In case anyone's interested, there is yet another new English translation that has shown up on the already crowded Bible scene.  It's called the International English Bible, and as far as I can tell, it is the work of one man.  I believe his name is Andrew Jackson (at least, that's how he's credited on the Kindle Version of the IEB's New Testament), and the website refers to him as "a Bible teacher familiar with the original languages and the historical and geographical context of the New Testament."  There really isn't any more info on the site than that.  But you can browse the entire New Testament on the site, and leave feedback for the translator.  I haven't had a chance to look at much of the IEB, but I did take a peek at Romans, and found that he follows Luther's famous example in Romans 3:28.  See below...

I tell you the truth: A person is declared righteous, by faith alone, apart from the human works of the law of Moses. (emphasis mine)

Feel free to check out this version and give the translator your feedback.  Also, if you want to give me any feedback on this blog, I would be interested in other people's opinions.

I really thought, by this time, that the CEB would be making a little better showing.  Of course, the stores represented by the CBA presumably tend to have a pretty conservative clientele.  So it's possible that this list doesn't really reflect the actual performance of the CEB.  The NIV is certainly holding its position at the stores represented on this list, despite some of the public outcry against the NIV 2011 from some conservative denominations.

[I received a free ebook of The Voice for my Kindle through Thomas Nelson's blogger program at booksneeze.com.]

I have blogged about the original edition of The Voice a few times on my main blog at caspianrex.posterous.com.  So I was naturally curious to see what changes have been made in this new 2011 edition.  Before I give some of my thoughts, I would like to point out that one point of view I do not share with my more "conservative" brethren is that The Voice is some sort of ghastly perversion of Scripture.  In fact, reading The Voice (both in its original form and this newer edition), I am not struck by any significant "liberal agenda" in the work.  Certainly, there is a great deal of non-traditional language, and more importantly, a very modern approach to issues of formatting of text.

That being said, I can't say I believe The Voice is really a translation of Scripture, in the same way that the NIV, or the ESV, or even the NLT or Good News bibles are.  The Voice goes a bit beyond paraphrase, into the realm of reinterpretation. This could be one problem with the new edition. In the original edition of The Voice, the editor referred to the work as a "retelling" of Scripture, which it certainly is.  The new Preface often refers to The Voice as a "translation."  There seems to be an attempt in the new editorial material to place The Voice on the same plane as other translations.  I think this may be a bit disingenuous.  Perhaps the following example will make it clear what The Voice really is like.

Right towards the beginning of the New Testament we see how interpretive The Voice is.  Consider this passage from the first chapter of Matthew:

20Now when Joseph had decided to act on his instincts, a messenger of the Lord came to him in a dream.

Messenger of the Lord: Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to wed Mary and bring her into your home and family as your wife. She did not sneak off and sleep with someone else—rather,she conceived the baby she now carries through the miraculous wonderworking of the Holy Spirit.  Matthew 1:20-21 [italics from original]

Now, the introductory material to The Voice clearly states that italics are used to indicate explanatory additions to the text.  The problem is, to my way of thinking, that these additions go beyond simple clarification, and into the area of interpretation, and even character analysis.  Why must the reader be told that Mary didn't act unfaithfully?  Is the addition for Joseph or for the reader?  In other words, what we have here is not simply translation; it is, rather, full blown interpretation.  And whereas I agree with the editors' contention that all translation involves some degree of interpretation, I think The Voice goes significantly further than most versions. I do believe, howver, that The Voice is a dynamic retelling of the New Testament story, and as a sort of companion to Scripture, it could be a very useful tool.

What makes this edition of The Voice different from the first edition, other than its Preface?  Well, there is definitely some reworking of some pretty important terminology.  For example, in the original version, the word Christos was usually translated "Liberating King," which was certainly an extremely interpretive rendering of the Greek.  The new edition uses the term "Anointed One" more often, lining up more squarely with the traditional (and more accurate) understanding of Christos as the Greek equivalent of Messiah.  

Also, gone are the somewhat cheesy monologues that introduce the different books of the Bible.  For example, the original intro to John's Gospel began this way: "My name is John. My father's name was Zebedee."  The new edition has a more typical historical intro, as in many study Bibles,  Of course, there are still lots of somewhat disruptive interruptions throughout the text, that attempt to explain the plot, as it were.  Ironically, I find that these constant interruptions in the flow of the text make this "easy to read" version much more difficult to read!  You can't make it through more than a few verses before the editors barge in to explain what's going on.

Overall, though, this new edition doesn't really tread as much new ground as one would think, compared to its earlier edition or to traditional translations.  Interestingly enough, when it comes to one of the more disputed terms in the New Testament, Paul's use of the word "flesh," The Voice doesn't attempt to interpret the word.  And they also retain the phrase "Son of Man," as it has traditionally been rendered.  (Unlike the recent Common English Bible, which has received all kinds of harsh criticism for its rendering "The Human One.")

So, bottom line for me is this: by all means, if you want to take a fresh look at Scripture, The Voice has potential to be an excellent, dynamic tool.  However, for heaven's sake, read it alongside an actual translation.  The Voice can not be said to be strictly a translation of Scripture; it's really more of a retelling of Scripture.  As such, it's pretty successful.  But as a standalone translation, I think it's way off base.