JoelGreenCEB

8/3/2019 JoelGreenCEB

1/4

JW- First, how did you become involved in the project?

JG- My initial involvement came through an invitation to be a part of a focus group of scholars

who met for one day to address two questions: (1) Do we need a new translation of the Bible into

English? (2) If so, what should its distinguishing features be? A good bit of market research

regarding Bible reading and usage in the U.S. was completed prior to the meeting, and this waspart of our discussion. The commitment to produce a new translation and the character of that

translationwhat would eventually become the Common English Bibleare rooted in that

conversation. I was subsequently invited to serve on the editorial board of the translation.

JW- Second, and the question that always seems to come up when a new translation appears

is, why? Why another translation of the Bible?

JG- Two words lie at the root of my answer to this question: readability and ecumenicity.

Concerning readability let me relate a story. A few years ago, I was teaching as an adjunct

professor at a seminary in Kentucky, filling in for someone who was on sabbatical for the term. Iwas teaching the second half of a New Testament introduction among students who knew no

Greek, so were working with a standard, modern English translation. This was the same

translation from which I often preached, and I often used it when teaching adult education

classes in local churches, so I knew it pretty well. My students were a diverse bunch in terms of

age, ethnicity, and gender; many of them were second-career, and many were themselves

involved in ministry leadership in local churches. Yet I found them struggling to make sense of

this translation as we engaged in a series of close readings of selected pericopae. Finally, one of

my students spoke for many when he said, This Bible...its really an academic Bible, isnt it?

You know, its really for scholars, right? This was one of those ah hah moments for me, as I

came face-to-face with the needamong seminary students, mind you!for a different kind

of translation. Ive thought about those students a lot as I participated in the Common EnglishBible.

It is true, of course, that we have a range of English translations that are attractive when it comes

to readability. I think I am right, though, in saying that none of these represents the kind of

catholicity for which we aimed with the Common English Bible. It is not that our translators

were lacking in theological commitments, but rather that the whole translation process was

designed to ensure that no one set of theological commitments, no one theological tradition,

trumped the others.

JW- Third, did individuals work on the various books alone and then submit their work to a

larger committee or were the books translated 'by committee'.

Heres how it worked. Each book say, the Gospel of Matthewwas translated by someone

with acknowledged expertise on the Gospel of Matthew. This translation was then tested for

readability. This translation was then forwarded to another Matthean scholar, who introduced

emendations on the original translation, taking into account both Matthean scholarship and any

issues with readability that had been flagged. This revised translation then went to a reading


2/4

group, who read it out loud and flagged any additional problems. This was followed by a careful

reading by one of our readability editorsagain, who flagged problems. The resulting document

then came to my attention as the New Testament editor concerned (in part) with the Gospels and

Acts. I worked back through the Gospel of Matthew with this marked-up translation in hand,

adjudicating differences, addressing concerns with readability, sometimes communicating with

the original translators, raising global questions with colleagues on the editorial board, and in theend producing a finished translation of Matthew. In the case of Matthew, we released thetranslation in a beta-version, and received additional feedback, including invaluable feedback

from a linguist, that helped to shape the version now available in the Common English Bible.

JW- Fourth, I think it fair to say that the biggest question raised to this point about the

translation is your rendering of 'the son of man' as 'the human one'. I've seen your very briefvideo explanation but I'd be interested in hearing a bit more.

JG- One of the issues raised in different ways by working on any translation has to do with the

tradition of Bible translation into English. In my own study of Luke-Acts, for example, I have

sometimes been startled by the sheer inertia of the King James Version of the Biblethat is, bythe persistence of a translation choice overturned among Lukan scholars but which continues to

appear in contemporary translations. From early on, one of the marks of the Common English

Bible was that it would be a fresh translation whose pedigree would not be traced through older

and newer English translations. Perhaps this freshness is nowhere more evident than in the

decision to translate ho huios tou anthropouas the Human One in the Gospels and Acts a

translation that has been lauded by some, pilloried by others. The question is, how would we

translate this phrase, had we not been taught to do so in a particular way by the King James

Version? I suppose we might have written, the son of humanity. But what is a son of

humanity? In numerous other, similarphrases, we observe idioms at workchildren of Israel

for Israelites, child of peace for a peaceful person, and so on. If a son of humanity is simply a

human being, then, why not use words like, well, human being. Interestingly, our decision leaves

open for discussion how the use of this idiom in the OT, including Daniel 7, might inform our

reading of the Gospels and Acts.

I find interesting one of the primary streams of criticism we have received for this decision. I

have in my email folders a number of complaints from teachers and pastors who write something

like this: Now, Ill have to stop and explain to my students / congregation / class what aHuman

Oneis! I find this complaint ironic, humorously so, since I am pretty confident that the students,congregations, and classes in question have little sense today of what a Son of Man might be. In

other words, the translation Human One for a while at leastseems capable of sponsoring

a series of teaching moments.

JW- Fifth, when you're involved in such projects, is there some level of trepidation? I askbecause, as you know, when the RSV appeared in the 1950's it was widely pilloried and even

burned! Did you think that the CEB would provoke similar strong feelings?

JG- Trepidation is a good word for some of the feelings we shared, though this was motivated

less by our anticipation of the sorts of reaction you describe. This kind of work inevitably raises

hard questions about process and power. I have to say that I have never been involved in a


3/4

project that brought with it the level of far-reaching responsibility that has characterized this one.

It is easy to be overwhelmed with the weight, the ripple effect of sometimes large, sometimes

minute decisions on translation choices. The outcome of our work would become the basis of

sermons and church school lessons, not to mention blogs, exegetical papers, small group

discussion, and devotional meditation. In some congregations, the reading of the Common

English Bible in worship would be followed by the familiar claim, This is the Word of God. Iam happy for the process we went through, therefore, and for the numerous opportunities I hadas an editor to run issues by other editors and to raise questions with other specialistsas well

as to engage in countless ad hoc conversations about how best to say this or that.

JW- Sixth, do you foresee a time when the CEB will need to be revised based on potential new

manuscript finds?

JG- Thats possible. We are already involved in minor adjustments as we discover little problemsthat escaped a bevy of editors and proofreaders. An editorial board will continue to meet to

address those problems and to consider when a more thoroughgoing revision might be necessary.

JW- Seventh, how extensively did the translators of the Old Testament consult the variant

readings (when they occurred) in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

JG- I am less familiar with the details of the work of my Old Testament counterparts. I know that

the Dead Sea Scrolls were consulted, and that at some points in the Apocrypha some major text-

critical work was needed.

JW- Eighth, many commentaries are based on English translations of the Bible. Is there any

commentary 'in the pipeline' which will be based on the CEB?

JG- We are currently preparing a Common English Bible Study Bible, as well as other materials

(such as a Gospel Parallels:http://www.amazon.com/Common-English-Bible-Gospel-

Parallels/dp/1609260627/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323883702&sr=8-1). I am unaware of any

plans to build a new commentary or commentary series on the Common English Bible, however.

JW- Ninth, compared to many versions in English (I'm thinking of the NIV in particular) the

CEB is lightyears better as a translation. My own favorite English version is the Revised

English Bible. The CEB is a close second. Do you have a preference concerning

translations?

JG- Until the release of the CEB, I tended to use the TNIV when preaching and the NRSV when

teaching classes in which instruction was based on the English text. I now use the CEB in

teaching or preaching at my local church.

JW- And finally, tenth, you've recently been appointed Editor in Chief of a very important

commentary series. Do you see yourself shifting its direction a bit and urging contributors tomake wider use of the CEB?
http://www.amazon.com/Common-English-Bible-Gospel-Parallels/dp/1609260627/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323883702&sr=8-1http://www.amazon.com/Common-English-Bible-Gospel-Parallels/dp/1609260627/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323883702&sr=8-1http://www.amazon.com/Common-English-Bible-Gospel-Parallels/dp/1609260627/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323883702&sr=8-1http://www.amazon.com/Common-English-Bible-Gospel-Parallels/dp/1609260627/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323883702&sr=8-1http://www.amazon.com/Common-English-Bible-Gospel-Parallels/dp/1609260627/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323883702&sr=8-1http://www.amazon.com/Common-English-Bible-Gospel-Parallels/dp/1609260627/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323883702&sr=8-1


4/4

My predecessors, F.F. Bruce and Gordon Fee, encouraged authors of commentaries in the

NICNT to provide their own translations or to use an existing translation. Im not planning to

make any changes on this point.

Documents

JoelGreenCEB