This info comes from the DLT website which is now being updated. Information includes the use of the Revised Grail Psalms as well as a February publication date. I have also been hearing that this edition is not directly affiliated with the Ecole Biblique, but a product of the publisher in union with Fr. Wansbrough. Read on:
A Bible for study and proclamation.
The Revised New Jerusalem Bible presents anew the scholarship, character and clarity of the 1966 Jerusalem Bible (the first modern English version) and the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible. It is a Bible that prioritises accuracy of translation and richness of tone, written that ‘the message might be fully proclaimed’ (2 Ti 4:17).
This volume presents the full New Testament and the Psalms, and a comprehensive set of study notes, cross-references and book introductions.
‘Clear read’ style. The biblical scriptures were written to be proclaimed, so the RNJB uses linguistic style and speech patterns best suited for being read out loud.
Formal equivalence. The language, concepts and imagery of the original scriptures are presented more accurately by the RNJB than the colloquial approach of many other modern translations.
Gender inclusion. The message of the Bible is for all people, so care has been taken to avoid traditional male bias of the English language, while remaining faithful to the meaning of the original scriptures.
Revised Grail Psalter. The book of Psalms is based on the text of the 2010 translation of The Revised Grail Psalms.
Modern measurements. Ancient systems of measuring and timing have been replaced by modern, metric equivalents.
Comprehensive study notes. The notes, cross-references and book introductions of the JB and NJB are replaced in the RNJB by new materials which reflect the fruit of the most up-to-date and ecumenical scholarship.
The Revised New Jerusalem Bible has been prepared and edited by The Revd Henry Wansbrough OSB, who was previously General Editor of the New Jerusalem Bible.
Take this with a grain of salt, but Amazon's UK site has a release date of February 15th.
ReplyDeletePaperback. Sigh.
ReplyDeleteGiven that the entire Bible is supposed to be published in October, it seems almost pointless to publish a New Testament in February.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, for a new translation, the New Testament is published several years before the full Bible. For example, the RSV New Testament was published in 1946, with the full Bible in 1952. Similarly, the NASB New Testament was published in 1963, with the full Bible in 1971. The NIV New Testament was published in 1973 with the full Bible in 1978.
What is the point of publishing the New Testament by itself if the entire Bible will be ready less than a year later?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am actually quite excited for the RNJB. I've always loved the NJB, and I appreciate and respect the work on Dom Henry Wansbrough. I'm glad he is still at it at 83.
ReplyDelete- Keith S.
Plus, to my ears, The Revised Grail Psalms sing.
ReplyDelete- Keith S.
Bookdepository.com still lists the RNJB as unavailable! They will notify me by email when it is available.
ReplyDeleteRolf,
DeleteKeep us updated!
For the love of God (quite literally!) I hope they've stopped that annoying use of YHWH instead of Lord.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
DeleteSince they are using the Revised Grail Psalms, I think they likely won’t. (Although I tend to think that unfortunate, since that was one of the unique qualities of the JB/NJB heritage.)
I think there is a decent chance that the RNJB will be advocated for a future lectionary, since it is using the RG Psalter and is being marketed as suitable for proclamation.
DeleteIf that is the case, then the tetragrammaton would not be used since it has been forbidden for bible translations destined for liturgical use since 2008 by the Vatican.
If we are going to use the divine Name in a Bible translation (something Pope Benedict XVI said we shouldn't do, but I digress), I vote for using good old fashioned "Jehovah." Yes, hardly any scholars now think that the divine Name was pronounced that way, but guess, what? We don't have a clue how YHWH was pronounced either -- 'Yahweh" is just speculation. So, if we are going to speculate, let's use a name that makes clear that we don't have a clue what we are doing.
ReplyDeleteBut I hope that the Really New Jerusalem Bible (that's what I'm calling this translation) drops the use of the divine Name and goes with "Lord."
I'm fairly certain the RNJB will render the Tetragrammaton as "the LORD," I very highly doubt they would make the mistake of translating it with the conjectural "Yahweh" ever again, especially in light of Church directives which were not in place in the JB/NJB days (specifically Liturgiam Authenticam of 2001 and the Letter from the Holy See to the Bishops Conferences' on the "Name of God" of 2008).
DeleteThese two directives basically guarentee that the Name will be rendered as "the LORD."
From Liturgiam Authenticam:
"[I]n accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned “Septuagint” version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning."
From the Letter to the Bishops:
"Avoiding pronouncing the tetragrammaton of the name of God on the part of the Church has therefore its own grounds. Apart from a motive of a purely philological order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the Church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated."
The full letter to the Bishop's can be read here: http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/frequently-asked-questions/upload/name-of-god.pdf
Liturgiam Authenticam can be read in full here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html
Lastly, had they simply left the Tetragrammaton untranslated and rendered it "יהוה" or if they had just transliterated it as "YHVH" instead of conjecturally translating it as "Yahweh," I wouldn't have taken as much of an issue with it (though IMO those are only slightly better options - rendering it "Lord" is preferable in light of tradition).
But it's almost certain that "Yahweh" is just as incorrect as "Jehovah," so I'm very glad the Holy See reiterated our Apostolical Tradition and directed translators to render it as "Kyrios/Dominus" or "Lord" or the equivalent in whatever language the Scripture is translated into.
I hope this helps a bit!
I just pre-ordered the RNJB for $9.70 on Amazon. It states a 2/15 release date.
ReplyDelete- Keith S.
"Yahweh" doesn't even sound like Hebrew, but I'm very limited on that. "Yahveh" does, and I heard the letters w and v are the same in the Hebrew.. and it's pronounced differently depending on some context. I forgot what the context was though. We even have words/places in Israel this day that more resemble this. Like "Yavne-Yam" located near Tel Aviv. Look at all of those Vs :P The hard consonants of much of Hebrew kind of flows with it in general. Ya'akov, Yeshiva, Gal Gadot (:P).
ReplyDelete