New American Bible

[AmbroseSJ]

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?

Ron, I have in my possession the 1750 edition of the OT and the 1752 edition of the NT. I also have the 1797 Moir printing of the NT (Dr. Hey’s) You are correct that the Bible I linked to is not exactly the same as Bishop Challoner’s 1st, 2nd, and 3rd revisions. There are a few minor differences, but the notes are all Dr. Challoner’s. That was what I thought interested you.

But basically Dr. Hey’s bible (the Moir printings), according to Fr. Hugh Pope are reprints of Bishop Challoner’s 2nd revision of the OT (1763) and the NT (which in the link is not ascertained) would have been a reprint of his 4th revision (1764) If you are familiar with those editions, they are very similar, and almost identical, to the 1750 OT and 1752 NT, except for a few word changes here and there and “lavish use of italics” for words not in the original. But they were not a revision in and of themselves, but in all fairness, reprints of Dr. Challoner’s bible. So although they are reprints of a later revision, as you said, the revision is still Dr. Challoner’s not someone else’s.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

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

 

[debras56]

I have several versions of Catholic Bibles; as a Convert, I like to compare and make sure I understand. I love my Large Print St. Joseph’s NAB for Bible Studies. It is big and thick, though. I have a New Jerusalem, with Mother Angelica’s cover on it. I have a Dhouay (sp?) Rheims for times when I miss the good ol’ KJV. I have an Ignatius, which I don’t use much, honestly. The Bible I bought this week, though, is none of the above. I have been searching for a couple of years for a Bible that will work to carry in my purse. It has to be lightweight (shoulder pain), and slim. I was really glad when I finally found a NAB in Compact size. Still, however, no slimline, or thinline. So, I broke down and bought a NIV Bible (no Apocrypha) this week. It looks like a woman’s wallet. It’s slim, lightweight, and has a magnetic closure, so the pages won’t get messed up in my purse. I LOVE it, except, of course that it is basically a Protestant Bible. I do not understand why it takes so long for Catholic Bible Publishers to get it about size, weight, etc. I want to carry my Bible with me as much as a lot of Protestants I know do. I refer to it during the day (usually for my own private time with God and his Word). I wish we could do something to change this. ANd…so sorry so long. Didn’t mean to RANT!

 

[Cranch]

I think the New American Bible is fine…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.

The thing is, parts of the Revised NAB (the version I assume you own) were expressly forbidden to be used in the Mass. The Mass Lectionary was altered to correct these deficiencies, but the RNAB itself remains unchanged (see posts 7 and 13 of this thread for more). Nevertheless, the RNAB does carry the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

 

[Manfred]

I have several versions of Catholic Bibles; as a Convert, I like to compare and make sure I understand. I love my Large Print St. Joseph’s NAB for Bible Studies. It is big and thick, though. I have a New Jerusalem, with Mother Angelica’s cover on it. I have a Dhouay (sp?) Rheims for times when I miss the good ol’ KJV. I have an Ignatius, which I don’t use much, honestly. The Bible I bought this week, though, is none of the above. I have been searching for a couple of years for a Bible that will work to carry in my purse. It has to be lightweight (shoulder pain), and slim. I was really glad when I finally found a NAB in Compact size. Still, however, no slimline, or thinline. So, I broke down and bought a NIV Bible (no Apocrypha) this week. It looks like a woman’s wallet. It’s slim, lightweight, and has a magnetic closure, so the pages won’t get messed up in my purse. I LOVE it, except, of course that it is basically a Protestant Bible. I do not understand why it takes so long for Catholic Bible Publishers to get it about size, weight, etc. I want to carry my Bible with me as much as a lot of Protestants I know do. I refer to it during the day (usually for my own private time with God and his Word). I wish we could do something to change this. ANd…so sorry so long. Didn’t mean to RANT!

Debra,

Check out amazon.com for a COMPACT RSV Catholic Edition published by Oxford University Press. I believe you can also get the same edition under the Ignatius Press brand as well. This should come pretty close to what you’ve been looking for.

 

[Manfred]

per Liturgiam Authenticam:

"36. In order that the faithful may be able to commit to memory at least the more important texts of the Sacred Scriptures and be formed by them even in their private prayer, it is of the greatest importance that the translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for liturgical use be characterized by a certain uniformity and stability, such that in every territory there should exist only one approved translation, which will be employed in all parts of the various liturgical books. This stability is especially to be desired in the translation of the Sacred Books of more frequent use, such as the Psalter, which is the fundamental prayer book of the Christian people.

“The Conferences of Bishops are strongly encouraged to provide for the commissioning and publication in their territories of an integral translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for the private study and reading of the faithful, which corresponds in every part to the text that is used in the Sacred Liturgy.”

I hope none of us actually believes that if we were to get an English translation of the Bible that conforms to Liturgiam Authenticam (LA) it would asymptotically approach the ideal.

The guidelines in LA are applicable to vernacular translations not only of Scripture used in the Liturgy but also to other texts associated with the Mass and perhaps the Liturgy of the Hours (LOTH). Any translations proposed for liturgical use must be submitted to the Holy See for approval prior to their being used.

LA also expressed the desirability that a single vernacular translation of the bible (in a particular language, such as English) be used not only in the liturgy, but also for study and private reading (see quote above).

We can be pretty certain that in the USA, the USCCB is going to choose its beloved RNAB as the textual basis for any new lectionary. So let’s assume that some diligent scholars working on the project are very knowledgeable about LA and they skillfully incorporate all of its guidelines. Not a few of the bishops firmly believe they “need” to have inclusive language to be “pastorally effective”. So in the final editing any inclusive language excised by the project team is restored. Then it goes to Rome for approval. Rome will object to some (not all!) of the inclusivisms and those will be removed. But many will remain, and some even will have sneaked past the “Roman guard”. So these passages prepared for the lectionary are then pulled into a complete bible to be used also for study and private use. Given what we got in 1998 after Rome and the US bishops went head-to-head over the RNAB-based lectionary my hopes for that near-ideal translation for liturgical use, study and private reading are understandably not high.

Oh, and before anyone suggests that the RSV SECOND Catholic Edition (RSV-2CE) be the base text: be aware that, as it now stands, this translation does not strictly conform to LA, either (no “Amen, amen”; no “Alleluia” in the Psalms; use of “Hallelujah” in Revelation). And, of course, it misses by a wide margin almost all of the corrections many of us have contributed to the “RSV-CE Needs Correction” thread.

 

[DylanO]

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 version is a terrible translation, plus I don’t care for the modernist and liberal footnotes, especially in Genesis. The Douay-Rheims is much better.

 

[debras56]

Debra,

Check out amazon.com for a COMPACT RSV Catholic Edition published by Oxford University Press. I believe you can also get the same edition under the Ignatius Press brand as well. This should come pretty close to what you’ve been looking for.

Thank you, Manfred. I looked and I see some that may be as lightweight, and that keep the pages covered!

 

[benedictgal]

I was responding to the poster who said that the RNAB is used in the lectionary for Mass. The text of the Bible does not correspond to the text of the lectionary. The Psalms in your Bible were completely rejected by the Vatican for use in the lectionary. Parts of the rest of the Bible needed to be changed for the lectionary. What you have is the amended Bible. The original NAB Bible was published in 1970 and is no longer in print. However, what you hear in the readings at Mass is not exactly the same as what is in your Bible. The Vatican rejected the Bible text for use in Mass and required that the US Bishops revise the text to conform to the guidelines for use in Mass. As far as I know, the only Bible translation that did not need revision for use in the lectionary is the RSV-CE, which is no longer used in any US lectionary. The USCCB owns the copyright for the RNAB, so they pretty much have a monopoly on which Bible translation is used for the lectionary. However, their Bible text had to be amended for the lectionary because the Vatican rejected it for Mass. If somebody has any doubts about the quality of the RNAB, he should keep in mind that as it is written, it is unsuitable for use in Mass according to the Vatican.

I have not even gotten into a discussion of the footnotes. I really do not have time to discuss them at the moment, but I am sure that other posters will bring them up. The footnotes in many cases are even worse than the actual Bible text.

Yep. You’ve hit the nail on the head. The RNAB is very problematic. Like Manfred, I serve as a reader/lector for my parish. The huge, three-line, run-on sentences that are used in the Epistles are terrible. I have to look at my trusty D-R and my RSV-CE to find out where the breaks are in these long sentences. Sometimes, I’ll even check the Spanish verison to find the breaks.

I would also submit this article from the very competent Fr. Richard John Neuhaus for y’all’s review. Here is an exceprt:

In II Timothy, Saint Paul declares, “I have fought the good fight”. Fight the good fight. The bracing phrase echoes and re-echoes in high culture and everyday life. What does the NAB give the Catholic people? “I have competed well”.

In the face of every affliction, Paul says in Romans 8, “we are more than conquerors”. (RSV) The NAB says “we conquer overwhelmingly”. On the Church’s relationship to earthly powers, the words have rolled down the centuries: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”. The NAB: “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God”. We have taken something from Caesar and from God that we must repay? Don’t ask. The line of Matthew 22:14 is still commonly heard: “Many are called but few are chosen”. NAB: “Many are invited, but few are chosen”. What is gained by the change? What is lost?

Saint Paul to the Philippians: “Have this mind among you, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped”. NAB: “Have this attitude in you which was in Christ Jesus”. Jesus had an attitude? There is a significant difference between having the mind of Christ and having the attitude of Christ. Not to mention that literate speakers of English do not speak of a person having an attitude “in” him. In the translation of the four gospels, the NAB regularly says that Jesus “cured” rather than “healed” people. In standard English, “cure” connotes a medical remedy while “heal” connotes making a person whole. At least the NAB does refer to Jesus as a healer rather than a “curer”.

You can find the entire article at:

adoremus.org/0306BibleTranslations.html

There are some folks who have dismissed Fr. Neuhaus’ article; however, Fr. Neuhaus was a former Lutheran minister who studied his Bible prolificly. He is also a writer. He brings a unique perspective and experience to this argument.

 

[benedictgal]

The thing is, parts of the Revised NAB (the version I assume you own) were expressly forbidden to be used in the Mass. The Mass Lectionary was altered to correct these deficiencies, but the RNAB itself remains unchanged (see posts 7 and 13 of this thread for more). Nevertheless, the RNAB does carry the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

It is not used in this country; however, other English-speaking countries in the Carribbean (Antilles) use it. Furthermore, it’s interesting to note that even the Vatican doesn’t use the RNAB when their English-language hosts are translating the Papal Masses. It’s not even used when the English-speaking readers are proclaiming the readings. The only ones using this horrid translation are the Americans, and that’s only because it’s the cash cow for the USCCB. These are not my words. They are Fr. Neuhaus’s in an article he wrote for First Things. It’s a monopoly with which we are stuck.

 

[lak611]

Yep. You’ve hit the nail on the head. The RNAB is very problematic. Like Manfred, I serve as a reader/lector for my parish. The huge, three-line, run-on sentences that are used in the Epistles are terrible. I have to look at my trusty D-R and my RSV-CE to find out where the breaks are in these long sentences. Sometimes, I’ll even check the Spanish verison to find the breaks.

I used to be a reader back when I was in high school, but that was when the translation was from the NAB, not the RNAB. The NAB was not quite as bad as the RNAB.

I have friends from church who are readers. All of them struggle with the Pauline Epistles due to the clunky sentence structure. The RNAB is one of the reasons why I have not continued being a reader.

 

[sodak]

For me, I like the NAB and RSV-CE Bibles. The DR might be a “more accurate” Bible, but I can’t stand the vernacular. Reading it just turns me off.

So I read the “horrible” ones…

 

[Manfred]

I used to be a reader back when I was in high school, but that was when the translation was from the NAB, not the RNAB. The NAB was not quite as bad as the RNAB.

I have friends from church who are readers. All of them struggle with the Pauline Epistles due to the clunky sentence structure. The RNAB is one of the reasons why I have not continued being a reader.

When I “rehearse” my Sunday readings at home before taking to the pulpit, I use the D-R. Believe it or not, the quirky Pauline sentence structure - or lack thereof - is not an RNAB thing; it’s just Paul’s way, and the D-R captures this all too well. But that’s a good thing since I expect the D-R to afford me transparency into “the Greek”.

The RNAB tries to mimic the real Pauline wording, but doesn’t do it as well as the D-R, especially in its choice of bland wording. While the RSV-CE would be clearer for public proclamation, the D-R is more eloquent. The RNAB tries to straddle the fence between modern and literal, and doesn’t “do” it right, IM(notso)HO.

 

[benedictgal]

When I “rehearse” my Sunday readings at home before taking to the pulpit, I use the D-R. Believe it or not, the quirky Pauline sentence structure - or lack thereof - is not an RNAB thing; it’s just Paul’s way, and the D-R captures this all too well. But that’s a good thing since I expect the D-R to afford me transparency into “the Greek”.

The RNAB tries to mimic the real Pauline wording, but doesn’t do it as well as the D-R, especially in its choice of bland wording. While the RSV-CE would be clearer for public proclamation, the D-R is more eloquent. The RNAB tries to straddle the fence between modern and literal, and doesn’t “do” it right, IM(notso)HO.

I can understand it perhaps being a Pauline thing; however, how come the Spanish translation is much clearer? The D-R does help with its breaking points; but, the RSV-CE flows better for public proclamation. Still, both are better than the RNAB.

 

[goofyjim]

I like all the translations. Some are good one a certain point while others are better in another area. I have yet to see the perfect translation all the way through.

 

[porthos11]

Oh, and before anyone suggests that the RSV SECOND Catholic Edition (RSV-2CE) be the base text: be aware that, as it now stands, this translation does not strictly conform to LA, either (no “Amen, amen”; no “Alleluia” in the Psalms; use of “Hallelujah” in Revelation). And, of course, it misses by a wide margin almost all of the corrections many of us have contributed to the “RSV-CE Needs Correction” thread.

First of all, I remind everyone again that the RSV-2CE changes came from the CDW itself, and that should never be forgotten. The author of the law is also its best interpreter.

Second, the use of “Amen, amen” and “Alleluia” instead of “Truly, truly” and “Praise the LORD”, while ideally called for by LA, are not necessarily required by LA. The language LA uses for the ancient terms transliterated into the Greek is that it is to be “given consideration”, and in some places, necessary (LA 23). Therefore as far as the Amen, amen thing (which I prefer over “Truly, truly”), is concerned, it does not violate LA, but it does fall short of its preferences.

Since the CDW is both the author of the Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam and the authority in things liturgical, their word stands, and if they say the Second CE conforms, then it does conform, even if to a minimal or very basic degree.

As for the NT Hallelujah, that is actually correct. There is a rough breathing mark in front of the alpha, so the initial H is the proper rendering.

 

[Manfred]

First of all, I remind everyone again that the RSV-2CE changes came from the CDW itself, and that should never be forgotten. The author of the law is also its best interpreter.

Second, the use of “Amen, amen” and “Alleluia” instead of “Truly, truly” and “Praise the LORD”, while ideally called for by LA, are not necessarily required by LA. The language LA uses for the ancient terms transliterated into the Greek is that it is to be “given consideration”, and in some places, necessary (LA 23). Therefore as far as the Amen, amen thing (which I prefer over “Truly, truly”), is concerned, it does not violate LA, but it does fall short of its preferences.

Since the CDW is both the author of the Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam and the authority in things liturgical, their word stands, and if they say the Second CE conforms, then it does conform, even if to a minimal or very basic degree.

As for the NT Hallelujah, that is actually correct. There is a rough breathing mark in front of the alpha, so the initial H is the proper rendering.

I know this is REALLY splitting hairs, but:

“Alleluia” is correct in the NT, since that is the way I’ve seen it in the Greek text. “Hallelujah” more closely reflects the Hebrew. And, yes, I know, we render Hebrew names from the OT in the NT by a more Hebrew spelling; e.g., Isaiah, as opposed to Isaias.

Would you kindly enlighten us as to your attribution of the RSV-2CE to the CDW?

 

[Brother_John]

I know this is REALLY splitting hairs, but:

“Alleluia” … “Hallelujah”

My question is, does it matter? Is the answer to this question critical with regard to our path to Salvation?

Just wondered

 

[Manfred]

My question is, does it matter? Is the answer to this question critical with regard to our path to Salvation?

Just wondered

Well, this and other “straining at a gnat” topics matter to not a few of us. Just look at some of the titles of the threads in this particular Forum.

 

[porthos11]

My question is, does it matter? Is the answer to this question critical with regard to our path to Salvation?

Just wondered

Wrong point. This is a scholarly and intellectual discussion with an academic character, and does deserve attention.