC-
Impressions from a second inspection of CEB Matthew: I’m more impressed with the flow of the text and the overall care in the renderings, given the constraints of reading level. Yes, there are improvements that can be made, but the translators, readers and editors did a solid job. It’s growing on me a bit.
Yes, it can stand some improvements here and there, but it’s already off to a great start. You’re right.
I was tickled by Matt. 5:48, a translation I’ve always worked out in my head but never saw in an actual translation til now.
In regard to “Human One” vs. “Son of Man”, I think the validity (or at least perceived validity) may depend on intertextual issues and whether they translate it consistently throughout the Bible. If, for example, they render something equivalent in Daniel 7:13, I think that picks us the inter-Testamental allusion quite well (even if “Human One” is not the traditional rendering). On the other hand, if there’s not some level of concordance between the OT and NT uses of the phrase, I think more conservative readers would likely be turned off.
Tim,
Great observation! But hear this: I was at our local Starbucks a few days ago. I friend and I got into a conservation. I noticed she was using the NKJV.
But she said it doesn’t really sound like what the Bible should be. For her, a 29 year old, the Bible should sound like the KJV, which she grew up on. Wow!
Some traditions are simply hard to break. We shall see what impct the CEB will have.
TC writes:
Great observation! But hear this: I was at our local Starbucks a few days ago. I friend and I got into a conservation. I noticed she was using the NKJV.
But she said it doesn’t really sound like what the Bible should be. For her, a 29 year old, the Bible should sound like the KJV, which she grew up on. Wow!
Some traditions are simply hard to break. We shall see what impct the CEB will have.
TC-
Thej aw-dropping irony of the “traditionalist” stance in regards to the familiarity of the KJV and its Latin-based theological vocabulary, and the Tyndale-influenced rendering should not be lost on us.
The only real “Bible” is that in the original languages. And the stumbling block of Jesus to his hearers was that what he said and did undercut “traditionalists” construals of Jewish religion and life. The Word of God didn’t fit into the categories that many people had of who YHWH was, what the Basileia looked like and what the renewed people of YHWH consisted of.
I fear that the reactionary adherence to “traditional language” can be a subtle type of idolatry; what Jesus represented was a critical appropriation of his tradition, which he teaches as the authoritative word of God, esp. as we see in Matthew. And we must not forget, as critical scholars tell us that Jesus’ characteristic wayof conveying YHWH’s vision and way-of-being-in-the-world was the meshalim (“parables”), which were decidedly non-religious, in a narrow sense in which conservative Christians appeal to religion. They were about everyday life, of a rough-and-tumble pedigree: unjust judges, a pious Samaraitan (a galling oxymoron to a Jew), crooked businessmen, women’s work (a real eye opener in a patriarchal society!), etc.
I fear that this “traditionalist” impulse often borders on pious projections of what we think God should be rather than who YHWH is, and what is important is hearing, truly understanding the word and acting on it (lest the enemy steal it from our hearts). As Matthew’s Gospel warns those who follow Jesus: not everyone proclaims Jesus as Lord is going to enter the Kingdom but only those who do the willof the Father. The traditions of men and reloigious ideologies will not substitute for a critical appropriation (as good scribed trained for the Kindom) of YHWH’s word through Jesus.
The jaw-dropping irony of the “traditionalist” stance in regards to the familiarity of the KJV and its Latin-based theological vocabulary, and the Tyndale-influenced rendering should not be lost on us.
Scott, so true. But who’s going to confront the traditionalist and make her understand, at an entry level, these matters?
The Word of God didn’t fit into the categories that many people had of who YHWH was, what the Basileia looked like and what the renewed people of YHWH consisted of.
Even back there the unpacking of key terms was necessary.
Basileia theou – toward an understanding of what God is doing in the world, first through Jesus, and the Spirit in the life of the church. Ah!
And we must not forget, as critical scholars tell us that Jesus’ characteristic wayof conveying YHWH’s vision and way-of-being-in-the-world was the meshalim (“parables”), which were decidedly non-religious, in a narrow sense in which conservative Christians appeal to religion.
Yes, I’ve come to realize that “parables” aren’t just “earthly stories with heavenly meaning.” They’re rooted in the kingdom dynamic that Jesus reintroduced. More that later…
I fear that this “traditionalist” impulse often borders on pious projections of what we think God should be rather than who YHWH is, and what is important is hearing, truly understanding the word and acting on it (lest the enemy steal it from our hearts).
Yes, but at one level every translation is engaging in some kind of interpretation.
It’s when we take that critical approach to the texts that we really begin to unearth the treasure of the worldview of the first readers and hearers.
Pingback: clayboy » Biblical Studies Carnival XLVIII
Now, while linguist and Bible translator Wayne Leman thinks “The Human One” communicates far better to almost all English speakers than does the traditional translation of “the Son of Man,” I’m afraid he’s not speaking for the many Aunt Sallys from Texas and the many Uncle Joes from Alabama, who are used to their traditional “the Son of Man.”
No, I was speaking about whether or not the title used for Jesus “communicates” accurately the original meaning of the term. A literal translation of the Hebrew (and literal Greek translation of it) term communicates essentially nothing to English speakers. Aunt Sally and Uncle Joe do not understand English “Son of Man” any better than Greek ho huios tou anthroupou or Hebrew בר אנוש. The original Hebrew title is very difficult to translate to English. I hope that I did not say that I like the CEB translation of Human One. I hope that I said that it communicates more of the original meaning than does “Son of Man”; that’s what I intended anyway. “Son of Man” is more than simply the human parallel to “Son of God.” Both terms are messianic at some level. Both terms communicate something about divinity of Jesus the Christ. But the traditional translation of “Son of Man” communicates none of these meaning components (plus others that are part of the original term. At least “Human One” communicates *something* and I think that “something” is part of its original meaning. I doubt that there is any single English term that can adequately communicate all or most of the meaning of original בר אנוש. Since that is the case, I personally am in favor of using terms which communicate as least some of the original meaning, and then teaching to communicate more of the original meaning. Others, obviously, disagree, and believe that it is better to teach all of the original meaning if the translated term communicates little, if any, of the original meaning.
These are matters over which sincere and godly minds minds will disagree.
But let us not forget what the purpose of translation is and the fact that translation from one language to another is never perfect. No two languages match perfectly. There is always something lost in translation. But there is also always something lost when people “learn” the biblical languages, but do not learn them to the level of being a native speaker of them, as were their original audiences.
I doubt that there is any single English term that can adequately communicate all or most of the meaning of original בר אנוש. Since that is the case, I personally am in favor of using terms which communicate as least some of the original meaning, and then teaching to communicate more of the original meaning.
Wayne,
Thanks for following up this post with some wonderful insights on the purpose of translation.
Then it stands to reason that no matter what the English translation we may be, some teaching is absolutely necessary to approximate the original. But again, we can only approximate.
But let us not forget what the purpose of translation is and the fact that translation from one language to another is never perfect. No two languages match perfectly. There is always something lost in translation. But there is also always something lost when people “learn” the biblical languages, but do not learn them to the level of being a native speaker of them, as were their original audiences.
At the same time, translators need to make sense to the times, one foot in the ancient world and the other in the contemporary.