Reviewer Matthew Cantirino hits every panic button within reach; political correctness, dumbing down, ideological bias...
[T]he CEB in general maims well-known expressions and sayings and renders Biblical language pedestrian to such a degree that Scripture becomes indistinguishable from ordinary speech. Pathos is drained utterly out of the text. This willingness to cater to society’s informality is a more subtle concession than the adoption of studied academic non-offensiveness, and it cannot as hastily be dismissed as a transparent ideological machination.Bulldust!
King James English, and most subsequent translations, are well known to flatter the Greek, which lacks much in the way of sophisticated literary quality. Cantirino is jousting with a mirage.
The fundamental problem is that the translators of the CEB seem to believe Christianity should submit to all stylistic demands of the culture it finds itself in, even if those demands leave it shorn of much of its complexity, elegance, and history, if not its core truths. In charity, this is a debate over means. Does effective conveyance of the Gospel—even to our highly democratic society—really require the kind of bland prose found in the CEB? Can such a stripped-down language hope to stand apart from a world of text messages and formulaic business-talk? The answer, I think, is no.Again, rubbish. Complexity, elegance... these come to the text largely after the fact. Cantirino is arguing from an anachronism. Bland prose, stripped down language; these are closer to the original qualities of most of the New Testament writings. And strangely enough it was these rather rough, "pedestrian" documents that - in "ordinary speech" - both fuelled and forged the new faith.
Son of Man, or son of man? A christological title or a statement asserting the essential humanity of Jesus? It's hard to be dogmatic given the later redactors' intentions, but one thing is pretty certain, none of the New Testament writers were Trinitarians. That interpretation - whether rightly or wrongly - came much later. Even an appeal to Daniel 7:13 is unconvincing. The NRSV reads: "I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven." The Revised English Bible uses the identical expression. The point seems to be that this exalted figure is something quite apart from the standard apocalyptic menagerie, appearing in plain human form, not as a winged lion, or something from the special effects in a Harry Potter film.
The reviewer is also offended to find that in the CEB Adam is referred to as “the human” while Eve is still called “woman.” But as David Nickol points out in a comment, 'adam' is a generic term embracing both sexes. That's not called political correctness, it's called accuracy, a truckload of hallowed tradition not withstanding. The reviewer has no grounds for pouting.
If there's an ideological bias to be outed, perhaps Mr. Cantirino might have benefited from examining his own first.