Do you like the NABRE; why/ why not

  • Thread starter Thread starter CountrySteve
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CrossofChrist said:
Perhaps someone else is built up. šŸ¤·
Click to expand...
Iā€™m not denying that, but having several standards of comparison at hand, I do not see the NAB and its revised edition in the best light - either as to translation (secondarily), or the book intros and notes (primarily). Had the translators tilted ever so slightly toward the Apostolic Tradition, they might have seen Mary as full of grace, for but one example.
 
po18guy said:
Iā€™m not denying that, but having several standards of comparison at hand, I do not see the NAB and its revised edition in the best light - either as to translation (secondarily), or the book intros and notes (primarily). Had the translators tilted ever so slightly toward the Apostolic Tradition, they might have seen Mary as full of grace, for but one example.
Click to expand...
So you think itā€™s not as good. Ok. But who are we to judge that the Holy Spirit didnā€™t influence the translation?
 
porthos11 said:
Because itā€™s not Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit inspired any translation or manuscript outside of the original autographs.
Click to expand...
Okā€¦

And this means we can know that God isnā€™t acting there because???
 
CrossofChrist said:
So you think itā€™s not as good. Ok. But who are we to judge that the Holy Spirit didnā€™t influence the translation?
Click to expand...
It is not Vulgate-based. The Church has defined the Vulgate as a reliable translation of the original manuscripts. Not so with any other. Granted the NAB/RE is approved and used (only in modified form) in the liturgy, but I view it as Paul said, ā€œAll things are legal to me, but not all edify.ā€
 
As with so many things that were driven by the ā€œspirit of Vatican IIā€, the ecumenical thrust of the NAB and NAB/RE seems not so much directed at attracting others to the Catholic faith as much as it seems to move nearer to them and accommodate them where they are.

To be clear, I am not in any way criticizing Vatican II. Rather I oppose the worldly spirit that sensed an opportunity to disrupt the implementation of the VII reforms.
 
CrossofChrist said:
Okā€¦

And this means we can know that God isnā€™t acting there because???
Click to expand...
We donā€™t, either way. Which is why we donā€™t make the assumption.

The Church has defined that only the original autographs are inspired. Nothing else is. Sure God can aid translators and copyists; in fact, if theyā€™re worth their salt, they should ask for this guidance. But that does not place their copies and translations on par with the originals.
 
Oh my, I love these threadsā€¦
  1. A living faith can best be preserved in a dead language, and that is exactly what the Church has done.
po18guy: I love that line! Is it yours? Can I steal it? :o
  1. I keep trying to get into the RSV but I struggle. I know itā€™s ā€œrecommendedā€ and such but each time I try using it, I get that feeling that itā€™s just a KJV with a new paint job. Isnā€™t it, after all? I mean, KJV 1611 begot ASV 1902, which begot RSV 1951, which begot RSV-CE 1971ā€¦
  2. I continue to use the NABRE and must say, while it has its ugly side, Iā€™m often impressed with how often its New Testament gets closer to the Greek than many other translations. No, Iā€™m not a Greek expert; I just read multiple translations and keep a Greek interlinear nearby at all times.
  3. I still love my Douay-Rheims and like the idea of an OLD tradition (Latin!) with confidence regarding many renderings that only recently (1960s) have become so ā€œdifficultā€ or ā€œuncertainā€ according to linguistic scholars. I have recently begun reading the Vulgate side-by-side with the Douay-Rheims to help me learn Latin. Thatā€™s a blast.
Ainā€™t reading Godā€™s Word awesome? Praise the Lord! šŸ˜ƒ

PS. Has anyone seen the hardcover Ignatius RSV? Does it use that tan paper like the leatherbound, or nice white paper? Is it nice? My eyes are fussy and that tan or cream paper makes it hard for me. Thanks.
 
I prefer other translations. I use the Douay-Rheims because of its beauty and fullness of Catholic truth.

Saint Matthew wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and walked with Jesus. Matthew quoted the Septuagintā€™s translation of Isaiah 7:14 that:

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
23ā€œBehold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,ā€
which means ā€œGod is with us.ā€ Matthew 1:22-23

The NABREā€™s preferred translation of Isaiah 7:14 is:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.

In addition to the issue of ā€œvirginā€ or ā€œyoung woman,ā€ the NABRE makes it appear the sign given is that the child will be named Emmanuel, rather than the pregnancy or that it is a virgin ā€“ which is the idea that Matthew conveys.

Translators have a very difficult task and no translation is free from all problems, there may be many good reasons to like the NABRE, but for my own reading including the very handy MP3 Bible on my tablet, I prefer the Douay-Rheims. šŸ‘
 
po18guy said:
The ā€œsore thumbā€ of those footnotes might just be for Luke 1:46-55. The authors assume that Luke fabricated (or ā€œcopied and pastedā€) Maryā€™s Magificat and inserted it in the Gospel because it fit nicely. Are you kidding me?

Please, someone, anyone, tell me how this does not deconstruct the Gospel from historical record to charming novel? It is not the Holy Spirit that drove these notes.
Click to expand...
Is it possible (likely) that Luke did not personally record Maryā€™s Magnificat as she spoke it?

If he did not personally record it at the time it was said, but rather recorded an oral Tradition a few decades old, is the inspired nature of Scripture soiled?
 
I donā€™t use the NABRE, mostly because of the various things Iā€™ve heard about the notes and the introductions.

Frankly, Iā€™m quite happy using the RSV-(2)CE; and I plan on consulting the Navarre Bible commentaries once I start acquiring them.

My ideal Bible would be an RSV-CE with extensive cross references and in a high quality, leather binding; the sort of Bible Cambridge Press puts out, for example, for something like a hundred bucks.

Alas, we Catholics have fewer options than our Protestant brethren haveā€¦ šŸ˜›
po18guy said:
The Church has defined the Vulgate as a reliable translation of the original manuscripts.
Click to expand...
Well, not precisely. Pope Pius XII mentioned that *ā€œthe authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council [of Trent] particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries ā€¦ .ā€

*The Vulgate is free from errors of faith and morals, but this should not imply that it contains no errors whatsoever, nor that it is even a good translation of the original manuscripts.After all, we are speaking about a translation that includes the *Johannine Comma: something which is certainly not an error of doctrine, but something which almost certainly is an error from a critical perspective.This isnā€™t even beginning to touch the issues that some of the deuterocanonical books haveā€¦
*
 
clem456 said:
Is it possible (likely) that Luke did not personally record Maryā€™s Magnificat as she spoke it?
Click to expand...
Itā€™s possible that St. Luke consulted Mary while doing research for his gospel, and certainly many would point to internal evidence that supports such a hypothesis. Does the NABRE mention this before it tries to provide evidence that would allow many to conclude the St. Luke was simply writing fiction?
 
po18guy said:
I have NAB and /RE, but only rarely consult them. Why? Just off the top of my head:
  1. Mary is not full of grace, but Saint Stephen the Martyr is.
  2. You will die of old age before finding the word ā€œhellā€ in it.
  3. Paul did not forgive sins in the person of Christ, but rather, only in His presence.
  4. Many of the footnotes have no place between the covers of a bible, IMO. To even suggest that Luke fabricated or ā€˜copied and pastedā€™ Maryā€™s Magnificat is repugnant. Read the footnotes for Luke 1:45 and following.
To tell you the truth, I am currently reading a Revised English Bible, and I find it superior to the NAB/RE. At least its UK Catholic contributors were defending the faith.

The more I read and know of modern criticism, the more I love Saint Jerome.
Click to expand...
Completely agree! They should dump the NAB/NABRE and use the RSV-CE2
 
The more I read and know of modern criticism, the more I love Saint Jerome.

Ha! Another great one-liner in this topic!

I agree. šŸ˜‰
 
InNomineDomini said:
Itā€™s possible that St. Luke consulted Mary while doing research for his gospel, and certainly many would point to internal evidence that supports such a hypothesis. Does the NABRE mention this before it tries to provide evidence that would allow many to conclude the St. Luke was simply writing fiction?
Click to expand...
If you are claiming the NABRE claims Luke was writing fiction you are not understanding what the footnotes say.
Is that what you are saying?
 
I donā€™t understand the hostile attitude towards the NABRE? Its the Bible our Bishops give us, should we not trust it?
 
I donā€™t know the differences between the NABRE and the NAB. But I donā€™t like the NAB because parts of the translation seem whitewashed, and the footnotes often cast doubt on the faith.
 
livingwordunity said:
I donā€™t know the differences between the NABRE and the NAB. But I donā€™t like the NAB because parts of the translation seem whitewashed, and the footnotes often cast doubt on the faith.
Click to expand...
The NABRE has a revised Old Testament, including the Psalms (which were greatly improved). šŸ‘
 
CountrySteve said:
I donā€™t understand the hostile attitude towards the NABRE? Its the Bible our Bishops give us, should we not trust it?
Click to expand...
If this is the one Iā€™m thinking of, the translation is good but the notes and footnotes are horrificā€¦almost non-Catholic in some instances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top