Repent — Comparing NIV and CEB

It’s an old fashioned word. It’s a biblical word. It’s a word that fits an “old time” Pentecostal preaching method. I likeย the word! I get visions of Billy Sunday with his flaring high kick and his finger ready to come down as he glares into someone’s soul and cries out, “REPENT!”

And I like the way the Common English Bible is handling the phrase. Again, they are working to make words more accessible. It is also a great example of where it may take a few more English words to “explain” what is being said. That is the work of translation. You want accuracy, and there are times when to accuratelyย communicate one word from another language it may take several words in your own language.

In the letter to Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22) the word “repent” comes up.

19ย Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent. (NIV)

Then, the CEB:

19ย I correct and discipline those whom I love. So be earnest and change your hearts and lives.

While “repent” is one word, and very clean, it may not be something that is easily read and understood. I know I grew up hearing whole sermons on what “repent” actually meant. And if it takes a sermonย to explain a word, it’s possible that just putting the “right” word in a spot may not be the bestย way to communicate what is being said.

Most of the time when I would ask what “repent” meant, I would get the answer, “It means to change your heart and life.”

More and more, I am liking how the CEB is handling this difficult work. (Though, I amย still not a fan of “Human One.”) ๐Ÿ˜‰

9 responses to “Repent — Comparing NIV and CEB”

  1. So many English words that we rarely use now have layers of meaning that spark the imagination. They have depth and now that they’re no longer common, they take study to understand. “Repent” is becoming one of those words. I hate to lose the richness of our language. At the same time I realize that some translations of the Bible need to be easily understood and accessible to the uninitiated.

  2. Very good points; I actually do like the way the CEB captures the meaning of “repent,” though I also dislike the use of “Human One” for “Son of Man.” Many of the CEB’s renderings have a freshness and a vividness to them that has long been missing from Bible translation. There are *some* things I don’t like so far, though: “When God began to create…” in Genesis 1:1, the fact that Adam is not named (or called a man) until Genesis 2:18 (I don’t suspect any agenda here; it’s just a bit unfamiliar), and “The Human One” (as already mentioned), to name a few.

    I will say that, although some gender inclusive language doesn’t trouble me (all modern translations include some), the degree to which it is done in the CEB will likely render it unusable for preaching or teaching in my current ministry context. In some ways, that is a shame; the sharpness with which the CEB grabs familiar texts and makes them pop is really great, and I think the translation would be beneficial in that way.

    Anyway, thanks for the blog; I hope to be joining the tour soon (I’ve requested my Bible already, but haven’t yet received it). Blessings!

    1. I’m finding the same things. I am certainly not bothered by the gender inclusion (I use the NIV2011 far more).

      In our church we still read from the NIV2011 because I like the flow of the language and some of the CEB’s renderings are just a bit too new. I DO like the CEB in small groups because it helps people in the group hear the text in fresh way.

  3. What’s funny is that I was just thinking yesterday (as I was looking at some passages in the CEB) about how I dislike the use of “Human One” in the Gospels. I find no problem with it in Ezekiel (cf. Dan Block’s two-volume commentary in the NICOT where he defends and uses it). It is difficult to take such a regularly occurring phrase that has taken such potent meaning and suddenly alter it. It isn’t even that I have a theological issue with the usage…it is just difficult to read and hear as a self-proclaimed title/ascription in the mouth of Jesus.

    1. I agree. I think it’s an overreach on the part of the CEB. Other things are very nice. Quite honestly, what would really do it for me is the NIV being brave and translating the Apocrypha! ๐Ÿ˜‰

      1. Dan – I agree that we need more translations of the Apocrypha. That’s one things I really like about the CEB – it’s one of few modern Bibles actually tackling the Apocrypha.

  4. I can also think of sermons I’ve heard on the meaning behind the word “repent.” I hadn’t noticed yet the way that the CEB is handling this word, but I do like the expanded version of it.

  5. The NET Bible is another that is tackling the Deuterocanonical works. Its just taking time for the finishing of the translation and notes to include it (hopefully within the next couple of years) in the online and print editions. It will be a welcome addition.

    1. The NET Bible would be a great addition to that field… if we could only fit the text with all the notes into one comfortable volume! ๐Ÿ˜‰

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.