"Liberal" Bible?

[stuartbrianhenlis]

Hi again!

Could someone explain why the NAB(original and Revised Edition) are considered “liberal” and disliked by so many people? I have almost every edition in my collection but can’t understand why the controversy.

Thanks

 

[Joe_5859]

For those who take issue with the NAB, what bothers them the most is the introductory notes and footnotes. Sure, they may be irked that Luke 1:28 says “Hail, favored one” rather than “Hail, full of grace”. But it is the extra stuff they find most problematic (in my experience, at least).

Mainly, this is because the notes put forth some of the fruit of the historical-critical method of biblical scholarship as though it were established fact. And some of those conclusions fly in the face of more traditional interpretations.

For example, when it comes to authorship, the more traditionally minded tend to want to say that the books of the Bible were written by the person whose name has been connected to it for thousands of years. So if it is a letter that says it was written by Paul, that means it was a letter from St. Paul. In the NAB, they will bring up those issues about authorship and primarily present just the one side that casts doubt on the traditional understanding.

Other footnotes and such spend so much time analyzing the “origin” of this or that phrase that it might lead someone to conclude that things didn’t really happen as indicated in Scripture. This is a point that can be made when properly understood, but I think the concern is that many people who would read them would walk away with the notion that we cannot really trust much of what is written in the Bible as being “authentic.”

Honestly, I’m not a huge fan of the footnotes either, but I do think the criticism gets overblown at times. Any translation will have strengths and weaknesses. If you come across something that doesn’t sit well, then you investigate other sources.

 

[otjm]

I am surprised that you have found so many people with a negative opinion. I have heard a few people say they prefer one translation over another, and articulate the differences. Most people I have met are not particularly familiar with a number of translations; often they have one, and see no need for any others.

Labels often have one of several purposes. One of those is used to identify less with the matter being spoken about, and more to identify with the group which one associates with. As in “that is not us”; in other words as a means of group identification.

Labels also are often used as a short-hand method of avoiding critical analysis; it simplifies things by categorizing it as either promoting group identity, or as against that identity without any work at analysis.

As an example: I have a wide range of friends and acquaintances. I laughingly say that some of them consider me to be to the right of Attila the Hun; some others consider me to be to the left of Trotsky. And it (the labeling) has often followed their desire to not spend much time in intellectual pursuit of an issue; they prefer their group think as it takes much less effort.

Some people are gifted with a very simple faith. Others have a simple faith, in part because they are fearful of exploring much of it. And yet others have a firm faith, and willingly explore it, not for the purpose of finding a way out of it, but rather realizing that Scripture is God’s revelation of Himself to us, and that Scripture is rich.

In Habakkuk 1 we find a footnote, 1, 11: “veers like the wind: the conquests of the ancient Near East were mainly raiding expeditions to collect tribute. As far as administration of the conquered territories was concerned, both the Assyrians and the Chaldeans were usually content to install friendly rulers and then depart. This culprit: though the Chaldeans were used by God as the agents of his punishment, this did not diminish their own guilt as ruthless marauders.”

This is an example of one of the footnotes available to anyone who may be reading the text. I seriously doubt that is going to cause anyone to lose their faith.

In other words, I find comments that this translation is “liberal” to be so thin an analysis that I can see daylight through it.

 

[phil19034]

As @joe_5859 mentions it’s really just the notes. Though some people do not like dynamic translations, which is what the NAB is. Some people prefer more literal translations like the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE

If you like the NABRE, I suggest the The Didache Bible: New American Bible, Revised Edition. In addition to the notes, it also refers to the Catechism, so it is a very good version of the NABRE.

You can buy it at Amazon here: http://amzn.to/2zxLkS5

God Bless

 

[Joe_5859]

Good call about the Didache version of the NAB. That side steps most of the concerns.

I tend to prefer the RSV-CE, but I use the NAB a lot simply because it is (mostly) what we hear at Mass.

 

[BayCityRickL]

this question has come up frequently and I’d give a friendly suggestion to ignore the criticism. It can be irritating, distracting, and discouraging to read critical remarks about scripture. I would suggest you mentally file those remarks for further analysis, when you reach a level of comfort to deal with them, starting with simply figuring out what the remarks say.

personally I went from some skepticism about the notes in the NAB to really feeling comfortable with it.

read scripture with faith, invoking the holy spirit to help you to understand what God is saying.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I believe in the 90s the NAB incorporated a lot of gender-neutral language, which turns some people off and would likely be sufficient for them to brand it “liberal”.

 

[po18guy]

Words have meaning. When the NAB and RE footnotes suggest strongly that Luke made up parts of his Gospel, that pretty much cooks it for me. Mary never uttered the Magnificat? AYKM? What are notes like that doing in any bible? Stephen the martyr is “filled with grace” (Acts 6:8), but Mary is only “favored one” (Luke 1:28)? It goes on, but notes like “the unknown author, who for the sake of convenience we will call Matthew…” Some of the notes are good, but how are we supposed to know? Modernism has sucked the supernatural out of the faith.

Compare the notes and intros (never mind the translations) of the 1941-1969 Confraternity Bible with the NAB. Worlds apart.

Bibles are dirt cheap. Amazon and ThriftBooks have them almost unbelievably cheap. Why limit oneself to just the NAB? The criticism comes, not only from the laity, but from the Vatican. The NAB/RE cannot be used for liturgical purposes without modification. OK, can we buy that version? No. The USCCB has no copyright on the modified version, and so apparently will not sell it to earn operating funds. I hope to be corrected on that.

The English language catechism uses the RSV-CE. Personally, I find the Revised English Bible w/Deuterocanon (“Apocrypha”) a better bible. Just today I received the brand new Catholic Edition of the New Living Translation from Tyndale House. At first glance, it is also better than the NAB, IMO.

We have done better. We can do better. We must do better.

 

[otjm]

The New American Bible with Revised Book of Psalms and Revised New Testament is availble on Amazon for $6.95 in paperback.

And I kind of doubt the Vatican is suggesting (as per the OP) that people will likely lose their faith reading the NAB. The Vatican did not like some of the translation work. But there is a significant difference between that and the complaints of which the OP spoke - which had to do with footnotes.