Thursday, June 19, 2014

NABRE NT Revision Thought

I have made it pretty clear on this blog that I am a fan of the NABRE.  For the most part, minus a couple renderings in Genesis, I think the revision is much better than the original and comparable to the other two of the big three, them being the RSV and NRSV.  Yet, we also know that the CBA and USCCB are in the beginning stages of the NT being revised as well.  This is going to take a number of years, likely around 8-10, because the desired result is that we will have a bible that matches the scripture heard during Mass.  (The reason it will take that long is not only due to the process of translation, but also the typically slow process of having it approved by the Vatican for the lectionary.).  I hope to have some information on the translating process in the coming months.

So, this leads to my question today: What elements of he current NABRE NT would you like to see retained?  We have talked about what we would like see changed, Luke 1:28 being one that has come up often.  But let's keep this discussion focused on what should remain.  Perhaps this could be a particular rendering or maybe the overall translation philosophy.  One thing, let's keep this focused on the text.  Too often we get bogged down in the notes and commentary.  

I'll start us off with this one: The way the NAB translates the "I AM" sayings in John.  The NAB makes it crystal clear that Jesus is taking upon himself the divine name.  

12 comments:

Mark in Spokane said...

Here's what I want to see go more than anything else: "Holy Spirit." They need to capitalize the H!

losabio said...

I wish the NABRE translated Acts 1:1 with "began to do and teach" vs. "did and taught". Jesus is still active, and is still changing the world through His followers.

The NABRE has a cool instance of "I AM" in Jn 18. I only this year picked up on the fact that the soldiers fall down after Jesus says "I AM" in the garden.

Anonymous said...

Keep every instance Jesus says "Amen, Amen."

Also, in Luke 10:25 keep: "a scholar of the law" - don't change it to "a lawyer" like in most other translations.

Michael P.

Anonymous said...

Keep every instance Jesus says "Amen, Amen."

Also, in Luke 10:25 keep: "a scholar of the law" - don't change it to "a lawyer" like in most other translations.

Michael P.

Timothy said...

Along with the 'Amen' sayings, I also like that what the NAB did with "magi", "Gehenna", and "Jesus the Nazorean." Also, I think two verses in the prologue of John are exceptional: 1:14 and 18.

Eric Barczak said...

Just replace it with the Confraternity New Testament. :-)

Ok, since that won't happen, at least keep MAGI in Matthew 2, and another vote for keeping I AM in John.

David Garcia said...

Eric... i agree with that (Confraternity NT)!!!!

Leighton said...

Retain Mt. 11:25: "Jesus said in REPLY." It implies prayerful dialogue with the Father, and from what I understand, is more true to the original than many translations that say things like, "Jesus exclaimed," etc.

John 1:5: "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not OVERCOME it."

In my opinion, a couple places where the NAB(RE) got it right. I am no scholar so my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans-- just relying on commentary by people smarter than me! But this is enjoyable, anyway.

rolf said...

I hope that the revised NT will keep using the word 'brothers' for the majority of the time, when Jesus addresses his disciples. I have never been a fan of 'brothers and sisters', it just sounds too contrived (plus like the NRSV you would have to put a note: Gk- brothers, every time you used it).

Anonymous said...

Presently, there seems to be inconsistencies regarding passages from the Old Testament. If in poetry in the Old it ought to be the same in the New. Ditto for prose. Also, if the Septuagint is used in the new. Then, somewhere the complete chapter or context of the quote in a Septuagint English translation should be available.

Mark in Spokane said...

Aside from some translation quirks ("holy Spirit") the Revised NAB NT is probably the best translation out there for the average lay person to use. I think the best things that could be fixed would be the quirks (see above for the prime example) and the introductions and notes. The introductions and notes privilege too much the modern historical-critical method of study at the expense of the Church's traditional reading and understanding of the text. That is not to say that the historical-critical method is wrong or that the notes should be purged of such approach -- I think that the historical-critical material should be included. But so should additional material that reflects a more traditional reading of Scripture.

DJ said...

I agree with the very first suggestion: keep the excellent way the NABRE clarifies all the I AM statements in John, not only the better-known examples!

(Even some cases where the NAB does not read "I AM," it usually points it out in a footnote.)