635780

research-article2016

RAE0010.1177/0034637316635780Review & ExpositorRobertson

Article

A word about the Common English Bible

Review and Expositor 2016, Vol. 113(2) 148­–152 © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0034637316635780 rae.sagepub.com

Warren C. Robertson

Gardner-Webb University School of Divinity, USA

Published by a consortium of denominational publishers in cooperation with Abingdon Press in 2011, the Common English Bible (CEB)1 has been with us now for several years. It is growing in popularity, with multiple editions available including the Protestant canon alone, the Protestant canon with Apocrypha, a Catholic edition, a study Bible with or without the Apocrypha, devotional Bibles targeting a wide range of readers, pew Bibles, an eBook, and over twenty licensed venues online. An increasing number of colleges and seminaries have adopted the CEB Study Bible. In addition, the CEB Deep Blue Kids Bible has sold surprisingly well. Finally, the CEB Student Bible has sold well since its advent in August 2015. It is time, then, to assess the CEB for the audience of Review & Expositor. I have a growing appreciation for the CEB as a highly readable translation worthy of consideration for personal and public reading. The overall objective of the team of 120 scholars representing men and women from twenty-two Christian (Catholic and Protestant) and Reformed Jewish faith traditions was to combine accuracy of translation from standard representations of the original languages with accessibility and clarity of expression. They do so through an intentional combination of word-for-word and thought-forthought methods of translation, with a theologically and socially diverse readership in mind. Its audience is explicitly Christian, primarily North American, and includes those who read devotionally, those who study the text, and those who read aloud or listen in worship. I will comment here on the translation of the Protestant canon, excluding the content of the Study Bible edition. First, I will give examples from my own reading of the CEB that demonstrate in my opinion accessibility and clarity in common English. Next, I will give examples that in my opinion demonstrate accuracy of translation.2 My guess is that most readers use either the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989) or the New International Version (NIV, 2011); therefore, I will compare the CEB to them. Finally, I will give a brief conclusion.   1. All Scripture quotations unless noted otherwise are taken from the Common English Bible, copyright 2011. Used by permission. All rights reserved.   2. For other comparisons, see Common English Bible, accessed November 19, 2015, www.commonenglishbible.com.

Corresponding author: Warren C. Robertson, Gardner-Webb University School of Divinity, Noel Hall, 203, PO Box 7314, Boiling Springs, NC 28017, USA. Email: [email protected]

Robertson

149

Characteristics of translation with comparisons Accessibility and clarity The CEB translators accomplish their goal of accessibility and clarity in various ways. For example, judicious, intentional use of contractions in direct speech is one frequent and successful strategy that accomplishes accessibility. The snake in the Garden of Eden says to the woman, “‘Did God really say that you shouldn’t eat from any tree in the garden?’ The woman said to the snake, ‘We may eat the fruit of the garden’s trees but not the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden. God said, ‘Don’t eat from it, and don’t touch it, or you will die’” (Gen 3:1b–3). When Peter denies being with Jesus, he says, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Contractions such as these contribute an immediacy to direct speech. Showing a sensitivity to genre, however, more formal and poetic passages do not have contractions. For example, “I will live in the LORD’s house as long as I live” (Ps 23:6 italics added) avoids a contraction, which preserves the deliberate character of poetry. Judicious use of common words and English idioms adds to the CEB’s accessibility and appeal. Deuteronomy 12:1 speaks of “regulations” and “case laws,” which brings both accessibility and specificity compared to “statutes and ordinances” (NRSV), or even “decrees and laws” (NIV). In 1 Sam 16:12, the CEB describes David as “reddish brown” rather than “ruddy” (NRSV). In 1 Kgs 12:4, Jeroboam lobbies Rehoboam about a fair “workload” for his constituency in the kingdom, rather than a fair “yoke,” as in both the NRSV and NIV. In Isa 45:7, God makes “prosperity and doom,” rather than “weal and woe” (NRSV). Translators employ an English idiom in 1 Cor 13:7, saying that love “puts up with” all things compared to how love “bears” or “protects” in the NRSV and NIV, respectively. These examples adequately convey the freshness of CEB’s translation. One can expect more sentences per passage in the CEB as another aspect of accessibility and clarity for readers and hearers. Paul, for example, is notorious for long sentences. For example, Eph 1:3–14 is one sentence, already divided in the standard, critical Greek text. The CEB divides this long Greek sentence into twelve English sentences, whereas the NIV has eight and the NRSV, six. As a result, the CEB supplies English nouns for Hebrew and Greek pronouns at times, but only when the antecedent of the pronoun is clear. The Greek noun for “God” appears only once in this passage. The CEB uses “God” ten times. This usage does not reflect intentional inclusive language for God, an objective the editorial board of the CEB does not articulate; in fact, “he” is used for God in 1:3 and throughout the passage. “God” is used instead for clarity. Through immediacy of direct speech, freshness of words, and ease of reading, the CEB meets its objective of clarity as well as accessibility for both reader and listener.

Accuracy No doubt most translation committees, not to mention every individual translator, have their signature, if not new, renderings of a Hebrew or Greek word or concept as an aspect of accuracy. Accuracy of translation follows specific research, and it takes time for the fruits of such research to appear in new versions of the Bible. Time will tell if these translations endure or prove to be idiosyncrasies. Translators of the CEB contribute several signature translations of which I am aware.3 “Topsoil” stands in for “dust” as “fertile land” stands in for “ground” in the NRSV and the NIV throughout Gen 2:5–9.4 In addition, one can be grateful for their translation of a particular Hebrew term as

  3. I do not claim that all these “signature” translations appear first or only in the CEB; they seem, however, to be intentionally consistent.   4. On “fertile land,” see Theodore Hiebert, The Yahwist’s Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996/2008), 34–35.

150

Review and Expositor 113(2)

“being” or “human.” Let us take, for example, Deut 6:5. There we read, “Love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your being, and all your strength” (italics added). Both the NRSV and the NIV use the word “soul” here. The word “soul” tends to divide the human person into categories of body and that which is separate from the body, whereas “being” is holistic, and arguably more in keeping with Hebrew thought.5 “Immigrant” is a fresh translation from the CEB. Leviticus 19:33–34 reads, “When immigrants live in your land with you, you must not cheat them. Any immigrant who lives with you must be treated as if they were one of your citizens. You must love them as yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.” The NRSV uses the term “alien,” whereas the NIV uses “foreigner.” Not only is CEB’s translation fresh, but it is timely. Joshua 10:40, one of several summary statements within the book’s depiction of the Israelite conquest of Canaan, is a theologically challenging verse, because it thoroughly attributes violence to God’s command. Of course, translators must be faithful to the text, even when clarity and accuracy does not and cannot mitigate one’s own theological dissonance with the text. At Josh 10:40b, the NRSV reads, “[Joshua] utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.” The NIV renders the verse in similar fashion. The CEB, however, reads, “He wiped out everything that breathed as something reserved for God, exactly as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded” (italics added). There is no addition to the text here; instead, the Hebrew word the NRSV translates as “He utterly destroyed,” the CEB translates as “He wiped out … as something reserved for God.” This translation allows the reader the opportunity to realize in English the correspondence between this verse in Joshua with “the ban” referred to in Deut 2:34 and Deut 20:17. At times, clarity requires more words by way of explanation, but the use of more words here does not distract from accessibility, while adding clarity of meaning. “Secondary wife” in place of “concubine” in Judg 1:1–3 and elsewhere is another helpful clarification, if not a new contribution to English translations. The “concubine” in Judges 19 is neither a mistress nor a slave, but a wife by legal arrangement.6 Moreover, instead of “Satan” in Job 1:6 per the NRSV and NIV, the CEB uses “the Adversary,” which conveys a particular role among the divine assembly.7 Although accuracy is another aspect of clarity or meaning, it can put smoothness of readability at risk. Nonetheless, these few examples demonstrate the translators’ objective to combine accuracy with accessibility.8

Translations of texts with contemporary theological significance Several more examples of CEB translations highlight the same objectives of clarity and accuracy with terms used in texts that have special contemporary theological relevance. Gender roles in general and women in positions of ministry in particular remain contemporary issues in our society and our churches. One can see nuances of expression regarding these roles in comparisons among English translations. “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent,” says 1 Tim 2:11–12 in the NRSV. “A   5. See, for example, Ellis R. Brontzman, “Man and the Meaning of ‫ֶנֶפׁש‬,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (1988): 407–408; Joel B. Green, “Soul,” in vol. 5 of New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009), 358–59.   6. Danna Nolan Fewell, “Judges,” in Women’s Bible Commentary, exp. ed., ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 81.   7. See also 1 Chron 21:1 and Zech 3:1. In Num 22:22, “adversary” is lower-cased; Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: ś̱ā̱ṭā̱ṉ in the Hebrew Bible, Harvard Semitic Monographs 43, ed. Frank Moore Cross (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 15.   8. See also the CEB Committee’s comments on “human O/one” and “Lord of hosts” in the preface to the CEB.

Robertson

151

woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet,” says the NIV. The CEB is more specific in these verses: “A wife should learn quietly with complete submission. I don’t allow a wife to teach or to control her husband. Instead, she should be a quiet listener” (italics added). Again, translators cannot intentionally allow their own theological convictions to influence their translations. Here, both “woman” and “wife” as well as “man” and “husband” are legitimate English translations; however, “wife” and “husband” narrow the pool of women and men one thinks of in the ancient context. Comparisons of 1 Tim 3:1–13 prove interesting as well. First, the NRSV speaks of the qualifications of a “bishop,” the NIV of an “overseer,” and the CEB of a “supervisor in the church.” Through 3:7, both the NRSV and the NIV use the pronoun “he” in reference to the one holding the office. The CEB, however, uses “they,” presumably to be gender-inclusive. As for marital relations, one, presumably a man, is to be “married only once,” according to the NRSV and “faithful to his wife,” according to the NIV.9 According to the CEB, “they … should be faithful to their spouse.” Clearly, the CEB is the gender-inclusive version of these three, and perhaps sensitive to people of various sexual orientations as well. In 3:8, the NRSV and the NIV speak of the qualifications of “deacons.” The CEB, however, speaks of “servants in the church.” Because both “deacons” and “servants” are plural, the following references use plural pronouns in reference to those in this role. The CEB, however, is again more intentionally inclusive regarding the one who is a servant, for at 3:11 it speaks of “women who are servants in the church” instead of “women” (NRSV) or “the women” (NIV), who could be understood variously as women deacons, or wives of deacons.10 As for human sexuality, the NRSV is very stilted at 1 Cor 7:3, saying “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband” (italics added). The NIV speaks of “marital duty,” which is equally stilted. The CEB, by comparison, acknowledges that both wives and husbands might actually desire sexual intimacy, saying, “The husband should meet his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should do the same for her husband.” In Eph 5, the CEB subsumes all verses on the relationship between husbands and wives into one paragraph (Eph 5:15–33) under the heading “Be filled with the Spirit.” Both the NRSV and the NIV make a new section at 5:21 under a heading about Christian households. All such headings, regardless of translation, are, of course, editorial contributions, not part of the biblical text. More on sexuality takes us to 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. The terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” have made their way into contemporary English translations of the Bible.11 At 1 Cor 6:9, those to whom the NRSV refers as “sodomites,” the NIV refers to as “men who have sex with men.”12 The CEB translates the same text as “both participants in same-sex intercourse.” Similarly, at 1 Tim 1:10, the NRSV refers to “sodomites,” among those for whom the law was made (1:9). The NIV includes “those practicing homosexuality.”13 Significantly, the CEB translates the same text as “people who have intercourse with the same sex,” helpfully refraining, it seems to me, from having men in mind only, and from the notion that any and all “intercourse with the same sex” from the ancient perspective is equal to “homosexuality” according to a range of potential modern   9. Cf. “husband of but one wife,” NIV, 1978. 10. Cf. “their wives,” NIV, 1978. 11. I make no claim here about when “homosexual” or “homosexuality” first appears in an English translation of the Bible. The 1978 NIV uses “homosexual offenders” at 1 Cor 6:9; as of the mid-1990s, however, as the number of English translations has increased, so has the use of the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality.” The CEV, ESV, HCSB, ISV, and MEV all use one term or the other in 1 Cor 6:9. All but the MEV use either term at 1 Tim 1:10. In addition, the ISV uses “homosexual” in Jude 1:7 in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah. 12. Cf. “homosexual offenders,” NIV, 1978. 13. Cf. “perverts,” NIV, 1978.

152

Review and Expositor 113(2)

understandings.14 These translations helpfully contribute to discussions about these social and ecclesiastical issues both in the academy and in the church.

Conclusion I could say much more, but a few summary statements will suffice. I will miss “shall.” Liturgically, the occasional “Thee,” “Thou,” and “Thine” is otherworldly pleasing but absent from the CEB. Oddly, “Human One” sounds more celestial than terrestrial. “Corn” is a surprise.15 “Won’t” is perhaps a bit too common. “Happy” seems not to match “blessed,” and although “unable to have children” is better than “barren,” one wonders if “childless” is not sufficient. Nevertheless, these perceived shortfalls do not prevent me from highly recommending the CEB as the fresh and inspiring translation that it is. In particular, I recommend it for private devotion, as a pew Bible, and for reading aloud in worship. I look forward now to considering the CEB Study Bible.16 Author biography Warren C. Robertson (Cal) is in his ninth year at Gardner-Webb School of Divinity as Associate Professor of Biblical Studies. Primarily, he teaches Old Testament and Hebrew. His dissertation, Drought, Famine, Plague, and Pestilence: Ancient Israel’s Understandings and Responses to Natural Catastrophes, was published by Gorgias Press in 2010. From 1995 to 1998, Cal was Associate Pastor of First Baptist Church, Bristol, Virginia. He and his wife, Cathy, have two sons in college.

14. Arguably, Paul assumed everyone was straight; therefore, he condemned same-gender sexual activity as unnatural; Walter Wink, “Homosexuality and the Bible,” in Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches, ed. Walter Wink (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 36. For a very helpful theological reflection on the issue of homosexuality and Christians’ appeal to Scripture in determining a response, see Patrick D. Miller, “What the Scriptures Principally Teach,” in Homosexuality and Christian Community, ed. Choon-Leong Seow (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 53–63. 15. Although no doubt an accurate translation, it is hard to imagine the common, contemporary English speaker understanding “corn” as a general term for a seed or particle of grain and not specifically as maize, which was only known in the lands of the Bible after 1492 CE; Alfred W. Crosby, Jr., The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492, 30th Anniversary Ed. (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2003), 170–71. 16. I would like to thank all those who assisted me with this article, including Paul Franklyn, Steven Harmon, Ted Hiebert, Jim McConnell, and Tony Tench.