New American Bible

[Ron_Conte]

This must be an inconvenient truth for the Protestants that claimed the Church never allowed the Bible to be translated into English. (Even though we know St. Bede died while he was dictating his translation of St. John’s Gospel into early 8th c. English.) Maybe your quote is derived from his translation?!

Quotes are from the West Saxon Gospels, c. 990

Many of the earliest translations into English were done by Protestants. This was one of the reasons given by the translators for translating the original Rheims version, so that in apologetics, Catholics could quote the Scriptures in English, just as the reformers were doing.

 

[Manfred]

no it is not pretty much common knowledge, in is common opinion among some regular posters here.

previous poster has digested in very brief forms the objections raised to using portions of the NAB for liturgical use. It is a commonly raised objection among those who are not scripture scholars but rely on opinion pieces written by other non-scholars that the NAB is objectionable on all counts. Until those persons are raised to the status of bishop and given responsibility for overseeing scripture translation, I will continue to ignore them.

there are far more accurate translations in far more elegant rendering of English, IMO, but my opinion has no weight in the matter, the judgement of the bishops, endorsed by the magesterium carries weight, so where the magesterial authority of the Church decress the translation must change, I agree, and where she decrees the translation stands, I also agree.

Not so fast, Annie. There are a few posters here (and, no, I don’t count myself as one) who seem to know far more of the biblical text and how it should be rendered than many of the “scholars” appointed by the bishops, who themselves probably just accept the RNAB simply because it’s “theirs”.

Bishop Challoner, considering his heavy pastoral duties, managed to revise the original D-R without “help” from a translation team. He did an admirable job. God bless him for this!!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Bishop Challoner, considering his heavy pastoral duties, managed to revise the original D-R without “help” from a translation team. He did an admirable job. God bless him for this!!

Very true! I think what separates Dr. Challoner from the NAB translators of today is his adherence to the intent of the translators of the DR, while adopting a language easily understood and remembered by his English speaking flock. He also was not trying to prove his translation prowess, nor impress other biblical scholars. He worked for a translation that would be easily accessible, and beloved by Catholics, while maintaining the rich heritage of Catholic traditions and beliefs, using familiar phrases and wording, whenever possible, even if they were sometimes those of the KJV.

He would probably be the last person to call his “revision” of the DR a new translation, although Cardinals Manning and Newman a hundred years later pay it that tribute.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I don’t think that Challoner worked alone. He likely had help from other scholars. Otherwise, I don’t see how he could have translated the Bible and added/changed so many of the notes, in such a short time, all while being Bishop of a diocese.

I don’t find much difference between the JB and NJB.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I don’t think that Challoner worked alone. He likely had help from other scholars. Otherwise, I don’t see how he could have translated the Bible and added/changed so many of the notes, in such a short time, all while being Bishop of a diocese.

Are you familiar with Bishop Challoner’s original texts? The notes in them are rather sparse. Maybe you are thinking of the copious notes found in the Haydock versions of the Challoner DR Bibles. Do you realize that Bishop Challoner was also publishing a new work almost once a year including polemical, devotional and biographies? By his position as Vicar Apostolic to the London district, he was also the Bishop in charge of all the British colonies, including America!

 

[Brother_John]

I believe they should enact into Canon law a complete ban on the NAB.

Why?

 

[puzzleannie]

What bible should I have?
Threads on CA Forms including stickies

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=204572
new websource from Vatican, from sticky at top of this forum

bible translation guide
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=83627
from sticky at top of this forum

old poll and lengthy discussion and debate about favorite and not so favorite bible translations, seems to be still active
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=42630

bible translation guide from CA homepage
http://www.catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

 

[Ron_Conte]

Are you familiar with Bishop Challoner’s original texts? The notes in them are rather sparse. Maybe you are thinking of the copious notes found in the Haydock versions of the Challoner DR Bibles. Do you realize that Bishop Challoner was also publishing a new work almost once a year including polemical, devotional and biographies? By his position as Vicar Apostolic to the London district, he was also the Bishop in charge of all the British colonies, including America!

I wish I had a copy of his original text. There have been numerous editions since 1752 that all call themselves the Douay Bible. Do you have access to an original?

 

[kim3260]

I use the NAB simply because it is easier to read. The explainations are easy to understand.

 

[Brother_John]

I personally use a NIV to do Bible study with a ND friend once a week…mostly because it’s what he uses, and he gave it to me as a gift.

I also have a Jerusalem, an NAB, and a D-R.

The NIV is very easy to read and comprehend. However, if I read something (or my partner points something out) that seems non or anti-Catholic, I can refer to the D-R for clarification.

My favorite so far, was when he started in on Mary. I pulled out my D-R and showed him the passages in Luke from which the “Hail Mary” came from…and gently reminded him that Christ gave us the Church, and the Church gave us the Bible.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I recommend this site:
bible-researcher.com/versions.html
which has a set of good comprehensive scholarly, and largely unbiased, assessments of numerous Bible translations, Protestant and Catholic.

I am dismayed to find out how many Catholics use a Protestant translation of the Bible. I know of no Protestant translation that does not have a confessional bias, often specific to one denomination within Protestantism. Even a Catholic translation deserving of some significant criticism is generally better than a Protestant translation.

the above site notes a number of confessional biases in various Protestant translations, and the site is run by a Protestant.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I believe that all translations of the bible that differ on matters of Catholic Doctrine should be banned by Canon law.

The NAB differs in some scriptural passages with Catholic Doctrine.

Why read what is erroneous on Catholic Doctrine which does indeed matter?

 

[Brother_John]

I believe that all translations of the bible that differ on matters of Catholic Doctrine should be banned by Canon law.

The NAB differs in some scriptural passages with Catholic Doctrine.

Why read what is erroneous on Catholic Doctrine which does indeed matter?

Can you be specific? I would like to make comparisons between my three “Catholic” Bibles based on your information.

Thanks.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I wish I had a copy of his original text. There have been numerous editions since 1752 that all call themselves the Douay Bible. Do you have access to an original?

I do have access to the original. It is very hard to find one. I thought someone was doing a reprint of Challoner’s original text, but I haven’t been able to find any listed on line. Most reprints I found are actually of the 1899 Haydock version of Dr. Challoner’s DR. I know of a Book dealer that has a set from 1805 that would be an exact reprint of Challoner’s text. I’m familiar with that edition. It is nicely rebound in cloth and ready to use but it is priced at $500. But if anyone is interested here’s their link: secure4.visionsweb.com/loomebooks/search.cfm

Do a search for “bible” and it’s halfway down, and has a photo of the 5 volume set in black cloth with red title labels.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

In 2 Corinthians 2:10 Paul forgives the Incestuous Corinthian “In the PERSON of Christ” thus granting him Absolution.

In the NAB it is only “In the presence of Christ”.

Anyone can forgive that way–who cares about such Protestant No Absolution believing lies?

In the Our Father in Matthew in the Douay Rheims we are told by Jesus to ask for “SUPERSUBSTANTIAL Bread”.

The NAB renders it “Daily Bread”.

Both of the instances I’ve cited involve DOCTRINAL issues.

Trent said that on matters of Doctrine and Faith and Morals that the Vulgate did not err and could be used in ALL disputations.

People who do not accept that do not accept an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church led by the Holy Spirit.

It’s that simple!

The Nova Vulgata uses “In personna Christi” in 2 Corinthians 2:10.

The Confraternity Version based on the Vulgate also uses “In the PERSON of Christ” for that passage.

Now don’t get me wrong folks–I’m not saying that the Vulgate or the Douay Rheims or the Confraternity Version or the Nova Vulgata cannot be improved upon–they can and the Catholic Church has always endorsed critical study of the most reliable and ancient texts so that we can get closer and closer to what the Holy Spirit inspired the original writers to say.

But on DOCTRINAL matters the Vulgate cannot be reversed!

On Non Doctrinal matters different renderings may be closer to the original writers than the Vulgate but not Doctrinal Matters!

The NAB ERRS on Doctrinal Matters against the Vulgate which Trent said does not err!

That’s a fact!

And it doesn’t matter whether you accept that or not–the Catholic Church has spoken!

The Vulgate also says if we don’t “Do Penance” we will perish.

The NAB doesn’t say that!

It says if we don’t repent we will perish–that’s what Protestants believe!

The same Jesus that spoke of “Tyre and Sidon repenting in sackcloth and ashes”–if that isn’t “Doing Penance” what is?–is the same Jesus that tells us to “Do Penance”.

So in the areas of Absolution, the Eucharist, and of Doing Penance–which do matter and are Doctrinal Matters where the Vulgate cannot err as defined by the Council of Trent–the NAB is simply Wrong!

It does matter!

In my opinion the closest that one can get to a close to accurate English Catholic translation of the scriptures is the Confraternity New Testament–the Douay Rheims Haydock Old Testament–and the Psalms of St. Pius XII–the Bea Psalter that came after the Douay Rheims and before the Olinger Psalms which would one day become the NAB Psalms.

That combination is not perfect.

It is however not Doctrinally wrong!
And if anyone has a problem with that the Nova Vulgata in Latin is as close as one can get to an accurate bible that is not Doctrinally wrong!

 

[Ron_Conte]

I think you are exaggerating the doctrinal significance of particular wordings in various translations. Although one wording may obscure a particular level of meaning that pertains to a doctrine, it may clarify at the same time some other level of meaning. But even if it does not, the less useful wording does not actually contradict a doctrine and so it does not deserve to be excoriated.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I do have access to the original. It is very hard to find one. I thought someone was doing a reprint of Challoner’s original text, but I haven’t been able to find any listed on line. Most reprints I found are actually of the 1899 Haydock version of Dr. Challoner’s DR. I know of a Book dealer that has a set from 1805 that would be an exact reprint of Challoner’s text. I’m familiar with that edition. It is nicely rebound in cloth and ready to use but it is priced at $500. But if anyone is interested here’s their link:

Do a search for “bible” and it’s halfway down, and has a photo of the 5 volume set in black cloth with red title labels.

That set is not a reprint of Challoner. It is a reprint of a revision of Challoner’s work done some years later.

Which edition do you have access to? Is it the NT of 1749, 1750, or 1752?

 

[pray4peace]

I like the New American Bible. I think it is good to have several different ones. We use the NAB in our bible study, and it is so easy to read and understand. I think if it is used and approved by the church in the Mass, and by the Catholic church, it is okay for me as well.

I also have the Ignatius Bible that is recommended here by CA and it is a beautifully written book.

I hear the Navarre bible is one to get as well.

I think it is neat to have several and compare them and how they are written, provided they are approved by the Catholic church.

The important thing to me, is to have a bible that I love and will use on a daily basis in order to become closer to God.

 

[Brother_John]

I like the New American Bible. I think it is good to have several different ones. We use the NAB in our bible study, and it is so easy to read and understand. I think if it is used and approved by the church in the Mass, and by the Catholic church, it is okay for me as well.

I also have the Ignatius Bible that is recommended here by CA and it is a beautifully written book.

I hear the Navarre bible is one to get as well.

I think it is neat to have several and compare them and how they are written, provided they are approved by the Catholic church.

The important thing to me, is to have a bible that I love and will use on a daily basis in order to become closer to God.

Exactly. As long as they’re “approved”…read away. It’s most important to get the point. If you want deeper understanding, then go to the more “traditional” versions.

It is more important to “get it”, than to bury yourself in stuff you read, but don’t necessarily understand.

 

[pray4peace]

Someone told me that the NAB is a bad translation and that the D-R is alot better tranlation. Should I go get a new BIble but still keep my NAB?

I think the New American Bible is fine. I think it is good to have several different ones. We use the NAB in our bible study, and it is so easy to read and understand. I think if it is used and approved by the church in the Mass, and by the Catholic church, it is okay for me as well.

I also have the Ignatius Bible that is recommended here by CA and it is a beautifully written book.

I hear the Navarre bible is one to get as well.

I think it is neat to have several and compare them and how they are written, provided they are approved by the Catholic church.

The important thing to me, is to have a bible that I love and will use on a daily basis in order to become closer to God