Another View of the New English Bible

View PDF

Under an apparently cavalier assumption that form and substance do not go well together, Karl Keller has heaped undeserved praise on the New English Bible. In so doing, his mood seems similar to that of those who have insisted all along that profundity is the necessary equivalent of obscurity, that East and West are forever twain, or who have held any other of a host of demonstrably false “common sense” notions. 

As one who has had decreasing use for the KJV in recent years — owing to the inevitable inaccuracies produced in a 17th century translation — I would hardly recommend the NEB as a substitute; for 10 do so would be not merely to recommend a wildly dynamic version over a more literal one, but really to recommend the wool of a goat over that of a sheep! It is certainly not enough to advise everyone who might desire to know at first hand of the fine library form and concomitant (if unfamiliar) substantive qualities of ancient works to study the ancient texts, but it is entirely appropriate to note that there are several good translations available to laymen. 

The lover of the Bible as literature will find great satisfaction in the available volumes of the partially completed Anchor Bible series (Doubleday, 1964- ). The series consists of translation-commentaries by the foremost Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish scholars, and is, thus far, a remarkably beau tiful literary achievement — whether one examines the first volume to appear (Genesis by E. Speiser), or the latest (Psalms, 3 vols., M. Dahood). Job, treat ed by M. H. Pope (1965), is particularly well done and deserves far more than the selective and shoddy plagiarism of the NEB. Moreover, Pope’s notes are indispensible and throw the difficult passage of 19:25 into correct perspective (pp. 134-5, 219) by defining the “vindicator” as a non-human mediator who (like a Sumerian personal god acting as an “advocate and defender in the assembly of the gods”) is closely associated with the concept of “vicarious expiation” (cf. Isaiah 53). Several books of the New Testament are available in the series. However, in lieu of the rest, and perhaps as much because he achieves singly what the NEB translators could not do in committee, I would recommend use of the J. B. Phillips modern English translation. For example, I much prefer his rendition of James 2:26 to that of the prolix NEB: 

Phillips	NEB
Yes, faith without action is dead as a body without a soul.	As the body is dead when there is no breath left in it, so faith divorced from deeds is lifeless as a corpse.

So too for his translation of I Corinthians 15:29 against the unclear KJV: 

Phillips	KJV
. . . [I]f there is to be no resurrection what is the point of some of you being baptized for the dad by proxy? Why should you be baptized for dead bodies?	Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?

Phillips evidently found that accuracy and esthetics go well together. There are other points, however, upon which we might like to haggle with Phillips, and no translation should be accepted without reference to the latest critical literature and biblical dictionaries. Laymen must not consider themselves exempt from this requirement, and even the most poverty-stricken local libraries usually have important material available. Finally, we must observe that Mormon doctrine makes it imperative that, following careful study, we seek the true meaning of the scriptures in prayer (Mat. 16:17, I Cor. 2:11, II Pet. 1:20-1). Such an approach might be useful in evaluating the chiastic parallel structure of the final bicolon in Isaiah 2:3 (=11 Nephi 12:3) : “For out of Zion shall go forth the doctrine, And the Word of Yahweh from Jerusalem.” 

Keller might certainly have approached it more gingerly. The presence of parallelism (exhibited in 80% of Isaiah) most emphatically does not indi cate synonymity. Such an assumption tells us more about the interpreter and his epistemology than about the text. Parallels may be synonymous, complementary, antithetic, heteronymous, or homonymous. I constantly find examples of each in my reading of Hebrew and Egyptian texts. Clearly, neither swords and spears, nor plowshares and pruninghooks are synonymous pairs (Isa. 2:4 = II Ne. 12:4). This applies as well to “cedars of Lebanon”// “oaks of Bashan” (Isa. 2:13 = II Ne. 12:13), and to a host of other comple mentary parallels, many of which are attested as standard literary form in the much earlier Ugaritic texts. Thus, in Ezekiel 27:6-7 we find the known Ugaritic pair “Cyprus” (Kittim) and “Egypt.” 

It may well be that Keller is correct in seeing a synonym in “Zion”// “Jerusalem.” If so, we still have to decide whether this has to do with western Missouri (D&C 45:65-71, 85:2-3), or the Old World referent. If, on the other hand, the parallel is non-synonymous, the standard interpretation may be correct, i.e. that Zion is Mormon (Ephraimite) and that Jerusalem is Jewish (Judahite). For the two truly present the essence of a parallel familiar to Isaiah (5:7 = II Ne. 15:7) : “house of Israel” (northern kingdom)//”men of Judah” (southern kingdom). 

Any attempt to display biblical verse in proper form is to be applauded (the Books of Mormon, Moses, and Abraham could certainly be so rendered with great profit), but the lack of substance-accuracy (dynamic or literal) can make it empty and misleading. One wonders how Keller might feel about an NEB-type treatment of the Homeric epics. As Rasmussen and Anderson correctly point out, the NEB leaves a good deal to be desired — quite apart from its laudable intentions.