NAB no longer allowed?

[scapularkid8]

Peace be with you all,
Ignatius Bible all the way! I just wish it came in a small portable leather covered version. Anybody seen one?

 

[amontoya]

Peace be with you all,
Ignatius Bible all the way! I just wish it came in a small portable leather covered version. Anybody seen one?

I found one recently at Barnes and Noble. Same price as hard cover and I’m going back to get it.

 

[mmortal03]

I found one recently at Barnes and Noble. Same price as hard cover and I’m going back to get it.

I suggest the Oxford Press or Scepter RSV:CE compact instead if you are planning on the Ignatius compact. It is based on the 1971 RSV instead of the 1959.

 

[Saint_Michael]

I use the Ignatius hard cover RSV-CE, I also own the Douay-Rheims from Baronius Press but I find the language too distracting to get the real message, without having to convert the English to modern verse.

I never owned the NAB I always heard it was a bad translation from Catholics I trust. They likened it to the NIV for Catholics.

 

[ricmat]

I have an NAB, and the Baronius Douay, and I just purchased the leather bound, zippered RSV-CE from Ignatius. I’m still looking for a better translation

Novice comments follow:

IMHO the Douay is a good reference, but takes some time to translate to modern English, as other have pointed out.

The RSV-CE, for all the wonderful things I’ve heard, takes some translation in some parts as well - look at Leviticus 18:6ff (as mentioned somewhere else on the CA site). Also look at Isiah 7:14. What’s so miraculous about a young woman giving birth? In this compact version I have, ALL the notes are at the end of the OT and NT, so it’s difficult to flip back and forth a lot.

Then of course, in the NAB Luke 1:28 “Hail, favored one, the Lord is with you…” But at least they got Isaiah 7:14 right.

At my desk I use the “large type” NAB. When on the road, I use the compact RSV-CE. But it sure is interesting to sit and compare the different translations.

I also have a Living Bible (paraphrased), and in Proverbs 8:23 regarding Wisdom they seemed to do better than all of the above “From ages past, I AM.”

Is anyone working on a new translation?

 

[Manfred]

I use the Ignatius hard cover RSV-CE, I also own the Douay-Rheims from Baronius Press but I find the language too distracting to get the real message, without having to convert the English to modern verse.

I never owned the NAB I always heard it was a bad translation from Catholics I trust. They likened it to the NIV for Catholics.

I can understand why the average Catholic gets taken with the NAB; it’s what’s used in the liturgy in the US, the bishops sponsored it, it’s available just about anywhere bibles are sold, and inexpensively at that.

But for the life of me, those bible-totin’ evangelicals who supposedly know “their” bible through and through (after all, it’s sola Scriptura all the way!), and who could handily choose either the carefully translated, literal New American Standard or the contemporary, dynamic-equivalent NIV have overwhelmingly gone for the latter.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Is anyone working on a new translation?

The Catholic Public Domain Version is about half completed here
sacredbible.org/

It’s my translation of the Clementine Vulgate, made using the Challoner Douay Rhiems version as a guide. It is fairly literal, avoids inclusive language, and uses a Christological and specifically Catholic approach to both the OT and NT.

Ron

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Ron Conte: Is there any chance that someone might one day publish your online translation of the Douay Rheims?

What kind of feedback have you gotten about the translation project from Catholic clergy?

I wish you good luck. I think it’s great that someone is revising the Douay Rheims. It is a great translation of the Bible and doesn’t need alot of tinkering to make it easily readable to today’s English readers–yet at the same time not changing it into something unrecognizable.

So far what have been the hardest translation decisions that you have made concerning it?

If the most conservative traditional Catholic Bible translators were given free reign to revise the NAB–could they polish it into something much better than it is currently?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron Conte: Is there any chance that someone might one day publish your online translation of the Douay Rheims?

What kind of feedback have you gotten about the translation project from Catholic clergy?

I wish you good luck. I think it’s great that someone is revising the Douay Rheims. It is a great translation of the Bible and doesn’t need alot of tinkering to make it easily readable to today’s English readers–yet at the same time not changing it into something unrecognizable.

So far what have been the hardest translation decisions that you have made concerning it?

If the most conservative traditional Catholic Bible translators were given free reign to revise the NAB–could they polish it into something much better than it is currently?

The CPDV is not a revision of the Douay. It is a new translation of the Latin Vulgate, but made using the Challoner Douay as a guide. This is a similar approach to what was used by the Jerusalem Bible translators, who translated from Hebrew/Greek but used the French Jerusalem Bible as a guide.

no feedback from clergy yet

hardest translation decisions: the book of wisdom has some difficult passages, where some English translations translate it to one meaning, and others translate it to the exact opposite meaning; the song of songs was difficult because it is not always clear who is speaking in the song (groom, bride, chorus) and various translations do not agree.

The NAB is basically a good translation. I object to the removal of certain verses from the NAB. I also think that it has a tendency to rephrase obscure passages so that they are easy to understand, but so that the depth of meaning that might be found in an obscure passage is over-simplified. A conservative group of scholars could improve it, if this were permitted.

thanks for the encouragement.

Ron

 

[demerzel85]

no feedback from clergy yet

hardest translation decisions: the book of wisdom has some difficult passages, where some English translations translate it to one meaning, and others translate it to the exact opposite meaning; the song of songs was difficult because it is not always clear who is speaking in the song (groom, bride, chorus) and various translations do not agree.

thanks for the encouragement.

Ron

I pray you would be able to get the work Imprimatured by a few Orthodox Bishops. May Mary the Seat of Wisdom intercede for you as you go about your work

 

[irenaeus1]

Pnewton, on its face value your approach seems very reasonable, however, the gospels themselves do not always cooperate with this approach.

For example, which saying of Jesus is the correct one, Jesus’ commission of his disciples as found in Matthew 28 with the formula for baptism we are familar with or is Mark’s (16:18 -18) where there are some differences and no baptismal formula? Or how about John and Luke/Acts where baptism is not mentioned at all prior to Christ Ascension.

Another example is Peter’s Confession. In Matthew 16 we know after Peter confesses Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God Jesus proclaims Peter to be the “Rock” and gives to Peter the “Keys of the Kingdom”. However, in Mark 8, when Peter makes his profession Jesus’ only response is to tell his disciples not to tell anyone. Which account is the correct one?

With these two incidents, plus others, the question becomes who is correct especially if one accepts that “Insipation” create inerrancy which means what is written is the historical fact and cannot be wrong. Which presentation, then, is the correct one?

Omitting portions of a dialogue does not necessarily equal contradiction. Paraphrasing or translating does not necessarily equal contradiction either. Ancient Greek and Hebrew did not have quotation marks, and there was not the Associated Press ensuring verbatim quotes. (I’m not even sure what verbatim would mean if Jesus spoke in Aramaic but His sayings being recorded in Greek). You are presenting a false dichotomy.

Using your example above concerning Jesus’ commissioning His disciples, which did Jesus actually say?

Perhaps Jesus said something like this:

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. For whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Obviously, I only compiled the two statements together, but as is clearly demonstrated, the statement still contains a fluid non-contradictory thought. And even this above proposed statement would be probably an abridgement. Think about it; Jesus may have spoke to his disciples for several minutes or even hours, but the above quote takes all of 35 seconds to say. Quite probably, Jesus spoke longer than 35 seconds.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[Manfred]

Perhaps Jesus said something like this:

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. For whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Obviously, I only compiled the two statements together, but as is clearly demonstrated, the statement still contains a fluid non-contradictory thought. And even this above proposed statement would be probably an abridgement. Think about it; Jesus may have spoke to his disciples for several minutes or even hours, but the above quote takes all of 35 seconds to say. Quite probably, Jesus spoke longer than 35 seconds.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

Irenaeus,

You’ve done a simply marvelous job with merging these quotes. Very insightful. And, as you so rightly point out, fluid and non-contradictory.

 

[TOME]

In my post to Pnewton, I was responding to his statement that he would prefer to go with a statement as is and my response was meant to show that that is not always as simple an answer as it seems. If you take the two verses at their face value there does seem to be a difference. Irenaeus1’s presentation was edifying in showing that at least with the question of Jesus’ statements just prior to His Ascension do not contradict each other (I never thought they did) but it still doesn’t explain why the author of Mark’s Gospel (if it was a later gospel) writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and with Matthew’s Gospel before him, didn’t do the same?

These differences as well as all the others we find among all four gospels should lead us to ask the question, Why?

 

[irenaeus1]

In my post to Pnewton, I was responding to his statement that he would prefer to go with a statement as is and my response was meant to show that that is not always as simple an answer as it seems. If you take the two verses at their face value there does seem to be a difference. Irenaeus1’s presentation was edifying in showing that at least with the question of Jesus’ statements just prior to His Ascension do not contradict each other (I never thought they did) but it still doesn’t explain why the author of Mark’s Gospel (if it was a later gospel) writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and with Matthew’s Gospel before him, didn’t do the same?

These differences as well as all the others we find among all four gospels should lead us to ask the question, Why?

Why should they read exactly the same? If they did, then we would only need one Gospel. Remember, inspiration does not mean God dictated. The human authors were still free (although prompted in some way by the Holy Spirit, I’m sure) to use certain approaches and address specific issues according to their primary audience, and the Holy Spirit preserved them from error when doing so. I think the corroboration of various accounts but from varying perspectives speaks much more strongly than if we had four identical Gospels.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[TOME]

irenaeus1,

I see we actually agree on most of these post. Having four gospels actually shows the richness of the Gospel message, that is while it comes from the same source, Christ, it has effected the Church in different ways, just as the gospel message may effect you differently than me but it is still the same gospel.

This is where I think modern scriptural scholarship can and does have great value by showing us how and perhaps why the Church responded to Christ earthly ministry, His Passion, His Death and His Resurrection not in the same exact way.

Of coarse, I am refering to the scholarship that adheres to the teaching authority of the Church.However it should be acknowledge that despite the origins of modern scholarship being anti-Catholic and in many times anti-Christ by reducing Jesus to a
great prophet at best and a mythical creature created by some very active minds, still even they provided the ground work and some important insights that loyal catholic scripture scholars can and have used.

Sometimes what Catholic scholars teach seems to be rejected on a prejudice.They consider the originators of modern biblical scholarship and immediately conclude that nothing good could ever come from any modern scholarship and use scholars of the “Jesus Seminar” ilk to further prover their position. All this despite the writings of the popes from Leo XIII through to Benedict XVI and a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

I believe this thought (and in my judgment - prejudice) is the foundation of the rejection of many of the NAB and especially its footnotes. When the original translation came out in 1970’s it was acknowledge by most scholars that there were at least 2000 errors. Most were minor and non were so poor as to negate the essential message of the verse. However, I believe it should be admitted by al that the footnotes of the NAB instead of providing a spiritual commentary on the passage goes on to explain why the verse was translated the way it was.

So yes the NAB is flawed, and the revisions of the 1980’s didn’t help but going back to the original thread I believe this is why it is still used in our liturgy and really isn’t as bad of a translation as most here believe (and remember, it is the translation of the oldest text available in the original hebrew and greek. It is not an English translation of the Latin Vulgate which itself needed revision).

 

[irenaeus1]

irenaeus1,

I see we actually agree on most of these post. Having four gospels actually shows the richness of the Gospel message, that is while it comes from the same source, Christ, it has effected the Church in different ways, just as the gospel message may effect you differently than me but it is still the same gospel.

This is where I think modern scriptural scholarship can and does have great value by showing us how and perhaps why the Church responded to Christ earthly ministry, His Passion, His Death and His Resurrection not in the same exact way.

Of coarse, I am refering to the scholarship that adheres to the teaching authority of the Church.However it should be acknowledge that despite the origins of modern scholarship being anti-Catholic and in many times anti-Christ by reducing Jesus to a
great prophet at best and a mythical creature created by some very active minds, still even they provided the ground work and some important insights that loyal catholic scripture scholars can and have used.

Sometimes what Catholic scholars teach seems to be rejected on a prejudice.They consider the originators of modern biblical scholarship and immediately conclude that nothing good could ever come from any modern scholarship and use scholars of the “Jesus Seminar” ilk to further prover their position. All this despite the writings of the popes from Leo XIII through to Benedict XVI and a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

I believe this thought (and in my judgment - prejudice) is the foundation of the rejection of many of the NAB and especially its footnotes. When the original translation came out in 1970’s it was acknowledge by most scholars that there were at least 2000 errors. Most were minor and non were so poor as to negate the essential message of the verse. However, I believe it should be admitted by al that the footnotes of the NAB instead of providing a spiritual commentary on the passage goes on to explain why the verse was translated the way it was.

So yes the NAB is flawed, and the revisions of the 1980’s didn’t help but going back to the original thread I believe this is why it is still used in our liturgy and really isn’t as bad of a translation as most here believe (and remember, it is the translation of the oldest text available in the original hebrew and greek. It is not an English translation of the Latin Vulgate which itself needed revision).

I agree! The NAB is a fairly good translation in spite of the occasional use of inclusive language, which is exactly why the Lectionary has the vertical inclusive language removed (so it’s not exactly accurate to say that the NAB was approved for use in the Lectionary because there were changes made in order to accommodate its use in the Liturgy). Also,with regard to the footnotes, the footnotes are inconsequential as they are not part of the Lectionary. So the typical gripes that folks have concerning the NAB (the use of inclusive language and the poor footnotes) are irrelevant to the pseudo-NAB being used in the Lectionary; i.e., they don’t even come into play.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[mmortal03]

So the typical gripes that folks have concerning the NAB (the use of inclusive language and the poor footnotes) are irrelevant to the pseudo-NAB being used in the Lectionary; i.e., they don’t even come into play.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

Your are right that the problems don’t affect the Lectionary, however, I guess that means we need to be sure we know what specifically is this thread questioning about the NAB. I personally think that if they released a full, non-inclusive version of the NAB with a proper revision of the footnotes, it wouldn’t be so bad. However, the NAB that is available to the public is not up to par. If the Lectionary should not have inclusive language, then the NAB available to the public should not. Remember, we are talking about Catholicism here, not liberal Protestantism. Catholics shouldn’t even consider inclusive language, in my opinion.

 

[Manfred]

Catholics shouldn’t even consider inclusive language, in my opinion.

But, mmortal, our illustrious and enlightened bishops ARE, since they want to do the “pastorally effective” thing. The sanitized NAB lectionary still left in too darned much inclusive language for me to be comfortable with it. It’s too bad that much power has been vested in “episcopal conferences”; some aren’t quite up to the task, it seems.

I’ll recant the above when I see (1) more widespread Tridentine Masses (you know, where/when people can actually attend) and (2) the suppression of the NAB in favor of the RSV-CE.

 

[Ron_Conte]

But, mmortal, our illustrious and enlightened bishops ARE, since they want to do the “pastorally effective” thing. The sanitized NAB lectionary still left in too darned much inclusive language for me to be comfortable with it. It’s too bad that much power has been vested in “episcopal conferences”; some aren’t quite up to the task, it seems.

I’ll recant the above when I see (1) more widespread Tridentine Masses (you know, where/when people can actually attend) and (2) the suppression of the NAB in favor of the RSV-CE.

The lectionary omits certain verses and parts of verses, in order to avoid some of the less politically correct verses, such as where God’s wrath is visited on sinners, or where David in the Psalms prays against his enemies.

One problem with Episcopal Conferences is that the Bishops are dispersed throughout the nation, so certain full-time non-Bishop employees of the conference have more influence than any individual Bishop. And they form committees that are mostly lay persons, so decisions of the Bishops conference are mostly being made by the non-ordained. Also, they model themselves after organizations in secular society, with meetings, and memos, and committees, and voting, and reports, etc. A great deal of reform is needed here.

The RSV-CE has problems. First, it was mostly translated by Protestants, so that it lacks the Catholic point of view in translating the NT. And its approach to the OT is not Christological. Also, it is a revision of a revision, which was then amended to be more Catholic. And it is showing its age. This is not the idea translation for the lectionary.

Ron

 

[mmortal03]

(2) the suppression of the NAB in favor of the RSV-CE.

Or a revised Challoner, right? Or maybe an English translation of the Neo Vulgata that refers to the Challoner, that would work, too.