What would it take to translate a liturgical Bible for the 21st century?

I think a general perception here is that the KJV is one of the best translations of the Scriptures there is. I certainly agree. However, I do think it isn't the best idea to use a 400-year-old translation forever. What do you guys think, then, would have to go into translating and making a liturgical Bible for the 21st century?

 

I need two Bibles , the Douay Rhemes version for an early translation and the Jerusalem Bible for modern translation

 

This is another area where we need not reinvent the wheel. There are some good publications in the host of modern language translations. My Abp. will authorize, if asked, use of the NKJV or ESV (I lobbied for the RSVCE and he shot it down). I would like a translation for our churches to be: based on the Majority Greek Text and preferably the LXX, feature all 73 books of the Western pre-Reformation canon, and to generally prefer an approach of formal equivalence in translation - there is no such version currently.

There are a couple of interesting projects in the works. A cross-synodal committee of Lutherans is working on a new translation for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. It will be interesting to see what they produce (the WELS had looked into a translation project a few years back, determined there were several prohibitive factors, and opted to endorse the NIV2011). Also, the Orthodox are producing a complete Orthodox Bible. When they put out their now standard Orthodox Study Bible a few years ago they made a fresh translation of the OT from the LXX but they opted to publish with the NKJV as the NT. Now, they are working on a proprietary translation of the patriarchal text of the Greek church. That will probably be the best option when it is finished.

But I could live with giving the ESV a consensus endorsement. It has caught on among conservatives of many denominations and a few of them have more or less accepted it as a denomination-wide Bible (most prominently the LCMS, who published their latest service book with ESV quotations and are now using it almost exclusively for curricula offered through their Concordia Publishing House).

 

Quite possible the default translation used in Anglican Churches these days is the NRSV, followed by the ESV. There is no question that any translation needs to be of the whole canon - including the deutero canonical texts. To work for Anglicans it needs to be:

• academically sound
• linguistically accessible
• sufficiently formal to serve the needs of the liturgy
• acceptable to other Christian Traditions esp Rome, OCC, EOC, Lutherans

We have a strong historic tradition for the provision of the whole bible in the vulgar tongue since the time of Henry VIII. The KJV 1611 included the whole canon, and was certainly not the first vernacular English Bible, and it's longevity is testament to the four points above. The KJV if we are being honest is no longer the best translation as we have access to better original manuscripts and the English we speak is now somewhat different. There are a number of modern translations where either the scholarship is a bit short, or the style of language is less liturgically helpful.

I think most of the Anglican Church in Australia has used the NRSV for about 25 years, and it seems to make a reasonable fist of it. I have a few friends who now a big advocates for the ESV and there are a number of resources which can help there.

 

I'm certainly a fan of the NRSV, and it's my main Bible for study and the like. Still, it lacks the beauty of the KJV; Romans 9:21 is a good example. In the KJV, it makes its point both in clarity and aesthetic sound. In the NRSV, it is certainly clear but reads like an IKEA instruction manual.

 

Harsh or you have better IKEA manuals in your part of the world.

CHRIST IS RISEN! ALLELUIA!

 

Ideally, the new translation would be faithful to the received text and septuagint and would clearly identify which words or phrases were added to the original texts for readability, as in the KJV with its use of italics. Also, as in the KJV, it would include the Apocrypha. And lastly, as in the KJV, it would be in the public domain.

 

Romans 9:21

New Revised Standard Version
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?

New International Version
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

New Living Translation
When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn't he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?

English Standard Version
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

Berean Study Bible
Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?

Berean Literal Bible
Or does the potter not have authority over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel unto honor, but one unto dishonor?

New American Standard Bible
Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

King James Bible
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Or has the potter no right over the clay, to make from the same lump one piece of pottery for honor and another for dishonor?

International Standard Version
A potter has the right to do what he wants to with his clay, doesn't he? He can make something for a special occasion or something for ordinary use from the same lump of clay.

NET Bible
Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?

New Heart English Bible
Or hasn't the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel for honor, and another for dishonor?

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Or is not a potter authorized over the clay to make some formed things from it, one vessel for honor and one for dishonor?

GOD'S WORD® Translation
A potter has the right to do whatever he wants with his clay. He can make something for a special occasion or something for everyday use from the same lump of clay.

New American Standard 1977
Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?

Jubilee Bible 2000
Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?

King James 2000 Bible
Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

American King James Version
Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honor, and another to dishonor?

American Standard Version
Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

Douay-Rheims Bible
Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Darby Bible Translation
Or has not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour?

English Revised Version
Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Webster's Bible Translation
Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel to honor, and another to dishonor?

Weymouth New Testament
Or has not the potter rightful power over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for more honourable and another for less honourable uses?

World English Bible
Or hasn't the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel for honor, and another for dishonor?

Young's Literal Translation
hath not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make the one vessel to honour, and the one to dishonour?

Koine Greek Interlinear

Without wishing to be difficult I don't get the argument that the KJV renders the text with more clarity, I suspect that many have wrestled with how to render it, and I don;t think it can come down to a verse.

 

I don't mean to say it is more clear in a linguistic sense, only to say that it is more poetic. I don't use the KJV daily for good reasons, but in the KJV that verse is particularly poetic while in many other translations (certainly not all), it just isn't. If a Bible is to be used liturgically, then it should sound like literature that moves the soul. The NRSV, which the TEC uses, doesn't always do it on the level that it could.

 

You clearly realise that I take the point you raise. One of the realities of the KJV is that has had a tendency to be pervasive, and seems often to provide the fallback for translators who don't wish to be criticised too much. It could equally say vessels for the bowls for the table and bowls to hide from view. or bowls of great and little use. Everything is going to amount to come compromise, and the beauty of the language has to be the handmaid of the meaning.

 

The trouble with the KJV is not the language or style, but the manuscript base.

 

Then what was the point of all the renderings of one verse?

 

The manuscript base? What's wrong with it?

 

If you want the KJV in modern language, you could do worse than the RSV (better than the NRSV). Both take the approach of translating what the words actually say rather than giving you the general sense of it, and are also in the more formal style that seems appropriate for the Word of God.