The Common English Bible: A Roundup of Posts and Some Critical Notes

So far, it can’t be said that the reviews are positive. Doug Chaplin (seconded in many instances by Stephen Carlson) notes a number of infelicities. T. C. Robinson notes that “conservative evangelicals are not going to like it too much. Why? Certain terms are ‘sacred.’” I would go further. Anyone at all attached to the vocabulary of the Christian faith as currently used in English-language communities of faith is not going to like it in key passages. Insofar as this translation is adopted by “mainstream Christians” (a pompous reference to Christians in Protestant denominations like the one I serve in, the United Methodist Church - *now omitted* - see comments below), it will ghettoize them from apparently non-mainstream Christians like Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and Pentecostals who, last time I checked, still use words like “repent,” “blasphemy,” and “Son of Man.”

CEB, to judge from the Gospel of Matthew sampler, is going to contain too many neologisms. “Human One” for the traditional “Son of Man” has been noted as jarring or the like by Esteban Vazquez and a number of other commentators (go here; though Wayne Leman seems to like it). If it is the case – and I think it is - that phrases like “the abomination of desolation” and “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” count as technical terms or language in code, one cannot easily dispense with them any more than one can dispense with “Christ” and “John the Baptist,” both of which CEB mercifully keeps.

CEB 24:15 the disgusting and destructive thing for the traditional “abomination of desolation” is in fact too colloquial. CEB 24:30 the Human One coming in the heavenly clouds has no chance of “working” unless the occurrences of “Son of Man” wherever found in Daniel are rendered concordantly – which I don’t think is possible.

CEB seems destined to repeat NRSV’s lamentable tendency to translate phrases one way in the text Jesus is quoting, and a different way, but without justification, when Jesus quotes it (Daniel 7:13 a human being coming with the clouds of heaven = Matthew 24:30 the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven; Daniel 9:27 an abomination that desolates = Matthew 24:15 the desolating sacrilege).

More pedestrian CEB neologisms include phrases like “children of snakes.” This is an example of 5^th grade level explanatory Biblish. Google “children of snakes” if you don’t believe me. A snake’s young are not normally called “children” in English. In any case, a reference to underage snakes is not the point of the Greek phrase. Furthermore, CEB Matthew 23:33 You snakes! You children of snakes! is not just odd; it’s weak compared to the traditional “You serpents, you brood of vipers!” “You serpents, you brood of vipers!” or very strong language like it, is necessary in Matthew 23:33, unless the desire is to have a kinder, gentler Jesus, regardless of how the gospel of Matthew presents him.  

Another example: CEB Matt 12:27: if I throw out demons by Beelzebul, then by whom do your people throw out demons? But do people throw out demons in English? This, it seems to me, is another neologism. In English, we cast out demons, or drive them out.

To be sure, CEB avoids traditional language with the result that certain passages come alive whereas they could otherwise sound trite. For example, John the Baptist does not say, “Repent,” but “Change your hearts and lives” (Matt 3:2). The advantage of CEB's translation is that it makes sense on the fly. But it will be impossible to translate the Old Testament background texts which form the basis of John’s appeal in concordant fashion. In the process, CEB will obscure the coherence of the biblical narrative. This is a common defect of Bible versions on the “free” side of the translation continuum.

Similarly, it is not “an evil and adulterous generation” that asks for a sign, but an evil and faithless generation in CEB (Matt 12:39). That destroys the connection with the Old Testament subtext (Hosea; Ezekiel; and so on). At the very least, it takes the sexual innuendo out of it, what you do, I guess, when teaching the faith to people who on other days of the week watch “Desperate Housewives.”

Blasphemy against the Spirit” becomes insulting the Spirit (Matt 12:31). But insulting is too weak. I admit there is a part of me, the teacher in me, not the poet, that wants to get rid of the word blasphemy. The dilemma is this: once you get what the word means – slander of the vilest sort – blasphemy becomes the best of all possible translations. It is however always helpful to explain that Matthew 12:31 means to say that slander of every kind is forgivable, but not slander against the Spirit, which is what people do when they attribute the Spirit’s work to the devil.  

Joel Hoffman questions whether CEB keeps its promise to dumb down the language of the source text where necessary to bring it to a 5^th to 7^th grade level, in the case of magi in Matthew 2:2, 7. Of course, there are those of us who will stay away from CEB like the plague precisely because of that fateful promise, even if, mercifully, CEB has the good sense to retain magi – a technical term if there ever was one, with just the right overtones of magic and the occult in English - where we expect to find it. 

Comments

[Lue-Yee Tsang]

And if we say mages instead of magi? All the fantasy video game players will know what we’re talking about. Simon the Mage. Mages from the East.

Does magi consistently evoke more than ‘the wise men who came to Jesus’, though? I’ve never asked anyone who wasn’t semi-familiar with the Bible.

[JohnFH]

Lue-Yee,

That's interesting. There is something counter-intuitive about eliminating terms whose origin is biblical and which have become firmly ensconced in the language from translations that are supposed to be understandable to the popular imagination.

[Bob MacDonald]

John - thanks for this note. I tried an experiment with the CEB - using Google translate on 3:2 here.

[JohnFH]

Very interesting, Bob.

[T.C. R]

John, thanks for the round up.

CEB is destined to a certain confinement. It doesn't take rocket science to figure that out.

Why? It's messing too much with our "sacred" terms.

"Insulting" for "blasphemy." That's not going to work.

[Esteban Vázquez]

John,

I took Abingdon to task in a post yesterday precisely on account of the very unfortunate language originally used in the new CEB website to market the translation:

http://voxstefani.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/marketing-the-common-english-bible/

I was pleasantly surprised to receive a very positive reply from Paul Franklyn, the CEB Project Director, and I'm glad to to tell you that the text on the website has been updated, and that it much, much better.

Esteban

[JohnFH]

Esteban,

You rock. All references to "mainstream" as opposed to "conservative" Christians have now disappeared.

But your post preserves the offending paragraphs for posterity. That's helpful, because the omitted paragraphs represent the mindset of not a few who are behind the production of CEB. Not all, but still.

It is the story of the NIV all over again, which started out as an anti-RSV enterprise. It was no different in the case of ESV, an anti-TNIV enterprise which, paradoxically, recovers RSV for another generation of readers.

The genesis of KJV was also shaped by politics of the same kind.

At the end of the day, it is imperative to judge Bible translations, not on the basis of the intentions of those who produced them, but on the basis of their intrinsic merits and demerits.

The larger question is the use of the rhetoric of denigration, subtly or crassly framed. When is such rhetoric appropriate? When should it be challenged? The questions, unresolved, loom large in the public square.

[Charles Wiese]

I'm not real keen on the substitution of "happy" for "blessed" especially when you get to Matthew 5:3ff. and get the heading "Happy People." I really don't know what word would fit as a substitute that would bring it to the grade level they are aiming for but "happy" does not convey the meaning of the Greek. Jesus was not preaching a sermon on how to be happy people.

I do appreciate that they included Matt. 7:6 in the paragraph of Matt. 7:1-5. I think many misinterpretations have arisen by treating v. 6 as a separate unit.

[JohnFH]

Hi Charles,

BTW, what a great blog you have. I'm with you all the way in your recent post:

http://lambonthealtar.blogspot.com/2009/11/cyril-lucar-synod-of-jerusalem-clarity.html

I have the same misgivings as you with respect to "happy" versus "blessed." On the other hand, I often preach on the beatitudes as a recipe for happiness - just not happiness as most people think of happiness. The only kind of happiness worth having, according to the Bible, is the kind that flows from joy of the knowledge of salvation.

[Esteban Vázquez]

John,

As you might imagine, I'm delighted that the text was removed -- not because it was partly in response to one of my posts, but because I sincerely hope that the CEB will do well, even though I find its translation of St Matthew's Gospel disappointing. When I first heard of the project, I had hoped for a translation like the TNIV that transcended its well-known Evangelical slant. It is now clear that the CEB is something else entirely, but there still is a place for it, and again, I hope that it will do well for itself.

I don't think the paragraphs quoted in my blog represent the mindset of a significant number of the people behind the CEB, but that of a rather misguided marketing department. As Chuck Grantham noted on my blog, that is sadly a common occurrence.

Also, I can't agree that the roots of the NIV are in an anti-RSV movement. Of course, as Paul Franklyn noted on my blog, it is undeniable that it was marketed as the anti-RSV in some quarters in the '70s, but it must be remembered that a) Howard Long, the layman whose vision was the seed of the NIV, and some very important members of the CBT, belonged to the Christian Reformed Church, a denomination who officially sanctioned the RSV for use in its churches, and in which the RSV was widely used; and b) that the NAE had approached the NCC in the hopes of being able to produce an Evangelical edition of the RSV, a privilege afforded to the Roman Catholics (1966), but denied to the Evangelicals. In a sense, then, it was the NCC's snubbing of Evangelicals, who evidently esteemed the RSV and wanted to use it with some changes, that opened the doors to the production of the NIV.

[JohnFH]

Esteban,

You are very generous toward non-evangelical mainline Protestants. That's sweet of you, but the fact remains that the same anti-evangelical spirit which brought the NCC to deny permission to NAE churches decades ago to produce their own edition of RSV is alive and well among NCC member denominations to this day.

The situation is exacerbated by ongoing battles within mainline Protestant denominations in which predominantly liberal leaderships have long made a name for themselves in the sense of squashing a more conservative-minded evangelical rank-and-file.

If only it were a question of marketing. If only.

As for NIV arising out of evangelical dissatisfaction with RSV, I thought that was common knowledge. See, for example, from a NIV backer, Don Jackson, "The Theology of the NIV," Restoration Quarterly 27 (1984) 208-220; 208. Or how about this famous bon mot of Daniel Wallace, "The conservative reaction to the RSV’s translation of this one word [almah = young woman] gave birth to the NASB, the NIV, and a host of other translations."

But I accept that many other people simply wanted a less stilted, more understandable translation, and were glad to have one, quite apart from the fact that it was produced under the leadership of a Westminster Seminary professor and a committee of theological revisors of a stripe that CRC folk, including those without any strong negative attitudes toward RSV, would also definitely feel comfortable with.

I remain unconvinced that CEB will prove to be a significant player in the increasingly fragmented world of English Bible translations. Like you, I find CEB Matthew disappointing.

That said, I agree with you that NIV has an evangelical slant here and there which is annoying - I speak as an evangelical. The first example that comes to my mind is the translation of paradosis in 2 Thessalonians by "teaching" rather than the usual "tradition." On this one, the ESV translation team showed more maturity. Here's hoping that Mounce, formerly the chair of the ESV NT translation, now a member of the NIV revision team, will argue that a higher degree of concordance in translation is called for in this instance.

[Gary Simmons]

I suppose this will be the least-contributing comment for the discussion but... I personally translate John the Baptist as saying "you viper hatchlings!"

Perhaps for blasphemy one could instead say "utterly profane." Although profane is still out of a seventh-grader's vocabulary, at least it moves away from the current "church word."

[JohnFH]

Creative suggestions, Gary. They might work best in exposition however. Nice blog you have, BTW.