Talk:Revised English Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This review was misleading, and probably a violation of NPV. It mentioned primarily the gender neutral language, using loaded language like "political correctness". In fact gender neutral language is not the major change from the NEB, nor does the REB go as far as others in gender neutrality. In fact most of the changes from the NEB were to remove some of the NEB's more idiosynractic translations, and thus push it closer to NRSV, NIV, etc. I'm not a Bible scholar myself, but online reviews from those who are seem generally positive.

I have tried to provide a more balanced review, while leaving as much of the original language as possible, including the criticisms. I'm actually not sure where the comment about flat language came from. There were a couple of comments like that about the NEB when it first came out, but most comments I've seen about the style of the REB have been positive.

This is still far from a complete review, but at least it's more in tune with the usual Wikipedia approach.

I'd be curious where the 31% deviation from the NA text comes from. Given that most of the text of the NT is uncontroversial, a 31% deviation is pretty serious. The review in Novum Testamentum certainly indicated that they didn't always follow the NA judgements, but nothing that extreme. I wonder if the 31% refers just to passages on which there is serious disagreement. Even there, it seems like a high number. I also wonder about the 22% paraphrase rate. The detailed reviews I looked at suggested that it was phrase by phrase. That's not the same thing as paraphrase. I'm reluctant to touch those numbers, since I have no basis for making a judgement, but I'm very suspicious.

Hedrick 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)