New ! - NABRE - New American Bible Revised Edition

[CalCatholic]

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.

We don’t know for sure which scripture Jesus himself used (most likely Hebrew), but we know that the early Church used the Septuagint, and when the four evangelists wrote down their Gospels in Greek (30-60 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection) they used the Septuagint to quote Jesus.

 

[praxising]

***The Holy Spirit was the author of the entire Bible - OT and NT. ***I never read anything that says that. Well, except from Protestant charismatics or such. There’s a huge difference between “inspired by” and “authored by.”

 

[Salvatore123]

Taken verbatim from Free from All Error, a biblical scholarship masterpiece from the late Father William Most, one of the most renknowned biblical scholars of his time, who died just a few years ago:

“The most remarkable fact concerning Holy Scripture is that it is not only the Word of God, but that God Himself, the Holy Spirit, is it chief author.”

Although a man “authored” the sacred scripture in the sense that a man put “pen to paper” and used his own “style” in writing, God, through the Holy Spirit, at all times, ensured that whatever was being written was done so without error, infallibly, and according to what God wanted communicated to His people.

P.S. The book I quoted from above is one specifically listed by the founder of this website, Karl Keating, in Catholicism and Fundamentalism as one that all people who want to engage in apologetics, should obtain for his personal library.

 

[Bible_Reader]

“The most remarkable fact concerning Holy Scripture is that it is not only the Word of God, but that God Himself, the Holy Spirit, is it chief author.”

In fact, the Pope’s recent Verbum Domini says something quite different:

“it is this Spirit who inspires the authors of sacred Scripture.”

A claim that the Holy Spirit directly authored the Bible runs into numerous problems – perhaps you have read the Pope’s latest book, *Jesus of Nazareth *volume 2, and seen the extensive discussion of the theological and practical problems caused the contradiction in timing of the Last Supper between the Synoptic Gospels and John (see pp. 106-115). The authors were inspired, but Heaven did not directly write Scripture.

From the CCC:

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth.

 

[Brenlae]

I think I’ll just stick with the second most recent edition of the NAB (1970 OT, 1986 NT, 1991 Psalms).

 

[Salvatore123]

Bible Reader,

Aside from semantics (it depends on what one means when one uses the word “author”), I am a bit stumped that you would find fault with the quote I took from Father Most. Even one of your own CCC quotes is almost identical to the one I cite from Father Most:

Father Most: “The most remarkable fact concerning Holy Scripture is that it is not only the Word of God, but that God Himself, the Holy Spirit, is it chief author.”

CCC: 136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth.

In another post, I pointed out the following:

If one accepts that the books of the bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, then no sort of error of any kind can exist in the Bible. Period. End of discussion. No debate.

In his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII wrote that since God is the author of scripture, “it follows that they who think any error is contained in the authentic passages of the Sacred Books surely either pervert the Catholic notion of divine inspiration, or make God Himself the source of error.”

Thus, by claiming error in the bible, either or both of two things occur:

1. The notion of inspiration is perverted
2. God is the author of error

There is no third “alternative”, because if God is not the author, then one does not have to worry about God erring in a thing he did not write, but if God is the author of scripture, then one cannot say that scripture has error that was produced by God - a being who cannot err.

Three primary areas of scripture are attacked for “error”:

A. Science

B. Religion

C. History

I will expound on these in a later post.

But consider the following as an example of how we, even today, say things that are clearly wrong, but we say them nevertheless and take them for granted and never question them because of the WAY in which they are said and the way in which they are UNDERSTOOD:

“The Sun rises in the east and sets in the West”.

From an astronomical standpoint, this is obviously incorrect. The Sun does not rise or set - the Earth rotates (spins) on its axis and this causes the Sun to appear and disappear out of view, depending on where one is on Earth at any given time.

It is in the spirit in which we do not “consider” the above description to be in error (even though, scientifically, it is), that we approach the three areas of the bible I mentioned above and can conclude that error does not exist.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Three primary areas of scripture are attacked for “error”:

A. Science

B. Religion

C. History

I believe that there are additional points which are sometimes attacked for error:

D. Commandments inconsistent with the overall Biblical message (e.g., Exod 17:14-16 or Romans 13:1-5)

E. Contradictions in important aspects of the Biblical text (e.g., was the Last Supper a Paschal meal, see the passage from Jesus of Nazareth II I cite above).

I very much look forward to your discussion of these topics.

 

[JRRTFAN]

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.

Isn’t the “art” in the “fine art” edition grotesque? The pictures are bad enough but the white eyed satanic looking Jesus, with color over runs is just gross. Just an awful presentation.

 

[brianmichael]

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.”

dr > nabre

 

[The_Monk]

Can anyone answer this question: Does the NABRE state (as the RSV-CE 2nd edition does) that it was translated according to the norms of Liturgiam Authenticam?

 

[Salvatore123]

The Monk,

No, it does not.

It states only the following regarding approval:

“The translation was approved by the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in November 2008 and September 2010. It is permitted by the undersigned for private use and study.”

It also states that scripture texts, prefaces, introductions, footnotes, and cross references are taken from the NAB 1970, 1986, 1991, and 2008.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Can anyone answer this question: Does the NABRE state (as the RSV-CE 2nd edition does) that it was translated according to the norms of Liturgiam Authenticam?

Short answer: Liturgiam Authenticam influenced the translation of the Psalms. From NABRE Answers

2) How did Liturgiam Authenticam factor into this translation?

The work on the vast majority of the NABRE was completed and submitted to the Subcommittee for the Translation of Scripture Text (previously, the Ad Hoc Committee for the Review of Scripture Translations) before Liturgiam authenticam was released in 2001. In addition, the norms outlined in Liturgiam authenticam apply only to texts intended for liturgical use. Different norms must apply for a scholarly biblical translation, a fact that Liturgiam authenticam notes (cf. nos. 37ff). Since the work on the NABRE Psalter began in 2009, the norms in Liturgiam authenticam were taken into consideration in developing that translation, particularly the use of concrete vocabulary.

I am not aware of any English translation of the entire Bible that meets the standards of Liturgiam Authenticam. The RSV-2CE claims to meet it (or to be in “conformity” with it), but even a casual inspection of the RSV-2CE reveals that this claim is not correct.

In fact, as the quote suggests, it is not clear that it is possible for an English translation of the entire Bible to both meet Liturgiam Authenticam and other Vatican standards for Bible translation.

 

[Manfred]

Salvatore,

In this, thou hast spoken rightly.

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.

 

[Santonio_Victor]

I just bought the NABRE last night and I love what I’m reading so far. They did well in the Psalms translation. I have a Hebrew Tehillim and the Psalm translation is close to Hebrew indeed.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If it was so CLOSE to the Hebrew why did the USCCB choose the New Grail Psalms instead of the NABRE Psalms for the liturgy?

Because they know the NABRE simply doesn’t hack it–don’t believe me–believe the bishops!

 

[Jehuty_X]

// does the nab revision make use of the dead sea scrolls??

 

[CalCatholic]

// does the nab revision make use of the dead sea scrolls??

Yes, here is a piece of the ‘Preface to the Revised New American Bible Old Testament’;
‘Where the Old Testament translation supposes the received text - Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case maybe - ordinarily contained in the best-known additions, as the original or the oldest extant form, no additional remarks are necessary. Where the translators have departed from those received texts, e.g., by following the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text, accepting a reading of what is judged to be a better textual tradition, as from a Qumran manuscript, or by emending a reading apparently corrupted in transmission, such changes are recorded in the revised edition of the Textual Notes on the New American Bible.’

 

[Santonio_Victor]

If it was so CLOSE to the Hebrew why did the USCCB choose the New Grail Psalms instead of the NABRE Psalms for the liturgy?

Because they know the NABRE simply doesn’t hack it–don’t believe me–believe the bishops!

They chose the Revised Grail Psalter in 2008 and the NABRE Psalter was done in 2010. So the choice of the Grail came first.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Since the changes in the liturgy wouldn’t take place until Advent 2011 they COULD have chosen to go with the NABRE Psalms instead of the New Grail Psalms.

They didn’t!

 

[Santonio_Victor]

What was presented to the Vatican was their choice in 2008. And their choice was approved by Vatican in April 2010, same year that the NABRE Psalms was finished… So the NABRE Psalms was late for that.

Everything is sanctioned by the Vatican so what Vatican says, what American Catholic churches do.