CNA: New American Bible to be revised into single translation

[Joe_5859]

The Newly Revised New Revised New American Bible, with Revisions?

Or perhaps the Extremely Revised New American Bible? (That could draw in the kids… they love anything extreme these days!)

Oooh! How about the “Inspirational eXtreme New American Bible”. Or iXNAB. Kids love things that begin with a lower case ‘i’ and the letter ‘X’ is still the coolest letter of the alphabet. Why not take advantage of both?

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Maybe they can call it the New American Liturgiam Authenticam Bible (NALAB).

But what was interesting to me, besides how uncoordinated and piecemeal the whole thing has been, is it seems to suggest that a revision to the Lectionary would be delayed even further. When the Lectionary was approved, the Bishops, led by Bishop Trautman, wanted to review the Lectionary in 5 years, and the BCDW has been working up till Easter by now, I think. Part of the revision was to base some of the texts on the NRSV instead of the NAB. Looks like that revision is now a dead horse and Bishop Trautman’s longed for review will only occur after 15 years later?

 

[Dirt]

Well, I took this from EWTN’s website. Under their Question and Answer section, they have a FAQ about approved Bible versions, and here’s what it says about the versions of the NAB:

4.1 New American Bible or NAB (1970). Translated from the original languages by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine according to the **principles of Vatican II **for use in the liturgy. It was the basis of the American Lectionary from the 1970s until 2002. A good translation, but it was criticized for its changing of some traditional and familiar expressions, such as “full of grace”.

Yep. Just a little more hope and change for ya!
I think i will continue with my Douay-Rheims.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I just read about this yesterday or the day before. This is definitely exciting news. I hope and pray that this new Bible translation is a good one. Hopefully they translate Luke 1:28 correctly. Here is it how it reads in the current NAB:

And coming to her, he said, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.
(Luke 1:28 NAB)

This is how it should look, or at least closer to how it should look:

And he came to her and said, “Hail full of Grace, the Lord is with you!”
(Luke 1:28 RSV-CE)

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
(Luke 1:28 DRB)

You maybe right on this. I would like to look at it in my Ronald Knox NT.

But I must say, we can not really compare English to English translations. When looking at the value of a translation we should look to the Greek that the English is being translated from.

So what does the Greek for Luke 1:28 say and how should it be translated into English.

For myself, I do not know Greek. So I trust the translators. I prefer the RSV-2CE as well. But when I can get a full copy of the Knox translation I will probably switch to using that in my daily reading.

 

[jwinch2]

You maybe right on this. I would like to look at it in my Ronald Knox NT.

But I must say, we can not really compare English to English translations. When looking at the value of a translation we should look to the Greek that the English is being translated from.

So what does the Greek for Luke 1:28 say and how should it be translated into English.

For myself, I do not know Greek. So I trust the translators. I prefer the RSV-2CE as well. But when I can get a full copy of the Knox translation I will probably switch to using that in my daily reading.

Its supposed to be released here later in the year. baroniuspress.com/index.php?wid=12

I’m interested and will likely pick one up.

Cheers,

 

[Brendan]

I just read about this yesterday or the day before. This is definitely exciting news. I hope and pray that this new Bible translation is a good one. Hopefully they translate Luke 1:28 correctly. Here is it how it reads in the current NAB:

If they want it to be used in the Liturgy, it would have to be. That is one of the changes that the Vatican mandated for the lectionionary used at Mass in the US. THe text is mostly NAB, but with modifications to be more doctrinally correct. This is one of them.

BTW, the only current English text that was approved by the Vatican for use in the Liturgy without modifications was the RSV-2CE.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Its supposed to be released here later in the year. baroniuspress.com/index.php?wid=12

I’m interested and will likely pick one up.

Cheers,

I know and I have been watching this site for months now. It has been at the printers for at least three months now.

I am beginning to doubt that they will eventually come out with it.

 

[jwinch2]

I am beginning to doubt that they will eventually come out with it.

That’s disheartening. I hope your fears are unfounded.

 

[ProVobis]

I just read about this yesterday or the day before. This is definitely exciting news. I hope and pray that this new Bible translation is a good one. Hopefully they translate Luke 1:28 correctly. Here is it how it reads in the current NAB:

And coming to her, he said, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.
(Luke 1:28 NAB)

This is how it should look, or at least closer to how it should look:

And he came to her and said, “Hail full of Grace, the Lord** is** with you!”
(Luke 1:28 RSV-CE)

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
(Luke 1:28 DRB)

NB: In each translation it is “The Lord IS with you.”

Yet in the English Mass it is always: “The Lord BE with you.” (subjunctive mood in English, none in Latin or Polish)

So which is right? Can “Dominus vobiscum” or “Dominus tecum” even be translated into English? And this is easy Latin.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

NB: In each translation it is “The Lord IS with you.”

Yet in the English Mass it is always: “The Lord BE with you.” (subjunctive mood in English, none in Latin)

So which is right? Can “Dominus vobiscum” or “Dominus tecum” even be translated into English?

If it can not be translated then I would put forward that it can not be understood.

Yes those who know Latin may claim to understand it but they are doing so by translating it in their mind.

The only way to truly understand a language with out the natural translation occurring within our minds is to actually think in the language.

I greatly doubt that there are any people alive today who are thinking in Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t dislike the Douay. I merely recognize that it wasn’t carried down from the mount by Moses chiseled into stone.

Since the DR was a translation of the Vulgate, any errors it contained were perpetuated. It is telling that the Vatican no longer uses the Vulgate as the official translation, but rather the Nova Vulgata. If the Vulgate was perfectly accurate there would have been no reason to update it. Latin is a dead language after all so it isn’t like the language evolved as we see in modern languages. And, lest anyone suggest that the Nova Vulgata was a modernist thing, the process was actually started under Pope St. Pius X.

Good point. Not that any translation won’t have some degree of error in it.

Here’s more on the various “vulgates.” Note many of the revisions were ones of punctuation, references to the Deity, adjustments based on new scholarly findings, and some minor grammatical adjustments. (Unfortunately some Latin poetry was also compromised.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

 

[jwinch2]

Good point. Not that any translation won’t have some degree of error in it.

Here’s more on the various “vulgates.” Note many of the revisions were ones of punctuation, references to the Deity, adjustments based on new scholarly findings, and some minor grammatical adjustments. (Unfortunately some Latin poetry was also compromised.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

Thanks!

 

[Nec5]

If it can not be translated then I would put forward that it can not be understood.

Yes those who know Latin may claim to understand it but they are doing so by translating it in their mind.

The only way to truly understand a language with out the natural translation occurring within our minds is to actually think in the language.

I greatly doubt that there are any people alive today who are thinking in Latin.

That’s a pretty good point.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s a pretty good point.

Yes, but if you don’t know any Latin, how can you be sure the translation is even remotely close in meaning? Maybe I’m overcritical because I compare the English translations with the Polish translations but I mean c’mon, the Latin used in the Vulgate is pretty easy, at least when compared with many Church documents or Cicero. What’s wrong with a side-by-side Latin-vernacular when reading a Bible? Or Greek if you prefer. Seems like it at least gives the translation some authenticity.

As one poster put it, one of his professors told his class to toss their English Bibles in the trash. It was probably hyperbolically speaking but IMO he made a valid point.

 

[johnbres2]

Better than the KJV.

I’m glad you didn’t try to say that with a straight face.

 

[Filii_Dei]

While we’re at it, the Commonwealth and American conferences should just work together to decide upon a single translation. Can’t the whole English-speaking world just standardise on one lectionary? We’ve got Jerusalem Bible in the Commonwealth, but the New American Bible in the US, NRSV in Canada, RSV-2CE in South Africa, and rumour has it that the ESV will be used in Australia in the future. This is way too many translations. Our understanding of the language isn’t that divergent to warrant such differences. It makes our missals less useful when moving between these different territories.

 

[CollegeStinks]

Wow I’m out of the loop.

Can somebody explain to me why people bash the NAB? If it’s not appropriate to post here can you PM me?

I have a Douay-Rheims but it’s too hard for me to understand so I’ve been reading the NAB for over a year now. I really need the little footnotes to help me understand stuff Is that bad?

Can somebody suggest to me what THE BEST Catholic bible is? Preferably one that a monkey can read and walk away knowing the scriptures.

 

[jwinch2]

I have a Douay-Rheims but it’s too hard for me to understand so I’ve been reading the NAB for over a year now. I really need the little footnotes to help me understand stuff Is that bad?

While some have a problem with the translation, I think you will find that it is the footnotes which really bother most people.

Can somebody suggest to me what THE BEST Catholic bible is? Preferably one that a monkey can read and walk away knowing the scriptures.

There are scores of threads on this topic here on CAF. Here is a recent one. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=733181

Peace,

 

[ProVobis]

Can somebody suggest to me what THE BEST Catholic bible is? Preferably one that a monkey can read and walk away knowing the scriptures.

I’m afraid it’s like asking what the best Sanskrit translation of Shakespeare is. I don’t think anyone who doesn’t understand the original language knows for sure.

 

[CollegeStinks]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Can you possibly specify what the problem with the footnotes is? Any specifics?