The Definitive NAB Thread!

[RobNY]

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.

The footnotes I dislike in the NAB are the overly skeptical ones. But, I will be honest, these are few and far between. Besides these-- what is so awful about the footnotes? I mean, honestly. I’m curious, not angry or annoyed.

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.”

I don’t think a majority vote means we’ve rightly translated a passage. I’m sure there’s a legitimate reason why it is translated the way it is-- given, of course, that its a minority decision.

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.

I really don’t know what the translators would do in any given situation, only what they have done. It is perfectly possible that neither translation is inaccurate, but rather that the translation involved making a choice between looking at, say, the grammatical structure of the sentence, in two ways, where it was ambiguous, although traditionally read in one of two ways.

It just seems to me that Catholics have been reading Isaiah for many, many years, relatively few of which have been in English. I’m not prepared to discount the NAB translation entirely either because it differs slightly from traditional English rendering, or because it has some bad footnotes.

opdsgt: Thanks for the link to new NAB bibles. I’m going to have to keep an eye out, because my version of the NAB is starting to get beat up, and I’ll want to find a durable one when it finally gives out.

 

[porthos11]

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.

The original 1970 NAB New Testament had no inclusive language but was of a more dynamic-equivalence type of translation. The 1986 New Testament reverted to a more literal translation but included some mild inclusive language, but not mild enough to prevent the Holy See from rejecting it for the Lectionary as is. It was used for the Lectionary only with some amendments.

The Psalms were also revised in 1991 but had HEAVY inclusive language, to the point of being so irritating to read and so theologically defective that it was rejected by the Holy See outright for liturgical use.

 

[porthos11]

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.

The Hebrew is ambiguous, but all in all, “it” is the best rendering.

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:

Actually, it does to a degree. But “he” unquestionably comes from the Septuagint, and reflects a Messianic understanding of the passage.

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.

I personally do not like this rendering. I prefer “it” (e.g. Jerusalem Bible) due to the Hebrew, or “he” (NAB, RSV) because of the LXX and St. Jerome’s Vulgate, all both of which are important ancient witnesses.

“She” is a variant reading from other Latin manuscripts, and introduced into the Vulgate most likely because of scribal error, but does not reflect St. Jerome’s original translation.%between%

 

[porthos11]

I really don’t know what the translators would do in any given situation, only what they have done. It is perfectly possible that neither translation is inaccurate, but rather that the translation involved making a choice between looking at, say, the grammatical structure of the sentence, in two ways, where it was ambiguous, although traditionally read in one of two ways.

After having studied the NAB for a few years, I seem to have gotten a feel of their translation philosophy. Apparently, the goal of the NAB was to reproduce to the best possible degree the original structure and meaning of the ancient manuscripts. That’s why one would see names omitted (e.g. Jehoshaphat in 2 Kings 3:7ff, cf. RSV); or added (Zerubbabel in Zechariah 6:11; cf RSV, extant, “Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the High Priest”).

We also see verses rearranged in several places, e.g. Hosea 2, 3), or omitted altogether due to corruption (cf. Job 24:19, 21; 28:4). In such cases, the Vulgate rendering is placed in the footnotes.

As for God-Hero, I really hate that rendering. As someone said, “Try singing that!”

I found it unsettling at first, but if I try to put myself in the translators’ shoes, I can understand their mindset.

It just seems to me that Catholics have been reading Isaiah for many, many years, relatively few of which have been in English. I’m not prepared to discount the NAB translation entirely either because it differs slightly from traditional English rendering, or because it has some bad footnotes.

The NAB isn’t an evil Bible, and is perfectly fine to read. However, its footnotes should probably be overhauled to remove references that cast doubt on divinely-revealed truths.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

porthos11: what is the status of the revision of the Old Testament in the current NAB. Will it be coming out soon?

Are there any passages in the Old Testament that you think the NAB renders better than the RSV-CE?

Is it true that both versions discount some prophetic verses about Christ?

I guess sometmes it’s hard to know what a Jewish writer in the Old Testament was thinking. It’s easy for us now to see such prophetic verses–whether the original Hebrew writer meant a prophecy of Christ or not might be difficult to ascertain.

Is this true?

 

[bookgirl]

Okay, should I not be using the NAB in an evangelical Bible study I was invited to? I’m more knowledgeable in Catholic apologetics than the average Catholic, but it’s more of a deep interest and far from a great knowledge. Is there a better one to use? We used the NAB in my Catholic high school and I’ve just always used it.

 

[lak611]

Okay, should I not be using the NAB in an evangelical Bible study I was invited to? I’m more knowledgeable in Catholic apologetics than the average Catholic, but it’s more of a deep interest and far from a great knowledge. Is there a better one to use? We used the NAB in my Catholic high school and I’ve just always used it.

I would recommended the RSV-CE instead. It has no inclusive language and the renderings are much more traditional. If you are attending a Bible study with Protestants, the RSV-CE is closer in style to the KJV or NASB that they probably use. But the RSV-CE has all the books and has made the necessary revisions for Catholics.

 

[trth_skr]

I would recommended the RSV-CE instead. It has no inclusive language and the renderings are much more traditional. If you are attending a Bible study with Protestants, the RSV-CE is closer in style to the KJV or NASB that they probably use. But the RSV-CE has all the books and has made the necessary revisions for Catholics.

How about the Douay Rheims? It is a cousin of the KJV, and contains all the books required. It has a similar language style as the KJV (the DR has been updated in the 19th century, not sure about the KJV). In fact it was co-developed with the “seperated bretheren” right after the reformation, so it is an example of true ecumenism. Plus it helps to make the point that the KJV was not the only game in town as many protestants mistakingly think.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[lak611]

How about the Douay Rheims? It is a cousin of the KJV, and contains all the books required. It has a similar language style as the KJV (the DR has been updated in the 19th century, not sure about the KJV). In fact it was co-developed with the “seperated bretheren” right after the reformation, so it is an example of true ecumenism. Plus it helps to make the point that the KJV was not the only game in town as many protestants mistakingly think.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

That’s an option too, although it depends on the Bible study. The D-R uses Latinized names of many Old Testament books, and Latinized names of people. For instance “Noe” instead of “Noah”. The Psalms are numbered differently. So, it could be difficult to look up passages or figure out who is who when the names are different.

 

[bookgirl]

I’ll try the RSVCE. I’ve already noticed how different the translations are in the NAB compared to the others, as well as the one used by the author of the study which is the NIV. Luckily, this study isn’t extremely deep, and for the most part it’s pretty non-confrontational as far as Catholics / Evangelicals, so far anyway. I just want to make sure I’m as informed as I can be as far as the Church’s interpretation. Not that the NAB wouldn’t be right, but if the footnotes could be confusing I’ll stay away from them as far as the study goes.

 

[lak611]

I’ll try the RSVCE. I’ve already noticed how different the translations are in the NAB compared to the others, as well as the one used by the author of the study which is the NIV. Luckily, this study isn’t extremely deep, and for the most part it’s pretty non-confrontational as far as Catholics / Evangelicals, so far anyway. I just want to make sure I’m as informed as I can be as far as the Church’s interpretation. Not that the NAB wouldn’t be right, but if the footnotes could be confusing I’ll stay away from them as far as the study goes.

If you’re looking for a good commentary, here’s a free online one. The Haydock Commentary is definitely an orthodox Catholic commentary. It is based on the Douay-Rheims, but if you look up a chapter and verse, there won’t be any confusion. The Old Testament is only about 50% complete, but the New Testament is complete. I post a lot in Sacred Scripture forum and often quote the Haydock Commentary when responding to a thread where somebody wants an interpretation of a verse. Here’s the link. haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html

 

[bookgirl]

Thanks!!

 

[lak611]

Thanks!!

You’re welcome.

 

[TheApologist]

If you’re looking for a good commentary, here’s a free online one. The Haydock Commentary is definitely an orthodox Catholic commentary. It is based on the Douay-Rheims, but if you look up a chapter and verse, there won’t be any confusion. The Old Testament is only about 50% complete, but the New Testament is complete. I post a lot in Sacred Scripture forum and often quote the Haydock Commentary when responding to a thread where somebody wants an interpretation of a verse. Here’s the link. haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html

Is there any Haydock Commentary in print or a Bible with Haydock footnotes? I would love a RSV-CE with Haydock footnotes.

 

[lak611]

Is there any Haydock Commentary in print or a Bible with Haydock footnotes? I would love a RSV-CE with Haydock footnotes.

No, the only Bible with the Haydock Commentary is a very expensive Douay-Rheims found here loretopubs.org/index.php?target=products&product_id=60. I do have a Douay-Rheims, but not this one due to the price. I generally use the RSV-CE, but I’ll reference from the online commentary when studying the RSV-CE.

 

[TheApologist]

WHOA,
Why so much?

 

[lak611]

WHOA,
Why so much?

I have no idea. I’ve never seen such any other Bible that was so expensive.

 

[TheApologist]

I have no idea. I’ve never seen such any other Bible that was so expensive.

I THINK because it’s a)leather b)rare c)old(version) and d)a great Bible(from what I can tell).

EDIT:
WHOA! And the paper 8.5 by 11 inches costs a small fortune!

 

[lak611]

I THINK because it’s a)leather b)rare c)old(version) and d)a great Bible(from what I can tell).

EDIT:
WHOA! And the paper 8.5 by 11 inches costs a small fortune!

You can get a leather Douay-Rheims without the Haydock Commentary here for $54.95 catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=5852, and then use the online commentary.

 

[TheApologist]

You can get a leather Douay-Rheims without the Haydock Commentary here for $54.95 catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=5852, and then use the online commentary.

Anyway we’re off-topic…

I do have a NAB translation. It’s a Catholic Youth Bible. I actually haven’t really gotten to chuck into it yet, but I do realize several key phrases are just confusing like God-hero “highly favored daughter” instead of a “full of grace” Mary.

The side articles are good sometimes. It’s more of a begineers Bible. Maybe Catholic Youth who don’t really know that much about Catholicism. Maybe tween Catholics who aren’t in Catholic school. Would they read it?..Maybe their parents would read it. I don’t know.

I know I really want either a one-volume RSV-2ndCE pocket sized. Or…a couple of volumes of RSV-2ndCE pocket sized. I would love that WITH a Haydock Commentary thrown in. No, I would not like fries with that.

Wouldn’t it be great if Bibles could be made to order like that? Mhmm…business proposition!