One change in previous announcements:
Bishop
Trautman resigned from the Editorial Board. He now serves as a consultant.
Reverend Edward Mazich, OSB, replaced him as an editor.
What will the new text be called?
No
decision has been made as to the name of the final product. I would doubt that
any decision will be made until much closer to publication.
Textual basis for the revision:
The
teams are working from the 1986 NABNT with reference to NA 28. In questions of
canonicity, the Nova Vulgata is
consulted.
Say more about how Liturgiam authenticam figures in or
guides your work.
The editors consulted Liturgiam
authenticam in developing the principles of translation. These principles
were reviewed by the Committee on Divine Worship, the Committee on Ecumenical
and Interreligious Affairs, and the Subcommittee on the Translation of
Scripture Text prior to approval by the bishop members of the CCD.
What efforts can you make
at this stage to incorporate considerations of other Bishops Conferences /
Biblical Associations in hopes of the widest possible adoption?
The NAB is already used broadly in the Philippines, India, and
Anglophone Africa.
What kind of ecumenical
participation will there be? Will there be translators from the
evangelical/mainline/Orthodox traditions involved?
The translation teams include some Protestant scholars and some
Orthodox scholars, though the majority of revisers are Catholic.
Are there any literary
consultants on the NABRE NT Revision Committee?
Not at present.
Will the NABRE 2025 be
available in mobile versions?
Who knows what technologies will be available in 2025!!! As we
have with the NABRE, the CCD will welcome proposals for a variety of media. The
NABRE is available in e-books, apps, etc., from a variety of publishers.
Are there any plans to
modify lightly the Old Testament if the Holy See would compel them to do so
even for the lectionary approval to get Vatican's recognitio that would require
outside of the committee's scope of work?
At present, no such plan is in place.
Is there any possibility
that the completed new revision might include an Apocrypha appendix that would
include translations of books outside of the Deuterocanonical books that are
included in the RSV and NRSV versions of the Apocrypha (1 & 2 Esdras, 3
& 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, Prayer of Manasseh)?
At present, no such plan is in place.
We simply opened a copy of
the approved translation and read directly from the Bible. …So, no: we COULD
quite easily create a Biblical translations that takes into account the breaks
in the Catholic lectionary assignments and structures the rendering
accordingly.
The Ordo Lectionum Missae
requires the addition of incipits and some other small changes in the creation
of a Lectionary, plus, some verses are omitted from readings.
Will the footnotes be
revised and include commentary by the early Church Fathers?
The footnotes are being revised. At present, only the textual
notes and those notes necessary for understanding the text are being prepared.
More extensive pastoral/catechetical notes are a later step.
Will the bishops consider
permitting its publication without interpretive notes?
The official interpretation of the canon that we have received
is that this is not permissible.
Will they consider
permitting its publication alternative notes?
Alternative notes may be included alongside the essential NAB
notes, but may not replace them.
Would the USCCB ever allow
publication of a "protestant edition" of the NABRE?
To the best of my recollection, we’ve never been asked (and I’ve
been here 20 years!). If asked, the decision would have to be made at the
episcopal level.
Will the NT be ready in
time? What kind of coordination is there with the USCCB committee working on
the LOTH?
The NT should be ready to be part of the LOTH. Once the editors
have completed their work, the Committee on Divine Worship will be part of the
review process. As noted above, the Committee on Divine Worship participated in
the development of the principles of translation.
Like CELAM began a
translation project called the Bible the Church in the Americas (Biblia de la
Iglesia en las Américas).
Interestingly, that project (La
Biblia de Iglesia en America) was initiated and funded by the USCCB!
Thank you!
ReplyDeleteThank you, for the time and info, Mary.
Hopefully, you can tell there are a lot of people here - critical, appreciative, or both - who will eat up any advanced info you can give, pulling back the curtain on this emerging translation.
Really appreciate the time.
Thank you Mary!
ReplyDeleteThank-you for answering these questions. :-)
ReplyDeleteNA-28?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.christianbook.com/testamentum-graece-nestle-aland-28th-edition/institute-for-new-testament-textual-research/9781619700307/pd/700307?dv=m&en=google&event=SHOP&kw=bibles-20-40%7C700307&p=1179710&gclid=CKLA6L3G6coCFYMDaQodQSoAwQ
DeleteIt was a dumb question on my part. I was asking iy NA28 would be the basis; and I see that it will.
DeleteI'm confused. If the revised NT isn't going to be finished until 2025 (I assume that's why it's being called NABRE 2025), then does this mean that the revised Liturgy of the Hours will be delayed until then? The last I heard was that the LOH would be finished around 2019.
ReplyDelete1 Chronicles 5:26 could use some lipstick.
ReplyDeleteTherefore the God of Israel stirred up against them the anger of Pul, king of Assyria, and the anger of Tilgath-pilneser [sic], king of Assyria, who deported the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh and brought them to Halah, Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, where they have remained to this day.
Levi.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMary's comments indicate that they're revising the NABNT 1986 using the Nestle Aland Greek NT v.28 and referencing the Nova Vulgata when questions of canonicity arise.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Mary for responding to our inquiries and we hope, with the committee's consent, may you continue to provide us with developments with the project.
ReplyDeleteWe only hope as Catholics that we finally have a version that is concordantly corresponding with the Liturgy.
Seriously, I am not bothered with pronouns replacing its antecedents on the Lectionary, it is not degrading the Holy Scriptures. It is only an auxiliary help that is essentially needed for public proclamation or worship.
The RSV and NRSV also admittedly done this on the translation itself, e.g. "Jesus" footnoted with a "Gk he". This is especially needed when the lectionary reading starts or being pulled out from a continuous account. Of course, we cannot expect the biblical writers to use nouns redundantly, it is the main purpose of the pronouns in the first place, to avoid the repeated use of the antecedent nouns. So as Biblical and Greek writers at that time, they would naturally maximize the use of pronouns, similar to how pronouns are taught to be used when we are still in school.
But when they are pulled out from their antecedent paths, it would be required to replace them with their antecedents unless it is unclear from the Scriptures itself who or what these pronouns are being referred to.
2025 . . . will you still need me, will you still feed me when I'm 66?
ReplyDeleteI'll likely be enjoying my unrevised NRSV ;-)