CEB - the best "broad spectrum" translation yet?

The complete Common English Bible has been unleashed at last, and it may give the NRSV and other "broad spectrum" translations real competition.

The CEB attempts to bring together readability with high standards in scholarship. Literal translations are famously 'wooden' making them almost impossible to use as spoken English.  Evangelical translations are, by their very nature, agenda driven, sometimes deliberately mistranslating in order to preserve 'proof texts', as with the ESV.

The controversial release of the latest NIV revision - and its troubled reception at the recent Southern Baptist convention - illustrates just how vulnerable modern translations are to haranguing from the 'cheap seats', and the resulting pressure to compromise.

The CEB promises something much better, and that is, well, uncommon.

NIV - milestone or millstone?

This is the year the current incarnation of the New International Version of the Bible that we all know (and either love or detest) joins the dinosaurs. Also receiving the heave-ho is Today's New International Version. In their place let another arise, NIV 2011. It might not be obvious from the cover, but the text has had a major retread since the last one in 1984.

The NIV has always been an agenda-driven translation, and the agenda is evangelical. The introduction to the NIV Study Bible says it quite clearly:

All [scholars involved] confess the authority of the Bible as God's infallible word to humanity... Doctrinally, the NIV Study Bible reflects traditional evangelical theology.

Which is at least up-front. Beloved of evangelical Christians, the 1984 NIV has become the translation of choice for many, and perhaps most, and the officially sanctioned version of several denominations (including GCI). When the TNIV was launched in 2001 however, it was not received with a chorus of hallelujahs. Conservative evangelicals, knickers tightly knotted, were selectively appalled at the updated language, and especially the move to be more gender inclusive. Plans to replace the NIV with it were quickly withdrawn.

That said, the TNIV seems a far improved translation. Gender inclusive language is the way we speak today, whether the old NIV curmudgeons like it or not. The two versions were however still shackled together. The introduction to the NIV Study Bible (2008) begins: "The New International Version of the Bible (NIV) is unsurpassed in accuracy, clarity and literary grace." Be that as it may, the introduction to the TNIV Study Bible (2006) begins: "Today's New International Version of the Bible is unsurpassed in accuracy, clarity and literary grace." Uh? Okay... maybe someone can explain how that could be...

And of course, identical words to those first quoted above are also used to outline the excellencies of the TNIV's evangelical credentials. The new edition will be more of the same, but a more cautious foray into the twenty-first century than TNIV attempted. It's intended to replace both the existing NIV and TNIV, so get your copies while stocks last. But it must now compete with the ESV, another agenda-driven translation with even greater pretensions, despite being little more than a doctored rehash of the old 1950s RSV. Sadly, the really worthwhile English versions sell far fewer copies because they don't pander to biblicist insecurities.

The 2011 NIV has already hit the bookshelves, though I haven't seen one in my corner of the Antipodes yet. I suspect, though, that it too will be "unsurpassed in accuracy, clarity and literary grace."

Which Bible to choose?

Most Christians have a favourite Bible translation. In Australia, for example, the big sellers, trouncing all opposition, are the NIV, the King James, and the New KJV.

But are they the best? There's a fallacy that confuses popularity with merit, but as every true music aficionado knows, it ain't necessarily so, or Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga would represent the finest accomplishments of the human spirit.

Enter Fuller Theological Seminary. They've just upped the number of English language translations approved for use in their biblical studies courses from two to three. Now, prediction time: Which versions do you think they've picked?

Here's the multiple choice version. Tick three on this list, helpfully arranged in alphabetical order.

CEB
CEV
ESV
GNB
HCSB
JPS
KJV
NAB
NASB
NIV
NKJV
NLT
NRSV
REB
TNIV

Okay, yes the first hurdle is to work out what all those acronyms stand for. If you identified the lot without breaking out into a sweat take a fifteen point bonus before proceeding, or one point for each you identified.

So the solution to the question? Fuller had previously approved the New Revised Standard Version and Today's New International Version, which is a nicely balanced move considering the institution's demographic. Not the NIV, which is interesting. Just this month they added a third "as a translation for use in biblical studies courses for its more than 4,000 students, and particularly for all master's-level instruction in the seminary's School of Theology, School of Psychology, and School of Intercultural Studies on all eight of its campuses."

Hands up if you suspected it might be the ESV?

Nope. They've gone with the Common English Bible, "a denomination-neutral Bible sponsored by the Common English Bible Committee, an alliance of five publishers that serve the general market, as well as the Disciples of Christ (Chalice Press), Presbyterian Church (Westminster John Knox Press), Episcopal Church (Church Publishing Inc.), United Church of Christ (Pilgrim Press), and United Methodist Church (Abingdon Press)."

It's a good choice simply because breadth of scholarship ensures greater objectivity and honesty than many agenda-driven popular versions, and the already released NT appears to demonstrate that point. The complete Common English Bible is due to hit the presses in August.  In the meantime there are free downloads available of Genesis, Psalms, Matthew and Luke.

A Moral Dilemma

Moral choices - call them ethical decisions if you like - are not always straightforward. Blessed are those whose view of the world is in monochrome; it's a starker choice. It's just that I don't want those folk anywhere near me when it comes to important issues, and the Eternal forbid that such a one ascends to high political office.

Okay, my moral dilemma of the day is of microbial size compared to the biggies, but lord knows I am torn both this way and t'other.

The news is out on the blogosphere that a certain scholar-bishop-apologist of the Church of England is to release his own translation of the New Testament this year. Grabbing firmly onto the coat-tails of the quatercentenary of ye olde KJV, the good bishop is marketing his work as The King's Version. Exactly what he means by that is currently unclear.

Now, I have built up a reasonably impressive collection of scripture translations over the years, from Ferrar Fenton to Norman Beck. I mean, Norman Beck! This is a New Testament so obscure it's never, to my knowledge, been cited anywhere... ever. (If you were to read it, you'd know why almost immediately.)

So do I swallow my scruples and acquire King Tom's translation? For the sake of continuing to maintain a library of impressively unfamiliar bibles? Or do I cry aloud, "get thee behind me Tom!"

And WWJWD?

Of course, for the those who have joined the choir of bah-humbug atheism, this will all be a bit of a mystery. But then, one suspects that they're probably secret monochromists as well...

Barnstone's New Testament - 1st impressions

Willis Barnstone is well known for his work on - for want of a better term - "near canonical" documents. His The Other Bible is a wonderful compilation of the strange and the almost familiar; Gnostic, Mandaean, Manichaean and other pseudepigraphic texts. He has also collaborated with Marvin Meyer on The Gnostic Bible.

So what happens when Barnstone breaks out of his field of specialisation to translate the canonical New Testament? Drum roll please...

The Restored New Testament is different. It has an abundance of commentary and supporting essays, and it includes three Gnostic Gospels: Thomas, Mary and the recently discovered Judas.

Barnstone steps outside the standard translator's paradigm in two further ways. Much of his New Testament is rendered in poetic form rather than prose. He also trades in the standard English personal and place names we're all so used to for original-language equivalents. Taking the Aramaic origins of the New Testament seriously - in oral tradition if not written form - Jesus is Yeshua, Israelites are Yisraelis, Pharisees are Prushim. You might think that this wouldn't work, but it seems to. These names are obviously more authentic, but their unfamiliarity to modern English readers also helps to restore a 'rawness' that is missing with the constant over-familiarity we have with traditional renderings. Here's the first three verses of Yohanan (John) 3.

Now there was a Parush named Nakdeimon, a leader of the Jews. He came to Yeshua at night and said, "Rabbi, we know that you came as a teacher from God since no one can perform these wondrous signs if God were not with him."
Yeshua answered,

Amain, amain, I say to you,
Unless you are born from above
You cannot see the kingdom of God.

 This is a literary translation in a similar sense to Robert Alter's work with the Hebrew Bible. Barnstone writes:

I undertook a new translation of the New Testament to give a chastely modern, literary version of a major world text... On all questions of faith versus fact, I take a neutral stance...

Barnstone's work is quite a contrast to the translations spewed forth from the American Evangelical establishment. It deserves to be taken seriously. Whether it will may be less certain. Barnstone is generous in his praise of Richard Lattimore's 1966 translation, yet this New Testament has slid into obscurity, buried under a mountain of cheap, trash translations designed to be acceptable to the largely naive Bible-buying public.

Which is too bad.

The Voice

I'm currently test-driving a New Testament translation called The Voice. It's apparently a product of the 'emergent' movement. I'm frankly confused by the whole emergent thing. Where do these folk sit on the continuum between fundagelicism and sanity? Read Phyllis Tickle's The Great Emergence and you might be forgiven for thinking the latter, but I'm not so sure.

The Voice is published by Thomas Nelson, so that's minus 10 points before you even crack open the cover. Next, take the temperature with two key texts in that most incoherent of Pauline letters, Romans.

Romans 3:22 (along with texts like Galatians 2:16) can be translated two ways, and there's a wide theological gulf between them. Before the beginning of the twentieth century the text was rendered "faith of Christ," as in the KJV (and before that Tyndale, the Geneva and Bishop's Bible.) The ratbags who produced the American Standard Version (1901) changed it to "faith in Christ," and it's been downhill ever since. "Faith in Christ" leads to sawdust trails and Chick tracts. Faith (or faithfulness) of Christ puts the emphasis back on Jesus and away from propositional righteousness. The Greek lends itself to of more than in, but oh dear, there goes a handy-dandy proof text.

The Voice does the right thing: "This redeeming justice comes through the faithfulness of Jesus..." Ten points.

Romans 16:7 is the Junia text which has already been mentioned here. Here The Voice gives poor Junia a gender reassignment, and she pops up as Junias (a totally unwarranted male name.) Minus ten points.

The Voice has a distinctive (one might even say 'cool') layout, and there's the promise of a full translation, that includes the Old Testament, somewhere downstream. The notes are designed to promote a devotional (yuck, ick, has anyone got mouthwash?) reading: minus twenty points. Scholars who contributed include Darrell Bock of Dallas Seminary (minus 50 points), but Brian McLaren's influence shouldn't be understated (plus 10 points), and Phyllis Tickle is involved in the Old Testament part of the project (plus 5 points.)

What The Voice does with the sense of Romans as a whole I'm about to discover. Not that I'm sure Romans is capable of making good sense given Paul's overindulgence in complex rhetoric. Let's face it, if Barth stuffed up so badly, what chance have a bunch of middle-class emergents got? If Luther only succeeded in muddying the waters, isn't it likely that Bock will produce pure schlock?

I'll get back on that one...

If anyone is interested in the pros and cons of Romans 3:22, and is prepared to deal with some fairly technical exegesis around Pistis Christou, Bird and Sprinkle's The Faith of Jesus Christ will tell you far more than you need to know.

The Mistaken Virgin

It's a big year for Bible aficionados, and here's the opening salvo. The American Catholic translation, the New American Bible, has been tweaked. Originally issued in 1970, the New Testament was revised in 1986 and the Psalms in 1991. Now it's the Old Testament - including Psalms - that gets a thorough going over. Outdated terms have been replaced with ones commonly in use ('holocaust' becomes 'burnt offering,' 'booty' becomes 'plunder'), and some inaccurate translation choices have been improved. This revised edition of the NAB will be referred to as the NABRE.

Nothing exciting there, you say? Not so. There's a tempest blowing because, with great integrity, the translators have changed Isaiah 7:14 to read "young woman" (Hebrew: almah) rather than "virgin." Back in January there was a rant on this very issue right here. It's encouraging to see the NABRE join with that other great Catholic translation, the New Jerusalem Bible, in putting accuracy above dogma.

But you don't mess with tradition without cost. A woman on Facebook protests "no, you don't change the Bible." I'd have thought that was the whole point, not to change almah (young woman) to virgin. While Jim West in generous in his praise of the NABRE, what do we make of the logic employed by Baptist pastor Peter Copeland? Pete seems to be concerned that the hoi polloi will forget that Isaiah 7 is a prophecy of Christ (which of course, it originally wasn't!) It's an interesting turn-about; a Baptist arguing that church tradition should trump the biblical text, while the Catholic bishops favour fidelity to scripture over tradition.

I guess even the Catholic bishops can't win them all...

A Literary Bible

"A breathtaking translation of the Hebrew Bible..." That's part of the blurb on the back cover of David Rosenberg's A Literary Bible. But the reality is that, if you're looking for a copy of the Tanakh, this isn't what you'll want. It's not a Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) and it's barely a translation in any consistent or meaningful sense. Another blurb on the inside flap informs us that this "artful translation restores... the essence of imaginative creation of the Bible." That description might be more to the point - imaginative it surely is - if anyone knew what the sentence actually meant.

Rosenberg is a former chief editor at JPS (the Jewish Publication Society) and co-author of a provocative book, along with Harold Bloom, that suggests that the J source which underlies the Torah is the work of a woman (Bloom now wants to identify her as Bathsheba!) I'm not qualified to pass judgment on his poetic abilities, though we will come back to that issue, but potential readers should note that, despite claims and appearances, this is not a translation of the Hebrew Bible. Whole books are missing - perhaps they weren't literary enough. Deuteronomy and all the historical books (except 2 Samuel) have been omitted, along with much more, and of those that do appear, most have been gutted. Rosenberg's Genesis has no chapter 1, his Psalms is a short selection, and so it goes. To muddy the waters even more, Rosenberg has included his version of the apocryphal book of Judith.

So why has Rosenberg published his Literary Bible. "I never found [the Bible's] literary depth adequately conveyed to the secular reader." (xi) This is a volume aimed not at the "average" reader, as so many dull contemporary translations are, but the "secular" reader, whoever she or he might be.

"[I]t's critical to grasp the failures in modern Bible translation." (xii) "I did not seek to embellish or alter the originals." (xiii)

Say what?! The prose sections have all the flow and beauty of the NASB (i.e. none you'd notice), while the poetic sections embellish and alter the originals with gusto.

While delivering his elite literary opus, Rosenberg is not above taking an uncharitable sideswipe at his peers. James Kugel is described as a "conventional" scholar with a "tin ear", while Robert Alter stands "consumed by his own writing style."

You might hack your way through the attempts at prose translation with some success, but when it comes to the rest, you may need a further translation. Euphemistic descriptions from the dust jacket include "re-speaking," "a deeply mediated translation," an "audacious work of art," and "genre-bending."  A sampler from Psalms:

Psalm 1: "he steps from his place at the glib café"
Psalm 6: "let all my enemies shiver / on the stage of their self consciousness"
Psalm 58: "Lord, cramp their fingers / till the arms hang limp like sausage"
Psalm 73: "material cars of pride / and suits of status", "cynical megaphones"
Psalm 137: "to an orchestra of trees / we lent our harps / silently leaning"

Over in Job you'll find "plastic children," "a tie in a railroad track," "Western Union boys," "cold as a camera," "the supermarket," "Leningrad," "yesterday's newspaper," "Stalin's house," "Martin Bormann," "Mercedes-Benz," "repossessed cars".

Art? Very probably. A radical paraphrase for The Hamptons set? Quite possibly. A case study of living Reception History? Who knows...

I'm reminded of Leslie Brandt's Psalms Now. Brandt didn't pretend to translate, but to restate. That seems to be a completely legitimate thing to do, as long as everyone is clear on what is happening.I don't recollect Brandt hawking his book as a 'translation' though.

If you plan to acquire A Literary Bible, you may want to find a place for it next to the poetry and post-modern literature, and far, far away from your NRSV.

A literary Bible probably deserves a literary critic, and that I ain't, so there's a review by Frank Kermode online at the New York Times for those interested.