REB in the UK

[buzzcut]

I’ve just discovered this British translation called the Revised English Bible. It has the deuterocanonical books collected together and put in the middle in a section called Apocrypa. Is there anyone here from the UK? Can you tell me if British Catholics use this translation?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

buzzcut:

I’ve just discovered this British translation called the Revised English Bible. It has the deuterocanonical books collected together and put in the middle in a section called Apocrypa. Is there anyone here from the UK? Can you tell me if British Catholics use this translation?

Buzzcut:

It’s a Revision of the New English Bible which was largely a product of the Church of England along with several other Protestant Churches (The Anglican Communion has a rather ambivalent attitude towards The Apocrapha. That’s why the books are in the middle of the Bible instead of in their rightful places in the Old Testament). The other churches involved would have not wanted The Apocrapha included at all.

I wouldn’t trust it because of this:

saiah 9:6 is returned somewhat to the traditional rendering, but not entirely. (The Hebrew word el is translated “hero” instead of “God”): - For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us; he will bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder, and his title will be: Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6 REB
bible-researcher.com/reb.html

The Hebrew Word “El” means G-d, and that’s how it’s printed in their service books when the Jews translate provide a translation.

And this problem - over a third of C of E Clergypersons recently answered that thery didn’t believe in Jesus bodily Resurrection on a survey conducted by the London Daily Telegraph:

Clergy who deny doctrine may face trial for heresy
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
(Filed: 15/02/2005)
telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/15/nclerg15.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/15/ixnewstop.html

One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
(Filed: 31/07/2002)
telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F07%2F31%2Fncreed31.xml

The RSV-CE is a good Word for Word Translation, as is the NAB.

My Father owned a copy of the New English Bible along with a host of other translations, but he used the NAB along with an RSV w/ Apocrypha (the RSV-CE didn’t come out until after he died) and an RSV Interlinear NT and finally an RSV-Interlinear Septuagent for the OT.

I just don’t see the Catholic Church using this, although I imagine indiviual Catholics will.

I don’t think I will. I see no point to translating a word that means “God” as anything else, unless someone is trying to deny the divinity of Chirst.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Donald45]

While the original New English Bible involved Catholic scholars only as observers, the Revised English Bible enjoyed the direct involvement of scholars from the Roman Catholic Church in England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. It is not an “officially endorsed” version of Scripture—that is, it’s not approved for use in the liturgy—but the REB is a fine translation, the New Testament in particular (though with its own literary idiosyncrasies, like any other translation).

 

[buzzcut]

Donald45:

the REB is a fine translation, the New Testament in particular (though with its own literary idiosyncrasies, like any other translation).

I can’t get over how readable it is. I read one verse and I want to read another. And another. And another.

 

[Donald45]

buzzcut:

I can’t get over how readable it is. I read one verse and I want to read another. And another. And another.

I agree. I have a nice little REB New Testament that I use a lot. Here’s what the publisher, Cambridge University Press, has to say about the REB:

“This is a careful and comprehensive revision of the New English Bible by a team of scholars drawn from all the major Christian denominations in the UK, including the Roman Catholic Church. Like the NEB, the REB was translated straight into British English. It built on the strengths of the NEB—its outstanding scholarship and accuracy—to produce a rendering accessible to a broad readership. It is popular both for public reading and private study and is used for worship and teaching everywhere, in cathedrals, churches, and classrooms. The revisers sought as far as possible to avoid technical, over-literary and traditionally ‘religious’ forms of expressions, including male-oriented language where the meaning of the original texts includes the feminine gender. At the same time they preserved an English style of appropriate dignity and beauty” (The Cambridge Bible Handbook, pp. 19-20).

As English translations go, one could do a lot worse than the Revised English Bible. I recommend the New Testament highly. Happy reading!

Truly,
Don

 

[Zooey]

buzzcut:

I can’t get over how readable it is. I read one verse and I want to read another. And another. And another.

That is how I feel about my Douay/Challoner…
The REB has its flaws, (like other Bible translations), but if it keeps you wanting to read the Bible like that, I personally think that that is a good thing.
I have one myself; I actually don’t use it much any more, but for a while, when I was struggling to read the Bible more, I found it–& the original New English Bible–to be a great help, precicely because it is very readable.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

buzzcut:

I’ve just discovered this British translation called the Revised English Bible. It has the deuterocanonical books collected together and put in the middle in a section called Apocrypa. Is there anyone here from the UK? Can you tell me if British Catholics use this translation?

No, we don’t. ​

Personally, I prefer the 1970 NEB anyway, even without the deuterocanonical books - both because archaic English is retained for address to God, and because in 1970 we were not self-conscious about the use of he, they, and the rest. “Non-sexist” versions have a tendency to misrepresent the translated texts by using the plural where the singular is found in the text being translated - Psalm 32.1 is a good example of this.

Remarkably enough, the NEB grew out of proposals made by Scottish Presbyterians, in - I think - 1946, which developed until the main Protestant Churches in the UK of Great Britain & Northern Ireland were all involved. The NT was published in 1961, and 1970 was republished with revisions, accompanied by the OT & the Apocrypha. The REB was published in 1985, IIRC; the same year as the NJB

As for Isaiah 9.6: there are several ways in which “El” can be used when it is in apposition to another noun: El Gibbor can mean “Hero-God”, “mighty hero”, “[a] god of [a] hero” - translators have to do their best with the text they have, rather than approaching it with preconceptions based on extraneous - and irrelevant - matters such as Christian doctrine. Translation is of the texts or text available - not of something that is not in them or it. As “El” + noun sometimes has a superlative sense - “trees of El” are “superlative trees”, there is another sense in which the word can be taken. ##

 

[Traditional_Ang]

## No, we don’t.

Personally, I prefer the 1970 NEB anyway, even without the deuterocanonical books - both because archaic English is retained for address to God, and because in 1970 we were not self-conscious about the use of he, they, and the rest. “Non-sexist” versions have a tendency to misrepresent the translated texts by using the plural where the singular is found in the text being translated - Psalm 32.1 is a good example of this.

Remarkably enough, the NEB grew out of proposals made by Scottish Presbyterians, in - I think - 1946, which developed until the main Protestant Churches in the UK of Great Britain & Northern Ireland were all involved. The NT was published in 1961, and 1970 was republished with revisions, accompanied by the OT & the Apocrypha. The REB was published in 1985, IIRC; the same year as the NJB ##

Michael:

I tend to agree with you about the use of “non-sexist” language. I just don’t see how they can not end up changing the meaning when they use “became fully human” instead of “was made man”. English Language Liturgical Commission translation of the Nicene Creed:
creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

It seems to completely change the meaning in pursuit of politicly correct language.

In Christ, Michael