An anecdote re: the awful NAB. I was raised high- church Episcopalian (the kind who called themselves Anglo- catholic) but my dad was lapsed- catholic, and my mom would occasionally pay tribute to this by making us go to Christmas or Easter at the local Catholic parish. Apparently by age 5 or 6, I was already a budding liturgy snob, and when we got to the bit in Isaiah which I had learned as "Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting father, the prince of peace", and I heard "God-Hero" rather than "the mighty God," my mother reports that I audibly snorted and said "GOD HERO??" in a disbelieving and scornful tone, not bothering to whisper. People do still tell me that my voice is too loud.
Having worked as a translator, I kind of understand now why they translated it that way (attempting to draw a connection with Mesopotamian god-king figures like Gilgamesh, I guess) but I still think it sounds stupid.
Also, I have heard that McCarrick was instrumental in the NAB translation and/or in its approval for liturgical use in the US. If true, that would make me much more in favor of replacing it entirely, with rsv2ce or Jerusalem or Esvce or, like, literally anything else.
I understand the desire for a definitive, authorized translation, but again, speaking from my expertise, I don't think it's possible. Even when translating between modern languages where there are plenty of living bilinguals to test out different wording, people will disagree about the best translation of each individual word. With dead languages we really have very little confidence that we are achieving the correct shades of meaning between the two languages, and Hebrew in particular features wordplay that's virtually unrepresentable by English. I'm not a fan of restricting scholars' right to try out new translations, nor of laypeople's right to read them. But if all Ed was saying was that he wants all the Anglosphere using the same translation in the Mass and the Breviary, I would maybe be more on board. I think there's a subsidiarity question there though. Is "Anglosphere" the right group to be thinking of? Are we only thinking of native speakers, and which variety of English are we taking as the standard? When I lived in Japan, English was the vehicular language for all the Filipinos, Kenyans, Sri Lankans etc whom I attended Mass with. We used the Good News translation, which to native English speakers sounds pretty dumbed down, but it was just the right level for the ESL speakers, who were the majority in attendance at English Mass. I would be annoyed at a top-down decision that "okay, all English masses the world over will now use RSV2CE", even though it's my preferred translation, because that would eliminate the right of local bishops or regional conferences to make decisions based on their flocks' needs.
1In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters
Genesis 1 NRSV
When God began to create the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
Genesis 1 NIV
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
I'm not sure where you're attempting to lead with your question. None of those are translations I use in my everyday Scripture readings, and I never stated that I think it's possible to identify a "best" translation - certainly not by comparison of one or two verses. And I do not speak or read Hebrew. But I'll bite anyway, because I like to study Scripture and this was fun!
I think it's notable that the NABRE translates "Ruach Elohim" as "a mighty wind." If you compare all the available English translations at BibleGateway, NABRE is the *only* translation that entirely eliminates the reference to God, except for a few translations that simply leave "Ruach Elohim" untranslated. Blue Letter Bible notes that, while there are other possible meanings/usages of the word, it refers to God (or occasionally "gods") over 2,500 times, with other usages like "mighty" and "angel" in the single digits. In particular, since Elohim was just used to refer to God in the previous verse, I think it's more likely to be used twice with the same meaning rather than two different meanings so close to one another. But I can see how a committee of knowitall translators would bicker back and forth about it until they lost whatever common sense they'd had.
If we accept the idea that Gen 1 follows a literary conceit of the first three days being aimed at solving the "tohu" (formlessness) problem, and the second set of three days solving the "bohu" (void, empty) problem, I'd say of the options you gave, the NIV translates that bit the best.
At BibleGateway, I see that the Young Life Translation boldly translates "hovering/sweeping" (rahaf) as "fluttering". I kind of like that, or "brooding", as both of those verbs communicate a sort of "birdiness" that I've heard is communicated by the original verb, although I may be misremembering. (OK I had to go look it up in the Blue Letter Bible. It's a word used only two other times in scripture, but one of them is very birdy, while the other isn't so much.)
At any rate, I think it's a fool's errand to attempt to identify a "best" translation (see my final paragraph above about the audience question, for one thing) but I don't think it's impossible to identify "better" and "worse" translations. Again, having been a professional translator for a few years, there are times when translators just get it wrong, and there are also times when we get our heads up our scholarly butts and wind up making translations that are just unreadable. My primary issue with the NABRE is that a translation that is proclaimed at the Mass should sound good when read aloud, and overall, NABRE just doesn't sound good. That's not recognizable on a verse by verse level, but IMO it sure is on a paragraph by paragraph one. But YMMV. /shrug/
23 They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith.
That's a translation using Strong's lexicon for G5500, which is arguably a Protestant interpretation. A better translation is "laid hands upon them" which is the received meaning in the Greek church today.
That's very interesting! A few of the translations seem to use "hand picked" and some use "ordained," but none just go ahead and translate as "laid hands upon." I wonder why.
I also found this translation (?) from the Orthodox Jewish Bible (?!) fascinating and entertaining:
22 Strengthening the nefashot (souls) of Moshiach’s talmidim, encouraging them to remain in the [Orthodox Jewish] emunah (faith), and exhorting them that through tzarot rabbot it is necessary for us to enter into the Malchut Hashem. 23 And having chosen for messianic s’michah Zekenim to be installed in every one of Moshiach’s Kehillot, and having davened with tzomot, the Moshiach’s Shlichim commended them to Adoneinu in whom they had emunah.
That which is received is received according to the mode of the recipient, I guess?
McCarrick would have no connection with the original 1970 translation which was created when he was a nobody. He seems to have held a (nominal? does he even know Hebrew or Greek?) committee position for the 1986 revision. 1986 was only for the NT and actually removed some of the more cringeworthy/hermeneutic-of-rupture phrases such as "really valuable pearl" and "Truth? What does that mean?" from the 1970 version.
An anecdote re: the awful NAB. I was raised high- church Episcopalian (the kind who called themselves Anglo- catholic) but my dad was lapsed- catholic, and my mom would occasionally pay tribute to this by making us go to Christmas or Easter at the local Catholic parish. Apparently by age 5 or 6, I was already a budding liturgy snob, and when we got to the bit in Isaiah which I had learned as "Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting father, the prince of peace", and I heard "God-Hero" rather than "the mighty God," my mother reports that I audibly snorted and said "GOD HERO??" in a disbelieving and scornful tone, not bothering to whisper. People do still tell me that my voice is too loud.
Having worked as a translator, I kind of understand now why they translated it that way (attempting to draw a connection with Mesopotamian god-king figures like Gilgamesh, I guess) but I still think it sounds stupid.
Also, I have heard that McCarrick was instrumental in the NAB translation and/or in its approval for liturgical use in the US. If true, that would make me much more in favor of replacing it entirely, with rsv2ce or Jerusalem or Esvce or, like, literally anything else.
I understand the desire for a definitive, authorized translation, but again, speaking from my expertise, I don't think it's possible. Even when translating between modern languages where there are plenty of living bilinguals to test out different wording, people will disagree about the best translation of each individual word. With dead languages we really have very little confidence that we are achieving the correct shades of meaning between the two languages, and Hebrew in particular features wordplay that's virtually unrepresentable by English. I'm not a fan of restricting scholars' right to try out new translations, nor of laypeople's right to read them. But if all Ed was saying was that he wants all the Anglosphere using the same translation in the Mass and the Breviary, I would maybe be more on board. I think there's a subsidiarity question there though. Is "Anglosphere" the right group to be thinking of? Are we only thinking of native speakers, and which variety of English are we taking as the standard? When I lived in Japan, English was the vehicular language for all the Filipinos, Kenyans, Sri Lankans etc whom I attended Mass with. We used the Good News translation, which to native English speakers sounds pretty dumbed down, but it was just the right level for the ESL speakers, who were the majority in attendance at English Mass. I would be annoyed at a top-down decision that "okay, all English masses the world over will now use RSV2CE", even though it's my preferred translation, because that would eliminate the right of local bishops or regional conferences to make decisions based on their flocks' needs.
Genesis 1 NABRE
1In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters
Genesis 1 NRSV
When God began to create the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
Genesis 1 NIV
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Which is best?
I'm not sure where you're attempting to lead with your question. None of those are translations I use in my everyday Scripture readings, and I never stated that I think it's possible to identify a "best" translation - certainly not by comparison of one or two verses. And I do not speak or read Hebrew. But I'll bite anyway, because I like to study Scripture and this was fun!
I think it's notable that the NABRE translates "Ruach Elohim" as "a mighty wind." If you compare all the available English translations at BibleGateway, NABRE is the *only* translation that entirely eliminates the reference to God, except for a few translations that simply leave "Ruach Elohim" untranslated. Blue Letter Bible notes that, while there are other possible meanings/usages of the word, it refers to God (or occasionally "gods") over 2,500 times, with other usages like "mighty" and "angel" in the single digits. In particular, since Elohim was just used to refer to God in the previous verse, I think it's more likely to be used twice with the same meaning rather than two different meanings so close to one another. But I can see how a committee of knowitall translators would bicker back and forth about it until they lost whatever common sense they'd had.
If we accept the idea that Gen 1 follows a literary conceit of the first three days being aimed at solving the "tohu" (formlessness) problem, and the second set of three days solving the "bohu" (void, empty) problem, I'd say of the options you gave, the NIV translates that bit the best.
At BibleGateway, I see that the Young Life Translation boldly translates "hovering/sweeping" (rahaf) as "fluttering". I kind of like that, or "brooding", as both of those verbs communicate a sort of "birdiness" that I've heard is communicated by the original verb, although I may be misremembering. (OK I had to go look it up in the Blue Letter Bible. It's a word used only two other times in scripture, but one of them is very birdy, while the other isn't so much.)
At any rate, I think it's a fool's errand to attempt to identify a "best" translation (see my final paragraph above about the audience question, for one thing) but I don't think it's impossible to identify "better" and "worse" translations. Again, having been a professional translator for a few years, there are times when translators just get it wrong, and there are also times when we get our heads up our scholarly butts and wind up making translations that are just unreadable. My primary issue with the NABRE is that a translation that is proclaimed at the Mass should sound good when read aloud, and overall, NABRE just doesn't sound good. That's not recognizable on a verse by verse level, but IMO it sure is on a paragraph by paragraph one. But YMMV. /shrug/
I have no opinion, I think the diversity of translations of Genesis 1 are quite notable.
The NABRE's translation of Acts 14:23 is notable:
χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς κατ’ ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους, προσευξάμενοι μετὰ νηστειῶν παρέθεντο αὐτοὺς τῷ Κυρίῳ εἰς ὃν πεπιστεύκεισαν.
23 They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith.
That's a translation using Strong's lexicon for G5500, which is arguably a Protestant interpretation. A better translation is "laid hands upon them" which is the received meaning in the Greek church today.
That's very interesting! A few of the translations seem to use "hand picked" and some use "ordained," but none just go ahead and translate as "laid hands upon." I wonder why.
I also found this translation (?) from the Orthodox Jewish Bible (?!) fascinating and entertaining:
22 Strengthening the nefashot (souls) of Moshiach’s talmidim, encouraging them to remain in the [Orthodox Jewish] emunah (faith), and exhorting them that through tzarot rabbot it is necessary for us to enter into the Malchut Hashem. 23 And having chosen for messianic s’michah Zekenim to be installed in every one of Moshiach’s Kehillot, and having davened with tzomot, the Moshiach’s Shlichim commended them to Adoneinu in whom they had emunah.
That which is received is received according to the mode of the recipient, I guess?
McCarrick would have no connection with the original 1970 translation which was created when he was a nobody. He seems to have held a (nominal? does he even know Hebrew or Greek?) committee position for the 1986 revision. 1986 was only for the NT and actually removed some of the more cringeworthy/hermeneutic-of-rupture phrases such as "really valuable pearl" and "Truth? What does that mean?" from the 1970 version.
Lengthy list of involved persons here -
https://www.bible.com/fr/versions/463-nabre-new-american-bible-revised-edition
"Truth? What does that mean?" I laughed out loud. At least the revision made some things better. Thanks for the info!
I do like that NABRE keeps Jesus' idiomatic "Amen, amen, I say to you" phrasing.
Infelicitous moments in the Passion stick out due to its being read every year instead of one out of three. "The Temple police" was another.
Orlando, City by the Sea, Jewel of the Pacific.
Interestingly, it seems that Orlando is actually somewhat inland.
The NAB is _precious_ to the USCCB because they get royalties from its use!
JD is right. The new Missal translation was implemented in Advent 2011. Maybe Ed was thinking of when the process first began?