New American Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomcmaj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As someone exploring the Catholic faith, which translation would you recommend? I’m very well versed in the Protestant translations but have no clue about the Catholic versions. For instance, I would guess that if one was used to the English Standard Version which is more literal would the RSV-CE be appropriate? I’m also really curious about the Jerusalem version that everyone is talking about. Perhaps there is somewhere online that compares the Catholic Bible translations, I just haven’t found it. Thanks 🙂
 
The Jerusalem version, in my opinion feels very very contemporary. At least for me, I’m not a fan but feel free to give it a try. It just so happens that Catholic Online (www.catholic.org) offers a free webbased version of the Jerusalem bible, and the daily readings are even pulled from this version.

If you like the ESV, then you would like the RSV-CE because, as I understand, the ESV started out life as a RSV which received slight modifications to meet the publishers desires.

If you like the KJV, then the Douay-Rheims will offer a language very similar to what you are used to. They are not, in an aboslute sense identical. That said, both versions have fed off eachother over the years so there is a high degree of similarities.

if you want something that closely (but not exactly) matches what is used in Mass in the USA, then you need a NAB bible as this is the translation (with liturgical modifications) used in Mass.

I would recommend playing around with different translations, you might be suppriesed by what you end up liking and not liking.
 
Cathoic Online offers a version of the New Jerusalem Bible. It is different than the Jerusalem, which is out of print.
 
rabby(name removed by moderator) said:
As someone exploring the Catholic faith, which translation would you recommend? I’m very well versed in the Protestant translations but have no clue about the Catholic versions. For instance, I would guess that if one was used to the English Standard Version which is more literal would the RSV-CE be appropriate? I’m also really curious about the Jerusalem version that everyone is talking about. Perhaps there is somewhere online that compares the Catholic Bible translations, I just haven’t found it. Thanks 🙂
Click to expand...
I like the New Jerusalem Bible.

I also have a copy of the Jerusalem Bible, which you can pick up used on eBay and elsewhere.
 
I love my big Douay Rheims Bible, but it is in storage for some time. So, we went to our local
Catholic gift shop and all that was available there were 2 Bibles to choose from.
We bought one for less then $20, and it is the NAB. Actually I had never taken the time to read
many chapters from the NAB before. It has been a pleasure to use and study.
 
rabby(name removed by moderator) said:
As someone exploring the Catholic faith, which translation would you recommend? I’m very well versed in the Protestant translations but have no clue about the Catholic versions. For instance, I would guess that if one was used to the English Standard Version which is more literal would the RSV-CE be appropriate? I’m also really curious about the Jerusalem version that everyone is talking about. Perhaps there is somewhere online that compares the Catholic Bible translations, I just haven’t found it. Thanks 🙂
Click to expand...
In my opinion…notice, this is my opinion. If you are just coming into the Church and you are attending mass, learning to pray the liturgy of the hours possibly; or whatever you are taking part in, I would suggest you use that translation.

If you are worshiping in a Church parish in America, then the NAB is the one. The most important issue in my mind is to know that there are many translations, so we must always go back to the source for the truth about any translation. That source is Mother Church; She translated the Septuagint into the Latin Vulgate which the DW is based.

So my suggestion is, use the NAB for everyday reading and preparing for mass, that’s what you will hear in the mass. If you really want to do research for the Churches teaching, use the DW, or Navarre.

Again, everyone will have differing opinions on this, this is mine.👍

Oh, I forgot…be sure it is a “study bible” with much comentary. You will be surprised how little tidbits of information can help understand the time settings and meaning of a given passage.
 
Is NAB word-for-word, or thought-for-thought?

Does it take into consideration material from the Dead Sea Scrolls?
 
Tomcmaj said:
Is NAB word-for-word, or thought-for-thought?

Does it take into consideration material from the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Click to expand...
NAB (1970):

Text basis for Old Testament: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls influence.

*Text basis for Apocrypha: Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls and some Vulgate influence. *
*Text basis for New Testament: Novum Testamentum Graece, 25th edition. *

Translation Method: formal equivalence with some dynamic

NABRE: (translated Old Testament 1994-2001, using 1986 New Testament, Psalter revised 1991, 2009-2010)

Text basis for Old Testament, Apocrapha: new and better texts than the previous 1970version.

Text basis for New Testament: Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th edition, from the 1986 revision.

Translation Method: formal equivalence with some dynamic
 
Joannm said:
Cathoic Online offers a version of the New Jerusalem Bible. It is different than the Jerusalem, which is out of print.
Click to expand...
Jerusalem is not out of print: amazon.com/Jerusalem-Bible-Readers-Alexander-Jones/dp/0385499183

I personally use the RSV-2CE for reading and most study.

I also have a few others including the NAB I received from my sponsor at confirmation. I use these for cross referencing verses. My other translations include the DR, NAB, 1611 KJV, TLB-CE, NRSV-CE, and the NJB.

I really want a new DR Bible for everyday use. Mine is very old and falling apart. I’m currently saving up to get the Baronius press version
 
rabby(name removed by moderator) said:
As someone exploring the Catholic faith, which translation would you recommend? I’m very well versed in the Protestant translations but have no clue about the Catholic versions. For instance, I would guess that if one was used to the English Standard Version which is more literal would the RSV-CE be appropriate? I’m also really curious about the Jerusalem version that everyone is talking about. Perhaps there is somewhere online that compares the Catholic Bible translations, I just haven’t found it. Thanks 🙂
Click to expand...
  • The Douay-Rhimes, RSV-CE, and Jerusalem Bible are literal translations. Also Ignatius Press have made a Second Catholic Edition to the RSV.
  • The NAB, NRSV, and New Jerusalem Bibles are all newer translations that are more dynamic than literal and also include inclusive language.
  • The Good News Bible, and The Living Bible-CE are paraphrased versions.
I don’t know of a place online to campare texts, but this is a link to a nice parallel Bible that includes the NAB, RSV-CE, NRSV, JB, NJB, DR, & GNT.

I hope this helps.
 
alwayslooking said:
  • The Douay-Rhimes, RSV-CE, and Jerusalem Bible are literal translations. Also Ignatius Press have made a Second Catholic Edition to the RSV.
  • The NAB, NRSV, and New Jerusalem Bibles are all newer translations that are more dynamic than literal and also include inclusive language.
Click to expand...
I would like to see your source for the claim that the NRSV uses dynamic equivalence, or that the Jerusalem Bible uses formal correspondence.

Here is a contrary view:
catholic-resources.org/Bible/English_Translations.htm
“Formal Correspondence” translations: Douay-Rheims, KJV/NKJV, RSV/NRSV, NAB, NIV/TNIV
“Dynamic Equivalence” translations: NEB/REB, TEV/CEV, JB/NJB
Click to expand...
As for your claim that the New Jerusalem is more dynamic than the Jerusalem, I can’t speak from my own experience but Wikipedia seems to indicate exactly the opposite:
The revised version is said to be less literary but, for the most part, more literal.
Click to expand...
 
I’ve used and studied the NAB for some time and since it is used in the Mass, it is very familiar.

Has anyone started using the NABRE? is it a major change? Does anyone know if the Lectionary will be changed to use this new translation?
 
ysicmg said:
I’ve used and studied the NAB for some time and since it is used in the Mass, it is very familiar.

Has anyone started using the NABRE? is it a major change? Does anyone know if the Lectionary will be changed to use this new translation?
Click to expand...
ysicmg said:
I’ve used and studied the NAB for some time and since it is used in the Mass, it is very familiar.
Click to expand...
ysicmg said:
Has anyone started using the NABRE? is it a major change? Does anyone know if the Lectionary will be changed to use this new translation?
Click to expand...
The lectionary was last revised in 2002 to be more literal per Liturgiam Authenticam. The NABRE changes are to the Old Testament, so if it was used for the lectionary it would be a change to Psalms and Lesson 1, but the Psalms from NAB were not approved, but another version: the revised Grail Psalms which received recognitio from CDW April 9, 2010. So that leaves Lesson 1. Take an example from Lesson 1 for Easter, the first is from the 1970 NAB and the second is from NABRE 2011:

Gen 1 NAB
27 God created man in his image;
in the divine image he created him;
male and female he created them.

Gen 1 NABRE
27 God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female* he created them.
 
ysicmg said:
I’ve used and studied the NAB for some time and since it is used in the Mass, it is very familiar.

Has anyone started using the NABRE? is it a major change? Does anyone know if the Lectionary will be changed to use this new translation?
Click to expand...
I’ve been using the NABRE since it has come out, and I think it is a big improvement. The whole Old Testament including the Psalms were revised (the New Testament is unchanged). The Psalms are much improved and the rest of the Old Testament reads a lot smoother (more in line with the New Testament.
Here is an example of the change in the Psalms:

NAB (Ps 1:1) 'Happy those who do not follow the council of the wicked, Nor go the way of sinners, nor sit in the company with scoffers.

NABRE (Ps 1:1) 'Blessed is the man who does not walk in the council of the wicked, Nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the company with scoffers."

NAB (Ps 23:1-3) ‘The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack. In green pastures you let me graze; to safe waters you lead me; you restore my strength.’

NABRE (Ps 23:1-3) ‘The Lord is my shepherd there is nothing I lack. In green pastures he makes me lie down; to still waters he leads me; he restores my soul.’
 
CalCath, thanks for posting that comparitive. Honestly, I think I prefer the original. But certainly if the NABRE works better for you, then wonderful.
 
Brendan said:
It required a few changes before Rome would approve it for use as a lectionary. So what we hear at Mass is not fully the NAB. That is usually a ‘strike one’ in my book. A Catholic approved Bible should be ready for use in the lectionary without modification. Rome should not have to request changes to something produced by bishops.

Also, the footnotes stink, but those are not really part of the translation per se.
Click to expand...
My sentiments exactly. The RNAB, in my opinion, lacks the poetic beauty of the RSV-CE 2nd edition. Interestingly enough, the Carribbean uses the RSV-CE for its Lectionary. What concerns me about the new RNAB is that it did not use Liturgiam Authenticam as its guiding principle, while Ignatius used LA when it worked on the RSV-CE 2nd edition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top