New american bible (nab) criticism?

[Tyuiop411]

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).

I Agree it’s good for children and people that have trouble with reading but for serious study you need to look to something like the Douay-Rheims.

 

[mccorm45]

I Agree it’s good for children and people that have trouble with reading but for serious study you need to look to something like the Douay-Rheims.

While the NAB may not have the literary qualities as the DR or RSV, it is hardly a childrens Bible. Perhaps the Good News Bible fits that bill. The recently released Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series, which is very good, wouldn’t use a children’s Bible for a major commentary series meant for people involved in pastoral ministry.

 

[rayca]

New American Bible problem

I cannot see how the 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.
I have also appended other Papal references and the Catechism of The Catholic Church on the indisputable belief of the Church as to the Angels words containing the term “full of grace”.

              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”.

FULGENS CORONA
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
8. Moreover, since the same holy Virgin is saluted “full of grace” and “blessed among women” (Luke I. 28, 24), by these words, as Catholic tradition has always interpreted, it is plainly indicated that “by this singular and solemn salutation, otherwise never heard of, it is shown that the Mother of God was the abode of all Divine graces, adorned with all the charisms of the Holy Spirit, yea, the treasury well nigh infinite and abyss inexhaustible of these charisms, so that she was never subjected to the one accursed” (Bull Ineffabilis Deus).
HOMILY OF JOHN PAUL II
Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Wednesday, 8 December 2004

1. “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” (Lk 1: 28).
   We address the Virgin Mary several times a day with these words of the Archangel Gabriel
   “Full of grace”, …in the original Greek of Luke’s Gospel, the Angel greets Mary with this title. It is the name that God, through his messenger, chose to use to describe the Virgin. This is how he had always seen and thought of her, ab aeterno (from all eternity).

HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord
Saint Peter’s Square
Saturday, 25 March 2006

Dear Cardinals and Patriarchs,
Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate and in the Priesthood,
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
For me it is a source of great joy to preside at this concelebration with the new Cardinals after yesterday’s Consistory, and I consider it providential that it should take place on the liturgical Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord and under the sunshine that the Lord gives us. In the Incarnation of the Son of God, in fact, we recognize the origins of the Church. Everything began from there…
In fact, the Angel, “appearing to her”, does not call her by her earthly name, Mary, but by her divine name, as she has always been seen and characterized by God: “Full of grace - gratia plena”, which in the original Greek is, “full of grace”, and the grace is none other than the love of God; thus, in the end, we can translate this word: “beloved” of God (cf. Lk
HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
Santa Maria di Leuca
Saturday, 14 June 2008
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
…
All Marian titles, in fact, have as it were budded and blossomed from that first name with which the heavenly messenger addressed the Virgin: “Hail, full of grace” (Lk 1: 28). We heard it in St Luke’s Gospel, most appropriately because this Shrine - as the memorial tablet above the central door of the atrium attests - is called after the Most Holy Virgin of the “Annunciation”. When God called Mary “full of grace” the hope of salvation for the human race was enkindled: a daughter of our people found grace in the Lord’s eyes, he chose her as Mother of the Redeemer. .

Catechism of The Catholic Church
The Immaculate Conception
490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

 

[Lock_Down]

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.

When a translation is given such declarations, the meaning is such that it guarantees the translation to be free of contradictions to Catholic doctrine, particularly in areas of faith and morals. These declarations do not guarantee that a particular edition of the NAB is a very good translation.

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.

In this case, it’s not so much about “picking and choosing” as it is about knowing what’s guaranteed and what’s not guaranteed. On matters of faith and morals, the NAB is OK. It manages to avoid contradicting Church doctrine. That does not mean it’s a great translation. In the process of pointing out problematic translation decisions, you do not necessarily have to state that the NAB guides Catholics wrongly on matters of faith and morals or that the NAB contradicts Catholic doctrine. (I think you pretty much have to do so when dealing with the material found in the commentaries and such; a lot of that is really really REA-lly bad. Does anyone know if the guarantees apply to that as well?) Anyway…it’s entirely possible for someone to avoid any nullification of the imprimatur or nihil obstat while calling translation choices into question. These are not guarantees of an accurate translation. They only guarantee certain things which I won’t list again, because I’ll be repeating myself a bit too much.

Oh, and just so you don’t think I’m ignoring your comment about “splintering denominations”…I don’t believe an informed and accurate understanding of what an imprimatur or a nihil obstat do and do not guarantee will necessarily result in a catastrophic earth-shattering apocalyptic disaster within the Church. I just don’t think it’s that big a deal. It’s a small misunderstanding on your part, and that is all.

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.

No translation is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. The last time anyone thought that was with regard to the Septuagint. Remember the story about the 70 translators who, guided by the Holy Spirit, produced 70 identical translations? (If that was the case, then all 70 of them must have made a variety of identical errors as well. Just saying). Augustine was one person who believed the Septuagint was perfect; literally a divinely inspired translation. He encouraged St. Jerome to translate the Septuagint from Greek to Latin instead of from Hebrew to Latin, because he believed the Septuagint was perfect in Greek. St. Jerome decided the Septuagint was not actually perfect and decided to use the oldest manuscripts (the closest thing to the original text) that he could. From this, we receive the Old Testament as we see it in the Vulgate. This, too, is an imperfect translation. We do not use Jerome’s Latin translation as if it were divinely inspired, any more than Jerome did with the Septuagint. There is no such thing as a Holy Spirit-inspired translation that is perfect and flawless. Such a thing doesn’t exist. And just to revisit your first point- there has never been an authoritative guarantee to that effect, nor will there ever be. The ordained authority of the Church did not stamp the NAB in this way, nor has it ever stamped any NAB in this way. It will never stamp any translation in this way. Such a stamp does not exist.

I don’t plan on changing my name to Martin Luther or nailing any piece of paper on any door, and I think it’s quite silly of you to say so. I’m observing a trend with you. It seems that you like to create false dichotomies, whereby we must agree with exactly what you say…or we must affiliate ourselves with the Reformation. We must agree with your exact opinion…or we are (basically) schismatics. I’ll be honest. I really don’t like it when you do that. I’d imagine it feels forceful and gets you pretty torqued, but it’s not honest or accurate. Please try to break that habit and form better ones.

If you feel that I’m overly critical, feel free to tell me so (as nicely as possible, though). If you don’t feel that you have any bad habits that need changing, feel free to tell me “No thank you” as well.

Oh, just one more thing: Read the last quoted section real quick. (This one, just in case…) To insist that your preferred version is protected from error by the Holy Spirit and another is not (and so forth) Now ask yourself this: When St. Jerome decided to create a Latin translation of the Old Testament that was not based on the Septuagint, can’t you imagine that a lot of God-fearing Christians (including St. Augustine) put very similar questions to St. Jerome?

How do you think he answered them? Do you think it would include a denial of your initial supposition? I don’t think Jerome could have given an acceptable answer without doing so; therefore, I will follow suit. As a matter of fact, I’ll do so emphatically. Some translations are better than others, but no translation is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Not a single one.

There it is. If you think I’m wrong, quote a source. But if you look for sources, I’m rather confident that you’ll wind up changing your mind on this one.

 

[Rodb]

I think the introductions to books and footnotes in the NAB are decidedly anti-Catholic. The introduction to the New Testament books denies the authorship of the apostles of the books bearing their names. The footnotes treat these books as if they were propoganda pieces written by unknown propogandists who altered facts for any number of reasons: ie: to line up better with old testament prophecies, to further the Church’s agenda, etc. They leave the impression that these books were written by unknown authors, hundreds of years after the deaths of the apostles, authors who were willing to stretch the truth to suit the perceived needs of their churches at the time.
One possible explanation for many problems of this nature could be those in the Church who were infiltrated into the Church by the Communist party in its heyday, with instructions to advance as far as they could in the heirarchy and weaken the Church’s threat to said party. Google it.