Easier to read: NAB or RSV-CE 2E?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Broobarker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the fundamental problems of English translations is that of the problem of copyright infringement. The translators are handicapped by having to come up with a new version of the old familiar verses, one that does not plagiarize what someone else has already published.

A couple years ago I did a comparison on this website of a verse from about six or seven English translations. It’s surprising that once in while, the translation comes off in a surprising way, seemingly to change the whole sense of a verse. Very disturbing to see that.

I’ve done a lot of reading/study in the NIV, NAB, and RSV-CE. I like the latter, for retaining some of the flavor of the KJV, which really grabs me sometimes. This year I bought a copy of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford) for looking at a competent translation and for some sometimes-controversial comments.

Catholic commentaries are often in surprising agreement with Jewish commentaries, by the way – without crediting each other in so many words.
 
Come to think of it, there is already a citation from the Jewish Talmud (if I’m not mistaken) in the commentary on the first couple chapters of Mt gospel, in the Ignatius Study Bible. So, the modern and competent way of studying scripture is to look what Jewish study has concluded.

(see the Pont. Bibl. Commission document on The Jewish People and their Scripture in the Christian Bible, available in the document library at the ewtn.com website – for an endorsement by P. Benedict XVI of studying Jewish commentary on scripture)
 
I’m going to be unpopular (again) and say that I quite like the NAB, even though it’s more of a paraphrase than a translation. But that’s mostly for casual reading. For in-depth study, the Douay-Rheims is still the safest bet - the most “dignified” and trustworthy in that it’s based on the Latin Vulgate; contains verses missing from most modern translations (which I like). The RSV-2CE is quite good as well, but does indeed come off very Protestant-ish. In the end, I use all three, as well as the Catholic Public Domain Version (also based on the Vulgate). I don’t recommend sticking to one version; cross-referencing is essential.
 
Mark_David said:
I’m going to be unpopular (again) and say that I quite like the NAB, even though it’s more of a paraphrase than a translation. But that’s mostly for casual reading. For in-depth study, the Douay-Rheims is still the safest bet - the most “dignified” and trustworthy in that it’s based on the Latin Vulgate; contains verses missing from most modern translations (which I like). The RSV-2CE is quite good as well, but does indeed come off very Protestant-ish. In the end, I use all three, as well as the Catholic Public Domain Version (also based on the Vulgate). I don’t recommend sticking to one version; cross-referencing is essential.
Click to expand...
I also like the NAB/RE and now use it as my main translation (I also use the RSV-2CE). I would only argue that the NAB is not a paraphrase, it is a translation, though it is more dynamic (looser) than the RSV-2CE, which in my opinion makes it easier to read. When the word paraphrase comes into my mind I think of ‘The Message’ Bible or the ‘Living Bible.’
 
juliamajor said:
Depends what you are reading it for.If for pleasure or meditation I suggest anything your comfortable with. For study,I’d stick with RSV, but get the Oxford annotated or a study bible:)
Click to expand...
I would whole heartily agree with this. While not a “CE” edition, the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, RSV edition with the Apocrypha, is a fantastic Bible. The study aids are great for learning and provide a good understanding of the text, without being overwhelming.

As far as the NAB vs RSV? I own 1 NAB, and 3 RSV’s in different editions. The RSV wins in my book, hands down.
 
Mark_David said:
I’m going to be unpopular (again) and say that I quite like the NAB, even though it’s more of a paraphrase than a translation. But that’s mostly for casual reading. For in-depth study, the Douay-Rheims is still the safest bet - the most “dignified” and trustworthy in that it’s based on the Latin Vulgate; contains verses missing from most modern translations (which I like). The RSV-2CE is quite good as well, but does indeed come off very Protestant-ish. In the end, I use all three, as well as the Catholic Public Domain Version (also based on the Vulgate). I don’t recommend sticking to one version; cross-referencing is essential.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, while the RSV is more literal/formal, the NAB(RE) is by no means a paraphrase. It is, in reality, a relatively formal translation, though not quite as the RSV. The preface to the revised NABRE, which retains the formal Revised NAB NT, clearly spells out that it’s translation philosophy.
 
I’m a NAB fan.

I also have a RSV-CE, NIV,GNB, and NKJV.

I find the RSV style very clunky. Not hard to understand but I sort of feel like it was not written to be read quickly. The NAB is fast reading and most of the time the meanings of any given verse will be the same.
 
CalCatholic and mccorm45 - yes, you’re both right. “More dynamic than the RSV-CE” is how I should have put it.
 
If you want a real Catholic version get a Confraternity Douay bible with an English translation of the New Latin Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII!
 
When the NAB or NABRE comes out with a Catholic Edition and starts removing the gender inclusive language in places where it doesn’t make sense, I will likely pick one up. Until then, probably not. 😉

I currently have the RSV-2-CE as my primary Bible along with a couple different commentaries which use that or the RSV-CE.

Having said that, I would really, really, like to see some of our modern scripture scholars put together a great English language translation of the Bible which could be used by the average reader as well as in the Missal. It is disappointing and extremely hard to explain why this has not been done. Why the Bible that most scripture scholars seem to prefer and the one which is quoted in the English translation of the Catechism is a Protestant translation is very difficult to understand to this Catholic. Its not like we don’t have the people in the Church who are educated enough to handle it. My only conclusion is that the powers that be in the Vatican simply don’t see it as a priority for whatever reason. That, in and of itself, is very frustrating to me as well.

To the question posed by the OP, I find the RSV-2-CE to be very readable, MOST of the time. There are some phrases here and there that I have to go back and read to make sure I understand the meaning but that is in the minority.

Peace,
 
NAB is easier to read, so I read it more. The other one is still pretty easy to read, however its a little more literal than the NAB

usccb.org/nab/bible/do-translations-matter.shtml and usccb.org/mr/mediatalk/bible_catholics.shtml say that a bible approved by the bishops is free from error in Catholic doctrine, but some on this thread and in others say the only one free from error is the Vulgate. (Not bashing the Vulgate - its still the official translation in Latin). Just a thought.
 
Some translations do not contain error but contain LESS of the “Fullness of Truth” as other translations do.

Just because a translation is not full of error does not mean that it is the best.

The RSV uses “Presence” instead of “Person” in 2 Corinthians 2:10.

That choice is Protestant–not Catholic–and is not the best choice. The Greek word “Prosopon” means mask like what Greek actors used in plays. St. Paul was acting “In the person of Christ” when he forgave the incestuous corinthian–he gave him Absolution.

The Protestant RSV simply could not stand that inconvenient for them TRUTH!

“In the presence” is not in error or wrong–it simply isn’t the best choice!

I think that it is pathetic that many Catholics choose the Protestant RSV simply because they do not have good alternatives.

If it were up to me the NAB would be eliminated and in every country in the world the liturgy would EXACTLY match what was in in the bible.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Some translations do not contain error but contain LESS of the “Fullness of Truth” as other translations do.

Just because a translation is not full of error does not mean that it is the best.

The RSV uses “Presence” instead of “Person” in Corinthians 2:10.

I think that it is pathetic that many Catholics choose the Protestant RSV simply because they do not have good alternatives.

If it were up to me the NAB would be eliminated and in every country in the world the liturgy would EXACTLY match what was in in the bible.
Click to expand...
And the Vulgate would be translated directly into the vernacular and that translation would be the official bible in that vernacular, used in the liturgy. 👍
 
Swiss_Guy said:
NAB is easier to read, so I read it more. The other one is still pretty easy to read, however its a little more literal than the NAB

usccb.org/nab/bible/do-translations-matter.shtml and usccb.org/mr/mediatalk/bible_catholics.shtml say that a bible approved by the bishops is free from error in Catholic doctrine, but some on this thread and in others say the only one free from error is the Vulgate. (Not bashing the Vulgate - its still the official translation in Latin). Just a thought.
Click to expand...
“However, its a little more literal than the NAB”

And how is that a bad thing? Plus, besides its pedestrian diction, NAB contains questionable footnotes and commentaries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top