I'm not optimistic. My dislike for the NAB is well known to those who know me. I blogged about it here. I realize that any scholar can - and will - defend any translation choice. I know all it takes is one small, obscure rendering in a single manuscript, or even the idea that there could be such a reading of another language's words, to justify any translation. But half the time, when I read commentaries in our bulletins or other published materials, it seems as if the writer has to say something like 'the NAB doesn't really...', or 'unlike the NAB's translation...' If you have to say that too often, it doesn't work.
Plus, as I've said, it just reads bulky. It doesn't flow. It's comparing rap music to Mozart when you take some of the NAB's translations compared to others. It isn't, to say it any other way, a beautiful translation. Just like Nicholas Cage says in American Treasure: People don't talk like that anymore (meaning the Declaration of Independence). No they don't. And that's a shame. But remembering that language is the tool with which we speak about the Divine, once in a while it should sound like people used to talk. And it should remind people that far from a burdensome mechanic with which we convey our thoughts, language should be at times pleasing to the eye and ear, especially when conveying truths about the most beautiful truth out there.
So we'll see, but again, not expecting much, and likely will still prefer the RSV and its siblings.
we will wait and see. I am not too optomistic either. It is rather bulky and I just prefer a more traditional language. I grew up using the KJV and that went too far for me, but I still understood it most of the time. So I will wait and see, but my opinion is not too hopeful.
ReplyDeleteDS
I can understand your concerns about the NAB. No translation can accurately convey everything from a different language, much less one from such a distance culture. But remember, the NAB uses its texts in more liturgical settings, where ease of pronunciation is important. In many Protestant churches, that is most likely not the case. In the Catholic Church, I think I'm right to say the usage of Scripture may dictate different considerations when it comes to choosing the proper translation.
ReplyDelete-BenHeard
I understand that, though whether it is easier or not is a matter of opinion. My beef with much of the NAB and other Catholic published materials is that it does cater to very modern, progressive sensitivities. I'm fine with 'brothers and sisters' when the term 'brother' obviously meant both. But there are times when some translations under the boot of feminist, or other, sensitivities simply alter a word and hence the meaning. I may post on it more, but from the missalette we sang Good Christian Friends Rejoice. It took me a minute, and I asked my wife if that was right. She reminded me it's actually Good Christian Men Rejoice. The difference is there. It's subtle, but it's there. It does change, however so slightly, the meaning. As do many of the changes in the translation. And I realize the Church approaches Scripture differently, but it is somewhat bothersome that many of these changes are for no other reason to appease many of the forces who are otherwise quite hostile to the Church. How smart is that!
ReplyDelete