The New American Bible R/E: opinions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ruprecht
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ruprecht

Guest
To my RC and EO friends: Barnes & Noble just made the NABRE available for the Nook and there are some very positive reviews about both the navigation around the content and the quality of the translation itself. The table of contents does omit a few of the OT books we keep in the Orthodox edition, and for a hard copy version I still have my NRSV by Oxford University which has it all.
My question: what is everyone’s opinion of the NAB-RE, as to translation, quality of the modern English, flow of the text, and such? Does anyone have issues with phrasing or sentence structure, errors in the text? Thanks in advance for your comments.
Through the prayers of the Theotokos, Lord save us.
 
For the most part, the NABRE OT is an improvement over the previous edition. This is most evident in the Psalms. The translation, overall, is a move to the formal/literal side, though slightly less than the RSV. You can scroll through some of the discussions about the NABRE on my blog, which covers a variety of issues concerning the NABRE:
catholicbibles.blogspot.com/search/label/NABRE
 
I like the NABRE, I have it in kindle and hard copy form. The Old Testament reads much smoother than the 1970 version and the greatest improvement is the Psalms. The kindle version works very well and has good navigation between the text, the notes and the cross references. The one big complaint that has been brought up in the blogs is the change in Isaiah 7:14 from: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”(NAB 1970) to **“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.” **(NABRE 2011)
 
7:14 sums up what has always been wrong with the NAB.

Don’t trust your soul to the people who made such translation choices.

They still don’t get it and never will!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
7:14 sums up what has always been wrong with the NAB.

Don’t trust your soul to the people who made such translation choices.

They still don’t get it and never will!
Click to expand...
Exactly! And they didn’t even address the very problematic annotation which really should have been the main focus of any revision.
 
InternetWoman said:
Which book?
Click to expand...
Internet Woman: I think Jerry-Jet was referring to the Book of Isaiah. BTW, I love your quote from Mother Angelica–it points out her so very human way of looking at things.

Jerry-Jet and Ignatius: I haven’t read any of the discussions about the NAB translation or the footnotes; can you summarize the primary objections? (Were the discussions on CAF or other blogs?) I gather from your comments that folks were not pleased with the change in words used. The new translation certainly does not flow the way that it does in Handel’s Messiah! 😃
But seriously, I see that the NABRE footnote points to a change in the terms (virgin to young woman), and that could be an issue of faith for a lot of people. How about the scholarship used in making the change, though; does the change reflect a correct translation? I’m not a Hebrew or Greek scholar at all (!!) and do not truly know. Thanks in advance for your assistance.
 
In my opinion any bible that does not say “a virgin will conceive” and “hail Mary full of grace” isn’t accurate.
 
All Bible translations have both positives and negatives. I would recommend looking up some of your favorite passages and comparing them among the different approved Catholic translations, including the NABRE, RSV, NJB, NRSV or Douay.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
In my opinion any bible that does not say “a virgin will conceive” and “hail Mary full of grace” isn’t accurate.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is, the text didn’t say “virgin.” So, if you translate it into modern English as “virgin” you are saying what it did not say.

That would make the translation: not accurate.
 
Well if the text didn’t say virgin then the gospel writers themselves were wrong when they quoted Isaiah and they use virgin.

Now who are you going to bet your soul on–the gospel writers who say virgin or Jews and modern biblical scholars who say the text did not say virgin?

That really encapsulates in a nutshell what is wrong with the NAB/RE.

“The wisdom of man is foolishness to God” as the scriptures say.

I guess you could extrapolate that the wisdom of “young woman” is foolishness to God, too.
 
CalCatholic said:
I like the NABRE, I have it in kindle and hard copy form. The Old Testament reads much smoother than the 1970 version and the greatest improvement is the Psalms. The kindle version works very well and has good navigation between the text, the notes and the cross references. The one big complaint that has been brought up in the blogs is the change in Isaiah 7:14 from: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”(NAB 1970) to **“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.” **(NABRE 2011)
Click to expand...
Actually, I’ll give them “young woman” since that’s what the Hebrew word (almah) means. You could argue that in the culture at that time young women were expected to be virgins.

I just downloaded the NABRE and I’ve only read 1 Maccabees so far, it doesn’t seem much different from the NAB. I will say the language is a bit too up-to-date. I don’t have the verse but Judah “destroyed * and its suburbs”. Suburbs??
That’s just jarring to the ear – or it isn’t and you’re left with a false image of what the world was like in 2nd century BC. There were other not-so-glaring examples.

Best overall IMHO the RSV-CE for striking the balance of modern, standard, formal, English. *
 
didymus said:
Actually, I’ll give them “young woman” since that’s what the Hebrew word (almah) means. You could argue that in the culture at that time young women were expected to be virgins.

I just downloaded the NABRE and I’ve only read 1 Maccabees so far, it doesn’t seem much different from the NAB. I will say the language is a bit too up-to-date. I don’t have the verse but Judah “destroyed * and its suburbs*”. Suburbs??
That’s just jarring to the ear – or it isn’t and you’re left with a false image of what the world was like in 2nd century BC. There were other not-so-glaring examples.

Best overall IMHO the RSV-CE for striking the balance of modern, standard, formal, English.

Josephus in Wars uses the word suburbs in describing the environs around Jerusalem during the siege of Titus, if that helps. That’s from an old translation, too.
Click to expand...
 
Julia_Mae said:
The problem with that is, the text didn’t say “virgin.” So, if you translate it into modern English as “virgin” you are saying what it did not say.

That would make the translation: not accurate.
Click to expand...
The Septuagent DID specifically state ‘parthenos’/virgin’

And since that was the edition that nearly all of the O. T quotes usedthe NT came from, it would make sense to use that.

Matthew 1:23, for example **is a word for word copy **of the LLX Isiah &:14.

So if Matthew can use ‘Parthenos’ when quoting Isaiah, who else would have the authority to say otherwise?
 
Lets not forget that the NABRE was not the only 20th-21st century translation to use young woman (or some version of it), besides the NABRE there is the Jerusalem Bible, RSV-CE, New Jerusalem Bible, NRSV, REB, Christian Community Bible. It appears that all these Catholic and ecumenical translators chose to use the Hebrew translation and not the Greek.
 
They do that because they do not have the intellectual capacity to understand that the Holy Spirit could inspire Isaiah to say Virgin and NOT young woman the first time he penned the text.

Later on hebrew copyists could have changed the text to young woman.

And why is that likely? Because the Holy Spirit would be consistent in inspiring the new Testament writers to quote the CORRECT Old testament original inspiration!

The EASY way out is to act Ecumenical and act like you’re spophisticated by saying that almah reflected Jewish culture at the time!

That’s much easier than thinking that the Holy Spirit would inspire Isaiah to write Virgin!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
They do that because they do not have the intellectual capacity to understand that the Holy Spirit could inspire Isaiah to say Virgin and NOT young woman the first time he penned the text.

Later on hebrew copyists could have changed the text to young woman.
Click to expand...
Considering that the pre-Christian Isaiah Scroll and 4QIsa(1)–i.e., of the Dead Sea Scrolls–both use “almah” (young woman) the oft-made charge that later copyists intentionally changed the text seems a virtual impossibility.
 
CalCatholic said:
Lets not forget that the NABRE was not the only 20th-21st century translation to use young woman (or some version of it), besides the NABRE there is the Jerusalem Bible, RSV-CE, New Jerusalem Bible, NRSV, REB, Christian Community Bible. It appears that all these Catholic and ecumenical translators chose to use the Hebrew translation and not the Greek.
Click to expand...
That makes sense since the books were originally written in Hebrew…
 
CalCatholic said:
Lets not forget that the NABRE was not the only 20th-21st century translation to use young woman (or some version of it), besides the NABRE there is the Jerusalem Bible, RSV-CE, New Jerusalem Bible, NRSV, REB, Christian Community Bible. It appears that all these Catholic and ecumenical translators chose to use the Hebrew translation and not the Greek.
Click to expand...
My Ignatius RSV-CE uses “virgin” with a footnote to young woman.
 
Dave_in_Dallas said:
My Ignatius RSV-CE uses “virgin” with a footnote to young woman.
Click to expand...
I have the Ignatius RSV-CE in my lap right now, and Isaiah 7:14 says; “Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son,” 🤷 Are you looking at the Ignatius RSV-2CE (second Catholic edition)? The Ignatius RSV-2CE made the change from ‘young woman’ to ‘virgin.’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top