My new attitude about the New American Bible, Revised Edition

[GCTSgrad]

For a main study Bible I must say that I would have to recommend either NABRE or RSV-CE/CE2. These can be supplemented by most any other translation out there. Other translations are less literal (or else they don’t contain the deuterocanonical books, e.g., the New American Standard Bible). Using a less literal translation along with the more literal ones can give useful insights and inspirations, but one must be cautious.

The notes in the RSV-CE2 are rather sparing, but I suppose that’s better than having bad notes.

 

[FriarDon]

If you wish to be reading the Bible in which the New Roman Missal (English) is using, you should be using the NABRE. Every English speaking Catholic should have a copy of this Bible, and it should be the one most read. That said…

The best copies of the text would be in the original Greek and Hebrew, provided you can read those languages. Having a copy of the old Latin Bibles would be good as well, again provided you can read it. The New Jerusalem Bible is a decent translation as well. The DR Bible, ONE of the first English translations of the Latin translation, is a good one to have as well.

Using the KJV or other Protestant Bibles “converted to a Catholic Bible” is normally not a good direction to go.

In Christ,

Friar Don, OBR

 

[GCTSgrad]

Friar Don, why are you against using these? I would never suggest using KJV because it is not based on the best available manuscripts and because the language is archaic and because it does not, generally speaking, include the deuterocanonicals. However, when the first Cathollic edition of the RSV, a list of word changes was included and the modifications were few. The RSV-CE2 is a more thorough revision, although I have not yet been able to compare the two editions exhaustively.
The account of the Last Supper in RSV-CE2 uses the word “chalice” instead of the word “cup” (NABRE and nearly every other major translation (Douay Rheims excepted). Which is correct? I have not gone back to the Greek text to ascertain this since the preponderance of translations use the word “cup.” The simple word “cup” shouldn’t present the difficulties that the one Greek word translated as either “full of grace” (RSV-CE2) or “favored one” (NABRE).
I agree that the New Jerusalem Bible is a good translation, however, it is not as literal as the RSV-CE2 and I would want a more literal translation for study purposes. For devotional reading, just about any translation will suffice.

 

[FriarDon]

Friar Don, why are you against using these? I would never suggest using KJV because it is not based on the best available manuscripts and because the language is archaic and because it does not, generally speaking, include the deuterocanonicals. However, when the first Cathollic edition of the RSV, a list of word changes was included and the modifications were few. The RSV-CE2 is a more thorough revision, although I have not yet been able to compare the two editions exhaustively.
The account of the Last Supper in RSV-CE2 uses the word “chalice” instead of the word “cup” (NABRE and nearly every other major translation (Douay Rheims excepted). Which is correct? I have not gone back to the Greek text to ascertain this since the preponderance of translations use the word “cup.” The simple word “cup” shouldn’t present the difficulties that the one Greek word translated as either “full of grace” (RSV-CE2) or “favored one” (NABRE).
I agree that the New Jerusalem Bible is a good translation, however, it is not as literal as the RSV-CE2 and I would want a more literal translation for study purposes. For devotional reading, just about any translation will suffice.

The versions of RSV that I have seen have not had very accurate translations, including the CE versions. Granted it has been a few years since I looked at same. I have not looked at the RSV-CE2 as of yet though. In the case of JKV (again, have not looked at the NKJV) many words are different/not accurate, and whole sentences are inaccurate to the Greek and Hebrew “originals”. Plus the lack of the books that should be there…

That said, to “be in sync” with the Church and Mass, the MAIN Bible to read and use is the NABRE so as to be in sync with the Readings in Mass.

Friar Don, OBR.

 

[TGarner]

Hmm RSV-CE is good enough for the Vatican and the Pope so Im thinking its good enough for me…

 

[FriarDon]

Hmm RSV-CE is good enough for the Vatican and the Pope so Im thinking its good enough for me…

Yes, he reads it, when not reading in his language or in Latin, but the Mass in in NABRE, and that should be your base Bible in the US to be in sync. When the Pope celebrates Mass in English, he is reading from the NABRE.

Again, I am not saying other versions are bad, just that the NABRE should be your primary Bible, and those with clear translations from original Greek and Hebrew text being your next choice for study and learning as well. (I have 7 different Bible translations I read and study from, but the one I spend most of my time in now is NABRE as to be in sync with the Church.)

Friar Don, OBR

 

[TGarner]

Oh yes I have the NABRE as well and do consult it occasionally but much prefer the DR or RSV-CE for personal study.

 

[GCTSgrad]

I know the NAB is flawed. But it is the Bible of MY TEAM, and I have come to accept it as such. Plus, it has merit on its own. It was done with great care and love, and it reads quite well. Plus, you can get a beautiful St. Joseph Edition Personal Size for about $6.75, which is the best deal you will find anywhere for such a well-made new Bible. If you haven’t yet, give the NABRE a chance.

I like the NABRE, which I have sometimes felt put me in the minority. It is true that I prefer the RSV-2CE, but the NABRE does indeed have good qualities. And it is the translation read at Mass and I do see value in reading it for that reason alone. So I partly agree with FriarDon.

 

[CalCatholic]

I like the NABRE, which I have sometimes felt put me in the minority. It is true that I prefer the RSV-2CE, but the NABRE does indeed have good qualities. And it is the translation read at Mass and I do see value in reading it for that reason alone. So I partly agree with FriarDon.

I agree!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Nova Vulgata is the juridicial text of the Western Rite of the Catholic Church.

How much difference do you think there would be between an English version of that text and the NABRE?

Plenty! And it WOULDN’T be because of “great biblical scholarship” using greater original text varients!

Hail Mary full of Grace!

A VIRGIN will conceive!

And thank God that some of the ridiculousness of the NABRE isn’t incorporated into some of the readings at Mass–the Holy See wouldn’t allow SOME abominations!

And even the USCCB chose the New Grail Psalms over the NABRE Psalms.

The NABRE truely is the dying last breath of American liberalism/modernism when it comes to biblical translation.

That generation of Post Vatican II is dying off–the bishops now are more conservative.

It will take a little while longer to rein in the theology professors.

What American Catholics really need is a bible that departs from the Vulgate tradition ONLY when ancient original language texts deem such changes CLEARLY and OVERWHELMINGLY.

We don’t need Catholic translations that try to gain Protestant approval!

We don’t need NOTES in Catholic bibles that are from people who believe that all the gospels are cut and paste and that the original disciples were too illiterate to produce them!

And if it ever a question comes up in translating the text where it’s 50 to 50 between biblical scholarship of the last 100 years or biblical scholarship from the preceeding 1900 years–

Take the first 1900 years!

The Vulgate–even the Nova Vulgata IS NOT perfect. It can be improved. The bible can always be improved–the Holy Spirit is still “leading us into all truth.”

The NABRE is not THE answer–it can in some instances be a small answer.

There is no perfect version.

I recommend the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament–Confraternity Version New Testament–and the Bea Psalter(an English translation of the New Latin Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII) as the overall BESTcombination translation bible.

It isn’t perfect–I just believe it has LESS errors than other translations.

My second choice would be the Knox bible–yeah I certainly don’t agree with some of its novel translations–and my third choice would be RSVCE2–though some of it is Protestant.

The best litmus test for a bible is 2Corinthians 2:10: if the bible says “presence of Christ” instead of “person of Christ” then it is PROTESTANT and not Catholic–and that involves a question of DOCTRINE!

The RSVCE2 fails the test.

The two other bibles I recommended do not.

 

[mccorm45]

I don’t believe we can debate the fidelity of any translation based on a selected number of verses. If we did, I could argue that the Douay-Rheims is not faithful because it so often denies the divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John. Compare how the NABRE translates Jn 1:18: ‘No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is…’ Now the DR’s: ‘No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is…’. Or one could look at all the instances in John where the NABRE translates the ‘I AM’ sayings as such, instead of the less explicit ‘I am he’ which is used most often in the Douay-Rheims.

My point is not to bash the Douay-Rheims, which is a fine translation, but to point out that there are good and bad points to any English translation. To refer to an ecclesiastically approved translation as being an abomination is pure nonsense.

 

[GCTSgrad]

And if it ever a question comes up in translating the text where it’s 50 to 50 between biblical scholarship of the last 100 years or biblical scholarship from the preceeding 1900 years–

Take the first 1900 years!

The last 100 years of biblical scholarship have been in vain? I disagree.

There is no perfect version.

I heartily agree wit this statement.

The best litmus test for a bible is 2Corinthians 2:10: if the bible says “presence of Christ” instead of “person of Christ” then it is PROTESTANT and not Catholic–and that involves a question of DOCTRINE!

IMHO, it is not a good practice to base the choice of translation on only one verse. And here I had to go to the original Greek to see what the issue was, textual variant or translation. It is a translation issue and “presence of Christ” is a legitimate translation of the Greek. The translation used by RSV-CE2 does not directly support the idea of priests being in persona Christi.** I don’t think any doctrine should be based on one scripture verse alone. (Nor do I believe in Sola Scriptura.)/

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Prosopon means mask–like thwe mask that the Greeks used in plays.

In the person of Christ IS more accuratre. It isn’t that presence is wrong–it is that “person of Christ” conveys more of the fullness ot truth.

2Corinthians 2:10 is PROOF POSSITIVE that absolution of sin by a priest is true!

Protestants can’t take that truth!

“Ecumenically oriented liberal Catholic translators” can’t take that truth either.

St. Paul gave abasolution to the incestuous Corinthian who he had RETAINED his sin in 1Corinthians.

Sure doctrine does not hinge on one verse and sola scriptura is wrong.

That doesn’t mean though that the accurate rendering of this verse is “person of Christ”.

This instance is the CLASSIC case that shows PROTESTANT bias in bibles and modern liberal translation in Catholic bibles.

It truely is the LITMUS test–not maybe of a bible’s suitability but the true colors of a bible’s translation.

Alot of people with agendas here hate me for always pointing out this verse!

 

[mccorm45]

Prosopon means mask–like thwe mask that the Greeks used in plays.

In the person of Christ IS more accuratre. It isn’t that presence is wrong–it is that “person of Christ” conveys more of the fullness ot truth.

2Corinthians 2:10 is PROOF POSSITIVE that absolution of sin by a priest is true!

Protestants can’t take that truth!

“Ecumenically oriented liberal Catholic translators” can’t take that truth either.

St. Paul gave abasolution to the incestuous Corinthian who he had RETAINED his sin in 1Corinthians.

Sure doctrine does not hinge on one verse and sola scriptura is wrong.

That doesn’t mean though that the accurate rendering of this verse is “person of Christ”.

This instance is the CLASSIC case that shows PROTESTANT bias in bibles and modern liberal translation in Catholic bibles.

It truely is the LITMUS test–not maybe of a bible’s suitability but the true colors of a bible’s translation.

Alot of people with agendas here hate me for always pointing out this verse!

What I don’t understand, then, is that you say “In the person of Christ IS more accuratre (sic). It isn’t that presence is wrong–it is that “person of Christ” conveys more of the fullness ot truth” yet you condemn this or that translation that uses “presence” even though you just said it isn’t technically wrong. There are other, and I would argue more important verses that clearly support the Catholic position. I don’t think there is a need to condemn a particular Catholic translation that goes with “presence”.

Also, there should be no fear of protestant cooperation in the translation of Scripture. Need we look at what Dei Verbum 22 encouraged in regards to this: “Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation; of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’m not the only person that has pointed out that a translation of one particular verse can be more accurate than another transl;ation in a bible apporved by an ecclesiatical conference of bishops.

Pope Benedict XVI has pointed out that the verse about faith in Hebrews–I think chapter 1 verse 1 is MORE accurate in the Vulgate than in the RSVCE in one of his encyclicals.

In other words–just because the USCCB has approved a bible does not mean that the majority of its bishops believe in the accuracy of translation in all of the verses.

In other words–“in the presence of christ” can be right because since christ is omnipresent then ANYONE can forgive another “in the presence of christ”.

Just because that is TRUE does not mean that St. Paul forgave the incestuous Corinthian “in the PERSON of christ” which is MORE TRUE.

If “in the presence of Christ” is more accurate–why did the KJV translators alsot ranslate it as “in the person of Christ”?!

Why did Wycliffe translate it that way?

WHAT changed?

The word in Greek was always PROSOPON.

It always meant mask!

The only thing that changed weas Protestants realizing that the bible actually PROVED forgiveness of sins by a priest “in the person of Christ”!

I’ve never heard anyone here make a convincing case by “presence” is more correct than “person”.

And the implications of “in the person” are inescapable!

I gurantee you that if Pope Benedict was asked which was more accurate trqanslation he would say “in the PERSON”!

Case closed!

 

[mccorm45]

I’m not the only person that has pointed out that a translation of one particular verse can be more accurate than another transl;ation in a bible apporved by an ecclesiatical conference of bishops.

Pope Benedict XVI has pointed out that the verse about faith in Hebrews–I think chapter 1 verse 1 is MORE accurate in the Vulgate than in the RSVCE in one of his encyclicals.

In other words–just because the USCCB has approved a bible does not mean that the majority of its bishops believe in the accuracy of translation in all of the verses.

In other words–“in the presence of christ” can be right because since christ is omnipresent then ANYONE can forgive another “in the presence of christ”.

Just because that is TRUE does not mean that St. Paul forgave the incestuous Corinthian “in the PERSON of christ” which is MORE TRUE.

If “in the presence of Christ” is more accurate–why did the KJV translators alsot ranslate it as “in the person of Christ”?!

Why did Wycliffe translate it that way?

WHAT changed?

The word in Greek was always PROSOPON.

It always meant mask!

The only thing that changed weas Protestants realizing that the bible actually PROVED forgiveness of sins by a priest “in the person of Christ”!

I’ve never heard anyone here make a convincing case by “presence” is more correct than “person”.

And the implications of “in the person” are inescapable!

I gurantee you that if Pope Benedict was asked which was more accurate trqanslation he would say “in the PERSON”!

Case closed!

My whole contention with your argument is not over that passage, but simply whether or not it is right to condemn a Catholic translation due to this one verse. I am sympathetic to what you are saying, but I also think that “in the presence” is an acceptable translation and in no way turns the NABRE or RSV-CE into an “abominable” translation. And your terror towards anything “protestant” seems to go directly against what Dei Verbum 22 encourages, along with what many good bishops and theologians have been doing for the last number of decades.

 

[porthos11]

Yes, he reads it, when not reading in his language or in Latin, but the Mass in in NABRE, and that should be your base Bible in the US to be in sync. When the Pope celebrates Mass in English, he is reading from the NABRE.

Again, I am not saying other versions are bad, just that the NABRE should be your primary Bible, and those with clear translations from original Greek and Hebrew text being your next choice for study and learning as well. (I have 7 different Bible translations I read and study from, but the one I spend most of my time in now is NABRE as to be in sync with the Church.)

Friar Don, OBR

The English Lectionary does not use NABRE. The U.S. edition uses the 1970 Old Testament and Psalms, and the 1986 New Testament with amendments. The NABRE as it is is not approved for liturgical use as of right now.

Canada uses the amended NRSV.

When the Pope celebrates Mass and readings are in English outside of the United States, they are more likely than not from the UK Lectionary, which uses the 1966 Jerusalem Bible.

The Antilles uses the RSV-2CE unamended.

 

[GCTSgrad]

Pope Benedict XVI has pointed out that the verse about faith in Hebrews–I think chapter 1 verse 1 is MORE accurate in the Vulgate than in the RSVCE in one of his encyclicals

OK. The Vulgate has translated the Greek more accurately into Latin than RSVCE has translated the Greek into English. Hmmm. If Pope Benedict XVI said this, it must have some merit, but I am not sure what this means for modern English translations. Maybe that’s because I’m not a Catholic (yet).

 

[GCTSgrad]

Prosopon means mask–like thwe mask that the Greeks used in plays.

In the person of Christ IS more accuratre. It isn’t that presence is wrong–it is that “person of Christ” conveys more of the fullness ot truth.

2Corinthians 2:10 is PROOF POSSITIVE that absolution of sin by a priest is true!

Protestants can’t take that truth!

“Ecumenically oriented liberal Catholic translators” can’t take that truth either.

St. Paul gave abasolution to the incestuous Corinthian who he had RETAINED his sin in 1Corinthians.

Sure doctrine does not hinge on one verse and sola scriptura is wrong.

That doesn’t mean though that the accurate rendering of this verse is “person of Christ”.

This instance is the CLASSIC case that shows PROTESTANT bias in bibles and modern liberal translation in Catholic bibles.

It truely is the LITMUS test–not maybe of a bible’s suitability but the true colors of a bible’s translation.

Alot of people with agendas here hate me for always pointing out this verse!

According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Walter Bauer, tr. by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Second Editon, 1958, p. 721, the meaning prosopon is “face, countenance.” In specifically dealing with 2 Cor. 2:10: "en prosopo xristou before the face of Christ that looks down with approval… or as the representative of Christ (NEB).
This does give one pause.

John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, based on KJV, which says in the person of Christ, comments: By the authority wherewith he has invested me.
Does that sound different from the Catholic doctrine?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I wouldn’t say thaty one vesrse makes a translation abominable–I just don’t like that particular verse being a new convert to Catholicism.

I think it also illustrates how much difference ONE word can make in a translation.

I also believe that Wesley’s commentary and the fact that the KJV translated prosopon as PERSON also proves that presence is Proteastant bias.

And yes I DO think that there are modern Catholic bible translators that would rather make protestants happy by translating “person” instead of “presence”.

Is that true Ecumenism?

I don’t think so.

I wish the Holy See were the ones who approved bible translations instead of ecclesiastical conferences.

If that was the case the problems I have with the NAB probably wouldn’t be problems.

One other problem i have with many modern bible translations is all the parts of the bible that have been DELETED.

Are there some glosses that should be eliminated since Jerome translated the vulgate? I’m sure there are–but i don’t believe that some of the deletions are warranted.

Take the case where the angel stirs the water at the pool where Jesus cured the lame man.

Modern translations take the part about the angel stirring the water out of the bible.

i think that is just flat out wrong.

Also when it comes to deuterocanoncial books most modern translations have much that has been deleted compared to the Douay Rheims Challoner translation.

And though I strongly disagree with some of the NAB notes–I much like the fact of the dates that are given in the notes of the deuterocanonical books.