Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by nodak, Sep 12, 2010.
Your opinion on changing "Son of Man" to "Human One"?
Before we cast our opinions, we need to understand the position of the translators.
The way you pose your question implies that the CEB has deliberately altered the scripture, when in fact they have merely presented a legitimate English translation.
Sorry--as in, changing the rendering from the English phrase.
So do you agree they are accurate here or not?
Is it acceptable?
I ran across this in Daniel 10:16 a while back.
And behold, one who resembled a human being was touching my lips; then I opened my mouth and spoke and said to him who was standing before me, “O my lord, as a result of the vision anguish has come upon me, and I have retained no strength.
Daniel 10:16 NAS
Compare Daniel 10:16 (ESV) (children of man)
Also look at
Num. 23:19; Ps. 8:4; Ps. 80:17; Ps 144:3; Isa. 51:12; Jer. 50:40
These are rather non-specific uses of the phrase, “son of man” in the OT.
In the NT, Jesus uses the phrase to emphasize his connection to humanity.
Jesus replied, Foxes have dens, and the birds in the sky have nests, but the Human One* has no place to lay his head.”
*Or Son of Man
Matthew 8:20 Common English Bible
But so you will know that the Human One* has authority on the earth to forgive sin” – he said to the man who was paralyzed- “Get up, take you cot, and go home.”
*Or Son of Man
Matthew 9:6 CEB
Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Human One* sitting on the right side of the Almighty** and coming on the heavenly clouds.”
*Or Son of Man
**Or the Power
Mark 14:62 CEB
No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Human One*
Or Son of Man
John 3:13 CEB
Personally it is a bit jarring but it works and the CEB footnotes the title.
Since there is always a definite article in front of the Greek phrase, then it is a mistake to simply translate it as "Human One," which could apply to anyone. "Son of man" is uniquely meant to apply to Christ. It is a title which contrasts with "Son of God," not simply a descriptive phrase.
The CEB uses an article too: "the Human One"
Did you read Rob's post #5?
Some more references where "son of man" does not refer to Christ : Ez.11:4,16:2;17:2;23:2;25:2;27:2 and28:21 for starters.
Thanks, I missed that.
My objection still remains that rendering it "The Human One" takes away the semantic parallel of "the son of man" with "the Son of God."
What are you, the BB police??? This is the second thread you're following me around on.
"Back off, kid, ya make me nervous."
How does it footnote the title?
I researched this a bit further this morning and found a discussion of this on the CEB website.
Interesting to me that I echoed the exact words of many readers.
" We tested this translation with hundreds of readers. Several found the change jarring."
The discussion is found here >>> From Son of Man to Human One
Created by Paul Franklyn on 3/17/2010 9:38:03 AM
Jesus replied, "Foxes have dens, and the birds in the sky have nests, but the Human One* has no place to lay his head.”
>>>>*Or Son of Man<<<<
Matthew 8:20 Common English Bible
Thanks. I would prefer "Literally, 'Son of Man'" in the footnote instead of just "or"--that is, if they just have to have that jarring rendering.
Interestingly enough, my first choice in Japanese for "Son of Man" in our translation was, ningen no musuko, or "Son of a Human," but "Uncle Miya" shot that down in a hurry. We went with the traditional hito no ko, or literally "child (son) of a person." If the reader is so jarred by the Bible that they are turned away from it, the rendering is a mistake.
My question is,
Why change the term "Son of man' at all? Are not all three words still used in our everyday language?
There are many instances in the CEB where a word that is used in our everyday language is changed to another. Some say it is for clarity, I am not sure.
If in the Greek/Hebrew its an idiom then "Son of man" may not be the best rendering. With idioms, even though the the individual words may make sense in the receptor language, the meaning may be lost or obscured if it is literally translated. So, for instance, Russian has a saying which can be literally translated "a bear stepped on his ear". Each words makes perfect sense in English and even the phrase makes sense in English. Yet unless you are familiar with the idiom, you will likely have no idea what is actually meant by this saying (the person is "tone-deaf", or, as we would say "he can't carry a tune in a bucket").
Now, I am totally unequipped to say whether or not such is the case with this particular phrase. These particular translators seem to think the meaning is better given by rendering it other than direct word for word. Whether they are accurate in this, I can't say. My point is merely that just because a phrase renders into English with understandable words and phrasing does not necessarily mean that is the best way to translate it. Or, at least, its open to legitimate debate.
Is that a valid conclusion? Many prefer the word "begotten" in John 3:16,for example -- but "one and only" or "Unique One" are better choices. Just because many folks might recoil,at least initially, to a certain word choice does not mean that a particular rendering is wrong.
But do those places have a definite article in front of son of man? I see where there are instances in the OT where the definitie article appears before this phrase but not so when it is speaking of someone in particular, such as the places in Ezekiel and even in Daniel 8:17. In Daniel 7:13 is has the definite article and is speaking of someone specific, and this happens to be the Lord Jesus Christ. Then we see Jesus using it of Himself with, you guessed it, the definite article connected to it.
The point is this is a traditionally accepted phrase: one which complimented the phrase Son of God, and not only showed His humanity but also connected Him to the prophecy from Daniel 7. Why change it? Is the Son of man hard to understand? Is the Human One that much clearer, if any clearer at all?
One and only is a bad rendering of that text.
Sorry, "human one" just sounds stupid. We're all human ones are we not?