Thursday, July 21, 2011

The Common English Bible

I have always been a fan of newer and better translations of the Bible. I have never been on the side of those condemning the “new” translations, and I am not now. I can remember as a boy in my early teens, when the Good News For Modern Man came out, going door to door in my neighborhood handing out New Testaments. My little church’s pastor led us to promote this new translation of the Bible. At that time, there weren’t many to choose from. Of course, we had the Revised Standard Version which was good but still sounded King James-ish.

Good News for Modern Man is now Today’s English Version. I still turn to it often. Around that time the Living Bible was published. I got a free copy from Christianity Today Magazine. It was fun to read the freer verse Bible. But the Living Bible was a paraphrase; so, you knew that it was not as true to the Hebrew and English texts. But, I still loved it. I use it now sometimes. It has been updated and made more of a translation now in the New Living Bible. It’s pretty good.

While I was in seminary in the late seventies, another translation was published called The New International Version or NIV. It has proved to be a popular translation. I use it often. It was an attempt to translate the original texts but keep close to the King James Bible. It sounded like a Bible that most of us had been reading or hearing all our lives. This version too has been updated in 2011 and is very good. I just bought a new copy of it.

In the eighties, the Revised Standard Version was updated and became the New Revised Standard Version. This is the text that I usually read on Sundays.

2011 was the 400th birthday of the King James Version of the Bible. I still like some of the poetic sounding language. I still like to read at Christmas the Luke 2 KJV: “It came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus…Mary was great with child.” It has the sound of Shakespearean English. At the time, it was a monumental translation of the Bible. But, we have much better access to original manuscripts.

There is value in all of these translations. Every translation is a study of the original language to be accurate and faithful to the texts as we have them. It is amazing how much agreement there is on the Bible’s text translation. All of the above major translations are faithful to the text, and helpful in understanding the meaning.

Just recently, there is another translation called the Common English Bible. It is a faithful and accurate translation mostly. I really love the way in which it is translated for the most part. I got really excited about it at first. Only one thing bothers me about it. In all of the other translations Jesus calls himself the Son of Man which is an accurate translation of the Greek. In this CEB translation Jesus is the Human One.

Ok. I know that Son of Man means human being. Yes, that’s true. Jesus was truly human. I’m ok with that. It’s historically and theologically correct to say that. But, in my study, the term Son of Man has all kinds of meanings other than that. It’s kind of a title that Jesus used to talk about himself in the third person. “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve.”
As I often do in such situations, I looked at the list of those who helped with the translation and found a friend, one whom I trust, a conservative friend, certainly not a radical. I emailed him about this “human one” thing. He said that “human one” was an accurate translation. When I asked him about the meaning of “son of man” he said that “human one” conveys the meaning. He said that most people don’t know what “son of man” means either.

Still, I think we are losing something here. If “human one” is such an accurate way to translate this, then why have no other translations done it this way? I wonder if this “human one” isn’t more politically correct than accurate.

That’s my only beef with the CEB. Otherwise it’s very good. For me, I will stick with the NRSV and NIV mainly and maybe refer to the CEB on occasion.

As Luke 19:10 says: “For the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost.” Jesus is human, yes. But, not just any human one came to seek and save the lost. Jesus came to seek and save the lost.

Dave Nichols


Thanks for checking out my blog. I'm new to this, as you can probably see. But, I, like you, have convictions and ideas worth sharing. I hope this will be an opportunity to connect with others who are Christian and/or religious. I am happily United Methodist. I am committed to the basic teachings of our church, and to the compassionate outreach to the world.

I hope these pastoral ponderings will generate something in you that is hopeful.

Blog Archive

About Me

A graduate of Newberry College and Duke University Divinity School.  I have served as a pastor in the United Methodist Church since 1975.

The Sea of Galilee

The Sea of Galilee
There was an error in this gadget