Bible translations

[HillbillyHermit]

Ugh… copyrights and royalties… I wish those words didn’t come up when talking about Bible translations. We should still be able to have Bibles that match the standards set by Rome. The politically correct nonsense has to stop. We need the truth.

 

[Chris_Etzel]

A lot of people repeat that saying. I take issue with it. There are many problems with recent Bible translations: loose translations, inclusive language, imposing erroneous doctrine on the text, and more. As for the footnotes and commentary, most of it treats the text as a merely human work, not divinely-inspired Scripture.

We have many choices for Bible texts. We should use good discernment in which translations to use.

In the context which I quoted it , it was a perfectly reasonable explanation though. The OP asked which is better DRB or NAB.

But let’s look at the two most mainstream translations: The Catholic NAB and the Protestant NIV, because loose translations and inclusive language are products of Dynamic Equivalence. The NAB is a Dynamic Equivalence translation. Where would discernment lead us ? It’s the translation used at Mass.

The most popular modern Protestant translation sold by Christian Booksellers of America is the New International Version. It, like the NAB, is a Dynamic Equivalence translation. I read it every day at lunch. I’m still Catholic. I actually read it parallel to the NAB and NRSV-CE when studying.

My point is, while I agree there can be suspect translations out there, mainstream Protestant and Catholic Bibles are equally good for reading and one shouldn’t have to worry too much about being misled.

But when in doubt…

http://www.catholicgeek.me/images/bliss.JPG

 

[Chris_Etzel]

Ugh… copyrights and royalties… I wish those words didn’t come up when talking about Bible translations. We should still be able to have Bibles that match the standards set by Rome. The politically correct nonsense has to stop. We need the truth.

Amen! I’m still waiting for YouVersion.com (The Bible App) to carry NAB but the licensing issues I think are preventing them from getting it.

 

[mccorm45]

In the context which I quoted it , it was a perfectly reasonable explanation though. The OP asked which is better DRB or NAB.

But let’s look at the two most mainstream translations: The Catholic NAB and the Protestant NIV, because loose translations and inclusive language are products of Dynamic Equivalence. The NAB is a Dynamic Equivalence translation. Where would discernment lead us ? It’s the translation used at Mass.

The most popular modern Protestant translation sold by Christian Booksellers of America is the New International Version. It, like the NAB, is a Dynamic Equivalence translation. I read it every day at lunch. I’m still Catholic. I actually read it parallel to the NAB and NRSV-CE when studying.

My point is, while I agree there can be suspect translations out there, mainstream Protestant and Catholic Bibles are equally good for reading and one shouldn’t have to worry too much about being misled.

To be perfectly fair, the NAB(RE) is more formal/literal than being dynamic equivalence. Some reviews refer to it, actually, as more of a mediating translation, somewhere between a translation like the NASB and NIV. The NIV would be more comparable to a translation like the NJB, which is clearly a dynamic equivalence translation. But if you take a look at the preface to the revised NAB NT (1986) and NABRE OT (2011), they clearly state that this translation tends towards the literal, though not as much as the RSV. Here is a quote from the revised NAB NT:

The primary aim of the revision is to produce a version as accurate and faithful to the meaning of the Greek original as is possible for a translation. The editors have consequently moved in the direction of a formal-equivalence approach to translation, matching the vocabulary, structure, and even word order of the original as closely as possible in the receptor language. Some other contemporary biblical versions have adopted, in varying degrees, a dynamic-equivalence approach, which attempts to respect the individuality of each language by expressing the meaning of the original in a linguistic structure suited to English, even though this may be very different from the corresponding Greek structure. While this approach often results in fresh and brilliant renderings, it has the disadvantages of more or less radically abandoning traditional biblical and liturgical terminology and phraseology, of expanding the text to include what more properly belongs in notes, commentaries, or preaching, and of tending toward paraphrase. A more formal approach seems better suited to the specific purposes intended for this translation.

 

[ProVobis]

Ugh… copyrights and royalties… I wish those words didn’t come up when talking about Bible translations. We should still be able to have Bibles that match the standards set by Rome. The politically correct nonsense has to stop. We need the truth.

Rome has nothing much to do with it except determine what constitutes the scripture for liturgical matters. This has been pretty much set in stone since the early centuries. Copyrights and royalties have been around for several hundred years. Translations are the intellectual property of others (or of yourself, if you choose to do your own translations). None of them are infallible.

Even the Greek versions are translations/codebreakers of the OT Hebrew and NT Aramaic and other Greek versions. The copyright laws, however, if there were any, were not as well enforced until Gutenberg.

 

[HillbillyHermit]

Rome has nothing much to do with it except determine what constitutes the scripture for liturgical matters. This has been pretty much set in stone since the early centuries. Copyrights and royalties have been around for several hundred years. Translations are the intellectual property of others (or of yourself, if you choose to do your own translations). None of them are infallible.

Even the Greek versions are translations/codebreakers of the OT Hebrew and NT Aramaic and other Greek versions. The copyright laws, however, if there were any, were not as well enforced until Gutenberg.

I think you’re missing my point. The challenges of communicating online, I guess. Or maybe it’s that people find the need to correct/disagree with everything I say lately.

I know Rome has nothing much to do with it. I still say that I’d like to see the standards for our Bibles match what is in the Liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

I think you’re missing my point. The challenges of communicating online, I guess. Or maybe it’s that people find the need to correct/disagree with everything I say lately.

I know Rome has nothing much to do with it. I still say that I’d like to see the standards for our Bibles match what is in the Liturgy.

Don’t be so down on yourself. I know where you’re coming from. But I’ve done translations in my time too (Polish to English in the laboratories) and know people don’t necessarily like what translators tell them so the translators have to be a little creative at times, shall we say. My stepbrother, who is a professional linguist in courtrooms, has got to be very careful in how he translates. Juries don’t necessarily understand the problems with translations. One wrong word and the client gets five years.

As far as standards go, what better one was laid out than by St. Thomas More, who condemned English translations of the Bible?

 

[HillbillyHermit]

Don’t be so down on yourself. I know where you’re coming from. But I’ve done translations in my time too (Polish to English in the laboratories) and know people don’t necessarily like what translators tell them so the translators have to be a little creative at times, shall we say. My stepbrother, who is a professional linguist in courtrooms, has got to be very careful in how he translates. Juries don’t necessarily understand the problems with translations. One wrong word and the client gets five years.

As far as standards go, what better one was laid out than by St. Thomas More, who condemned English translations of the Bible?

Don’t mind me, I’ve been trying to read the Catechism regularly for the Year of Faith, and my brain is feeling overloaded today.

 

[bauerice]

I have the 1970 NAB and prefer it over the later revisions. The D-R is just hard for me to read.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Ignatius Study Bible

It only contains the New Testament (so you should also get a Bible with the OT) but it is amazing. Scott Hahn helped write the references and such.