NAB no longer allowed?

[thann]

Maggie:

Having just completed RCIA, our priest told us we ought to use NAB …

Your priest was probably being helpful in that the NAB is the translation you hear at Mass.

For personal study I love the Navarre study Bible – as someone else pointed out, the commentary is first rate, and you can read Latin and English together. Navarre is expensive because each book (or group of books) is published separately. The New Testament is complete, and the OT is probably about 2/3 complete.

For regular Bible reading I use the RSV-CE Ignatius Bible which I keep with me pretty much all the time. I keep it in a handled case with pockets for markers and a notebook so I can take it anywhere.

'thann

 

[garysibio]

AnnieM:

I love my New Jerusalem Bible! Is that one still okay?

I like it also - and use it - but it is not approved for liturgical use. The older Jerusalem Bible is approved for liturgical use.

I realize that some people have a problem with the NJB. I realize it’s not perfect but I frequently see it being portrayed as inaccurate. However, when I watch EWTN and the teacher says “This passage should really read …” it almost always does read that way in the NJB.

Having said that I must also add that I wouldn’t give you a plugged nickel for the footnotes and introductory material.

 

[Shari]

thann:

Your priest was probably being helpful in that the NAB is the translation you hear at Mass.

For personal study I love the Navarre study Bible – as someone else pointed out, the commentary is first rate, and you can read Latin and English together. Navarre is expensive because each book (or group of books) is published separately. The New Testament is complete, and the OT is probably about 2/3 complete.

I second that. I have the New testament and the first one of the old testament and I love them. Definitely worth the money.

thann:

For regular Bible reading I use the RSV-CE Ignatius Bible which I keep with me pretty much all the time. I keep it in a handled case with pockets for markers and a notebook so I can take it anywhere.

'thann

Great choice also

 

[Shari]

davemcher5:

So, I will go with will go with the older translations for now and see if I have a copy of the NRSV around the house.
Thanks - davemcher5

You may want to be careful when useing the NRSV as it trys to be gender neutral in the fact that brethren is substituded with brothers and sisters and you will find “friends” and “beloved”. Also they prefer to use he in place of GOD and Christ. One thing I found very helpful in finding the differences in bibles and translations is the bible translation guide from catholic answers. You can find it in the library at catholic.com under scripture and tradition. Hope this helps.

Shari

 

[Manfred]

I think that’s the official Catholic translation of the Catholic Church in England, so I would imagine it’s OK.

No, from what I understand the New Jerusalem Bible (1985), probably because of its inclusive language, has NOT been approved for use in the liturgy anywhere in the English-speaking world. The 1966 Jerusalem Bible (non-inclusive) is still used in the liturgy in England and Ireland, I believe.

The New English Bible (1970) and the Revised English Bible (1990?) have NOT been approved for use in the Catholic liturgy; they are Protestant translations which DO contain the deutero-canonicals. They MAY be used in Anglican services, perhaps??

 

[St.Sebastian]

Having just completed RCIA, our priest told us we ought to use NAB (he’s pretty orthodox as far as I’ve been able to tell from what gets discussed here and the studying I’ve done). He did indicate that they would be switching to a new translation in 2005 but that it would be a new translation of NAB. (I think. I hope I’m not mis-quoting him). I use both that and the NRSV-CE, I agree with another poster that the footnotes in the NAB are at times, well,… spurious to say the least.

I opened a thread on this subject on another Catholic Forum and it was clear that there is widespread disgust for this version, particularly the commentaries.

So my question is: how do you fix it and who is to blame? Obviously the U.S. Catholic Bishops thought enough of it (commentary notwithstanding) to make it the official version for our lectionary. So what is up? I podcast all the Catholic Answer shows and I have not heard this subject come up as of yet.

I am not going to put a link to it, but Dr. Robert Sungenis’ CAI site has an article by Ben Douglass that goes into great detail all the errors and heretical points of view (their views - I don’t know enough to know yet) described in the NAB commentaries. Douglass actually responded to my thread on the other site and affirmed that he believes the NAB to be heretical. I haven’t asked him if he is just referring to the commentaries or the translation, but my question was about his response to the “nihil obstat” and imprimatur the translation received.

 

[pnewton]

I have absolutely no problem with the NAB, apart from the notes, and find it one of the most readable Bibles around. Where greater precision is need, which is seldom, I still have many good resources, including an NASB (no good for deuterocanonicals) and for the NT, two Greeks. (Nestles and TR).

I can do the more precise thing, but I do not get the flow that a more dynamic translation brings.

 

[demerzel85]

I’m happily settled with my Douay-Rhiems Version, and more often than not I am horrified at the extant of vandalism that dynamic-equivalence translations commit. Setting the criteria of ‘easy to read’ just simply does not make any sense at all when talking about Sacred Scripture.

 

[LilyM]

There are so many versions (including the Douay Rheims and NAB) so readily available online that for we net-savvy types it really shouldn’t be an issue to read either or both (as I fully intend to- along with the KJV for variety!) and compare and contrast.

 

[pnewton]

Setting the criteria of ‘easy to read’ just simply does not make any sense at all when talking about Sacred Scripture.

Because you do not see the value in it does not mean it does not exist. Otherwise we would not need anything but the original language texts and could spend our time diagraming sentences in Greek, the truly best way to understand the grammar. But then we would lose the context. I find this particularly helpful in Romans, which our protestant brothers use verse-by-verse to develop “how to be saved” pamphlets. Reading the entire epistle in one setting gives a whole different flavor, though, than just the Four Spiritual Laws. (a protestant guide to salvation). It is the difference between reading a dictionary and a novel.

I think most people make too much of a big deal over there translation preference. Although there are occasions where a slanted wording may influence the meaning, 99% of it does amount to anything of significance, as long as the translators are making an attempt to be intellectual honest. In any case, there is always the Catechism as a safety net to alert us when we think a passage says something that at first glance seems to contradict Catholic teaching. At that point one can look more closely at the text and usually resolve the conflict.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

I use to have a NAB, but set it aside in favor of my new Ignatius Compact Bible. It was cheap too, in contrast to the leather one I had before.

When you get a bible from Ignatius, it will be the RSV Catholic version. But, unlike the Douay-Rheims, it is current English, not old English. I had a hard time with that.

Once I started reading the Ignatius, I saw how watered down the NAB was. There is a beauty in the language of the Ignatius, and the language is not softened in any way.

 

[demerzel85]

Because you do not see the value in it does not mean it does not exist. Otherwise we would not need anything but the original language texts and could spend our time diagraming sentences in Greek, the truly best way to understand the grammar. But then we would lose the context. I find this particularly helpful in Romans, which our protestant brothers use verse-by-verse to develop “how to be saved” pamphlets. Reading the entire epistle in one setting gives a whole different flavor, though, than just the Four Spiritual Laws. (a protestant guide to salvation). It is the difference between reading a dictionary and a novel.

I think most people make too much of a big deal over there translation preference. Although there are occasions where a slanted wording may influence the meaning, 99% of it does amount to anything of significance, as long as the translators are making an attempt to be intellectual honest. In any case, there is always the Catechism as a safety net to alert us when we think a passage says something that at first glance seems to contradict Catholic teaching. At that point one can look more closely at the text and usually resolve the conflict.

Maybe I need to clarify the statement I made. There is seriously no value in attempting translating Sacred Scripture by placing more important on ‘easy to read’ than being faithful to what is really in the text, both in terms what is there and the layers of meaning. By not being primarily concerned with what the text says already is intellectual dishonesty. Many modern day version should more appropriately be coined as ‘mis-translations’.

Personally I have read Protestant Commentary specifically on the Acts of the Apostles. It started of pretty okay, but by the end of the book, so many wild extrapolations were being made that I just felt like burning the book. Sometimes Protestant Commentary is just plain heretical.

And well even in the revered RSV-CE still has the Protestant taint in John 3:16, which is a mis-translation what the verse actually says in Greek. (An old topic on the forum dealt with this)

And the ‘scholarship’ involved in changing ‘hail full of grace’ to ‘rejoice o so highly favoured’ is basically worthy of flushing down the toilet bowl.

Personally I’d just place 2 conditions for what a standard translation should be.

1. Faithful Translation
   2.If there is commentary, it is drawn from the Church Father, Doctors of the Church as well as the Dogma and Doctrine of the Church.

The Catholic Church is 2000 years old and there is much we can draw from our Sacred Tradition. And if we are not strongly grounded in the Catholic Faith, learning from the Protestants usually does more harm than good.

 

[Fidelis]

Personally I’d just place 2 conditions for what a standard translation should be.

1. Faithful Translation
   2.If there is commentary, it is drawn from the Church Father, Doctors of the Church as well as the Dogma and Doctrine of the Church.

Sounds a lot like the Navarre Bible Commentary.

The drawback of the Navarre, of course, it that it is a huge multi-volume series that, in my house, takes up almost a whole shelf. I hear they are now working on a one volume edition, but I don’t know the time-line on it’s release. Same with the complete Ignatius Study Bible.

At the same time, Dr, Scott Hahn is working on a new Catholic Bible Dictionary (whereas currently, the average Catholic is reduced to relying on Mackenzie’s Dictionary of The Bible, which is dry as dust and modernisticly tainted to boot). With these and other great resources coming out, it’s becoming fat city for serious, orthodox Catholic students of the Bible.

 

[Danw]

I am partial to the RSV-CE due mainly to the translation, but do read the NAB also. For commentary I use the Navarre and Ignatius Study Bible. Can anyone give me an example where in the NAB the commentary is “bad”, heretical, or just plain not orthodox?

 

[Fidelis]

Can anyone give me an example where in the NAB the commentary is “bad”, heretical, or just plain not orthodox?

Most of the problematic commentary is very subtle and is meant to lead you to conclusions that doubt the miraculous or prophetic character of certain important passages of Scripture.

As with much other writing, if often takes a page to refute a sentence, but here is an example from the NAB commentary on the Gospel passage for two weeks from now, Mark 8:27-35:

7 [31] Son of Man: an enigmatic title. It is used in Daniel 7:13-14 has a symbol of “the saints of the Most High,” the faithful Israelites who receive the everlasting kingdom from the Ancient One (God). They are represented by a human figure that contrasts with the various beasts who represent the previous kingdoms of the earth. In the Jewish apocryphal books of 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra the “Son of Man” is not, as in Daniel, a group, but a unique figure of extraordinary spiritual endowments, who will be revealed as the one through whom the everlasting kingdom decreed by God will be established. It is possible though doubtful that this individualization of the Son of Man figure had been made in Jesus’ time, and therefore his use of the title in that sense is questionable. Of itself, this expression means simply a human being, or, indefinitely, someone, and there are evidences of this use in pre-Christian times.** Its use in the New Testament is probably due to Jesus’ speaking of himself in that way, “a human being,” and the later church’s taking this in the sense of the Jewish apocrypha and applying it to him with that meaning. **

In other words, the commentator implies, Jesus did not understand himself to be Messiah or Divine in any way by this title “Son of Man;” it was later Christians that *imposed *that meaning on the text. This is rank heresy.

It further refers you to Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 16:

8 [13-20] The Marcan confession of Jesus as Messiah, made by Peter as spokesman for the other disciples (Mark 8:27-29; cf also Luke 9:18-20), is modified significantly here. The confession is of Jesus both as Messiah and as Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Jesus’ response, drawn principally from material peculiar to Matthew, *attributes the confession to a divine revelation *granted to Peter alone (Matthew 16:17) and **makes him **the rock on which Jesus will build his church (Matthew 16:18) and the disciple whose authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven, i.e., by God (Matthew 16:19).

The inference here relies upon the belief of modern(ist) scholars that Marks Gospel was written first, and the other synoptics relied on him and a source called “Q” as their base source. Therefore, anything that doesn’t appear in Mark (especially if it is prophetic, like this passage in Matthew) , is probably “added” later. In other words, we are expected to believe, important parts of Scripture were made up after the fact.

Teaching like this, all objections aside, tends to suck the life out the Scriptures for the average Catholic.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No, from what I understand the New Jerusalem Bible (1985), probably because of its inclusive language, has NOT been approved for use in the liturgy anywhere in the English-speaking world. The 1966 Jerusalem Bible (non-inclusive) is still used in the liturgy in England and Ireland, I believe.

The New English Bible (1970) and the Revised English Bible (1990?) have NOT been approved for use in the Catholic liturgy; they are Protestant translations which DO contain the deutero-canonicals. They MAY be used in Anglican services, perhaps??

The NEB certainly is, unless it’s been replaced. As for the revision of it - no sé ##

 

[mmortal03]

Is the Ignatius Bible a study Bible?
I have been reading the NAB study bible. But have been told to get the Ignatius Bible. I like notes and studies guides though.
I’m a geek, what can I say.

If you are going to get an RSV-CE, don’t get the Ignatius one, get this one when it comes out in December: walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4744059

That is the Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition, and it amounts to a much better RSV-CE than the Ignatius First or Second Catholic Edition.

I don’t have the time to go into specifics at the moment, and I would link you to the RSV-CE Needs Corrections thread, however, since the crash of the forums, most of the good information there was lost. For now, trust me on this one, and hopefully someone will explain in better detail why you should get the Reader’s Edition over the Ignatius Bible, in the meantime.

 

[St.Sebastian]

I am partial to the RSV-CE due mainly to the translation, but do read the NAB also. For commentary I use the Navarre and Ignatius Study Bible. Can anyone give me an example where in the NAB the commentary is “bad”, heretical, or just plain not orthodox?

I wasn’t going to post it, but with permission, I will do so. Here is the link from Ben Douglass’ article in CAI:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/nab1.htm

 

[TOME]

I have been reading the various post from this thread and I would like to comment on several but it would take too long.

First, I have read Ben Douglass’ work and I totally disagree with him. My disagreement with him lies first he seems to have no conception of the development of biblical scholarship under the diresction of the Church Magisterium, i.e. the teaching authority of the Church consisting of the Pope and those bishops in union with the Pope. I realize that the Magisterium does include a greater organization but the teaching authority of the Pope and Bishops formulate the foundation of the Church’s teaching authority. As for Mr Douglass, he fails to develope or perhaps rejects the writings of the Popes of the second half of the 20th Century in regards to modern biblical studies and scholarship. He fails to address how these Popes in their teachings see no contradiction between the passages he loves to quote and the biblical scholarship of the past century. Granted there have been abuses by modern biblical scholars, however, there have been great gains in this field, gains acknowledge by Popes such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Our Pope has high praise for the works of modern biblical scholarship, praise I think Mr. Douglass should study. Unfortunately, and this is my opinion, Mr Douglass has taken passages of various writng of the popes and has fossilized them. The Church is not a fossilized creature but a live and ever growing in its understanding of itself and its scripture and how to live out the gospel message. Fortunately, the Popes of the 20th Century and our Pope today understands this and have fostered and encourage modern biblical scholarship. This is why we have Dei Verbum a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

 

[CharlesT]

The Church is not a fossilized creature but a live and ever growing in its understanding of itself and its scripture and how to live out the gospel message. Fortunately, the Popes of the 20th Century and our Pope today understands this and have fostered and encourage modern biblical scholarship. This is why we have Dei Verbum a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

Amen.