I am finding my ongoing study of the OJB to be very interesting indeed (see my previous post). When the author spoke of his affection for the New English Bible (NEB) and how this was his version of "induction" into the faith as it were, I decided to read the OJB and the NEB side by side. The influence of the NEB is unmistakable, at least as far as style is concerned, which is a good thing because I think that as a literary rendition, the NEB is excellent. In terms of style the OJB is orders of magnitude ahead of the HRV with its clumsy syntax. It is undeed unusual that an American translator (Phil Goble) should be so influenced by a British translation - normally one would have expected influence from versions like the RSV, NASB or other American productions. As I've mentioned before, the NEB's translation of the Song of Solomon is unequalled though I do think it takes some liberties in the NT, which is to be expected from a conglomeration of Protestant established churches led by the Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians. If the OJB turns out to me a Messianised version of the NEB it will be making history - the HRV admits it used the JPS (1917), the JNT admits to using Nestlée-Aland, but others are shrouded in mystery.