This list is from my perspective and in no particular order, though labeled 1-5:
1. More misunderstandings of N.T. Wright and Justification in Paul
2. The Manhattan Declaration and Its Controversies
3. The Emergence of the Common English Bible (CEB)
4. The Death of the TNIV and Announcement of the NIV 2011 Revision
5. The Biblioblog Top 50 turned out to be one Big Joke
Again, through my eyes, but I guess I should have extended the list to about 20. Ha!
I went to the site of the Common English Bible (CEB). I am underwhelmed with the thought of a translation with such a liberal translation AND editorial committee. At least they’re up-front about it.
Are you serious? The composition of the both the editorial board and the translators is about 1/2 “Evangelical”. Translators/editors of the CEB have worked on the NRSV, ESV, NIV,HSCB, etc. In reality,some of the scholars working on the CEB are among the best in English-speaking world, from across the theological spectrum. This is a positive thing in my estimation, but the proof will be in the pudding: the final product, which must be judged according to its stated goals.
Scott,
The line-up looks great so far, and if the Matthew sample is any indication, we’re in for something special.
But Paul is the clincher for me, esp. Romans.
Victor,
Have you sampled their translation of Matthew’s Gospel? Sure, some renderings that the churched folk is not use to, but inaccurate? Hardly!
Liberal? What do you mean?
I’ve actually been impressed with the CEB so far, and I’m anticipating the finished product. It’s strange, I thought I wouldn’t like it at first because of the supposed ‘liberal slant.’ But now I’m looking forward to it.
TC, when is the updated HCSB going to be released?
Kevin,
Yes, the CEB is impressive thus far. I’m waiting to see how it handles Paul. That’s the clincher for me.
HCSB with updates is expected Fall 2010.
Granted, the affiliation of the translators appears to be dominated by Presbyterians. However, it’s my understanding there’s a strong liberal bend in that demonination. {Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!}
Granted, there are those of you far more researched that I am. Perhaps some of you are even familiar with the people, not merely the faith they associate with. In the interest of trying not to be judgemental, I’m certainly willing to be corrected.
However, look at those numbered among these affiliations:
11 Roman Catholic Church
14 Methodist of some sort
11 Episcopal
6 “Evangelical” Lutheran
2 7th Day Adventist
6 Anglican
Espoused among those faiths are works-oriented salvation in the RCC, ordination of women {Methodist}, or homosexuals {Episcopal}, a pseudo-cult {SDA}, etc etc. {I have no clue if ‘Evangelical’ means just that with respect to those Lutherans.}
Victor,
Does this mean that they can’t produce an English Bible translation that is not faithful to the original languages? Your suspicion is unwarranted.
“Your suspicion is unwarranted.”
As I said twice, I’m certainly willing to be corrected. I’m certainly going to give it the once-over when it’s available. Per some of the comments here, IS THERE portions of it on-line, that I’m missing? Any link/s would be appreciated. Thanks.
Victor,
Fair enough. Here’s Matthew’s Gospel to sample here.
It is a very smooth read, much like the NCV. Perhaps in a bit higher register, such as the 7th-grade level they state in their preface. IIRC, the NCV is something like 4th or 5th?
I do like “change their hearts and lives” as a way to render the tradtitional ‘repent’. However, why would they leave a somewhat difficult idiomatic phrase such as, “Let the person who has ears hear.” ?
I’m really taken aback by there choice of “the Human One”, and rendering the usual ‘Son of Man’ a foot-noted alternative choice in translation. I still wince when I see so much of the use of the word ‘human’. I’m not debating gender-neutrality, it’s just that I think a different word would be so much smoother. “With HUMAN BEINGS this is impossible…….Where did John get his authority to baptize? Did he get it from heaven, or from HUMANS?” These could easily be rendered, “With mankind this is impossible…. Did he get it from heaven, or from other people?”
Here’s one that jumped out at me. In chapter 21, from v.2 into 3 it reads,” ‘..Untie them and bring them to me. If anybody says anything to you, say that the Lord needs it.’ He sent them off right away.” Clearly, the CEB is making it seem as though Jesus was sending off the disciples on their errand. Whereas, the HCSB{& the TNIV I have here} renders it ‘Untie them and bring them to Me.
3 If anyone says anything to you, you should say that the Lord needs them, and immediately he will send them.” The meaning is that the owner of the livestock, or at least whomever it might be that may question the disciples… is the party who would send off the LIVESTOCK.” Odd ?
At the end of the book, it reads, “..if the governor hears about this, we’ll square it with him so that you’ll have nothing to worry about”. While I know what ‘square’ means, I truly wonder if it’s in the common vernacular in the English speaking countries they mention in their preface. I find it a bit awkward.
Victor,
I see you’ve been chewing on the CEB some. Good.
Yes, “change their hearts and lives” is quite good for the Greek though a bit wordy.
“The Human One” reflects the meaning of the Greek quite well. Again, forms mean nothing without their proper function – that’s the genius of translation.
Regarding 21:2-3, I see what you mean. The CEB departs from the traditional punction. That’s why.
You might be right about “square.” Thanks for the reflection.
By the way, Does it appear “liberal” to you?
I wouldn’t say so, but then again…I don’t have the knowledge to be able to evaluate that. I would defer to scholars and my pastoral staff that I trust. However, what I CAN do is evaluate it against my other, older, trusted translations. I don’t think that any Gospel would be the best comparison anyway. Certainly some of the epistles, such as Romans, would be the better choice.
Victor,
Fair enough. Well, since I’m so Pauline, I can’t wait to see what Romans look like.
TC-
That’s what made me turn away from the NIV/TNIV after I became more biblically literate. It has a consistently Protestnt Evangelical bias in Romans. This is why NT Wright slams the NIV as an exegete in Paul.
Scott,
Yes, I understand what you mean. And though the TNIV made some improvements in Paul, it was still not enough for me.
I don’t blame Bishop Wright.
TC-
Below is a very interesting piece which gives insight into the heart and mind of one who is doing English Bible translation work for a “liberal” version, in this case Luke for the CEB, by Dr.Tom Phillips of Point Loma Nazarene Univ.
http://www.pointloma.edu/Assets/PLNU/Viewpoint/VP+TPhillips+Fall+2009.pdf
Scott,
Thanks for this. Yes, quite interestingly good and hardly “liberal.” I do like his wrestling with the text to actually be faithful to it while being sensitive to the crucial issues. Good stuff.
TC-
The quip about the CEB being “liberal” was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. In reality, I’d prefer biblical scholarship by “liberals,” that is, critical biblical scholars because I think that, on the whole, they tend to let the text speak for themselves as historical texts rather than struggling so much with dogmatic concerns coloring their exegesis.
And I appreciated Tom Phillips dealing with how “literal” is not necessarily more accurate in practice.
Scott,
I was saying the same thing to myself that I rather a more ecumenical Bible.
TC-
Lukw 1:34 εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον, Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;
It’s interesting that Tom Phillips’ CEB rendering of Luke 1:34c “since I have experienced no intimacy with a man” is only reflected in the NET Bible and HSCB. The NRSV,TNIV, and ESV go with the “traditional” allusion to Mary’s virginal status which is not the explicit focus of this text. It appears that,as Phillips points out,these versions which appeal to audiences that follow traditional norms of English Bible translation in terms of interpretation and vocabulary don’t want to possibly alienate or confuse their readers, but at the price of rendering the text as faithfully as possible. It seems to me that a lot of the criticisms of the CEB to date have to do with the fact that many of its renderings don’t conform to the vocabulary of traditional English Bible translation, not so much whether they’re accurate and this is communicated clearly to a wide audience.
From what I’ve read, Phillips exegesis of this question as having to do with teh timing of Mary’s betrothal and her promised pregnancy is on target, by rendering andra as “husband” in his footnote. I appreciate it when biblical scholars do their work with integrity, whatever their theolgical or confessional background is!
We’ll see what the CEB text says when it’s released in 2010.
TC-
Lukw 1:34 εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον, Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;
It’s interesting that Tom Phillips’ CEB rendering of Luke 1:34c “since I have experienced no intimacy with a man” is only reflected in the NET Bible and HSCB. The NRSV,TNIV, and ESV go with the “traditional” allusion to Mary’s virginal status which is not the explicit focus of this text. It appears that,as Phillips points out,these versions which appeal to audiences that follow traditional norms of English Bible translation in terms of interpretation and vocabulary don’t want to possibly alienate or confuse their readers, but at the price of not rendering the text as faithfully as possible. It seems to me that a lot of the criticisms of the CEB to date have to do with the fact that many of its renderings don’t conform to the vocabulary of traditional English Bible translation, not so much whether they’re accurate and this is communicated clearly to a wide audience.
From what I’ve read, Phillips exegesis of this question as having to do with teh timing of Mary’s betrothal and her promised pregnancy is on target, by rendering andra as “husband” in his footnote. I appreciate it when biblical scholars do their work with integrity, whatever their theolgical or confessional background is!
We’ll see what the CEB text says when it’s released in 2010.
Scott,
I thought the integrity of his wrestle with the original text was encouraging. Yes, certain renderings are church-cultured, so to speak.
I don’t think the CEB committee care too much about satisfying mainstream evangelicalism.
But I’m not too sure that we can just dismiss the traditional rendering. I believe the important question here is this: What does the original mean? Is there some kind of biblical euphemism going on here?
To me, it seems like what instead of when is the focus of Luke’s focus.
TC writes: But I’m not too sure that we can just dismiss the traditional rendering. I believe the important question here is this: What does the original mean? Is there some kind of biblical euphemism going on here?
To me, it seems like what instead of when is the focus of Luke’s focus.
For the first comment, that’s the point. The traditional rendering becomes a type of defualt solution due to some ambiguity and eccelsial and social pressure. THe problem is that sometimes the results of solid, responsible scholarship gets sublimated to convention, a highly ironic phenomenon esp. for those who proclaim the authority of Scripture trumps all other sources of authority.
Secondly,in Luke 1:27 we are already informed that Mariam is a virgin. A superficial reading of the Annunciation doesn’t necessarily imply a virginal conception of Jesus;it could be construed as Spiirt-empowered conception through human agency. What complicates this is Miriam’s marital situation at present, which she presumably interprets the conception of Jesus as occuring soon–before she’s taken into Joseph’s home, at which time sexual relations will commence. This follows the narrative logic of this pericope. We’ve been conditioned to read these (and other) texts in such a way to derive a specific dogma rather than attending to the specificity of a close literary and sociocultural examination of the text in question.
THe problem is that sometimes the results of solid, responsible scholarship gets sublimated to convention, a highly ironic phenomenon esp. for those who proclaim the authority of Scripture trumps all other sources of authority.
Scott,
True, but where else should we turn?
Regarding Luke 1:27, but neither do we need to seek a deeper level of reading when a plain and natural reading is what is required.
The narrative logic of the pericope in question is to inform precisely of the type of conception before us – v. 35.
By the way, not every conditioning is suspect. In fact, some are needed.