The Definitive NAB Thread!

[NotWorthy]

I’m curious. Could you point out some of the footnotes that you’re speaking of?

Subrosa

I’m sorry, but nothing comes to mind for specifics. I just remember reading a footnote one time and thinking, “Whoa, who let the OSAS in?” There were several of these moments I recall, but I haven’t had that feeling even once with the Navarre or the Ignatius (which I often sneak peaks at).

Last year I read the NAB from cover to cover. This year, I’m using the Navarre for the OT and Ignatius 2nd Edition which uses the RSV translation and it’s own footnotes.

If I do come across those moments, I’ll let you know.

Alas, I caught up with the thread and see that others have adequately addressed the footnotes issue.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

It’s a perfectly good translation - notes likewise. As long as one uses the 1970 edition or else makes due allowances for the inclusive language - which is pretty easy to spot anyway, on the whole.​

If it were as horrendously evil as some seem to think- why did the bishops approve it ? Or are they stupid/malign/evil/heretical/zombies ? I don’t think so - the assumption has to be that they were acting responsibly.

 

[Cranch]

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.

Wherever did you get this idea? The English Catholic translators of the D-R did their work in exile in France because of anti-Catholic feeling at home. I also wanted to note that Bishop Challoner’s revision of the D-R was made in the mid-18th century, not the 19th.

 

[trth_skr]

Wherever did you get this idea? The English Catholic translators of the D-R did their work in exile in France because of anti-Catholic feeling at home. I also wanted to note that Bishop Challoner’s revision of the D-R was made in the mid-18th century, not the 19th.

From my understanding there was some scholarly interplay between the Rheims and KJV, especially. I think you are right about the Challoner.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Cranch]

From my understanding there was some scholarly interplay between the Rheims and KJV, especially.

The Rheims New Testament was published in 1582, nearly 30 years before the KJV appeared. The Old Testament was ready at this time as well, but for lack of financing, was not published until 1609–1610 at Douai (still before the KJV). As a result, the D-R was consulted by the KJV translators in the course of their work. You may be thinking of Challoner’s extensive referencing of the KJV in creating his later revision.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims

 

[Jerry-Jet]

That’s why the Haydock Biblee is better than most Douay Rheims Challoner Bibles because in a very limited number of instances Haydock uses the renderings of Dr. Troy that were more in the direction of the original Douay Rheims than Challoner’s which in thsoe small number of instances were more in the direction of the KJV.