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

[Manfred]

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

I don’t know about the French Bible de Jérusalem, but its English-language counterpart is NOT noted for “closeness to the original and high literary value come together.” :nope:

However, you are spot on re the NAB.

 

[viper78912]

The NAB was started by Pope Pius XII to overcome the plethora of Bible translations. The NAB is recognized by most Churches and denominations.
The NAB also explains the reason for the difference in opinion by another sect. A case in point is the Jehovah Witnesses not donating blood
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood:
and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls:
for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.”
(Leviticus 17:11 )
As clarified in the NAB footnotes, ‘This law was modified in Deut.12.20”. The Protestant bible is also recognized by the Church. However, the CatholicGood News Bible has many changes.”I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God Will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the prophetic words in this prophetic book, God Will take away his share in the tree of life ad in the holy city described in this book.”(Revelation 22:18-19).
As Cardinal Oswald Gracias explained on Miracle Net,” There are many dimensions to Christ which we have to experience." He Is The Alpha and the Omega. (Rev.1:8).
The NAB helps us in dialoguing and understanding other streams.
With the utmost respect, let us not appear to be “straining out gnats and swallowing camels.”(Matthew23:24).

 

[bjnick]

When in doubt refer to the chapter and verse on the USCCB website. Keep in mind the fact that we are researching this is a sign we are searching out God. What a great faith we have.

 

[viper78912]

God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace.”(1 Cor.14:33).
When the Jews returned to Jerusalem, after the Babylonian exile, there was much dissent over the Sacred Text content.
Accordingly, six scholars were selected from each of the twelve tribes (12*6 =72, seventy two in all). Each was lodged in a separate tent and asked to write down the Holy text.
When they finally emerged from their isolation, the manuscripts were collected and compared with each other. There was not even a comma difference.
This is the origin of the Sanhedrin, the sacred Jewish priesthood, comprising seventy one members. BTW, Jesus rebuked Nicodemus,”Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?”(John3:10). Yet, the adulterous woman at the well readily understood and propagated Jesus’ message. (John4:1-42).

Am I the only one totally confused by the above?

 

[James924]

I’m noticing a lot of people love the DR. I have a nice leather-bound copy and the language is certainly “nice” (I guess) but I noticed something about it…
Correct me if I’m wrong but the CORRECT translation of Luke 2:22 is that they went to the temple for “THEIR” purification, is it not? I know the KJV made the mistake of only putting “HER” purification because they made the mistake of saying “well Jesus certainly didn’t need purification so it must have been just Mary.” They forget that Jesus (God) decided to humble himself, become man and be a perfect JEW. That means keeping perfectly to all the Jewish laws, the laws He Himself made. Including the Levitical laws on purification of new children.

So isn’t this a pretty important mis-translation?

Also, it says “AFTER the time for her purification” when according to the RSV it’s “when the time came for.” why is that? Is it an “olde english” thing?
I’ve noticed small things like that a lot when I read the DR and the RSV side by side (on the Faith Database!)
The DR just reads kind of goofy to me. I prefer the RSV hands down, over everything.

I also read an article once…can’t remember where, that warned that many Catholics were falling victim to “Douey-Rheims Onlyism” much like many protestants fall victim to “King James Onlyism” and attack better translations like the NIV. I think the point was that the RSV was the best translation in English for study and some catholics were stubbornly sticking only to the DR despite it not being as good a translation, just as many protestants have the same struggle between the KJV and the NIV or the ESV.

Any thoughts?

More importantly how about Luke 2:22? any thoughts on that?

 

[mccorm45]

Back to the discussion on the NAB. The biggest problem, IMHO, of the NAB is that it is uneven. It basically has three main parts, the original OT, which was published in the 50’s and 60’s, the revised NT, which was completed in '86, and the Revised Psalms of '91. Therefore, you have three different translations teams operating under three different translating philosophies. The OT tends to be moderately literal, bordering on dynamic (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing). The NT is clearly more literal than the OT and the original NAB NT. The revised Psalms…well…I will leave that alone. The use of incluse language is also uneven, with none in the OT, moderate in the revised NT, and pervasive in the revised Psalms.

Overall, however, I don’t think that the NAB is that horrible of a translation. While I certainly don’t like what they did with the Psalms, they certainly improved the NT and the OT is generally OK. In particular, there are at least three areas where the NAB did very well:

1. The “I AM” sayings in the Gospels: John 13:19 “From now on I am telling you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I AM.” The NAB consistantly translates this well.
2. Literal translation of “εξοδον” in Luke 9:31 “who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem.” (The RSV-2CE recently changed this in their “update”.)
3. The “Amen, Amen” sayings: John 16:20 “Amen, amen, I say to you, you will weep and mourn, while the world rejoices; you will grieve, but your grief will become joy.” Very few modern translations are willing to do this, which is a shame.

 

[lak611]

God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace.”(1 Cor.14:33).
When the Jews returned to Jerusalem, after the Babylonian exile, there was much dissent over the Sacred Text content.
Accordingly, six scholars were selected from each of the twelve tribes (12*6 =72, seventy two in all). Each was lodged in a separate tent and asked to write down the Holy text.
When they finally emerged from their isolation, the manuscripts were collected and compared with each other. There was not even a comma difference.
This is the origin of the Sanhedrin, the sacred Jewish priesthood, comprising seventy one members. BTW, Jesus rebuked Nicodemus,”Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?”(John3:10). Yet, the adulterous woman at the well readily understood and propagated Jesus’ message. (John4:1-42).

What do any of these comments have to do with the NAB translation?

 

[Omyo12]

The use of incluse language is also uneven, with none in the OT, moderate in the revised NT, and pervasive in the revised Psalms.

There’s quite a bit of inclusive language in the OT as well. “Man” is changed to human being on many many occasions. Also husband is changed to spouse, and other “gender neutral” words or phrases are used.

 

[mccorm45]

There’s quite a bit of inclusive language in the OT as well. “Man” is changed to human being on many many occasions. Also husband is changed to spouse, and other “gender neutral” words or phrases are used.

In the NAB OT? When that was being translated in the 50’s and 60’s there was no inclusive language in English Bibles. That only really began in the 80’s with the NJB, revised NAB NT, and the NRSV.

 

[RedSoxFan]

I don’t know about the French Bible de Jérusalem, but its English-language counterpart is NOT noted for “closeness to the original and high literary value come together.” :nope:

However, you are spot on re the NAB.

LOL, yeah I know the JB, is tough for you.

I personally think its the best in terms of dynamic equivalence, (still don’t have a CTS yet), while the RSVCE is the best for literallness. In that context I see no reason why not to like it.

As for the NAB it’s just a waste of time. It’s useful though if you have nothing else.

~RSF

 

[Omyo12]

Correct me if I’m wrong but the CORRECT translation of Luke 2:22 is that they went to the temple for “THEIR” purification, is it not? I know the KJV made the mistake of only putting “HER” purification because they made the mistake
So isn’t this a pretty important mis-translation?

Well, remember that the Douay Rheims is translated from the Latin Vulgate Clementine Edition and not the Hebrew text. Also, the KJV was influenced by the Vulgate in some renderings (they used the Masoretic Text as a basis, but also the LXX and Latin Vulgate)

The Clementine Vulgate reads:

Lucas 2:22- Et postquam impleti sunt dies purgationis eius secundum legem Moysi, tulerunt illum in Ierusalem, ut sisterent eum Domino

which translates to:

Luke 2:22- And after the days of her purification were fulfilled, according to the law of Moses, they brought him to Jerusalem, in order to present him to the Lord,

The Douay Rheims translates it correctly. It is not a mistranslation

Based on critical scholarship, the Nova Vulgata does read “eorum” which means “their”

The DR just reads kind of goofy to me. I prefer the RSV hands down, over everything.

If you call Elizabethan English goofy, how goofy is Shakespeare to you?..

many Catholics were falling victim to “Douey-Rheims Onlyism” much like many protestants fall victim to “King James Onlyism” and attack better translations like the NIV. I think the point was that the RSV was the best translation in English for study and some catholics were stubbornly sticking only to the DR despite it not being as good a translation, just as many protestants have the same struggle between the KJV and the NIV or the ESV.

It is true that there are Catholics that are Douay-Rheims Onlyists, and it’s a shame. However the DR is a very good and literal translation of the Latin Vulgate Clementine edition. The RSVCE is a very good (but not so literal) translation of the “Biblia Hebraica” which is the modern critical version of the Hebrew Text. Most apologists use the RSVCE and its also used to translate Vatican documents

Any thoughts?
More importantly how about Luke 2:22? any thoughts on that?

The DR is a great translation for a Catholic. The “error” you mentioned is also in the Clementine Vulgate. While it may be a error based on critical scholarship, when it comes to doctrine, it was considered free of error.

When Pope Pius XII declared that henceforth all translations would be based on the Hebrew and Greek texts, he noted in his encyclical letter “Divino Afflante Spiritu” (1943) that:

Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

The Clementine Vulgate was used from 1592 until 1979 when the Nova Vulgata was finished

 

[Omyo12]

Well, remember that the Douay Rheims is translated from the Latin Vulgate Clementine Edition and not the Hebrew text.

Whoops, I meant Hebrew/Greek text!

 

[Manfred]

There’s quite a bit of inclusive language in the OT as well. “Man” is changed to human being on many many occasions. Also husband is changed to spouse, and other “gender neutral” words or phrases are used.

In the US lectionary for Mass, perhaps, but not necessarily (if at all) in the NAB OT itself.

Thank you, USCCB.

 

[Manfred]

God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace.”(1 Cor.14:33).
When the Jews returned to Jerusalem, after the Babylonian exile, there was much dissent over the Sacred Text content.
Accordingly, six scholars were selected from each of the twelve tribes (12*6 =72, seventy two in all). Each was lodged in a separate tent and asked to write down the Holy text.
When they finally emerged from their isolation, the manuscripts were collected and compared with each other. There was not even a comma difference.
This is the origin of the Sanhedrin, the sacred Jewish priesthood, comprising seventy one members. BTW, Jesus rebuked Nicodemus,”Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?”(John3:10). Yet, the adulterous woman at the well readily understood and propagated Jesus’ message. (John4:1-42).

The 72 scholars of which you write produced the Greek SEPTUAGINT translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. You are confusing a translation with a governing body.

For accurate information on the SANHEDRIN, go here: newadvent.org/cathen/13444a.htm

 

[viper78912]

You are right! Thanks!!

 

[Axion]

An important point often missed is that the “Hebrew Text”, even sometimes called the “original Hebrew text” is NOT the best or most ancient version of the Old Testament.

The Hebrew text used now for bible translations, the Masoretic Hebrew, actually dates back to medieval copies no more than a thousand years old, being the text used by medieval Jewish communities.

As a witness to the original text, both the Greek Spetuagint translation (copies dating back to 400 AD) And Jerome’s translation (made from now vanished Hebrew originals 1600 years ago), are older and closer to the originals.

In fact even in modern bibles, the Masoretic text is often corrected from the Septuagint, however not completely.

The idea that the Masoretic hebrew has priority comes out of two errors:

1: That because it is in Hebrew it has to be more ancient and accurate.

1. A prejudice that Christian texts are “Unreliable” compared to the imagined purity of non-Christian texts. This is a bad basis to build biblical study upon.

 

[Omyo12]

An important point often missed is that the “Hebrew Text”, even sometimes called the “original Hebrew text” is NOT the best or most ancient version of the Old Testament.

The Hebrew text used now for bible translations, the Masoretic Hebrew, actually dates back to medieval copies no more than a thousand years old, being the text used by medieval Jewish communities.

As a witness to the original text, both the Greek Spetuagint translation (copies dating back to 400 AD) And Jerome’s translation (made from now vanished Hebrew originals 1600 years ago), are older and closer to the originals.

In fact even in modern bibles, the Masoretic text is often corrected from the Septuagint, however not completely.

The idea that the Masoretic hebrew has priority comes out of two errors:

1: That because it is in Hebrew it has to be more ancient and accurate.

1. A prejudice that Christian texts are “Unreliable” compared to the imagined purity of non-Christian texts. This is a bad basis to build biblical study upon.

Yeah, its become a buzzword to sound more authentic…

The oldest complete Vulgate is the Codex Amiatinus from around 700 AD

The oldest complete Septuagint manuscripts are the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus both from around 300 AD

As you noted, the oldest complete Masoretic manuscripts are the Aleppo Codex from around 900 AD and Leningrad Codex from 1000 AD

There are many fragments of manuscripts that are older for all of them.

Most notably, the Dead Sea Scrolls and they date from 150 BC to 70 AD.

According to the Oxford Companion to Archeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran [Dead Sea Scrolls], which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original, of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around 100 AD.

Its also true that many of the oldest verses of the Dead Sea Scrolls (mostly the ones in Aramaic) agree more with the LXX than the Masoretic

Unfortunately, compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masoretic is closer than the Vulgate