MetaCatholic

Michael Bird posts news of another English Bible translation. The immediate comments on his blog are like yeah, this is what we really really need, not! (And no, that’s not the sort of English it will be written in.) I must confess that this was also my initial reaction. However, I am encouraged by two things:

• The first is that this translation will include the Apocrypha. That sets it apart from many of those on the market.
• Secondly, is this comment “The theological influences and expertise for the new translation are drawn from ecumenical biblical scholarship (Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish).” Again that distinguishes it from many of the most recent.

Equally, I have a big question mark to place against it. The blurb also says:

A new translation must attend to evocative language that is more engaging emotionally than precise, systematic syntax.

I am pleased that they will look for evocative language, though unsure how well this will engage their aim of an 8th grade reading level (though I may misunderstand the US grade system). But I’m a bit worried about the idea that you can’t be evocative with precise syntax. This sounds like a very imprecise (and possibly diplomatic) way of referring to the tired dispute over dynamic and formal equivalence. It is however expressed with such a lack of clarity that it must in itself raise questions about the project.

Michel notes that he is translating 1 Esdras. I am sure the exegesis and understanding will be really top quality. I’m just hoping the translation will be English and not Strine.

Oh, and Michael, speaking of English — I was irresistibly amused by your comment in another (helpful and interesting post) that “the coming of Christ compliments rather than replaces the Torah”. I can’t immediately find an obvious compliment Jesus pays to Torah. “I say, what a lovely law you are.” No, I think you mean “complement”. A certain amount of precision in English seems to me a rather helpful attribute in a translator.