# Revisiting the CEB Translation



## DMcFadden (Jan 14, 2012)

I had largely ignored the Common English Bible with its "24 faith traditions," "120 translators, 10 editors, and 77 reading group leaders." On first blush it sounded like the mainlines creating a gender inclusive, politically correct Bible.

Early press reports (cf. _Time_), explained that the effort was a consortium of mainline publishers: _a coalition of Protestant denominational publishing houses owned by the United Methodist Church, one of the nation’s largest denominations, and the Disciples of Christ, Presbyterian Church U.S.A., Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ.”_

Then, after all of the hoopla in its rolling out, the fact that it made the CBA bestseller list for a recent month, and after noting that my seminary decided that the sunshine of Pasadena should fall upon the CEB as one of two approved translations for Biblical Studies classes (not too surprising considering 4 OT faculty and 4 NT faculty were involved in the translation), I decided to revisit the issue.

Accordingly my CBD discounted $19.49 _CEB Common English Bible, Thinline Edition - Tan/Brick Red DecoTone_ arrived this week. I opted for it over the $29.49 _CEB Reference Bible - Black EcoLeather_ since *EcoLeather* sounded like some spooky genetically engineered pigskin treated in corn fuel ethanol and approved by the EPA. And, I did not dare venture into such murky political waters so close to the Lord's Day.

Interesting. Gen 1.1 takes the somewhat controversial position of rendering it: _When God began to create the heavens and the earth— the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters—_.

Kidner summarizes the grammatical and theological issues:



> Grammatically, this phrase could be translated as introducing a clause completed in verse 3 after a parenthetical verse 2: ‘When God began to create … (the earth was without form …), God said, Let there be light …’ This would not be saying that the undeveloped earth was not of God’s making; only that creation, in its full sense, still had far to go. But the familiar translation, ‘In the beginning God …’, is equally grammatical, is supported by all the ancient versions, and affirms unequivocally the truth laid down elsewhere (e.g. Heb. 11:3) that until God spoke, nothing existed.



Of course, opting to take the opening as a construct has the effect of removing the creation ex nihilo sense as the first phrase functions as a circumstantial clause.

"Son of Man" becomes "Human One" in the New Testament. Mark 10.44-45, for instance, sounds like this: _Whoever wants to be first among you will be the slave of all, for the Human One didn’t come to be served but rather to serve and to give his life to liberate many people. ”_

A text such as 1 Tim 2:11-15 sounds strikingly different from other English translations: _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. Adam was formed first, and then Eve. Adam wasn’t deceived, but rather his wife became the one who stepped over the line because she was completely deceived. But a wife will be brought safely through giving birth to their children, if they both continue in faith, love, and holiness, together with self-control._

Joel Green has been quoted as explaining the popularity: _"We wanted something that was an academically excellent translation from Greek and Hebrew, and one that reflected our strong position regarding women in leadership." _

On the issue of propitiation, 1 John 2:2 explains, _He is God’s way of dealing with our sins, not only ours but the sins of the whole world._ 4:10 explains a little more (but not much) when it renders: _This is love: it is not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son as the sacrifice that deals with our sins._

Has anyone examined it and want to weigh in on the translation?


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 14, 2012)

Thanks Dennis but you have provided enough for me already!


----------



## JohnGill (Jan 14, 2012)

Well Psalm 119:9 contradicts the doctrine of Original Sin by implying our way is pure instead of in need of purifying. Mark 1:2 is wrong by attributing the passage from Malachi and Isaiah only to Isaiah. Proverbs 8:22 teaches that Jesus, the embodiment of God's wisdom, was created. Each one of these is a logical contradiction. 1 Timothy 3 allows women to be pastors by removing "husband of one wife" and in today's environment allows sodomites "who are faithful to their spouse" to be pastors. John 17:17 destroys the common understanding of being sanctified by the word. The doctrine of propitiation is completely removed. 1 Corinthians 5:5 isn't a translation, but an interpretation. And a bad one at that. In the Sermon on the Mount it is no longer blessed but happy thereby shifting the focus from God to man. Genesis 3:15's looking forward to Christ is destroyed. The virgin birth is removed from Isaiah 7:14. I think a comparison between the scripture proofs of one of the confessions & catechisms would highlight even more issues with this translation. From the website asking, What is special about the CEB? The answer is, To keep scripture relevant, and integrated into worship. Men do not keep scripture relevant. Nor is it right to imply that it can somehow become irrelevant. Scripture is always relevant.

Looked at the translators. Some members of cults (SDA) and some lost people (Jewish woman). That in itself is enough to recommend it to no one.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 14, 2012)

Wow, not only relevant but ecological. Just think of all of the doctrines you can recycle, replacing them with some that are much more politically correct, less prone to supernaturalism, and free of the trappings of traditional orthodoxies.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 15, 2012)

Thanks to this thread, I'll never have to buy one. Now, what did I do with my copy of the Cottonpatch Version...


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 15, 2012)

The list of translators includes quite a few from the "evangelical" (or liberal evangelical) wing of the church. They are not all United Methodists and PCUSA folks.


Bill Arnold Asbury Theological Seminary	Wilmore, KY	United Methodist Church
David Bauer Asbury Theological Seminary	Wilmore, KY	Free Methodist
Jeannine Brown Bethel Seminary	St Paul, MN	Baptist General Conference
Gary Burge Wheaton College	Wheaton, IL	Evangelical
John Goldingay Fuller Theological Seminary	Pasadena, CA	Anglican
Gene Green Wheaton College	Wheaton, IL	Evangelical
Joel Green Fuller Theological Seminary	Pasadena, CA	United Methodist Church
Christopher Hays Fuller Theological Seminary	Pasadena, CA	Presbyterian Church (USA)
Richard Hess Denver Seminary	Littleton, CO	Presbyterian Church (USA)
Michael W. Holmes Bethel University	St. Paul, MN	Baptist General Conference
Robert Hubbard North Park University Theological Seminary	Chicago, IL	Evangelical Free Church of America
Fredrick J. Long Asbury Theological Seminary	Wilmore, KY	Free Methodist Church
Tremper Longman Westmont College	Santa Barbara, CA	Presbyterian Church (USA)
Dan McCartney Westminster Theological Seminary	Philadelphia, PA	Presbyterian Church (USA)
B.J. Oropeza Azusa Pacific University	Azusa, CA	Free Methodist

That makes it all the more surprising that so many of the renderings take the "non traditional" point of view.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 15, 2012)

Tremper Longman and Dan McCartney are in the PC(USA) now?


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 15, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Tremper Longman and Dan McCartney are in the PC(USA) now?



I doubt it. But the list came from the official website of the CEB.

Common English Bible - Translators

Maybe they just could not believe that a conservative would be part of their translation?


----------

