New American Bible

[otjm]

I have a 1970 Edition New American Bible. I don’t use it much, but sometimes I use it to meditate on the Rosary. Some of this edition’s translations bother me such as Genesis 1:1-3: “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while A MIGHTY WIND swept over the waters.” I’ve been thinking of getting a Latin Vulgate or Douay-Rheims Bible, or another version that has a more literal translation for personal use. Any suggestions or comments about the NAB?

While I have the NAB, with the NT and the Psalms Revisions, I also have The Jerusalem Bible. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, and God’s spirit hovered over the water”.

I really don’t have a problem with either translation, as wind is often associated with the Holy Spirit.

All translations are just that - a translation; and those which are considered “literal” are an attempt to do a word-for-word translation, which is itself not exactly possible, as words do not have a single meaning in another language, and often have no exact translation, but convey subtle variances. In addition there can be cultural differences which may color the original text. It often depends on what use the text is for as to which bible may convey it best; and it often may help to have more than one in order to compare.

 

[InOmnemTerram]

I’m not much of a fan of the Douay-Rheims, mostly because of the textual pedigree of several of the Deuterocanonical books. Frankly, I think other versions are probably closer to the original form of those books than the Clementina Vulgata.

I use the RSV-CE and the RSV-2CE primarily, and the Douay-Rheims and Jerusalem Bible secondarily.

The NAB(RE) I consider to be too 20th century in its scholarship, and many of its scholarly opinions are too faddish for me to appeciate. (The same goes for the Jerusalem Bible and its notes and its often tedious “rearrangement” of verses to arrive at a “more probable” original.)

 

[steve_b]

Without meaning to sidetrack the thread, could someone please tell how the Confraternity Bible compares with the Knox Bible? The NAB is ok but the Knox is definitely better. I think the US was probably better off with the Confraternity Bible.

Amazon has this description of the Knox translation

"The Knox Bible is the ideal translation for those looking to deepen their understanding of the Holy Scriptures. It was hailed as the finest translation of the 20th Century, approved for liturgical use and was endorsed by Pope Pius XII, Archbishop Fulton Sheen and many more.

In the early 20th century, Msgr. Ronald Knox embarked on an entirely new English Bible. He wanted a Bible that did not merely translate the original but made it read as if an Englishman had written it. His translation is spiritual and literary, graceful and lyrical, making it one of the most beautiful vernacular versions of the Holy Bible.

The unique features of the Knox Bible are:

• Translated from the Latin Vulgate and compared with the Greek and Hebrew texts single handedly by Ronald Knox over nine years.
• Uses timeless English, which is both sacral and reverent.
• Set in a single-column format with verse references placed at the side of the text in order to provide a clear and easily readable Bible.

-The full Bible is now available again for the first time in over 50 years, in an edition from Baronius Press, beautifully bound in leather with gilt edges.

• Included with this new edition is a paperback edition of On Englishing the Bible (5.5" x 8", 72 pages) in which Msgr. Knox describes his account of the ordeal, which manages to be both illuminating and full of his wit. Anyone wishing to know more about Knox’s translation and the problems involved in rendering the sacred Scriptures into the vernacular will be fascinated to hear from the translator himself how he tackled this mammoth project."

 

[ontheway1]

Those exact words bother me as well.

 

[ajcstr]

Doesn’t that translation use inclusive language, though? Or maybe I’m thinking of the NRSV…

No inclusive language, its still the RSV and not the NRSV which does have the inclusive language.

It’s also the translation used in the Catechism.

 

[FaithfulKnight]

I am beginning to have questions myself. Take for example Psalm 51 (a particular favorite of mine). It is 51 in the NABRE but 50 in the Douay Rheims. I have not parsed out both works to compare differences but am sure there are more than a few.
Jack

 

[BenedicamDominum]

It is 51 in the NABRE but 50 in the Douay Rheims.

The Latin numbering of the Psalms is different from the Greek and the Hebrew. The difference begins in Psalm 9, which in the Latin is a combination of the Greek Psalms 9 and 10. The Latin Psalm 10 thus equals the Greek Psalm 11, and so on, until the two meet again by Psalm 148.

 

[RandomAlias]

I too have compared translations of Psalm 51 (as it is numbered in the NABRE). I guess they all mean the same thing, but some translations sound better than others.

I know that other Bible passages are considered, by some, to be more problematic, where the meaning differs, at least at the literal level. I tend not to worry much about that, figuring that the overall story of salvation remains true.

 

[FaithfulKnight]

Thank you for your help. That answers a lot.

 

[FaithfulKnight]

In my old age I need to keep it as simple as possible. The NABRE was a gift awhile back to help me in understanding the entire book a little better. I do enjoy it.