Yes, the Apocrypha is available. The Lutheran Study version of the same is due out next year.
Past-elder, well that's a shame. At least the Aussies are opting for a better translation. Not perfect - not by a LONG shot - but much better in my opinion than NAB.
The NAB is dreadful. The Old Testament reading for one of the Christmas Masses (from Isaiah 9) renders the AV's "mighty God" as "God Hero." I cringe when I hear that (when going to Mass with my wife's family), and apparently some of our Roman brethren feel the same way:
I keep a healthy skepticism about whatever translation is currently being touted as the standard for English speaking Christians. The NIV had a similar run in 1970s among American evangelicals, and Lutherans were late to the party with it in the 1980s. Part of my skepticism is that these translations often don't wear well over time. But part of the skepticism comes from knowing that their copyright holders, in this case Good News Publishers, are often the ones touting the "new standard" theory. Good News Publishers confesses on their website that, "they [baptism and the Lord's supper] are not to be regarded as means of salvation" and "Every true child of God possesses eternal life and being justified, sanctified, and sealed with the Holy Spirit, is safe and secure for all eternity." What we believe influences how we translate.
Publishing companies are primarily interested in, well, publishing. Which is to say, Jim Huffman is absolutely right. I'm terribly suspicious when the publisher tells me I NEED such and such new book. Doubly so with a new Bible. Awhile back—whether on Issues, Etc., or the White Horse Inn, I do not recall—I heard an interview with a publisher talking about how much money they make from shilling study Bibles. It's in their interest to keep pushing these things out. We probably would have all been far better off to have kept the KJV and simply taught people how to read. And teach our kids Greek, the same way Muslim kids learn Arabic and Jewish kids learn Hebrew.
That's an interesting point PE (Pastor Esget). It's always struck me that Christians have always pushed for translations whereas the other two "Abrahamic" faiths do not make much of translations and push that the language chosen to make a revelation is an important part of that revelation and stress learning that language.
Most of the world's Muslims do not speak Arabic as a first language and most of the world's Jews do not speak Hebrew as a first language.
Both the Bible and "the Liturgy" are genies that have been let out of the bottle and aren't going back in. There will be those who go on about the Bible and the Liturgy, as if in the singular, when in fact it's decidedly plural but having a "family resemblance" as it has been put elsewhere, with no common understanding except to go on about the Bible and the Liturgy.
So just as we are going to have an ongoing procession of new service books we are going to have an ongoing procession of new translations.
The NAB and the NIV are miserable, and neither is traditional despite a "family resemblance" to Bibles. I think of ESV in much the same way as DSIII; the one is not the Common Service and the other is not the KJV, but both stand in the tradition while not standing frozen.
The never-ending changing of Bible translations ensures that people will not memorize, and that biblical knowledge will continue to decrease. The level of biblical knowledge for American Christians in the main is appalling. The ones I find who can readily speak about the biblical text are fundamentalist Baptists, who never stopped using the AV, and ignore whatever is the flavor of the day from Zondervan, GNP, or whoever.
Interesting to read, Jim! Thank you. I think the connexion of resurrecting a language for regular use with resurrecting a country after centuries of not existing is inevitable, because it's there. Neither the language nor the country is Biblical.
Its continued existence among religious clergy and scholars seems similar to Latin, which likewise soldiered on long after Rome the Empire passed but its state church continued. Neither preserved the language intact without modifications, but not on the scale of the Old to Middle to Modern English a critic cited.
12 comments:
Is the Apocrypha being made available, too? Or, is it already?
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops would be the body authorising any lectionary here.
And they have WAY too much invested in the New American Bible and its various re-revisions to make that likely at all.
Yes, the Apocrypha is available. The Lutheran Study version of the same is due out next year.
Past-elder, well that's a shame. At least the Aussies are opting for a better translation. Not perfect - not by a LONG shot - but much better in my opinion than NAB.
The NAB is dreadful. The Old Testament reading for one of the Christmas Masses (from Isaiah 9) renders the AV's "mighty God" as "God Hero." I cringe when I hear that (when going to Mass with my wife's family), and apparently some of our Roman brethren feel the same way:
http://www.thesacredpage.com/2011/02/new-american-bible-shakes-its-booty.html
I keep a healthy skepticism about whatever translation is currently being touted as the standard for English speaking Christians. The NIV had a similar run in 1970s among American evangelicals, and Lutherans were late to the party with it in the 1980s. Part of my skepticism is that these translations often don't wear well over time. But part of the skepticism comes from knowing that their copyright holders, in this case Good News Publishers, are often the ones touting the "new standard" theory. Good News Publishers confesses on their website that, "they [baptism and the Lord's supper] are not to be regarded as means of salvation" and "Every true child of God possesses eternal life and being justified, sanctified, and sealed with the Holy Spirit, is safe and secure for all eternity." What we believe influences how we translate.
Publishing companies are primarily interested in, well, publishing. Which is to say, Jim Huffman is absolutely right. I'm terribly suspicious when the publisher tells me I NEED such and such new book. Doubly so with a new Bible. Awhile back—whether on Issues, Etc., or the White Horse Inn, I do not recall—I heard an interview with a publisher talking about how much money they make from shilling study Bibles. It's in their interest to keep pushing these things out. We probably would have all been far better off to have kept the KJV and simply taught people how to read. And teach our kids Greek, the same way Muslim kids learn Arabic and Jewish kids learn Hebrew.
That's an interesting point PE (Pastor Esget). It's always struck me that Christians have always pushed for translations whereas the other two "Abrahamic" faiths do not make much of translations and push that the language chosen to make a revelation is an important part of that revelation and stress learning that language.
Most of the world's Muslims do not speak Arabic as a first language and most of the world's Jews do not speak Hebrew as a first language.
Both the Bible and "the Liturgy" are genies that have been let out of the bottle and aren't going back in. There will be those who go on about the Bible and the Liturgy, as if in the singular, when in fact it's decidedly plural but having a "family resemblance" as it has been put elsewhere, with no common understanding except to go on about the Bible and the Liturgy.
So just as we are going to have an ongoing procession of new service books we are going to have an ongoing procession of new translations.
The NAB and the NIV are miserable, and neither is traditional despite a "family resemblance" to Bibles. I think of ESV in much the same way as DSIII; the one is not the Common Service and the other is not the KJV, but both stand in the tradition while not standing frozen.
The never-ending changing of Bible translations ensures that people will not memorize, and that biblical knowledge will continue to decrease. The level of biblical knowledge for American Christians in the main is appalling. The ones I find who can readily speak about the biblical text are fundamentalist Baptists, who never stopped using the AV, and ignore whatever is the flavor of the day from Zondervan, GNP, or whoever.
Terry, here is a linguist who argues that no one speaks "Hebrew" as a first language:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3333948,00.html
This is why we should just stick with the Klingon Standard Version. :)
Interesting to read, Jim! Thank you. I think the connexion of resurrecting a language for regular use with resurrecting a country after centuries of not existing is inevitable, because it's there. Neither the language nor the country is Biblical.
Its continued existence among religious clergy and scholars seems similar to Latin, which likewise soldiered on long after Rome the Empire passed but its state church continued. Neither preserved the language intact without modifications, but not on the scale of the Old to Middle to Modern English a critic cited.
Post a Comment