As we await official word from the USCCB about the sure-to-be lengthy revision process of the NABRE, I wonder where this leaves us for the next ten years? It is strange that within a week of my posting the poll about what will be the most popular Catholic Bible in 2012, we get this news about the NABRE which will likely take ten years to complete. Many of you have brought up some good discussion points in the previous post, most notably Biblical Catholic, who reminds us of all the different "hoops" that the translators will have to go through, via the USCCB and Rome, before an approved text, for both Mass and study, can be published. But hasn't that been the case for the NAB all along?
When we think back to the origins of the NAB, with the Confraternity edition, it was a long process to get to the final publication of the original NAB in the early 70's. At that point, parts of the Old Testament portion had been previously translated almost twenty years prior. Once published, it became clear that the NT needed an overhaul, thus prompting the 1986 Revised NAB NT. Soon after, there was a push for a revised Psalter, with extensive inclusive language. The result was that in 1991, with the publication of the '91 Revised Psalms, the NAB was a mishmash of translation philosophies and textual foundations. (It should be noted that the Confraternity Bible suffered from this as well.)
Now comes 2011 and the publication of the New American Bible Revised Edition, almost twenty years after the process of revising the OT began. In many ways, this revision remains a marked improvement over the prior edition. The '91 Revised Psalms were properly re-revised and the OT was made more formal/literal in the same way as the revised NAB NT. Simply put, the 2011 edition of the NAB was/is the best edition of this translation. I have spent considerable time over the past year reading through large portions of the NABRE, and with only a few exception, most notably in Genesis, I have come away being very impressed by it.
Now, fast forward barely a year later, and we hear that there will be another revision, the fourth since 1970, which will take "a long time" to complete. I applaud the Cardinal's desire to have a unified text which will: “provide us one source of language when we speak the Word of God.” Many people, including myself, have been advocating this very thing.
Logistically, I wonder how this is actually going to happen. For instance, what about the Revised Grail Psalms, which were approved for liturgical use only a few years ago? Is this going to be a NAB w/ Revised Grail Psalms? Wouldn't it need to be in order to meet the Cardinal's criteria of having one text? Also, what part will Liturgiam authenticam play in this new translation? Neo-Vulgate? Then, of course, is the waiting. I freely admit that I am a man of Generation X, which makes me very impatient, so waiting "a long time" is not very appealing to me personally. Add to my impatience is seeing Bibles like the ESV, NLT, or NIV updated every couple of years.
So where does that leave us? Again, if we look at the current landscape of English language Catholic Bibles, there is quite a bit of movement, although very little certainly as to what is going to get published and when. The ESV will be the basis for the lectionary in Australia and the UK at some point in the near future. Will there be an ESV-CE published along side of it? No clear answer. The RSV-2CE will remain the lectionary of the Ordinariates, the Antilles, and some parts of Africa. Ignatius Press continues to minimally promote this translation, even with the ICSB will being completed by 2015, in either one or two volumes. But where does that leave the future prospect for the RSV-2CE? Is is possible, particularly with all the lectionary news going around, that the RSV-2CE will remain a fringe translation? What about the NRSV? Will it continue to be the basis for the lectionary in Canada? What role is the NCCUSA playing in all this revision/lectionary news? It appears that they have begun to protect their product more so than in past years. Will the NRSV be revised in the coming years?
So many questions, with very few answers at this point. Who knows if this blog will even be around when the new NAB is completed.
Rereading the Catholic News Agency release, it is quite explicit that NAB NT is going to be revised. There is no mention of any plans to revise the OT.
ReplyDeleteRevising the OT would be problematic for several reasons. In particular, Liturgiam Authenticam requires a textual basis for the Deuterocanonicals which the vast majority of biblical scholars feel is problematic. I think one would see major rifts between the CBA and the USCCB if this was imposed. It is much easier to deal with revisions to the NT.
...All the different "hoops" that the translators will have to go through, via the USCCB and Rome.... But hasn't that been the case for the NAB all along?
No. Approval of Bible translations are covered under Canon Law 825.1, and require approval by the Bishops' conference. Approval of Liturgy is covered under Canon Law 838.2 and 838.3 and requires approval both by the Bishops' conference and by Rome. That adds considerable complexity.
Is this going to be a NAB w/ Revised Grail Psalms?
The copyright situation with the Revised Grail Psalter is quite complicated, but in any case, out of the control of the USCCB. It would be a major reversal of the Confraternity's position to allow a Bible to be printed with an alternate psalter. Even if the Confraternity did allow it, it would be expensive for publishers, because of the complicated (and relatively high) royalties for the Revised Grail Psalter.
RSV-2CE will remain the lectionary of the Ordinariates
I believe that the RSV, not the RSV-2CE, was officially approved as the lectionary of the Ordinariates. I believe some Odinariates regard the RSV-2CE as essentially equivalent to the RSV (a position also taken by Ignatius Press itself in its claims for the RSV-2CE being covered by imprimatur), and that is why they are using the remaindered volumes of the RSV-2CE lectionary.
However, as of this moment, the RSV-2CE lectionary is out of print in the United States -- which would seem to be a major obstacle to its wider use.
Will the NRSV be revised in the coming years?
I know with some certainty there are no current plans to do so. Of course, anything is possible in the future.
Theophrastus,
ReplyDeleteRegarding your first comment, wouldn't the OT need some adjustment or tweaking to meet the directives of LA in order to be approved by Rome? Remember, the Cardinal made clear that he wants one text, which would be heard at Mass and read in a revised NAB. And how they would figure out the issue of the Psalms, while accomplishing this one text ideal is beyond me at this point.
I understood that Cardinal Wuerl wanted one text of the New Testament, and that he was not necessarily addressing the Old Testament at this point. That seems to be what the article says.
ReplyDeleteI would imagine that after completing the process with the New Testament, the USCCB might assess whether it would want to proceed with doing the same with the Old Testament.
I suppose we'll find out more from a later announcement, but at this point, I think it is speculation to assume that the USCCB will also undertake a revision of the OT -- especially only one year after the NABRE OT appeared.
In any case, USCCB simply does not own the copyright on the Revised Grail Psalter. I do not see how USCCB can preempt US copyright law -- and I doubt the USCCB has enough money to buy a blanket license outright.
To expand, the optics of the USCCB to announcing a new OT translation so soon after the NABRE OT would be confusing. I can imagine the headlines now:
ReplyDeleteBishops plan to recall NABRE OT after only one year.
Instead, the Catholic News Agency article tries to play up the NABRE OT:
This work will utilize the same principles that guided the recent revision of the Old Testament in the New American Bible, as well as translation norms for Sacred Scripture, he added.
It seems to me that Cardinal Wuerl is being careful to frame this as being an extension of NABRE, building on previous success -- rather than being a step backward.
If they ever had to revise the OT for Liturgiam Authenticam couldn't they just do what Ignatius did for the RSV-2CE and replace the relevant pericopes in the NABRE when the textual basis of the NV differs from the NABRE's? I don't think LA requires a sort of NETS-style undertaking from translators (an NETV?).
ReplyDeleteI think it would be a small version of how Catholic translators have been treating Esther since St. Jerome.
couldn't they just do what Ignatius did for the RSV-2CE and replace the relevant pericopes in the NABRE when the textual basis of the NV differs from the NABRE's
ReplyDeleteSure, but that would be riding roughshod over the CBA. Look, for example, at the current introduction to Sirach:
Written in Hebrew in the early years of the second century B.C., the book was finished by ca. 175. The text was translated into Greek by the author’s grandson after 117 B.C. He also wrote a foreword which contains valuable information about the book, its author, and himself as translator. Until the close of the nineteenth century the Wisdom of Ben Sira was known to Christians in translations, of which the Greek rendering was the most important. From it the Latin version was made. Between 1896 and 1900, again in 1931, and several times since 1956, incomplete manuscripts were discovered, so that more than two thirds of the book in Hebrew is available; these Hebrew texts agree substantially with the Greek. One such text, from Masada, is pre-Christian in date. The New American Bible provides a critical translation based on the evidence of all the ancient texts.
Translating from a single source for some of the pericopes would, at a minimum, require retracting that statement.
I could easily imagine, for example, that if not handled with some political tact, it could lead to a protest from the current translators of the NABRE, which would at least be embarrassing, since it was just approved last year with great fanfare.
Maybe it will eventually happen anyway. But I just don't think the Confraternity has the horsepower to handle a revision to the OT and NT simultaneously. And if that's right, I think we all agree that it seems likely that they'll do the NT first. I would hazard that a NT revision will take five to ten years, although it is certainly possible that it could take even longer than that. That takes us to near 2020 -- and around then, they can begin to think about how to handle the OT.
Liturgiam Authenticam should have absolutely nothing to do with this revision of the NAB OT. That document lays out the translation directives for the Roman Missal and nothing else.
ReplyDelete" I can imagine the headlines now:
ReplyDeleteBishops plan to recall NABRE OT after only one year."
Well, that's still better than the fate the original 1970 NAB faced....the original 1970 NAB was authorized to be revised right out of the gate.....basically simultaneous with the publication, or maybe even before publication, I'm not exactly sure about the exact order of events, but the NAB New Testament was ordered to be revised pretty much right out of the gate...which is pretty bad if you think about it....
And if you've ever had the opportunity to read the original 1970 NAB New Testament (it's not at all difficult to find if you visit a used book store).....it really is awful.....the best example of how badly translated it was can be given by the fact that it doesn't even use the familiar phrase 'the kingdom of God', instead preferring the extremely bizarre wording 'the dominion of God'.....the whole 1970 NT is filled with utterly bizarre choices like that, so the bishops basically made the decision 'okay, the New Testament is garbage, but we've invested 26 years of work on this thing and we need to publish SOMETHING because the New Mass is coming up soon and it is going to require an English lectionary....so we're stuck with this, but we've gotta fix it'.....
The 1986 revised New Testament is a major improvement over the 1970 original....
Now, about the revisions in the NIV, ESV and Living Bible which are faster....one important thing to remember is that the changes are not that significant....between the 2011 ESV and the original 2001 ESV, there is a difference of only 500 words....more than 99.9% of the text is identical....
With the NIV, the 2011 edition has more than 97% of the text is identical to the original 1978 NIV....
The changes with the Living Bible have been more dramatic, but it is important to remember that each of these translation is overseen by a standing committee which meets several times every year, and in the case of the ESV (and the NASB which you didn't mention but which also has a way of introduces changes very rapidly), the text is overseen by an entire company which has a Bible translation as almost it only major work, and for which oversight of the text of that translation is practically the sole purpose for the existence of the company...
And the ESV et al don't have to worry about making everything conform to Liturgicum Authenticum or getting the text approved first by the bishops conference and then by Rome...
That kind of makes the task a lot easier....
I have been doing some Bible comparison studies lately on the books of Proverbs, Psalms, and Job. I have been comparing the D-R, RSV-CE, NABRE, ESV, NASB (ref. ed.), NKJV, NRSV and KJV. My original intention was to see how the ESV measured against other "literal" translations; especially some mentioned which have a lot of translation notes. Surprisingly, one of my main conclusions was that the NABRE was my least preference in most cases. I know I am generalizing, but seemed to me that the NABRE did not capture the original language as clearly or eloquently as some of the other translations. I also think the use of italicized words and translation notes helps me to understand the translator’s expression of a particular passage. But in general, I am really not impressed overall with the NAB in any of its incarnations. I think the philosophy that guided the KJV to become as enduring as it is would work for a Catholic translation. Basically was this: use what language is already good and established as english Scripture, and improve on it with careful, scholarly labor, endeavoring for precision and beauty. The apparent problem here is that Protestant translators got the jump on the Catholic Church in translating the Bible into English from the original languages. I think the original NAB tried to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, and that is unwise to do with language and Scripture, which is a living part of society. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the NAB is horrible and unacceptable for the lectionary, but I don't see a serious application for it in personal study, devotion, memorization, and evangelism. In fact, I think the ideal would be an ecumenical Bible that would be acceptable as "Scripture" to all english speakers, not just American Catholics. Right now the closest thing we have is the NRSV and the RSV's. The best of these now available is the RSV-2CE, which makes improvements to make the RSV even more traditional and literal to the original languages. Seeing that the RSV & NRSV are not acceptable to the mainstream of our separated brethren, I am most excited about the possibility of Catholic approval for the ESV. Either way that goes, I don't believe I will be spending any more money on any more NAB mutations.
ReplyDeleteOne question I think we are all forgetting is that with the Bible it really should speak a bit differently from book to book simply because it was not written in one generation but over a long period of time and by different speaking peoples.
ReplyDeletePart of the "flavor" of the Bible to me is in the language not being to uniform but in the differences of the speech and in learning and reading how people changed over time in both custom and in speech is a part of that.
In creating a Bible that "flows" evenly would we not be loosing something our ancestors (the Jews) put into the text to begin with?
Wiliam,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point. I do think one of the issues with the NAB, historically, is that it had been produced and published at different periods over the past 60+ years thus there is a unatural unevenness to the translation overall. So the reality that the Bible was written over 1000 years, combined with the NAB issues can make reading large portions of the NAB tedious. One can appreciate a more 'unified' translation, in this sense, like the NRSV.
Well...I don't want to make it seem like I'm bashing the KJV because I think that in many respects it was a very fine translation for its time, although frankly there were better translations even at the time (the Geneva Bible for example)....
ReplyDeleteBut the main reason the KJV became so dominant is not because of any literary qualities, but because the KJV was granted an exclusive license to print, which meant that it was very difficult to find any other translation.
And the KJV didn't enjoy its current reputation as a 'beautiful' or literary translation until the 19th century...
Biblical Catholic: the literary reputation of the KJV was well established by 1712 when Jonathan Swift declared the language of the KJV and the Book of Common Prayer were "a kind of Standard for Language, especially to the common People." By 1762, Robert Lowth's Short Introduction to English Grammar declared "the vulgar translation of the Bible ... is the best standard of our language."
ReplyDeleteCertainly, the KJV was regarded as a literary standard by 1730, when Richard Challoner began to consult it in preparation of his extensive reworking of the Rheims New Testament.
The only Bible translation banning in England that I am aware of is 1637 action of Archbishop Laud specifically banning the Geneva Bible. However, that ban was completely unsuccessful. Even no less a figure than Oliver Cromwell arranged for a 1643 reprint of portions of the Geneva Bible for his Soldier's Pocket Bible.
Throughout the recusancy period, Catholic Bibles were readily available from Dublin.
Other translations that were popular during the 17th century were Ainsworth's psalms, various metrical psalms (including the Sidney Psalter and so-called "Scottish Metre"), Cranmer's Psalms (which continued to be the version printed in the Book of Common Prayer, etc. During this time, the KJV itself underwent major changes (with major revisions in 1629 from Cambridge, 1638 from Cambridge, and 1675 from Oxford.)
I didn't say that other Bibles were 'banned', I said that the KJV had an exclusive license to print, any other Bible had to be imported from elsewhere, and this is true....
ReplyDeleteSee 'The Bile in English: Its History and Influence' by David Daniell for the full story of how the KJV took a century to become the most popular translation and how its popularity benefited from its being given an exclusive license...
The Most popular Bible was actually the Geneva Bible...which the crown wanted to suppress
Part 1 of post -
ReplyDeleteI think there is some confusion about what "exclusive license" means. The KJV was published under a crown copyright, meaning that it could only be printed with permission. That permission was granted to Robert Barker, the King's printer. This meant that unlike other books, which could be printed by multiple printers, the KJV's printing was controlled by Barker, and tended to restrict the distribution of the KJV.
You will note that the Geneva Bible continued to be printed until 1644. The literary excellence of the KJV began to be acknowledged as soon as the Restoration (1660). Since a major figure such as Jonathan Swift (who died in 1745) proclaimed the excellence of the KJV, the position that "the KJV didn't enjoy its current reputation as a 'beautiful' or literary translation until the 19th century" is completely unsustainable.
Here is the entry for Robert Barker from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the standard resource for British history:
The King James Bible was printed in 1611 by the king's printer Robert Barker (c.1568–1646). The son of the queen's printer , who had himself been a prolific printer of bibles, Robert was probably born at his father's house in Sudely or Southly near Datchet, Buckinghamshire. Freed by patrimony into the Stationers' Company on 25 June 1589, and a partner in the royal printing house from 1593, he had already secured the reversion of his father's office, and this was formally confirmed by the Stationers' Company after Christopher's death. On 9 July 1603 Robert Barker was also confirmed by James I in his position as king's printer for life. That position, which carried with it ex officio privileges for bibles in English, service books, statutes, and proclamations, and other official privileges, made his involvement in the printing of the 1611 Bible inevitable. It has been estimated that the cost of preparing the manuscript alone was £1000, while printing and production cost a further £2000. Barker appears to have met these costs by borrowing from Bonham Norton, from 1613 the king's printer in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and perhaps also John Bill, another printer, probably in return for a share in the office of king's printer. It is clear that by 1615 Norton and Bill were in partnership with Barker. In its first printing the King James Bible was a folio volume, intended for use in churches; smaller editions were printed in quarto and octavo in 1612, in duodecimo in 1617. Barker was instructed to distinguish the text of scripture typographically from any words inserted by the revisers in order to make the meaning clearer (this followed the example of the Geneva Bible). New arguments were prefixed to every chapter, and genealogies and a map were added.
Continued in next post
Part 2 of post (continued)
ReplyDeleteWard's report to the Synod of Dort suggests that the initial reception of the new version of the Bible was generally favourable, at least among scholars, though Hugh Broughton, a noted Hebraist who may have been disgruntled at not having been invited to contribute, was heavily critical and recommended that the work would be better burnt. It was not until the middle of the seventeenth century, however, that it began to be widely preferred to the Geneva Bible. Meanwhile Robert Barker's affairs had deteriorated and finally collapsed. From his marriage to Rachel, perhaps a daughter of William Day, bishop of Winchester, he had at least thirteen children, and he attempted to make provision for his sons by organizing their careers as printers. He hoped, indeed, to establish a powerful printing dynasty, and to further these plans in 1615 his son Christopher married Bonham Norton's eldest daughter, Sara. But the Barkers were in financial difficulties at this time, and to help resolve them assigned their interest in the king's printing house to Norton and John Bill in July 1617. Barker and Norton were soon at law over the terms of the agreement, and their dispute ended with Barker's having to raise £8000 to buy Norton out, while Norton was fined £6000 in Star Chamber and committed to the Fleet prison when he could not pay. He died there in 1635.
Robert Barker's problems were not over. Not only did he face further litigation over the printing house, but in 1631 an edition of the Bible under his imprint scandalized contemporaries by omitting the ‘not’ from the seventh commandment, thereby apparently making adultery obligatory, and equally shockingly, rendering ‘God's greatnesse’ as ‘God's great asse’. Order was given that all copies of what came to be known as the Wicked Bible should be suppressed, and Barker and Martin Lucas (his associate as John Bill's executor) were brought before the court of high commission on 8 May 1632. It has been suggested that the printing had been deliberately sabotaged, but neither Barker nor Lucas pleaded this as a defence. Judgment was declared against them in October 1633 and they were together fined £300. In early 1634, however, Charles I, keen to encourage the printing of classical manuscripts, ordered that the fine ‘be converted to the present buying of … Greek lettres [type] and matrices’, and that Barker and Lucas should thereafter print one Greek work a year (Greg, 294). But the fine ruined Barker, and though his name continued to appear in imprints until 1645, he spent the rest of his life in the debtors' prison of king's bench. On 19 August 1644 he agreed to hand over his rights to the Bible patent to the Stationers' Company, which on 5 May 1645 granted him a monthly pension of 10s. He died in January 1646, still in prison, and was buried on the 12th.
The last English edition of the Geneva Bible had appeared in 1644. When Robert Barker died the King James Bible which he had printed was facing heavy puritan criticism, but plans for its revision came to nothing. Following the restoration of Charles II its place in national worship rapidly became unassailable, henceforward it was in every sense the Authorized Version. Increasingly valued for its literary qualities as well as for its religious authority, it was described by Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1828 as ‘a book which, if everything else in our language should perish, would alone suffice to show the whole extent of its beauty and power’ (McGrath, 301).
I don't want to be accused of changing the topic here, but I was at Barnes and Noble today and saw something interesting: it was a book called 'Kingdom: A New Translation of the New Testament' and it was by NT Wright...I know who NT Wright is, he's a respect Evangelical scholar, and an advocate of the 'New Perspective on Paul' but I am wondering if this translation is worth picking up....has anyone read it?
ReplyDeleteWhile I haven't read large portions of it, this translation by Wright was originally part of his 'For Everybody' commentary series. It tends to be, translation philosophy, like the NIV.
ReplyDelete