Better Bibles Blog

Now that the CEB Matthew sampler is available for download, feel free to comment upon what you find in the CEB translation of the Gospel of Matthew. Please remember to follow our blog posting guidelines.

Here’s something to start with, if you wish: I consider “the Human One” to be a courageous translation for ho huios tou anthropou in Matt. 9:6 (and elsewhere in the book). That communicates far better to almost all English speakers than does the traditional translation of “Son of Man.” What do you think?

And here is my reaction to two verses earlier, CEB Matt. 9:4:

But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said, “Why do you think evil things in your hearts?”

“In your hearts” is not the English translation equivalent of the underlying Greek which represents the Hebraic view of the bodily organ of thinking, the heart. (The author of Matthew was steeped in the Hebraic worldview, even though he, or someone later, wrote his gospel in Greek.) In English the heart is the metaphorical organ for emotions. In Biblical Hebrew (and presumably in Aramaic which Jesus usually spoke) it was the metaphorical organ for thinking and volition. English speakers consider the brain to be the organ for thinking. But, in English we do not normally name an organ when we refer to thinking. So, IMO, a better, more accurate (for English speakers), translation of Matt. 9:4 would be:

But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said, “Why are you thinking evil things?”

Notice that I also have suggested a revision from the (IMO) stilted “do you think” to the more natural “are you thinking”? I’m not sure if “evil things” is the most natural way to express the last part of this verse. Perhaps “Why are you thinking in an evil way?” is better English. But that might change the meaning slightly, which should not be done in translation, if it can be avoided.

A sampler for the forthcoming Common English Bible, the Gospel of Matthew, is now in press. I hope to receive a copy of this sampler before too long. I have been very interested in the CEB project since I first learned of it, a year or so ago, and read the goals its production and translation team have for it. I was intrigued by the first goal for the CEB:

Clarity of language, as in “plain speaking”

Very few English Bibles have had “plain speaking” as any goal, let alone their first goal. I hope that this goal will be achieved in this translation. Far too many English Bibles are made by exegetes who know the biblical languages well, but set aside their natural ability to speak and write English well when they translate the biblical language texts to English.

I also hope that there will be sufficient time for linguists and English scholars to interact with the sampler, and perhaps other books (37 are now complete) of the CEB before this new translation is published, when revisions are much more difficult to make. I have been trying, ever since I heard of the CEB project, to receive permission to study drafts of the CEB in case I, as an English Bible reviewer, might be able to help the CEB better live up to its goals. But I have been unsuccessful. Perhaps there are confidentiality requirements preventing someone who is not on the translation team from having any review input. I would hope not. I have appreciated the warm welcome my revision suggestions have received from several other English Bible translation teams. Many of the suggestions have been adopted as revisions.

Click here to read a recent blog post with more on the CEB. Click here for the Wikipedia article on the CEB.

Joel Hoffman, a sometime commenter here on BBB, has a new blog titled God Didn’t Say That: Bible Translations and Mistranslations. It is becoming one of my favorite blogs that deal with Bible translation issues. Joel has his Ph.D in linguistics, and linguists really do have important things to say about how to translate. Joel grew up in a rabbinical family where the biblical languages were honored and his careful posts demonstrate that commitment to academic excellence. I recommend that you add Joel’s blog to your blogroll as I have to the BBB blogroll.

Yesterday Prof. Helm blogged a critique of Dynamic Equivalence and Functional Equivalence translation approaches, from the viewpoint of his own background in philosophy.

Mike Aubrey has blogged an important response from the viewpoint of linguistics and Bible translation theory and practice.

The debate is technical and may be difficult for many to follow, but the claims are important. If nothing else, this debate demonstrates that people who write primarily from the viewpoint of their own discipline, without being adequately familiar with the discipline whose theory they are critiquing, are on dangerous grounds factually.

It has become clearer and clearer to me over the years that Bible translators, linguists, translation theoreticians, theologians, seminarians, and English professors who care about Bible translation issues need to be deeply interacting with each other. Each field has much to contribute to the other. One of the best signs of progress for this necessary disciplinary cross-pollination is that SBL and ETS conferences now often include sections for discussion of theological aspects of Bible translation or literary analysis of biblical texts.