OT exegetical versions compared to 1995 Contemporary English Version

[Unix]

I thought I'd provoke a little with the subject line, actually I would like comparison between
the CEV, NJB, Today's English Version, REB, and New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh!
I read Gal 5:24b in CEV: have killed our selfish feelings and desires.
.. and that seemed like a good translation. Sometimes I read people saying that the CEV was an improvement over the Today's English Version. What are the improvements?
(I have Logos 4 Original Languages base-package, so I can check later, tomorrow, whether that's a good translation.)

I like more dynamic equivalent versions better than for example ESV, NRSV, HCSB and such versions which I've discarded from start. But on the other hand, I've never liked for example the NIV, especially not the 2011 version.

I don't care what version it's related to, that doesn't matter. The CEV is not directly related to the TEV, except that both are works of the American Bible Society. Source

Where there any substantial manuscript finds for the OT that were implemented in the first half of the '90s, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Please refrain from comparing to the CEB, I won't budge, I don't like that one.

One disadvantage of the CEV, is that it's too easy to read: http://naeced.org/downloads/pdf/NAECED_Adult_Bible_Resource.pdf

If I do a comparison of Bible versions with this chart:
Bible Version Comparison Tool.
... CEV scores pretty well (86). Although there is an error: CEV is designated an 8 in reading level and GNT a 9, it should be the other way around, GNT an 8 and CEV a 9. It must be a typo.
Other versions that would be an option, from that chart, would be: Phillip's New Testament (scores 105) (I use it for some parts of the NT however cautiously), Today's English Version (scores 67) (I have several, for example the 1992 English (British) Catholic Edition and I'm thinking of using it more than I have so far), NJB (scores 66) (I have 2), REB (scores 53) (I have had it two times in my life, lost them accidentally, the only one spared was the separate Apocrypha, seriously thinking of buying a New Testament and a Pauline Epistles again). And the chart also suggest the 1917 Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (scores 65). I have the 1985 New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh and the 1997 Revised Jewish Publication Society Psalms. The chart also suggest the LB, I have the NT but I use it only for a few parts-of verses in the entire NT.

Like You can see from how I filled out that chart, I don't want it to be a good study Bible. I don't like consistency, and I don't need footnotes: I think footnotes are always too brief and I have many separate commentaries instead, like You can see from the thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7541241 I have all of those I suggest, + I have the Jimmy Swaggart commentary on 1 Cor. Plus I have the Logos 4 software and it has many notes to verses and commentaries.

Here are 2 threads about the CEV:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=4676
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=521785
Here's a post about the CEV compared to Today's English Version:
http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/44323/Best-Bible-Version-For-Seekers#reply-44323
Here's a thread that compares different versions:
http://bibleversiondiscussionboard....sions-transitivity-study-results#.T52EjtVov1U

Conclusion:
From my own judgement, the battle would then be between the NJB (surprisingly as I hadn't considered using it) and the Today's English Version, and to use the REB for some Pauline epistles (Ro, parts of 2 Cor, Col, Phil). The chart didn't give the right scores because it has the typo in the reading level of CEV and Today's English Version. The low reading level of the CEV is a really bad disadvantage.

Previously edited by Unix; 29th April 2012 at 06:48 PM local time. Reason: add links to CAF
Previously edited by Unix; 29th April 2012 at 06:56 PM local time. Reason: add link
Previously edited by Unix; 29th April 2012 at 08:20 PM local time. Reason: add link
Previously edited by Unix; 29th April 2012 at 08:36 PM local time. Reason: add link about reading level
Previously edited by Unix; 29th April 2012 at 10:11 PM local time. Reason: add about chart and study Bibles
Previously edited by Unix; 29th April 2012 at 10:21 PM local time. Reason: conclusion

 

[Radagast]

I thought I'd provoke a little with the subject line, actually I would like comparison between
the CEV, NJB, Today's English Version, REB, and New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh!
I read Gal 5:24b in CEV: have killed our selfish feelings and desires.
.. and that seemed like a good translation. ...

One disadvantage of the CEV, is that it's too easy to read: http://naeced.org/downloads/pdf/NAECED_Adult_Bible_Resource.pdf

The Bible can never be too easy to read, but "have killed our selfish feelings and desires" is a terrible translation when the Bible actually says "τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις" = "have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."

I can live with the NIV 1984 ("have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires"), The Message ("everything connected with getting our own way and mindlessly responding to what everyone else calls necessities is killed off for good—crucified"), the NLT ("have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there"), and even the NIRV ("have nailed their sinful nature to his cross. They don't want what their sinful nature loves and longs for") or the NCV ("have crucified their own sinful selves. They have given up their old selfish feelings and the evil things they wanted to do"), but the link to crucifixion and e.g. Luke 9:23 is (in my view) quite important.

As to the reading level of the CEV, everybody gives it a lower reading age than the GNT. See e.g. here, which compares a wide range of versions.

 

[hedrick]

As far as I can tell, the Bible Society published the CEV because it is at a lower reading level and requires less background in Biblical concepts than the TEV/GNB. It also uses more paraphrase. TEV tried to retain the original imagery where possible. CEV doesn't always.

I sort of understand Unix's objection. It's not exactly that the CEV is too easy to read. I find that it is somehow so breezy that it's easy to miss the point. I don't object to easy to read translations: I like TEV and REB, and my current preferred translation is CEB. However it's possible that a translation such as CEV has a use for evangelism or with new Christians. I just wouldn't use it personally or in most church settings.

CEB seems to translate sarx as self or selfish, when it is being used in that sense. (Sometimes, of course it is being used literally.) However Gal 5:24 does retain the reference to the cross, and parallels Luke 9:23 reasonably. The use of "self" connects to Mat 16:24, of course, where in the original the connection isn't so obvious.

 

[Unix]

I agree on this.

As far as I can tell, the Bible Society published the CEV because it is at a lower reading level and requires less background in Biblical concepts than the TEV/GNB. It also uses more paraphrase. TEV tried to retain the original imagery where possible. CEV doesn't always.

I sort of understand Unix's objection. It's not exactly that the CEV is too easy to read. I find that it is somehow so breezy that it's easy to miss the point. I don't object to easy to read translations: I like TEV and REB[...]. However it's possible that a translation such as CEV has a use for evangelism or with new Christians. I just wouldn't use it personally or in most church settings.

The REB is more interesting than the NJB, but the British is a bit bothersome, I prefer British but there's a lot of words I don't understand, in it. Of course the NEB was worse but I use that one too for some verses in the NT after comparison with all versions I have printed or electronic. Also, the REB has way too much emphasis on style, that's something I don't think should be the focus.

Here's more information about for exampel the REB and the Today's English Version:
Bible Translation Guide
... I found information about the theology of the versions, that I haven't found clearly (bluntly) expressed elsewhere.

I think the focus of the Today's English Version is just right. It could have less translation errors of course, but as I'm usually comparing many versions and learning Greek, I deal with that. The textual basis is lacking as it doesn't make use of the LXX and that's a major dissapointment that can however be dealt with. The translation errors is the worst problem with it. It seems to be one of the most un-biased versions since so many denominations have adopted it and the translators weren't fanatic (naïve) Bible-believers. The minor peculiarities of the Today's English Version include that it uses a dated Greek New Testament even though there was a newer edition available at the time - and that is very surprising indeed, lack of commentaries based on it, and that the (British) English Catholic Edition was expensive (but I actually ordered it anyway, because it's tiresome to use youversion.com and it doesn't have the Catholic Edition, also I won't be having internet forever, just a computer, and there is no Catholic Edition available (nor a British edition) in Logos 4 software that I've bought). I created this thread in a last minute hesitation about the other when I discovered that CEV might have some strenghts, as I had not looked into the CEV for 7½ years.

The strenghts of the REB is that it's inter-faith, non-evangelical, theologically liberal, has the most suitable reading level, and the accuracy in for example Philippians (compared to the Today's English Version that has severe problems there), and good translation of the Apocrypha and inclusion of 4 Esdras. Like I said, I have a separate volume with the REB Apocrypha that I love, so that wasn't in question. My question is about the 66 books of the Bible. (Although translation errors in Apocalypse is of course not of interest.)

While I don't necessarily hold to liberal beliefs, that might be a good approach in a Bible version.

The Today's English Version is moderate.

The drawbacks of the NJB is the focus on dignity of reading, some heretic passages, and that it's too Catholic.

 

[Unix]

Quote: "The New Testament is plain talk and the TEV captures that. The Old Testament is often poetic and the TEV isn't." from: Which Bible Translation
Regarding the OT: I can use the combo 1975 Bible In Order (99½% same as the 1966 JB), with my 1992 Good News (British) English Translation Catholic Edition (OT 2nd edition, NT 5th edition), and my 2010 NABRE OT large print (OT 3rd edition: Confraternity Version was the 1st, NAB 1970 was the 2nd). The Bible In Order prints poetry in verse. New manuscript evidence are in the NABRE.

Double check with the 1985 New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, the 1997 Revised Jewish Publication Society Psalms, and the 2012 UPDV ©Greg Abrams OT, for accurasy.

 

[Unix]

Here's one difference between the CEV and the GNT I've found, GNT being the better version, this is a really bad error resembling the CEB "blessing on someone"-error:
Ps 23:5b (1995 CEV): You honor me as your guest,
and you fill my cup
until it overflows.

 

[hedrick]

Here's one difference between the CEV and the GNT I've found, GNT being the better version, this is a really bad error resembling the CEB "blessing on someone"-error:
Ps 23:5b (1995 CEV): You honor me as your guest,
and you fill my cup
until it overflows.

But the point of the CEV is to avoid references to customs that modern readers won't understand. Bathing someone's head in oil would make no sense to the readers they have in mind. In this context it is a sign that you are an honored guest, so it's a reasonable translation given the purpose of the CEV. TEV does the same. While it is slightly more literal than CEV, it also tends to avoid references to customs that readers are unlikely to understand.

Translations such as RSV and CEB try to retain the same images and usually retain references to customs, so they translate Ps 23:5 more literally.

It's not an error. It's a difference in goal for the translation.

 

[Unix]

IMO it should be treated as a theological error, likewise the error in the CEB that I've pointed out months ago. I really don't want that kind of NONE-whatsoever-textual foundation errors in a Bible.

It's not an error. It's a difference in goal for the translation.

Follows: more information and comparison of Bibles

Good short summary of the NJB: New Jerusalem Bible - Bible Reviews

GNT-CE is #3 on Catholic Editions sales list.

REB Ps 121:1f.

Comparison verse Is 49:2.
Theological comparison verse Mt 23:23
Comparison verse Gal 3:2.

Quote: "- - REB is scholarly and unbiased, excellent but a little high on reading level
- - GNT is very popular, easy to read and shows no bias
- - CEV has won an award, is easy to read and shows no bias"
...from: Which version of the bible should I read? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers

Quote: "There is now a whole range of translations showing a varying extent of use of the dynamic equivalence ethos, with the NIV at the conservative (or restrained) end, the GNB somewhere in the middle, and the New Living Translation (NLT) and The Message at the liberal (or enthusiastic) end."
... it's about the theology of those versions compared, not about the equivalence.
... from: Ship of Fools: Recommend me a bible

Interesting tidbit about the NEB and the GNB, read it, it's "brief": http://www.christianforums.com/t7480708/#post55159046

"New English Bible
It was significantly revised and released in 1989 as the Revised English Bible under the editorship of W. D. McHardy, which included gender neutral language and increased the criticism of the translation. For the Old Testament the NEB was translated using critical versions of the Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek Septuagint, the Aramaic Targums, and the Syriac Peshitta. For the Apocrypha they used "The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint" by H. B. Swete, the Codex Sinaiticus, Theodotion's translation of the Apocrypha, the Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, Codex 248, and R. L. Bensly's The Fourth Book of Ezra.
.......For the New Testament the translators used a large number of manuscripts including early Greek manuscripts, early translations in other languages that may have had access to manuscripts no longer available, and quotations of early Christian writers and speakers.
.......This translation uses British English as it is found primarily in England.

Good News Translation w/ Apocrypha
This modern version of the Bible in mid-20th century American English, prepared by a group of American biblical scholars, is also known as the Good News Bible. Taking advantage of the many archaeological and manuscript discoveries as well as the insights of linguistic and biblical scholarship since the 16th century it was designed to meet the needs of a world-wide explosion of evangelism in a secular world where English had become the dominant international language and a familiarity with traditional theological terminology could not be assumed. Its style avoids the looseness of paraphrase as it translates the deep structures of the text in its original languages. This pioneering version has set the pattern for innumerable new translations and revisions of the Bible in other languages as well as in English.
Over 40 million copies of the Good News Bible have been distributed world-wide since its first printing."
Unknown source, I didn't save the link. (You can find it if You google a part of the text.)

Quote: "It is described by the publishers as a clear and simple modern translation that is faithful to the original Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic texts.

Good News Bible - Translation method
The translation style of the Good News Bible is dynamic equivalence. That is, the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek is expressed in a "thought for thought" translation rather than "word for word." The GNB is written in a simple, everyday language, with the intention that everyone can appreciate it, and so is often considered particularly suitable for children and for those learning English. Included in the Good News Bible are introductions to each book of the Bible.

Good News Bible - Pro’s and Con’s
Overall, the Good News Bible / Today's English Version is a very good and accurate translation. It is easy to read and uses understandable modern English. If it has a general flaw, it does seem that the GNB is a little too dynamic in places, causing some of its renderings to be significantly different from what is said in the original languages. There is one particularly poor translation, however: "What the Law could not do, because human nature was weak, God did. He condemned sin in human nature by sending his own Son, who came with a nature like man's sinful nature, to do away with sin" (Romans 8:3). Romans 8:3 in the GNB/TEV essentially says that Jesus had a sinful nature, which obviously goes against many other Scriptures in the New Testament, even within the Good News Bible itself."
...from: What is the Good News Bible (GNB) / Today's English Version (TEV)?

I would like to see more opinions on versions such as these, and New JPS/Revised JPS! Please everyone, feel free to write what You think!

Here's someone who thinks the GNB (and CEV) is/(are) a poor version(s) that should not be quoted on CF: http://www.christianforums.com/t7548225-post57115026/#post57115026
... although he doesn't give a reason as to why (presupposing most people agree)?
And ebia doesn't like GNT: http://www.christianforums.com/t7436436/#post54015803

Previously edited by Unix; 6th May 2012 at 04:06 PM local time. Reason: all the additions after the 1st quote
Previously edited by Unix; 10th May 2012 at 07:40 AM local time. Reason: quote from ship-of-fools.com
Previously edited by Unix; 12th May 2012 at 09:49 PM local time. Reason: add interesting tidbits and about NJB and Mt 23:23

 

[Unix]

Actually I decided to order an American idiom 1992 Good News Translation Catholic Edition whole Bible, and to switch to American spelling, due to that then I won't confuse differences between versions to differences in idiom. (It was also very hard to find an Anglicized GNT, that really "assisted" in my choice). What I'm doing, is that I'm attending as many British Churches there are over here, the Catholic and the Anglican Church.

But I want to learn British pronounciation. So my choice of Church to attend also has to do with English dialect used. (Actually I recently attended 2 sermons held by a British speaker in a protestant Church, who had been influenced by the so called "Toronto blessing", just to hear British. It was about "the Fathers heart".)

Right now I don't have time to attend a language school due to that I'm starting in a 2-semester Baptist Bible college (and it's often hard to find really British teachers over here). They said they will teach also other views, such as the Anabaptist (which is interesting because it would be the closest match according to Selectsmart.com if I would be a protestant).

I prefer British

TNIV isn't a close match to what I want, but I'm thinking of ordering the 2nd ed., called the Story, I'll use it for the epistle of Jude (that I've mentioned in the Finding a new Bible -thread), and I'll think of some of the special features in the text of it.

As for the opening post, I prefer the CEV rendering of the Gal passage. But I'm not going to buy the CEV, it's too mainstream like I've pointed out in a quote from a website, in the Finding a new Bible -thread. Sometimes when people recommend a different version for a specific passage, I go with that but I don't BUY the version neither as printed matter or electronic, such as in the 1 Jn 2:5 -thread in the Bibliology & Hermeneutics -forum. Or actually I DON'T buy versions anymore and I have rarely followed "recommendations".

I still haven't been able to decide what to do about the REB, whether to buy a New Testament or one with just the Pauline Epistles. I have so many Bibles of which many are thick, that I'm thinking of neglecting the OT. The REB had Jewish contributors for the OT, but on the other hand I have the New JPS Tanakh, so I can get the Jewish view from that (although it'll be hard to choose where to follow the Jewish interpretation and where to go with the Christian). A 66 book REB, if there is one with thin pages, might be an option so that the translators have done the choice of interpretation which is different with different faith.

For the exegetical viewpoint and the poetical passages in the OT, I have the 1975 Bible In Order, like I've said it prints poetry in verse. The 2010 NABRE OT is too mainstream (like I've pointed out in a quote in the Finding a new Bible -thread). The latter will be useful though for portions of the OT where there's a lot of newly implemented manuscript evidence (e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls).

QUESTION: which portions of the OT have a lot of newly implemented manuscript evidence? Especially after the evidence implemented in the 1977 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Hebrew text (the text of the 1992 GNT OT Source)? Also LXX please. This would be helpful so that I'll know when to turn to new versions.

QUESTION: how does the 1989 REB compare exegetically with the 1975 Bible In Order (difference I've noticed to the 1966 JB in the text, is only the punctuation, but I suspect perhaps some spelling corrected)?

 

[Unix]

I think we can agree that NO-ONE needs to buy the 1991 CEV NT, see this opinion from 2003: http://www.christianforums.com/t65550-post1185975/#post1185975
(I remember the discussions with filosofer. Sorry he isn't on CF since 2008.)

I agree on this.

However it's possible that a translation such as CEV has a use for evangelism

But I'm not going to buy the CEV, it's too mainstream

Incorrect. The NT of the CEV came in 1991 BEFORE the 1992 GNT edition.

There are more choices for the free translation. I use the TEV, a.k.a. Good News Bible. It was replaced a few years ago by the CEV (Contemporary English Version), which I never liked.

In further reply to hedrick, read this first link about the GNB: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=013794;p=1#000039
About Phillips: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=013794;p=1#000027
About REB compared to NRSV: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=013794;p=2#000069
About translating Job (NEB): http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=013794;p=2#000075
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=013794;p=2#000079
About JB and NEB: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=013794;p=2#000084
Example of inconsistency in NRSV due to many translators working on it: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=013794;p=3#000140
What Bibles are used in Church (JB, TEV, CEV, ...): http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=004163;p=1#000008
A Church that uses the NEB is slightly left or right, liberal, but not overly so: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=004163;p=1#000015
About JB OT: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=004163;p=1#000025
Someone horrified that a C of E parish uses the Good News Bible: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=004163;p=1#000044
Competition between the NRSV and the REB in a Church: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=004163;p=2#000054

and my current preferred translation is CEB

The GNB and CEV don't sound profound, and that's exactly how I like it: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=001778;p=1#000002

From a thread about British idiom Bibles:
On the drawbacks of the NIV study Bible (text 1984 edition): http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=013844;p=2#000050
About JB, AV/RV/RSV/NRSV, REB: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=013844;p=2#000061
I'm not bothered if a Bible has a bit old-fashioned language.

Here's a thread that discusses sarx + Ps 2:12: http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/51735/2011-NIV-Sin-nature-to-flesh-#reply-51735
I tried to find more discussion about sarx: http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&a....,cf.osb&fp=534b72f70980b4ea&biw=1311&bih=618
...and I found this:
http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-147223.html?page=13
...(the page also states that the CEV has some paraphrase).
...quote: "The F-E translations (NASB, KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV) all use “flesh” in Ro 8:8-9 while the D-E translations all use other words to convey its meaning, including “sinful nature” (NIV), “human nature” (GNB), “lower nature” (NEB), “unspiritual nature” (REB), “desires” (CEV)."
...it presents also a problem in Ro 9:5. NRSV or JB/NJB seems like a better version for Ro 9:5, than my until now preferred one (REB).

+ I found this:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/1998_inclusive.pdf
...page 25-26

You Can Understand the Bible Seminar, by Utley, R. J. D., Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International, 1996, p.35:
6. Examples of the different biblical authors using the same word with different meaning:
b. Paul’s use of “flesh” ( sarx )

1. Physical body (cf. Rom. 1:3; Eph. 2:11, 14; 5:29, 31; 6:5, 12)
2. Sin nature (cf. Rom. 8:3–4; Eph. 2:13)

...that book doesn't cathegorize TEV as paraphrase.

CEB seems to translate sarx as self or selfish, when it is being used in that sense. (Sometimes, of course it is being used literally.) However Gal 5:24 does retain the reference to the cross, and parallels Luke 9:23 reasonably. The use of "self" connects to Mat 16:24, of course, where in the original the connection isn't so obvious.

As far as I can tell, the Bible Society published the CEV because it is at a lower reading level and requires less background in Biblical concepts than the TEV/GNB. It also uses more paraphrase.

Conclusion:
[...]and to use the REB for some Pauline epistles (Ro, parts of 2 Cor, Col, Phil). The chart didn't give the right scores because it has the typo in the reading level of CEV and Today's English Version. The low reading level of the CEV is a really bad disadvantage.

Previously edited by Unix; 29th April 2012 at 10:21 PM local time. Reason: conclusion

From a pentecostal sermon, Församlingen Klippan, April 29. 2012 at 3 pm local time: If we allow our own calls steer us to do whatever we desire, Paul explains of the consequences. Fruits of the spirit are something all our hearts longed after. It comes from God himself, the result of the live holy-in holiness.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I thought I'd provoke a little with the subject line, actually I would like comparison between
the CEV, NJB, Today's English Version, REB, and New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh!

Conclusion:
From my own judgement, the battle would then be between the NJB (surprisingly as I hadn't considered using it) and the Today's English Version, and to use the REB for some Pauline epistles (Ro, parts of 2 Cor, Col, Phil). The chart didn't give the right scores because it has the typo in the reading level of CEV and Today's English Version. The low reading level of the CEV is a really bad disadvantage.

I rather like Young's and Rotherham for more accuracy following the Hebrew and Greek texts.

You can view those, along with the CEV and TEV at this site:

Search for 'Genesis 1:1' in the version


.....

 

[hedrick]

I think we can agree that NO-ONE needs to buy the 1991 CEV NT, see this opinion from 2003.

Unix asked me to respond to this posting.

I'm not sure what you want me to comment on. Of the list you are interested in, the ones I've used significantly are NRSV, REB, TEV and CEB. I've stayed away from the CEV for stylistic reasons. I used the JB for a while, and have no objections to the style, but didn't like the fact that they tended to rearrange OT passages. And at this point it's not really a current translation.

Basically NRSV seems to be a consensus scholarly translation, so it's my base. I use it with a freer translation. I've been using TEV, but have moved largely to CEB. I think the CEB is as easy to read as TEV or CEV, but is closer to the original. That is, I think it keeps some of the virtues of formal equivalence while still being easy to read.

The only comment you've made on the CEB is "blessings on", but you haven't said enough to evaluate what you mean. I did a search, and they do use "blessings on" a few places where other translations use "blessed is". I can only guess, but to me the difference in meaning is that "blessed is" is a statement of fact, that someone is blessed, whereas they understood the phrase as asking for God's blessing on someone or saying that someone would be blessed by God. The NT passages mostly quote Ps 118:26. NET translates "may the one ... be blessed" NRSV has "blessed is ..." but the second half of the verse makes it look like the intent is to wish the person to be blessed, not an observation that they are.

I'm not an expert on the nuances of Heb and Greek, and the commentaries I have don't deal with this, but I find it plausible that the phrases CEB translates "blessings on" are in fact wishing someone to have blessings rather than stating that they are blessed already. Remember that the CEB was field tested with groups of normal readers, and changed language when people tended to misread something. I suspect they found that "blessed is" tended to be interpreted as a statement of fact and not a wish or intention, and thus the changed it. But this is just guesswork on my part.

At any rate, no translation gets every phrase the way I'd like it. There are several passages in CEB, NRSV, and every other translation that I don't agree with.

 

[Unix]

Do You mean linguistically, textually, exegetically, or otherwise? The JB is very modern exegetically. Textually doesn't matter as I always compare myself the variants and that's a very easy task for the NT. I use Tip-ex and a pen to write the 1993 UBSGNT text in English in my Bibles where they differ from it. The TEV was the first Bible that was designed by new linguistical standards. Question: is more modern linguistics than JB's important in passages printed in verse, my main usage for the JB OT?

I've used REB the most, but currently I have no REB at all, save the Apocrypha. If I would buy anew it it would mean much more effort than having 1 Bible fewer, since I would want to compare large parts of the Bible to it.

Unix asked me to respond to this posting.

I'm not sure what you want me to comment on. Of the list you are interested in, the ones I've used significantly are NRSV, REB, TEV and CEB. I've stayed away from the CEV for stylistic reasons. I used the JB for a while, and have no objections to the style, but didn't like the fact that they tended to rearrange OT passages. And at this point it's not really a current translation.

In one of the links I provided in my previous post, the NRSV is referred to as "boring" among other versions. But seriously, it's too mainstream. The CEB has too much focus on language, among other faults.

Basically NRSV seems to be a consensus scholarly translation, so it's my base. I use it with a freer translation. I've been using TEV, but have moved largely to CEB.

What I refered to was this (when I edited my post on May 22. 2012 at 02:00 AM local time (May 21. in the US), before Your most recent post):
quote: "As far as I can see the GNB is actually really popular; its the one I use most often - as it is pretty unbeatable in terms of readability and yet it avoids any major silliness in doing so(self consciously modern language etc)."
...from: Ship of Fools: Bible translations

I think the CEB is as easy to read as TEV or CEV, but is closer to the original. That is, I think it keeps some of the virtues of formal equivalence while still being easy to read.

"blessings on" changes the theological meaning, just like I've said from start.

The only comment you've made on the CEB is "blessings on", but you haven't said enough to evaluate what you mean.

Well, it's better to know what "blessed is" means. Allow me to be avoid field-tested versions! I don't want other peoples level of understanding infect the entire Bible. I've read the Bible in to 3 languages so far, and within ~3 years from now I've will have read the Bible in a total of 5 languages including those. Some concepts have got firmly rooted in me, such as what "blessed is" means. Other concepts, such as "just"/"righteous" have only recently started to form in me into their proper meaning by reading by myself in Catholic books, and then there are words that I learn one at a time while reading the Bible and comparing to Gk or Hebrew and other English versions, such as "inanity" in Confraternity Version Prv 1:22, and "propitiation" in Catholic Public Domain Version 1 Jn 2:2.

What I mean by those OT examples, is, that since I've switched between languages, some expressions have by force during the years, while listening to sermons and reading the Bible, become familiar because there is an equally large gap between Hebrew and English as there is between Hebrew and any other of the languages in which I've read the Bible. Native English-speakers who read the Bible only in English are not forced to understand better at such an early stage as I have.

Remember that I had almost read the whole Bible in 2 languages at the time when I was teenage, and had at that time been a Christian 3/5 of my life and attended Church regularely.

Unfortunately I didn't start reading the Bible in English until 2004 and 2011.

The problem isn't that I would not know enough English, but the late stage of switching my Bible-reading and Church attending to English, and the fact that I've changed denomination. Proper Catholic Bibles use the words "propitiation" and "just".

This reminds me to update my preferences in:
Bible Version Comparison Tool
...Translation of cultural references from 4 (Important) to 2 (Slightly important), and I'll change to Comparing versions to the RSV (instead of to the NRSV) because I want difference to the more formal equivalent RSV.

• NRSV (scores 53)
• CEV (scores 95)
• Phillip's New Testament (scores 90)
• Today's English Version (scores 100)
• NJB (scores 57)
• REB (scores 94)
• 1917 Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (scores 54).
• LB (scores 90).

Remember that the CEB was field tested with groups of normal readers, and changed language when people tended to misread something. I suspect they found that "blessed is" tended to be interpreted as a statement of fact and not a wish or intention, and thus the changed it.

Right now I am reading Proverbs, Jn, Ro, and have been glancing 2 Pt, 1 Jn in the past few weeks, and during the past ½ year I've also been focusing on Ep and the first 3 chapters of Gn. And I plan to study Jude later on.

I think You must be right on this. At first I thought it was a slip.

But this is just guesswork on my part.

Name some passages in TEV that You don't agree with!

At any rate, no translation gets every phrase the way I'd like it. There are several passages in CEB, NRSV, and every other translation that I don't agree with.

 

[Unix]

In what sense do You mean easy to read? Reading level/vocabulary? Contemporary language - why is that suddenly so important?

I think the CEB is as easy to read as TEV or CEV, but is closer to the original. That is, I think it keeps some of the virtues of formal equivalence while still being easy to read.

An advantage of the JB, is that it's not modernist. Source.

Comparison of the NRSV and JB: Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Which translation do you prefer?

I used the JB for a while, and have no objections to the style, but didn't like the fact that they tended to rearrange OT passages. And at this point it's not really a current translation.

About HCSB and New Oxford Annotated Bible: Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Which translation do you prefer?
There's no difference in the text between NRSV and NRSV-CE: Source.
The NAB(RE) is a "kind of literal secular/skeptical/humanist translation" Source.
NAB and NABRE) is so soaked with hyper-skepticism and modernism that it's a travesty Source.
Someone recommends Confraternity Version = CCD: Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Which translation do you prefer?

You seem to be concerned merely of how an OT Bible is by average, whether ou can hallmark it as accurate. I wouldn't be so conserned about that, really. If You listen to enough lessons that include Hebrew on the books You are mainly interested in, us (an) (interlinear) (lexicons) every day, and ponder the frequency of the word in different parts of the Hebrew Bible and the exact significance of that, the problems with OT's You call <<less accureate>>, such as the TEV, diminish, and the/those OT's You found less usable right now, become actually very usable.

Actually the TEV is very usable - because it has great linguistic/choice-of-expression-style -consistency thanks to that there was a translator-in-charge and a famous linguist working on it until the 1st American ed. OT in 1976 - it's especially easy to make use of this version:

You get a hunch or an initial grasp of which OT Bibles are accurae FOR A VERSE OR A WORD IN A VERSE and which ones happen to be quite wrong.

It's much more laborious to try to make use of a version such as CEB. Actually the said accuracy of it turns out to be a deficit in the work. You know why? Because the errors are "then" not obvious enough for Your discernment and You start missing the "small" errors, which sums up to thousands of errors in the OT. PLUS like I quoted, the overly modernist, silly language pulls down most verses. No matter how I look at this, I find only scarce use of the CEB so I REALLY don't need to buy it, one page printed from the computer is enough: the Lord's Prayer in Mt. You know, current speach is, if You have or have ever had any interest in the history of Your language, an omnium gatherum of past an present. That's so much inconsistency that it's really a disadvantage of exactly such a version as CEB that tries to be maximally current.

I'll demonstrate to You that other versions are more usable, here's my choices from
Prv 2: My child, if you take my words to heart,
And lay up my commandments with you;
tuning your ear to wisdom,
tuning your heart to understanding,
yes if your plea is for clear perception,
if you cry out for understanding,
Look for it as hard as you would for silver or some hidden treasure:
Then you will understand the fear of Yahweh,
and find knowledge of God.
It is the LORD who gives wisdom; from him come knowledge and understanding.
He keeps his help for honest men,
and is the shield of those who walk honestly,
guarding the paths of justice, protecting the way of his pious ones.
Then you will understand rectitude and justice, honesty, every good path;
When wisdom comes into your heart and knowledge will give you pleasure.
Discretion will watch over you, understanding will guard you;
to deliver you from the way of the wicked. They will keep you away from people who stir up trouble by what they say -
who forsake the path of uprightness, To walk in the ways of darkness;
those who find pleasure in doing wrong,
[for] they delight in [the] deviousness of evil,
whose tracks are twisted,
and the paths that they tread crooked.
Keeping you also from the alien woman, from the foreign woman with her wheedling words;
The one who forsakes the companion of her youth forgets the pact with her God;
for her path sinks down to death, and her footsteps lead to the shades;
Of those who go to her not one returns or gains the paths of life.
So you will pursue the way of good men,
persisting in the paths of the virtuous.
For the upright will stay in the land,
And the perfect will be left in it.
But the wicked will be cut off from the land,
And betrayers will be rooted out of it.

1a: NJB
1b: Updated Bible Version 2.16
2-3: NJB
4: TEV 2nd ed.
5, from the token : in 4 until 5: Updated Bible Version 2.16
6: TEV 2nd ed.
7a: JB
7: the word and inserted by me
7b: NABRE
8-9: Confraternity Version
10a: JB
10b: TEV 2nd ed.
11: Capitalization by me
11: Confraternity Version
12a: NET
12a, the token . from: TEV 2nd ed.
12b: TEV 2nd ed.
13, small letter
13: Updated Bible Version 2.16
14a: TEV 2nd ed.
14b: Lexham English Bible
15-16a: JB except 1 word
16, "foreign woman" from: NABRE
17a: NABRE
17, addition of the word "The", my addition
17, omit the word "and", my omission
17b-18: Confraternity Version
19a: JB
19b: Confraternity Version
19b, edit the word "gain" to "gains", my editing
20: JB
21-22: Updated Bible Version 2.16

As You can see I choose words from different decades, sometimes my aim being eveness, sometimes consistency with other stories, allusions and expressions in the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

Note that in Prv the consistency from one verse to the next is not the goal.

Previously edited by Unix; 22nd May 2012 at 09:44 AM local time.
Previously edited by Unix; 22nd May 2012 at 04:09 PM local time. Reason: add "An advantage of the JB" - Someone recommends Confraternity Version
Previously edited by Unix; 23rd May 2012 at 12:06 PM local time. Reason: "You seem to be concerned merely" - Prv 2:16
Previously edited by Unix; 23rd May 2012 at 08:49 PM local time. Reason: correct typo in Prv 2:16, and Prv 2:17 - 2:18

 

[childofdust]

Some thoughts and questions...

Prov 2:1
A. “take...to heart”
This is unnecessary obfuscation, don't you think? Who says “take to heart”? Don't you think this is nonsensical biblish? “Heart” isn't anywhere in the Hebrew. The verb &#1500;&#1511;&#1495; has a large range of semantic meaning – in this instance, it can easily be translated something like “accept/receive/grasp/abide by” etc. There's no reason to add “heart” to the text. Since the Hebrew isn't trying to communicate some idiom by using “to take,” I don't see why we should create one in English.

B. “lay up”
What does that mean? Who says “lay up”? &#8206;Are we on a basketball court? Don't you think this is nonsensical biblish? The Hebrew verb doesn't mean “lay up” (whatever that means). It means “to hide/treasure/shelter/store/” etc. What lexicons are you using? Are you looking this up in something like HALOT or BDB or are you relying on something extremely outdated and poor in scholarship like Strong's?

Prov 2:2 – I like the first instance of “tuning,” but the second instance doesn't make sense. The Hebrew uses two completely different verbs here. Unlike some, I believe the Hebrew Bible chose its words purposefully. There is intention in what it says or doesn't say. So why does the Hebrew text use two different words? Your translation choice glosses over this as if it didn't matter.

I think I'll stop there. From my perspective as a student of ancient Hebrew, this is a bad translation. Did you really translate this or did you just pick and choose what looked best to you in English? From my perspective as a native and fluent English speaker with a degree in literature, it is not very friendly English. If you want to be poetic, that's fine. But there's better ways to do it. No offense meant to you personally. If you really think verses 1-2 sound or read well, then go with it. I hope it helps you.

 

[Unix]

Hm, I thought it was a good opening phrase and that's why I selected NJB for 1a.

Prov 2:1
A. “take...to heart”
This is unnecessary obfuscation, don't you think? Who says “take to heart”? Don't you think this is nonsensical biblish? [...] Since the Hebrew isn't trying to communicate some idiom by using “to take,” I don't see why we should create one in English.

I have never had Strong's. Yeah if I remember correctly the lexicons I use are HALOT or BDB. I'm using updated ones, just bought a month ago a lot of e-books, Logos. I'm not on the same computer as where I have the Bible study software - it's like that temporarely.

B. “lay up”
What does that mean? Who says “lay up”? &#8206;Are we on a basketball court? Don't you think this is nonsensical biblish? The Hebrew verb doesn't mean “lay up” (whatever that means). It means “to hide/treasure/shelter/store/” etc. What lexicons are you using? Are you looking this up in something like HALOT or BDB or are you relying on something extremely outdated and poor in scholarship like Strong's?

I often understand biblish better than the correct translation.

You're right. I noticed the glossing over but chose that because it rhymed, I went a bit too dynamic-equivalent.

Prov 2:2 – I like the first instance of “tuning,” but the second instance doesn't make sense. The Hebrew uses two completely different verbs here. Unlike some, I believe the Hebrew Bible chose its words purposefully. There is intention in what it says or doesn't say. So why does the Hebrew text use two different words? Your translation choice glosses over this as if it didn't matter.

I did translate some of it, and some of it I chose on other basises. Probably my aim is also a bit different as I accept small errors for the sake of other goals, unlike You who seem to be more rigid.

I think I'll stop there. From my perspective as a student of ancient Hebrew, this is a bad translation. Did you really translate this or did you just pick and choose what looked best to you in English?

My purpose is never good English. It doesn't need to look like the CEB or NKVJ. A lower reading level than the NKJV is preferrable, not because of language skill issues, but because of other reasons.

From my perspective as a native and fluent English speaker with a degree in literature, it is not very friendly English.

My goal varies from verse to verse so to speak. I allready explained about Prv, specifically, that <<the consistency from one verse to the next is not the goal.>>, I base that on teaching I've heard and common sense.

If you want to be poetic, that's fine. But there's better ways to do it.

No offence taken really, I just hope You were interested in the entire Prv 2 I've translated. I know You have a lack of time, so do that in case/when You have time to.

No offense meant to you personally.

I like getting views, that's why I use Christianforums, and any input You have is appreciated, I'll adjust my choices in the parts of verses You complained about, thanks!

If you really think verses 1-2 sound or read well, then go with it. I hope it helps you.

I have much time because I work part time for the time being, but I have limited time to use the internet right now. Would have wanted to write more.

 

[Unix]

bump!
I feel better about the style of the REB than NJB.

More opinions wanted!

 

[Unix]

Back to the T now. Someone wrote 2 good posts about the GNT: Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Some questions about Bible translations.
Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Some questions about Bible translations.

 

[Unix]

To take the link to a post about the NEB in Church as an example, I just wanted to point out now, that a Bible version I want to use, such as the REB, doesn't need to be as conservative as the Church I attend or at all times as fundamentalist as the theology I believe in (such as that eating pork is wrong).

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE POSTS IN THIS THREAD, ON THE T, please don't talk about other versions than the ones I wanted to talk about, in this thread. What is Your experience of using these versions, or which passages do You want to discuss with me and others in this thread?

If You don't use several of the versions I use and You are therefore unable to compare them, You are welcome to post if You want us to look into some passage or You have an opinion on one of the versions.

Comments about linguistic aspects are also welcome. As You can see from what I've posted I think that's important.

A Church that uses the NEB is slightly left or right, liberal, but not overly so: Ship of Fools: Bible versions in church

1992 GNT 5th ed. NT is not my prefered version for Ro, but I read Ro from it a little bit today, and noticed that the wording on theological issues is good but that it's breezy so I don't catch all the points. I was reading a commentary on Ro...
http://www.christianforums.com/t7541241/#post59636681
... and could catch the point better from the authors translation, but the language wasn't as good as GNT, for example 'reconcile' is a word that I think can be expressed with an expression that is used in the GNT.
You are welcome to post opinions about commentaries in that thread, ''Practical Commentary on Scripture".

I sort of understand Unix's objection. It's not exactly that the CEV is too easy to read. I find that it is somehow so breezy that it's easy to miss the point.

Here's a post I've made in the Patristic -forum, that might interest some: http://www.christianforums.com/t6932525-post60781491/#post60781491

See my signature for more interesting threads.

 

[childofdust]

I hope this is where you wanted me to answer your questions.

do You think Jerome used (a) good column(s) of the Hexapla when he translated Job to Latin

You had to pick Job, didn't you? LOL. It's probably the one book I've spent less time studying than any other. And it's my least favorite.

Here's what Jerome himself says on the matter:

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF SAINT JEROME TO THE BOOK OF JOB

I am forced, through each of the books of Divine Scripture, to respond to the slander of adversaries who accuse my translation of rebuking the Seventy translators, not as though among the Greeks Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion had also translated either word for word, or meaning for meaning, or by mixing both together, also a kind of translation of equal proportion, and also Origen had divided all the scrolls of the Old Instrument with obeli and asterisks which, either added by him or taken from Theodotion, he added to the ancient translation, proving what was added to have been lacking. Therefore my detractors should learn to accept in full what they have accepted in part, or to erase my translation along with their asterisks. For it should not be, that those who they accepted to have omitted many things may not be acknowledged to have certainly erred in some things, especially in Job, in which if you will have removed those things which are added under the asterisks, the greater part will be cut off. And this is only among the Greeks. Otherwise, among the Latins, before their translation which we recently edited under asterisks and obeli, almost seven hundred or eight hundred verses are (missing), so that the book, shortened and cut up and eaten away, shows its deformity publicly to readers.

And this translation follows no translator of the ancients, but will rather convey from the speech itself (which is) Hebrew and Arabic and sometimes Syrian, now words, now meanings, now both together. For even among the Hebrews the whole book is considered oblique and slippery and what the Greek rhetors call figuratively arranged (&#949;&#963;&#967;&#951;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#953;&#963;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#962, and while one thing is said, it does another, as if you would hold tightly an eel or a little murena fish, when you press harder, then the sooner it escapes. I remember I paid not a little money toward understanding of this scroll, for an instructor from Lydda who among the Hebrews was thought to have first rank, with whose teaching I know not whether I accomplished anything; this one thing I know: for me not to have been able to translate anything that I didn’t know before.

For which reason, let my dogs therefore hear me to have labored at this scroll, not as rebuking the ancient translation, but rather so those things in it which are either obscure or missing or certainly corrupted by the error of scribes may be made more clear by our translation, who have both learned Hebrew speech in part, and also in Latin, almost from our cradle we were worn out (?) among grammarians and rhetors and philosophers. But if among the Greeks, after the edition of the Seventy, with the Gospel of Christ shining, the Jew Aquila, and Symmachus and Theodotion, judaizing heretics, are accepted, who have hidden many mysteries of the Savior by sly translation, and yet are found in the Hexapla among the churches and are explained by men of the Church, how much more should I, a Christian of Christian parents and bearing the standard of the cross on my forehead, whose study was to recover the missing, to correct the corrupted, and to open the sacraments of the Church with pure and faithful speech, not be rejected by either disdainful or by malicious readers? Let whoever will to keep the old books, either written on purple skins with gold and silver, or in uncial letters, as they commonly say, loads of writing rather than books, while they leave to me and mine to have poor little leaves and not such beautiful books as correct ones. Each edition, the Seventy according to the Greeks and mine according to the Hebrews, was translated into Latin by my labor. May each one choose what he will, and prove himself studious rather than malevolent.
--translation by Kevin P. Edgecomb

Would You say that NETS is a good version for Job?

I like NETS. It is a top-notch, scholarly work by amazing translators. When there are different Greek versions of a text, it includes both—something I had never seen before. And it is based off of the Gottingen series, which is the latest and greatest critical series on the Septuagint. However, I have a number of big problems with it:

1. It tries to mimic the style and perspectives of the NRSV. Although it is a new translation from the ground up, it might also be called a son or daughter (but not a revision) of the NRSV. Sometimes this “translational affinity” interferes with what the Greek is trying to communicate because the NRSV is based on the Hebrew, not the Greek.

2. The Greek texts in NETS are not exactly the same as those texts that are traditionally regarded as “the Septuagint.” The traditional texts were used by earlier translations like Brenton's and Rahlf's. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, you may run into several issues where someone says “the Septuagint says X” and when you look at NETS, you won't be able to find “X” anywhere.

For those who don't know Greek, I would highly recommend they use both the NETS and one based on the traditional texts. The upcoming official Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) that will be released sometime next year (EOB - The Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible based on the Septuagint (LXX) and Patriarchal Text) is based on the traditional texts.

As for how Job itself in the Greek relates to the Hebrew, here is what the NETS says:

A cursory overview of the OG text of Iob reveals that it is substantially shorter than the MT, the form of the Hebrew text which appears to have been its parent text. This abbreviation increases as one reads through the book. Gray calculated that the proportion of omissions grows as follows: 4% until chapter 15; 16% of chapters 15–21; 25% of chapters 22–31; 35% of chapters 32–37; 16% of chapters 38–42 (lxxv; repeated in Dhorme, ccii–cciii). The shorter Greek text seems to be rooted in at least two characteristics of the Hebrew text. First, the meaning of the Hebrew is sometimes obscure; second, the argumentation in the book is repetitious. A third consideration may have made abbreviation acceptable: Iob may not have carried the same authority as other books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Abbreviation also extends to the “micro-level” where it can involve the reduction of two lines to one—something we might call paraphrasing.

It has sometimes been suggested that Greek Iob is based upon an equally shorter Hebrew parent text. However, on the basis of what we can establish about the translator’s technique, i.e., his rather free, even paraphrastic approach, it seems more likely that the shorter text is to be attributed to the time of translation.

The usual categories of characterizing a translation fail us when we assess Iob. It is not just free or paraphrastic, it is also something of an epitome of the longer and often difficult original. OG Iob is one of a kind in the Septuagint corpus. We can typify it as among the least literal, both in its attitude toward abbreviating the parent text and in the way the translator worked with that portion of the text for which we have a translation.

While the text as a whole reveals conscious shortening, there are various additions made along the way. The major ones are: the diatribe of Iob’s wife in 2.9a–d—though this may be a later addition (“probably,” according to Fernández Marcos, 261, citing Heater, 31–36)—and 42.17aa–ea, which is said to derive “from the Syriac book.”

OG Iob is about one-sixth shorter than the MT. That shorter text, without the fragments of Theodotion, is attested only in the Sahidic version and some Old Latin quotations. Except for these witnesses the entire textual tradition has been accommodated to the work of the third century CE text critic Origen in his massive project we call “the Hexapla.”
--To The Reader, Claude Cox