The Definitive NAB Thread!

[opdsgt]

Gang,

I’ve not been around too awful long, but I’ve learned alot from my fellow forumites and I thoroughly enjoy searching through the various threads here a couple times a week. I’ve ferreted some conversation on the NAB, but I would really like to thresh out what folks think of this translation once and for all.

I have, oh, I think eight or ten bibles now including one or more copies from various publishers of the NIV, ESV, RSV-CE, NKJV, NRSV, NASB, and NAB. I like at least something about each one of these translations, but the $64,000 Question for me is, if the NAB is what we get in Mass, why shouldn’t I/we be using it for devotional reading and study?

I know it’s not everyone’s favorite and some folks here would even suggest it’s a “Protestant translation”, but I ask you, if the Church adopts the NAB for the Liturgy here in the States, shouldn’t that be good enough for me to put away my RSV-CE and ESV?

Looking forward to the discussion.

Thanks,

Jeff

P.S. In case a few of you haven’t heard of this publishing company, Fireside Catholic is making some really beautiful NAB bibles (you’ll have to look for the Librosario edition when you can heft it in the store in person).

 

[NotWorthy]

What really chaps my chapper about the NAB is the footnotes - which (luckily) are not used in the Mass.

The translation is adequate for me for it’s pretty simple and easy to understand, which also makes it good for the Mass. But since the daily readings and the Gospels are such tiny snippets each Mass, we don’t get to develop a context of the story, like you do when you are reading through the Bible. That over-all context is what is also lacking in the NAB, in my opinion.

 

[porthos11]

Gang,

I’ve not been around too awful long, but I’ve learned alot from my fellow forumites and I thoroughly enjoy searching through the various threads here a couple times a week. I’ve ferreted some conversation on the NAB, but I would really like to thresh out what folks think of this translation once and for all.

I have, oh, I think eight or ten bibles now including one or more copies from various publishers of the NIV, ESV, RSV-CE, NKJV, NRSV, NASB, and NAB. I like at least something about each one of these translations, but the $64,000 Question for me is, if the NAB is what we get in Mass, why shouldn’t I/we be using it for devotional reading and study?

I know it’s not everyone’s favorite and some folks here would even suggest it’s a “Protestant translation”, but I ask you, if the Church adopts the NAB for the Liturgy here in the States, shouldn’t that be good enough for me to put away my RSV-CE and ESV?

Looking forward to the discussion.

Thanks,

Jeff

P.S. In case a few of you haven’t heard of this publishing company, Fireside Catholic is making some really beautiful NAB bibles (you’ll have to look for the Librosario edition when you can heft it in the store in person).

The NAB is a good translation. It’s not the best translation though. However, I’m more partial to the NAB as it originally appeared in 1970, but I can tolerate the revised 1986 New Testament. I CANNOT, however, stomach its 1991 Psalms.

 

[cialovesyou]

Ecclesial Rumour number 1039373543a says that the next missel will use the NRSV with revisions.
1039373543b says the translation will not include “inclusive” language, sorry ladies.

 

[opdsgt]

NotWorthy, “overall context” - what exactly do you mean? Is the context better in another translation and, if so, how specifically?

porthos11, what’s preferred about the pre-1986 revision of the NT? And what’s the issue with the “new Psalms”? Looking for something concrete here since I’ve not been in the Word as long as you folks have been.

cialovesyou, is this satire or have there really been anything beyond rumblings and mere speculation about the adoption of the RSV-CE for the Liturgy?

 

[djrakowski]

Sgt.,

Do you have the “New Catholic Answer Bible,” or one of the other editions?

I’d like to know if the former includes the terrible study notes, or just the apologetics articles by Paul Thigpen and Dave Armstrong.

 

[opdsgt]

I don’t have that version, but I did look it over at Gloria Deo in Omaha recently.

It did contains sections devoted to apologetics.

 

[djrakowski]

I don’t have that version, but I did look it over at Gloria Deo in Omaha recently.

It did contains sections devoted to apologetics.

Amazon has the leather-bound edition (Librosario) for $32.97, so I’m thinking about getting one. The folks who contributed the apologetics articles are very solid, and it may help with those on-the-spot encounters when a non-Catholic friend issues a challenge about something our Church teaches.

Dan

 

[opdsgt]

I poured over that bible, the one with the rosary on the cover, it’s gorgeous.

 

[NotWorthy]

Sgt.,

Do you have the “New Catholic Answer Bible,” or one of the other editions?

I’d like to know if the former includes the terrible study notes, or just the apologetics articles by Paul Thigpen and Dave Armstrong.

I have the New Catholic Answer Bible.

It is identical in the footnotes as the regular NAB that you’ll find on-line (www.usccb.org)), and it has the cross-references. And it has the quick 1-page Apologetics Articles by Dave and Paul that you mentioned.

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy, “overall context” - what exactly do you mean? Is the context better in another translation and, if so, how specifically?

I’m enjoying using the Navarre for the Old Testament and the Ignatius 2nd Edition for the New Testament. I don’t have them handy, so I don’t know which versions they are using.

But both of these books give a clearer picture of the Bible as a whole. When Paul quotes Deuteronomy in Romans, there is more information on the part of Deuteronomy that Paul is quoting which helps me to understand what he is saying in Romans.

When something in the OT pre-figures the New Testament, the Navarre shows how it points us to the Typos, as well as showing some of the Early Church Fathers homilies on this bible passage.

So both of these series of books, links the OT and the NT into the one story that it actually is.

I don’t get that in the NAB. But I also don’t get where that is necessary for a Lector when preparing for the Mass. It will help personally to get the context, but it won’t convey the context tot he congregation. The priest, however, would benefit from getting the entire Message and conveying it in his homily, thus giving us all a better filter to understand the Gospels with.

 

[djrakowski]

I have the New Catholic Answer Bible.

It is identical in the footnotes as the regular NAB that you’ll find on-line (www.usccb.org), and it has the cross-references. And it has the quick 1-page Apologetics Articles by Dave and Paul that you mentioned.

I hate the idea of paying for a Bible that includes those footnotes, but I like Armstrong and Thigpen, so it may be a wash.

But I still remember the sick feeling in my gut while listening to this verse being read at Christmas Midnight Mass:

Isaiah 9:5 (NAB) - For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.

God-Hero? You must be kidding!

This is how I learned it as an evangelical:

Isaiah 9:6 (NIV) - For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Even the anti-Catholic NIV does a better job at translating this verse in comparison to the NAB! The RSV-2CE, NASB, KJV and ESV all translate it as “Mighty God.”

And I’ve also noticed that this is verse 5 in the NAB, but verse 6 in every other translation I’ve checked. What gives? It looks like the NAB has Isaiah 9:1 tacked onto the end of chapter 8 in comparison to other translations.

 

[trth_skr]

…But I still remember the sick feeling in my gut while listening to this verse being read at Christmas Midnight Mass…

I am tired of hearing this at the feast of the Immaculate Conception:

Gn 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

This is one lace where the NAB becomes very interprative. Even the KJV states “it”, a neutral and non-interpretaive translation.

I know it is ultimately Christ who does the crushing, but the grammar dos not fit “he”. I prefer the DR:

Gn 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Here is a good short article on the topic. It is not clear to me what the Septuagint actually said in this verse. Mel Gibson in The Passion portrayed Christ as crushing the serprent’s head in Gethsemane, but this not exclude Mary’s role, since ultimately it is Christ. Again, the question is what the sentence grammar supports (according to the link, “he” is the least supportable translation). I believe the NAB was a project with our “seperated bretheren”, so the implication is the protestants won on this one.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[lak611]

Ecclesial Rumour number 1039373543a says that the next missel will use the NRSV with revisions.
1039373543b says the translation will not include “inclusive” language, sorry ladies.

That’s great with me (and I am a lady)! The NRSV would be a good translation if it did not have the inclusive language. Inclusive language spoils the meaning of the Bible text. I like a literal translation, not a dynamic-equivalence translation. Having inclusive language alters the meaning.

 

[RobNY]

I’ve not been around too awful long, but I’ve learned alot from my fellow forumites and I thoroughly enjoy searching through the various threads here a couple times a week. I’ve ferreted some conversation on the NAB, but I would really like to thresh out what folks think of this translation once and for all.

I have, oh, I think eight or ten bibles now including one or more copies from various publishers of the NIV, ESV, RSV-CE, NKJV, NRSV, NASB, and NAB. I like at least something about each one of these translations, but the $64,000 Question for me is, if the NAB is what we get in Mass, why shouldn’t I/we be using it for devotional reading and study?

I know it’s not everyone’s favorite and some folks here would even suggest it’s a “Protestant translation”, but I ask you, if the Church adopts the NAB for the Liturgy here in the States, shouldn’t that be good enough for me to put away my RSV-CE and ESV?

Looking forward to the discussion.

Thanks,

Jeff

Well, the Church’s choice for a translation doesn’t bind us, especially since there are so many.

Personally, I have two NABs, one RSV-CE, and one KJV somewhere in the house (which I don’t read). My first NAB is a, “Catholic Youth Bible,” which I greatly dislike-- I don’t read it (anymore). My second NAB is a Catholic Study Bible, and I do like that one. I use it for devotional reading. My RSV-CE is a pocket bible which I use when I have to bring a Bible places and for the Scripture reading for my rosary.

Personally, I like the NAB. I don’t like my RSV-CE’s method of relegating the footnotes to the back of the entire testament, not just the individual book, and I prefer to have the cross-reference notes which the NAB provides as well.

However, it may be the fact that I use my Catholic Study Bible NAB for lectio because… well… it has the larger print type. Compared to my pocket bible… yeesh.

To djrakowski:

Non-traditional rendering can be dissonant to our ears, but to be perfectly honest with ourselves, they are translations from another language, and we should do our best to translate them faithfully. If the NAB translators preferred that rendering, perhaps it will help those of us who don’t know biblical languages to compare the nuances of the original. Granted, the traditional rendering is more majestical and has more force… but I can’t fault them entirely for it. “Making a better translation” is not equal to making a translation which is more pleasing to the ear, but one that is faithful to the text… which I’m not in the position to really know.

-Rob

 

[djrakowski]

I am tired of hearing this at the feast of the Immaculate Conception:

Gn 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

This is one lace where the NAB becomes very interprative. Even the KJV states “it”, a neutral and non-interpretaive translation.%between%

Mark, the RSV-CE has the same rendering for this verse. Are there any other English-language translations (besides the DRB) that translate it as “she?”

 

[lak611]

Personally, I like the NAB. I don’t like my RSV-CE’s method of relegating the footnotes to the back of the entire testament, not just the individual book, and I prefer to have the cross-reference notes which the NAB provides as well.

I would rather have footnotes in the back or no footnotes at all, than to have the footnotes which the NAB has. I never use my NAB because of those awful footnotes.

 

[djrakowski]

Non-traditional rendering can be dissonant to our ears, but to be perfectly honest with ourselves, they are translations from another language, and we should do our best to translate them faithfully. If the NAB translators preferred that rendering, perhaps it will help those of us who don’t know biblical languages to compare the nuances of the original.

The fact is, that every English language translation I’ve checked - NIV, NASB, RSV, RSV-CE, RSV-2CE, DRB - translates it as Mighty God (or in the case of DRB, “God the Mighty”). There seems to be no good reason to depart from traditional renderings in this case. There’s nothing gained in terms of nuance or greater understanding by translating it as “God-Hero” when you compare it to “Mighty God.”

Granted, the traditional rendering is more majestical and has more force… but I can’t fault them entirely for it. “Making a better translation” is not equal to making a translation which is more pleasing to the ear, but one that is faithful to the text… which I’m not in the position to really know.

If it were a better translation (of that particular verse, anyways), then it would seem that other translators with the goal of a more accurate rendering would’ve departed from the traditional one, and that’s not the case.

 

[djrakowski]

I would rather have footnotes in the back or no footnotes at all, than to have the footnotes which the NAB has. I never use my NAB because of those awful footnotes.

Same here.

 

[trth_skr]

Mark, the RSV-CE has the same rendering for this verse. Are there any other English-language translations (besides the DRB) that translate it as “she?”

Pretty much all modern translations render it as “he”. Those based on the original Vulgate all translate it as “she”, this was Jerome’s translation. I believe the new Vulgate was also changed to “he”. As I said, the KJV trnslates it as “it”. I did some checking of foreign translations, and a similar pattern emerged, here I is what I posted on Envoy in 2005:

Since we are on this topic (of which I have a lot of interest), I did a survety of some Spanish and German translations, wondering how non-English Bibles handled it. Here is some correspondence I was having a couple of years ago with the results:

I noted that [at least modern] Jewish scholars translate: “they shall…”, referring to the “seed”…

I also looked at modern German and Spanish texts. I am not a scholar in either, but I studied some German, and my wife is a Spanish speaker (I speak a little).

The two modern German translations (Elderfelber and Hoffnung fur Alle) use “he”. I am less clear on Luther’s, but it appears he is saying the [masculine] same (i.e., it the former with masculine connotation, Der selbe. Selbe can change gender based on context). I am not clear if the masculine refers to Him or the [masculine] seed (Der Samine). Liklely it refers to the seed.

The Spanish have an easier time. Because of their grammatical structure and a coincidence, they can represent the phrase with the same type of vagueness that the Hebrew connotes. One translation says (translated)

and the [previous singular feminine noun] shall crush your head, and you shall strike the [no possesive gender connoted] heel…

It turns out the former feminine noun could be the Woman or the [singular feminie gender] Seed, (La Simiente). The reason it points to the former is because in Spanish, it is not necassary to say the pronoun. The form of the verb (esta = she is) connotates the sense.

I do not know if the seed (Simiente) can change gender based on context. Usually this does not occur in Spanish. In case you speak Spanish, the typical phrase is:

Pondré enemistad entre ti y la mujer,
y entre tu simiente y la simiente suya;
esta te herirá en la cabeza,
y tú la herirás en el talón.

My wife’s first reading without furhter questioning from me interpreted the phrase as the Woman would crush the head. This occured in the Reina-Valera 1960, 1995, and Antigua versions. I suspect (but do not know) that these versions may have been translated from the Latin.

Some of the modern editions all referred to “the seed crushing…” or “her descendants crushing…” This includes the Nueva Version Internacional, and Dios Hable Hoy translations.

Only one I came across in this cursory search (the La Bibilia Las Americas) used the phrase “He shall crush…”.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com