NAB Old Testament Translation 2007 and beyond

[Jerry-Jet]

Does anyone know when the curent effort at retranslating the Old Testament for the NAB will come to fruition?

It seems as if this must be the most secretly guarded effort in the history of biblical translation.

I don’t know of anyone who knows when they will be finished.

I don’t know exactly what changes they may be contemplating.

I’m not a big fan of the NAB but what parts of the Old Testament could they make better in the NAB?

Will a newer translation of the Old Testament be much better or is the whole effort simply a lost cause?

Given that the NAB is used in the Liturgy and within the next few years we’ll have a new liturgy–what changes in the Old Testament are being made?

Am I wrong for thinking that people who don’t tell you what they’re up to and later spring the whole product on you to have to use whether you like it or not can’t be trusted?

Has anyone ever interviewed the poeple that make the translation decisions for the NAB?

Why is it that such people get to remain invisible and unchallenged?

Does anyone know anything about the translation of the Old Testament for the NAB?

Any information on that or changes that should be made in the NAB Old Testament are welcome!

As far as that goes all you RSV, NRSV, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and Douay Rheims Bible fans who know of any ways that those versions translate certain Old Testament passages better than the NAB can chime in also.

 

[Crumpy]

You may know more than the rest of us. Where did you get the idea that new translation was afoot?

There seems to be a wholesale move to the RSV-CE, in general, feeling that the work has already been done. But, keep us informed.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I had only heard that they were working on a new translation of the Old Testament for the NAB but I hadn’t heard when it would be completed.

 

[Manfred]

You may know more than the rest of us. Where did you get the idea that new translation was afoot?

There seems to be a wholesale move to the RSV-CE, in general, feeling that the work has already been done. But, keep us informed.

WHAT “wholesale move to the RSV-CE”? Where? By whom? For what purpose(s)? You’ve gotten my attention. :ehh:

Jerry-Jet is simply looking to nail down what has been hinted at for some time now; viz, that the NAB is “soon” to have a revised OT.

When discussing the NAB, remember that “revised” means more “pastorally-effective” renderings, i.e., inclusive language. If you doubt this, then just look at the NAB’s Revised NT and Revised Psalms; the latter are so bad that (1) Rome disallowed their use in the Liturgy, and (2) they are not on the Vatican web site with the rest of the NAB. (How strange is that?!) :whacky:

 

[lak611]

just look at the NAB’s Revised NT and Revised Psalms; the latter are so bad that (1) Rome disallowed their use in the Liturgy, and (2) they are not on the Vatican web site with the rest of the NAB. (How strange is that?!) :whacky:

What I find to be strange is that the NAB is even on the Vatican’s official site, since it is only used in the liturgy in the USA. Why should the translation used in only the USA be featured? It would make more sense to feature the English translation that is used in the liturgy in the majority of English-speaking countries.

 

[porthos11]

What I find to be strange is that the NAB is even on the Vatican’s official site, since it is only used in the liturgy in the USA. Why should the translation used in only the USA be featured? It would make more sense to feature the English translation that is used in the liturgy in the majority of English-speaking countries.

Please be sympathetic. We poor souls in the Philippines are also saddled with the NAB as well.

 

[lak611]

Please be sympathetic. We poor souls in the Philippines are also saddled with the NAB as well.

I am sorry to hear that. I did not know. For some reason, I thought that you used the JB. I hope the Spanish translation is better than the NAB.

 

[Manfred]

What I find to be strange is that the NAB is even on the Vatican’s official site, since it is only used in the liturgy in the USA. Why should the translation used in only the USA be featured? It would make more sense to feature the English translation that is used in the liturgy in the majority of English-speaking countries.

Since the RSV and NRSV are used in the English-language translation of the CCC worldwide, you might think either of them would’ve been on the Vatican site, but the NCCCUSA, which holds the copyright to both of these, probably got in the way. Plus, these are both Protestant translations, so that wouldn’t be such a cool idea after all.

The NAB/RNAB is only used in a few places, viz, the USA, the Philipines, and the JB, well, it’s just not formal enough.

That leaves the RSV-CE, but, again, copyright issue, though the Vatican could’ve exerted some pressure here.

Of course, there’s always the Douay-Rheims, but that would send a message that the Vatican was over-extending itself to the “trads” among us.

I wonder if any consideration was accorded the NJB. Probably not; use of “Yahweh”, inclusive language, and all that. Oh, wait…

Here comes the USCCB, only too happy to step forward with their beauteous translation.

uch:

 

[lak611]

Since the RSV and NRSV are used in the English-language translation of the CCC worldwide, you might think either of them would’ve been on the Vatican site, but the NCCCUSA, which holds the copyright to both of these, probably got in the way. Plus, these are both Protestant translations, so that wouldn’t be such a cool idea after all.

That leaves the RSV-CE, but, again, copyright issue, though the Vatican could’ve exerted some pressure here.

The Pope quoted the RSV in his most recent book, so I do not see why the Vatican could not have dealt with the copyright issue.

I wonder if any consideration was accorded the NJB. Probably not; use of “Yahweh”, inclusive language, and all that. Oh, wait…

Here comes the USCCB, only too happy to step forward with their beauteous translation.

uch:

The NJB would be a much better choice than the NAB. The inclusive language is much more restrained.

 

[porthos11]

The Pope quoted the RSV in his most recent book, so I do not see why the Vatican could not have dealt with the copyright issue.

The NJB would be a much better choice than the NAB. The inclusive language is much more restrained.

The RSV permissions policy allows authors to quote up to 500 verses without express permission, provided they do not comprise 50% of the total work and do not constitute a whole book of the Bible.

Putting the whole RSV or RSV-CE online would have required NCCC permission.

But then, the NAB requires permission for ONE MEASLY VERSE, so I don’t know why vatican.va posted the NAB instead of the RSV.

 

[Manfred]

… the NAB requires permission for ONE MEASLY VERSE, so I don’t know why vatican.va posted the NAB instead of the RSV.

Mere conjecture on my part: The NAB has the backing of the USCCB, which is a BISHOPS’ Conference, so, ipso facto, it must be good, no?

Only reason I mention this is because I believe the version in Italian on the Vatican site is from the Italian Episcopal Conference, which, by the way, did a fairly decent job in "critical areas, e.g., Luke 1:28.