CEB Common English Bible Apocrypha

Comfortable to read

While the reading is great and the content itself is wonderful, the actual binding and cutting of the pages are "off". Some pages were inserted crooked, making the print slightly slanted and with an uneven margin. It's still readable, but it messes with my eyes and just shows that not much care was taken to align all the pages before they were bound and cut. The binding itself is problematic as well. Because there was uneven binding, the bottom half of many pages isn't even in the glued binding, so you turn a page and that page is loose, separate from the rest of the binding. Makes it precarious as I think it's going to just fall right out if I'm not extremely careful with it. I'm disappointed that one of the only versions of easy-to-read apocrypha has been bound so poorly. As a non-liturgical protestant, this was my first introduction to the apocrypha, and it hasn't been a great experience, due to the many distractions from the bad printing/binding job. I hope they choose to make a better-quality product in the future.

It seems that the blog-world doesn't lack in armchair biblicists, seminarians and former seminarians, pastors, preachers, teachers and priests, all of whom have something to say about translation. Even the most academic postulators don't always prefer the most academic translation. At the end of their rope, there are now charts, graphs and entire websites dedicated to the strengths and weaknesses of each English translation. Still, Christian discussion boards abound with neophytes or homeward bound Christians all of whom want to know, "Which is the best translation?" This is definitely a problem that only those of us in industrialized, first-world countries face as many Christians the world over don't have Bibles in their homes much less the ability to read one if they did. And while proper translation is to be desired so that the specific nuances of the Hebrew-Greek idioms are conveyed in the most accurate English idiom so that the text enriches our understanding rather than leading to harmful, fundamentalist interpretation, there comes a point when such concern can become obsessive and cloud one's appreciation of the Bible or any religious text, whether in translation or not.Despite all the efforts of the best academic, the average person isn't choosing their preferred Bible translation based on what manuscripts it uses. And while translation philosophy may come in to play, it only happens in a roundabout way. For example, take the KJV: people like it because they grew up with it; or because most of the biblical phrases that have made their way into Western culture are from it; or because they think it sounds more reverent; or it's the first one they learned; or they associate it with stability and/or tradition and/or being rooted in history. Ask most people what Textus Receptus is and they'd just as likely guess that it's the name of a dinosaur; Nestle-Aland, on the other hand, is obviously the person who started that food company.As pastor, professor and blogger Jim West has said, "If one can't read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek with great facility, one could do no better, in English, than the CEB if wanting to `hear' the Word of God." The biblical scholars who produced this translation, despite their individual misgivings on some accounts, have managed to produce a Bible which translates the original Hebrew and Greek constructions into a natural, common English idiom. That makes this Bible a true joy to read, not a chore. I personally use it in my daily meditations and prayer, I read it walking into the office, I read it while taking the elevator, and I even use it to teach from. I've e-mailed several of the scholars who produced this translation, and they all stand behind it and highly recommend it to the neophyte and "expert" alike. While scholars will and should quibble over the theological impact of certain translations, no scholar involved with this project has, to date, expressed any substantial misgivings about their involvement with its production.Again, Jim West had this say about the CEB, with which I completely agree:"[T]he translators have done a brilliant job of expressing the text's underlying intention. It is, to my mind, superior to the NIV, the TNIV, the ESV, the NKJV, the RSV, the NRSV, and the KJV. Only one version excels it in vividness and that would be the Revised English Bible. However, that said, in terms of accuracy of translation, the CEB excels even that excellent rendition."

I have mixed feelings about the Common English Bible (CEB).It is definitely a new translation of the Bible -- there is little or no attempt to keep the King James Version phrasing and structure that lingers in the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) and the NIV (New International Version).I'm an Episcopalian -- one of the denominations that sponsored the CEB -- so I should have been delighted with this Bible, but I've found equally good and bad aspects of it.As someone who has read the KJV (King James Version), the RSV (Revised Standard Version), the NEB (New English Bible), the NRSV and the NIV, I found the CEB refreshing and gripping. I enjoy reading it.It appears to be intended as a theologically liberal rival to the popular conservative NIV in the niche for Bibles that are written in plain English for people who find more traditional language versions too difficult to read.I wish it were possible to give the CEB several ratings, rather than one rating. Regarding its goal of being easier to read, I'd give it a "5." It is written in a 7th grade vocabulary, according to some sources. It is not noticeably liberal, so conservative readers might also find it interesting.It is even easier to read than the NIV. It has a direct, forceful language that makes it ideal for teens, adults who are baffled by traditional Biblical language, new converts and people who want to read a Bible without having to stop and look up complex terms every fifteen minutes.But the CEB does have its problems, which is why I rated it as a "3."It's problems are especially apparent in the Psalms. The Psalms were used as liturgical poetry, and the CEB makes them sound -- well -- whiny and overly slangy, like posts on a totally self-absorbed teen's blog.I'm skeptical that the priests in the Second Temple chanted psalms that said: "So kings, wise up!" (CEB translation of Psalm 2:10)Another "howler" -- as I call these slang insertions -- Psalm 22:18: "They divvy up my garments" -- "divvy up"???? -- please, that's just bad grammar. Also, I think 99 percent of most English language speakers would have understood: "divide up" just as well.Some of my other favorite "howlers:"Judges 11:3: "Worthless men gathered around Jepthah and became his posse." His "posse"? Are you kidding me? I think "gang" would have been far better -- that's the word that the NIV uses.The trouble with choices like "divvy' and "posse" is not only their questionable grammar, but the fact that as slang terms, they'll go out of fashion in ten to twenty years.Then there is the well-publicized "howler" of changing references to Christ as the "Son of Man," to the "the Human One." While that usage would fit translations of the Prophet Ezekiel, who is addressed in older translations as "son of Man," by Christ's era, the title "Son of Man" had come to be understood as a Messianic title with very specific connotations. It think it is inaccurate to translate it as "the Human One."Another "super howler" -- 1 John 3:9: "Those born from God don't practice sin because God's DNA remains in them.""God's DNA"? Folks, DNA -- the DNA molecule -- the genetic blueprint in each of our cells that programs the kind of person we are from conception -- wasn't discovered in its true complexity until 1953. No way the first Epistle of John used that term or any term like it. The usual translation is "God's seed" -- or if you want to get really, really down to earth, perhaps "God's sperm"? But not "God's DNA."The CEB also drops many traditional theological terms, such as "repentance" -- they are changed to phrases that may mean the same thing, but read awkwardly. For example "repentance" is translated as: "changing their hearts and lives." These changes will, as several media reviews noted, cut new Bible readers off from thousands of years of accepted theological terms such as "repentance" and "sanctification."On the other hand, the CEB does seem to translate the Pauline epistles more accurately than other Bibles I have read, following recent scholarship on what Paul was actually saying in the original Greek.. That is impressive.My final "takeaway" -- I will continue to rely on the NRSV as my primary Bible.and consult the CEB and the NIV versions as my secondary choices.

Who is "The Human One"? This reference to our Lord and Saviour takes a lot of getting used to and the reason this version was not awarded 5 stars. However, the clarity of the text, and quality of the cover (in my case, leather) is superb. Likewise the paper used is good quality - not too thin that makes the bible impossible to read with the text of the other side of the page showing through. Yet the thickness of the whole book makes one wonder if anything had been left out!Everything considered a very good presentation of the bible, modernised with up to date text. (We're not all pedantic scholars who enjoy reading centuries old versions of the bible.)I purchased this as a used copy, although it was described as new. It arrived cased in the original box. A slight quibble - only one page marker. 2 or 3 would have been useful. Everything considered, and priced under £12, Brilliant!

I loved this version the moment i started reading. Went to Isaiah to check the simplicity and I was for the first time able to understand what is written in Isaiah! That should speak volumes to anyone who knows how tough that is.

product was great

Paper incredibly thin and writing small but great travel size

Absolutely the smallest print on the planet. The print size makes it totally unusable. I am sorry that I bought. I just put I back in the package and have been too busy to return it. :0(