Confraternity Bible and the NAB

[Crusader13]

In doing some research on the history of these two different translations, I can’t find a clear answer as to why there was such a radical departure when the CCD abandoned its focus on revising the Rheims-Challoner version and instead began work on an entirely new translation, which became the NAB.

I may have my dates wrong, but the process for the Confraternity Bible began I believe in the late 1930’s, (possibly '38) and the NT was released in 1941. Shortly after, they began work on the OT, but a mere two years later, on September 30, 1943, Pope Pius XII issued Divino Afflante Spiritu. Which the CCD then shifted focus from revising the Rheims-Challoner version and instead began translating from the original Hebrew/Greek manuscripts.

My question is this, just because they shifted focus from the Rheims-Challoner version and began using the original Hebrew/Greek manuscripts, why did they start including all the inclusive language and bad footnotes?

I’m assuming that some of the same members from the CCD who completed the 1941 NT also worked on what was to become the NAB. Therefore, if they could put out a translation as good as what they did with the '41 NT, why couldn’t they have carried over that same philosophy with the NAB?

Just because they started using the original manuscripts, doesn’t mean they had to incorporate such drastic measures in bringing forth the NAB. I know many Catholics on here only read Catholic translations and even though the RSV has a Catholic Edition, they still avoid it because of its Protestant beginnings. Others are also so completely dissatisfied with the NAB; they stick with either the Douay Rheims or the Jerusalem Bible.

I just never understood why the Catholic Church as a whole or at the very least the USCCB can’t put forth a translation which mirrors the accuracy and beauty of some other Protestant translations, except without the Protestant teachings. I know the ESV is considered by many to be one of the best versions out there and I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church can’t put forth a completely new translation that can rival the ESV in its literalness and style and yet have great study notes with purely catholic teachings and beliefs.

 

[dmar198]

In doing some research on the history of these two different translations, I can’t find a clear answer as to why there was such a radical departure when the CCD abandoned its focus on revising the Rheims-Challoner version and instead began work on an entirely new translation, which became the NAB.

I may have my dates wrong, but the process for the Confraternity Bible began I believe in the late 1930’s, (possibly '38) and the NT was released in 1941. Shortly after, they began work on the OT, but a mere two years later, on September 30, 1943, Pope Pius XII issued Divino Afflante Spiritu. Which the CCD then shifted focus from revising the Rheims-Challoner version and instead began translating from the original Hebrew/Greek manuscripts.

My question is this, just because they shifted focus from the Rheims-Challoner version and began using the original Hebrew/Greek manuscripts, why did they start including all the inclusive language and bad footnotes?

I’m assuming that some of the same members from the CCD who completed the 1941 NT also worked on what was to become the NAB. Therefore, if they could put out a translation as good as what they did with the '41 NT, why couldn’t they have carried over that same philosophy with the NAB?

Just because they started using the original manuscripts, doesn’t mean they had to incorporate such drastic measures in bringing forth the NAB. I know many Catholics on here only read Catholic translations and even though the RSV has a Catholic Edition, they still avoid it because of its Protestant beginnings. Others are also so completely dissatisfied with the NAB; they stick with either the Douay Rheims or the Jerusalem Bible.

I just never understood why the Catholic Church as a whole or at the very least the USCCB can’t put forth a translation which mirrors the accuracy and beauty of some other Protestant translations, except without the Protestant teachings. I know the ESV is considered by many to be one of the best versions out there and I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church can’t put forth a completely new translation that can rival the ESV in its literalness and style and yet have great study notes with purely catholic teachings and beliefs.

Divino Afflante Spiritu didn’t just advise translators to use the Hebrew and Greek. It also suggested that they use textual criticism, pay attention to variant readings, and invite non-Catholics to help with the translation process. Which is all good – but our Bishops weren’t prepared for those types of things. At the time, I don’t think our bishops were trained in textual criticism, and so they allowed the experts in textual criticism to bear the burden of the translating and the notes. That was a problem, because the textual critics in America are notoriously abusive of the study of Scripture: they tend to either assume historical inaccuracies into the Bible or invent them if they aren’t there; they tend to deny that Jesus was a true prophet who spoke the future, and not just Jesus but the other prophets as well; they tend to deny the historicity of Genesis 1-3; they tend to insert into those chapters a primitive view of the cosmos, and so on. The result is terrible notes with bad translation practices. I like the Confraternity version for its beauty and style and notes, and I don’t think most Catholics have a problem with it. But I own and use an RSV CE as my personal Bible, without fearing to look at and read Protestant translations as well, though I prefer Catholic ones.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In doing some research on the history of these two different translations, I can’t find a clear answer as to why there was such a radical departure when the CCD abandoned its focus on revising the Rheims-Challoner version and instead began work on an entirely new translation, which became the NAB.

I may have my dates wrong, but the process for the Confraternity Bible began I believe in the late 1930’s, (possibly '38) and the NT was released in 1941. Shortly after, they began work on the OT, but a mere two years later, on September 30, 1943, Pope Pius XII issued Divino Afflante Spiritu. Which the CCD then shifted focus from revising the Rheims-Challoner version and instead began translating from the original Hebrew/Greek manuscripts.

My question is this, just because they shifted focus from the Rheims-Challoner version and began using the original Hebrew/Greek manuscripts, why did they start including all the inclusive language and bad footnotes?

I’m assuming that some of the same members from the CCD who completed the 1941 NT also worked on what was to become the NAB. Therefore, if they could put out a translation as good as what they did with the '41 NT, why couldn’t they have carried over that same philosophy with the NAB?

Just because they started using the original manuscripts, doesn’t mean they had to incorporate such drastic measures in bringing forth the NAB. I know many Catholics on here only read Catholic translations and even though the RSV has a Catholic Edition, they still avoid it because of its Protestant beginnings. Others are also so completely dissatisfied with the NAB; they stick with either the Douay Rheims or the Jerusalem Bible.

I just never understood why the Catholic Church as a whole or at the very least the USCCB can’t put forth a translation which mirrors the accuracy and beauty of some other Protestant translations, except without the Protestant teachings. I know the ESV is considered by many to be one of the best versions out there and I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church can’t put forth a completely new translation that can rival the ESV in its literalness and style and yet have great study notes with purely catholic teachings and beliefs.

I always liked the CCD translation, wish I still had my old one. However I really like my Haydock edition of the Douay-Rheims. Its bulky but I love the footnotes. But I need to get one that is easier to carry arround.