J
JackVk
Guest
I’ve been reading through my NAB and the footnotes, as I’ve seen and heard, frequently go against Catholic teaching. Should I get a different one? (The one I have was free). And how did this get Imprimatur?
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The translation is not heretical, but the notes are worthless in many cases.
Reading it is no problem, but there are better ones like the RSV-CE 2nd Edition and nearly any of the Douay-Rheims Bibles that have better notes.
Reading it is no problem, but there are better ones like the RSV-CE 2nd Edition and nearly any of the Douay-Rheims Bibles that have better notes.
D
demetrios423
Guest
I’m a new Catholic and have a NAB. I have often found the notes very helpful. Wasn’t this version and notes approved by the Bishops?
B
Byzman
Guest
Could you point out a specific footnote? I have noticed that when I read the footnotes sometimes I get frustated with the way it is worded…for instance the footnotes usually use the word “probably” more often than they should. I wonder if this is what so many Catholics get upset about. By them using “probably” for explaining something than it doesnt give the affirmative for certain Catholic beliefs rooted in Scripture. I can see how people really upset about this…but nothing that I have read goes against Catholic teaching.
If you could point out…I would like to see what you are talking about to get an idea of what you mean.
J
JackVk
Guest
For example, in one of Paul’s letters it talks about the so-called Rapture (an non-Catholic and non-Biblical concept). It also claims that Jesus is being rude to Mary in John 2 when He says “what have you to do with me?” (which is also false).
B
Byzman
Guest
You are going to have to find that Rapture thing for me. With regards to John 2…it doesnt say Jesus is being rude to her, but it says that this expression He uses was a Hebrew expression used to denote hostility or a denial of common interest. Thats all the NAB has to say on that. Nothing more…nothing less. I see and share your pain here. But still nothing against Catholic teaching. In fact, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible says the same thing about this expression. There is one difference though, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible goes into deeper detail as to why this expression Jesus used was not the hostile way but that of the not sharing of common interest, yet how He still does it anyway. This is something that the NAB should have done also. Like I said with regards to the word “probably,” they also should of added more notes to give an affirmative as to certain Catholic beliefs instead of leaving the footnote shorthanded.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Someone was asleep at the switch. Also, they had poured so much time and money into it and had gotten it copyrighted so that it’s also a source of revenue to offset all that it cost to have it developed. They would be better off to just kill the monstrosity and start again.
H
Holly3278
Guest
The footnotes might not be the best but the Scripture itself is pretty good.
B
Byzman
Guest
Seriously, I have the NAB and recently just received the NABRE…I am a big fan of the RSV-CE and since I now have the new NABRE I cant seem to put it down. Altogether the NABRE is much better than the NAB…and beforehand I wouldn’t really pickup the NAB once I got my hands on the RSV-CE. Now the NABRE is competing with the RSV-CE.
With that said…I have always heard people talk bad about the footnotes of the NAB…sometimes calling the footnotes heretical. I really now want to see what people are talking about, now that I am really into the NABRE.
Yes…I think the footnotes are not the best, some of them bother me too…but what goes against Church teaching?
C
Crumpy
Guest
I didn’t like the comments in the NAB.
You need a scorecard to understand what’s going on in the NAB.
There’s an edition called the Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition, which I have, which has very few footnotes or marginal notes.
Then, there’s the NAB, which has footnotes and introductions and some maps in the back.
Then, from that level, there’s an NAB study Bible, or other Study Bibles, which tend to have more extensive notes.
Then, up from that, there are commentaries, which may be published as a bound volume for each book of the Bible.
Perhaps what is so unpopular about the NAB is that its footnotes are very brief. I know that there are much greatly expanded comments in a commentary. Looking back, the NAB just gives a glimmer of an idea sometimes, which may come off as being simply wrong.
My humble suggestion is that you adjust your expectations to the type of Bible that you have in your hands. The NAB didn’t explain things in very great detail, and you shouldn’t have expected it to do so.
The translation IN the NAB is a whole different can of worms. Due to copyright laws, the NAB has its own translation of the Bible, and some popular verses are not rendered in a way that many people expect, up to the point of wondering what the true meaning of the verse is. That’s where an edition with more comments, like a commentary, has the space to delve into the translation and the meaning.
It takes years to knock off a new translation of the Bible, because the translators are not merely looking for the best way to translate the Bible into modern English (for example), but they’re also dancing around with the translation to avoid any copyright infringement, due to copying the wording in somebody else’s translation.
Obviously, the avoidance of heresy is a big concern in coming out with a new translation of the Bible.
You need a scorecard to understand what’s going on in the NAB.
There’s an edition called the Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition, which I have, which has very few footnotes or marginal notes.
Then, there’s the NAB, which has footnotes and introductions and some maps in the back.
Then, from that level, there’s an NAB study Bible, or other Study Bibles, which tend to have more extensive notes.
Then, up from that, there are commentaries, which may be published as a bound volume for each book of the Bible.
Perhaps what is so unpopular about the NAB is that its footnotes are very brief. I know that there are much greatly expanded comments in a commentary. Looking back, the NAB just gives a glimmer of an idea sometimes, which may come off as being simply wrong.
My humble suggestion is that you adjust your expectations to the type of Bible that you have in your hands. The NAB didn’t explain things in very great detail, and you shouldn’t have expected it to do so.
The translation IN the NAB is a whole different can of worms. Due to copyright laws, the NAB has its own translation of the Bible, and some popular verses are not rendered in a way that many people expect, up to the point of wondering what the true meaning of the verse is. That’s where an edition with more comments, like a commentary, has the space to delve into the translation and the meaning.
It takes years to knock off a new translation of the Bible, because the translators are not merely looking for the best way to translate the Bible into modern English (for example), but they’re also dancing around with the translation to avoid any copyright infringement, due to copying the wording in somebody else’s translation.
Obviously, the avoidance of heresy is a big concern in coming out with a new translation of the Bible.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
I agree. Ours is a minority opinion here at CAF, I’m afraid.
The NAB is not heretical but admittedly can be difficult to use in a Bible study that involves other translations (verses are moved or deleted due to influence of older texts being discovered.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Well, I used to use it quite a lot and though the translation itself is okay, the notes I was reading were not nearly as good as those in a Haydock Douay-Rheims that I have, nor even my RSV-CE 2nd or TAN Douay-Rheims.
By comparison, the NAB’s notes are pretty much an epic fail IMO.
By comparison, the NAB’s notes are pretty much an epic fail IMO.
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
I believe he’s referring to the footnote at 1 Thes 4:17;
It mentions the idea of the rapture, but not in a particular positive way; it clearly marks it as a millennial dispensationalist belief.
I also think the NAB is not a bad translation, although the notes (like this one) are often aimed at fairly sophisticated academic Bible readers.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
no it is not, it is produced under the direction of the US Catholic bishops and ICEL and the problematic areas in translation have been addressed, albeit piecemeal, still waiting for the psalms to be brought into line for liturgical use. You can accept or reject the footnotes as you would any other piece of bible scholarship, as the best opinion of those who composed them, not as defined infallibly taught doctrine. 90% of them are innocuous at worst.
If it were heretical the bishops who commissioned and approved it and the translaters and scholars who produced it and the publishers who disseminated it would all have been burned at the stake. They are all running around free if they are still alive, so I guess the answer is, no.
I
Ignatius
Guest
So, that’s the standard for Catholic Bibles? innocuous errors? After all of the failed attempts to correct the problematic errors in the commentary and improvements to the translation to where it is now simply mediocre, it’s time to realize that It would be best for the faithful to put this monstrosity to rest. With the excellent RSV-CE2 now available, there is no longer any excuse to keep the NAB or NABRE and good riddance.
J
JamestheOlder
Guest
You are right. We are in a minority, along with USCCB (NAB-NABRE).
I have found my Catholic Study Bible, based on the NAB, to be exceeding helpful, and with no heretical notes. I have used it (to great advantage) in twenty years of RCIA work, and, so far, in five Bible Study groups (extended sessions). The background and footnotes often explain otherwise difficult interpretations of language and custom.
Maybe it’s just because it was the stregth of the translation, or because it was the first (?) “Study Bible”, or maybe just because I am used to it, I like it.
But I like the NABRE more, and may sometime spring for the cash to buy one…I use the online version of NABRE all the time now…so easy to look up or search for information (USCCB site)…
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
“Highly favored” instead of “Full of grace” and “young woman” instead of “Virgin” equals a translation that Satan would like better.
It’s a shame when even Protestants can translate those verses better than Catholics!
It’s a shame when even Protestants can translate those verses better than Catholics!
J
jwinch2
Guest
In the NABRE, “Holy Spirit” is written as “holy Spirit” which bugs me a bit. I have the RSV2CE and the Ignatius Study Bible and love them both. I am also planning to get the Navarre hardback series for study soon. I would love to see the Vatican commission a Bible which uses the LXX for the Old Testament and the MT for the New Testament in an easy to read yet still orthodox English translation which would become the official English Catholic Bible but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. I have been close on more than one occasion to picking up the Orthodox Study Bible for those exact reasons but Orthodox Christians seem to have problems with that one as well. 
C
CalCatholic
Guest
You can always get a copy of the NETS translation of the Septuagint and keep it next to your copy of the Ignatius Study Bible (NT) and you would have the best of both worlds (in two volumes).In the NABRE, “Holy Spirit” is written as “holy Spirit” which bugs me a bit. I have the RSV2CE and the Ignatius Study Bible and love them both. I am also planning to get the Navarre hardback series for study soon. I would love to see the Vatican commission a Bible which uses the LXX for the Old Testament and the MT for the New Testament in an easy to read yet still orthodox English translation which would become the official English Catholic Bible but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. I have been close on more than one occasion to picking up the Orthodox Study Bible for those exact reasons but Orthodox Christians seem to have problems with that one as well.
P
paperwight66
Guest
I get the Daily Mass readings sent to my inbox from an American site, and I came across a strange difference between the reading given, and the one I heard at Mass, which would have been from the Jerusalem Bible we use here in the UK. It was the Gospel from St. John, where Jesus talks of His Father’s house having many mansions or rooms. In the (American,) Daily Mass Reading version ; ‘If there were not, why would I tell you I was going to prepare a place for you?’. In the UK version: ‘If there were not, I should have told you. (New sentence) I go now to prepare a place for you’.
Apologies if these aren’t word for word, I am quoting from memory. but enough to see that the difference completely alters the sense.
Apologies if these aren’t word for word, I am quoting from memory. but enough to see that the difference completely alters the sense.
- Status