PDA

View Full Version : NEB and REB



Yaku Lee
09-18-2009, 09:11 PM
I would like it very much that BibleWorks add New English Bible (1970) and its Revised English Bible (1989) to the roster of English Bible Versions. After all, BDAG compares REB with NRSV, for instance, for the entry of Καναναῖος, and that whets my curiosity to know more about NEB and REB, which came at long last after KJV and ERV.

What do you think?

Thank you.

Regards

ISalzman
09-18-2009, 09:38 PM
I would like it very much that BibleWorks add New English Bible (1970) and its Revised English Bible (1989) to the roster of English Bible Versions. After all, BDAG compares REB with NRSV, for instance, for the entry of Καναναῖος, and that whets my curiosity to know more about NEB and REB, which came at long last after KJV and ERV.

What do you think?

Thank you.

Regards

Hi Yaku. Not a bad suggestion. I'd be interested to know what kind of a following and what kind of a readership base either of those translations have generated. I don't know how many people actually read them today. What has made a lot of news in this country of late has been the recent announcement that the TNIV (Today's New International Version) is being discontinued. They were a little too gender neutral.

Soxfan23
09-19-2009, 01:35 AM
I think with the NIV 2011 we will essentially see the TNIV with minor changes. This is basically just their way to try and appease the conservative complementarian's wrath about being "gender neutral." I have actually found it to be a very good translation and is in the top 2 I normally use (the other being the NRSV).

With the way the English language is heading, the "gender neutral" debates will be absolutely laughable to our children and grandchildren in 20 years time. The main people who cry against it (mainly ESV people) basically do so because they think gender neutrality is a result of the "feminist agenda." I don't know much about this agenda, but it's just the way I talk, and in translation we should strive to be theologically right, culturally relevant, and missionally redemptive. The way to do this isn't to preserve every "he" and "him" in the text, but to communicate to readers that the Bible is speaking to both genders in these cases, and the best way to communicate this is through gender neutrality. What I find funny is that there are many conservative, reformed complementarians who helped translate the TNIV and completely agree with its philosophy (D.A. Carson, Doug Moo, et al). That's just ironic to me

I like the BW philosophy of having as many translations of the Bible as they can in their package. As important as some of those older versions are, I think their main intent should be to include as many contemporary versions as possible. They have done this so far, so I hope it continues. About the only version not available that I would like to see is the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). This would be VERY helpful for OT studies and the use of the OT in the NT.

ISalzman
09-19-2009, 07:48 AM
About the only version not available that I would like to see is the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). This would be VERY helpful for OT studies and the use of the OT in the NT.

I hadn't heard of the NETS. Is that done by the same people who did the NET Bible?

Michael Hanel
09-19-2009, 01:15 PM
I hadn't heard of the NETS. Is that done by the same people who did the NET Bible?

No, NETS = New English Translation of the Septuagint (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/). You can Google for it to see reviews or the like.

BibleWorks overarching philosophy with adding Bible versions is that they don't believe in charging customers for the Bible versions, so they absorb the costs of royalties elsewhere. So when it comes to adding more Bible versions, if there are public domain or free-use texts that are easily formatted, they have no problem adding them, but when it comes to modern versions, they work with publishers to make arrangements. If the publishers costs are more than BibleWorks feels it can absorb, they can't make the deal.

The problem is that not all texts cost the same and not all texts have the same "perceived" value. For instance, I'm pretty sure I've heard from others that the NIV royalties are pretty high, but no Bible software program really wants to put together a program without including the NIV, so they pay that fee anyway. But if there is a rather obscure version with the same high fee, chances are it would get dropped because the company would be paying a high price for not much return.

((This is at least my knowledge of how I've heard it explained over the years, I certainly don't propose to be giving an official position here. For a more official response, see this link (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3922).))

That said, for the NEB and REB, I don't know enough about them to either determine their worth to me personally and I certainly don't know whether their copyright holders would be willing to work out a deal with BibleWorks in terms which are fair to both sides.

Adamsen
09-19-2009, 01:43 PM
No, NETS = New English Translation of the Septuagint (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/).

I do hope that they will be able to include NETS. This is a very important English-language translation. I would also wish that the Septuaginta Deutsch would be included. Both are scholarly translations.

If not, then at least as add-on modules!

Just my 2 cents or so.

ISalzman
09-19-2009, 08:42 PM
No, NETS = New English Translation of the Septuagint (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/). You can Google for it to see reviews or the like.

BibleWorks overarching philosophy with adding Bible versions is that they don't believe in charging customers for the Bible versions, so they absorb the costs of royalties elsewhere. So when it comes to adding more Bible versions, if there are public domain or free-use texts that are easily formatted, they have no problem adding them, but when it comes to modern versions, they work with publishers to make arrangements. If the publishers costs are more than BibleWorks feels it can absorb, they can't make the deal.

The problem is that not all texts cost the same and not all texts have the same "perceived" value. For instance, I'm pretty sure I've heard from others that the NIV royalties are pretty high, but no Bible software program really wants to put together a program without including the NIV, so they pay that fee anyway. But if there is a rather obscure version with the same high fee, chances are it would get dropped because the company would be paying a high price for not much return.

((This is at least my knowledge of how I've heard it explained over the years, I certainly don't propose to be giving an official position here. For a more official response, see this link (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3922).))

That said, for the NEB and REB, I don't know enough about them to either determine their worth to me personally and I certainly don't know whether their copyright holders would be willing to work out a deal with BibleWorks in terms which are fair to both sides.

Thanks for the heads up about the NETS. I just thought, by virtue of the acronym, that it might be done by the same people who did the NET Bible, but, after going to the link you sent me, I was obviously incorrect in my speculation. By the way, you can actually view the NETS online. In the little that I saw, I was somewhat unimpressed. They rendered Genesis 1:2c with "A Divine wind was blowing over the surface of the deep." I assume this translation is the product of a liberal bent.

Vis-a-vis the NEB and REB, I've not actually used them myself. They don't give the impression that they are popular translations. Nevertheless, if they don't come with the heavy fees you talked about, it might not be a bad idea for BW to add them in the future. I was being more conciliatory to Yaku, the original author of this thread. He indicated that he'd like to see those translations included in BW.

Today is the first day of the year on the Babylonian Calendar.

Adelphos
09-19-2009, 09:01 PM
Today is the first day of the year on the Babylonian Calendar.

It's also Shana Tova!

ISalzman
09-19-2009, 09:14 PM
It's also Shana Tova!

Yes, you're absolutely correct. That definitely resonates with me. Thanks! And a happy new year to you too. I didn't sing 'Auld Lang Syne' though.

Jim Wert
09-20-2009, 03:36 PM
A New English Translation of the Septaguint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright is the one addition to BibleWorks that I would be most ready to pay a premium for.
In addition to the translations and footnotes, I have found the introductions to be both extensive and sometimes helpful.
Where there are major alternative traditions (as in Tobit) they present both in parallel columns.

It is available free in PDF online. I have downloaded it (book by book) and it is the most used feature of my ERMIE (BW External Resources Manager). Adobe search for words works, but copying is disabled. (I had to type rather than copy the rather extended title)

I think the NETS website says it is available through that MAC Bible Sudy application which must not be named. Perhaps that is one reason it is not available through BibleWorks.

--Jim

Jim Wert
09-20-2009, 04:22 PM
The New Testament of the NEB came out in 1961. Language usage is British rather than USA. It was sponsored by a wide range of British denominations. The OT & Apocrypha came out in 1970.
It is my impression that the translators deliberately tried to stay out of the KJV tradition that RSV & NRSV deliberately stayed in. They have been faulted for being too free, for making choices based on faulty assumptions, etc.
I personally find it helpful; its use of unexpected language helps little light bulbs to light up.

The REB, the revision of the NEB, came out in 1989 full grown, with NT, OT and Apocrypha. Some denominations were added to the list of sponsors, some dropped off. The translators spin some elegant phrases. Its usage again is British English, and the vocabulary can be unexpected. Example: spindrift.
My regret with this revision is that the revisors became much more cautious, so consulting it is less likely to provoke new insights.

I see value in including both of these in Bibleworks.
But there are a bunch of others that have been as valuable or more valuable to me that I would also like to see.

--Jim

Soxfan23
09-20-2009, 05:32 PM
I think the NETS website says it is available through that MAC Bible Sudy application which must not be named. Perhaps that is one reason it is not available through BibleWorks.

Yeah, Accordance has it available for a $40 purchase. $40 for an electronic version is appalling, so if that's the best BW can do, I say don't offer it. Of course, Accordance has a history of inflating their prices. However, I don't see it being available on Accordance as the reason it's not available on BW. Publishers would be insane to only offer their product electronically on one Bible software platform and it makes no logical sense to me why they would do something like that. Bibleworks has probably tried to get it, but the reason they haven't isn't because it's on Accordance, but rather because the NETS people want to much money for it. Since it's a translation of the Bible, BW won't offer it unless they can include it in their base package. If they want a $40 royalty for that, then I would tell them to jump in a lake too.

Michael Hanel
09-20-2009, 05:52 PM
Yeah, Accordance has it available for a $40 purchase. $40 for an electronic version is appalling, so if that's the best BW can do, I say don't offer it. Of course, Accordance has a history of inflating their prices. However, I don't see it being available on Accordance as the reason it's not available on BW. Publishers would be insane to only offer their product electronically on one Bible software platform and it makes no logical sense to me why they would do something like that. Bibleworks has probably tried to get it, but the reason they haven't isn't because it's on Accordance, but rather because the NETS people want to much money for it. Since it's a translation of the Bible, BW won't offer it unless they can include it in their base package. If they want a $40 royalty for that, then I would tell them to jump in a lake too.

It's mostly speculation on our part since we're not involved in the nitty-gritty business aspect of it. But I think it's pretty clear that no publishing company has figured out how to deal with electronic media. So some companies are fairly closed with their resources, they might not get into the electronic medium at all; others might reserve most of their materials for themselves and develop a software engine to go around it (Pradis?); still others might choose to offer it to only one e-publishing firm in order not to compete against itself. Who knows what they're all thinking. They want to get the most bang for their buck and no one knows where this market is going. The thing that bothers me the most about electronic business, is (1) things change so much -- 5 years ago AOL was an internet giant, now it's almost a has-been. (2) with electronic media, you never really "own" the stuff, you own licenses to access or use the materials. For instance, if the NIV goes out of print, Zondervan stops printing books of it. Electronically, they could also tell BibleWorks that they could no longer include it in the program. Now if I own the book, I don't care if Zondervan no longer prints it, I own the book and nothing can change that. But if all I "own" is an electronic version and they tell BibleWorks to remove it per their own license agreement, BibleWorks has to comply and I lose my version (yes I know there are ways around this, but "technically" those ways are illegal).

Regardless, I still think electronic media is the future (you can't fight the market), but it doesn't mean I'm happy with all aspects of what it means.

dmiller
09-24-2009, 11:11 PM
I second (or third) Yaku's request for the NEB and REB to be included. Commentators refer to them frequently enough to demonstrate their value.