I think the NABRE is the best, but if one wants the version that best reflects what is used in the Mass (USA), that would be the 1986-88 version (1970 OT, 1970 Psalms, 1986 NT). I use this version in my Bible study class, especially when we cover the readings for the following Sunday Mass.
Hey, wanted to ask you whether or not you are still using your NRSV from Cambridge? Whenever I check out its listing on Amazon I see your review. I find myself using it more and more to be honest. It remains, almost two years later, the most sturdy and beautifully made Bible that I have ever owned.
Very true! I must say, however, that while I look forward to the eventual revision, which hopefully will bring a more unified/even translation, usable for liturgy and study, I am having a bit of a hard time embracing the NABRE knowing it will be revised in ten years. Not knowing what will eventually be published and when has dampened my enthusiasm a bit.
I don't see why the knowledge that a revision is due should hamper one's ability to appreciate a translation I still read the RSV even though it has been made obsolete half a dozen times, and to make a sillier analogy I still enjoy the Pre-Crisis Legion of Superheroes even though DC has retconned them out of existence so many times it isn't even funny.
Timothy, I use the Cambridge NRSV from time to time when I want to check how a certain passage was translated by NRSV. I will also use it when I take a class at LMU because it is the primary translation used there. And it nice to pick it up and feel what a quality Bible feels like.
If you will, humor me to question your remark about the RSV. Isn't the fact that the RSV is still being published, and that you, me, and many others are still reading it preclude it by definition from being called "obsolete?" I see the RSV referenced so much in everything from offering envelopes to text books that I really have a hard time believing it will ever be obsolete.
The RSV is a unique translation that stands in the twilight between old and new Bible translations, and slightly more dynamic for a greater readability. Yes, the RSV has been "revised" since 1971, but mostly for political reasons (to accommodate gender sensitive readers, evangelicals who want to include the messianic interpretations from the KJV and the Latin Vulgate, misunderstandings about its use of the archaic pronouns, and those who simply want to unnecessarily "update" its beautiful language.)
But for those of us who have not these hang-ups, the RSV remains one of the best all-around Catholic-approved versions in modern english for memorization and evangelism. It is a blessing that the "official" revision (NRSV) was made, thereby preventing the original RSV from further changes.
There was some discussion recently on this blog recently about Bible reading in the next 10 years. I expect the Challoner D-R and the RSV (1971 and CE) to still be there (unchanged!)among the favorite english Bible versions for Catholics to read and study.
As much as I like the RSV it does have some problems that really did need to be fixed, especially in the Old Tesatment. Knowledge if Biblical Greek and Hebrew has increased considerably since 1952 and it has become clear that several passages are mistranslated. Also, the research on the Dead Sea Scrolls has increased our knowledge of the OT text. From about 1950 to about 1975 or so there were some major developments in Biblical scholarship ehich I think did justify a revision, probably not something as dramatic as the NRSV but maybe something more like the ESV Since about 1980 there haven't been any big developments so I don't thibk further revisions for anything except style or translation philosophy.
Some citations of passages in the RSV which we have since come to see where mistranslated (albeit inadvertently)...
Psalm 118:14 has long confused both translators and commentators....the traditional translation is something like 'the LORD is my strength and my song ....'strength and song' is an odd combination to say the least....
But studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1960's and 1970's shed greater light on the Hebrew used, and modern translations ('modern' in this case meaning 'about post 1975') read something like 'the LORD is my strength and my might....', 'strength and might' makes a lot more sense you have to admit....
Another example, and this is a subtle one, is Matthew 2:2, which, traditional translations read something like 'where is he who is born King of the Jews, we have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him?'
But 'in the east' is a translation that has long caused problems....but studies of Greek documents discovered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries have revealed that the Greek used here is probably being used in a technical sense common in astronomy texts of the time....it probably doesn't mean 'east'....
Which is why modern(i.e. about post 1980) translations read something like 'we have seen his star at its rising...' rather than 'in the east'....'we have seen his star at its rising' does seem to make a lot more sense in context...
11 comments:
I think the NABRE is the best, but if one wants the version that best reflects what is used in the Mass (USA), that would be the 1986-88 version (1970 OT, 1970 Psalms, 1986 NT). I use this version in my Bible study class, especially when we cover the readings for the following Sunday Mass.
The NABRE is running away with it. Too bad it will be obsolete in a decade or so. Perhaps for the better? Time will tell.
Rolf,
Hey, wanted to ask you whether or not you are still using your NRSV from Cambridge? Whenever I check out its listing on Amazon I see your review. I find myself using it more and more to be honest. It remains, almost two years later, the most sturdy and beautifully made Bible that I have ever owned.
More on this Bible in the coming week or so.
Well, Tim, at least for the next decade or so we've got a pretty good NAB.
Colleague,
Very true! I must say, however, that while I look forward to the eventual revision, which hopefully will bring a more unified/even translation, usable for liturgy and study, I am having a bit of a hard time embracing the NABRE knowing it will be revised in ten years. Not knowing what will eventually be published and when has dampened my enthusiasm a bit.
Christ said it best, Tim:
'You will hear of revisions and reports of revisions; see that you are not alarmed, for these things must happen, but it will not yet be the end.'
I think that's in the Secret Gospel of Mark. ;-)
I don't see why the knowledge that a revision is due should hamper one's ability to appreciate a translation I still read the RSV even though it has been made obsolete half a dozen times, and to make a sillier analogy I still enjoy the Pre-Crisis Legion of Superheroes even though DC has retconned them out of existence so many times it isn't even funny.
Timothy, I use the Cambridge NRSV from time to time when I want to check how a certain passage was translated by NRSV. I will also use it when I take a class at LMU because it is the primary translation used there. And it nice to pick it up and feel what a quality Bible feels like.
Biblical Catholic:
If you will, humor me to question your remark about the RSV. Isn't the fact that the RSV is still being published, and that you, me, and many others are still reading it preclude it by definition from being called "obsolete?" I see the RSV referenced so much in everything from offering envelopes to text books that I really have a hard time believing it will ever be obsolete.
The RSV is a unique translation that stands in the twilight between old and new Bible translations, and slightly more dynamic for a greater readability. Yes, the RSV has been "revised" since 1971, but mostly for political reasons (to accommodate gender sensitive readers, evangelicals who want to include the messianic interpretations from the KJV and the Latin Vulgate, misunderstandings about its use of the archaic pronouns, and those who simply want to unnecessarily "update" its beautiful language.)
But for those of us who have not these hang-ups, the RSV remains one of the best all-around Catholic-approved versions in modern english for memorization and evangelism. It is a blessing that the "official" revision (NRSV) was made, thereby preventing the original RSV from further changes.
There was some discussion recently on this blog recently about Bible reading in the next 10 years. I expect the Challoner D-R and the RSV (1971 and CE) to still be there (unchanged!)among the favorite english Bible versions for Catholics to read and study.
As much as I like the RSV it does have some problems that really did need to be fixed, especially in the Old Tesatment. Knowledge if Biblical Greek and Hebrew has increased considerably since 1952 and it has become clear that several passages are mistranslated. Also, the research on the Dead Sea Scrolls has increased our knowledge of the OT text. From about 1950 to about 1975 or so there were some major developments in Biblical scholarship ehich I think did justify a revision, probably not something as dramatic as the NRSV but maybe something more like the ESV
Since about 1980 there haven't been any big developments so I don't thibk further revisions for anything except style or translation philosophy.
Some citations of passages in the RSV which we have since come to see where mistranslated (albeit inadvertently)...
Psalm 118:14 has long confused both translators and commentators....the traditional translation is something like 'the LORD is my strength and my song ....'strength and song' is an odd combination to say the least....
But studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1960's and 1970's shed greater light on the Hebrew used, and modern translations ('modern' in this case meaning 'about post 1975') read something like 'the LORD is my strength and my might....', 'strength and might' makes a lot more sense you have to admit....
Another example, and this is a subtle one, is Matthew 2:2, which, traditional translations read something like 'where is he who is born King of the Jews, we have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him?'
But 'in the east' is a translation that has long caused problems....but studies of Greek documents discovered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries have revealed that the Greek used here is probably being used in a technical sense common in astronomy texts of the time....it probably doesn't mean 'east'....
Which is why modern(i.e. about post 1980) translations read something like 'we have seen his star at its rising...' rather than 'in the east'....'we have seen his star at its rising' does seem to make a lot more sense in context...
Post a Comment