Thread: Common English Bible Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028277
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
While TEC may be considering adding the Message as an acceptable Bible version for corporate worship, its Canadian counterpart is considering the Common English Bible: http://thecommunity.anglican.ca/liturgy/1539/reading-the-bible-in-church/

An extended chart comparing passages between the CEB and the NRSV and NIV is found here: http://www.commonenglishbible.com/Explore/CompareTranslations/tabid/198/Default.aspx

"Lord of Heavenly Forces" might go well with Eucharistic Prayer 4 (Eucharistic Prayer C in the Episcopal Prayer Book) [Razz]
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
I've used the CEB. It seems like a decent translation in the tradition of the Good News, Today's English Version. Or whatever it's called now. I don't see anything wrong with it.

The Message is almost incomprehensible to anybody not steeped in rather dated idiomatic American slang.
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
I take exception to "Human One" instead of "Son of Man". Otherwise I'm reasonably good with it. I've preached from it a time or two.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
Just from that chart - I recognize that translating "ha adam" as "the human being" rather than "man" is good in many ways, but when it gets to this point:

quote:
With the rib taken from the human, the Lord God fashioned a woman and brought her to the human being. The human said, "This one finally is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh. She will be called a woman because from a man she was taken.”
I find it a bit disturbing, because it seems to oppose "the human (being)" and "woman"—as if the woman were something other than a human being.

That's as far as I got so far... But I'm also not a fan of using other phrases than "Son of Man," since that was kinda a technical term in the prophetic tradition. Maybe someone could come up with a better phrase that replaces "Man" with something more gender-neutral, but I haven't heard it yet. "Son of Humankind" might be too clunky.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Not sure I've encountered this one over here. Although I've checked and it's listed on Amazon uk, I don't think it's widely available or much used here.

The CofE position is that for Common Worship you can use any translation unless it's been disallowed. I don't think any actually have been, but I don't think the church authorities would be very impressed if a congregation took to using the JW version. If you're using the BCP for a service, you're supposed to stick to one of the older ones. I seem to remember there's a list that includes most translations down to about 1970.

An issue that is widely ducked is that if you use the NIV, it has never translated the Apocrypha. I don't think they approve of it. That means that where the lectionary provides readings from it, you can't read them. There is usually though an optional alternative.
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Just from that chart - I recognize that translating "ha adam" as "the human being" rather than "man" is good in many ways, but when it gets to this point:

quote:
With the rib taken from the human, the Lord God fashioned a woman and brought her to the human being. The human said, "This one finally is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh. She will be called a woman because from a man she was taken.”
I find it a bit disturbing, because it seems to oppose "the human (being)" and "woman"—as if the woman were something other than a human being.

That's as far as I got so far... But I'm also not a fan of using other phrases than "Son of Man," since that was kinda a technical term in the prophetic tradition. Maybe someone could come up with a better phrase that replaces "Man" with something more gender-neutral, but I haven't heard it yet. "Son of Humankind" might be too clunky.
That bothers me too, because it's pretty darn obvious that in that particular bit the narrator is talking about a specific male, not humankind in general. His name may well have meant "human being", but it has been handed to us as Adam. It would be the same as calling me "God Rescues Beloved Son of Alister". Which, while true, is a ridiculous way of referring to me.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
An issue that is widely ducked is that if you use the NIV, it has never translated the Apocrypha. I don't think they approve of it. That means that where the lectionary provides readings from it, you can't read them. There is usually though an optional alternative.
I'm not sure it's really an issue, given that a fair chunk of Anglicans reject the Apocrypha, indeed if any CofE clergy still hold to the 39 articles then the Apocrpyha is pretty clearly ruled out. I've not seen an occasion where an alternative isn't provided for an Apocryphal reading.
 
Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :
 
quote:
I'm not sure it's really an issue, given that a fair chunk of Anglicans reject the Apocrypha, indeed if any CofE clergy still hold to the 39 articles then the Apocrpyha is pretty clearly ruled out. I've not seen an occasion where an alternative isn't provided for an Apocryphal reading. [/QB]
Is it not to be "read for example of life and instruction of manners" any more then? Article 6 seems pretty clear that it is. How does that stop them being read in worship?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
The original Book of Common Prayer included readings at the office from the Apocrypha.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
In my home church, in a Eucharistic service, if the reading was from the Apocrypha, it was ended with, "Here ends the reading." Where I am now, we're fine with using "The Word of the Lord." (In both cases, the congregation would respond, "Thanks be to God.")

I like to imagine, though, in a church where the Apocrapha is viewed skeptically, someone accidentally ending with "The Word of the Lord" and the congregation responding, "No it's not!"
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Don't like it any better than The Message. On the whole, CEB isn't any easier to understand than the NRSV. When it tries to simplify the text, the CEB does it at the expense of accuracy. Take Genesis 1:1-2. The Deep refers to the primordial waters of chaos not just the ocean. I'm also not happy with the translation of Son of Man as the Human One. And the CEB takes the inclusive language into realm of silly. God takes a rib from the human being, creates a woman, and brings her to the human being? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Just from that chart - I recognize that translating "ha adam" as "the human being" rather than "man" is good in many ways, but when it gets to this point:

quote:
With the rib taken from the human, the Lord God fashioned a woman and brought her to the human being. The human said, "This one finally is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh. She will be called a woman because from a man she was taken.”
I find it a bit disturbing, because it seems to oppose "the human (being)" and "woman"—as if the woman were something other than a human being.

That's as far as I got so far... But I'm also not a fan of using other phrases than "Son of Man," since that was kinda a technical term in the prophetic tradition. Maybe someone could come up with a better phrase that replaces "Man" with something more gender-neutral, but I haven't heard it yet. "Son of Humankind" might be too clunky.
Churchgeek:
I was thinking similar thoughts as well,

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I have heard of a theory that the first human creature wasn't male but was androgynous. Only when God took the rib out,was male and female created simultaneously as a result of sexual differentiation.

This doesn't quite explain the fact that Ha Adam says "from a man, she was taken", but it is something to think about.

Regarding "Son of Man", I guess the issue is that in the Gospels, that term has multiple meanings. "Son of Man" can be a self-designation by Jesus referring to his current vocation or it could refer to the end-of-times eschatological figure. I agree that "Human One" is clunky.

[ 05. May 2012, 23:52: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
Anglican_Brat,

Can you provide some additional clarification as to your intended direction with the thread? Was your opening post questioning the appropriateness of the CEB for use in worship, or did you intend to discuss the translation itself?

Thank you.

Mamacita, Eccles Host
 
Posted by rhflan (# 17092) on :
 
I like the Message for times when I'm trying to understand the basic gist of a story or parable that I'm reading. It helps me 'set the scene' as it were. I don't know that I'd want to use it as my 'go to' Bible for a Sunday morning service. I'm just not sure that trying to use it in a more traditional/liturgical setting would really be all that helpful.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anon four:
quote:
I'm not sure it's really an issue, given that a fair chunk of Anglicans reject the Apocrypha, indeed if any CofE clergy still hold to the 39 articles then the Apocrpyha is pretty clearly ruled out. I've not seen an occasion where an alternative isn't provided for an Apocryphal reading.
Is it not to be "read for example of life and instruction of manners" any more then? Article 6 seems pretty clear that it is. How does that stop them being read in worship? [/QB]
*is embarassed* I misremembered the view of the 39 articles on the Apocrypha.
 
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
In my home church, in a Eucharistic service, if the reading was from the Apocrypha, it was ended with, "Here ends the reading." Where I am now, we're fine with using "The Word of the Lord." (In both cases, the congregation would respond, "Thanks be to God.")

I like to imagine, though, in a church where the Apocrapha is viewed skeptically, someone accidentally ending with "The Word of the Lord" and the congregation responding, "No it's not!"
[Killing me] That would be a Life of Brian moment worth paying to experience!
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Anglican_Brat,

Can you provide some additional clarification as to your intended direction with the thread? Was your opening post questioning the appropriateness of the CEB for use in worship, or did you intend to discuss the translation itself?

Thank you.

Mamacita, Eccles Host
Mamacita:

It originally was intended to discuss the use of the CEB in worship, but it has evolved to a discussion about the translation itself. I am perfectly fine moving this thread to another forum because I would like discussing more about the translation itself, (or splitting it into two threads if that is what you prefer.
 
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
I have been experimenting with the CEB in worship. I find it generally alright but I don't like "human one" and other linguistic contortions just to have supposed "inclusive language." It just sounds ridiculous.

The CEB is largely a product of the United Methodist Church's publishing house, although they tout participation from scholars of other denominations. Cokesbury is pushing it hard to replace the NRSV in worship.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I am perfectly fine moving this thread to another forum because I would like discussing more about the translation itself <snip>
Thank you. Off we go to Kerygmania. Hang on to your colored ribbon markers.

Mamacita, Eccles Host
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
The CEB is largely a product of the United Methodist Church's publishing house, although they tout participation from scholars of other denominations. Cokesbury is pushing it hard to replace the NRSV in worship.
I picked it up because of the strong push from Cokesbury, and have been underwhelmed. It does seem like an attempt to appeal to the Good News readers, but I am hard-pressed to see any real rationale for having produced this translation at all.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Dogwalker (# 14135) on :
 
For several years, I was responsible for a monthly ante-Communion service for our Episcopal Church Sunday School. The CEB was one of several versions I'd pick and choose from for the readings. My goal was to find readings, almost always from the lectionary, that were at about a third-grade reading level.

I used the Good News most of the time, but sometimes the CEB or even NRSV seemed like the best choice. (This was pre-Message, by the way.)

I don't think I've even opened it since I gave up the responsibility.
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
We're clearly running out of TLAs (three letter acronyms) to describe bible versions!

(Dogwalker - are you confusing the CEV with the CEB? The CEB is only about a year old)

I don't know about worship use, but the CEB seems popular with the public.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Churchgeek:
I was thinking similar thoughts as well,

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I have heard of a theory that the first human creature wasn't male but was androgynous. Only when God took the rib out,was male and female created simultaneously as a result of sexual differentiation.

This doesn't quite explain the fact that Ha Adam says "from a man, she was taken", but it is something to think about.
Yes, I've heard that too. I personally doubt the really, really ancient, pre-literate people who first told that story had such a concept in mind, but it's similar to that myth Plato recounts in the Symposium (whether or not Plato made up his version or was handing on a real myth).

Of course, if you do read it that way, it makes sense to call the pre-op adam "the human being; but certainly post-op adam is decidedly "the man."

(Can you imagine waking up from that? You fall asleep androgynous and wake up not only with a woman beside you, but you're suddenly male?)
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
I have been experimenting with the CEB in worship. I find it generally alright but I don't like "human one" and other linguistic contortions just to have supposed "inclusive language." It just sounds ridiculous.

The CEB is largely a product of the United Methodist Church's publishing house, although they tout participation from scholars of other denominations. Cokesbury is pushing it hard to replace the NRSV in worship.
Oh, God, I hope TEC isn't responding to advertising pressure.

CEB had a booth up front in the exhibition hall at last fall's American Academy of Religion (AAR) Annual meeting here in San Francisco. I looked it over a little and considered picking one up, but I'm particular: I want my Bibles with all the books in them, and the "with Apocrypha" version was a little pricy for me at that moment when I had no particular reason to justify buying one more translation of the Bible. I did pick up a free pen, though.

Now I feel vindicated in my decision not to buy it, after reading this thread!
 
Posted by Dogwalker (# 14135) on :
 
quote:
We're clearly running out of TLAs (three letter acronyms) to describe bible versions!

(Dogwalker - are you confusing the CEV with the CEB? The CEB is only about a year old)

I don't know about worship use, but the CEB seems popular with the public.
Oops. I think you're right.
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
From the samples offered on the translation comparison website (linked to in the OP), it seems that the translators have adopted an approach in line with more current translation theory – and in places they have done a good job.

Their method takes seriously the twin aspects of the metaphorical nature of all language, and the important role the human horizon plays in viewing the world. They have recognised that there is a need not only to capture the essence of the biblical texts in their own time (moving the language over the metaphorical bridge from the more rhetorical to the more prosaic ends of the spectrum), but also then to transfer the resultant meaning over the second bridge – from the worldview horizon of the author to the worldview of today's reader.
Perhaps the above can be summed up as balancing criticality with readability. Inevitably the 'readability' end of things – the horizon – will overlap to greater or lesser extents for each reader. Some will find the level too common. That goes with translation territory. The critical end – taking the rhetoric of language as metaphor seriously – also has its limitations: no version can do without footnotes (or commentaries) to explain why a particular word or phrase was adopted in a particular place. That's the bane of all translation processes!

The translators have picked up on more recent interpretations of some texts, e.g., Romans 3:22 where CEB has “God’s righteousness comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ...” as opposed to the older “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ...”, the former making better sense of the historical context.

In other places they are weaker (in the sense that they pull the punches on the rhetoric), e.g., Mark 6:12, where CEB opts for “...they went out and proclaimed that people should change their hearts and lives.” This is an improvement on 'repent', which has become too technical a term to be of use in a common version, but it lacks the force of the Greek term in its context: the need to renounce current ways of believing and living, in the face of God's impending judgement.

I also noticed that CEB loses its confidence in bridging the metaphor and horizon gaps in places: In Mark 6:11 CEB retains the expression “shake the dust off your feet” and does not work to find an equivalent expression / explanation for the common English reader.

The points noted by others above concerning other translated terms such as 'son of man' and 'adam' are interesting and throw up the issue of technical language more generally; where and when does a term in the bible move from dynamic use in a language to static? Can 'son of man' be used in a fluid way throughout the bible (e.g., 'a human representative,' 'one like a human being')? The joys of translation.

For those interested, The full text of the Common English Bible can be found on the Bible Gateway site.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
From the samples offered on the translation comparison website (linked to in the OP), it seems that the translators have adopted an approach in line with more current translation theory – and in places they have done a good job.
If so, this just demonstrates how ineffective most translations are at communicating what they find to be of interest in the text. To my mind, this just reinforces how valuable the approach to translation taken by the NET Bible people really is -- they make clear what they see in the text by voluminous notes on textual criticism and translation elaborations of key terms.

I don't think that the NET Bible is the ultimate possible, but I think its approach to translation really does break the logjam that we see in folks choosing their spot on the formal equivalence/dynamic equivalence spectrum and deciding they've made the text accessible. If more translators would opt for the NET Bible approach to translation, we would truly have an embarrassment of riches in choosing a translation.

The CEB revealed none of what you discussed to me at least, and I am not unfamiliar with issues of translation. Allowing the full nuance of a text to hang on the unspoken difference between "of" and "in," for example, is just not going to get the job of illuminating the text done. If that was its goal, it is a complete failure. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
..this just reinforces how valuable the approach to translation taken by the NET Bible people really is -- they make clear what they see in the text by voluminous notes on textual criticism and translation elaborations of key terms.
Exactly. We just can't do without those footnotes, which is why...
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Allowing the full nuance of a text to hang on the unspoken difference between "of" and "in," for example, is just not going to get the job of illuminating the text done.
...such massive differences between the theology hanging on tiny prepositions needs an explanation or two somewhere close to the text of the version.

I agree about the value of the NET Bible - or at least the online version. The ideal would be to have notes that could be updated as new information works its way through the validation process - wikinotes, sort of thing.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
bump
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Common English Bible

Should that have had a question mark after it?

If so, the answer is "Yes".

Is that a good thing? I'd say no.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0