New Bible Translation

I came across the following Book which mentions a Bible, "The Translators' New Testament," published by the British and Foreign Bible Society (Bible Society) in 1973. There was a second unpublished, but circulated volume called, "Old Testament Translator's Translation (OTTT)". From what the online book explains these would be great resources, but there seems to have been some intellectual infighting and that killed the OTTT and TTNT was removed from publication. The Bible House appears to have been involved towards the end of the OTTT project and was overseeing it at the time it was shut down.

The purpose of these testaments was to give a native speaker (eg. Cree) with a working knowledge of English the ability to refine previous Bible translations into their native language without years of studying Greek and Hebrew. This was done by providing explanatory notes for each verse.

It seems that someone in our community would know of these works and be able to provide some insight or be able to check into the availability of these works.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dan Francis

Sounds interesting for sure but I think these may have been superseded by the UBS translators handbook series. The United Bible Societies’ Old Testament Handbook Series (29 vols.) and The United Bible Societies’ New Testament Handbook Series (20 vols.) as well as UBS Handbook Series Upgrade (6 vols.).

-Dan

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/503747#Comment_503747

Sounds interesting for sure but I think these may have been superseded by the UBS translators handbook series. The United Bible Societies’ Old Testament Handbook Series (29 vols.) and The United Bible Societies’ New Testament Handbook Series (20 vols.) as well as UBS Handbook Series Upgrade (6 vols.).

-Dan

Which is perhaps superceded by the latest Nestle-Aland offering.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/503753#Comment_503753

Which is perhaps superceded by the latest Nestle-Aland offering.

What title would that be?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/503759#Comment_503759

Which is perhaps superceded by the latest Nestle-Aland offering.

What title would that be?

I don't actually use it. I'm behind the times. Nevertheless, this should let you know.

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren. The Greek New Testament. 4th ed. Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/503792#Comment_503792

Thanks. But the GNT does not really supersede the UBS Handbooks. They serve very distinct purposes.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/503805#Comment_503805

Thanks. But the GNT does not really supersede the UBS Handbooks. They serve very distinct purposes.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING supercedes the text, and that includes the UBS Handbooks (which I don't even have—or particularly desire).

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/503807#Comment_503807

You are not being very helpful here.

The OP was talking about a particular resource that serves a particular need. Someone suggested the UBS Handbooks, which I think is quite relevant to anyone looking for a resource that fits that niche.

No-one was suggesting that the Greek text needs revision or should be neglected. We're not even discussing interlinears here. You're talking apples and oranges.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/503753#Comment_503753

Sounds interesting for sure but I think these may have been superseded by the UBS translators handbook series. The United Bible Societies’ Old Testament Handbook Series (29 vols.) and The United Bible Societies’ New Testament Handbook Series (20 vols.) as well as UBS Handbook Series Upgrade (6 vols.).

-Dan

Which is perhaps superceded by the latest Nestle-Aland offering.

Peace, George! *smile* I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean??? The UBS Handbooks, I would think, would be right "down your alley," or am I missing something? With the UBS Handbooks ... the text is truly predominant ....!!!

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/503815#Comment_503815

Sounds interesting for sure but I think these may have been superseded by the UBS translators handbook series. The United Bible Societies’ Old Testament Handbook Series (29 vols.) and The United Bible Societies’ New Testament Handbook Series (20 vols.) as well as UBS Handbook Series Upgrade (6 vols.).

-Dan

Which is perhaps superceded by the latest Nestle-Aland offering.

Peace, George! *smile* I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean??? The UBS Handbooks, I would think, would be right "down your alley," or am I missing something? With the UBS Handbooks ... the text is truly predominant ....!!!

My position is "Learn the language and read the text or get a good commentary since all else besides the text is simply commentary." Let's not pretend that we are somehow getting something of value from the text by reading these commentaries. They may be correct (and in many cases are), but the text is the standard. I understand that most do not have the time or the resources to study the languages and must therefore rely on commentary, but what I oppose is the pretense that they are studying the text when they are studying commentary.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/503816#Comment_503816

Sounds interesting for sure but I think these may have been superseded by the UBS translators handbook series. The United Bible Societies’ Old Testament Handbook Series (29 vols.) and The United Bible Societies’ New Testament Handbook Series (20 vols.) as well as UBS Handbook Series Upgrade (6 vols.).

-Dan

Which is perhaps superceded by the latest Nestle-Aland offering.

Peace, George! *smile* I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean??? The UBS Handbooks, I would think, would be right "down your alley," or am I missing something? With the UBS Handbooks ... the text is truly predominant ....!!!

My position is "Learn the language and read the text or get a good commentary since all else besides the text is simply commentary." Let's not pretend that we are somehow getting something of value from the text by reading these commentaries. They may be correct (and in many cases are), but the text is the standard. I understand that most do not have the time or the resources to study the languages and must therefore rely on commentary, but what I oppose is the pretense that they are studying the text when they are studying commentary.

A good point. But you could have stated your position explicitly without throwing a spanner into post #2. Besides, if you want to question the premise in the OP you might as well come right out. As it is, I think a discussion of that sort belongs elsewhere, and is necessarily complicated.

A statement like

[quote user=""]Nothing, and I mean NOTHING supercedes the text, and that includes the UBS Handbooks (which I don't even have—or particularly desire).

is not helpful, for a number of reasons.

Michael Collins

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/503820#Comment_503820

Take some time and read through the booklet that I originally linked to. You will see a balanced and logical argument in light of and accepting of the advancements of scholarship. I liked his reasoning for the way definitions and clarifying comments were given. It also sounded as though the work was done without a slant towards one theological stance which I think most of us appreciate.

To me, it sounded as if politics won out over opposing methods, not because the methods or scholarship were faulty, but just, "because that's NOT how I would do it". This is why I would like to see the work and judge for myself.

Bullies whether intellectual or physical are still bullies and it seems as though the larger community of interested people may have been cheated out of a really great tool, especially since whatever volumes that are considered to have superseded these works are definitely not done with the same methods, but those of the scholars from Nida's viewpoint. I am always suspicious when one viewpoint of scholarship is silenced, especially when the argument against it is not one of fraud or inferiority, but just style and opinion. Of course this is just my opinion.

elnwood

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/503816#Comment_503816

My position is "Learn the language and read the text or get a good commentary since all else besides the text is simply commentary." Let's not pretend that we are somehow getting something of value from the text by reading these commentaries. They may be correct (and in many cases are), but the text is the standard. I understand that most do not have the time or the resources to study the languages and must therefore rely on commentary, but what I oppose is the pretense that they are studying the text when they are studying commentary.

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?”

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504068#Comment_504068

My position is "Learn the language and read the text or get a good commentary since all else besides the text is simply commentary." Let's not pretend that we are somehow getting something of value from the text by reading these commentaries. They may be correct (and in many cases are), but the text is the standard. I understand that most do not have the time or the resources to study the languages and must therefore rely on commentary, but what I oppose is the pretense that they are studying the text when they are studying commentary.

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?”

That's why we have churches and sermons.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504073#Comment_504073

Well George, that seems to be circular reasoning. Is a sermon not commentary? It is basically commentary for those who don't take time to do their on research, or in addition to their on research. Also, aren't you writing a commentary on the Book of Revelation? Do you not use other commentaries to help you make difficult decisions about choices involved in the text? If not, then it seems quite presumptuous to assume that you know better than all other exegetes. Why don't you write a Greek grammar instead? That seems to be what you think would be most helpful.

You should probably take a nap, or maybe have a [B].

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504138#Comment_504138

Well George, that seems to be circular reasoning. Is a sermon not commentary? It is basically commentary for those who don't take time to do their on research, or in addition to their on research. Also, aren't you writing a commentary on the Book of Revelation? Do you not use other commentaries to help you make difficult decisions about choices involved in the text? If not, then it seems quite presumptuous to assume that you know better than all other exegetes. Why don't you write a Greek grammar instead? That seems to be what you think would be most helpful.

You should probably take a nap, or maybe have a .

Instead, I'll clarify AND have a beer. [:D] (It's hot here).

Yes, sermons are commentary, but sermons are directed to the situation in which the hearer(s) find them/him-self. I have nothing against sermons if I'm in church, but I refuse to fork over my ducats for print versions of sermons (though I'm contemplating getting Calvin's). I don't know why you supposed that I oppose commentary. I simply think we should be absolutely honest regarding what we are doing. If you're reading the text, speak regarding the text. If you are basing your position on a commentary, acknowledge the fact. Too many use interlinears and word studies then pretend that they are basing their positions on the text. Even BDAG and HALOT might be considered commentaries in that they classify usages and present glosses on that basis. While these lexicographical works are right almost all of the time, they aren't right 100% of the time and need to be checked. Sometimes you will notice a discrepancy.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504151#Comment_504151

Well George, that seems to be circular reasoning. Is a sermon not commentary? It is basically commentary for those who don't take time to do their on research, or in addition to their on research. Also, aren't you writing a commentary on the Book of Revelation? Do you not use other commentaries to help you make difficult decisions about choices involved in the text? If not, then it seems quite presumptuous to assume that you know better than all other exegetes. Why don't you write a Greek grammar instead? That seems to be what you think would be most helpful.

You should probably take a nap, or maybe have a .

Instead, I'll clarify AND have a beer. (It's hot here).

Yes, sermons are commentary, but sermons are directed to the situation in which the hearer(s) find them/him-self. I have nothing against sermons if I'm in church, but I refuse to fork over my ducats for print versions of sermons (though I'm contemplating getting Calvin's). I don't know why you supposed that I oppose commentary. I simply think we should be absolutely honest regarding what we are doing. If you're reading the text, speak regarding the text. If you are basing your position on a commentary, acknowledge the fact. Too many use interlinears and word studies then pretend that they are basing their positions on the text. Even BDAG and HALOT might be considered commentaries in that they classify usages and present glosses on that basis. While these lexicographical works are right almost all of the time, they aren't right 100% of the time and need to be checked. Sometimes you will notice a discrepancy.

I thought that was a beer in the picture! How about one of these? [D] Shaken, not stirred?

I understand what you are saying, and I agree, but your comment seemed to be misplaced in the context of the UBS Handbook suggestion. As Milford stated above, it seems that the UBS handbooks would be something you would really find useful. They are basically commentaries on the actual text, with explanation as to which texts have which readings and possible semantic renderings, which I think anyone interested in studying the Bible would be interested in, whether or not they know the original languages. It is really like having an expansion of Halot/BDAG at your disposal.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504164#Comment_504164

I thought that was a beer in the picture! How about one of these? Shaken, not stirred?

I understand what you are saying, and I agree, but your comment seemed to be misplaced in the context of the UBS Handbook suggestion. As Milford stated above, it seems that the UBS handbooks would be something you would really find useful. They are basically commentaries on the actual text, with explanation as to which texts have which readings and possible semantic renderings, which I think anyone interested in studying the Bible would be interested in, whether or not they know the original languages. It is really like having an expansion of Halot/BDAG at your disposal.

Nyet ! No mixed drinks (though 3 fingers of Scotch neat would be acceptable).

I do my own textual criticism and expand/contract BDAG or HALOT on my own. Why would I want the UBS handbooks at my disposal? It isn't food scraps to be gotten rid of. [;)]

Michael Collins

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504186#Comment_504186

The Bible Society responded with a link to the NT work. The publication date is 01/01/1996, so it may not be the same one.

https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/products/9780564049912/

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504341#Comment_504341

@Michael Collins:

Since you are still on this topic, you might want to have a look at the Translator's Reference Translation volumes. There's some good stuff there, but you can form your own opinion.

The series is far from complete, though.