NAB 1970 / Confraternity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KeepLearning
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KeepLearning

Guest
What are the differences between the NAB 1970 translation and Confraternity edition? Is the NAB 1970 really bad?
 
KeepLearning said:
What are the differences between the NAB 1970 translation and Confraternity edition? Is the NAB 1970 really bad?
Click to expand...
Yes there are some differences in the Confraternity edition and no the 1970 NAB isn’t that bad. the 1970 edition is the best. The 1986 revision of the NT was did include inclusive language and the 1991 revised Psalms are horrible. Right now they are revising the OT which was probably the best between the Psalms and NT, and OT
 
the wiki article for once is pretty on the mark, general but answers OP’s specific question
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_Bible
the Confranternity version most of us remember growing up in Catholic schools before 1970, the one many of us still cherish as our first bible, is not a new translation but an update of the various English translations of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner translation from the Vulgate, and among other things retains the European spelling of bibical names like Noe and Elias. In fact when we recall the D-R-C we are usually referring to the Confraternity bible. the psalms are still my favorite and it is a mystery to me why they cannot simply cut and paste and dump the NAB psalms, but then I am not a translator or scholar.

the NAB is an English translation from the original languages. its history is documented in most editions.
 
KeepLearning said:
What are the differences between the NAB 1970 translation and Confraternity edition? Is the NAB 1970 really bad?
Click to expand...
There are a couple differences:
  1. The NAB Book of Genesis is different than the Confraternity edition
  2. The Psalms, unfortunately, are not the same, since they were revised in 1991. (Pervasive inclusive language, both horizontal and vertical)
  3. The 1970 NAB New Testament was thoroughly revised in 1986. While it used some moderate inclusive language, far less than many other translations since 1986, its best feature was that the overall translation philosophy was more literal/formal equivalence. The current NAB NT is slightly less literal than the RSV/NRSV.
Of course, the CBA is currently finishing up its complete revision of the NAB OT, including a re-revised Psalms. Hopefully it will follow the translation philosphy of the 1986 NAB NT, which would make the NAB a much more uniform, consistant Bible translation.
 
I actually have the original edition with the 1970 Psalms, NT, everything. I also found one that has the 1986 NT but still has the 1970 Psalms. Which one is better?

The “total 1970” edition
OR
The edition with 1986 NT (but still w/ 1970 psalms)
 
I have 2 copies of the 1970 NAB. I prefer it, over the RNAB now on the shelves.
 
I have the whole Confraternity text in five volumes, which is a fascinating picture of the Church in transition:


  1. *]1941: The New Testament was a revision of the Douay-Rheims Challoner, but it could also be considered a new translation from the Vulgate (and using the Greek wherever the Vulgate allowed it). It still retained the archaic “thees and thous”, but the Confraternity version much more readable than the old Challoner. Published in 1941, it also retained the Latin names such as Isaias that Catholics would be familiar with, and that were said to be closer to the actual pronunciation than their equivalents in the Authorized Version (King James).
    *]1952: Genesis to Ruth. After divino afflante had made it clear that translations could and should be made from the original languages, the scholars took the opportunity to start the Old Testament from scratch, using (mostly) the Hebrew. Marking a change in taste, the Old Testament also did away with “biblical English”, using “you” throughout; but Latin names were still used, so Moses stays in Madian, not Midian as he now does.
    1952 also saw the publication of the Holy Family edition, which used the Confraternity New Testament and Psalms, and the rest of the Old Testament in the Challoner, but all nicely laid out with titles, and the whole beautifully illustrated with paintings by J. J. Tissot. I can thoroughly recommend this edition, even though the Douay-Rheims Old Testament is rather dated.
    *]1955: The Sapiential books, including the psalms (although these seem to have been in circulation well before 1955), continued along the same lines. The psalms read very much as your heart to heart prayer with the God you love. Latin names are still used thoughout for the same reasons. So we find Sirach 48 praising the great prophet Elias and his successor Eliseus.
    *]1961: The Prophetic books continued the series, but now something strange was going on: the taste for Latin names was also beginning to change, and we find the books of Isaia, Jeremia, Abdia, Malachia, … Latin names were old hat, but Protestant names were still a bit too much to swallow, so they seem to have gone for something of a compromise instead. So, the Old Testament finishes with Malachia promising “Lo, I will send you Elia, the prophet”, the precursor to John the Baptist.
    Funnily enough, Abradale, who in 1967 published a Michelangelo edition, used the Confraternity New Testament, Psalms and Genesis to Ruth – but not the prophets. Instead, we have Isaias in the Challoner version, but nicely laid out with titles, though a couple of canticles are actually laid out as poetry using the Confraternity version.
    *]1969: Last of all, volume two appeared, Samuel to Maccabees. Note, not Machabees, because Latin names had been abolished. However, in the First and Second Book of Kings (no longer 3 and 4 Kings) we actually meet Elijah – with an H!
    This last part never appeared as part of a whole bible, because it was to be followed by the New American Bible in 1970. The NAB presumeably used the 1969 Samuel to Maccabees, because it is specifically mentioned in the copyrights, and looks identical as far as I can see.

    As has already been said, for the New American Bible the book of Genesis was translated again, and (unless I’m mistaken) the New Testament (which was previously a translation from the Vulgate) was also replaced with a new translation from the Greek. The rest was given a general cleanup so as to make the whole bible consistent in its use of non-Latinised names. So, for example, Elijah first appears in 1 and 2 Kings, is remembered by Jesus ben Sirach in his history meditation, is promised by Malachi (previously known as Malachia, previously known as Malachias), and in the New Testament he comes in the figure of John the Baptist “in the spirit of Elijah”. Poetic parts of Job, Isaiah, etc. also had some changes in the division of strophes – general finishing touches.

    So to sum up: the 1970 New American Bible was the result of thirty years of effort by a large number of scholars, during which time the goalposts were moved a few times! Apart from Genesis and the New Testament, the differences will be mostly cosmetic. The “Confraternity Bible” was always a work-in-progress, and was by necessity a hybrid in all respects; the New American Bible was the fulfilment of that long drawn out process.
 
Thanks for the replies to my post.

I am just so comfortable with the 1970 NAB. Especially the Psalms, several of which I memorized years ago (rusty on them now, though.)

So if I ignore the notes (easy to do because in the 1970 NAB large-print edition, all the notes are at the END of each book) then is the 1970 text all right?

I just keep gravitating back to the NAB 1970.

I even have the new CTS Bible but I so do NOT like the Grail Psalms.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH! So confusing…no matter which version, someone will poo-poo ir, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top