“And Jesus is no longer known as the “Son of Man” but, rather, the ‘Human One’. The latter is part of the translation’s effort at gender neutrality.” I don’t think I’m going to be rushing to the local bookstore to get this version.
God also calls Elijah, “Human one” instead of son of man, or ben adam. In other places, “ben adam” gets paraphrased as “human being.”
This new paraphrase (it can’t be called a translation) has some good features, including being written in very simple English, but it falls short here.
The various passages concerning homosexual practice are actually paraphrased very well. I don’t know how the TEC liberals will deal with that.
The paraphrase of Psalm 23 uses “me” for nefesh (soul), albeit with a footnote. And, it ends, “and I will live (footnote to LXX; MT I will return) in the LORD’s house as long as I live.” I’d have to get a Hebrew scholar to explain that one. I can see “length of days” as meaning “a really long time” or an idiom for “forever,” but I don’t see “as long as I live.”
I suppose it’s OK for casual reading (which is what I guess the intent is), but I wouldn’t consider it for serious Bible study or memory work.
Such reviews as I have read of this translation are not exactly effusive, although the suggestion has been that the intellectual level has been pitched to reflect that of the translators and their denominational leaders. As it joins the ranks of the current hundreds of translations into English, 17 of which are major efforts since the Millennium it is not clear what impact it will have, or deserve to have, if any.
Most of the very solid scholars that I have read continue to endorse the Revised Standard Version (and definitely not the NRSV) as by far the best English translation, with the ESV a close second only because the ESV folks didn’t include the Apocrypha (Oxford U. Press has since done it).
The ESV is 95% RSV. For people who don’t have much or any Hebrew or Greeek, it’s a good choice. See also the ESV Study Bible.
I doubt this “New Common English Bible” will be that common.
For what it’s worth: we have been enjoying the Tyndale House NLT – New Living Translation – which would cover the audience envisaged here pretty well I suspect; and probably better! Meanwhile ESV certainly takes the prize for a Study Bible translation, IMHO.
“And Jesus is no longer known as the “Son of Man” but, rather, the ‘Human One’. The latter is part of the translation’s effort at gender neutrality.” I don’t think I’m going to be rushing to the local bookstore to get this version.
This is not translation. This is rewriting.
Do we really need yet another translation? I think not.
God also calls Elijah, “Human one” instead of son of man, or ben adam. In other places, “ben adam” gets paraphrased as “human being.”
This new paraphrase (it can’t be called a translation) has some good features, including being written in very simple English, but it falls short here.
The various passages concerning homosexual practice are actually paraphrased very well. I don’t know how the TEC liberals will deal with that.
The paraphrase of Psalm 23 uses “me” for nefesh (soul), albeit with a footnote. And, it ends, “and I will live (footnote to LXX; MT I will return) in the LORD’s house as long as I live.” I’d have to get a Hebrew scholar to explain that one. I can see “length of days” as meaning “a really long time” or an idiom for “forever,” but I don’t see “as long as I live.”
I suppose it’s OK for casual reading (which is what I guess the intent is), but I wouldn’t consider it for serious Bible study or memory work.
Such reviews as I have read of this translation are not exactly effusive, although the suggestion has been that the intellectual level has been pitched to reflect that of the translators and their denominational leaders. As it joins the ranks of the current hundreds of translations into English, 17 of which are major efforts since the Millennium it is not clear what impact it will have, or deserve to have, if any.
Most of the very solid scholars that I have read continue to endorse the Revised Standard Version (and definitely not the NRSV) as by far the best English translation, with the ESV a close second only because the ESV folks didn’t include the Apocrypha (Oxford U. Press has since done it).
The ESV is 95% RSV. For people who don’t have much or any Hebrew or Greeek, it’s a good choice. See also the ESV Study Bible.
I doubt this “New Common English Bible” will be that common.
For what it’s worth: we have been enjoying the Tyndale House NLT – New Living Translation – which would cover the audience envisaged here pretty well I suspect; and probably better! Meanwhile ESV certainly takes the prize for a Study Bible translation, IMHO.