For anyone who is still hang up on the Gender Issue in English Bible translations , the Common English Bible (CEB)—which is a brand new English Bible translation—presents another serious challenge.
Consider Matthew 16:24-26:
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “All who want to come after me should say no to themselves, take up their cross, and follow me. 25 All who want to save their lives will lose them. But all who lose their lives because of me will find them. 26 Why would people gain the whole world and lose their lives? Or what will people give in exchange for their lives? (CEB, emphasis mine)
But we’re use to:
24Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? (NIV, emphasis mine)
So Why the Common English Bible and its evident insistence on this controversial approach to gender in English Bible translation?
- It’s easier to read and understand. For many, reading the Bible and then truly grasping what it means can be a challenge. Yet the Bible is meant for everyone. The Common English Bible is a brand new translation of the Bible in a language that readers naturally speak and communicate—a common language.
- To keep scripture relevant, and integrated into worship. Cultural and religious settings have changed dramatically. Changes in worship impact the words we use in our churches. And language is changing even faster because of the digital revolution. Combined with huge cultural shifts underway, these changes are so enormous that a completely new translation of the Bible is required. Visit Common English Bible homepage to learn more….
For sure, the Common English Bible has a lot riding on it:
- “The Common English Bible is a brand new translation of the Bible in a language that readers naturally speak and communicate—a common language.”
And,
- “[L]anguage is changing even faster because of the digital revolution. Combined with huge cultural shifts underway, these changes are so enormous that a completely new translation of the Bible is required.”
But in matters like these, I’m often reminded of the very words of Jesus: ”But no one who drinks the old wine seems to want the new wine. ‘The old is just fine,’ they say.” (Luke 5:39, NLT)
Verse 26′s people throws me a bit, but generally I read this and didn’t blink. It’s simply closer to the way people speak these days. And what with all the gender fuss of the last few decades, “man” is not inclusive for “human being” for much of the English-speaking world, nor “he”.
It doesn’t ring like the KJV, but then, should it?
I need to finish reading Fee and Strauss’ How to Choose a Translation.
Chuck,
Fee and Strauss’ How to Choose a Translation is quite good, though a bit pro-TNIV.
Ah, we need to teach our people that there’s a difference between a Greek word’s form and function – to get them aware from this “essentially-literal” propaganda and so on.
Hey, Fee and Strauss recommend the NRSV and the NET, my normal translations, so I think they are swell.;-)
Essentially literal. I’ve seen interlinears translate “house of the LORD” as “the temple”. How many translations speak of Mary “having it in the belly”, or God being long-nosed?
“Literal” usually isn’t actually literal. Which is good, because there would be too much we wouldn’t understand if translations actually were literal.
Well, a fine translation like NRSV describes itself as “essentially literal,” that is, “as literal as possible, as free as necessary.” Not a bad approach.
As you know, translation involves a degree of interpretation.
I have to agree with Chuck. It’s the way people speak now. Your post doesn’t really tell us how you feel about it, TC.
As a member of the UMC, I expect to see it become a commonly accepted version in my church in a few years. I think I will be able to accept it more easily than I accepted (or didn’t accept) the NRSV. But will it be enough to get people in other traditions to buy it? I don’t know yet, of course, until we see the whole thing and get a chance to use it for a while.
Gary,
I thought my feeling toward the matter was evident in the tone of the post, espeically the conclusion.
From what I’ve read and reread, I do like it’s flow and feel. There you go.
For what it’s worth, I would have gone with “Whoever wants to come after me” (a la TNIV) over “All who”. “Whoever” is flexible enough to do double-duty as either singular or plural, as is the “their” that follows. “All who” is necessarily plural. I’m not uptight about the singular-plural issue, but I feel that singulars should be retained if at all possible within the bounds of good English. It seems to me nothing is lost with “Whoever”, while “All who” does risk losing the singular nuance of the passage.
Tim,
Well, there’s the grammatical number versus its actuall function. At this point, it comes down to style, at least to me.
I visited the CEB Website and sampled Matthew 5. From this sample, I believe I am interested in this translation! However, there’s not any information on how to order. Where can this translation be purchased?
Rod,
Thus far it appears to be quite good. I love the decisions to depart from some of traditional renderings.
Regarding purchase, the NT will be available in 2010 and then the entire Bible in 2011, which is a significant year for Bible translations.
New New International Version and the Common English Bible in 2011. Maybe that’s why the world ends in 2012?
Common English Bible: Hmm, only if you can wean the Roman Catholics away from the RSV. And the Orthodox will likely have raised eyebrows at the name, too.
Chuck,
That’s funny. Did you get to watch 2012?
Nah. I avoid Emmerich films like H1N1.
I’m thinking Fantastic Mr. Fox and Ninja Assassin this week. Probably just the first film, though. And Chinese buffet!
Smart, fellow.
Mr. Fox been enjoying rave reviews. It’s the Clooney factor. He has duped us all.
T.C., Thanks for the info. about release of the Common English Bible Translation. It’s no doubt the next couple of years will be very interesting for those of us who like modern translations.
What about The VOICE Translation? When will it get a complete Bible including the Old and New Testaments? Right now only the New Testament is developed. I like this paraphrase.
I have finally decided to only use the Holman Christian Standard Bible just as a reference translation. It is a good translation with potential, but I just don’t think as long as the translation has that Southern Baptist Convention connection that it will get away from the obvious doctrinal bias, for example, the exclusion of “tongues” in the text.
Rod,
My pleasure on the CEB.
To me the Voice is one of those interesting translations that pop up every now and then.
Regarding the HCSB, I do like it, but I don’t think that they’re going to rid themselves of that SB attachment unless they rid themselves of “Holman.” At any rate, some see the connection and some don’t.
Info: the general editor of the HCSB, Dr. Blum, is Presbyterian. Also, several of the translators reflect various denominations. But I do know what you mean.
I do like the HCSB.
This rendering is entirely appropriate, and quite good! I’ve been reading the CEB Matthew hardcopy I received along with Matthew from the NRSV for the Daily Office Gospel reading every morning. The more I read them side by side, the more I’m impressed by the CEB. On the level of the English Bible, I find myself picking up words from the text that escaped me in the NRSV. The CEB does have a “voice” and its one which is conducive to the narrative of Matthew for a contemporary reader.
On a couple of occasions I’ve read it in conjunction with my wife’s TNIV. I’m not as familiar with that version but it seemed comparable but easier on the aural sensibilities of the “average” person, specifically one not schooled in “biblish”.
Some of the rendering would have to take getting use to, for sure. Yes, the NRSV could be rather difficult in some places.
So far, the CEB appears to be a better read than the TNIV for the person not schooled in “biblish.”
@ Scott W: You mentioned you have been reading the CEB Matthew hardcopy. Did you purchase this somewhere or did you print it off the CEB Website?
Protege Rod-
No, you can get one free from Abingdon Press; just request one from the info. on the website. I think that’ll do. For some reason reading it on paper had made a difference in assimilating its tone and voice.
I like how the sound of the CEB so far. It’ll be interesting to see how the rest of the bible reads. Depending on how it approaches key scriptures, it may be the NLT of mainline churches. Hopefully, it’ll all be done before 2012; otherwise, there’ll be no point.
Scott, nice tip. I think I’ll do that too.
Kevin,
Marketing will be the key, ala NLT and ESV, not TNIV manner. ha!
Should be out 2011, so we’d have a year with it.
@ T.C.: As we mentioned on previous times, the organizations with the NLT and ESV are in my opinion the two best at marketing and promotion of their products.
Like Kevin and others, I’m curious to see how the rest of the translation is worded. Is the CEB a mediating translation or a dynamic translation? From the parts I’ve sampled, it doesn’t seem to be over simplified in its language, but provides clarity. For example, it uses words like righteous and disciple; some dynamic translations like the New Century Version use words like “made right” and “follower”.
Rod,
From what I’ve seen, it’s definitely mediating. I think it has to be. It’s the best approach of the three for a translation to really work at both levels.
But yes, marketing is the key.