British English idioms in English Bible translations

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tis_Bearself

Patron
While reading about English language Bible translations the other day, I saw that one reason we have a NAB/ NABRE and the UK has the Jerusalem Bible is because there were reportedly “British idioms” in the Jerusalem Bible that an American reader supposedly wouldn’t understand.

I have read the NAB/ NABRE but not the Jerusalem Bible. I’m having a hard time thinking of what kind of an idiom might be used in the Biblical context. Most of the differences between British English and American English in my experience are either minor spelling differences (honor vs honour, organization vs organisation) or else pertain to slang, colloquialism, or customs (tea-time) and technologies (elevators /lifts) that developed long after Biblical times.

Can some Scripture scholar perhaps provide me a few concrete examples of these British idioms in the Bible that Americans wouldn’t understand?
 
In Acts 5:21-26, where NABRE has “jail” and “guards”, the Jerusalem Bible has “gaol” and “warders”. Do those count as incomprehensible British idioms? I know “gaol” can leave readers foxed the first time they see it.
 
Last edited:
US people would probably understand “Wardens”, as that’s a term used in US prisons, prison movies, etc as well, but not “Gaol” (Unless they are of British Isles ancestry or really into ren faires and historical movies), so that’s a good example. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I mistyped. That should be “warders”, not “wardens”. I edited my post to correct it, but you were too quick for me!
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
“Warders” they wouldn’t get.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s most likely things like this that are the reason for both North American English & British English translations.

I’m sure there also might be some phrases in the Bible using British English that doesn’t make sense in American English, but I can’t think of one off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
Most of my bibles are Anglicized (i.e. the UK editions) as I live in Australia. I haven’t noticed any distinctly British idioms that are incomprehensible to me and probably most other non-British English speakers. Most of the time the idioms are just related to nomenclature: cock instead of rooster, ears of grain instead of heads of grain, cornfield instead of grainfield, etc.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
While reading about English language Bible translations the other day, I saw that one reason we have a NAB/ NABRE and the UK has the Jerusalem Bible is because there were reportedly “British idioms” in the Jerusalem Bible that an American reader supposedly wouldn’t understand.
Click to expand...
One suspects that - understandably, the US Bishops don’t want a bible with British phrases and spelling. - rather, even though the differences may be trivial, they want a bible that reflects the English used in the United States.

In my part of the world, we use British spelling and British words but I haven’t had any trouble reading bibles published in the United States.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
“Warders” they wouldn’t get.
Click to expand...
And yet, we’re not stupid. The average literate American is perfectly capable of reading new words and new usages of existing words and adapting.

This sort of thing drives me crazy. How do we learn that the British use the term “torch” where we would say “flashlight”? We read it somewhere. Same goes for lift vs. elevator, Bob’s your uncle, knackered, or any other uniquely British expression.
BartholomewB said:
leave readers foxed
Click to expand...
And here we have a perfect example. I do not really know this expression, but I was easily able to figure out its meaning through context.

Why do book publishers think we are illiterate and incapable?
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree with you, babochka, especially in a case like Scripture where the vast majority of the material will be the same for both British English and American English. It’s not like the Apostles’ dialogue has been written for the British readers all in Cockney rhyming slang.

At the same time, I have been to enough Catholic Bible studies where people asked questions that seemed to me so obvious, I had to pray for patience and understanding, so there is probably someone out there in USA who wouldn’t understand British English words, as easy as they seem to you and me.

I am now curious enough to want to just go read the Jerusalem Bible myself so perhaps this plethora of Bible translations has the good effect of causing us to spend more time with God’s Word.
 
Last edited:
The Psalms in the Jerusalem Bible use words like “gloat”, “hearten”, “wastrels” plus the use of the word “Yahweh” instead of God.
 
“Yahweh” would probably confuse a few folks into complaining that we were worshipping the Jewish God instead of the Christian God. Yes, that would be ridiculous, but again I’ve heard Catholics actually complain about stuff like that.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
“Yahweh” would probably confuse a few folks into complaining that we were worshipping the Jewish God instead of the Christian God.
Click to expand...
There were a lot of complaints about that at the time, so much so that in the revised edition, the New Jerusalem Bible, I believe they went back to using “the Lord”, though I don’t have a copy of that Bible to check. I remember reading that the Jewish community objected very strongly.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
40.png
Tis_Bearself:
“Yahweh” would probably confuse a few folks into complaining that we were worshipping the Jewish God instead of the Christian God.
Click to expand...
There were a lot of complaints about that at the time, so much so that in the revised edition, the New Jerusalem Bible, I believe they went back to using “the Lord”, though I don’t have a copy of that Bible to check. I remember reading that the Jewish community objected very strongly.
Click to expand...
I remember that as well. In fact, some time ago, the Church forbade the pronouncing of the divine name during the liturgy. I’ll see if I can find the document and add a link when I get home.

Edit: Here’s a link to an article from 2008. The instruction was found in the 2001 Liturgiam Authenticam.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...-questions/the-name-of-god-in-the-liturgy.cfm
 
Last edited:
“Must needs” is one that does take some acclimation. Reading Monsignor Knox’s translation takes some effort, but is that not the way it should be?

However, all of this is nearing the level of a moot point. Everyone here is online and has access to online dictionaries and American/British-English dictionaries are easily available.

As well, one may read the Oxford-Cambridge Revised English Bible (w/Deuterocanon - "Apocrypha) which is comprehensible on both sides of the pond. It is decidedly above the level of the NAB, both in reading level as well as accuracy and fidelity.
 
Sursumcorda1 said:
The Psalms in the Jerusalem Bible use words like “gloat”, “hearten”, “wastrels”
Click to expand...
The online Merriam Webster lists all three of those words without any indication that they are in British use only, or that they are obsolescent or archaic. “Gloat” is a word I use all the time, “wastrel” not so much, and “hearten” never, except perhaps in the form “heartening” as an adjective, but I wouldn’t reject a Bible translation just because it uses those words.
 
Sursumcorda1 said:
The Psalms in the Jerusalem Bible use words like “gloat”, “hearten”, “wastrels” plus the use of the word “Yahweh” instead of God.
Click to expand...
Gloat is a word I use frequently. The others don’t seem so much as British usage as a bit archaic.
Tis_Bearself said:
I saw that one reason we have a NAB/ NABRE and the UK has the Jerusalem Bible is because there were reportedly “British idioms” in the Jerusalem Bible that an American reader supposedly wouldn’t understand.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that the only approved version for liturgical use in the US is the NAB. In Canada, they use the NRSV. In the UK, they can choose from among several versions approved for liturgical use - Liturgy Office | Approved Versions of Scripture. I had read that the reason that the NAB is the only approved version in the US is because the USCCB holds the copyright. It seems like a horrible reason, but I like it better than the idea that they think Americans are unable to understand British usage of the language.

These are the translations that have received approval from the USCCB for private prayer/study since 1983:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/index.cfm
In addition to the translations listed below, any translation of the Sacred Scriptures that has received proper ecclesiastical approval ‒ namely, by the Apostolic See or a local ordinary prior to 1983, or by the Apostolic See or an episcopal conference following 1983 ‒ may be used by the Catholic faithful for private prayer and study.

Books of the New Testament, Alba House

Contemporary English Version - New Testament, First Edition, American Bible Society

Contemporary English Version - Book of Psalms, American Bible Society

Contemporary English Version - Book of Proverbs, American Bible Society

The Grail Psalter (Inclusive Language Version), G.I.A. Publications

New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)

New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, National Council of Churches

The Psalms, Alba House

The Psalms (New International Version) - St. Joseph Catholic Edition, Catholic Book Publishing Company

The Psalms - St. Joseph New Catholic Version, Catholic Book Publishing Company

Revised Psalms of the New American Bible (1991)

So You May Believe, A Translation of the Four Gospels, Alba House

Good News Translation (Today’s English Version, Second Edition), American Bible Society

Translation for Early Youth, A Translation of the New Testament for Children, Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society
 
We actually use the NABRE now for everything except (as I understand it) the Psalms.

The business about British idioms was cited as a reason (only one of the reasons) why the NAB was developed in the first place. The NAB at this point has been around since 1970. I barely remember any other version being used at Mass, perhaps I remember the Douay-Rheims being used somewhat when I was little. I find it comforting that anywhere I go in the US they use the same Bible at Mass (unless of course it’s TLM ). I can just imagine what some of the parishes would be wanting to use if parishes were allowed to choose.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I find it comforting that anywhere I go in the US they use the same Bible at Mass (unless of course it’s TLM ). I can just imagine what some of the parishes would be wanting to use if parishes were allowed to choose.
Click to expand...
That is essential for liturgical use, I think. One and the same Bible translation in every parish in the country. Even if it’s not everyone’s ideal translation …
 
CAVEAT: Does not list those approved before 1983 - which were the best of the classic translations. Opinion Alert: I believe that virtually all of them are diluted, tilting toward false ecumenism and are not as accurate as they could be.

The current “approved” bible and the GNT run from below average to horrible, in my estimation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top