First (from one netfriend):

The New English Bible, as T.S. Eliot wrote when it appeared, “astonishes in its combination of the vulgar, the trivial and the pedantic.” The King James Bible, by contrast, astonishes in its combination of the majestic, the singular and the exalting. That it has been replaced in most English-speaking Christian congregations by “modern” translations of surpassing mediocrity is one of the outrages of the age, and one that says all too much about the age itself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30069-2003May8.html

Then, from another:

I’d recommend anyone who hasn’t already tried it to have a good look at the CEV. It’s a dynamic translation but very orthodox.

Prior to its becoming available, I needed two bibles at least. For my own study I generally used an RSV (Oxford Annotated or Nestle interlinial New Testament) or occasionally NIV (because I have an NIV concordance partly) and for primary schools and prisons I’d use the GNB. The CEV seems to work in all situations. I’ve caught it out once oversimplifying (can’t remember where but its reading was really strange!)

A couple of years ago I spent some time teaching computing to linguistics students, and took some of their courses including those dealing with questions of literalness and other issues of translation. One of the surprises was that the NIV isn’t nearly as literal as many would claim!

We should be very wary of those who promote old-fashioned versions for public use. One of their advantages is that they are poorly understood. Some people would like the church to be seen as a valuable cultural institution, to be preserved as a curiosity and not taken seriously in terms of faith and social action. We should expect these people to promote versions that are quaint and irrelevant to the hearers, younger hearers especially. And that’s the AV, isn’t it?

Anyway, check out the CEV if you haven’t already. As sound as the RSV and as approachable as the GNB is my general impression. Its only drawback is I haven’t yet found cheap paperback versions to give away, as I have GNBs and NIVs.

Then (from another):

Wonder if TS Eliot was being ironic – ie: Jesus was vulgar, dealt in the trivial and the detail

and the (christendom) church too often saw itself as ‘majestic, singular and exalting’

probably not – but an interesting thought – give me the NRSV or RSV any day

Related Articles:

• THE NEW EVANGELICALS: HOW CHRISTIANS ARE RETHINKING ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE
• Theologians, like parents, are invited to be humble as well as (frequently) ignorant…
• The Jesus Driven Life
• INCARNATION
• Virgin Birth: ‘God degraded Mary?’

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.