British Bibles on Pre-Pub NEB and REB

Page 1 of 2 (31 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 30 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 5318
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 4 2012 10:54 AM

It is wonderful news, REB is a favourite of mine, i have pre ordered both i just hope enough people preorder them to get them under contract soon it is sad when things are on the edge of production levels. 

-dan

Posts 50
Ron Newberry | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Aug 5 2012 2:47 PM

Finally.  Love the REB

Posts 2040
Unix | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Aug 5 2012 2:50 PM

Which books of the Bible do You use it for?

Ron Newberry:
Love the REB

 

Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 11

Posts 316
Bruce Roth | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Aug 5 2012 5:03 PM

I was hoping that they would be available for the mobile devices like the ios and android platforms, but as usual for Oxford books they aren't.  Still have to ponder it.

Posts 316
Bruce Roth | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Aug 5 2012 5:13 PM

My bad - I see they updated the pages and it is available for the iphone.  Now I have to ante up the money and get it.

I have the NEB from way back in the 70's - does anyone have a quick overview of the differences betweenthe NEB and the REB?

Posts 32945
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Aug 5 2012 10:55 PM

http://www.bible-researcher.com/reb.html

http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2005/04/reb-revised-english-bible.html

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 2040
Unix | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 6 2012 3:38 AM

Roth, the REB is said to be good for the Pauline Epistles and the Apocrypha.
Smith, for which parts of the Bible (or even verses) do You use it? Do You find presbyterial or reformed bias in it?

Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 11

Posts 50
Ron Newberry | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 6 2012 6:42 PM

I use it for the whole thing.  I find it readable and well done.  No translation is perfect and while I have a few issues with it, I have issues with all the available translations from time to time.

Posts 32945
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 6 2012 7:14 PM

Unix:
Do You find presbyterial or reformed bias in it?

No, I don't find the REB having a sectarian bias; the revision had a broadly ecumenical team on it. I use 6 Bibles consistently with occasional dips into others depending on the purpose.

  • NRSV - my first standard for study
  • NAB/NABRE/CEV/RSV - my standard for liturgy
  • JPS - my standard for Old Testament
  • JB/NJB - first favorite of two for reading
  • NEB/REB - my second standard for study - the assigned translation as an undergraduate
  • Community - second favorite for reading

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 1680
Jerry M | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 9 2012 7:29 AM

MJ. Smith:
/REB - my second standard for study
Do you think the British English to be any kind of hindrance for American readers?  I don't have any experience with this translation, but was interested in a translation that uses a higher level of English.

"For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power"      Wiki Table of Contents

Posts 5318
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 9 2012 9:49 AM

Being Canadian maybe i have a i higher level  of education to some in the US, I do not know, but i can tell you that the translation is no more difficult than the New Jerusalem Bible or for that matter the New Revised Standard Version. There is the standard variant spellings, but few obscure words and none that I can think of you would't encounter in the KJV which is generally regarded at university level for proper comprehension.

-Dan

Posts 942
P A | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Aug 29 2012 11:51 AM

Bump

Posts 32945
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Aug 29 2012 3:41 PM

from an Irish Catholic site (note these are all deemed readable by us lay folks ... British vs. American is really not an issue ... if you can read any of them you'll be okay with the NEB/REB):

Bibles highly regarded for accuracy and readability
The following seven English translations of the bible have appeared since 1950. All have a reasonably high degree of accuracy and readability.

  • The Revised Standard Version (RSV) was commissioned in 1937 and completed in 1952 was the work of American scholars.  It was based on the American Standard Version, itself a revision done in 1901 of the King James Version and became accepted on both sides of the Atlantic as a dignified and accurate translation. 
  • The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV 1990) made use of newly found manuscripts and it does have a good balance between accuracy and readability, but it did not find the same acceptance as its predecessor because of its uncompromising use of inclusive language (using ‘their’ to avoid ‘his/her’ and the addition of ‘and sisters’ where translators considered the text was addressed to women as well as men). 
  • The Jerusalem Bible (JB 1966) was the work of a distinguished literary panel of Catholics working in England under the editorship of Alexander Jones.  It was a translation of the French Bible de Jérusalem incorporating all its scholarship and excellent notes and had a freshness that was free from traditional biblical language. This has been adopted as the liturgical text in the Lectionary (except the Psalms which are The Grail England 1963 translation) in the Lectionary throughout most of the Catholic English speaking world, except the USA. 
  • The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB 1985) edited by Henry Wansbrough OSB is a completely fresh translation that uses inclusive language wherever possible, but without the rigour of the later NRSV.  However JB (1966) continues to be the accepted liturgical text.
  • The New English Bible (NEB 1970) initiated by the Church of Scotland in 1946 and completed in 1970 was an attempt to break away from the mould of ‘biblical English’. It is a ‘thought-for-thought’ version as distinct from ‘word-for-word’ that has freshness and modernity.  The Bible Society and most of the mainstream churches participated in revising this and it reappeared as the
  • Revised English Bible (REB 1989): while its solutions to translation problems are apt, it moves more towards paraphrase than accurate translation.
  • The Good News Bible (GNB 1976) was sponsored by the American Bible Society.  Published on both sides of the Atlantic – sub-titled Today’s English Version in the USA and in Britain as Today’s Good News – its purpose was to make the bible accessible to people whose English is less sophisticated.  This has led to some loss of the rich biblical imagery and vocabulary (God’s ‘right hand’ and ‘mighty arm’ become simply his ‘power’; ‘reconciliation’ becomes simply ‘making friends’, but the difficult suitcase word ‘righteousness’ is retained.  Excellent for young people and those for whom English is a second language. Illustrated throughout with thoughtful and witty line-drawings that combine humour with reverence. 
  • The New American Standard Bible (NASB 1971) was a revision of the 1901 American Standard Bible that took special care to reflect the original Greek and Hebrew words.  Sometimes people feel it overdoes this, even to the point of obscurity. For example, in 1 Thess 4:4 it retains the word ‘vessel’ where it is clear that what is meant is ‘body.  Compare: NASB: (God wants) “each of you to know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honour” with NJB: (God wants) “each one of you to know how to control his body in a way that is holy and honourable”.
  • Even judged by the principles it lays down for itself, NASB 1971 is not fully successful.  At Mark 15:39 it inserts the definite article where the Greek does not have one: it translates - “Truly this was the Son of God”.  What the pagan centurion actually said, with a strange poignancy, was: “Truly this was a son of a god” - which the Christian can understand on a totally different plane. 
  • The New American Bible (NAB) is the official American Roman Catholic version.  The Old Testament was translated in 1970, but was heavily criticised which led to a radical new translation of the New Testament published in 1986.  However, two features of the translation were disallowed by Vatican guidelines in 1997 and 2001 – the use of dynamic equivalence (that is, not sufficiently accurate in rendering the verbal shape of the original language) and inclusive language.  A new translation was then done of passages for use in the liturgy, the Amended Revised New American Bible, and this work is continuing. 
  • The New International Version (NIV 1978, Revised 1984) is an explicitly Protestant translation – the deuterocanonical books are not included - undertaken to meet the perceived need of having an updated Bible in contemporary English but which preserved traditional evangelical theology on contested points.  It is from original manuscripts.  It involved 100 scholars from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.  The translation work was done under the auspices of the International Bible Society and Zondervan Publishing House.  The range of theologians includes over 20 different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists and many more.

=====

Note that the ESV appears to be accepted in Africa and the Community Bible in the Philippines.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 5318
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Aug 29 2012 5:06 PM

MJ. Smith:
The Jerusalem Bible (JB 1966) was the work of a distinguished literary panel of Catholics working in England under the editorship of Alexander Jones.  It was a translation of the French Bible de Jérusalem incorporating all its scholarship and excellent notes and had a freshness that was free from traditional biblical language. This has been adopted as the liturgical text in the Lectionary (except the Psalms which are The Grail England 1963 translation) in the Lectionary throughout most of the Catholic English speaking world, except the USA. 

This is misleading……quoting form WIKI, but confirmed in the introductory material in the JB...

This French translation served as the impetus for an English translation in 1966, the Jerusalem Bible. For the majority of the books, the English translation was an original translation of the Hebrew and Greek; in passages with more than one interpretation, the French is generally followed. For a small number of Old Testament books, the first draft of the English translation was made directly from the French, and then the General Editor produced a revised draft by comparing this word-for-word to the original Hebrew or Aramaic.The footnotes and book introductions are almost literal translations from the French.

_________________________

So the French translation influenced choices in matter of interpretation but it is still directly from original languages. It was the official translation for the Catholic church in Canada till the early 1990s when the NRSV was adopted, still in use today with minor changes for the liturgy. 

-Dan

PS: I know this is just copied off a website, but it has always upset me that people consider JB a translation from french (yes the study material was, translation is from  the hebrew/greek, with a few small exceptions, which were reviewed in light of the original languages before publication).

Posts 32945
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Aug 29 2012 5:30 PM

Dan Francis:
PS: I know this is just copied off a website, but it has always upset me that people consider JB a translation from french (yes the study material was, translation is from  the hebrew/greek, with a few small exceptions, which were reviewed in light of the original languages before publication).

You're correct - I should have caught that.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 942
P A | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 31 2012 1:11 AM

 

The NEB is almost there, the REB seems to have stalled. These are must have Bibles.

It is amazing the original NEB is more popular that the REB.  I suppose because it is the more radical of the two.

Cambridge are you watching this?

Could this be the start of the NEW ENGLISH BIBLE REVIVAL (at least on Logos)?Wink

Time to get these resources out of pre-pub

Fellow Logos users we need your help

Thanks

P A

http://www.logos.com/product/24552/the-new-english-bible-with-the-apocrypha

http://www.logos.com/product/24537/the-revised-english-bible-with-the-apocrypha

 

Posts 8899
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 31 2012 8:34 AM

P A:
It is amazing the original NEB is more popular that the REB.

How do you know? If REB costs them more it will have a lower percentage even if the number of buyers is the same. And it's not unthinkable that REB does cost them more. Since it's a revision, they may well have to pay both NEB and REB royalties for it. Plus it's cheaper, so that reason alone will make it need more orders to reach the same percentage.

The bottom line is, you can never look at two progress bars and assume that you know which one has most orders. There are too many factors you don't know.

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 942
P A | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 31 2012 11:11 AM

fgh

You could be right my friend,

 however the price of the NEB is higher than the REB, so it seems people are willing to pay more for NEB to get it into production sooner.

My preference is for the NEB, however I would like to have both.

Can someone from Logos adjudicate on this?

Why is the cost of NEB higher than REB?

Does it take more people to get the REB into production than NEB?

The NEB is more popular on Logos than REB! True or False?

P ABig Smile

Posts 11934
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 31 2012 11:29 AM

P A:

Can someone from Logos adjudicate on this? Why is the cost of NEB higher than REB?

I think Logos never discloses details about product prices. But NEB has simply more pages than REB (for whatever reason) and this may be a strong factor. Also, prices often are made by publishers who maybe want to retain a certain price level accross their media offerings etc.  

Running Logos 9 latest (beta) version on Win 10

Page 1 of 2 (31 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS