1970 Nab

[bauerice]

I recently got a 1970 NAB. It does not have the revised NT or Psalms.I have noticed several differences, first being less gender inclusive. “Happy the man” Psalm 1. From what I understand it is no longer permitted to be published. I feel more comfortable with this one rather than the revised one.

 

[Jehuty_X]

I recently got a 1970 NAB. It does not have the revised NT or Psalms.I have noticed several differences, first being less gender inclusive. “Happy the man” Psalm 1. From what I understand it is no longer permitted to be published. I feel more comfortable with this one rather than the revised one.

// congratulations…

 

[Manfred]

I recently got a 1970 NAB. It does not have the revised NT or Psalms.I have noticed several differences, first being less gender inclusive. “Happy the man” Psalm 1. From what I understand it is no longer permitted to be published. I feel more comfortable with this one rather than the revised one.

The US Council of Catholic Bishops holds the copyrights to both the 1970 NAB, which you have, and the Revised NAB (1986, 1991). They no longer allow publication of the 1970 NAB, nor its use in the Liturgy in the USA.

However, the Vatican banned the 1991 edition of the Psalms from the Liturgy, so those you hear at Mass are, more or less, the Psalms from the 1970 NAB. I say “more or less” because, wherever they could get away with it, the Lectionary preparers substituted gender-inclusive language for “man” or “mankind”. :banghead:

 

[Ron_Conte]

They also don’t allow the version of the NAB used in the Liturgy to be published as a complete Bible.

Overall, the NAB is a useful edition. I have the 1970 edition.
But the way that the Bishops and scholars who worked on the NAB
have treated Sacred Scripture is objectionable. They should not
have made so many different version, nor should they be prohibiting
the publication of the liturgical version, and the original version.
They should not have dropped so many verses from the text.
They should not have made the 1970 version so loosely worded,
nor should they have added so much inclusive language in the later
versions.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Good point Ron.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I recently got a 1970 NAB. It does not have the revised NT or Psalms.I have noticed several differences, first being less gender inclusive. “Happy the man” Psalm 1. From what I understand it is no longer permitted to be published. I feel more comfortable with this one rather than the revised one.

The one serious complaint I have about that edition is that the words sometimes run together, which is unattractive. The 1991 edition is more attractively presented, but is “gender-inclusive” - a horrible word, which confuses the gender of nouns with the sex of persons It is a hideous barbarism. ​

 

[patrick457]

The one serious complaint I have about that edition is that the words sometimes run together, which is unattractive. The 1991 edition is more attractively presented, but is “gender-inclusive” - a horrible word, which confuses the gender of nouns with the sex of persons It is a hideous barbarism. ​

Yep. The 1970 (I own a rather old and worn copy) has a lot of ‘unconventional’ renderings (e.g. “And the Word was in God’s presence” instead of “And the Word was with God”) but all in all, I prefer this one over the present edition. Especially because of the appendices (such as an overview of the History of the English versions of the Bible or Pagans/Gentiles in NT times).

 

[Rose_Commander]

I love the 1970 New American Bible.

The reason why is because of the commentary of St. Matthew 1:25 :

He had no relations with her at any time before - the evangelist emphasizes the virginity of the mother of Jesus from the moment of his conception to his birth. He does not concern himself here with the period that followed the birth of Jesus, but merely wishes to show that Joseph fully respects the legal character of the paternity imposed on him by divine will. Moreover the New Testament makes no mention anywhere of children of Joseph and Mary.

It is more traditional than the commentary of the Revised New Testament of the NAB:
…The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

 

[Rose_Commander]

I love the 1970 New American Bible.

The reason why is because of the commentary of St. Matthew 1:25 :

He had no relations with her at any time before - the evangelist emphasizes the virginity of the mother of Jesus from the moment of his conception to his birth. He does not concern himself here with the period that followed the birth of Jesus, but merely wishes to show that Joseph fully respects the legal character of the paternity imposed on him by divine will. Moreover the New Testament makes no mention anywhere of children of Joseph and Mary.

It is more traditional than the commentary of the Revised New Testament of the NAB:
…The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

 

[bauerice]

I have been reading it for a week now, and find it flows better. So many times reading the RNAB, I felt like Yoda had a hand in translating it. One verse that kind of struck me funny was Mark 6:40…“the people took their places in hundreds and fifties, neatly arranged like flower beds”. Nothing wrong with it, it just made me chuckle.

 

[Faith_Alight]

I have the 1980-something New American Bible.

It has the Revised New Testament (which is great) but not the Revised Psalms. It was in the book give-a-way at the parish and I picked it up for RCIA because the RNAB is way to gender-inclusive.

 

[rhiamom]

I think the 80-something version of the NAB is the best one. The 1970 version reads horribly, at least to me. The newer editions have the inclusive language. The 80’s one fixed some of the awkward language without going the inclusive route.

The lectionary/NAB situation is positively unconscionable. People should be able to read the Bible at home the way they hear it at Mass. How on earth did the newest NAB get its imprimatur if the language in the Psalms is too objectionable to be used at Mass? I would not have a new NAB in my home if you paid me.

My primary Bible is a Jerusalem Bible. I like the clarity. But when I want the “feel” of sacred scripture, I head for the Douay-Rheims-Challoner.

 

[bauerice]

I am a Jerusalem Bible fan as well. The D-R, although highly reguarded by most, is to hard for me to understand. That is why I was pleased to find the '70 NAB.

 

[tobinatorstark]

It’s nice to see a threat about the NAB not being bashed uncontrollably. While some parts of the newer versions of the NAB cause quite a stir, overall It’s not a bad translation. Not my preferred choice, but I’ll take any version of the NAB and especially the 1970 NAB over the RSV-CE any day.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If you could take the best of the 1970 version and the best of the 1986 version and meld them together you’d have a better bible but it would still not be ideal.

Get a Confraternity New Testament–it’s the best.

Get a Haydock Old Testament for the best version of the Douay Rheims–it’s 99.99% like the douay Rheims Challoner but it does spell Sinai correctly.

Get a Bea psalter for the best translation of the Psalms–there are a couple of different english translations of that one–choose the one you like the best.

For the overall best bible I recommend a Confraternity-Douay version with the Bea psalter.

Some of the last ones were printed in 1952–you might could find one as late as 1954.

You wouldn’t have a perfect bible but the New Testament would be easier to read than the Douay Challoner–the Old Testament Douay Challoner would be easier to read than the KJV and more accurate–and the Bea psalter wouldn’t be perfect but it wouldn’t be as wedded to the Masoretic text as most version of the Psalms in current bible translations are.

 

[patrick457]

I have been reading it for a week now, and find it flows better. So many times reading the RNAB, I felt like Yoda had a hand in translating it. One verse that kind of struck me funny was Mark 6:40…“the people took their places in hundreds and fifties, neatly arranged like flower beds”. Nothing wrong with it, it just made me chuckle.

I checked, and I saw that the RNAB on the USCCB website renders the thing merely as “the people took their places in rows by hundreds and by fifties” (thankfully, the verse does not even mention anything about a ‘flower bed’, nor do other translations or even the original Greek ). Where did you get the quote from?