New ! - NABRE - New American Bible Revised Edition

[Salvatore123]

puzzleannie,

I hope this will help:

1. The NAB of 1970 was: (A) OT: the Confraternity Bible that was translated by the CCD from 1952 through 1969, except for Genesis, which was re-translated for the 1970 debut of the NAB; and (B) NT: a completely new translation of the New Testament.
2. In 1986, the USCCB issued a new translation of the New Testament, but it did NOT call the NAB a “revised” version or “new” translation. It was simply called an “New American Bible” - period. One had to look at the foreward and copyright pages to see that the NT was a new translation.
3. In 1991, the CCD revised the Psalms found in the NAB from 1970. BUT, this revision of the Psalms was NOT authorized for use during Mass in America.
4. Between 1991 and 2001, the USCCB and Rome “fought” over revision after revision after revision of the Psalms that could be used at Mass in America. After three tries, Rome basically said, “Enough!”, and by special committee, issued a Psalter that was has been used for the past 10+ years in America during Mass.
5. In 1994, the USCCB/CCD began work on producing a new translation of the OT and finalized it 2008. This new OT translation was approved by the USCCB in 2008.
6. In January 2011, the USCCB/CCD announced that the fourth edition of the NAB would be published on March 9 of this year. It was called the “New American Bible, revised edition” or NABRE, and includes the (a) 1986 revised NT and (2) 1994-2008 revised OT.
7. Rome approved ONLY the Revised Grail Psalter for liturgical use in America.

Caveats:

A. Despite approval by the USCCB of the NABRE, none of the readings will be used in the revised lectionary for use at Mass in America.

B. Although the NABRE has been “officially” called a “revision” only once (thus, the name “NABRE” just issued this past Ash Wednesday), it is actually a FOURTH revision of the original 1970 NAB.

C. If you want to attend Holy Mass and follow along with what is being read for scripture, you can either use the missaletes or buy your own lectionary and follow along (given the size of lectionaries, this would be impractical).

D. I know of no existing or soon-to-be-published “missal” that will contain the contents of what will said during Holy Mass, as was available for the 1962 Latin Mass.

E. Finally, beginning with Advent of 2011, several fairly significant changes (I realize “significant” is a relative word - but in reviewing the changes, I consider them to be significant) will occur as far as several major prayers and responses prayed by the people during Mass.

I hope this helps explain the coming changes.

 

[bkovacs]

I hope this edition is a flop.

The advertisement for the “new” NAB is ridiculous. So many of us bought the previous edition and were disappointed.

And, now, their sales pitch is “here it is, buy it.”

They’d better tell me a whole lot more about this Bible than is shown in that blurb.

I was terribly disappointed with both the previous NAB and with the subsequent NAB study Bible – that was ridiculous, I threw it out.

So, under whose scholarship were the revised translations done? and, who is responsible for the commentary? What does the index of the book look like? What additional features are in the book?

Nope, nothing. Just “here it is, buy it.”

Well the USCCB says “Love your NAB”. How can I “Love” something that has only minor changes to an already poor translation. Plus it uses “inclusive” language and cannot be used in the NO Mass anyway without modifications to correct this error as directed from Rome. Sounds 70’s ish to me. They should have brought back the NAB 1st edition. Much better!.

 

[bkovacs]

You know it’s funny. Many publishers, from TAN, Baronius Press, Oxford, Ignatius, etc have done their hardest to bring back the classics. The Douay Rheims and RSV CE, and in such nice editions. But NO, the USCCB still wants Catholics to use the poor NAB, with the Catholic Book Publishing Company’s drab illustrations and artwork. Sad isn’t it. But hey they are not getting my money, since that is probably the only reason they want Catholics to use it.

 

[praxising]

-Mark 9:36 “And he took a child, and put HIM in the midst,” 'HIM" is changed to “IT”. The child is neuterized. Both examples the result of, not scholarship, but feminist ideology.

As far as scholarship, if no one else has mentioned it, the pronoun used here, in Greek, has no gender. We have no idea if the child was male or female. “It” is very awkward for English speakers to see in reference to a person. But it is accurate in that it reflects as much as was written and not more than was written. It would be better for comfort to say, “He took a child and placed that child in their midst” which is what it means, but not what it says. So, how would you like to err? On the side of sounds better or most accurate information? Not sure what feminists had to do with it, unless a woman pointed out that there’s no way to determine the gender of the child. I don’t think you have to be a feminist to know that.

 

[Delly]

I rarely ever post on forums, but I just could not help myself. I purchased the NABRE. I am more disappointed then I ever imagined I could be. In my opinion it is even worse (if that is possible) then the other versions. If someone has this version also, please read Genesis 3:15 and explain the rewording to me. I don’t get it. Nor do I get the footnote explanation. Perhaps I’ve totally lost it. This version makes sick in the stomach, and I have learned to follow my instincts. I had truly hoped that this translation would have been worthy of our Church, but alas not. I too have continued to use the RSV-CE for teaching in the school and in our RCIA sessions. I use the Douay-Rheims for personal study.

 

[Jonny_Pollock]

Well the USCCB says “Love your NAB”. How can I “Love” something that has only minor changes to an already poor translation. Plus it uses “inclusive” language and cannot be used in the NO Mass anyway without modifications to correct this error as directed from Rome. Sounds 70’s ish to me. They should have brought back the NAB 1st edition. Much better!.

I have the NABRE. I got a nice black soft-rubber cover edition from Saint Benedict Press. It is a lot more accurate than the 1970 NAB, which is closer to a paraphrase in places compared to the NABRE. That is, actually, why it was revised in the first place.

I think you are referring to the 1991 Psalms regarding not being able to be used in the Liturgy. These had the vertical inclusive language that obscured prophetic references to Christ. The NABRE Psalms retain much of the masculine gender in translation like the 1970 NAB Psalms. The NAB Psalms will presumably disappear from the Liturgy altogether at some point because the Revised Grail Psalter has been approved as the new Liturgical version, so it seems highly unlikely the NABRE Psalms will ever be sung at Mass.

As far the the gender inclusiveness in the rest of the NABRE, there is slightly more so in it than there is in the RSV, but not as much as in the NRSV. This is sometimes done when the words “people”, “someone”, “a person”, or “human beings”, render a certain passage with more clarity in modern English, rather than just using “man” or “men” all the time like the KJV and the Douay-Rheims do. I must mention that certain passages become MORE inclusive in their Liturgical forms (for example “brothers and sisters” to replace the term “brothers” used in the translation.

In summary, the NABRE is (in my opinion) not quite as literally accurate as the D-R and the RSV-CE, but to me is useful as a secondary translation. After all, no translation can perfectly capture every nuance of meaning from the original languages, so having two takes on the same passage can be beneficial.

 

[Jonny_Pollock]

I rarely ever post on forums, but I just could not help myself. I purchased the NABRE. I am more disappointed then I ever imagined I could be. In my opinion it is even worse (if that is possible) then the other versions. If someone has this version also, please read Genesis 3:15 and explain the rewording to me. I don’t get it. Nor do I get the footnote explanation. Perhaps I’ve totally lost it. This version makes sick in the stomach, and I have learned to follow my instincts. I had truly hoped that this translation would have been worthy of our Church, but alas not. I too have continued to use the RSV-CE for teaching in the school and in our RCIA sessions. I use the Douay-Rheims for personal study.

The brief explanation based on Catholic understanding:

The D-R / Vulgate implies that Mary will crush the serpent’s head.

The RSV-CE implies that Jesus will crush the serpent’s head.

The NABRE implies that ALL the woman’s offspring, the body of Christ (the Church) will crush the serpent’s head with their foot.

Since Mary is also part of the body of Christ, all three renderings can be considered accurate (from a Catholic understanding.)

 

[Pascalswager]

The virgin birth is a myth with no historical foundation and was an infusion of pagan mythology into early Christianity. Let us see why this is so:
Matthew’s so-called prophecy in the Old Testament was based on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint
The Passage in Isaiah was totally taken out of context and was not a prophecy for Jesus’ time
Earlier sources, such as the gospel of Mark and the epistles of Paul, do not mention the virgin birth.
The origin of the virgin birth story came from the mystery religions, the pagan competitors of early Christianity.

 

[Byzman]

The virgin birth is a myth with no historical foundation and was an infusion of pagan mythology into early Christianity. Let us see why this is so:
Matthew’s so-called prophecy in the Old Testament was based on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint
The Passage in Isaiah was totally taken out of context and was not a prophecy for Jesus’ time
Earlier sources, such as the gospel of Mark and the epistles of Paul, do not mention the virgin birth.
The origin of the virgin birth story came from the mystery religions, the pagan competitors of early Christianity.

See this is what happens when Isaiah 7:14 is translated as “young woman” that comes from the Masoretic Text of the 9th-10th century AD instead of being translated from the much older Septuagint, in which we have 3rd-4th century manuscripts, as “virgin.”

We get people like these on the forums.

 

[Salvatore123]

"The virgin birth is a myth with no historical foundation . . . "

Well, considering OB/GYN’s did not exist in 6-4 BC, and we Catholics do believe it was a miracle, I would not expect someone who does not have faith to say anything else.

In all seriousness, was it really necessary that you insert your comments in a thread that is dealing with biblical translations?

You say the Septuagint was a mistranslation. Considering the Hebrew word was “almah”, which did NOT automatically exclude a virgin, what, exactly, do you rely on to tell you that the use of the word “parthenos” was a mistake?

The Gospel of Mark and the Epistles of Paul do not mention quite a few things that are recorded by historians such as Josephus and Eusebius. Does the absence of mentioning events by Mark and Paul automatically mean they did not happen?

Finally, what “mystery religions” and “pagan competitors” had the same virgin birth as part of their “creed”?

 

[JRRTFAN]

Check this out!

NABRE - New American Bible Revised Edition

tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/923/keywords/american+standard/

Official Release Date: Ash Wednesday, March 9, 2011.Saint Benedict Press is a proud publisher the New American Bible: Revised Edition (NABRE), the first major update to the New American Bible (NAB) text in 20 years. After years of scholarly labor and review, the NABRE is approved for publication by the USCCB for release in a variety of formats on Ash Wednesday, March 9, 2011.
The NABRE accomplishes three major goals in Biblical scholarship: First, a more accurate translation aided by modern archeological and historical discoveries; second, a more consistent rendering of the Greek and Hebrew to more closely express the meaning of the original text; and third, revisions in the NABRE reflect changes in modern English usage of particular words (ex. burnt offering substituted for holocaust ).
Saint Benedict Press is debuting the New American Bible: Revised Edition (NABRE) in three handsome editions Black Premium UltraSoft, Burgundy Hardbound, and Quality Paperbound. Each includes extensive notes, commentary, cross-references (a first from Saint Benedict Press!), a 3-year cycle of readings for Sunday and weekday Masses, and favorite Catholic prayers.

I’ll pass, thanks. I’ve got the original from 1970 or so, the revised and the revised revised. Many of the notes are happily Protestant and I can get a better bound Protestant Bible from CBD in a version that’s smoother to read for less money. I think I’ll stick with the RSV-CE, the McKenzie Bible Dictionary and the Dom Orchard Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture and I think I’ll be fine. Does it occur to anybody that when His Holiness releases Jesus of Nazareth 2, he uses the RSV-CE and not the NAB or NABRVELMNOP or whatever? It does to me.

 

[JRRTFAN]

please tell me the psalms have been retranslated to keep their character as sung poetry and the accuracy of the language, so they can be used in liturgy

That would be nice to tell you, but it would be a lie. The Revised Psalms in the extant text, to say nothing of this new and improved version, are not approved for liturgical use by the Vatican. There is no reason to think that this one has recanted past error

 

[JRRTFAN]

The NABRE - Much Ado About Nothing. It’s ironic that no Catholic Bible can be found in the stores that corresponds to the Lectionary used at Mass, especially since the bishop’s conference holds the copyright. Interestingly, this latest version wasn’t sent to the Holy See for approval. Guess why?
.

It’s not ironic, it’s nauseating.

 

[Salvatore123]

JRRTFAN (or should I say, Hobbit and Lord of the Rings admirer ),

You asked: " Does it occur to anybody that when His Holiness releases Jesus of Nazareth 2, he uses the RSV-CE and not the NAB or NABRVELMNOP or whatever? It does to me."

Yes, it did occur to me immediately. See post no. 120, March 20, of my thread on why I thought the NABRE rendering of Isaiah 7:14 was wrong:

"And as I have pointed out in other threads (perhaps this one too, quite a ways back), I have always found it both interesting and a bit “saddening” to see that JPII relied on the RSV and NRSV whenever scripture is cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Benedict XVI relied on the RSV in his “Jesus of Nazareth” biography(ies). Yet we, in America, are relegated to using ONLY the NAB (and I assume, the newly published NABRE - although I have not yet seen an official statement as to what status will be accorded to the NABRE) for official liturgical use.

I do NOT believe that JPII and Benedict XVI chose the RSV (the one translation they had in common between them on such important works - the CCC and the first papal biography of our Lord) simply because that was the closest bible at hand."

So yes, I saw it. And not only the biographies - but the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself!!!

 

[Jonny_Pollock]

The reason why Isaiah 7:14 is translated differently in some modern translations than in the Douay-Rheims is because it is a more precise literal translation of the original language.

The Jewish people did not believe that the Messiah would be miraculously conceived in the womb of a virgin. Even the Jews that read the Greek version of the Old Testament (which has the translational quirk of giving emphasis on the “virgin” aspect of the young woman) did not take it to mean that the virgin would conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit, but that she would become pregnant the typical way. In fact, young Jewish women dreamed of being the mother of the Messiah, which is one reason why being barren was such a stigma among Jews. Now, in retrospect, the term “virgin” seems preferable in light of the Doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. But the Catholic Church has taken to translate Scripture accurately from the original languages as they stand, and to mistranslate Scripture with a doctrinal bias is not acceptable, despite all good intentions.

It is imperative that Catholics do not buckle at shallow heretics who base doctrine on Bible versions. We stand on the authority of the teachings given to the apostles by Jesus Christ, and handed down to us through our Holy and Apostolic Church.

 

[Salvatore123]

I have said this before, and a few people have picked up on it:

The Holy Spirit was the author of the entire Bible - OT and NT. To think that the WRITER of Isaiah did not intend something to be later quoted/used by Matthew is to outright negate the role of the Holy Spirit’s authorship of both. When the Holy Spirit authored the OT, the Holy Spirit fully knew what would be written in the NT.

I, personally, fear that if we lose sight of the fact of the ORIGINS of both the OT and NT, and begin focusing on what the writer of one OT book had in mind vs. what the writer of a NT book had in mind, we forget that the Holy Spirit authored both.

 

[Jonny_Pollock]

I have said this before, and a few people have picked up on it:

The Holy Spirit was the author of the entire Bible - OT and NT. To think that the WRITER of Isaiah did not intend something to be later quoted/used by Matthew is to outright negate the role of the Holy Spirit’s authorship of both. When the Holy Spirit authored the OT, the Holy Spirit fully knew what would be written in the NT.

I, personally, fear that if we lose sight of the fact of the ORIGINS of both the OT and NT, and begin focusing on what the writer of one OT book had in mind vs. what the writer of a NT book had in mind, we forget that the Holy Spirit authored both.

I see your point, here, and understand your concern. But first, to clarify what you have said about the inspiration of the Scriptures, I must add that God is the primary author of Scripture, and the Apostles and prophets were the secondary authors. God inspired them through the Holy Spirit, but he did not actually puppeteer their hands. I’m not sure that this tidbit applies directly here but it is helpful to know how it is appropriate to say that God is the author of Scripture when taken in the correct context.

Regarding the use of the Septuagint in the New Testament, one must remember that the Septuagint is a translation, and not the original inspired word of God in Hebrew. Now, if God chooses to inspire an Apostle to cite a scripture reference from a translation that has a slightly more explicit meaning than it needed in the context of the original text, is that not within his right to do so? It does not give anyone the right to go back and change or mistranslate the Hebrew (without perhaps including a textual note.) After all, as Catholics we know without doubt that the Old Covenant is fulfilled, expanded, and illuminated to the New Covenant people, so this should not be a surprise.

Regarding the NABRE (not the 1970 version), I think it is one of the better Catholic modern English editions of the Bible available (in my opinion) in a compact size: with translation and the volume of notes and cross-references considered. I do still prefer the RSV-CE translation due to the inclusion of more traditional language used in the D-R.

 

[johnbres2]

Well, I bought the soft leather-like cover version of the NABRE and have been surprised at how much I like it. It has a great feel to it, and the St. Benedict layout is beautiful. The fonts are smaller than I would like, but that helps keep the size of the book manageable as well, and I need reading glasses with a bigger font as well. What has struck me the most is how this feels like it is finally a complete NAB to me, in a way none of the Catholic Book editions ever did. I find the notes and the translation in the OT very readable. It seems a great deal of care went into it. Despite all the complaints people have, it strikes me as at least being a genuine Catholic-produced bible, that DID NOT come from the King James version, as everything else out there seems to have. This one evolved from the Confraternity and Douay versions, which, despite its shortcomings, does give it a legit Catholic heritage, and I am finding myself accepting that and looking at this Bible with love. Even the NT seems better somehow, in this new cohesive whole. I realize this is illogical to some extent to say that, but it somehow feels the NAB is finally done.

 

[Jonny_Pollock]

It is correct to say that the NABRE evolved from the Douay-Confraternity versions of the Bible. In fact, it is amazing when you think about it: that the NABRE has been a work in process s since the early 1940’s! The original NAB, like its contemporary work, our current English Mass translation, was too liberally paraphrased to stand the test of time. There is benefit, I believe, to having the freedom to translate scripture without an enforced translation principle that limits one to a previous edition whenever possible (like the KJV, RSV, and several Protestant translations.) I am glad to see this freedom used in translating the NAB sharpened into the NABRE to better conform to the latest scholarship and textual information.

That being said, I have noticed similarities in the NABRE to the RSV in many places, as well as some alternate English interpretations between them. I’m not sure that many people know this, but the RSV is closer to the Douay-Rheims Bible than the KJV in many places, especially in the text of the New Testament. Also, the critical edition of the Greek used for the RSV NT is almost identical to the critical edition of the Vulgate used to translate the Confraternity NT (see the introduction to the Confraternity NT.)

As far as the Catholic Heritage of the NABRE, there are a few places (“Amen, amen”, God’s “justice” in favor of the translation “righteousness”, the “pool of fire” in Revelation, to name a few) that are closer to the traditional D-R. There are also a few places (“the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters”, the “serpent” in the garden, “deliver us from evil”, to name a few ) where the RSV has the more traditional rendering.

When one looks back at the history of the English Bible, one sees that the Vulgate influenced the early English translations, the Rheims NT influenced the KJV (a revision of earlier English translation work), and the KJV influenced the Challoner Douay-Rheims. I think it is fair to say that there really is no genuine “Protestant heritage” of English Bible translation apart from the Catholic Church!

 

[Delly]

Is it or is it not true that many of the Scripture quotations in the New Testament (including those of Christ Himself) used the Septuagint version of Scripture? Did not the Jews in Jerusalem have the OT in Hebrew? Yet we see Jesus using verses only in the Septuagint? Isn’t it true that most of the Jews scattered used the Septuagint version when quoting Scripture? I’m not trying to nit-pick, but I would rather trust a translation that Christ quoted from.