NAB translation

[lilred5]

I see a lot of complaints on this site about the NAB translation of the Bible, mainly how horrible the footnotes are.
These footnotes have cultural references, references to the original Greek and Hebrew, ways that others have translated certain things and references to other passages in the Bible.
I find these things very helpful in understanding exactly what was going on (especially in the Old Testament). So, am I missing something? What’s so bad about it?

 

[Tyuiop411]

To me there is nothing overtly wrong or bad about it. I prefer the RSV because it’s more concise with it’s sentences and phrases things more eloquently than the NAB, but if the NAB clears Scripture up for you with it’s simpler language go for it.

 

[Crumpy]

The NAB is a paraphrased translation of scripture, some consider that it is not a good paraphrase translation.

The NIV is also a paraphrased translation but very popular in Protestant circles.

From the NAB:

PSALM 1

True Happiness in God’s Law

Psalm 1:1
Happy those who do not follow
the counsel of the wicked,
Nor go the way of sinners,
nor sit in company with scoffers.

1:2 Rather, the law of the LORD is their joy;
God’s law they study day and night.

1:3 They are like a tree
planted near streams of water,
that yields its fruit in season;
Its leaves never wither;
whatever they do prospers.

My understanding is that the orginal says “Happy is the man…” This version has been rendered gender neutral at the sacrifice of a direct translation. So, the plural “they” is also an embellishment.

In verse 2, “law” is the translation of the word “torah” and Jews do not consider “law” to be the equivalent of “torah”, which instead means “instruction”.

Some well-known phrases have been watered down so they don’t have the ‘punch’ that they have in other translations.

Don’t forget, that modern copyright laws are dominant factors guiding modern translations, so compromises are made for legal reasons, at the sake of accuracy and beauty.

I have an old post somewhere comparing six or eight translations of a particular verse, and it is obvious that even the sense of the verse can change, depending on the translation.

I used to flinch at reading some of the footnote commentaries in the NAB. I’ve grown accumstomed to them, having expanded my own study of scripture beyond the range of footnotes.

There’s a new series of NT scripture commentaries that are coming out of Baker Academic which are based on the NAB. The authors compare other translations when there is some point they want to make. These commentaries eclipse the footnotes of the NAB.

Alongside the text of Genesis, the NAB has some commentary about the different “sources” of material that has been patchworked (redacted) into the final version of Genesis. The emphasis there may be misleading for the lightweight Catholic reader.

BUT, if that is all you have is the NAB, then plunge right in and keep reading and studying, but just keep an open mind.

 

[Crumpy]

Here’s the NAB translation of Lev 19:16

19:16 You shall not go about spreading slander among your kinsmen; nor shall you stand by idly when your neighbor’s life is at stake. I am the LORD.

I’ve been reading some Jewish commentaries, and they point out the importance of ideas that are put side by side.

Here, the NAB translates the second half of the verse to suggest that you must intervene when someone’s life is in danger – arguably we could apply this to trying to rescue fetuses from being aborted.

In another sense, this might apply to the Good Samaritan situation, where a man is beaten and left to die, but the “good” Samaritan comes along and takes great care to restore the man’s life.

If you look at the whole verse, you also might interpret it to mean that slandering a person is like killing somebody, and you should not stand by idly if someone is being slandered.

When you consider that the Old Testament was written mostly in Hebrew, NOT a modern language for sure! – it didn’t have lower case, punctuation, verse numbers, vowels, indentation, footnotes, etc. You can see how every translation is an enormous and complex set of decisions about the meaning of the original texts. You should not be surprised that there is controversy to this day about the meaning of texts in the Bible.

For example, there is a word in the Old Testament that is somethingn like “melahkah.”

Well, we don’t know what it means. The Jews don’t know what it means. It is seriously taken to mean “servile work” and the context is that the Israelites are not supposed to perform “malahkah” on the Sabbath day. So, it’s pretty significant what it may mean, but we don’t really know. We and the Jews guess that it means “servile work” and we “run” with that, but truthfully we don’t know for sure.

The meaning is inferred from different contexts, for example, when a man is struck dead for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. That meaning also carries into the New Testament, when the disciples are criticized for picking and eating corn on the sabbath.

So, that’s circumstantial evidence for the meaning of “melahkah” and, as I say, we humbly “run” with that translation.

 

[peary]

I see a lot of complaints on this site about the NAB translation of the Bible, mainly how horrible the footnotes are.
These footnotes have cultural references, references to the original Greek and Hebrew, ways that others have translated certain things and references to other passages in the Bible.
I find these things very helpful in understanding exactly what was going on (especially in the Old Testament). So, am I missing something? What’s so bad about it?

But that is what scholarship is all about. The NAB may not be the ‘best’ translation but it is adequate. And there is nothing wrong, as you say, with the footnotes, which I find very factual and explanatory of certain passages.

 

[Jguerra]

Some critics of the NAB say the scholarship behind this translation was a collaborative effort between Catholic and protestant bible experts. That’s not the bad part. The bad part is the scholarship tends to lead toward protestant thinking in line with the idea that the NAB could be used by both Catholics and non-Catholics.

The revised New Testament of the NAB (1986) has inclusive language. Here, critics say, is a concession to the feminist movement.

 

[bauerice]

I, like most, agree there is nothing wrong with the NAB. I have a copy of the original 1970 that I like more than the one on the shelves now. It’s just not the one I pick up when I want to read the Bible.

 

[Jesus_123]

+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . **1966 Jerusalem Bible ** (a paraphrase not a word for word translation) . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . . incorporated into ALL this Bible’s versions thereafter . . .

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin Vulgate, the Catholic Church’s Official Bible. Bishop Challoner’s edition phrases it to make it more reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The original Latin translation is largely the result of the **Holy Spirit’s **inspiration and annointing of the labors of the blessed St. Jerome . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Latin Vulgate Translation
was **
“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.”**
With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html . . . you can’t go wrong with this Bible . . .

Below are comments from the **Eternal Word Television Network’s ** ewtn.com website . . . which also contain some examples of the Holy See’s gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view on some Biblical translations on the market today.

:bible1: Douai-Rheims [Douay-Rheims]. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai.​

**The renown teaching priest Father John Corapi ** endorses and highly recommends the **ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE.

:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE).Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …**​

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful not to request the NEW RSV-CE . . . which is being heavily promoted nowadays and contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******​

**NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991) [also a paraphrase not a word for word translation]. It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
​

. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​

 

[rocketrob]

I’m a little surprised that the original question in this thread hasn’t already been addressed by several others. But I will try to give just a few examples of what bothers me regarding the New American Bible in general. Per the original question, I will confine my remarks to footnotes and book introductions. Note, these observations are not all my own original thoughts. A quick Internet search provided several web pages containing related information, including the following:

jimmyakin.org/2005/01/the_new_america.html

love2learn.net/religion/bible.htm

Generally speaking, the ‘scholarship’ presented in the New American Bible is heavily weighted to the modern ‘higher critical’ method. This method tends to overemphasize the literal sense of Scripture while forgetting that the ultimate purpose of Scripture is salvation:

…the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” (Dei Verbum 11)

There are several Papal Encyclicals and Church documents that warn about the dangers of bible scholarship devoid of faith, including Dei Verbum, Providentissimus Deus, and Divino Afflante Spiritu. These documents can be found here:

veritasbible.com/resources/articles#vatican_documents

Here are some specific examples of problematic material in the New American Bible:

Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew: An opinion that Matthew cannot be the Gospel’s author is offered:

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable…The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain…The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience…

This position seems to flatly contradict the document “The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation from Vatican II” (Dei Verbum):

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (Dei Verbum 18)

Footnote regarding the Magnificat of Mary in Luke 1:46-56: The NAB seems to dismiss the idea that Mary actually spoke the Magnificat, and implies that Luke placed a Jewish hymn in his text because it just seemed to fit:

Because there is no specific connection of the canticle to the context of Mary’s pregnancy and her visit to Elizabeth, the Magnificat (with the possible exception of v 48) may have been a Jewish Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate at this point in his story. Even if not composed by Luke, it fits in well with themes found elsewhere in Luke…

Footnote from Matthew 16:21-23 regarding Jesus’ prediction of His own Passion: The NAB implies that Jesus didn’t have full knowledge regarding His mission on earth:

…Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Matthew 17:22-23; 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Matthew 26:29).

Footnote for Psalm 58:2: I found a reference to this in my Internet search, and I agree that this footnote just seems a bit bizarre. Psalm 58:2 is referring to corrupt judges which are termed gods due to their status and power; however, this is the NAB note:

Gods: the Bible sometimes understands pagan gods to be lesser divine beings who are assigned by Israel’s God to rule the foreign nations. Here they are accused of injustice, permitting the human judges under their patronage to abuse the righteous.

In my opinion, I’ve seen enough of these types of notes and information in the NAB that I would be cautious about using it. I generally use other bibles and commentary such as the RSV-2CE, the Haydock Bible, and “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture” by Dom Bernard Orchard.

rocketrob

 

[peary]

I really don’t agree that much with Jimmy Akin with regard to the NAB translation and its footnotes. But I do think the New Jerusalem Bible is better, but it has MORE footnotes than any other Bible I’ve seen, and the print is so small, I need a magnifying glass just to read what it says. NJB was, for me, a waste of money.

 

[mccorm45]

I really don’t agree that much with Jimmy Akin with regard to the NAB translation and its footnotes. But I do think the New Jerusalem Bible is better, but it has MORE footnotes than any other Bible I’ve seen, and the print is so small, I need a magnifying glass just to read what it says. NJB was, for me, a waste of money.

Yeah I agree with you about the NJB. It is too bad that it only comes in that bulky size with the minute footnotes.

As for the NAB, the New Testament is only slightly less literal/formal than the RSV/NRSV. The entire NAB should be made more literal/formal overall with it’s upcoming revision if the OT and Psalms. However, whoever said that the NAB was a paraphrase Is completely offbase. Translations like the Message and the Good News Bible are paraphrases, certainly not the NAB.

 

[Ignatius]

I’m a little surprised that the original question in this thread hasn’t already been addressed by several others. But I will try to give just a few examples of what bothers me regarding the New American Bible in general. Per the original question, I will confine my remarks to footnotes and book introductions. Note, these observations are not all my own original thoughts. A quick Internet search provided several web pages containing related information, including the following:

jimmyakin.org/2005/01/the_new_america.html

love2learn.net/religion/bible.htm

Generally speaking, the ‘scholarship’ presented in the New American Bible is heavily weighted to the modern ‘higher critical’ method. This method tends to overemphasize …while forgetting that the ultimate purpose of Scripture is salvation:

I totally agree. I use the Navarre study bible and the Ignatius Study bible.
The commentary in the NAB is definitely problematic.

 

[peary]

Yeah I agree with you about the NJB. It is too bad that it only comes in that bulky size with the minute footnotes.

As for the NAB, the New Testament is only slightly less literal/formal than the RSV/NRSV. The entire NAB should be made more literal/formal overall with it’s upcoming revision if the OT and Psalms. However, whoever said that the NAB was a paraphrase Is completely offbase. Translations like the Message and the Good News Bible are paraphrases, certainly not the NAB.

Anybody know if there is a Revised Edition of the Douay-Rheims??

 

[lilred5]

The NAB is a paraphrased translation of scripture, some consider that it is not a good paraphrase translation.

The NIV is also a paraphrased translation but very popular in Protestant circles.

From the NAB:

PSALM 1

True Happiness in God’s Law

Psalm 1:1
Happy those who do not follow
the counsel of the wicked,
Nor go the way of sinners,
nor sit in company with scoffers.

1:2 Rather, the law of the LORD is their joy;
God’s law they study day and night.

1:3 They are like a tree
planted near streams of water,
that yields its fruit in season;
Its leaves never wither;
whatever they do prospers.

My understanding is that the orginal says “Happy is the man…” This version has been rendered gender neutral at the sacrifice of a direct translation. So, the plural “they” is also an embellishment.

In verse 2, “law” is the translation of the word “torah” and Jews do not consider “law” to be the equivalent of “torah”, which instead means “instruction”.

The footnotes on my NAB say what you just noted.
"Those: literally, “the man”
“The law of the Lord: either the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, or, more probably, divine teaching or instruction.”

I know that there are obviously some problems but most of the footnotes I have encountered really aren’t bad.
Crumpy, thank you for the bible study recommendations if I can get my hands on it that will be nice.
Also, are there any other good studies (preferably inexpensive) that may be of help?
For those worried people, I’m not going to be led astray due to footnotes. I guarantee that and I’m sorry but I still don’t think it’s as horrible as say Jimmy Akin.

 

[Fidelis]

I’m a little surprised that the original question in this thread hasn’t already been addressed by several others. But I will try to give just a few examples of what bothers me regarding the New American Bible in general…

Great post, rocketrob-- I totally agree.

In my experience, most people who have an aversion to the NAB footnotes, translation and the gender-neutral conventions it often uses, do so, not because they disagree with them (most people are not scholarly or well-versed enough in biblical theology to go that far), but simply due to the fact that these features of the NAB are annoying to them, seem to de-supernaturalize and homogenize the Scriptures, and in fact are not all that helpful. It just leaves them cold-- and that’s not what people want when they read the Word of God.

 

[bauerice]

In my experience, most people who have an aversion to the NAB footnotes, translation and the gender-neutral conventions it often uses, do so, not because they disagree with them (most people are not scholarly or well-versed enough in biblical theology to go that far), but simply due to the fact that these features of the NAB are annoying to them, seem to de-supernaturalize and homogenize the Scriptures, and in fact are not all that helpful. It just leaves them cold-- and that’s not what people want when they read the Word of God.

I try to buy Bibles that do not contain footnotes. I read the Bible for inspiration. I leave the interpetation up to the magisterium.

 

[lilred5]

Fidelis, I get what you’re saying and that makes sense. I was just kinda worried that there was something horribly wrong with the Bible that I have.

 

[grndslm]

I’m a little surprised that the original question in this thread hasn’t already been addressed by several others. But I will try to give just a few examples of what bothers me regarding the New American Bible in general. Per the original question, I will confine my remarks to footnotes and book introductions. Note, these observations are not all my own original thoughts. A quick Internet search provided several web pages containing related information, including the following:

jimmyakin.org/2005/01/the_new_america.html

love2learn.net/religion/bible.htm

Generally speaking, the ‘scholarship’ presented in the New American Bible is heavily weighted to the modern ‘higher critical’ method. This method tends to overemphasize the literal sense of Scripture while forgetting that the ultimate purpose of Scripture is salvation:

There are several Papal Encyclicals and Church documents that warn about the dangers of bible scholarship devoid of faith, including Dei Verbum, Providentissimus Deus, and Divino Afflante Spiritu. These documents can be found here:

veritasbible.com/resources/articles#vatican_documents

Here are some specific examples of problematic material in the New American Bible:

Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew: An opinion that Matthew cannot be the Gospel’s author is offered:

This position seems to flatly contradict the document “The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation from Vatican II” (Dei Verbum):

Footnote regarding the Magnificat of Mary in Luke 1:46-56: The NAB seems to dismiss the idea that Mary actually spoke the Magnificat, and implies that Luke placed a Jewish hymn in his text because it just seemed to fit:

Footnote from Matthew 16:21-23 regarding Jesus’ prediction of His own Passion: The NAB implies that Jesus didn’t have full knowledge regarding His mission on earth:

Footnote for Psalm 58:2: I found a reference to this in my Internet search, and I agree that this footnote just seems a bit bizarre. Psalm 58:2 is referring to corrupt judges which are termed gods due to their status and power; however, this is the NAB note:

In my opinion, I’ve seen enough of these types of notes and information in the NAB that I would be cautious about using it. I generally use other bibles and commentary such as the RSV-2CE, the Haydock Bible, and “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture” by Dom Bernard Orchard.

rocketrob

Yes, I would imagine that the footnotes are the problem with most believers.

In one of the gospels, I ran across a footnote claiming that James was the possible brother of Jesus. How can you, on the one hand, claim that Mary was perpetually a virgin… while on the other, claim IN THE BIBLE that he had a possible brother?

I really wish I could remember the footnote for that verse, but it is definitely there.

 

[thomas_jd]

I have 5-6 bibles of different time frames. I was comparing footnotes, regarding someones interpretation of a particular verse. I came across the angels greeting to Mary. “Hail full of grace.” that now read “O Favoured One” that is the new verse in the NAB. Thru the years I questioned that remark that was always in the footnotes of our catholic bibles, yet now it appears in the text of the NAB and the words “Hail full of grace” have been removed from text and footnotes.

That in itself conveys "The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic."in the NAB preface. Personally if this is one of many changes, I can’t help but question the purpose of removing this from our Bible. I no longer use the NAB but rely on the older Bibles.

 

[SoulRebel111]

How about this? The Nab Footnotes are from the Pit of hell? How’s that. This has been well documented, as they undermine the faith of Catholics and contradict dogma outright. Anyone want to take me to task on that?

To me the footnotes seem in some cases to come from a freemason atheistic worldview to scripture. Just my two cents. Hope I don’t get banned for stating my opinion. The translation itself seem’s to be water downed and lacking in many area’s.

Just Wondering is the Nab still the Offical Bible Translation used in American Catholic Churches?