Matthew 16:13-20 is such a fun and yet crucial text. For the most part the CEB (Common English Bible) has handled it quite well:
13 Now when Jesus came into the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Human One is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist. Others say Elijah. Others Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”
15 He said, “And who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Then Jesus replied, “You are fortunate, Simon son of Jonah, because no human has shown this to you. Rather my Father who is in heaven has shown you. 18 I tell you that you are Peter. And I’ll build my church on this rock. The gates of the underworld won’t be able to stand against it. 19 I’ll give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Anything you fastend one earth will be fastened in heaven. Anything you loosened on earth will be loosened in heaven.”
20 Then he ordered the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ. (Matthew 16:13-20, CEB)
“The Human One” for the Greek ho huios tou anthropou is dynamic but still works. I suppose that when we decode the Greek construction ho huios tou anthropou “The Human One” is quite okay, for that is the meaning.
I’m not feeling “Fortunate” for the Greek makarios. “Fortunate” today carries the meaning of “lucky.” I’m not too sure Jesus was saying that Peter was simply “lucky.”
Now “underworld” for the Greek hadēs isn’t a good choice. The TNIV’s “realm of the dead” “the gates of death” is a better choice, if the Greek is to be taken idiomatically. I asked four young people what is the meaning of “underworld” and only one guy came close. He said, “The city of the dead.”
I also noticed that a few kai’s, and’s, are untranslated, and a lot more shorter sentences.
In the end, I still like the flow of the CEB…
I don’t like “The Human One” for much the same that I saw on another blog (John Hobbins maybe?)…it’s not just that Jesus is human, it’s much deeper. It’s Luke’s way of connecting Jesus as the second Adam, and Matthew’s way of portraying Jesus as the true Israel and the fulfillment thereof. Ultimately, it’s the fulfillment of Daniel’s picture of the One who goes to the Father to receive a Kingdom and dominion.
As has been pointed out by others–if this translation is missed in Daniel 7, or even “Son of God” passages that refer to Israel, much of the meaning in Matthew will be missed.
Bryan, according to your comment, “The Son of Man” bears the following:
1. Second Adam
2. True Israel
3. Davidic King
Then “The Human One” might end up being an wholly inadequate. Interesting!
Is there an update on TNIV? The TNIV I use says “the gates of death” not “realm of the dead.”
Good notes on the CEB. I am not a fan of using “happy” or “fortunate” for “blessed,” as well. It misses the true meaning of “Kingdom blessing.”
Apprentice,
You’re right. I was actually going on memory for that one, since that’s the rendering for both sheol and hades elsewhere.
I really don’t think fortunate is a good choice. Too countercultural.
Actually, there’s I was mixing up my divine titles, the first two go with “Son of God.”
The last one remains however–Daniel 7:13-14 and the Messianc reign. Still enough to make he hope they either 1)translated Daniel the same way, or 2) change it. The Olivet Discourse and other prophecies concerning “the Son of Man” need the connection, as does the ones that pair the Daniel 7 Messiah to the suffering servant (Ex: Mark 8, 9, 10) — where “it is necessary that the Son of Man must suffering many things…” thus bringing together in one person two images from the Bible that the Jewish people of the time held separate. My reasoning still stands
Bryan,
So far they have been rather consistent. It’s what they do with the OT connections remains to be seen.
Maybe we can take a cue from the NRSV, the CEB’s big brother. While the NRSV uses the term “Son of Man” in Matthew, when you check back to Daniel 7:13, you see this: “As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him.”
Gary, that wouldn’t be good. No more confusion is needed.
If they’re going with “The Human One” in the NT, then they should go with the OT counterpart, and let the reader unpack the theological nuances, for lack of a better expression.
wow! you guys are all so fascinating to read, thank you :0)
this is why i am sticking with TNIV until the NIV 2011 comes out. Hopefully that one will fix some things I don’t like about the TNIV.
Such as: converting singulars into plurals just to avoid using masculine pronouns.
Bless you all!
R,
The CEB, at first, will make us uncomfortable.
Perhaps some converting is needed. I hope not too much is done.
To get totally of the subject…reading the scripture I thought why do the people say Jesus is Jeremiah and not another prophet. In my own bumbling way I looked for similarities. To my uneducated eye the preaching of Jesus had quite a lot similarities to Jeremiah. Am I mistaken?
Well, according to the Matthew narrative, people were mistaken about Jesus’ identity.