New American Bible

[JeanneH]

Does the original D-R use archaic early modern English such as the original 1611 KJV? For instance, would I see something similar to this in the original D-R? From the original KJV:

:
Php 2:14 Doe all things without murmurings, and disputing:
Php 2:15 That yee may bee blamelesse and harmelesse, the sonnes of God, without rebuke, in the middes of a crooked and peruerse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world:
Php 2:16 Holding foorth the word of life, that I may reioyce in the day of Christ, that I haue not runne in vaine, neither laboured in vaine.
Php 2:17 Yea, and if I bee offered vpon the sacrifice and seruice of your faith, I ioy, and reioyce with you all.
Php 2:18 For the same cause also doe ye ioy, and reioyce with me.

____The following is from the St. Joseph DR

Php2:14Do all things without murmuring and without questioning 15,so as to be blameless and guileless, children of God without blemish in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation. For among these you shine likes stars in the world. 16,holding fast the word of life to my glory against the day of Christ:because not in vain have I run, neither in vain have I labored.

This from theDR Bishop Challoner from the Baronius Press

Php2:14 And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations: 15 That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation: among whom you shine as lights in the world. 16, Holding forth the word of life to my glory in the day of Christ, because I have not run in vain, nor laboured in vain.

JeanneH

 

[Jerry-Jet]

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

 

[Ron_Conte]

The original language of the Douai is in Early Modern English:

1 In the beginning God created heauen and earth.
2 And the earth was voide & vacant, and darkenes was vpon the face of the deapth: and the Spirite of God moued ouer the waters.
3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

But I also have a printed version which substitutes modern spelling:

1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
2 And the earth was void & vacant, and darkness was upon the face of the depth: and the Spirit of God moved over the waters.
3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

Wycliffe’s translation is here in Middle English:
wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/wycliffe/

1 In the bigynnyng God made of nouyt heuene and erthe.
2 Forsothe the erthe was idel and voide, and derknessis weren on the face of depthe; and the Spiryt of the Lord was borun on the watris.
3 And God seide, Liyt be maad, and liyt was maad.

But which book and chapter is this text, in Old English, from?

1 On FRYMÐ WÆ word & þt word wæs mid gode & god wæs þt word.
2 þt wæs on fruman mid gode
3 ealle þing wæron geworhte ðurh hyne & nan þing næs geworht butan him.
4 þt wæs lïf þe on him geworht wæs. & þt lïf wæs manna leoht
5 & þt leoht lyht on ðystrum. & þystro þt ne genamon;
6 Mann wæs fram gode asend. þæs nama wæs iohannes.

Or this one?:

1 Soðlice þa se hælend ge-seh þa menigu. he astah on þone munt. & þa he sæt þa genealæhton his leorning-cnihtas to him.
2 & he ontynde his muð & lærde hï & cwæð;
3 Eadige synt þa gastlican þearfan. forþam hyra ys heofena rice;
4 Eadige synt þa ðe nu wepað. forþam þe hï beoð gefrefrede;
5 Eadige synt þa liðan. forþam þe hï eorðan ägun;
6 Eadige synt þa ðe rihtwisnesse hingriað & þyrstað. for-þam þe hï beoð gefyllede;
7 Eadige synt þa mild-heortan. for-þam þe hï mild-heortnysse begytað;
8 Eadige synt þa clæn-heortan. for-þam þe hï god ge-seoð;
9 Eadige synt þa ge-sybsuman. for-þam ðe hï beoð godes bearn genemnede;
10 Eadige synt þa þe ehtnysse þoliað for rihtwisnysse. for-þam þe hyra ys heofonan rïce;
11 Eadige synt ge þonne hï wyriað eow & ehtað eow. & secgeað ælc yfel ongën eow. leogende for me;
12 Geblissiað & gefægniað. forþam þe eower mëd ys mycel on heofonum; Swa hi ehton þa witegan þe beforan eow wæron;

 

[lak611]

The original language of the Douai is in Early Modern English:

1 In the beginning God created heauen and earth.
2 And the earth was voide & vacant, and darkenes was vpon the face of the deapth: and the Spirite of God moued ouer the waters.
3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

Thanks. I suspected that if the original KJV was in early modern English that the original D-R would also be, since the D-R actually was published before the KJV.

 

[lak611]

:
This from theDR Bishop Challoner from the Baronius Press

Php2:14 And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations: 15 That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation: among whom you shine as lights in the world. 16, Holding forth the word of life to my glory in the day of Christ, because I have not run in vain, nor laboured in vain.

JeanneH

I already have the Challoner revision of the D-R. That is the version most people are familiar with. I was asking about the original D-R. Ron Conte answered my question.

 

[Cranch]

____The following is from the St. Joseph DR

Php2:14Do all things without murmuring and without questioning 15,so as to be blameless and guileless, children of God without blemish in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation. For among these you shine likes stars in the world. 16,holding fast the word of life to my glory against the day of Christ:because not in vain have I run, neither in vain have I labored.

The excerpt above, although a revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version, is commonly called the Confraternity Version. It is from the New Testament revised under the patronage of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and published in 1941. You may have seen it paired with the Douay Version of the Old Testament.

 

[fellowChristian]

I have the

NAB

NIV

KJV

DR

I even have one Bible with 4 different translations side by side, of the New Testament.I like to see the differences and compare them. Sometimes it’s good to have different Bibles. Then you can “see” what other people are reading.

 

[puzzleannie]

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?

who is “somebody” and what is his authority for claiming to put his opinion above that of the bishops who oversaw this translation, which is still in progress as there are portions not approved for liturgical use?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredHeartFan View Post
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?
who is “somebody” and what is his authority for claiming to put his opinion above that of the bishops who oversaw this translation, which is still in progress as there are portions not approved for liturgical use?

It’s pretty much common knowledge at this point. The NAB is the last bible worth having, although you’ll need it for finding the chapters and verses referred to on the USCCB website for daily readings, since the NAB has also seen fit to muck about with those. (certain books of the OT)

The original Douay Rheims is a difficult translation when compared to the KJV. The DR adhered very literally to the Vulgate. I wouldn’t consider the original DR’s strong suit to be a fine turn of phrase. However, the Bishop (Saint someday I pray) Richard Challoner revisions are very good, and are still very close to the original DR. I use the original Challoner for my daily readings. The original DR is fantastic for its notes and commentary. It is obviously polemical, but nonetheless justifies its renderings and makes clear its passages.

The Challoner revisions were used throughout the remainder of the 18th, all of the 19th, and through the early 20th century in English Catholic Bibles claiming to be DR.

 

[puzzleannie]

It’s pretty much common knowledge at this point. The NAB is the last bible worth having, although you’ll need it for finding the chapters and verses referred to on the USCCB website for daily readings, since the NAB has also seen fit to muck about with those. (certain books of the OT)

The

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.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

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.

Would you have defended Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople in the same blind manner? What about the Donatist Bishops of Africa? What about the Arian Bishops? Etc. Etc. The Vulgate is still the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. Your opinion, and that of the laity still has weight. The Sensus Fidelium, though often misunderstood, ignored or deprecated, is an important part of the Holy Spirit working within the Church.

 

[puzzleannie]

Would you have defended Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople in the same blind manner? What about the Donatist Bishops of Africa? What about the Arian Bishops?

those bishops were condemned by the Church. when the Church–the pope and bishops acting in their magesterial office–condemn the NAB I will be the first to burn mine.

 

[Cranch]

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?

who is “somebody” and what is his authority for claiming to put his opinion above that of the bishops who oversaw this translation, which is still in progress as there are portions not approved for liturgical use?

Despite your assertion, I see no claim here of someone putting “his opinion above that of the bishops.” Also, no one needs authority to express an opinion regarding any bible translation, as you have shown:

there are far more accurate translations in far more elegant rendering of English, IMO

Far less accurate and far less elegant than other translations. How much farther before we arrive at the OP’s “someone” and his verdict of “bad”?

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.

So it is fair to say that, in “the judgment of the bishops,” the new Lectionary based on the Revised NAB was worthy of submission in 1992 to Rome for approval. This judgement was not endorsed by the magisterium but rather repudiated; and endorsement was withheld until the U.S. bishops exercised proper oversight. This only goes to show the U.S. bishops do not get a blank check regarding their views of the NAB translation. Subsequent Vatican approval also says nothing about the relative merits (or lack thereof) of the RNAB versus other English translations which is the point of this thread. AFAIK, Rome has not expressed an opinion on the subject, although the use of the RSV and NRSV rather than the RNAB in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is interesting.

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.

The dreaded “non-scholars”! I am reminded of one of Samuel Johnson’s many wise sayings:“You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table.”
Some things are just obvious.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

those bishops were condemned by the Church. when the Church–the pope and bishops acting in their magesterial office–condemn the NAB I will be the first to burn mine.

Hindsight is 20/20 is it not? That wouldn’t have done you much good during the time the questions were undetermined. People had to take a stand either for or against back in those days. Today we are far more passive and possibly even apathetic to religious questions. Maybe we think it’s not our job to know these things?

We certainly trusted the bishops to protect children. But was that assumption a good one? Where did their loyalties lie?

 

[JeanneH]

All ought to read which Bible should you read by Thomas A Nelson published by Tan, you will find roughly 20 verses which the meaning has been changed in other Catholic Bibles. One can view this on line at [tanbooks.com/audio/wbsyr.pdf](https://www.tanbooks.com/audio/wbsyr.pdf)

Hi Michael G,
Thank you so much for this link. I am reading it on line and finding it fascinating and informative. I have dug up my DRB and dusted it off. I think this might just be a must read.
thanks again
JeanneH

 

[AmbroseSJ]

But which book and chapter is this text, in Old English, from?

1 On FRYMÐ WÆ word & þt word wæs mid gode & god wæs þt word.
2 þt wæs on fruman mid gode
3 ealle þing wæron geworhte ðurh hyne & nan þing næs geworht butan him.
4 þt wæs lïf þe on him geworht wæs. & þt lïf wæs manna leoht
5 & þt leoht lyht on ðystrum. & þystro þt ne genamon;
6 Mann wæs fram gode asend. þæs nama wæs iohannes.

Hey Ron Conte,

My guess is this is the beginning of St. John’s Gospel. The quote below that, which language I cannot identify, appears to be the beatitudes.

Do I get a cookie?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Hey Ron Conte,

My guess is this is the beginning of St. John’s Gospel. The quote below that, which language I cannot identify, appears to be the beatitudes.

Do I get a cookie?

Yes, correct on both counts.
Both quotes are from an Old English version of the Gospels from c. 990 A.D.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Yes, correct on both counts.
Both quotes are from an Old English version of the Gospels from c. 990 A.D.

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?!

 

[SacredHeartFan]

OK so now that I got the fact that the NAB is not a great translation, is the Jeruselem Bible? I have the readers edition.

 

[East_and_West]

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?

The NAB is absolultey horrible and what is worse, the footnotes are actually heretical in some places. I suggest the Ignatius Bible, also know as the Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition.