Catholic Bibles. NJB, NAB, or NRSV?

[kotek]

Jerry, I can’t thank you enough for the kind words. Even though I have the Haydock Douay Rheims and a personal Douay Rheims which I respect, I found a 1962 St Joseph Confraternity version at a local parish library. I fell in love with the beauty, glory, and truthfulness of the text (not to mention all the nice artwork) I just had to mail-order one for myself. I don’t think Kotek is so sweet. After all he/she from the onset tried to control the thread with “Tell me what I want to hear, not what is helpful” Since Kotek doesn’t own Catholic Answers Forum, I say we (all participants) post helpful information about proper Catholic translations that will lead to Kotek’ (I intentionally left off the “s”, personally I think this person might be a joker trying to trick us into writing something that will sound like a feminine hygiene product) proper salvation. Kotek already got two and a half pages of posts confirming him/her in his/her error. We would be very bad Christians/Catholics if we allowed that to continue. Do you know if Kotek is male or female, so I can stop using he/she? Confraternity version rules!

I am a he and my nic is not anything bad. I am Polish and I also like Cats so “Kotek” is Polish idiom for a Male Cat. “Kotke” are Kittens and a Kosziesca( i think thats how it is spelled) is an older female Cat. These terms may not be found in a typical Polish English dictionary cause they are sort of “slang” terms, but the generic term for Cat in Polish is “Kot”.

You refer to me being in “error”, what error is that? Unless you can prove using official Church teaching that using a newer Church approved Bible translation like the NRSV or the NJB is wrong then I am not in error,

 

[kotek]

Super Catholic,

**You wrote: ** Kotek, You pose a very painful question. It’s almost like asking, " How would you like to die, death by hanging, death by drowning, or death by burning?". Just like the translations you limit us to, all are painful for me and countless other Catholics, and can lead to spiritual death. Yes the NAB is the approved version for Mass in the U.S., but I wish that wasn’t the case. I have learned that whenever an “approved” Catholic translation is published, I go straight to Luke 1:28 and if it doesn’t say “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee (you). blessed art thou-(are you) among women”, to me it isn’t a true Catholic translation. Now the the question is do you want to be truly Catholic, or do you just want to be modern? To paraphrase Mel Brooks from (Dracula Dead And Loving It) “Zis is vare we separate our future phasitions from doze who just vannt to play doctor”​

I am glad that you said this! I felt like saying much the same to Kotek, but that dear layperson’s character and attitude are so sweet that I just did not have the heart to say what you state in your contribution to the forum. I have my own set of Bible verses that I trot out to “test”, on an initial run, a Bible version not only for its Catholic faithfulness but also for its general Christian credentials, and, unlike the marvellous old pre-1970 Confraternity Version, the New American Bible (NAB) just does not “make the grade”, any more than it does when put to the test as you do so, too.

Even worse in some ways than the shabby (only barely acceptable) translation are the appallingly unbelieving notes in the NAB’s usual annotations (and the same applies to the dreadful notes in the much better and more literately translated Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bibles! How can Catholic scholars, or any Christian ones, say such things and still be regarded, by themselves or others, as genuine Catholics or Christians? Those notes, far too many of them, really, if the Catholic or other believing Christian takes them seriously, “can lead to spiritual death”, as you so forcefully (but rightly) put it! No, the American and Canadian bishops were following trends of the times, as, alas, too many of them do, rather than following their Lord, when they appointed the NAB as acceptable for the liturgy and for study by Catholics. Kotek, obviously, hears the Lord in His word, and shuns and shucks all the glittery trendoid finery of the NAB’s editors and of the bishops who fob the NAB off on Catholics.

Jerry Parker

Until and unless the NAB is improved I will not be using it. As far as the NJB notes go they do reflect the current state of Catholic Biblical Scholarship among some Catholic Scholars. You may not agree with them but the NJB does have Church approval.

Personally I don’t care for Bibles with study notes or commentary . I prefer a Bible with good cross-references and good Bible maps only. No “fluff”. My “Study Notes” can be found in the Catechism and my Roman Missal (1962).

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Supercatholic,

**You wrote: ** *Jerry, I can’t thank you enough for the kind words. Even though I have the Haydock Douay Rheims and a personal Douay Rheims which I respect, I found a 1962 St Joseph Confraternity version at a local parish library. I fell in love with the beauty, glory, and truthfulness of the text (not to mention all the nice artwork) I just had to mail-order one for myself. I don’t think Kotek is so sweet. After all he/she from the onset tried to control the thread with “Tell me what I want to hear, not what is helpful” Since Kotek doesn’t own Catholic Answers Forum, I say we (all participants) post helpful information about proper Catholic translations that will lead to Kotek’ (I intentionally left off the “s”, personally I think this person might be a joker trying to trick us into writing something that will sound like a feminine hygiene product) proper salvation. Kotek already got two and a half pages of posts confirming him/her in his/her error. We would be very bad Christians/Catholics if we allowed that to continue. Do you know if Kotek is male or female, so I can stop using he/she? Confraternity version rules! *​

I would not be too hard, Supercatholic, on Kotek. The reasons for which Kotek sticks to the N.A.B. are not intrinsically poor ones, the major of which seems to be that Kotek wishes to use the Bible which the North American Catholic hierarchy approves foremost for liturgical use. We know that the N.A.B. is far from being any kind of “Bible of excellence” and, with Kotek’s seeming good nature (which I seem to perceive more than you do, for whatever reason, perhaps my own blindness and too much sympathy for the Protestant/sectarian background from which Kotek comes).

After all, Kotek comes from a milieu (Neo-Evangelicalism) that is appallingly unstable and subjectivist, of which the ever-changing fads for Bible versions, even those of the most rankly, grotesquely poor sort (e.g., Peterson’s unspeakably vile The Message: the Bible in Contemporary Language, one, of course and thankfully, which has not been mentioned in these exchanges), that it is no wonder that Kotek prefers to limit the options for that believer’s personal Catholic use. Given Kotek’s astute assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Protestant and oecumenical Bible versions and editions thereof that Kotek discussed, I have confidence that in time Kotek will recognise the N.A.B.'s failings and turn to a Bible that is more worthy of trust and use, perhaps the New Jerusalem Bible or something even finer than that.

Man oh man, does it do my heart good to read your encomia of praise and appreciation for the old pre-1970 Confraternity Version! Now THAT was a Bible which fully merited the episcopal seal of approval by the U. S. of A.'s and Canada’s hierarchies! It is lovely to read, dignified and literary in expression, faithfully strict in its translation principles, and wholly devout in its aims. It is really a shame that the North American hierarchy abandoned it just after the final completion of its Old Testament, for the penny-dreadful N.A.B. The final Confraternity 1969 Bible, indeed, was published, but it received such tiny distribution that most of us have to make do with editions, such as the 1962 one that you have, that mix the Confraternity O.T. text with the great old Challoner translation for the remaining books for which the then-new translation by that time had not yet been completed for publication. Apparently there is a Philippine edition of the full Confraternity Bible in its 1969 textually complete state, but that is exceedingly hard to find in this hemisphere.

God bless you in your Christian life and zeal for God’s cause and that of His inerrant word!

Jerry Parker

 

[Supercatholic]

I am a he and my nic is not anything bad. I am Polish and I also like Cats so “Kotek” is Polish idiom for a Male Cat. “Kotke” are Kittens and a Kosziesca( i think thats how it is spelled) is an older female Cat. These terms may not be found in a typical Polish English dictionary cause they are sort of “slang” terms, but the generic term for Cat in Polish is “Kot”.

You refer to me being in “error”, what error is that? Unless you can prove using official Church teaching that using a newer Church approved Bible translation like the NRSV or the NJB is wrong then I am not in error,

kotek, first off please accept my apology for seeming so cynical. Second after viewing some text examples of the NJB and the NRSV, the NRSV seems to be the better choice. For me to prove “error” is not one of my gifts. But I can say this, a little bible history is needed. There were many scrolls and autographs written and already in existence in the early centuries. The church had to be very very careful what would be included in the canon and what would not. The translations that wound up in the KJV were written by Palastinian Jews that did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus. And unfortunately, and I mean this as charitably as possible, the translations you cite are merely various modernizations of the KJV which was written and quickly mass printed to discredit the Catholic church. For the life of me I can’t explain why the U.S bishops would approve of these translation. I can only guess they did it to achieve common ground between Protestants and Catholics. Which really didn’t do any good at all, because anti-catholicism is more prevelant now than it ever was. Sorry I couldn’t do a better job explaining my position. Perhaps someone with more education than me (or is it I) will see this post and answer your question more thoroughly.

 

[rr1213]

I use the RSV-CE, which I purchased shortly prior to my conversion, and the NIV (which I like despite its evangelical biases). I can’t stand the NAB. I find myself often cringing at the liturgical readings at Mass. The thing sounds like it was translated by people to whom English is a second language…and one with which they struggle greatly and are unable to master at even a first grade level. There is no beauty, no poetry, no sense of majesty to the NAB. Some of the great literature of the English language includes the KJV and the BCP…the translators and authors of those masterworks would die again if they heard the pedantic readings from the NAB.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

rr1213,

**You wrote: ** I can’t stand the NAB. I find myself often cringing at the liturgical readings at Mass. The thing sounds like it was translated by people to whom English is a second language…and one with which they struggle greatly and are unable to master at even a first grade level. There is no beauty, no poetry, no sense of majesty to the NAB. Some of the great literature of the English language includes the KJV and the BCP…the translators and authors of those masterworks would die again if they heard the pedantic readings from the NAB.​

Yes, Amen, yes! What is it about this “cult of ugliness” that so prevails in new Bible versions, Catholic and others alike? Is it wrong to use all of one’s talents, not only scholarly but also literary, in serving God through Bible translation and editing? What is wrong about beauty as a way to convey God’s revealed word? (I do not mean aestheticism for its own sake, but for God’s!) At least, though, the New Jerusalem Bible is an exception to all this literary down-grading. The RSV-derived versions (RSV-2nd C.E., NRSV with deuterocanonicals, others, avoid that cultish ugliness, too.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Axion]

Even worse in some ways than the shabby (only barely acceptable) translation are the appallingly unbelieving notes in the NAB’s usual annotations (and the same applies to the dreadful notes in the much better and more literately translated Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bibles! How can Catholic scholars, or any Christian ones, say such things and still be regarded, by themselves or others, as genuine Catholics or Christians? Those notes, far too many of them, really, if the Catholic or other believing Christian takes them seriously, “can lead to spiritual death”, as you so forcefully (but rightly) put it!

Jerry Parker

Exactly right. The worst part of both the NAB and JB are the notes. I wonder how many Catholics have been dismayed, confused and even turned away from the Faith by the appalling notes in these volumes.

The notes go out of their way to push Liberal theories that the bible was put together and written by lying, editors, “redactors” and conmen, who made most of it up as they went along. The notes blatantly disregard or even deny Catholic teachings. But because they were written by academics blessed by the Liberal establishment, their unproven and destructive theorisings are presented as FACT in our bibles. It shows how lax the issuing of imprimiturs has been.

…

Textually, I tend to like the JB/NJB apart from the Psalms and the angels greeting to Mary.

However what alays makes me cringe is the substitution of “integrity” for “righteousness”. The two are NOT the same thing at all, and this blights many of the readings.

 

[kotek]

kotek, first off please accept my apology for seeming so cynical. Second after viewing some text examples of the NJB and the NRSV, the NRSV seems to be the better choice. For me to prove “error” is not one of my gifts. But I can say this, a little bible history is needed. There were many scrolls and autographs written and already in existence in the early centuries. The church had to be very very careful what would be included in the canon and what would not. The translations that wound up in the KJV were written by Palastinian Jews that did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus. And unfortunately, and I mean this as charitably as possible, the translations you cite are merely various modernizations of the KJV which was written and quickly mass printed to discredit the Catholic church. For the life of me I can’t explain why the U.S bishops would approve of these translation. I can only guess they did it to achieve common ground between Protestants and Catholics. Which really didn’t do any good at all, because anti-catholicism is more prevelant now than it ever was. Sorry I couldn’t do a better job explaining my position. Perhaps someone with more education than me (or is it I) will see this post and answer your question more thoroughly.

Apology accepted.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Axion,

You wrote (wow!): The worst part of both the NAB and JB are the notes. I wonder how many Catholics have been dismayed, confused and even turned away from the Faith by the appalling notes in these volumes. The notes go out of their way to push Liberal theories that the bible was put together and written by lying, editors, “redactors” and conmen, who made most of it up as they went along. The notes blatantly disregard or even deny Catholic teachings. But because they were written by academics blessed by the Liberal establishment, their unproven and destructive theorisings are presented as FACT in our bibles. It shows how lax the issuing of imprimiturs has been.
Textually, I tend to like the JB/NJB apart from the Psalms and the angels greeting to Mary.
However what always makes me cringe is the substitution of “integrity” for “righteousness”. The two are NOT the same thing at all, and this blights many of the readings.​

Say it again, brother, dear Axion! Your frankness, and your ability to express your strong sentiments (which are TOTALLY correct), are most impressive! It is due to these dreadful and blaspheming notes that I am reluctant ever to use such Bibles, despite all the good things about their texts, in witnessing or to present them as gifts; with those notes, they are destructive of the Holy Christian and Catholic faith, the work of rank unbelievers. At least I have an unannotated, pocket edition of the N.J.B. that is “presentable”, because those horrid notes are not in it at all.

I noticed, too, that unbecoming substitution of “integrity” for “righteousness”, which you mention; the former word does not even come close to conveying what the text translated, with all of the rich associations of meaning, was meant to convey. The N.J.B. (and J.B.) can go along so sublimely and so well in one’s reading, then all comes to a crashing halt with a terrible jolt at such spots. It is not only the annotators, but, alas, even the translators whose faith has dissipated, but, for all that, the full brew of the poison is in those notes, which never should be in editions for wide sale to believers, who, reading them, can be jerked into doubt or unbelief. Let’s hope that someday future editions will be, by pontifical dictate, free of such rubbish at the bottoms of pages and elsewhere in such Catholic Bibles.

Yeah, the “imprimatur” is simply a joke, a token symbol that means NOTHING anymore. If one bishop does not approve a text, there are dozens of unbelieving hierarchs who are quite content to affix the imprimatur to aberrent texts. What sad times these are, and no pope seems willing to roll up the sleaves and do the herculean job of cleaning the Augean Stables of Catholic acadème.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Yeah, the “imprimatur” is simply a joke, a token symbol that means NOTHING anymore. If one bishop does not approve a text, there are dozens of unbelieving hierarchs who are quite content to affix the imprimatur to aberrent texts. What sad times these are, and no pope seems willing to roll up the sleaves and do the herculean job of cleaning the Augean Stables of Catholic acadème.

I do not intend to comment on your assessment of the textual notes in the NAB and the NJB. However, I would like to point out that Canon Law requires the Bishops’ Conference to approve translations of Scripture, as well as the notes that come intrinsically with them. Thus, no other Bishop may approve the revised NAB OT with its notes. Of course, for the Bible commentaries, the local Ordinary will be able to grant the imprimatur.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Peregrinus,

**You wrote: ** I do not intend to comment on your assessment of the textual notes in the NAB and the NJB. However, I would like to point out that Canon Law requires the Bishops’ Conference to approve translations of Scripture, as well as the notes that come intrinsically with them. Thus, no other Bishop may approve the revised NAB OT with its notes. Of course, for the Bible commentaries, the local Ordinary will be able to grant the imprimatur.​

I understand and, in principle, I agree. The result of not having some such means of giving approbation to Bible texts (and their notes), among other publications, is the sort of free-for-all confusion that has prevailed since their beginnings among Protestants, the sects, and the cults. However, it is the practice of granting imprimaturs that troubles me. The bishops, for whatever reasons are their own individually, simply do not exercise discretion (and doctrinal discipline) as they should do so.

Therefore, the individual Catholic or other Christian simply cannot trust, from mere appearance, in the orthodox value of imprimaturs accorded to publications since the times of laxity that have prevailed roughly since the time of Pope Paul VI. Scripture assures us that the “sheep” must discern the true shepherd’s voice and not follow false shepherds, which Scripture told us would arise (and which have risen up all too numerously in the ranks of the North American hierarchy).

I do not approve of censorship per se, and the errant and often downright unbelieving scholars who add their noxious notes to editions of Catholic Bibles should be allowed to do so, but not by Catholic publishers and not with the imprimatur of a bishop. Then, if that were put into practice, the faithful could have trust again in the worth and doctrinal validity of an imprimatur statement. I would even go so far as to favour a revocation of imprimaturs already granted, by doctrinally responsible authorities at the Vatican itself.

You are right, and so is Axion, from different vantage points, as good Catholics.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[wmscott]

Please enlighten me, what is inclusive language?

 

[rr1213]

Please enlighten me, what is inclusive language?

Among other things, look how the NRSV translates Mathew 4:19:

"And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fish for people.”

 

[wmscott]

Among other things, look how the NRSV translates Mathew 4:19:

"And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fish for people.”

So it is trying to be gender neutral?

 

[rr1213]

So it is trying to be gender neutral?

Yes…or, at least, using words that are inclusive of both genders.

 

[wmscott]

Yes…or, at least, using words that are inclusive of both genders.

Thanks, I got it now.

 

[andrewagill]

And unfortunately, and I mean this as charitably as possible, the translations you cite are merely various modernizations of the KJV which was written and quickly mass printed to discredit the Catholic church.

I’m not sure which translations you’re referring to, but to call the NRSV, NJB or NAB a modernization of the KJV isn’t really accurate. This is likewise inaccurate if you’re referring to the RSV, Douay-Rheims and Confraternity versions.

The Douay-Rheims were written before the KJV, for starters. Both the DRC and the Confraternity version are based on this.

The NRSV, RSV, NJB and NAB are all based off of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (editions 25-27, depending on when it was written) in the New Testament and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia for the Old Testament.

N-A is based off of the critical editions by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and others, and those are about as far from the Textus Receptus as you can get without giving into loony readings. (I’m not sure, but I think N-A is more sympathetic to the Byzantine readings than the editions it was originally based on. Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort were largely reactions to the TR)

The BHS is based off of the Leningrad Codex, rediscovered in the 19th century. None of these were available in the time of the King James Version.

Finally, I’m not sure what you mean about the speed, but the NRSV was commissioned in 1974 and published in 1989 (15 years). The NJB was commissioned in 1978 and published in 1985 (7 years). The NAB was begun in 1944 and published in 1970 (26 years). The KJV was begun in 1604 and completed in 1611 (7 years).

Yes…or, at least, using words that are inclusive of both genders.

This is the one thing that is very unfortunate about the NRSV. The gender expressed in the original text should be the gender expressed in the translation. In some cases, there’s no way to express the same thought in English without implying a gender, and I can understand that, but then in some cases, a gender is implied in Hebrew or Greek that the translators assert was not intended to be implied, and they change that, which is unjustified.

I do note that these translations are not, strictly speaking, inclusive. If a feminine word is used, they typically do not add a masculine counterpart to it. Some older translations are likewise incorrect by changing the feminine words into masculine ones.

 

[mccorm45]

I’m not sure which translations you’re referring to, but to call the NRSV, NJB or NAB a modernization of the KJV isn’t really accurate. This is likewise inaccurate if you’re referring to the RSV, Douay-Rheims and Confraternity versions.

The Douay-Rheims were written before the KJV, for starters. Both the DRC and the Confraternity version are based on this.

The NRSV, RSV, NJB and NAB are all based off of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (editions 25-27, depending on when it was written) in the New Testament and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia for the Old Testament.

N-A is based off of the critical editions by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and others, and those are about as far from the Textus Receptus as you can get without giving into loony readings. (I’m not sure, but I think N-A is more sympathetic to the Byzantine readings than the editions it was originally based on. Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort were largely reactions to the TR)

The BHS is based off of the Leningrad Codex, rediscovered in the 19th century. None of these were available in the time of the King James Version.

Finally, I’m not sure what you mean about the speed, but the NRSV was commissioned in 1974 and published in 1989 (15 years). The NJB was commissioned in 1978 and published in 1985 (7 years). The NAB was begun in 1944 and published in 1970 (26 years). The KJV was begun in 1604 and completed in 1611 (7 years).

This is the one thing that is very unfortunate about the NRSV. The gender expressed in the original text should be the gender expressed in the translation. In some cases, there’s no way to express the same thought in English without implying a gender, and I can understand that, but then in some cases, a gender is implied in Hebrew or Greek that the translators assert was not intended to be implied, and they change that, which is unjustified.

I do note that these translations are not, strictly speaking, inclusive. If a feminine word is used, they typically do not add a masculine counterpart to it. Some older translations are likewise incorrect by changing the feminine words into masculine ones.

In regards to the those translations being modernizations of the KJV, you have clearly shown that they are not. They use completely different textual sources. Some times translations like the RSV or NRSV are said to be of the KJV family, simply because they retain some of the English language decisions that made the KJV so popular.

As for the inclusive language in the NRSV, it can at times be annoying. However, the key point is that they included the textual notes, showing when they used inclusive language. Thes textual notes are printed in every edition of the NRSV and in many ways are an integral part of the translation itself. These textual notes are not only limited to inclusive language cases, but show where other textual options could have been chosen. I particularly like when the show where they have prefered a rendering from the DSS or LXX over the Hebrew, which the NRSV does far more than the RSV.

 

[Omyo12]

In regards to the those translations being modernizations of the KJV, you have clearly shown that they are not. They use completely different textual sources. Some times translations like the RSV or NRSV are said to be of the KJV family, simply because they retain some of the English language decisions that made the KJV so popular.

As for the inclusive language in the NRSV, it can at times be annoying. However, the key point is that they included the textual notes, showing when they used inclusive language. Thes textual notes are printed in every edition of the NRSV and in many ways are an integral part of the translation itself. These textual notes are not only limited to inclusive language cases, but show where other textual options could have been chosen. I particularly like when the show where they have prefered a rendering from the DSS or LXX over the Hebrew, which the NRSV does far more than the RSV.

Hey mccorm45,

You’re the guy from CatholicBibles yes?
I love your blogs

In any case, in regards to the NRSV, what’s the textual basis for the Deuterocanon?

 

[mccorm45]

Hey mccorm45,

You’re the guy from CatholicBibles yes?
I love your blogs

In any case, in regards to the NRSV, what’s the textual basis for the Deuterocanon?

Hey, thanks! I appreciate you stopping by the blog and for the kind words.

The textual basis of the NRSV Deuterocanonicals comes from a number of texts. I will quote from the NRSV preface, written by Bruce Metzger, which gives the specifics:

For most of these books the basic Greek text from which the present translation was made is the edition of the Septuagint prepared by Alfred Rahlfs and published by the Württemberg Bible Society (Stuttgart, 1935). For several of the books the more recently published individual volumes of the Göttingen Septuagint project were utilized. For the book of Tobit it was decided to follow the form of the Greek text found in codex Sinaiticus (supported as it is by evidence from Qumran); where this text is defective, it was supplemented and corrected by other Greek manuscripts. For the three Additions to Daniel (namely, Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, and Bel and the Dragon) the Committee continued to use the Greek version attributed to Theodotion (the so-called “Theodotion-Daniel”). In translating Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), while constant reference was made to the Hebrew fragments of a large portion of this book (those discovered at Qumran and Masada as well as those recovered from the Cairo Geniza), the Committee generally followed the Greek text (including verse numbers) published by Joseph Ziegler in the Göttingen Septuagint (1965). But in many places the Committee has translated the Hebrew text when this provides a reading that is clearly superior to the Greek; the Syriac and Latin versions were also consulted throughout and occasionally adopted…Finally, since the Additions to the Book of Esther are disjointed and quite unintelligible as they stand in most editions of the Apocrypha, we have provided them with their original context by translating the whole of the Greek version of Esther from Robert Hanhart’s Göttingen edition (1983).