Bible Babble Revisited

Because the problem of ghastly contemporary Bible translations is a perennial interest of Touchstone readers, they should not miss Richard John Neuhaus's exasperated (and wryly amusing) posting at the First Things website about the New American Bible (NAB). As the other links that he provides will illustrate, this is a longstanding concern of Fr. Neuhaus's, and an entirely just one. "The NAB is a banal, linguistically inept, and misleading translation," Neuhaus asserts, bending over backwards to be charitable. "Why did the [American] bishops force it upon the Catholic people, demanding that it and it alone be used in the readings of the Mass?"

Why indeed. I have wondered the same thing. I am a Protestant, and so do not have regular contact with the NAB; but when I do encounter it, the experience comes as an unpleasant shock. For a number of years I have made it a practice to attend Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, which means that year after year, I get to hear how the NAB has mangled, for no reason that I can comprehend, some of the most magnificent and familiar language in all of Scripture. But let me allow Richard Neuhaus to tell the story (this is taken from a 2006 article, to which a link is provided in the above blog entry):

Everyone who has sung or listened to Handel’s “Messiah” knows the words: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6, KJV). Magnificent. Here, as of this week’s amended Missalette, is the New American Bible: “For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.” Try singing that. Whether under the rules of literal accuracy or of what, taking liberties, translators call “dynamic equivalence,” that is no more than a pedantic transliteration of the Hebrew. It is not a translation. It is a string of possible signifiers. It is not English.

How especially unfortunate that these particular words, on that particular occasion--the one moment of the year when all the pews are full, and when even the most jaded hearts present are open to the incomparable mystery and wonder of Christ's birth--so signally fail to express the moment's full majesty, but instead offer something that sounds like an anthropologist's earnest, literal-minded rendering of Stone Age deity names. Fortunately, there is more on offer than just that, and it is not enough in itself to empty the pews. But it all seems a remarkably unnecessary self-inflicted wound. One hopes that the complaints of Neuhaus and others will eventually be heard and acted upon. Until then....how many time-units, O Sky-Sovereign?

Comments

[Bobby Winters]

My pastor has used versions of the Lord's prayer in which "Father" was replaced with "Birther." Words fail me in any attempt to describe my emotional response.

[Patty in WA]

I have *loved* using Magnificat as my daily devotional, but I have found it better to read the texts from the RSV or ESV. One of my reasons is the last verse of Psalm 23 from NAB:

"I will dwell in the house of the LORD for years to come."

First, it loses the sense of God's eternity, that is, timelessness.
Second, it loses the poetry.

My dear husband wrote in my 50th birthday card (the most recent), based on my antipathy for this particular verse's transaltion, "Yours for years to come." I have yet to stop laughing at his humor.

This is a long and deep subject--the "modern" translation and its calamaties. My latest frustration is with the NIV's "translation" of Ecclesiastes: "vanity" is "meaningless". Ecclesiastes is enough to deal with in and of itself, and is probably not remotely understandable by those under 40 or those who have had a rough life. But to interpret life as "meaningless" is completely wrong--as judged by the context of Eccl itself. What a thing to read in the loneliness or depression of a night in a hotel room. I hope the Gideons stick to the KJV. While "vanity" may be hard to understand, at least it gives one pause--whereas "meaningless" is well and easily understood...even if it is wrong.

[Joe Long]

"Ecclesiastes is enough to deal with in and of itself, and is probably not remotely understandable by those under 40 or those who have had a rough life."

We had a great Sunday School series of Ecclesiates discussions, and I really think my lonely KJV among the modern translations added measurably - though meanings have sometimes been clarified in the "updated" ones, there's also fresh obscuration in other places - and no poetry at all. And that actually takes away one of the consolations in Ecclesiastes, in my mind: the proof that, in the midst of all of this "vanity", there can be beautiful poetic expression. Without the poetry, Ecclesiastes is just misery without the Blues.

(A tone of tension was set in the first session of our class by a lady's comment that the author of Ecclesiates "needed Prozac" - I'm afraid that even over-40 WITH rough life experiences doesn't guarantee any appreciation of the book...!)

[Judy Warner]

There are people, many of whom rise to positions of power, who think that newness itself is a great virtue. They delight in getting rid of traditions, which they see as standing in the way of newness. I'm not sure these people even think of newness as progress; they simply seem to need a constant injection of novelty to give their lives meaning.

However, the vast majority of the world's people are not like this, not even Americans, who have historically been friendlier to innovation than most other people. When we have grown up with something as an important part of their lives, we want it to stay the same unless there is some compelling reason to change it. When it is changed -- when "forever" is changed to "years to come" or "the mighty God" is changed to "God-Hero" we feel more than unhappy; we feel internally disrupted.

I think the people who do this want us to feel disrupted. These words are an important part of our culture. They have been passed down for generations and have helped form us. These people do not like our culture; they think we are complacent and backward for wanting to keep our familiar things, like our old-fashioned language and our old-fashioned morals. They will force change on us and delight in our squirming.

[Postman]

What is it that moves the religious professional class so inexorably toward contemporary language? At best, they claim the rubric of the vernacular (the bon mot here is "relevancy," or, as if Sts. Cyril and Methodios would be proud of them (I think not). More likely, however, they know what they are doing: the modern language movement is militant against all things hierarchical, traditional and sacramental. The best way to destroy the old regime is not by arms (which would be more manly), but by corrosion.

If this is the case, then what we have here is an ironic tragedy of Sadducee's crossed with Philistines -- resulting in a mutation that pretty much sums up the character of most of the denominational elites for the last 100 years.

[luthien]

"Ecclesiastes is enough to deal with in and of itself, and is probably not remotely understandable by those under 40 or those who have had a rough life."

I would beg to differ with that assertion; I'm 22 years under 40 and except for the past few months, which have been a roller coaster ride from h*ll, my life has been pretty easy, yet I at least remotely understand Ecclesiastes, and it's a verse from that very book that I've clung to in the worst moments of fear and doubt.

[Kirk]

It is difficult to perceive change from week to week or even year to year. However, when we evaluate the erosion that has occurred over the past half-century, comparing where we started to our present state, the differences are remarkable. What is it about the Baby Boomer generation that requires so much change?

[GL]

It is difficult to perceive change from week to week or even year to year. However, when we evaluate the erosion that has occurred over the past half-century, comparing where we started to our present state, the differences are remarkable. What is it about the Baby Boomer generation that requires so much change?

I remember growing up as a late baby boomer. We were all confident that our parents had messed up the world, but that we would fix it. Never mind that they and their parents had managed to survive the Great Depression and win World War II, we (the pampered and proud) were the greatest generation.

So, why so much change? Because we were going to fix the world. Forty years on, we can make a comparison -- it ain't pretty.

[luthien]

"What is it about the Baby Boomer generation that requires so much change?"
Human nature and original sin, perhaps?

[GL]

Patty,

I use the ESV as my primary translation, but I actually believe the recently released RSV-Second Catholic edition is better in most places where the differ.

For a good updating of the KJV, I recommend the Third Millennium Bible. I have not yet tried the Cambridge Paragraph updating the KJV to compare it with the TMB.

[Kirk]

"What is it about the Baby Boomer generation that requires so much change?"
Human nature and original sin, perhaps?

Did the last generation get an extra helping of human nature and original sin?

[Gene Godbold]

I've got friends and relatives in the RC, Orthodox, and Protestant limbs of the Body of Christ and I think that a particular elite, doing the Devil's business (whether conscious of it or not) are methodically trying to alienate the members from the Head. This is done by inculcating ignorance and spreading lies. The former is a passive process and the latter an active one. I think bad translations are a strategy that allows for both. It uses bad aesthetics to make people not *want* to experience the "Word" of God and it mistranslates the text to mislead them.

[bonobo]

Until then....how many time-units, O Sky-Sovereign?

Until a centon, and centons, and half a centon!

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

As long as the Gideons were mentioned in this thread, I will proffer one of my hobbyhorses, and everyone can tell me I'm nuts (not for the first time, BTW.) But if I were the head of the Gideons (whose title should be, were there any justice, Grand High Trumpet), I would get my members to start placing, not full KJV Bibles, but those New Testament-Psalms-Proverbs editions in any easily readable translation (we all have our favorites, but just not the KJV or, I guess, the NASB.) Why? Because people unfamiliar with any book pick a new one up and read it as they would a novel, starting with the first words of the first chapter. I would imagine that effort may continue with some pretty good stories in Genesis and Exodus, but it would die off pretty fast in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. If the Gideons want to introduce people to Christianity, give them a fighting chance to get through the New Testament, which is, after all, where it is to be found. They can catch up on the rest later. And give them something they don't have to be Elizabethan scholars to read, for Simon Peter's sake! (Whew, that feels better.)

[Kirk]

If the Gideons want to introduce people to Christianity, give them a fighting chance to get through the New Testament, which is, after all, where it is to be found.

Maybe what need is for a group of Orthodox Gideons to put an icon in each room. ;)

[luthien]

"Did the last generation get an extra helping of human nature and original sin?"
No, my point was that there's nothing new under the sun; some generations are inclined to be too fond of change, others to be too fearful of it. I think there' something about that in the Screwtape letters, each time period having its besetting sins. Baby boomers are nothing new in that regard, they just have the means to do a lot of damage fairly quickly.

[Philip]

I was just thinking yesterday, in Church before Mass, of the phrase, God-Hero, wondering whether it was accurate, hoping it was, as I was looking at an unremarkable stained window thinking about the strangeness of the second Person of the Trinity becoming a man, and the words of Ignatius (of Antioch), that he really was born of a virgin, really died, and really rose from the dead, as plain as any other man in history is recorded in history, and accepting the truth of the occurence, hoping God helps my non-acceptance.

Similarly, I am still a little amused that the same Pope who issued Humanae Vitae also established the novus ordo, as if he were turning on the apostles to say, are you also against me?

[labrialumn]

Should not the text of the best early documents determine the meaning chosen in translations, rather than the KJV?

Meaningless is actually a pretty good translation of the -Hebrew- of Ecclesiastes.

As was the translation concerning divorce and remarriage that so upset the Seminexer Neuhaus, when it closed an apparent (but non-existent) loophole for remarriage.

[Matt]

I've read that some Rabbis think their predecessors included Ecclesiastes essentially as a joke on Solomon (because it was traditionally written by him near the end of his life).

I have seen in my local library "the Bible set in the 20th century" or something like that. I didn't read it, but I think Genesis was written stream of consciousness.

I'm interested in a dual-language Latin-English version.

[Kamilla]

Sorry, I hope you'll excuse the foul mood, but since the Protestant/Evangelical/Charismatic culture in America has gone you know where in a handcart, I'm not sure why the translations shouldn't follow suit to reflect that madness. Fool that I am, I was flipping channels on the tv today and came across a diet guru on Daystar promoting yet another version of the blood-type diet.

After all, if we are promoting diets based in evolutionary theory or some newfangled application of OT dietary laws, why can't we have "Birthers" and meaningless vanities?

Harrummph,

Kamilla

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

"futility" is probably more understandable than "vanity", and certainly better than "meaningless". The teacher is not saying that pursuing all those things has no meaning, but that the pursuit is ultimately futile.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Meaningless is actually a pretty good translation of the -Hebrew- of Ecclesiastes.<<<

Except, of course, that the Hebrew Old Testament was not the Bible of the early Church. So the critical question, from an exegetical standpoint, is "What does the Greek LXX say?" Regarding whether the NAB is applicable to all Churches in the Catholic Communion, the fact that it relies on the "best" manuscripts of the Western text of the New Testament should immediately disqualify it from use in the Eastern Catholic Churches, whose Tradition relies upon the Textus Receptus both liturgically and theologically. Thus, when the NAB is used in the lectionary, readings that are supposed to reinfoce the propers of certain feasts are no longer congruent with them, causing unfortunate dichotomies (which is aside from the fact that the prose is utterly lame).

Unfortunately, within my own particular Church, the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Committee seems to have decided to resolve the problem by adopting within the Liturgy the wording of the NAB whenever Scripture is cited. They also seem to have adopted the same "spirit" of translation used by the writers (one can hardly call them "translators" without insulting those who really know how to do that job), the result of which is an abomination of desolation.

By the way, the closest one can get to the Hebrew word in Ecclesiastes is "breath" or "vapor", which is metaphorical. Meaningless or senseless might be what is meant, but it is not what is said. To remove the metaphor in place of a straightforward adjective is a basic translational error, one of "over-explanation": rather than letting the text speak for itself, the translator is telling us what to make of it. The underlying assumption is the reader is too stupid to get it.

And whether it is the NAB or the revised translation of the Ruthenian recension, I get the distinct impression that the people who do this sort of thing, within the Catholic Church, at least, think we're a bunch of morons.

[GL]

Except, of course, that the Hebrew Old Testament was not the Bible of the early Church. So the critical question, from an exegetical standpoint, is "What does the Greek LXX say?"

And as someone who cannot read Greek, I look forward to the complete OSB as promised in Spring 2008, hoping that the translators give us a product which is as transparent as a translation can be.

By the way, the closest one can get to the Hebrew word in Ecclesiastes is "breath" or "vapor", which is metaphorical. Meaningless or senseless might be what is meant, but it is not what is said. To remove the metaphor in place of a straightforward adjective is a basic translational error, one of "over-explanation": rather than letting the text speak for itself, the translator is telling us what to make of it. The underlying assumption is the reader is too stupid to get it.

Ditto.

The ESV translates this a "Vanity of Vanities," but notes that the Hebrew means "vapor." I would prefer that the translators would have reversed this and translated the term literally in the text and noted that this term has historically been translated as "vanity" or "meaningless" and even to note Wonders' definition of "futility." In the ESV, the same term is translated as "worthless in Psalm 31:6, "handbreadths" in Psalm 39:5 and "nothing" in Psalm 39:6, breath in Psalms 39:11, 62:9, 78:33, 94:11, and 144:4. I know the same term is used elsewhere in the OT, but I have not looked up how it is translated in the ESV.

"Vapor of vapors, says the Preacher, vapor of vapors! All is vapor."

I think even us morons would get the point, aided by a note if we were too dense, and the poetry of which Joe spoke would still be there.

How does the LXX translate the Hebrew term for vapor?

[Ken]

"How does the LXX translate the Hebrew term for vapor?"

With mataiotes, meaning worthlessness, futility, nothingness, emptiness, vanity, purposelessness, etc.

[luthien]

GL, don't hold your breath for the OSB. Every year they promise it for next Pascha, every year it's delayed again...it might be faster to just learn Greek;-)

[James A. Altena]

The very literal RV translation of 1885 renders the Hebrew as "striving after wind."

Of course, that could appear a bit risible to people who suffer from , er, ah, colonic emission problems.... :-)

[Rob Grano]

There is an English version of the LXX floating around but I forget what it's called. The 'New Millenium Bible' or something like that....?

[GL]

Rob,

You may be thinking of A New English Translation of the Septuagint (abbreviated NETS). There is a web site at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/. I have read some of it and found what I read to be very clunky.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Rob,

What you're probably thinking of is the 1851 translation of the Septuagint by Sir Lancelot (L.C. L.) Benton. I own a modern reprint copy. It's still in print (with Greek and English texts on facing pages), and available through Amazon and other common outlets at a very reasonable price. Benton utilitzed the KJV whenever possible.

[Rob Grano]

Actually, I believe I was thinking of the Third Millenium Bible, which is not the LXX, but the original KJV with the deuterocanonicals included. My mistake.

[GL]

Yes, I have a copy of and have used the TMB. I think it is a very good updating of the KJV.

I have never read a translation of the LXX which I found to be satisfying. They may be accurate -- to that point I cannot speak -- but they are all clunky, including Benton's, in my opinion. That is why I have such hopes for the OSB. (I do like the translation of the Psalms from the LXX titled The Psalter According to the 70.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Rob,

The original KJV also included the deuterocanonical books from its inception in 1611, centuries before the TMB. It was only later that publishers systematically began to exclude those books, to save costs and to cater to the sensibiliteis of non-Anlgican English-speaking Protestants.

I don't share my friend GL's high opinion of the latter. Unfortunately the TMB is entirely an amateur production, whose primary "editor" was a person with an M.A. in English, and whose "editorial board" did not include a single recognized scholar or prson fluent om Greek or Hebrew. Said editor simply used Webster's Third Dictionary to do nothing more than change certain words deemed to be archaic. The selection of those words was consequenlty rather idiosyncratic (some were changed that should have been left be, and vice-versa, and some of the replacement choices are simply poor); and of course passages that the original KJV translated badly (due to lack of access to a sufficient range of manuscripts and lesser understanding of Greek and Hebrew than a modern scholarly apparatus affords) remain uncorrected. In addition, the text formatting is extremely distracting, with lots of gimmicky bolding, italicizing, and indenting (including use of italicization in a completely different manner than the original KJV). It's a classic example of someone with a lack of discretion going nuts with Word-processing capabilities.

Since the TMB is still basically the KJV, it is for me preferable to most other translations available. But it is not a real translation, only an individual idiosyncratic adaptation of the KJV (reminiscent of Noah Webster's early 19th c. version that "corrected" all the supposed "grammatical errors" of the KJV to match Webster's standardizaton of American English). What is really needed is a modern version of the 1885 RV, except using the NT Textus Receptus instead of the Hort-Wescott (or later Nestle-Aland) versions of the Greek text. (The now little-known RV is my preferred version of the OT over even the KJV -- it has not only superior accuracy in translation, but often a superior flow in the English as well.)

[Rob Grano]

"The original KJV also included the deuterocanonical books from its inception in 1611, centuries before the TMB. It was only later that publishers systematically began to exclude those books, to save costs and to cater to the sensibiliteis of non-Anlgican English-speaking Protestants."

I'm aware of that, James. I wasn't implying that TMB added them, only that it included them.

I'm wondering, does TMB have them distributed throughout the text, or in a group at the end of the OT? The later KJV bibles that have them tend to the latter arrangement in my experience. In fact, in the Assemblies of God, the denomination in which I was raised, the books were often referred to not as the deuterocanonicals, but as the intertestamental books (because they were all seen as having been written between the closing of the 'real' OT and the opening of the NT, hence their placement in the KJV.) Of course we didn't read them -- their existence was used primarily as a Catholic-bashing tool to demonstrate that the RCC had 'added to the Scriptures.'

[GL]

I don't share my friend GL's high opinion of the latter. Unfortunately the TMB is entirely an amateur production, whose primary "editor" was a person with an M.A. in English, and whose "editorial board" did not include a single recognized scholar or prson fluent om Greek or Hebrew.

I agree with James concerns here, but think they are largely mitigated by the fact that the editor did not translate the work, but only substituted more modern words for archaic words (words that either had totally fallen into disuse or had so changed their meaning that it would give a false understanding to the reader who failed to do his homework on 1611 English). If one accepts it for what it is, an updating of the AV translation and not a new translation from the same manuscripts and uses it with that in mind, I believe it is a find work.

I suspect that the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible is a much better product, having been the work of a biblical scholar, though even here a team approach is to be preferred. Had I been aware of its production when I bought the TMB, I likely would have waited for it. I plan on buying a copy at some time in any event.

The TMB places the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books at the end of the OT and before the NT, following the practice of the original 1611 AV. Unfortunately, the additions to Esther and the Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon are not incorporated with the OT books of which they are a part in Catholic and Orthodox bibles, but separately with the rest of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books. That was also the case with the 1611 AV.

[James A. Altena]

I recently bought the Penguin Classics paperback edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (the text with some corrections made to the original).

The editor, David Norton, stated that his goal was to go back to the original sources used by the committee that produced the KJV and remove emendations and errors that had subsequently crept in over the next 160 years, when a 1769 Oxford edition became the standard "KJV" edition, while modestly updating it for modern readers to facilitate continued devotional use. His editing includes:

1) Restoration of original readings from the original source manuscripts (good).

2) Generally, reduction of punctuation back to the original 1611 version -- additional punctuation, particularly commas, having accrued over those 160 years (good).

3) Having the text set in paragraphs rather than separate verses, and one column rather than two-column type. (This has both advantages and disadvantages. Of course, the original text was not divided into chapters until the 12th c., and not into verses until the early 16th c. Use of paragraphs is good for thematic purposes in many cases, and removing the illusion of each verse as a self-contained idea. The NCPB format also allows verses of the Psalms and other poetic passages to be printed as single lines, which is of great benefit for scanning metre, finding parallelisms between paired verses, etc. But it does bring yet another level of editorial intervention into the text, since where paragraph breaks should be placed in some cases is questionable, and Norton does not join paragraphs that are split across chapters. It also makes it visually harder to hunt for individual verses. The RSV uses paragraphs but retains two-column type, and I find it far easier to read than the CNPB, though it also uses a more legible and larger font.)

4) Quotation marks are introduced around speech by both God and man. (I have no strong opinion on this. It is helpful in some ways, but again involves yet another editorial intervention and judgment calls. NOrton did adopt the traditional view that Jesus' own words in John 3 extend through verse 21, rather than only through verse 12 or 15.)

5) Spelling of a given word is made consistent throughout the text. (OK by me, since spelling in 1611 wasn't standardized and a word thus altered could have been spelled the other way anyway. This may bother some folks, and does remove a few endearing idiosyncrasies such as "bewrayeth" for "betrayeth" or "ensample" for "example". Of course, it would not do if one is studying the text for scholarly or antiquarian literary purposes rather than daily devotional use.)

6) Obsolete spellings are updated -- e.g. "shew" becomes "show", "bare" becomes "bore" (Bad idea, since the pronunciations also change, and the selection of words was often tied to the sound of public reading. "Thou that borest good tidings" rather than "Thou that barest good tidings" comes off as not only ugly but risible, as if the angels are boring people to death!)

7) While "thee" and "thou" and accompanying verb forms are kept throughout, as part of an effort to make the text entirely consistent, Norton arbitrarily changes all occurences of "thine" before nouns as a possessive pronoun to "thy". (Absolutely awful -- a case of literary vandalism, in my book. Norton apparently either does not know or care that the use of "thy" or "thine" is an inheritance from English as a Germanic language, and reflects a difference between nouns that takes the Accusative or Dative grammatical case. Moreover, the assignment of that case, and thus of "thy" or "thine" as the preceding possessive pronoun, is regulated by such factors as the initial consonant or vowel of the noun. Once again, as in the previous point, the results are sometimes remarkably grating. It is true that since English does not have grammatically gendered nouns the way that German does, this assignment of Accusative or Dative bears less weight, and cannot be known or determined by modern English speakers except by historical reference. But since Norton defends the retention of "thee" and "thou" as integral and essential to the language and style of the KJV, he surely should have retained "thy" vs. "thine" on the same grounds.)

8) All the KJV italicizations of words supplied in English to flesh out the sense of the underlying Hebrew or Greek are removed. (Very bad idea -- Norton simply claims that the italics are misleading in a text used for devotional purposes.)

Of course, the Penguin budget edition also lacks all the accompanying scholarly apparatus of the full-fledged two volumes of the CNPB, so that one can't tell from it alone what emendations to the 1769 KJV "Textus Reeceptus" were made.

In short, a major disappointment for me. What is really needed is a true scholarly edition of the original 1611, "neat", without such idiosyncratic editorial interventions. This production is neither fish nor fowl, and I do not intend to keep it. The mindset of the editor (who is a professed atheist, FWIW) illustrates the comment attributed to Napoleon: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

[Stuart Koehl]

I have noted one of the continuing problems facing the Byzantine Catholic Churches in America is the use of the New American Bible for its lectionary. This turns out not to be universally true--only the Ruthenians and Ukrainians do so. From what I have observed, the Melkites do not have a uniform lectionary, but use whatever one each priest prefers. Most seem to be using the OCA, Greek Orthodox or Antiochian versions, which is good. Some have "you", others "thee", but the language is hieratic and the translations are accurate.

The Ruthenians and Ukrainians, however, continue to use the NAB, which presents a number of problems. Their Old Testament is derived from the Moserabic and not the LXX, hence does not match the text in the liturgy; the New Testament is from the Western Text, not the Textus Receptus, which causes similar problems. And then there is the language itself, which is flippant, colloquial, veering from excessively literally to broadly paraphrasic without rhyme or reason.

The Ruthenians have, at last, finally decided to remedy the problem--they have adopted the NAB as the basis for their liturgical translation, making all the biblical references in the new Divine Liturgy match those in the New American Bible. The effect is precisely what you might imagine.