Are any new Catholic Bible translations being worked on?

  • Thread starter Thread starter garysibio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerry_Parker said:

Cal wrote: Yeah, some people like to throw the ‘paraphrase’ bomb around to trash a ‘translation’ of the Bible that they don’t like. The NABRE, NJB, the Jerusalem Bible are all translations, some a little more dynamic than others, but are ‘translations’ none the least.​

Thats emotional loyalty babble. A paraphrase, whole or partial (the N.A.B. being in the middle of that range), still is a paraphrase, whether its one that you like or loathe.

Just take a real full equivalency translation like the R.S.V. or the English Standard Version with Apocrypha and compare it to a reasonably lengthy passage in the N.A.B. and it is disturbing just how much the meaning is compromised, seriously here and there, less so elsewhere. The Jerusalem Bible is a paraphrase, too, but a more cautious and responsable one than the N.A.B. happens to be.
Click to expand...
Did you look at the links provided by hillbilly hermit (especially the 2nd one) which list translations and paraphrases. The NAB is a translation.
 
In response to the OP, I am not aware of any new Catholic translations of the Bible being worked on but there is a new Orthodox Bible in progress which may or may not be interesting depending on who you are.

orthodox-church.info/eob/about.asp

Peace,
 
CalCatholic said:
Did you look at the links provided by hillbilly hermit (especially the 2nd one) which list translations and paraphrases. The NAB is a translation.
Click to expand...
They probably won’t be looked at. It’s easier to just bash the NAB in every thread that even hints at that translation.
Jerry_Parker said:
Thats emotional loyalty babble. A paraphrase, whole or partial (the N.A.B. being in the middle of that range), still is a paraphrase, whether its one that you like or loathe.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that the Vatican would allow paraphrases to be used in the Liturgy.

Anyway, has there been any dates given for when they’re going to start on the new translation that we’ll use for Mass, prayer, study, etc.?
 

Cal wrote: Did you look at the links provided by hillbilly hermit (especially the 2nd one) which list translations and paraphrases. The NAB is a translation.​

Yes, I did. That text simply is wrong about this. I know enough about the matter to distinguish a paraphrase from a translation. There is a lot of hype about new renderings of the Bible these days, and that article simply got misled by the hype.

I am a “revert” Catholic, having become Lutheran after being Catholic, before returning. My time in magisterial Protestantism inculcated into me a lot more skill in dealing with these matters than all-life Catholics usually have. It also has made me more discerning about Bible version issues, regarding Protestant, sectarian, and Catholic versions. The only widely known Catholic Bibles of real excellence from post-W.W. II times are the Confraternity Version (1941 N.T., 1969 completed O.T.) and, to lesser degree, the Revised Standard Version–2nd Catholic Edition. The N.A.B. cannot hold a candle to either of these.
 

Hillbilly Hermit wrote: I highly doubt that the Vatican would allow paraphrases to be used in the Liturgy.​

Well, your supposition is wrong. The U.K. Churchs Bible for the Liturgy is the Jerusalem Bible (Catholic Truth Society improved edition) which is undoubtedly a paraphrase, and the U.S. Bible for the Liturgy is another, worse, paraphrase, the N.A.B. It is the national episcopal conferences that determine these matters (subject to Vatican disapprobation, which takes a lot more than this to incur), not the Vatican itself.
 
I really like the Navarre Bible, English Edition - it has a great commentary built into it. The University of Navarre - Spain put it out several years ago. (They offer a PHD in Catechesis there also).

Two big drawbacks with the Navarre to be honest:
  1. $$$ for the hardbacks; even paperback set is very expensive as far as Bible’s are concerned but I would suggest buy the Gospel of John to start ($15 maybe) read that & compare to RSV Catholic Edition Gospel of John by Scott Hahn & Curtis Mitch ($10).
  2. So many volumes to buy and carry around! Is not exactly compact.
The New American is not too great with footnotes, some problems there. Like RSV Cath Ed but Navarre is the BEST!
 
Jerry_Parker said:

Hillbilly Hermit wrote: I highly doubt that the Vatican would allow paraphrases to be used in the Liturgy.​

Well, your supposition is wrong. The U.K. Churchs Bible for the Liturgy is the Jerusalem Bible (Catholic Truth Society improved edition) which is undoubtedly a paraphrase, and the U.S. Bible for the Liturgy is another, worse, paraphrase, the N.A.B. It is the national episcopal conferences that determine these matters (subject to Vatican disapprobation, which takes a lot more than this to incur), not the Vatican itself.
Click to expand...
Well where are your sources which claim that the NAB is a paraphrase? :confused:
 

Cal wrote: Well where are your sources which claim that the NAB is a paraphrase?​

Mostly from using the New American Bible from time to time, I have found for myself that it is a paraphrase or a partial paraphrase. I know so much Holy Scripture by heart, from the older full equivalency versions (Revised Standard Version, Authorised “King James” Version, Confraternity-Douay Version) that I notice quickly the slipshod approximation of meaning in the N.A.B. Following any version with an interlinear Greek-Hebrew/English (or French) Bible clearly shows the truth of this about versions, the N.A.B. included. The earlier the edition of the N.A.B., the more a paraphrase it is. However, it is true that parahrasing in the earliest (1970) N.A.B. New Testament especially is blatant. Since all editions are revisions of an out-and-out paraphrase to begin with, the N.A.B. never has lost its paraphrastic character, though that has lessened.

Any reader, who is not a lazy one, should be able to tell this for himself. However, here, for starters, is how a chart, comparing the Common English Bible with other translations, describes the N.A.B.: “Dynamic equivalence, 1970; verbal equivalence, 1986”. Cf. commonenglishbible.com/Explore/CompareTranslations/ComparisonChart/tabid/301/Default.aspx,

Check these matters out for yourself, with an interlinear`s literal translation, or, if you do know Hebrew, Aramaic, and/Greek (or Latin, for that matter, since the Vulgate is a reliably full-equivalency translation from the mother languages), in those languages directly.

Atop all of this, the N.A.B. is poor in English style, downright atrocious all too often. That`s all the less reason to resort to it.
 
The USCCB has stated that the NAB will be translated one final time to hopefully make it standard for biblical study, devotion, lectionary, and liturgical use.

Is it OK for a loyal obedient Catholic to charitably question any of its current translation choices?
 

Jerry-Jet wrote: The USCCB has stated that the NAB will be translated one final time to hopefully make it standard for biblical study, devotion, lectionary, and liturgical use.​

Lots of luck, N.A.B. reviser-dudes! 🤷 I really suspect that the cards are all stacked against real success in this endeavour, when other attempts have come out so poorly in the past. The best thing is to start over to produce a good, full-equivalency, literarily seemly Catholic version. Frankly, it would seem less quixotic just to abandon the N.A.B. and to turn to the R.S.V.-C.E.2. 👍 or to resurrect the worthy and finished Confraternity Version Bible of 1969 😛 (with no further changes to it!), which the N.A.B. so grievously displaced in 1970. 😦 American Catholics should have a version for Church and liturgical use that at least is as good as what is used in our Dominion of Canada and in the U.K.

The Catholic reader at home can choose any accepted Catholic Bible for home use. He does not have to doom himself to using the N.A.B. :eek:! I still use the Douay-Rheims-Challoner and Confraternity-Douay Bible at home and am content with those, using others as occasion, need, or curiosity arises.
 
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, I agree that the RSV-2CE is an excellent translation, it is my favorite. But I have no qualms about using the NABRE, Since I lead a Bible study class, most people in the USA have the NAB (in some form) so that is the translation we use. It is also the translation used in mass here so there is a good reason for American Catholic to own a copy of it. I have read the NAB/RE side by side with the RSV-2CE for my daily readings since 2006 (when the RSV-2CE was first published), and have found very few discrepancies. Are there differences, sure but they are pretty compatible (the NABRE is a little more dynamic) both are good to compare off of each other.
 
What I really wish is that there was an affordable Catholic Bible (under $50) with large print, real paper, not that thin stuff you can see through, hard cover/leather that opened flat, list of Mass readings in the back, and the grace to take what’s contained in it to heart, love and live by it. 🙂
 

Cal wrote: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, I agree that the RSV-2CE is an excellent translation, it is my favorite. But I have no qualms about using the NABRE, Since I lead a Bible study class, most people in the USA have the NAB (in some form) so that is the translation we use. It is also the translation used in mass here so there is a good reason for American Catholic to own a copy of it. I have read the NAB/RE side by side with the RSV-2CE for my daily readings since 2006 (when the RSV-2CE was first published), and have found very few discrepancies. Are there differences, sure but they are pretty compatible (the NABRE is a little more dynamic) both are good to compare off of each other.​

Well, the N.A.B. is “good enough”, if one regards the Bible that way. It is just that I am not satisfied with less than the best translations. The N.A.B. will “do the job”, but not always more than that.

As a Canadian, I suppose that I find the American attachment to the N.A.B. rather unthinking. You know the attitude: “if its American, its gotta be goo-oo-ood!” That`s meaningless, really.

The N.A.B. will wither, as other modern versions become fashionable, just as other post-W.W. 2 Bibles have come and gone, a few, like the R.S.V. in its various forms, aside. It is only the really ruggedly excellent ones that retain their allure. Eventually even the best of those temporarily in decline (e.g., the Confraternity 1969 version: 1941 N.T., completed 1969 O.T.) make a come-back. That is happening, among Catholic Traditionalists, with the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, which is the Catholic Bible that never has been surpassed in so many ways, despite a few of its tiny quirks.
 
HillbillyHermit said:
What I really wish is that there was an affordable Catholic Bible (under $50) with large print, real paper, not that thin stuff you can see through, hard cover/leather that opened flat, list of Mass readings in the back, and the grace to take what’s contained in it to heart, love and live by it. 🙂
Click to expand...
Catholic Book Publishing’s ‘St. Joseph edition’ NABRE large print Bible has thick enough paper and does about the best in preventing bleed though. The font size is 11. They also make a giant print Bible (font size 14) that has thick enough paper. And the hardback or imitation leather edition of both of these Bibles is well under $50
 
HillbillyHermit said:
What I really wish is that there was an affordable Catholic Bible (under $50) with large print, real paper, not that thin stuff you can see through, hard cover/leather that opened flat, list of Mass readings in the back, and the grace to take what’s contained in it to heart, love and live by it. 🙂
Click to expand...
Hillbilly, except for the Mass readings part, there is an Ignatius RSV (I know, I know) which fits the rest of your wish list completely, and includes both Old and New Testaments. It doesn’t have the commentaries by Hahn and Mitch though- yet. Only the Ignatius NT RSV has those, but there are Kindle versions of some of the OT Books coming out now with those great notes by Hahn and Mitch.
 
There’s going to be a release of the Knox Bible for the first time in like 50 years. I’ve heard pretty good things about this translation.
 

Zenkai wrote: There’s going to be a release of the Knox Bible for the first time in like 50 years. I’ve heard pretty good things about this translation.​

I have had the Knox Version of the Bible for many, many years, indeed, for most of my life. I read it cover-to-cover, too. Its greatest strength is its literary beauty, 😛 not surprising for those who know Ronald Knox literary and religious works :thumbsup:. It is a paraphrase, though, and a very beautiful one, which, alas, limits its use for study purposes. In fact, for all of the beauty of Knox style, it is troubling how approxmately Knox renders so many passages.

It is the Clementine Latin Vulgate that Knox paraphrased, with secondary reference to Hebrew and Greek sources. This should have been a greater strength, since the Vulgate`s Latin text is superior to the so-called, all too corrupt “Critical Text” choices of Greek readings for the N.T. that most the translators of most modern versions have rendered (either, variously, by translating or by paraphrasing). if Knox had translated the Clementine Vulgate more strictly his work would have had ever-lasting glory. As it is, the Confraternity Version New Testament (1941) is the best modern version that translates more faithfully the Clementine Latin Vulgate N.T. (with, as Knox did, consultion of decent Greek texts), and it has excellent English style, too.

Anyway, as a monument of the work of a great Catholic scholar, apologist, and churchman, the Knox Version deserves respect, but it really needs to be used in conjunction with a full-equivalency translation of a good Greek text or from the Clementine (not newer) Vulgate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top