Does ANYONE like the NABRE? (Revisited)

[po18guy]

Oh! One more -]gripe/-], uh, I mean curiosity in the NAB and NABRE: The “prayer to the Holy Spirit before reading the scriptures” was omitted from the NAB and /RE. Why is that? That prayer was in the opening pages of the Confraternity and the Douay-Rheims back to at least the 1899 edition. Is beseeching the guidance of the Holy Spirit unnecessary, or somehow undesirable?

There was already a perfectly fine Catholic bible in nearly finished form when the NAB “took over.” It was the 1941-1969 Confraternity Bible. The completed Confraternity OT essentially became the OT in the NAB. The NT, based on the Clementine Vulgate, with its edifying notes and introductions (not to mention its unapologetic Catholicity), is far superior, IMO. I have several versions, as it remained a work in progress during its lifespan - and that lifespan was pitifully shortened by the introduction of the NAB in 1970. Thus, the Confraternity was never published in finished form under a single cover.

I note that Saint Jerome’s Vulgate, the origin of the D-R and Confraternity, Knox and others, is simply a warmer and more human translation. In the NAB and NABRE, the manuscript used is apparently the same as in Protestant translations, at least in the Book of Tobit. Those first chapters have Tobit referring to himself in the first person, then the text abruptly switches to third person(?) This extolling of virtue in the first person strikes me as boastful more than scriptural.

Simply for the sake of operating funds (as with the NAB and NAB/RE, you would think that the USCCB would license the Confraternity bible for publication.

Or, would the contrast between it and the NAB raise too many eyebrows?

 

[Crusader13]

Oh! One more -]gripe/-], uh, I mean curiosity in the NAB and NABRE: The “prayer to the Holy Spirit before reading the scriptures” was omitted from the NAB and /RE. Why is that? That prayer was in the opening pages of the Confraternity and the Douay-Rheims back to at least the 1899 edition. Is beseeching the guidance of the Holy Spirit unnecessary, or somehow undesirable?

There was already a perfectly fine Catholic bible in nearly finished form when the NAB “took over.” It was the 1941-1969 Confraternity Bible. The completed Confraternity OT essentially became the OT in the NAB. The NT, based on the Clementine Vulgate, with its edifying notes and introductions (not to mention its unapologetic Catholicity), is far superior, IMO. I have several versions, as it remained a work in progress during its lifespan - and that lifespan was pitifully shortened by the introduction of the NAB in 1970. Thus, the Confraternity was never published in finished form under a single cover.

I note that Saint Jerome’s Vulgate, the origin of the D-R and Confraternity, Knox and others, is simply a warmer and more human translation. In the NAB and NABRE, the manuscript used is apparently the same as in Protestant translations, at least in the Book of Tobit. Those first chapters have Tobit referring to himself in the first person, then the text abruptly switches to third person(?) This extolling of virtue in the first person strikes me as boastful more than scriptural.

Simply for the sake of operating funds (as with the NAB and NAB/RE, you would think that the USCCB would license the Confraternity bible for publication.

Or, would the contrast between it and the NAB raise too many eyebrows?

Just wanted to get your opinion about the OT of the Confraternity Bible between those years you mentioned (1941-1969). I understand that the OT, with the exception of Genesis, is what became the 1970 NAB, but do you find the OT to be an okay translation or do you think it suffered from the same problems as the NT of 1970?

I realize the OT did have it’s fair share of criticism, but it seems that the NT is what really drew most of the complaints.

 

[po18guy]

Just wanted to get your opinion about the OT of the Confraternity Bible between those years you mentioned (1941-1969). I understand that the OT, with the exception of Genesis, is what became the 1970 NAB, but do you find the OT to be an okay translation or do you think it suffered from the same problems as the NT of 1970?

I realize the OT did have it’s fair share of criticism, but it seems that the NT is what really drew most of the complaints.

The Confraternity OT began as pure Douay-Rheims, and so was unquestionable, other than as to the antiquity of the language. As time passed, Confraternity OT translations were inserted. A 1949 Confraternity bible I have retains all of the Douay OT, with the exception of a new translation of the Psalms. Since it was a work in progress, direct comparison is somewhat complicated and must be done on a bible-by-bible basis.

I have a first year (1970) NAB, and its texts are clearly based on different manuscripts from those in the Douay or the Confraternity. This is normally attributed to Pope Pius XII’s Divino afflante Spiritu which encouraged translating the scriptures from the original languages rather than updating the Vulgate. The 1970 NAB intros and notes are much more detailed (synopses), though they did not yet contain the heavily criticized notes we see in the later (1986 and onward?) NAB and NABRE.

The Dead Sea Scroll discoveries at Qumran seem to have played a large role in the textual changes. In contrast to the NAB, the notes in the Confraternity are sparse and to the point. In the 1970 NAB, hints may be seen of the doubts which crept into later notes and intros. It seems that the “spirit of Vatican II” held sway, rather than the letter of Vatican II.

 

[tvknight415]

The Confraternity OT began as pure Douay-Rheims, and so was unquestionable, other than as to the antiquity of the language. As time passed, Confraternity OT translations were inserted. A 1949 Confraternity bible I have retains all of the Douay OT, with the exception of a new translation of the Psalms. Since it was a work in progress, direct comparison is somewhat complicated and must be done on a bible-by-bible basis.

Catholic Book Publishing had the widest variety. As best I can tell, here’s how their editions broke out:

Before 1952: Douay OT/New Latin Psalter Psalms
1953-56: Genesis-Ruth Confraternity; New Latin Psalms; rest of the OT Douay
1957-1960: Genesis-Ruth, Job-Sirach Confraternity, rest OT Douay
1961-69: Genesis-Ruth, Job-Sirach, Prophets Confraternity, rest Douay
1970: NAB

Personally, I think the 1952 and earlier are the best.

 

[po18guy]

Catholic Book Publishing had the widest variety. As best I can tell, here’s how their editions broke out:

Before 1952: Douay OT/New Latin Psalter Psalms
1953-56: Genesis-Ruth Confraternity; New Latin Psalms; rest of the OT Douay
1957-1960: Genesis-Ruth, Job-Sirach Confraternity, rest OT Douay
1961-69: Genesis-Ruth, Job-Sirach, Prophets Confraternity, rest Douay
1970: NAB

Personally, I think the 1952 and earlier are the best.

Agreed. I, for one, would purchase a completed Confraternity in a heartbeat - were one only published. The introductions and foot notes are edifying and confidence inspiring, standing in stark contrast to the often dubious counterparts in the NABRE. My personal favorite Confraternity is a leatherbound, gilt-edged 1949 CBPC edition that I found at a thrift store for $1.99.

I think member Salvatore123 (if not, my apologies to the source) provided the following link to a cataloging of the Confraternity editions: bibles.wikidot.com/douay-confraternity

 

[Crusader13]

Agreed. I, for one, would purchase a completed Confraternity in a heartbeat - were one only published. The introductions and foot notes are edifying and confidence inspiring, standing in stark contrast to the often dubious counterparts in the NABRE. My personal favorite Confraternity is a leatherbound, gilt-edged 1949 CBPC edition that I found at a thrift store for $1.99.

I think member Salvatore123 (if not, my apologies to the source) provided the following link to a cataloging of the Confraternity editions: bibles.wikidot.com/douay-confraternity

Sometimes I get confused when people say they would purchase a “completed confraternity bible”. My understanding of that, is to say a completed confraternity bible would consist of the NT which was first published in 1941 and the confraternity OT, which was completed sometime in 1969, I believe.

So essentially, it would be similar to taking the same NAB OT, first published in 1970 and combining it with the 1941 confraternity NT. With the exception of the book of Genesis, which was a completely new translation and differs from the one we find in the earlier Douay/Confraternity hybrids published from 1953-1963.

Is that a proper understanding of it?

 

[po18guy]

So essentially, it would be similar to taking the same NAB OT, first published in 1970 and combining it with the 1941 confraternity NT. With the exception of the book of Genesis, which was a completely new translation and differs from the one we find in the earlier Douay/Confraternity hybrids published from 1953-1963.

Is that a proper understanding of it?

Close. The NAB OT is based on the Confraternity, but is not identical. Side-by-side comparison will reveal differences. In truth, I prefer the older language, as it is more “bible-specific” than the simplified English used in the NAB. The NAB strikes me as less poetic, less descriptive, less reverent, just… less. Prosaic.

One factor that I like about the Douay-Confraternity is that the more antiquated OT language is a constant reminder of which testament you are reading - fitting, in other words.

 

[tvknight415]

Genesis was re-translated to the NAB as well. I like how Confraternity Grnesis 1 reads.