J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Ambrose,
** We wrote: *Jerry: * By 1969 the Confraternity Version was completed and made available very briefly on the market.
The problem of the 1970 N.A.B. Version is not with the differences in the O.T., which are only modest in scope, but with the New Testament (N.T.), which was a completely new text that displaced the beautiful and accurate 1941 Confraternity N.T. The 1970 N.T. resorted hugely to paraphrase and was, to say the least of it, very infelicitously worded, in a style too often dreadfully flat and downright banal. Unfortunately, there has not been a Confraternity Bible that includes the 1970 O.T. harnassed to the 1941 Confraternity Version N.T., which would have made for a quite fine Bible. It is true that stylistic features of the 1941 N.T. would not match those of the O.T., and that the Vulgate’s hegemony in the N.T. is not matched by similar dominence in the O.T., but such matters are of rather trifling importance to most people, and, in any case, those differences had been in the Confraternity Bible, most readily found for years in editions of the mixed “Confraternity-Douay” type where these differences occur within the O.T. itself, without unduly troubling most readers.
There is a crying need to publish the Confraternity Version with its as-of-1969 O.T. and 1941 N.T., or the 1970 N.A.B. O.T. with the 1941 N.T. As it stands, if one buys the Confraternity N.T. (1941) as it still is available, one has to use a separate volume for the O.T., be it the N.A.B.-1970 or another version. Having a Bible which is fully Confraternity 1969 or having the 1970 O.T. (N.A.B.) with the 1941 Confraternity N.T. would result in far greater use of the fine 1941 Confraternity N.T. After all, Catholics and most other Christians consult and read the N.T. much more intensively than they do the O.T. Most people simply find it too inconvenient and unwieldy to carry around and use one Bible for the sake of its O.T. and another volume for the sake of its N.T. The result is that the Confraternity 1941 N.T. is neglected and even little known. Since most folks probably would prefer to have one single version of the Bible’s two testaments between the covers of a published complete Bible, I would urge that the 1969 Confraternity Bible be published again.
Pax, Jerry Parker
** We wrote: *Jerry: * By 1969 the Confraternity Version was completed and made available very briefly on the market.
**Ambrose: ** Hello Jerry! How similar would you say the 1970 NAB is to the 1969 Confraternity? **
Hi! It is good to hear from you again. There is little difference between the Confraternity Version O.T. (as of 1969) and the N.A.B.'s 1970 (first ed.) Old Testament (O.T.). The name forms in the Confraternity Version O.T. which were held over from the Douay-Rheims-Challoner give place to forms of name in the 1970 N.A.B. that accord with the important Protestant/Anglican versions. The preferred form of Psalm numberings in the 1970 N.A.B. is that which corresponds to the Hebrew Masoretic text rather than to the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate (Confraternity O.T.). Some passages, occasionally large ones (e.g. the entire book of Genesis), were retranslated, others had slight changes made to them. On the whole, the changes for the 1970 N.A.B.'s O.T. are convenient and fitting. It was not until the N.A.B.'s own revisions began, with the second edition of 1986, that the O.T. rendering began and gained pace in 1994, resulting in a more greatly changed O.T., and certainly not all to the better.The problem of the 1970 N.A.B. Version is not with the differences in the O.T., which are only modest in scope, but with the New Testament (N.T.), which was a completely new text that displaced the beautiful and accurate 1941 Confraternity N.T. The 1970 N.T. resorted hugely to paraphrase and was, to say the least of it, very infelicitously worded, in a style too often dreadfully flat and downright banal. Unfortunately, there has not been a Confraternity Bible that includes the 1970 O.T. harnassed to the 1941 Confraternity Version N.T., which would have made for a quite fine Bible. It is true that stylistic features of the 1941 N.T. would not match those of the O.T., and that the Vulgate’s hegemony in the N.T. is not matched by similar dominence in the O.T., but such matters are of rather trifling importance to most people, and, in any case, those differences had been in the Confraternity Bible, most readily found for years in editions of the mixed “Confraternity-Douay” type where these differences occur within the O.T. itself, without unduly troubling most readers.
There is a crying need to publish the Confraternity Version with its as-of-1969 O.T. and 1941 N.T., or the 1970 N.A.B. O.T. with the 1941 N.T. As it stands, if one buys the Confraternity N.T. (1941) as it still is available, one has to use a separate volume for the O.T., be it the N.A.B.-1970 or another version. Having a Bible which is fully Confraternity 1969 or having the 1970 O.T. (N.A.B.) with the 1941 Confraternity N.T. would result in far greater use of the fine 1941 Confraternity N.T. After all, Catholics and most other Christians consult and read the N.T. much more intensively than they do the O.T. Most people simply find it too inconvenient and unwieldy to carry around and use one Bible for the sake of its O.T. and another volume for the sake of its N.T. The result is that the Confraternity 1941 N.T. is neglected and even little known. Since most folks probably would prefer to have one single version of the Bible’s two testaments between the covers of a published complete Bible, I would urge that the 1969 Confraternity Bible be published again.
Pax, Jerry Parker
I see your point regarding the 1969 Confraternity. 