You wrote:
I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with you at all on this one. “A few people say its bad, then everyone thinks so”? Is that what you really believe is going on? It seems to me that very few people think the NAB is bad, and those who do, do so for good reason.
And then this: “Unfortunately the majority of the “anti-NAB” mass have never even read the NAB and if they have they look at it for a few minutes, compare it to the infallible RSV-CE and critic every part of it. It’s a mob mentality.”
Really? Seriously now, the NAB has been the ONLY Catholic Bible continuously in print and continuously used at Mass in America for 39 years. Are you honestly going to tell me that people who reject it have never read it? I can understand if a traditionalist, growing up in a traditionalist family, only knew the DRV or Confraternity Bible, but how common is that? Not very to say the least. All of those people who I know who do not like the NAB know the NAB quite well.
And the idea that ONLY the inclusive language is a problem is just silly. Look at the footnote for Genesis 1:2 and tell me there was not a weird decision that took place to use “mighty wind” in the actual verse it refers to. Also, the footnotes themselves sometimes run from useless to problematic. The introductions to the books are problematic in that they often present contradictory points (such as on dating Mark’s gospel). Even the actual language, the sentence structure seems seriously flawed at times. It certainly doesn’t make for smooth reading. It’s too clumsy.
Having said all that, it is obvious that the NAB has some strong points as well. The layout is the most obvious. Quite frankly I think it is the best I have ever seen in a modern Bible.
Your points are well taken.
However, all too many people I personally know who reject the NAB only do so on basis other than their own. And it gets annoying after a while
And in response to Gen 1:2-- I think the revised OT will replace it, however I see no need to. “mighty wind” is arguably a more accurate translation
Its the same Hebrew word as in Genesis 8:1 and in that context it means the same thing.
The Hebrews had always interpreted this as being a force from God, however, the “Spirit” as we take Him to be is unknown to them.
The Trinity was not revealed or understood until Christ came, so it makes more sense to have a united God in the OT text.
If Genesis 1:2 truly meant to be specifically read as the third Person of the Holy Trinity…
Jewish theology or at least Jewish tradition would show it…
We have the Septuagint, Hebrew and Vulgate for reference.
Since the NAB OT is translated from the Hebrew, it is more accurate to translate it “mighty wind” though a better translation would be “wind from God” as the English Tanakh translation, or at least a “divine wind” as the latest English Septuagint translation.
However a “mighty wind” arguably shows the original meaning better
Isaiah 7:14 is another example. the Hebrew more accurately reads “young woman” but the Septuagint and Vulgate specifically reads “virgin” and the LXX itself was translated by Jews. So that is probably the original meaning.
Hence why the NAB reads “virgin”
The Vulgate downright reads: “Spirit of God” though… lol
However as stated before, LXX and Hebrew differ
To read “mighty wind” is no threat to the Doctrine of the Trinity
However I do hope it reads “wind from God” in the revised version
My biggest problem with the NAB is its Protestantesque translation of Luke 1:28 :tsktsk:
Also I’m not arguing for the footnotes… I think we can all agree on that. hahah
