New American Bible... is it that bad of a translation?

[Omyo12]

I know the Holy See has rejected the NAB Psalms for liturgical use and doesn’t even include them in the Vatican’s online version of the NAB.

This seems to mostly be due to the overuse of inclusive language.

Such as:
NAB Psalm 1:1 “Happy those who do no follow the counsel of the wicked…”
RSV2CE Psalm 1:1 “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked…”

I read Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’ article “Bible Babel” where he rips apart the NAB.

However, all I really see in his objection is how bland the NAB is and how it loses the poetry of Scripture…

It is too easy to imagine a NAB version of the Gettysburg address: “Approximately eighty-seven years ago, political leaders developed a system of government…”

^ complete agree hence why I prefer the RSV-2CE and DR beautiful wording

However I’m at times not sure if Fr. Neuhaus even has a NAB… About halfway through the article, he writes about NAB’s Luke 18:9 as rendering the Greek word “dikaioi” as “self-righteous” where it should be “righteous.” However when I picked up my NAB to confirm his claim… Luke 18:9 read “righteous.” The article is from 2006, but I can only assume Fr. Neuhaus is still referring to the 1970 version of the NAB NT…

Also, when it comes to literal translations I can’t help but go to my Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) and Green’s Literal Translation of the Bible (LITV). Though it’s a shame the Deutercanonical books are not included.

Oddly enough, many of Fr. Neuhaus ideas disagree with both these literal translations. (Though some renditions the NAB has are somewhat bleh: such as Romans 8:37)

One example that comes to the mind is Psalm 23 (22 in the Douay-Rheims) and how Fr. Neuhaus absolutely hates the NAB and NRSV renditions since they don’t finish with “forever.”

Ok, I fail to see his point. The Douay-Rheims is by far the most literal in translating verse 6: “And that I may dwell in the house of the Lord unto the length of days.”
LITV: “and I shall dwell in the house of JHVH for as long as [my] days.”
YLT: “and my dwelling is in the house of Jehovah for a length of days!”

The closest in modern English based on the DR, LITV, and YLT seems be the footnote in the RSV-2CE that reads— Or: “as long as I live.”

NRSV-CE: “I will dwell in the house of the LORD my whole life long.”
Seems to be very good translation…

I agree the NAB’s rendition is the blandest
NAB: “I will dwell in the house of the LORD for years to come.” It also contains a cross reference to Ps 27:4 which (in part) reads “To dwell in the LORD’s house all the days of my life.” (Again the DR, LITV, YLT, RSV2CE all agree with this).

Perhaps Father Neuhaus is misinterpreting the Douay Rheims!
LOL, jk!

Personally, I use the RSV-2CE but I am not unfond of and occasionally read the NAB as well. I’m very eager for the release of the NAB revision sometime next year.

Iono, what’s everyone else think?

 

[bengland]

I know the Holy See has rejected the NAB Psalms for liturgical use and doesn’t even include them in the Vatican’s online version of the NAB.

This seems to mostly be due to the overuse of inclusive language.

Such as:
NAB Psalm 1:1 “Happy those who do no follow the counsel of the wicked…”
RSV2CE Psalm 1:1 “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked…”

I read Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’ article “Bible Babel” where he rips apart the NAB.

However, all I really see in his objection is how bland the NAB is and how it loses the poetry of Scripture…

^ complete agree hence why I prefer the RSV-2CE and DR beautiful wording

However I’m at times not sure if Fr. Neuhaus even has a NAB… About halfway through the article, he writes about NAB’s Luke 18:9 as rendering the Greek word “dikaioi” as “self-righteous” where it should be “righteous.” However when I picked up my NAB to confirm his claim… Luke 18:9 read “righteous.” The article is from 2006, but I can only assume Fr. Neuhaus is still referring to the 1970 version of the NAB NT…

Iono, what’s everyone else think?

I have the older NAB (a paperback that is falling apart) and it

He then spoke this parable addressed to those who believed in their own self-righteousness while holding everyone else in contempt:

I never cared for this translation, but the meaning seems to be properly conveyed. The updated NT is better. I still find myself choosing other translations over the NAB, normally the NJB, DRB and RSV-2CE, but sometimes the NAB shines.

The 1970 NT says in the commandments in Lk 18

“You shall not bear dishonest witness”

That quote illustrates why the NAB needed an update. Maybe it would help if they ditched the NAB name with the next update just to lose the stigma associated with all of the controversy surrounding the loose initial translation and the various rejections of the text in the Liturgy?

 

[CalCatholic]

I use the RSV-2CE and the NAB also. It is hard for me not to use the NAB since I lead a Bible study group and work with an RCIA team and both use the NAB. I will read both translations side by side a lot, and there are times that the NAB reads a lot smoother than the RSV. You can take any translation apart and find verses that could have been translated better to make the verse read smoother or make it more understandable. But the one thing that I have noticed reading both these translations side by side (especially the NT) is how close they are in content. So I have no problem using the NAB or the RSV-2CE.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I know the Holy See has rejected the NAB Psalms for liturgical use and doesn’t even include them in the Vatican’s online version of the NAB.

This seems to mostly be due to the overuse of inclusive language.

Such as:
NAB Psalm 1:1 “Happy those who do no follow the counsel of the wicked…”
RSV2CE Psalm 1:1 “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked…”

I read Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’ article “Bible Babel” where he rips apart the NAB.

However, all I really see in his objection is how bland the NAB is and how it loses the poetry of Scripture…

^ complete agree hence why I prefer the RSV-2CE and DR beautiful wording

However I’m at times not sure if Fr. Neuhaus even has a NAB… About halfway through the article, he writes about NAB’s Luke 18:9 as rendering the Greek word “dikaioi” as “self-righteous” where it should be “righteous.” However when I picked up my NAB to confirm his claim… Luke 18:9 read “righteous.” The article is from 2006, but I can only assume Fr. Neuhaus is still referring to the 1970 version of the NAB NT…

Also, when it comes to literal translations I can’t help but go to my Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) and Green’s Literal Translation of the Bible (LITV). Though it’s a shame the Deutercanonical books are not included.

Oddly enough, many of Fr. Neuhaus ideas disagree with both these literal translations. (Though some renditions the NAB has are somewhat bleh: such as Romans 8:37)

One example that comes to the mind is Psalm 23 (22 in the Douay-Rheims) and how Fr. Neuhaus absolutely hates the NAB and NRSV renditions since they don’t finish with “forever.”

Ok, I fail to see his point. The Douay-Rheims is by far the most literal in translating verse 6: “And that I may dwell in the house of the Lord unto the length of days.”
LITV: “and I shall dwell in the house of JHVH for as long as [my] days.”
YLT: “and my dwelling is in the house of Jehovah for a length of days!”

The closest in modern English based on the DR, LITV, and YLT seems be the footnote in the RSV-2CE that reads— Or: “as long as I live.”

NRSV-CE: “I will dwell in the house of the LORD my whole life long.”
Seems to be very good translation…

I agree the NAB’s rendition is the blandest
NAB: “I will dwell in the house of the LORD for years to come.” It also contains a cross reference to Ps 27:4 which (in part) reads “To dwell in the LORD’s house all the days of my life.” (Again the DR, LITV, YLT, RSV2CE all agree with this).

Perhaps Father Neuhaus is misinterpreting the Douay Rheims!
LOL, jk!

Personally, I use the RSV-2CE but I am not unfond of and occasionally read the NAB as well. I’m very eager for the release of the NAB revision sometime next year.

Iono, what’s everyone else think?

I don’t care for the NAB that much. I only use it in certain cases. I felt it lacking in spirituality. I read the Latin Vulgate and Douay-Rheimes

 

[brianmichael]

…and doesn’t even include them in the Vatican’s online version of the NAB.

Omyo-san

This is not true, they’re there: go to Job 42, scroll all the way to the bottom where it says Prev:Next, click Next
you’ll see the Psalms intro, click Next again,
should next see Psalm 1, click Next,
you’ll see Psalm 2, etc.

but, yes, it’s funny how the Vatican website makes them hard to find

 

[Manfred]

Omyo-san

This is not true, they’re there: go to Job 42, scroll all the way to the bottom where it says Prev:Next, click Next
you’ll see the Psalms intro, click Next again,
should next see Psalm 1, click Next,
you’ll see Psalm 2, etc.

but, yes, it’s funny how the Vatican website makes them hard to find

Gee, thanks, Brian; this just ruined my evening.

It seems the USCCB pulled one over on Rome; not good.

I ask anyone reading this to compare any Psalm from the RNAB with one from the NJB; it won’t be hard to see why the Vatican refused to allow the former to be used in the Liturgy.

The NJB can be found here: catholic.org/bible/

 

[Omyo12]

Omyo-san

This is not true, they’re there: go to Job 42, scroll all the way to the bottom where it says Prev:Next, click Next
you’ll see the Psalms intro, click Next again,
should next see Psalm 1, click Next,
you’ll see Psalm 2, etc.

but, yes, it’s funny how the Vatican website makes them hard to find

O_O!!! Wow, it is on the Vatican site… mind = blown!

 

[buzzoff1031]

I’d like to find a good quality DR. I have an Ignatius Compact Bible (RSV-CE), and a New Catholic Answer Bible (NAB). I like them both. Of course, I’m no expert. I just read them…

 

[Omyo12]

I’d like to find a good quality DR. I have an Ignatius Compact Bible (RSV-CE), and a New Catholic Answer Bible (NAB).

The best quality DR on the market is the one by Baronius Press

you can get it HERE

That’s the one I have. The quality it just ok… ghe pages are average and binding feels a little weak. I think it’s overpriced…
I don’t know how the hardcover version or the one side by side with the Clementine Vulgate feel

 

[johncesta]

Just curious. It seems as though most Protestant bibles have Jesus’ words in red. I find this helpful. Most Catholic Bibles don’t. Why not? I do have a NAB Red letter edition however. But why is that?

J

 

[seremina]

I have the Giant Print version of the NAB, and I’m unhappy with it. The NAB is too advanced for me to read. I find the Good News Translation with the deutercanon to be far more readable. I’m hoping to get my hands on its Large/Giant Print edition so I won’t have to use my magnifier all the time for the Bible reading. You can find it at the American Bible Society and the Canadian Bible Society. I’m unaware if they have any other countries listed but I assume they are worldwide. My only warning is that the larger the print, the more expensive it gets. In the not-too-distant future, I hope to braille the Good News Translation with the deutercanon for blind Catholics.

 

[Verbum]

Hi OImyo,

I’m very eager for the release of the NAB revision sometime next year.

Unless a radical re-translation is done, I’m afraid you will be disappointed. What the NAB lacks is literary quality. There is just plain lack of talent in the crowd that did it or a faulty revision methodology.

The model for modern translations should be the French Bible de Jérusalem, where closeness to the original and high literary value come together.

Verbum

 

[Joan_REDirector]

We use NAB for catechesis at our parish because they are: 2 bucks apiece if you buy them in bulk, an approved translation, 2 bucks apiece if you buy them in bulk, so plentiful that each person in all our catechetical programs can have a personal copy, 2 bucks apiece if you buy them in bulk, cheap enough to give away to those in need of the scriptures, 2 bucks apiece if you … you get the drift.

It’s all very well to be a a gourmet of bible translations and editions. I have a number of translations and editions myself and love them all depending on what I need to do with them. The important thing is that we love the scriptures and read them, pray over and with them and use them in catechesis.

When I came to work for the parish as a catechist one of my first painful duties was to clear all the Bible paraphrases off the shelves (think Children’s Living Bible). I was sorry to do it because the the artwork was so good, the footnotes were so appropriate for children (and adult volunteer teachers who weren’t usually as familiar with the scriptures as they should be). My teachers and students did not like the clunky NAB’s with their small print, clunky intrusive footnotes, and total lack of artwork. I WISH there was a beautiful approved translation with footnotes that helped rather than hindered children and the average layperson and had some artwork. I’d buy those in a hearbeat if I could get them.

 

[mccorm45]

Just curious. It seems as though most Protestant bibles have Jesus’ words in red. I find this helpful. Most Catholic Bibles don’t. Why not? I do have a NAB Red letter edition however. But why is that?

J

While the Gospels, and particularly the words of Christ, can be seen as the heart of the Bible, we shouldn’t try to put them in contention with the rest of the Holy Scriptures. All of Scripture is inspired and important. As CCC 102 points out: “Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word.” The Triune God is responsible for the entire Bible, so it might send a wrong message to some readers if only a particular part of it is red-lettered.

With that being said, I don’t think having a red-letter Bible is awful or even bad, as long as the person recognizes that we are called to read the whole Scriptures.

Also, I am not sure most Protestant Bibles have Jesus’ words in red. There is a healthy debate going on the Protestant world about this issue as well. But since there are far more Protestant Bibles on the market, it probably seems that most are red-lettered. The reality is that most are not.

 

[ginny]

It is correct that I’ve not been here for quite awhile. I had rotator cuff surgery
on my shoulder in April and haven’t been on the computer and even worse, I
have therapy two or three times per week and can’t drive so my poor daughter
has to be taking care of me. I’m back home now but was staying with
that wonderful child taking care of me.

Blessings to all

 

[Alphonse]

Agreed with all of your points - but also want to point out that NAB is also just bad translation, according to many linguists. While I am sure that the goals for the NAB were laudable, at the time, the results are so lackluster that it makes scripture as bland as dishwater, instead of the inspiring words that they should be.

I didn’t read Fr Nehaus’ article but I love his riff on what the NAB would have written on the Gettysburg address. One can only imagine JFK’s inagural address in the hands of the NAB committee: “Ask not what a country can do for its people, but rather what the people . . .” you get the point!

 

[corsair]

I use a DR by Baronius Press exclusively. Never did care for the NAB. If I wanted oatmeal mush, I’d probably have bought one.

The more I use the DR the more easily it flows for me.

 

[viper78912]

The NAB clarifies that forgiveness of sin does not necessarily require going to confession. The explanatory notes in the New Standard American Bible (NASB) with ref. to Matthew 16.19 states, “The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25,where Eliakim,who succeeds Shebhnah as master of the palace, is given “the key to the house of David,” which he authoritatively ‘opens’ and ‘shuts’(22.22).
**That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of the church and the kingdom of heaven.**This clarifies the earlier stand of the “Constantine” Council of Trent.

 

[geekborj]

I know the Holy See has rejected the NAB Psalms for liturgical use and doesn’t even include them in the Vatican’s online version of the NAB.

This seems to mostly be due to the overuse of inclusive language.

Such as:
NAB Psalm 1:1 “Happy those who do no follow the counsel of the wicked…”
RSV2CE Psalm 1:1 “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked…”

I read Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’ article “Bible Babel” where he rips apart the NAB.

However, all I really see in his objection is how bland the NAB is and how it loses the poetry of Scripture…

^ complete agree hence why I prefer the RSV-2CE and DR beautiful wording

However I’m at times not sure if Fr. Neuhaus even has a NAB… About halfway through the article, he writes about NAB’s Luke 18:9 as rendering the Greek word “dikaioi” as “self-righteous” where it should be “righteous.” However when I picked up my NAB to confirm his claim… Luke 18:9 read “righteous.” The article is from 2006, but I can only assume Fr. Neuhaus is still referring to the 1970 version of the NAB NT…

Also, when it comes to literal translations I can’t help but go to my Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) and Green’s Literal Translation of the Bible (LITV). Though it’s a shame the Deutercanonical books are not included.

Oddly enough, many of Fr. Neuhaus ideas disagree with both these literal translations. (Though some renditions the NAB has are somewhat bleh: such as Romans 8:37)

One example that comes to the mind is Psalm 23 (22 in the Douay-Rheims) and how Fr. Neuhaus absolutely hates the NAB and NRSV renditions since they don’t finish with “forever.”

Ok, I fail to see his point. The Douay-Rheims is by far the most literal in translating verse 6: “And that I may dwell in the house of the Lord unto the length of days.”
LITV: “and I shall dwell in the house of JHVH for as long as [my] days.”
YLT: “and my dwelling is in the house of Jehovah for a length of days!”

The closest in modern English based on the DR, LITV, and YLT seems be the footnote in the RSV-2CE that reads— Or: “as long as I live.”

NRSV-CE: “I will dwell in the house of the LORD my whole life long.”
Seems to be very good translation…

I agree the NAB’s rendition is the blandest
NAB: “I will dwell in the house of the LORD for years to come.” It also contains a cross reference to Ps 27:4 which (in part) reads “To dwell in the LORD’s house all the days of my life.” (Again the DR, LITV, YLT, RSV2CE all agree with this).

Perhaps Father Neuhaus is misinterpreting the Douay Rheims!
LOL, jk!

Personally, I use the RSV-2CE but I am not unfond of and occasionally read the NAB as well. I’m very eager for the release of the NAB revision sometime next year.

Iono, what’s everyone else think?

I would assume that EVERY bible translation is a bad translation. We have the Church to explain each passage to us. We have to rely on the correct and honest translation of the Bible versions. Choose the one that is least bad. What is “good” translation anyway? I believe it is sticking to the correct articulation of the authentic message that the Holy Spirit impelled the writer to write.

As for NAB Psalms not used in Liturgy: I guess it is a matter of taste. Psalms are used for prayers and songs. Hence, not any translation is fit. But i believe that most of the time, the meaning and intent of the author is maintained as long as the Church declares it is free from doctrinal error. I would believe the Church.

 

[Manfred]

The NAB clarifies that forgiveness of sin does not necessarily require going to confession. The explanatory notes in the New Standard American Bible (NASB) with ref. to Matthew 16.19 states, “The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25,where Eliakim,who succeeds Shebhnah as master of the palace, is given “the key to the house of David,” which he authoritatively ‘opens’ and ‘shuts’(22.22).
**That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of the church and the kingdom of heaven.**This clarifies the earlier stand of the “Constantine” Council of Trent.

Am I the only one totally confused by the above?