Why You Might Like NABRE over NRSV

I welcome comment or correction. When dealing with translations, it's never easy to lock down exactly what original text(s) was being used.

I've used NRSV for a long time, mainly because it covers the apocrypha (eg using Multiview, or first Bible in Text Comparison), and the text is fairly neutral. I like NABRE's notes. And, I track translation trends with my date-sorted Text Comparison. Of course the OL is closeby.

Then there's some periodic tidbits ... what does Tanakh do in a hebrew crunch, and does ISV see a worthwhile DSS source.

But today, NABRE surprised me. In Sirach, it tracked the hebrew (the pieces available), whereas NAB and other deuterocanon Bibles, track the greek (LXX). I didn't know NABRE (mainly the OT) had taken new paths, reading its intro text.

As a sidenote, trying to find a generally complete hebrew Sirach (outside Tov's hebrew/greek) appears to be a Logosian deadend. Bibleworks has two hebrew choices; Accordance a tagged hebrew. The older Cowley in Logos is ch39-49 only.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Beloved Amodeo

Of course the OL is closeby.

What is the OL you reference?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161662#Comment_1161662

Of course the OL is closeby.
What is the OL you reference?

OL = Original Languages (from whense the translations). Of course, when the greek/LXX is in the middle, they also bounce around on which one.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161665#Comment_1161665

Of course the OL is closeby.
What is the OL you reference?

OL = Original Languages (from whense the translations). Of course, when the greek/LXX is in the middle, they also bounce around on which one.

Your scholarship shows. Thanks for the lesson.

David Ames

NABRE surprised me. In Sirach, it tracked the hebrew (the pieces available), whereas NAB and other deuterocanon Bibles, track the greek (LXX).

Have seen some references that claim that the Greek of the LXX was translated from the Hebrew of 250 BC or so while the Hebrew we have today is the Hebrew of 90 AD or so. Anyone know of a reference that shows the possible changes in the Hebrew during that 340 or so years? [Weren't both found at the dead see?]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161669#Comment_1161669

Have seen some references that claim that the Greek of the LXX was translated from the Hebrew of 250 BC or so while the Hebrew we have today is the Hebrew of 90 AD or so. Anyone know of a reference that shows the possible changes in the Hebrew during that 340 or so years? [Weren't both found at the dead see?]

I was working on Phinehas, specifically Sir 50:24, which suggests a historical 'updating' between the hebrew and the greek (opposite your sequence).

Added:

Where's MJ, when we need her. Ref-tag worked fine, above with an ESV verse. No-go with Deuterocanon.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161669#Comment_1161669

Anyone know of a reference that shows the possible changes in the Hebrew during that 340 or so years? [Weren't both found at the dead see?]

https://ref.ly/logosres/cathency?art=a.05263.4 discusses the ancient versions in general. https://ref.ly/logosres/anch?ref=VolumePage.V+6%2c+p+934&off=6258&ctx=+and+before+Baruch.%0a~D.+Text+and+Versions does so in more detail and more recently.

Tobias Gerbothe

As a sidenote, trying to find a generally complete hebrew Sirach (outside Tov's hebrew/greek) appears to be a Logosian deadend. Bibleworks has two hebrew choices; Accordance a tagged hebrew. The older Cowley in Logos is ch39-49 only.

[:'(] Tov is better than nothing, but not, what I would expect from Logos. With Leiden Peshitta we even have a better Syriac ed. for Ben/Bar Sira.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161932#Comment_1161932

I had a teacher once say that if you have the RSV OT and the ASV 1901 NT you’d be all set with a reliable translation of the Word of God. Me, personally, I’d rather have multiple translations. It’s better for me that way.

DAL

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161957#Comment_1161957

a reliable translation of the Word of God

If 'truth' be more well known, translation preferences are made with little knowledge (if any) of 'God's Word'. It's more like translations of composites of composites, with the hope that a discovered older original comes generally close. When archaeologists heard of Qumran's Isaiah scroll, I'm sure they were preparing for a possible nightmare.