NAB no longer allowed?

[irenaeus1]

In general, as a translation, the NAB is not that bad (btw, I am not fond of the inclusive language either, but typically it is footnoted what the literal wording is). I have one of those rare NABs that have the revised New Testament but still has the Psalms prior to their revision. But I must agree with many on this thread that many of the footnotes are atrocious. This has nothing to do with whether one is fossilizing the Church, and everything to do with demanding orthodoxy in the references documented in one’s Catholic Bible footnotes.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[mmortal03]

FYI, the section covering the NAB on the US Bishops’ site has been updated to state that the publication date for the new revision of the Old Testament (excluding the Psalter) should now be late 2007. It had been listed as late 2006 for a good period of time.

 

[TOME]

Iraneaus1 have have few questions concerning the NAB and its footnotes. Why are the footnotes atrocious? Are there any footnotes that are innaccurate? If there are footnotes that are innaccurate would you please point out where and how? Finally, given the NAB and its approval by the National Confrence of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Confrence an indication of the NAB’s orthodoxy? Are not the bishops acting as the teaching authority of the Church in America thus providing a reasonable conclusion of the NAB’s orthodoxy, or have there been proclamations from Rome stating that the NAB is not orthodox and therefore should be avoided? Or what do you mean by “Orthodoxy”?

 

[Ron_Conte]

My biggest complaint about the NAB is that the choice of which verses to include, or rather which verses to exclude, from the liturgical readings shows a liberal modernist bias

Ron

 

[mmortal03]

Are not the bishops acting as the teaching authority of the Church in America thus providing a reasonable conclusion of the NAB’s orthodoxy, or have there been proclamations from Rome stating that the NAB is not orthodox and therefore should be avoided?

Rome had to edit the version of the NAB that we currently have, the one that is publicly available, JUST so that it would be appropriate for use during the Mass. The text of the Lectionary version of the NAB that is used in the Mass isn’t even available in a Bible format, because they didn’t even have time to fix all the problems, and instead, only had time to fix what would go into the Lectionaries.

The Vatican’s reasoning to make these revisions was not something specifically needed for just the Mass, and it was caused because the US Bishops working on the revision wanted to push liberal changes into the Lectionary, but the Vatican wouldn’t have it. The US Bishops, therefore, didn’t succeed at getting the changes into the Lectionary, but they did succeed at getting it spread everywhere into unsuspecting Catholic’s hands, who now don’t even realize that there is anything wrong with it.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Does anyone know the status of the Revision of the Old Testament of the NAB? It seems like that information is very hard to get a hold of. I wonder why?

 

[mmortal03]

Does anyone know the status of the Revision of the Old Testament of the NAB? It seems like that information is very hard to get a hold of. I wonder why?

Exactly. I’d really like to know how far they have progressed on it. I just don’t understand how we even find out about the Vox Clara Committee meetings regarding translation issues, but we haven’t heard a word regarding the new NAB OT revision. Shouldn’t drafts of the particular revised books that have been completed be out and around?

 

[jemfinch]

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.

How so?

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.

I read that thread, and though a few people didn’t like think the RSV:2CE completely satisfied Liturgiam Authenticam, I didn’t remember seeing anything opposed to it on some other principle. And most who held such an opinion still found the RSV:2CE to be better than the RSV:CE, if I remember correctly.

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.

I don’t mistrust you, but I own the Ignatius Bible, and I read (and re-read, just now, from the Google cache) the thread you mentioned, and I didn’t see the sentiment you’re posting now to be supported by that thread.

Jeremy

 

[mmortal03]

Basically, the original 1965 RSV-CE (the Ignatius First Edition) and the Ignatius Second Edition are still based on the 1959 RSV.

In contrast, The Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition is based on the 1971 RSV, but still includes all the uniquely Catholic changes that made the difference between the 1959 RSV and the 1965 RSV-CE.

Therefore, with it you get all the changes that were made in the 1971 RSV, which are much more worthwhile and practical than the new changes in the Ignatius Second Editon, along with keeping all the Catholic changes from the 1965 RSV-CE.

Again, the 1971 revisions are MUCH more worthwhile and extensive (and even “more Catholic”) than any of the new changes in the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition, which still has as its base the 1965 RSV-CE.

So, with the Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition, you get a Bible that still has all the original Catholic revisions from the RSV-CE, and also matches right up with the 1971 RSV that some Conservative Protestants may still use (if they haven’t gone to the NASB or ESV). This makes it a much better apologetic tool than the Ignatius.

The revisions that make up the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition are just not as important in the grand scheme of things compared to what you get in the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition. There is just no contest. Basically, I can tell you why most of the changes in the Ignatius Second Edition aren’t really important, however, I can’t say the same about the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition. The revisions that it contain are quite necessary.

Keep in mind that neither is perfect, but the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition is a MUCH more practical purchase if you are just going to own one of the two.

Go here to see my pages summarizing the changes that we have found so far that occurred between the Ignatius First and Second Edition, as well as how this compares to the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition (same as the Scepter): umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/RSVCEdiff.htm

Go here to then supplement this information with the ADDITIONAL changes that are UNIQUE to the new Oxford Press Reader’s Edition (and the 1971 RSV) that will be coming out in December:
umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm

 

[demerzel85]

Basically, the original 1965 RSV-CE (the Ignatius First Edition) and the Ignatius Second Edition are still based on the 1959 RSV.

In contrast, The Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition is based on the 1971 RSV, but still includes all the uniquely Catholic changes that made the difference between the 1959 RSV and the 1965 RSV-CE.

Therefore, with it you get all the changes that were made in the 1971 RSV, which are much more worthwhile and practical than the new changes in the Ignatius Second Editon, along with keeping all the Catholic changes from the 1965 RSV-CE.

Again, the 1971 revisions are MUCH more worthwhile and extensive (and even “more Catholic”) than any of the new changes in the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition, which still has as its base the 1965 RSV-CE.

So, with the Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition, you get a Bible that still has all the original Catholic revisions from the RSV-CE, and also matches right up with the 1971 RSV that some Conservative Protestants may still use (if they haven’t gone to the NASB or ESV). This makes it a much better apologetic tool than the Ignatius.

The revisions that make up the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition are just not as important in the grand scheme of things compared to what you get in the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition. There is just no contest. Basically, I can tell you why most of the changes in the Ignatius Second Edition aren’t really important, however, I can’t say the same about the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition. The revisions that it contain are quite necessary.

Keep in mind that neither is perfect, but the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition is a MUCH more practical purchase if you are just going to own one of the two.

Go here to see my pages summarizing the changes that we have found so far that occurred between the Ignatius First and Second Edition, as well as how this compares to the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition (same as the Scepter): umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/RSVCEdiff.htm

Go here to then supplement this information with the ADDITIONAL changes that are UNIQUE to the new Oxford Press Reader’s Edition (and the 1971 RSV) that will be coming out in December:
umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm

Strange that John 3:16 is still absent from all the lists.

 

[mmortal03]

I’m not following. While yes, I agree that John 3:16 needs to be changed in all of the editions of the RSV, those lists only show revisions, and the only revision of the RSV where John 3:16 is more properly rendered is in the NRSV.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Oxford/Scepter Reader’s edition using “young woman” instead of “virgin” is just PLAIN wrong.

If even Protestants can see that–surely Catholics should be able to see that.

Are there any other Catholic renderings from the Ignatius Second Edition that the Reader’s edition doesn’t incorporate?

I’ve seen so many different renderings in different versions of the RSV that my advice would be to just produce an RSV that would ALWAYS go with the Catholic sense–I don’t think anybody would sue you over it–it seems as if most Protestants wouldn’t even know the difference!

 

[mmortal03]

The Oxford/Scepter Reader’s edition using “young woman” instead of “virgin” is just PLAIN wrong.

If even Protestants can see that–surely Catholics should be able to see that.

Are there any other Catholic renderings from the Ignatius Second Edition that the Reader’s edition doesn’t incorporate?

I’ve seen so many different renderings in different versions of the RSV that my advice would be to just produce an RSV that would ALWAYS go with the Catholic sense–I don’t think anybody would sue you over it–it seems as if most Protestants wouldn’t even know the difference!

I knew someone would mention that. I went over this before, however the crash deleted my comments.

I suggest that you don’t get caught up on that one verse. Everyone overreacts regarding it, and it really is not such a bad translation considering it FROM THE HEBREW. I might write it in, and I suggest that you do as well if it bothers you, and not turn down a superior edition of a Bible translation based on one particular verse. This particular issue is GROSSLY overshadowed by the vast improvement of the rest of the revisions that comprise the Reader’s Edition.

To explain my mindset on this issue more fully, please keep in mind that the RSV OT was a translation of the Hebrew, and it was that SPECIFICALLY that they were going for (they were translating from the Masoretic Texts). I have never agreed that we should take the any additional meaning that a New Testament book revealed to us about a verse (or of another version in a different language of the same text) and apply it to a translation of the Old Testament, unless a hybridization is the goal. This was not the goal here.

Yes, it isn’t a traditionally Catholic rendition, but if you want that particular verse to be properly translated, look into English translations of the Septuagint. There are translation projects progressing on this task as we speak, producing modern English translations of the Septuagint that should contain Isaiah 7.14 rendered in the traditional way. One of these projects could even turn out a text that is more Catholic than any modern Hebrew translation that we have.

So, you can see that I personally understand why they translated it the way that they did, and I will not allow the originally Evangelical Protestant bible-burning overreaction to carry over into my own thoughts here. I can calmly see it for what it is.

With that being said, let me get back to the main issue, and that is that there are, Isaiah 7.14 included, just three “critically important” verses that the Ignatius Second Edition renders more “appealing to Catholics” than the Reader’s Edition. Those are:

Isaiah 7.14: LXX “virgin”
Psalm 8.5: LXX “little less than the angels”
Matthew 16.18: “gates of Hades”
footnote “powers of death”

vs.

Isaiah 7.14: MT “young woman”
Psalm 8.5: MT “little less than God”
Matthew 16.18: “powers of death”
footnote “gates of Hades”

The first two verses are a difference between translating from the Greek or translating from the Hebrew, and regarding the third example, while neither is great, the Ignatius 2nd Edition happens to be a little better.

However, besides those 3 negative points, the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition has around 240 positives (yes, I said 240) over the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition.

Finally, just to clarify, please understand that there is no intentional cross-pollination between the Oxford Reader’s Edition and the Ignatius Second Edition outside of the original Catholic revisions. The Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition has no awareness of the Ignatius Second Edition. Both are almost completely separate in the majority revisions, outside of the original 1965 CE verses, and any other revision similarities are just coincidental.

Here is a recap:

1959 RSV → 1965 RSV-CE (Ignatius First Edition) → Ignatius Second Catholic Edition

1959 RSV → 1971 RSV → Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition (contains the 1965 RSV-CE Catholic-specific revisions, with the rest identical to the 1971 RSV)

 

[Manfred]

Seems to me that posts 48 onward belong more properly in the “RSV-CE Needs Corrections” thread, not THIS one, which was for the NAB.

 

[Damascus]

I think this is a good post. Can use it the next time someone says Catholics dont read the Bible…

I have a few versions of almost all the main ones mentioned here.

We can debate which is the best but I will be damned if someone is going to tell me which I am allowed to have and not have.

I use them all for different purposes.

 

[irenaeus1]

Iraneaus1 have have few questions concerning the NAB and its footnotes. Why are the footnotes atrocious? Are there any footnotes that are innaccurate? If there are footnotes that are innaccurate would you please point out where and how? Finally, given the NAB and its approval by the National Confrence of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Confrence an indication of the NAB’s orthodoxy? Are not the bishops acting as the teaching authority of the Church in America thus providing a reasonable conclusion of the NAB’s orthodoxy, or have there been proclamations from Rome stating that the NAB is not orthodox and therefore should be avoided? Or what do you mean by “Orthodoxy”?

First of all, the Church does not make an official statement against every marginal or even heretical teaching. And while the bishops have teaching authority, they are not infallible when they depart from magisterial teaching and have been demonstrated to err in the past. Apparently, you are attempting to set up some sort of trap if one cannot produce a declaration from Rome specifying a specific problem with a NAB footnote. Just one example off the top of my head (because I remember that it came up in an RCIA discussion last year) is the footnote for I Cor 3:15. The footnote states in part, “The text of v. 15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.” Why not? By what authority do the writers of the NAB footnotes know this? Many of the early Church fathers often used this scripture when speaking of purgatory; the Council of Florence used it; the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses it. This point may seem rather minor, but it does put in the minds of the weak or less mature in faith to wonder why views like these in direct contradiction to the Church can be propagated in the footnotes of a Catholic Bible. This is to be expected in a Protestant Bible, but not a Catholic one. Was the Council of Florence wrong to cite this scripture passage?

The footnote for Matthew 17:24 is unsure whether the temple tax being referred to here for Peter and Jesus may in actuality be referring to the tax imposed by the Romans for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus some 40 years after Jesus’ crucifixion. Can anyone explain this to me? The footnote states that their is disagreement among scholars as to which tax is being referenced. The only disagreement is between those who believe in the historicity of the Gospels and those who deny it. Obviously, the writers of the NAB footnotes are in the latter group.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[pnewton]

Iraneaus1 have have few questions concerning the NAB and its footnotes.

I will try to find some examples, too. I know they were plentiful, mostly of the variety discribed above. Namely, denying the plain meaning of scripture an in some cases, implying it is in error.

 

[pnewton]

From the introduction to James:

Others, however, believe it more likely that James is a pseudonymous work of a later period.

In other words, even though the letter plainly states it is from James, it really isn’t. Someone just used his name as an authoritative pseudonym.

From 2 Peter:

Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time.

Same problem as above, even though the first verse clearly states:
1
"Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ: "

Here is how the footnote in Luke describes the birth narrative:

Luke who writes in imitation of Old Testament birth stories, combining historical and legendary details*, literary ornamentation* and interpretation of scripture, to answer in advance the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?”

This is really easy. All one needs to do is look to anything miraculous or factual in the Bible and there is a good chance the notes will explain it as some literary device or embellishment.

 

[irenaeus1]

From the introduction to James:
In other words, even though the letter plainly states it is from James, it really isn’t. Someone just used his name as an authoritative pseudonym.

From 2 Peter:
Same problem as above, even though the first verse clearly states:
1
"Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ: "

Here is how the footnote in Luke describes the birth narrative:

This is really easy. All one needs to do is look to anything miraculous or factual in the Bible and there is a good chance the notes will explain it as some literary device or embellishment.

And there are numerous other examples like this. I’ve always wondered what is the difference between a pseudopigraph and a forgery anyway, especially with regard to a letter? I could perhaps understand why a writing, such as a dictactic story (like a parable), may use an authoritative pseudonym, but a letter explicitly citing the name of the author that is in reality not the author seems fraudulent to me. Many claim that this was an accepted literary convention, but I haven’t seen any real examples of this. Paul’s letter to the Laodicians is claimed to be fraudulant precisely because it is believed that Paul didn’t write it. Paul acknowledges in II Thess 2:2 that there is apparently a letter (or letters) circulating about that are allegedly from him… so what? If this is an acceptable practice, what is Paul’s gripe?

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[Damascus]

I think someone should start a poll on which Bible Catholics should be using.