New american bible (nab) criticism?

[iwantobelieve]

hello everyone, i’m a regular reader of catholic apologist Ben Douglas’ ‘PUGIO FIDEI’.
in his section on modernism he crtique the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (NAB) and i
quote :
It is the thesis of this article that the above papal condemnations apply in spades to one particular biblical society, and one particular biblical version, which are flourishing in our day: namely, The Catholic Biblical Association of America and its New American Bible, or NAB.7 J’accuse: the NAB, in many places, daringly redacts, rearranges, or otherwise mistranslates the sacred text, and it does so in the service of the modernist critical hermeneutic which is revealed in its “perverse” introductions and commentary. These comments repeatedly contradict or call into question the Catholic dogma of the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture8 as also the Catholic dogmas of Christology and Mariology. The NAB refuses Scripture the submission which is due to it according to the Catholic saints: "Holy Scripture is in such sort the rule of the Christian faith that we are obliged by every kind of obligation to believe most exactly all that it contains, and not to believe anything which may be ever so little contrary to it."9 Indeed, it freely confesses that Scripture is wrong in places and freely disagrees. The NAB charges the Bible with contradiction, concerning which Oecumenius may be quoted as representative of the faith of the whole world: "For nothing could be contradictory in the mouth of the one and the same Spirit."10 Yet more, the NAB would have our Lord in ignorance and our Lady in doubt of her faith, which can only eventuate in Catholic readers doubting theirs. This Bible is a danger to the faith of Catholics; it is a near occasion for sin.11

THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (NAB) is a very popular translation and a lot of catholics
use it and even catholic apologists quote extensively from it. so i would like the
opinion of everyone who has read the article of ben douglas (if you have not read it, you
can do so at www.pugiofidei.com under the heading modernism)
so is NAB a bible translation replete with errors? and more important does any one
agree or disagree with the critique of ben douglas?

 

[Randy_Carson]

hello everyone, i’m a regular reader of catholic apologist Ben Douglas’ ‘PUGIO FIDEI’.
in his section on modernism he crtique the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (NAB) and i
quote :
It is the thesis of this article that the above papal condemnations apply in spades to one particular biblical society, and one particular biblical version, which are flourishing in our day: namely, The Catholic Biblical Association of America and its New American Bible, or NAB.7 J’accuse: the NAB, in many places, daringly redacts, rearranges, or otherwise mistranslates the sacred text, and it does so in the service of the modernist critical hermeneutic which is revealed in its “perverse” introductions and commentary. These comments repeatedly contradict or call into question the Catholic dogma of the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture8 as also the Catholic dogmas of Christology and Mariology. The NAB refuses Scripture the submission which is due to it according to the Catholic saints: "Holy Scripture is in such sort the rule of the Christian faith that we are obliged by every kind of obligation to believe most exactly all that it contains, and not to believe anything which may be ever so little contrary to it."9 Indeed, it freely confesses that Scripture is wrong in places and freely disagrees. The NAB charges the Bible with contradiction, concerning which Oecumenius may be quoted as representative of the faith of the whole world: "For nothing could be contradictory in the mouth of the one and the same Spirit."10 Yet more, the NAB would have our Lord in ignorance and our Lady in doubt of her faith, which can only eventuate in Catholic readers doubting theirs. This Bible is a danger to the faith of Catholics; it is a near occasion for sin.11

THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (NAB) is a very popular translation and a lot of catholics
use it and even catholic apologists quote extensively from it. so i would like the
opinion of everyone who has read the article of ben douglas (if you have not read it, you
can do so at www.pugiofidei.com under the heading modernism)
so is NAB a bible translation replete with errors? and more important does any one
agree or disagree with the critique of ben douglas?

Noted apologist and author Patrick Madrid stated that the NAB is a good translation with very questionable footnotes and introductions.

Read the verses…ignore the rest.

 

[bkovacs]

The early NAB was good, until they revised it, and put inclusive language into it. Then Rome put it’s foot down, and told the USCCB to remove the inclusive language, if you plan on using it in the liturgy. So unfortunately, what you hear at Mass is not the same as what you read, in a purchased copy of the NAB.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The NAB was the first translation I read from. It lacks spirituality. I see where this site is coming from, but can’t help wander if they are associated any sedavaticanist groups. I appreciate the Douay-Rheims highly and and question the NAB quite frequently on controversial passage, but that is my own.

 

[NHInsider]

I dislike the NAB but I think it is dangerously “protestant” for those who claim to be orthodox to reject as defective a translation that has been given imprimatur and nihil obstat.

Either we accept the authority of the Church or we deny it, we can’t pick-and-choose. You think you can figure out where the Church is wrong, someone else thinks they know where the Church is wrong, and pretty soon you’ve splintered into a few thousand denominations.

To insist that your preferred version is protected from error by the Holy Spirit and another is not, even though the ordained authority of the Church has stamped it, is to set yourself up as a superior authority. You might as well change your name to Martin and nail your opinions to a cathedral door.

 

[iwantobelieve]

The NAB was the first translation I read from. It lacks spirituality. I see where this site is coming from, but can’t help wander if they are associated any sedavaticanist groups. I appreciate the Douay-Rheims highly and and question the NAB quite frequently on controversial passage, but that is my own.

the pugiofidei site by catholic apologist ben douglas is not a site associated to any
sedavaticantist groups, in fact he does a fairly good refutation on their position specialy
the one espoused by gerry matatics… anyway i hope someone has read the NAB
critique on the said site because it is very interesting… and i need your comments

GOOD DAY AND GOD BLESS

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

hello everyone, i’m a regular reader of catholic apologist Ben Douglas’ ‘PUGIO FIDEI’.
in his section on modernism he crtique the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (NAB) and i
quote :
It is the thesis of this article that the above papal condemnations apply in spades to one particular biblical society, and one particular biblical version, which are flourishing in our day: namely, The Catholic Biblical Association of America and its New American Bible, or NAB.7 J’accuse: the NAB, in many places, daringly redacts, rearranges, or otherwise mistranslates the sacred text, and it does so in the service of the modernist critical hermeneutic which is revealed in its “perverse” introductions and commentary. These comments repeatedly contradict or call into question the Catholic dogma of the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture8 as also the Catholic dogmas of Christology and Mariology. The NAB refuses Scripture the submission which is due to it according to the Catholic saints: "Holy Scripture is in such sort the rule of the Christian faith that we are obliged by every kind of obligation to believe most exactly all that it contains, and not to believe anything which may be ever so little contrary to it."9 Indeed, it freely confesses that Scripture is wrong in places and freely disagrees. The NAB charges the Bible with contradiction, concerning which Oecumenius may be quoted as representative of the faith of the whole world: "For nothing could be contradictory in the mouth of the one and the same Spirit."10 Yet more, the NAB would have our Lord in ignorance and our Lady in doubt of her faith, which can only eventuate in Catholic readers doubting theirs. This Bible is a danger to the faith of Catholics; it is a near occasion for sin.11

THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (NAB) is a very popular translation and a lot of catholics
use it and even catholic apologists quote extensively from it. so i would like the
opinion of everyone who has read the article of ben douglas (if you have not read it, you
can do so at www.pugiofidei.com under the heading modernism)
so is NAB a bible translation replete with errors? and more important does any one

agree or disagree with the critique of ben douglas?

What are his credentials for casting doubt on​

• the scholarship, competence & orthodoxy of those who made it
• the competence of the clerics who gave it the necessary ecclesiastical permissions
• the competence of the bishops who allowed it to be used in the public worship of the Church ?

It is insufferable that the orthodoxy of so many should be called into question in this fashion This behaviour is typical of far too many self-styled apologists.

 

[RobbyS]

I dislike the NAB but I think it is dangerously “protestant” for those who claim to be orthodox to reject as defective a translation that has been given imprimatur and nihil obstat.

Either we accept the authority of the Church or we deny it, we can’t pick-and-choose. You think you can figure out where the Church is wrong, someone else thinks they know where the Church is wrong, and pretty soon you’ve splintered into a few thousand denominations.

To insist that your preferred version is protected from error by the Holy Spirit and another is not, even though the ordained authority of the Church has stamped it, is to set yourself up as a superior authority. You might as well change your name to Martin and nail your opinions to a cathedral door.

I think the NAB was a mistake. I cannot speak to the questionof how good a translation is it, because I do not know Greekor Hebrew. I know that the English is lacking in termsof tone and diction. Willliam F. Buckley, who knew a think or two about writing, gave it a bad review…

 

[iwantobelieve]

What are his credentials for casting doubt on​

• the scholarship, competence & orthodoxy of those who made it
• the competence of the clerics who gave it the necessary ecclesiastical permissions
• the competence of the bishops who allowed it to be used in the public worship of the Church ?

It is insufferable that the orthodoxy of so many should be called into question in this fashion This behaviour is typical of far too many self-styled apologists.

that is what so puzzling to me… it has both nihil obstat and imprimatur plus an endorsement
of a pope… so to me this NAB critique raises a lot of questions, but i need someone to read
the whole article because the quote was just an introduction… so comments on the whole critique will be highly appreciated

 

[NHInsider]

I think the NAB was a mistake. I cannot speak to the questionof how good a translation is it, because I do not know Greekor Hebrew. I know that the English is lacking in termsof tone and diction. Willliam F. Buckley, who knew a think or two about writing, gave it a bad review…

Inelegant and awkward does not necessarily imply inaccurate or contrary to Truth. I don’t believe the NAB does justice to the Word. But if the Church gave it approval, I do not have the authority to say She is Wrong.

that is what so puzzling to me… it has both nihil obstat and imprimatur plus an endorsement
of a pope… so to me this NAB critique raises a lot of questions, but i need someone to read
the whole article because the quote was just an introduction… so comments on the whole critique will be highly appreciated

Let not your heart be troubled. (John 14:6, but read the whole discourse.)

We don’t have to parse every jot and tittle. If you find it fascinating, go ahead and read the controversies, but trust the Church. If you find it disturbing, close the page/window - and trust the Church (or, more precisely, trust the promise Our Lord made to preserve the Church and the working of the Holy Spirit to carry out that promise).

 

[tobinatorstark]

the pugiofidei site by catholic apologist ben douglas is not a site associated to any
sedavaticantist groups, in fact he does a fairly good refutation on their position specialy
the one espoused by gerry matatics… anyway i hope someone has read the NAB
critique on the said site because it is very interesting… and i need your comments

GOOD DAY AND GOD BLESS

Thanks for the info.

 

[garysibio]

While his rhetoric may be a bit vitriolic, I tend to agree with the author. I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar but, based on what I have read from those who are, I refuse to use the NAB except at Mass where I really don’t have a choice.

As has been mentioned, the Psalms were so badly translated that they are not allowed to be used in the liturgy. The messianic referenes have been all but obliterated by the use of inclusive language.

Translators are supposed to translate what is there, not what a person or group with an agenda wishes were there. The NAB translators failed miserably at that.

In addition, they just did a bad all-round job. In that verse where Jesus says the fields are white for harvest, the NAB uses ‘ripe.’ The Greek says ‘white’ and this puts an additional emphasis on Jesus’ words since ‘white’ infers that, if not harvested quickly, the crop will spoil. I have a list of similar problems in the translation.

Gary

 

[bkovacs]

that is what so puzzling to me… it has both nihil obstat and imprimatur plus an endorsement
of a pope… so to me this NAB critique raises a lot of questions, but i need someone to read
the whole article because the quote was just an introduction… so comments on the whole critique will be highly appreciated

Maybe Pope Benedict XVI needs to replace those who issue the nihil obstat and imprimatur plus an endorsement to such liberal translations.

 

[tobinatorstark]

While his rhetoric may be a bit vitriolic, I tend to agree with the author. I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar but, based on what I have read from those who are, I refuse to use the NAB except at Mass where I really don’t have a choice.

As has been mentioned, the Psalms were so badly translated that they are not allowed to be used in the liturgy. The messianic referenes have been all but obliterated by the use of inclusive language.

Translators are supposed to translate what is there, not what a person or group with an agenda wishes were there. The NAB translators failed miserably at that.

In addition, they just did a bad all-round job. In that verse where Jesus says the fields are white for harvest, the NAB uses ‘ripe.’ The Greek says ‘white’ and this puts an additional emphasis on Jesus’ words since ‘white’ infers that, if not harvested quickly, the crop will spoil. I have a list of similar problems in the translation.

Gary

 

[tobinatorstark]

Maybe Pope Benedict XVI needs to replace those who issue the nihil obstat and imprimatur plus an endorsement to such liberal translations.

I completely agree. Pope Benedict XVI is a smart man and his education has paid off. I honestly he is trying to bring the best out the Church in general, but also the best in Vatican II. I think people would listen to him if he were to impose such an idea.

 

[rayca]

the pugiofidei site by catholic apologist ben douglas is not a site associated to any
sedavaticantist groups, in fact he does a fairly good refutation on their position specialy
the one espoused by gerry matatics… anyway i hope someone has read the NAB
critique on the said site because it is very interesting… and i need your comments

GOOD DAY AND GOD BLESS

I cannot see how the following two references to Luke 1,28 can be reconciled.
In the first we have an interpretation of The angels words that differ from those found in other translations, and as a consequence,must be refered to the teaching authority of the Church to be resolved.
This seems to have been resolved in the second reference wherein the correct interpretation is used as evidence for the infalible declaration of The Immaculate Conception.
New American Bible
(1)In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

(2) Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854
“When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit”.

Have a good day.
Have a good day

 

[DorianGregorian]

I think it’s a good children’s Bible being written for an 8th grade reading level, and also it’s good for the general public in the liturgy, since it’s simple and easy to understand. (I don’t mean this sarcastically).

However there are better versions if your going to use it for serious study, take John 1:14 for example (a passage I am very partial to if you look at my signature).

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us , (Douay-Rhiems)

And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (NAB)

I highlighted the two passages which I makes me do a double take.

The first italics have different meanings if you look subtly. God the Son was made flesh without losing his divinity. However became flesh implies that somehow the Son lost his divinity and became fully human, which is an obvious heresy.

The second group of italics points out that the NAB did not completely accomplish it’s goal. The Douay-Rheims is concise and specific, whereas the language of the NAB is confusing and ambiguous.

Just my thoughts.

Laus Deo.

 

[mijac]

I dislike the NAB but I think it is dangerously “protestant” for those who claim to be orthodox to reject as defective a translation that has been given imprimatur and nihil obstat.

Either we accept the authority of the Church or we deny it, we can’t pick-and-choose. You think you can figure out where the Church is wrong, someone else thinks they know where the Church is wrong, and pretty soon you’ve splintered into a few thousand denominations.

To insist that your preferred version is protected from error by the Holy Spirit and another is not, even though the ordained authority of the Church has stamped it, is to set yourself up as a superior authority. You might as well change your name to Martin and nail your opinions to a cathedral door.

For consideration I might add in relation to imprimatur and nihil obstat. appearing in the this Bible does not gaurantee infallibilty or any Bible to have no human translation errors per say. imprimatur and nihil obstat. is used on any number of books including catholic text books but some of these text books are not teaching catholic truths despite having imprimatur and nihil obstat. The NAB translates luke 1:28 as highly favored even though
this has never been translated in Catholic teaching this way for 1900 years and the lectionary for the Mass still uses full of grace as it ought to.

The imprimatur and nihil obstat.does not apply to commentary or footnotes in given Bible, and we have the same stamp of approval in the Douay Rhiems and in a number of different RSV, so exactly what does it mean?? Certainly not total and absolute infallibility certainly not necessarily approved by the Vatican or Pope or an entire council, The Douay Rheims however would be approaching that type of approval, since much of what is translated in the Douay Rheims was backed up by the council of Trent…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

that is what so puzzling to me… it has both nihil obstat and imprimatur plus an endorsement
of a pope… so to me this NAB critique raises a lot of questions, but i need someone to read
the whole article because the quote was just an introduction… so comments on the whole critique will be highly appreciated

Maybe I should go through it.​

It would be very interesting to know what is meant by:

• J’accuse: the NAB, in many places, daringly redacts, rearranges, or otherwise mistranslates the sacred text,…

• if it were such a bad job as is here implied, what is it doing on the Vatican & USCCB websites ? It is not really possible to comment intelligently in any great detail, unless one knows what text the reviewer is judging the NAB by. And it seems not to occur to the reviewer that maybe there was good reason for what he complains of.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

hello everyone, i’m a regular reader of catholic apologist Ben Douglas’ ‘PUGIO FIDEI’.
in his section on modernism he crtique the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (NAB) and i
quote :
It is the thesis of this article that the above papal condemnations apply in spades to one particular biblical society, and one particular biblical version, which are flourishing in our day: namely, The Catholic Biblical Association of America and its New American Bible, or NAB.7 J’accuse: the NAB, in many places, daringly redacts, rearranges, or otherwise mistranslates the sacred text, and it does so in the service of the modernist critical hermeneutic which is revealed in its “perverse” introductions and commentary. These comments repeatedly contradict or call into question the Catholic dogma of the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture8 as also the Catholic dogmas of Christology and Mariology. The NAB refuses Scripture the submission which is due to it according to the Catholic saints: "Holy Scripture is in such sort the rule of the Christian faith that we are obliged by every kind of obligation to believe most exactly all that it contains, and not to believe anything which may be ever so little contrary to it."9 Indeed, it freely confesses that Scripture is wrong in places and freely disagrees. The NAB charges the Bible with contradiction, concerning which Oecumenius may be quoted as representative of the faith of the whole world: "For nothing could be contradictory in the mouth of the one and the same Spirit."10 Yet more, the NAB would have our Lord in ignorance and our Lady in doubt of her faith, which can only eventuate in Catholic readers doubting theirs. This Bible is a danger to the faith of Catholics; it is a near occasion for sin.11

THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (NAB) is a very popular translation and a lot of catholics
use it and even catholic apologists quote extensively from it. so i would like the
opinion of everyone who has read the article of ben douglas (if you have not read it, you
can do so at www.pugiofidei.com under the heading modernism)
so is NAB a bible translation replete with errors? and more important does any one
agree or disagree with the critique of ben douglas?

The attitude toward translation of the Old Testament Committee and New Testament Committee within the Catholic community generating the NAB translation is good. Their method is good. Their comments are good Their comments are brutal for the sake of honesty.

I like the NAB translation. The 1970 version is the best one of all.