Positive features of NAB

[mccorm45]

This may be a first for the Catholic Answers board, but I think it could be quite fun. In my opinion, we too easily rip on translations, without really considering some of the positive elements of them. There is no perfect tanslation into english of any Biblical text. If you want to know exactly what the Biblical author is saying, one must learn Greek, Hebrew, and some Aramaic…Latin would also help. (Jimmy Akin, in one of his posts on the NAB on his blog, mentioned that while he dislikes the NAB, there are still times when it gets the translation right in comparision with the RSV.)

So, what I propose is that we take a look at the NAB New Testament and analyze some areas where it excells. I decided on the NT because of the upcoming revision of the Old Testament…and well because the '91 Psalms leave a lot to be desired.

Here are some conditions that I propose:

1. Let us look at the NAB NT in light of other Catholic Bibles, like the Douay-Rheims, Jerusalem/New Jerusalem Bible, and the RSV/NRSV CE.
2. This will not be a thread about the NAB commentary. We will strickly look at specific translation techniques and examples that the NAB used.
3. Lets try to avoid using terms like “heretical translation” and the such. While it is true that translating Mary as “Full of Grace” would be better, it is certainly not heretical to say “Highly Favored” according to the Greek.

My first example where the NAB is superior:

Luke 9:31: “who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. (NAB)”

Let’s compare that to the others:
DR: his desease
JB/NJB***: his passing ***
RSV/NRSV: his departure

The Greek word used here is exodon, which could mean departure, departure from ones life, and decease. However, when one looks at the context, with Moses being present, it makes much more sense in english to translate the term as “exodus”. By using “exodus” it would then be easier for the english reader to see the connection between the historical exodus in Moses’ time and the one that Jesus was to accomplish in Jerusalem.

 

[awalt]

I would humbly suggest that while the exercise you propose is a fun one, looking at translations in this way is not going to cast the NAB in the best light.

Why?

Those that like translations like the RSV-CE the best, are more comfortable with literal translations - which can make it harder to reasd for a novice, but the expert in scripture really wants to see something as close to original text as possible; possibly because they have expertise in original languages, plus they have a very good idea of what the passage says already, and they are looking for more subtle nuances in the text that may help or enhance their analysis.

Those that like the NAB are more comfortable with dynamic translations - which in essence, takes a passage, and tries to explain what it really meant in today’s language. It is very far from a literal translation, and IMHO given that different scholars may have a different interpretation of a passage, then dynamic translations of different bibles could be very different! This of course will drive the true bible scholar crazy.

All translations are on a continuous line between the theoretical “perfectly literal” and “perfectly dynamic”. So IMHO if you are really going to compare a more literal RSV-CE and a more dynamic NAB, you need to pick the right target audience, give them a passage, and some how determine which one gives them a more complete understanding of what is being said.

Doing almost a word for word comparison of RSV-CE and NAB will prove here to be grossly skewed to the RSV-CE - because some expert will correctly point out in virtually any phrase where they differ, that the RSV-CE is more accurate. But this comparison does not speak to comprehension or ease of reading of a passage, which could prove to be and advantage to a novice using the NAB.

A catholic.com article that explains this further:
catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

My .02

 

[mccorm45]

Awalt,

Thanks for your comments. I certainly agree that the RSV is more literal than NAB, there is no question there. Whenever I do serious study I always refer primarily to the RSV, so I am not going to try to suggest that the NAB is a more literal translation. However, I don’t think there is anything wrong with looking at some situations where the NAB actually gets the translation right in comparision to some of the other Catholic Bibles. Why? Well simply there are those who completely trash the translation, and I think oftentimes that is done really without examining the text. We sometimes take for granted the opinions of others. This is not meant to be a comprehensive examination of the NAB in comparision to the others. Hey, I am certainly not here trying to champion the NAB, but rather trying to end some of the off-handed dismissal of the translation as simply being garbage and heretical.

Also, I don’t think you can place NAB NT simply as a dynamic equivalence translation. You are right when you mention that there is a spectrum in translation philosophy. Certainly on one side you would have the most literal translations, like the NASB, ESV, KJV, DR, and RSV. On the other end you would have the paraphrase translations, like the Message and Good News Bible. Somewhere in the middle would be the Dynamic Equivalence. Probably a translation that would be right in the middle would be something like the NIV or NJB/JB. From all my research, I certainly would put the NAB, in particular the NAB NT, in the middle but more on the literal side. The best chart that I have seen that shows this is on the Zondervan website: zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/Bible/About+Bible+Translations.htm?QueryStringSite=Zondervan

I also think this article can be helpful: bib-arch.org/BibleBuyersGuide.pdf

So, I say why not discuss some particular renderings in the NAB. At the very least, it will hopefully spur some charitable dialogue between the different Catholic Bible camps.

 

[Manfred]

I also think this article can be helpful: bib-arch.org/BibleBuyersGuide.pdf

mccorm,

This is quite an article; seems the reviewer hasn’t met a translation he didn’t like (except perhaps the Cotton Patch, because of its excessive re-interpretation).

Interesting, for our purposes, that the RSV, NAB, and NJB came out quite well from a reviewer who more than likely is not a Catholic.

Thanks for the link! You’ve had several good ones in previous posts on the NJB, as I recall.

 

[Fidelis]

Interesting, for our purposes, that the RSV, NAB, and NJB came out quite well from a reviewer who more than likely is not a Catholic.

Also, interestingly, I am reading a book by a pair of Protestants (Fee and Stuart) “How To Read The Bible For All It’s Worth.” These authors also have a favorable opinion of these versions in saying they sometimes get it “more right” than other translations and they are very useful as comparative translations for the (presumed) Protestant audience of their book.

 

[inthecloud]

BTW in other forum somebody asked this:

Greetings my Catholic Brothers and Sisters.

In the New American Bible (A translation I have been throughly enjoying lately), there is an odd translation choice in the book of Isaiah.

The Translators chose to transpose Isaiah 8:21-22 into the center of Isaiah 14:25. The note says this is for issues of context.

Also, in my printing the first verse of Chapter Nine is missing. However I believe this is simply a misprint by oxford, as I looked it up online and the first verse of Chapter nine is there, but made the last verse of chapter eight.

Just strange things going on there, looking for some insight.

Any ideas in how to respond?

 

[Manfred]

BTW in other forum somebody asked this:

Any ideas in how to respond?

Have him/her read both the introduction to the NAB OT, as well as those footnotes, whenever a verse transposition takes place.

Apparently, the editors felt that the text was so badly disturbed in its transmission down through the ages that they (the editors) had to “amend” the text by moving verses around to a greater extent than other versions do.

 

[mccorm45]

Have him/her read both the introduction to the NAB OT, as well as those footnotes, whenever a verse transposition takes place.

Apparently, the editors felt that the text was so badly disturbed in its transmission down through the ages that they (the editors) had to “amend” the text by moving verses around to a greater extent than other versions do.

While this topic is looking at some good translations in the NAB, I must say that the decision to “amend” and re-order some of the OT texts just makes things all the more confusing. This becomes particularly the case when one looks at comparing verses between the NAB and some other standard Bibles like the RSV. Hopefully, the revised NAB OT which is to be published fairly soon will fix these mistakes. But I certainly wouldn’t count on it.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

I think the NAB gets the Hebrew names right - unlike most translations. It actually uses the Hewbrew forms, rather the English version of the greek or latin versions…

Some examples:
Uriah, not Urias.
Shealtiel, not Salathiel
Abijah, not Abia

Of course, Jesus and Mary have to remain in their greek and latin forms, just because we’re so used to them. But shouldn’t it really be Yeshua?