NAB vs NABRE Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hope1960

Guest
I have the NAB Bible but I’ve seen people here mention the NABRE, which I saw today at Pauline Books and Media. Many people dislike the NAB but it seems as though lots of people do like the NABRE. What’s the difference between the two?

Also the Douay Rheims is often recommended. What’s the translation like with that Bible? Modern or old-fashioned?
 
Douay-Rheims uses Early Modern English.
 
Last edited:
More like Early Modern English. It’s not old English. It’s like Shakespeare which was early modern.

Bokbok
 
They’re totally different. Old English is like Chaucer and you can’t even recognize what you’re reading half the time.

Bokbok
 
I meant the Early Modern English and Modern English or at least I didn’t notice anything too fancy when I read the Douay-Rheims.
 
Is the language in the DR like the language in the NAB?
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
I have the NAB Bible but I’ve seen people here mention the NABRE, which I saw today at Pauline Books and Media. Many people dislike the NAB but it seems as though lots of people do like the NABRE. What’s the difference between the two?
Click to expand...
The NAB is just the older (1960) version of the NABRE (1986/2010), so not much difference but it makes sense to prefer the NABRE. The good thing about the NABRE is that it’s the bible from which the daily Mass readings are taken (in the USA anyway).

The Douay-Rheims is also a Catholic bible but it’s very old (around 1600), so yes, its English is pretty old-fashioned.

The RSVCE is also a good option if you want a Catholic bible in modern English.
 
Last edited:
The NABRE is on its fourth edition, owing to dissatisfaction with earlier translations.

There’s a lot of prejudice against the footnotes in the versions of the NAB. People get passionate about this. There are notes incorporating the ideas of the documentary hypothesis, which bother some people. I’m reading Bergsma and Pitre’s new Catholic Introduction to the Old Testament and they discuss modern revisions of the DH. First, the DH got widespread support obviously from Catholic scholars who produced the NAB. Second, the DH is just a hypothesis, an idea which has not been proven. In fact the original or "classic DH has been rejected on technical grounds – it’s not a show stopper.

I have examined the 4th edition of the NAB and I think it’s pretty good reading.
 
An example:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3:16‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

“For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.”
‭‭St John‬ ‭3:16‬ ‭D-R

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3:16‬ ‭KJV
 
Hope1960 said:
40.png
Chicken_Pigeon:
It’s more like king James.
Click to expand...
I’m unfamiliar with that version of the Bible but from the little I know, I wouldn’t care for the style of language.
Click to expand...
Both the D-R and the King James were updated in the mid-1700s so the language in them is similar to that used in the Declaration of Independence: Not really modern, but not full on Shakespeare either.
 
The NABRE has notes that are unacceptable. There’s also some question of inclusive language.
 
The NABRE is the revised edition of the NAB. Most revisions probably come from the growth in scholarship over the last 50 years. It is based on the original texts, as best they can be known by scholars. It is sponsored by the US conference of catholic bishops, so complaints about footnotes should be addressed to them.

The Douay Rheims is a 17th century translation based on St Jerome’s 4th century translation into Latin, the Vulgate.
 
Hope1960 said:
I have the NAB Bible but I’ve seen people here mention the NABRE, which I saw today at Pauline Books and Media. Many people dislike the NAB but it seems as though lots of people do like the NABRE. What’s the difference between the two?

Also the Douay Rheims is often recommended. What’s the translation like with that Bible? Modern or old-fashioned?
Click to expand...
The biggest difference between the NAB and the NABRE, in my own opinion, are the psalms and the use of inclusive language.

The NAB in 1991 updated their Psalms and went overboard with their use of inclusive language. As a result their Pslams were almost universally condemned by both liberal and conservative Catholics.

So with the revision done in 2010, with what is now called the NABRE, they completely revised their Psalms and leaned to a more traditional and orthodox wording, with the intent that they will be authorized by the Vatican for use in the liturgy. The downside, again in my own opinion, is that they decided to use more inclusive language for the rest of the OT.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
40.png
Start:
Douay-Rheims uses Old English.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks. I’m glad I didn’t buy it, though I did consider it. Definitely not my cuppa.
Click to expand...
It definitely takes some getting used to. Most people share a similar view regarding the Douay Rheims Bible and if you’re not familiar with the Bible already, then picking up the DR and trying to read it for study and/or devotional reading can be off putting.

I bought my first DR Bible over 10 years ago and I found it a challenge to use it daily. Then, without even realizing it, I had began reading and buying older Catholic books, from the early to mid 1900’s, to help learn more about the Catholic faith. I started noticing that many of those books used the DR for their scripture verses and others were using the Confraternity NT, which had been released in 1941, but was still very similar to the DR.

The more I read these books the more I began referring back to my DR Bible. And what was once difficult to understand, now seemed to be so clear and meaningful. I even purchased a copy of “A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture” which uses the DR as it’s Bible for the entire commentary. This really helped in my understanding of reading the DR Bible and it furthered my understanding of Scripture as a whole.

So I wouldn’t completely right off the DR if I were in your shoes. It might never become your “go to” bible of choice, but it is nice to have it in your arsenal to refer back to and compare it to the modern bibles of today and see how different translations chose to translate certain words and verses.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top