NAB - Revised Psalms

[Epistemes]

I’m not much of a Biblicist. I’m more of a New Testamentist.

Therefore, I don’t pay much attention to how language is used throughout much of the OT. I typically concentrate very little on how OT passages are translated, so long as its understandable, etc.

However, I’ve been curious lately about the “condemned” Revised Psalms in the NAB. I typically don’t read the Psalms from my NAB just because I prefer the RSV-CE Psalms for its eloquence. Nonetheless, I’m wondering why the Revised Psalms were not approved back in 1990. I know it’s because of inclusive language - but I’m actually asking for examples of how the inclusive language drastically affects our understanding of particular Psalms.

 

[Manfred]

I’m not much of a Biblicist. I’m more of a New Testamentist.

Therefore, I don’t pay much attention to how language is used throughout much of the OT. I typically concentrate very little on how OT passages are translated, so long as its understandable, etc.

However, I’ve been curious lately about the “condemned” Revised Psalms in the NAB. I typically don’t read the Psalms from my NAB just because I prefer the RSV-CE Psalms for its eloquence. Nonetheless, I’m wondering why the Revised Psalms were not approved back in 1990. I know it’s because of inclusive language - but I’m actually asking for examples of how the inclusive language drastically affects our understanding of particular Psalms.

This may only partially answer your question, but, where the earlier NAB Psalms used masculine singular “man”, the revised psalter has used the plural. The main problem with this is that a particular instance, now interpreted as applicable to all of mankind, er, humanity , tends to obscure any reference to Christ the Man.

E.g., Ps. 1:1 “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked”, as opposed to “Blessed are they…”

I’m sure other posters can contribute more examples.

 

[lak611]

Is there any significance to the fact that the RNAB Psalms have an Imprimatur but not a Nihil Obstat?

 

[Epistemes]

Is there any significance to the fact that the RNAB Psalms have an Imprimatur but not a Nihil Obstat?

I’m sure there is.

I also think it’s interesting that the NRSV-CE has an Imprimatur by Donald Pilarczyk but no Nihil Obstat.

 

[Manfred]

Is there any significance to the fact that the RNAB Psalms have an Imprimatur but not a Nihil Obstat?

Well, if you take it at face value, you could infer that there was material to which objections could be raised, but not of such significance to keep them from being published.

On a more cynical side: omigosh, somebody actually granted them an Imprimatur?! uch:

 

[lak611]

I’m sure there is.

I also think it’s interesting that the NRSV-CE has an Imprimatur by Donald Pilarczyk but no Nihil Obstat.

Is it Daniel Pilarczyk? If so, he’s the same bishop who gave the Imprimatur to the RNAB Psalms.

 

[lak611]

Well, if you take it at face value, you could infer that there was material to which objections could be raised, but not of such significance to keep them from being published.

On a more cynical side: omigosh, somebody actually granted them an Imprimatur?! uch:

I just think it’s strange because I have never seen any other book (Bible or otherwise) that has an Imprimatur but no Nihil Obstat.

 

[Epistemes]

Is it Daniel Pilarczyk? If so, he’s the same bishop who gave the Imprimatur to the RNAB Psalms.

Yes, Daniel. Not Donald.

I actually had not noticed the lack of a Nihil Obstat for the Revised Psalms for quite some time. When I finally noticed it, it really affected my increasing opinion that the NAB “wasn’t all that bad.”

Still, to this day, I have yet to make it through all 150 Psalms in the NAB - and, even if I did, I’m not sure I’d notice such blatant discrepancies in the translation which would cause me to think, “I sure am glad these Psalms were not approved!”

That’s why I’m asking for examples…

 

[lak611]

Yes, Daniel. Not Donald.

I actually had not noticed the lack of a Nihil Obstat for the Revised Psalms for quite some time. When I finally noticed it, it really affected my increasing opinion that the NAB “wasn’t all that bad.”

Still, to this day, I have yet to make it through all 150 Psalms in the NAB - and, even if I did, I’m not sure I’d notice such blatant discrepancies in the translation which would cause me to think, “I sure am glad these Psalms were not approved!”

That’s why I’m asking for examples…

I will try to give you a few examples when I have time.

I don’t have the NRSV, but I do have the RNAB.

 

[Manfred]

I actually had not noticed the lack of a Nihil Obstat for the Revised Psalms for quite some time. When I finally noticed it, it really affected my increasing opinion that the NAB “wasn’t all that bad.”

Are you serious, or am I just oblivious to sarcasm?

 

[Epistemes]

Are you serious, or am I just oblivious to sarcasm?

There is sarcasm in there…

…but, alas, some truth, as well.

 

[mmortal03]

Is there any significance to the fact that the RNAB Psalms have an Imprimatur but not a Nihil Obstat?

Well, actually, if it has an Imprimatur, it doesn’t technically need a Nihil Obstat. The Nihil Obstat is supposed to come first, and is applied by a censor, who then passes it along to a bishop or the Pope for higher approval, the Imprimatur. So, if a bishop approves it, it doesn’t need the Nihil Obstat, regardless of what they actually mean in Latin.

So, the question is moot regarding whether “something is wrong with it” if you are basing the fact on it not having the Nihil Obstat.

 

[Epistemes]

I’m kind’ve surprised by the lack of response to this thread. Maybe I’ve not allowed enough time for adequate responses?

I’ve seen so many people on these forums criticize the Revised Psalms. I would have thought examples would be abundant.

Or maybe I’m being told in a nice way to do my own research?

 

[love4mary]

To “ride on the coat tails” of this thread, which bible does NOT use modern inclusive language, like They instead of He, and Humankind instead of Mankind?

 

[lak611]

To “ride on the coat tails” of this thread, which bible does NOT use modern inclusive language, like They instead of He, and Humankind instead of Mankind?

The RSV-CE has no inclusive language.

 

[Manfred]

To “ride on the coat tails” of this thread, which bible does NOT use modern inclusive language, like They instead of He, and Humankind instead of Mankind?

Far from “riding on the coat tails of this thread”,
you have actually hit the nail right on the head.

Seriously, the 1991 version of the Psalms that are now part of the NAB have this very grave defect at the heart of them; to wit, they have been neutered by using “They instead of He, and Humankind instead of Mankind”. Now, proponents of heavy dynamic equivalence infused with inclusive language will tell you that “the word of God affects men and women equally”, which is all well and good, except that the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms refer and point directly to Christ. Removing “he” and “man” obscures the Christological references in the Psalms.

[Luke 24:44] Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

 

[Cranch]

However, I’ve been curious lately about the “condemned” Revised Psalms in the NAB. I typically don’t read the Psalms from my NAB just because I prefer the RSV-CE Psalms for its eloquence. Nonetheless, I’m wondering why the Revised Psalms were not approved back in 1990. I know it’s because of inclusive language - but I’m actually asking for examples of how the inclusive language drastically affects our understanding of particular Psalms.

You seem to make “drastically affects our understanding” the criteria for rejecting a translation. I think the Holy See had other concerns in this case; one of which was the use of vertical inclusive language. Horizontal inclusive language applied to humans (which I still find personally egregious) is one thing. Vertical inclusive language applied to God is quite another. God the Creator is presented to us in Scripture as Father. Jesus called Him Abba, father; and taught us to pray to “our Father.” To neuter the Almighty through the use of inclusive language is wrong not to mention poor translating. The revised NAB psalter is guilty of this. Psalm 111 is an example.

First the Douay-Rheims (using the Septuagint numbering) Psalm 110 :

1 I will praise thee, O Lord, with my whole heart; in the council of the just: and in the congregation. 2 Great are the works of the Lord: sought out according to all his wills. 3 His work is praise and magnificence: and his justice continueth for ever and ever. 4 He hath made a remembrance of his wonderful works, being a merciful and gracious Lord: 5 He hath given food to them that fear him. He will be mindful for ever of his covenant:
6 He will shew forth to his people the power of his works. 7 That he may give them the inheritance of the Gentiles: the works of his hands are truth and judgment. 8 All his commandments are faithful: confirmed for ever and ever, made in truth and equity. 9 He hath sent redemption to his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever. Holy and terrible is his name: 10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A good understanding to all that do it: his praise continueth for ever and ever.

Now the NAB (Psalm 111):

1 Hallelujah. I will praise the LORD with all my heart in the assembled congregation of the upright.
** 2** Great are the works of the LORD, to be treasured for all their delights.
** 3** 3 Majestic and glorious is your work, your wise design endures forever.
** 4** You won renown for your wondrous deeds; gracious and merciful is the LORD.
** 5** You gave food to those who fear you, mindful of your covenant forever.
** 6** You showed powerful deeds to your people, giving them the lands of the nations.
** 7** The works of your hands are right and true, reliable all your decrees,
** 8** Established forever and ever, to be observed with loyalty and care.
** 9** You sent deliverance to your people, ratified your covenant forever; holy and awesome is your name.
** 10** The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; prudent are all who live by it. Your praise endures forever.

In footnote 3 to this psalm the NAB is quite clear in its motivation for the change it makes beginning in verse 3:

3 [3] Your* :* the psalm refers to God in the third person throughout; the shift to the second person is for the sake of inclusive language.

 

[love4mary]

Thank You lak611,gonna be headed to a Catholic bookstore today and will look at them.

 

[mmortal03]

In footnote 3 to this psalm the NAB is quite clear in its motivation for the change it makes beginning in verse 3:

At least they weren’t trying to hide it.

 

[lak611]

Here’s a comparison of the 22nd Psalm. From the NAB:

Chapter 22
1
1 2 For the leader; according to “The deer of the dawn.” A psalm of David.
2
My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? Why so far from my call for help, from my cries of anguish?
3
My God, I call by day, but you do not answer; by night, but I have no relief.
4
Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the glory of Israel.
5
In you our ancestors trusted; they trusted and you rescued them.
6
To you they cried out and they escaped; in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
7
3 But I am a worm, hardly human, scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
8
All who see me mock me; they curl their lips and jeer; they shake their heads at me:
9
“You relied on the LORD–let him deliver you; if he loves you, let him rescue you.”
10
Yet you drew me forth from the womb, made me safe at my mother’s breast.
11
Upon you I was thrust from the womb; since birth you are my God.
12
Do not stay far from me, for trouble is near, and there is no one to help.
13
4 Many bulls surround me; fierce bulls of Bashan encircle me.
14
They open their mouths against me, lions that rend and roar.
15
Like water my life drains away; all my bones grow soft. My heart has become like wax, it melts away within me.
16
5 As dry as a potsherd is my throat; my tongue sticks to my palate; you lay me in the dust of death.
17
Many dogs surround me; a pack of evildoers closes in on me. So wasted are my hands and feet
18
that I can count all my bones. They stare at me and gloat;
19
they divide my garments among them; for my clothing they cast lots.
20
But you, LORD, do not stay far off; my strength, come quickly to help me.
21
Deliver me from the sword, my forlorn life from the teeth of the dog.
22
Save me from the lion’s mouth, my poor life from the horns of wild bulls.
23
6 Then I will proclaim your name to the assembly; in the community I will praise you:
24
“You who fear the LORD, give praise! All descendants of Jacob, give honor; show reverence, all descendants of Israel!
25
7 For God has not spurned or disdained the misery of this poor wretch, Did not turn away from me, but heard me when I cried out.
26
I will offer praise in the great assembly; my vows I will fulfill before those who fear him.
27
8 The poor will eat their fill; those who seek the LORD will offer praise. May your hearts enjoy life forever!”
28
All the ends of the earth will worship and turn to the LORD; All the families of nations will bow low before you.
29
For kingship belongs to the LORD, the ruler over the nations.
30
9 All who sleep in the earth will bow low before God; All who have gone down into the dust will kneel in homage.
31
And I will live for the LORD; my descendants will serve you.
32
The generation to come will be told of the Lord, that they may proclaim to a people yet unborn the deliverance you have brought.

This Psalm is full of inclusive language in the NAB, even though it clearly is quoted by Jesus during His passion.

. . . continued in next post.