Problems with the New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter subject97
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EphelDuath said:
You really think this is a matter of academia vs. uneducated masses, as if there aren’t heaps of doctoral theologians and translators that despise the NAB? 😛
Click to expand...
Not purely academia… pastoral judgment, too, I would bet.

It just gets under my skin that, of all the ‘specialists’ with a lifetime of education and experience (and the grace of ordination), priests and bishops seem to be the only ones whom we regularly look at and say “nope; you’re wrong – in my infinite wisdom, you can’t get it right”… 🤷
 
Gorgias said:
Not purely academia… pastoral judgment, too, I would bet.

It just gets under my skin that, of all the ‘specialists’ with a lifetime of education and experience (and the grace of ordination), priests and bishops seem to be the only ones whom we regularly look at and say “nope; you’re wrong – in my infinite wisdom, you can’t get it right”… 🤷
Click to expand...
Well again, this isn’t a matter of official ordinates of the Church versus the unwise, rebellious masses. Ask any traditional priest, bishop, deacon, friar, nun, monk what they think of the NAB; you’re probably hear some surprisingly venomous comments if they’re speaking informally. But of course this isn’t just a traditionalist-versus-liberal issue really. There’s people on all sides of the spectrum that just don’t like the NAB, whether it be because of the dull unpoetic renderings, or the theologically erroneous footnotes.

Besides, ever look at the translation board for the NAB? There’s a handful of laymen, including one Presbyterian minister.
 
EphelDuath said:
Well again, this isn’t a matter of official ordinates of the Church versus the unwise, rebellious masses. Ask any traditional priest, bishop, deacon, friar, nun, monk what they think of the NAB; you’re probably hear some surprisingly venomous comments if they’re speaking informally. But of course this isn’t just a traditionalist-versus-liberal issue really. There’s people on all sides of the spectrum that just don’t like the NAB, whether it be because of the dull unpoetic renderings, or the theologically erroneous footnotes.

Besides, ever look at the translation board for the NAB? There’s a handful of laymen, including one Presbyterian minister.
Click to expand...
I was wondering about that name on the list, but had not Googled him. A Calvinist, too! Praise God in heaven for Benedict XVI! The reformation is underway. The NAB is a symptom of the problems with the implementation of Vatican II. America’s rebellious nature, contained in its very DNA, probably contributed somewhat to this.

America is in need of a better translation and far better notes. For now, I have my 1949 Confraternity bible and a D-R as backup.
 
Confraternity New Tetstament–Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament–New English Translation of the New Latin Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII is what I use.

The slide towards the bad began in 1953 when they started revising the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament–it got worse with the 1970 NAB translation of Genesis–and then all the inclusive language started coming in until by 1991 the NAB was beyond repair–the Holy See couldn’t stomach the Psalms–now the latest problem is the NABRE is simply unable to break down and say in Isaiha 7:14 " A VIRGIN will conceive".

That epitomizes more than anything else what is wrong with the NAB!

It’s not that the translators don’t get it–it’s that they categorically REFUSE to get it!

The one good thing though is that they still have to get the Holy See to approve any changes to the lectionary–so there will at least be a limit to their INTRANSIGENCE!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Confraternity New Tetstament–Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament–New English Translation of the New Latin Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII is what I use.

The slide towards the bad began in 1953 when they started revising the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament–it got worse with the 1970 NAB translation of Genesis–and then all the inclusive language started coming in until by 1991 the NAB was beyond repair–the Holy See couldn’t stomach the Psalms–now the latest problem is the NABRE is simply unable to break down and say in Isaiha 7:14 " A VIRGIN will conceive".

That epitomizes more than anything else what is wrong with the NAB!

It’s not that the translators don’t get it–it’s that they categorically REFUSE to get it!

The one good thing though is that they still have to get the Holy See to approve any changes to the lectionary–so there will at least be a limit to their INTRANSIGENCE!
Click to expand...
I am in love with my 1949 Confraternity (CCD) bible. Its NT is neither the occasionally difficult archaic language of the D-R, nor is it the “dumbed down” and less liturgically oriented English of the NAB. And the CCD intros and notes are light years ahead of the fuzzy NAB revisions made during the 1960s. That old bugaboo, the “spirit of Vatican II” can be seen in those changes. As a scripture translation, the CCD (begun in 1941 and completed by 1969) seems to have followed on the pattern of the Crusades, or of Thomas Merton’s spiritual journey. All was begun with the best of intent, but along the way, they seem to have drifted off the path.

I have not yet compared the OT/Psalm revisions of 1953 with the 1952 and earlier. One more project…
 
mdkirkbride said:
Since May 19, 2002, the revised Lectionary, based on the New American Bible is the only English-language Lectionary that may be used at Mass in the dioceses of the United States, except for the current Lectionary for Masses with Children which remains in use.
Click to expand...
Except that the Douay-Rheims is used for the readings proclaimed in English at most masses in the Extraordinary Form. Funny how the USCCB forgets that.
 
Cranch said:
Except that the Douay-Rheims is used for the readings proclaimed in English at most masses in the Extraordinary Form. Funny how the USCCB forgets that.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, of all English-speaking nations, only the US uses the NAB. With Benedict XVI’s increasing reliance on tradition in liturgy, we may just see some movement here, scripturally speaking.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Don’t worry, I don’t think many are going to plow through those footnotes. Much too complicated for the average person. To be useful footnotes have to be understandable. …

:
Click to expand...
The reaction I had to the NAB w/footnotes was that the technical nature of the footnotes was not the direction I had hoped for.

There is, after all, evidence for the documentary hypothesis. And, if that is too broad an endorsement, simply consider that with an appropriately annotated Bible, you can see the literary features that the experts are writing about. It’s far from perfect, but I like the Jewish Publication Society Commentary on the Torah: Genesis, for example. It makes the observations that support the documentary hypothesis, if you’re interested. Otherwise,there is a plain englsh explanation of something that may not be so straightforward, such as regards customs, and such that can’t be understood from a cursory reading.

The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford, < $30) has explanatory notes, much less detail that a full commentary.

I like to get the Jewish understand of he literal level.
 
sirach2v4 said:
The reaction I had to the NAB w/footnotes was that the technical nature of the footnotes was not the direction I had hoped for.

There is, after all, evidence for the documentary hypothesis. And, if that is too broad an endorsement, simply consider that with an appropriately annotated Bible, you can see the literary features that the experts are writing about. It’s far from perfect, but I like the Jewish Publication Society Commentary on the Torah: Genesis, for example. It makes the observations that support the documentary hypothesis, if you’re interested. Otherwise,there is a plain englsh explanation of something that may not be so straightforward, such as regards customs, and such that can’t be understood from a cursory reading.

The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford, < $30) has explanatory notes, much less detail that a full commentary.

I like to get the Jewish understand of he literal level.
Click to expand...
Yikes, I’m just an ordinary guy, no scholar. I just want to know what God wants me to know. My Bible is fine. Thanks anyway. 👍
 
Let’s seeeeee:
  1. gender-neutral language,
  2. footnotes that assume the holy Writ stands alone/apart from Sacred Tradition,
  3. the language in the NAB is pedestrian and gives evidence of an anti-supernatural bias that is typical of the “higher criticism” crowd,
  4. the false belief that Scripture must be written in a vocabulary accessible to someone with a 7th grade reading level.
the 1970 NAB > '86/'91 NAB + '10 NABRE
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top