hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (10/01/89)
This is a mini-review of the Revised English Bible. I've tried to provide enough information that people who disagree with me on basic issues will still find this information useful. In particular, it seems likely that people who are more conservative than I am will have more serious objections to the REB than I do. The REB is the successor to the New English Bible. Like the NEB, it is a product of the U.K., produced by a group of scholars under the direction of a committee with representatives of the major denominations in the U.K. The list of churches is similar to that involved with the NEB, though a few more joined (e.g. Salvation Army). Also, the Catholics are now full members, rather than observers. There is some overlap in the scholars with those who did the NEB, but in general this is the next generation of scholars. As with the NEB, the goal is a translation that is accurate and reads well in English. It is somewhere between the translations that generally preserve the structure of the original language (e.g. RSV and NIV), and those that frankly make no attempt to do so (e.g. TEV). The original NEB was much more openly of the second class, which is normally called "dynamic equivalence". The REB has backed off this slightly. It is now much closer to the NIV in philosphy, though there is still slightly more tendency to use different structure where it will clarify the meaning. I've just spent some time comparing the REB with NJB (New Jerusalem Bible, the second edition of the JB), NIV, and TEV (Good News Bible). The REB, NJB, and NIV are in many ways very similar. They are all modern translations that do not try to be completely word for word, but try to stick to original structures where possible. All use modern scholarship. But I do see differences in style. I looked for a sample passage that would show the characteristics of each, but I don't quite find it. It's an impression from comparing a number of passages. Let's start with the NIV. It is the most "traditional" of these translations, mostly because it sticks closest to the original wording. Interestingly enough, in style it is closest to the TEV. Of course the great difference in basic goals makes the NIV and TEV rather different in actual wording. Like the TEV, NIV tends to use wording that is simple and direct. This may be a difference between American and British writing, since NJB and REB are both British. NJB, REB, and TEV all try to be more "readable". This involves using connecting words or phrases, such as "therefore" or "for this reason" carefully, to make connections of passages clear. It can also involve some changes in sentence structure. NIV already tries to deal with connecting words. E.g. consider Mark 1:33-40. In RSV it has an "and" at the beginning of every sentence. NIV manages to avoid this. But there are places where slight wording changes can make connections and implications a bit clearer. E.g. Is 43:1 says in NIV (and similarly in RSV and NJPS) "But now, this is what the LORD says -- he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel". REB rearranges the structure slightly: "But now, Jacob, this is the word of the LORD, the word of your Creator, of him who fashioned you, Israel". This is typical of changes introduced to improve the "flow" of the text. (In fact this change is more radical than most.) In this passage TEV goes even further: "Israel, the LORD who created you says," eliminating the parallelism entirely. Again, this is a somewhat extreme example of the way TEV operates. They do leave in much of the parallel repetition of Heb. poetry, but at times they feel it has gone too far to be reasonable in English. The goal of TEV is always to get across the meaning as clearly as possible, if necessary compromising the literary form. REB and NJB are probably the most similar, in that both are slightly freer than NIV, but unlike the TEV, attempt to reproduce the literary form of the original. In general I'd say that NJB tends to use more common words, and sometimes to be slightly wordier. REB tends to be more "literary", and to have a slightly more "elevated" style. It also tends to be more concise. You'll find familiar phrases in REB that have been changed in many modern translations: "my brother's keeper". (What's a keeper? This word is not used in current English. NJB says "guardian".) You'll also see things like "set his face against", i.e. phrases that are not idiomatic English. My impression is that the REB does a slightly better job than NJB in making sense of complex passages. However it's a close call. Mostly they are trying to do similar things, but have a slightly different style. There is a history of Bible translations defining language patterns for whole generations. This was true of the KJV and in German of Luther's translation. REB will never do this for English. Probably the Bible isn't read enough these days for it to happen at all. But if it did, TEV would be a very fine model. It is among the finest examples of clear, straightforward English you'll ever find. Its influence has greatly improved my technical writing. The REB and NJB have similarities other than their approach to translation. Both of them use what I call "aggressive" scholarship. Both NIV and TEV use the results of modern textual scholarship. Indeed their willingness to do so has gotten the NIV in trouble in this group more than once. However the REB is more aggressive about it, in a sense which I hope will become clear shortly. In the passages I checked in Job the REB seems to abandon the Hebrew for the Septuagint or resort to conjectural emendation (guesses) more than any other translation except JB. It's hard for me to evaluate it, since I don't know Heb. or Heb. textual criticism. But I do know that JB was sometimes criticized for going a bit too far, and REB seems to go at least as far. Just to give you an idea of the policies followed by different translations: NJPS sticks with the Masoretic Heb. text almost all the time. I have seen them use the Greek and conjectural emendation, but it is *very* rare. This is by design. The translation is titled "The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text". NIV and TEV seem to use textual criticism about the same amount, i.e. a bit more than NJPS, but not nearly as often as REB. RSV uses it a good deal. The sections I checked seemed to be a bit less than REB, but one would need to make a careful count to be sure. Another aspect of "aggressive scholarship" is moving passages around. There are a few places where there is fairly wide agreement that the text has somewhat gotten out of order. E.g. Is 38:21-22 probably belongs after Is 38:6. The TEV puts it there. This is the only place I know of where TEV reorders the text, though it's possible that there are one or two others. NIV does not reorder it here, so probably they don't anywhere. NEB and JB were known for being far more aggressive. REB has followed this tradition. I count 15 changes in order in Job. However Job is an extreme case, so don't consider this typical. In the passages I checked in the NT, REB seems to be a reasonably straightforward translation. It is not as free as TEV, but more so than RSV. Just out of curiosity I looked up I Cor 7:1, which was mentioned a couple of days ago. It translates: "Now for the matters you wrote about. You say, 'It is a good thing for a man not to have intercourse with a woman.'" None of my other translations show this as a quotation, nor use "have intercourse". Again, this is consistent with the general tendency to use "aggressive scholarship". It is fairly common for commentators to see the second half of 7:1 as a quotation from the letter to which Paul is replying. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's a respectable theory. Generally commentators agree that "touch" doesn't bring out the full implications of the Greek word. "have intercourse" is probably more accurate than the more common "touch". So in general this is a clear translation of one reasonable understanding of the text. The underlying Greek uses several words that with multiple meanings. If this is really what Paul meant, it should be translated this way. I'm just not sure it is. The REB tries to avoid expressions that prefer the male gender. They haven't gone to extremes. God is still "he". And "he" is still used for generic human references where necessary. But "men" is often translated "human beings" or "mortals". This isn't necessarily a criticism. "human beings" is in fact what the original meant in many passages. Unfortunately, putting "human beings" whereever the original had "men" would sometimes result in clumsy wording. This is presumably why they use "mortals" sometimes. I'm less enthusiastic about "mortals", because it emphasizes a specific aspect of being human that I'm not sure is always intended to be emphasized. It also applies to non-human but mortal species, whereas the original applied specifically to humans. Of course it may be that the only one of our readers who is directly affected by this distinction is Brandy. But I think "mortals" has slightly different theological implications than "men". It makes me think in terms of Greek mythology, where we have mortals and gods, rather than in terms of Hebrew thought, where being human means we are the descendants of Adam. I would very much like to like this translation. Currently I use several. Most of my reading is from the TEV. I have yet to find a case where their rather free style gets the meaning wrong, and many in which it clarifies things. However for more detailed study, it's clear that something more literal is needed. I'd like to find a single translation that can play both roles. REB (and NJB) could do so, in principle. However I have to say that I still trust the scholarship behind the TEV and NIV more. I also prefer the style of the TEV. However I have to admit that by and large REB manages to be about as readable as TEV, and it does so while sticking fairly close to the structure of the original. So it may be that over time I will warm to the REB. There are some practical considerations that discourage my adopting the REB at the moment as well. One is that the only edition that is currently available (at least in the U.S.) is rather "spartan". That is, it is just the text. It has footnotes only for textual issues, i.e. to indicate where there are alternative readings, where they have departed from the Masoretic text, etc. I am used to Bibles that contain crossreferences to related passages. I've also become spoiled by the TEV's section headings and index. REB has some section headings, but not enough to help you find a specific parable, etc. I'm sure this will change over time. The Catholic Church sponsored this translation. So surely there will be an edition that carries an imprimatur. This requires notes. I would guess that there will be an Oxford annotated edition, as there is for NEB and RSV. (However the annotated NEB still doesn't have crossreferences.) The other practical consideration is size. The current edition has slightly smaller print than I would prefer. It's very clear, and I have no actual problem reading it. But I'd be more comfortable with something larger. If my attempt is typical, you may find the REB hard to get in the U.S. The local Christian book stores seem not to have heard of it yet. I ended up having my local bookstore order it. They spent an hour on the phone getting the necessary information, because they couldn't find it in any of their catalogs. Apparently it just became available in the U.S. a couple of weeks ago. If you are interested, you will probably find it very useful to have the ISBN: 0-19-529408-4 (Oxford) or 0-521-15137-6 (Cambridge). It's a joint product of Oxford and Cambridge, so the two ISBN's represent the exact same book. This is the hardcover edition with Apocrypha. There is also one without Apocrypha, but I don't have the ISBN. (Given this ISBN they should have little trouble finding the other.) A leather edition will be out in a month or so. If you're in the East, your bookstore may find it useful to know that it seems to be handled by Ingram but not Baker and Taylor. Actually you may not need the ISBN if you just know the title it is listed by. In one listing it was shown as "Bible: REB". The bookstore folks didn't recognize that this matched my request for "the Revised English Bible".