T
tvknight415
Guest
While I think there are better translations, I also think there are worse. I can deal with the footnotes but its style is what leaves me wanting.
- Status
M
MattofTexas
Guest
I’ve gone back and forth about how I feel about it, but ultimately decided to use it to read the deuterocanonicals because of the value of the footnotes (and I like dynamic equivalency for just reading, as opposed to serious study when formal equivalency is far superior). One thing I like about the NAB is that it’s proof that the Catholic Church doesn’t run away from her problems or try and sweep the difficult parts under the rug. All of the views expressed in the footnotes, regardless of how neatly they line up with traditional understanding or even official doctrine, are views held by at least some real scholars. And being aware of these views, even if you disagree with them, can be a good thing. Knowing what you believe and choosing to believe it is actually a stronger faith than simply believing out of ignorance of other opinions.
I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
I understand what you are saying, but our Deposit of Faith is both Scripture and Tradition. They both need to be respected and the NAB does not do that in its commentary. The official bible of the Church in america is not the platform for challenging us with whatever the academic opinions are at that time by some anonymous scholar.
T
TK421
Guest
I won’t comment on particular choices of translation with the verses themselves, but concerning the footnotes, something you should consider is that the scripture is a primary source of revelation and not the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is not necessarily the purpose of a Catholic Bible to hash out every doctrine and dogma in its footnotes. For an outsider reading a Catholic Bible, doing such can potentially look bad. For example, if the footnotes were to explicitly hash out that Mary remained a virgin not only up to birthing Jesus, but also afterwards, it would look like you’re trying to forcefully shoehorn a teaching into the scripture that isn’t actually there, which is why the footnotes consistently avoid doing such things throughout the NAB translation.
If you do want a Bible that will reinforce the CCC throughout for personal study purposes, then perhaps another version would be best, however I think it’s important for there to be a version that avoids doing that.
If you do want a Bible that will reinforce the CCC throughout for personal study purposes, then perhaps another version would be best, however I think it’s important for there to be a version that avoids doing that.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
The footnotes don’t need to necessarily SUPPORT Catholic doctrine. But what they cannot do is CONTRADICT Catholic doctrine, which is what many of the problematic NAB footnotes do. Again, an educated person with a well-formed faith can ignore the footnotes and even correct their errors at times; but this is not the majority of American Catholics. Most of them find it deeply troubling that the NAB, which the USCCB has recommended to them, is saying that Jesus couldn’t predict the future, or that purgatory is not really proven by scripture.
T
TK421
Guest
Where do you think it does that? I haven’t read every footnote, but the bishops aren’t stupid and more than likely I would say there’s something you’re missing.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
From what I’ve heard over the years from layperson, religious, and scholar, part of the problem with the translation and in particular the footnotes is that while the scholars who did the work have a deep knowledge of the methods they used to produce the NAB(RE), they kind of left the rest of us behind and in the dark regarding what those methods are and what they mean. I’ve noticed the following:
The way it is presented here, what are faithful Catholics to do but come to the conclusion that the footnotes border on heretical? At first blush it reads that way, but on closer inspection it turns out that the footnote is not going against Catholic teaching. No, its real problem is that it is just written badly, very badly.
Notice that the NAB admits that the subject matter at hand includes judgment and purgation in the footnote right before the questionable one:
1 Corinthians 3:13: The Day: the great day of Yahweh, the day of judgment, which can be a time of either gloom or joy. Fire both destroys and purifies.–Italics added.
First the footnote admits that fire and purification of the day of judgment is being spoken of in these verses, but the following footnote says that the text “does not envisage this.”
Obviously no one has taught us how to read these footnotes by giving us their proper context because when you read the two footnotes together the translators obviously are not saying these verses have nothing to do with purgatory. It sure sounds like it, though, doesn’t it?
The comment that verse 15 does not envisage purgatory means, in light of the previous footnote, that Paul wasn’t particularly speaking about purgatory per se or that he did not foresee at the time that the Holy Spirit was directing him to write information that would be used in the Church’s teaching about purgatory. Paul was actually speaking about Christ being the true foundation to one’s faith. Paul then went to speak about this using the allegory about building on a literal foundation and created an illustration in which, though he touches on the matter of judgment and fire, doesn’t necessarily state he means such in reference to the doctrine of purgatory as the Church came to understand it.
That point, however, is not commentary. It is technical. Purgatory is a theological subject, but the footnote of verse 15 doesn’t tell the reader that they are not commenting on what the doctrine of the Church is, just the composition from a verbal standpoint. That means little to most of us since we are aware that the prophets who wrote Scripture often did not envisage the complete fulfillment of what they were writing or about how a small detail would play out on a larger scope through Christ in the future. Most Catholics tend to know this as a sort of “given.” But that plays little into our understanding of texts. Thus the mention of this “given” would be confusing as doctrinal commentary on the verse, except for the fact that it isn’t doctrinal commentary on the verse. It is a technical footnote on the language and subject matter. Almost no one I’ve spoken with knows about this.
While it is not the total solution, I think that the footnote apparatus needs to be made simpler while the education of us Catholics needs to realistically consider where we are, what we can digest on the subject, and the most practical way of getting a complete education in all things Scripture, doctrinal and technical. If I don’t speak or read Hebrew, Greek, and/or Latin, and I don’t know about manuscript transmission, how am I supposed to speak authoritatively on whether the NABRE is a good translation or not? And if I don’t know what you’re speaking about and you don’t know how much or how little I know about the subject at hand, how can we come to understand one another?
- **The footnotes require a lot of education in subjects most have never studied: **Even where the footnotes are unquestionably in-line with Catholic doctrine, the language is far out of the vernacular and rarely uses the vocabulary familiar to the average layperson.
- **The translators forgot they weren’t translating just for other scholars: **The translation never makes it clear to the reader that the footnotes are not all the same. Some of the footnotes are commentary but a lot of them function as part of a critical apparatus regarding different methodologies. This causes some of the confusion when you read technical notes which are part of transmission theory as if they are doctrinal, when they are not.
- Someone has yet to teach the Catholic faithful what makes good translation and what doesn’t: They just toss out this translation, and sometimes it sounds great but other times clumsy. But maybe that’s a good sign? I mean if you read the actual languages some of the writings are far from good prose. But I’m not an expert and there’s little way outside of my going to a seminary to learn these things adequately. Regardless, we aren’t taught about this on the parish level so we have no way to really know, and thus we hash it out in debates on forums like this again and again.
The way it is presented here, what are faithful Catholics to do but come to the conclusion that the footnotes border on heretical? At first blush it reads that way, but on closer inspection it turns out that the footnote is not going against Catholic teaching. No, its real problem is that it is just written badly, very badly.
Notice that the NAB admits that the subject matter at hand includes judgment and purgation in the footnote right before the questionable one:
1 Corinthians 3:13: The Day: the great day of Yahweh, the day of judgment, which can be a time of either gloom or joy. Fire both destroys and purifies.–Italics added.
First the footnote admits that fire and purification of the day of judgment is being spoken of in these verses, but the following footnote says that the text “does not envisage this.”
Obviously no one has taught us how to read these footnotes by giving us their proper context because when you read the two footnotes together the translators obviously are not saying these verses have nothing to do with purgatory. It sure sounds like it, though, doesn’t it?
The comment that verse 15 does not envisage purgatory means, in light of the previous footnote, that Paul wasn’t particularly speaking about purgatory per se or that he did not foresee at the time that the Holy Spirit was directing him to write information that would be used in the Church’s teaching about purgatory. Paul was actually speaking about Christ being the true foundation to one’s faith. Paul then went to speak about this using the allegory about building on a literal foundation and created an illustration in which, though he touches on the matter of judgment and fire, doesn’t necessarily state he means such in reference to the doctrine of purgatory as the Church came to understand it.
That point, however, is not commentary. It is technical. Purgatory is a theological subject, but the footnote of verse 15 doesn’t tell the reader that they are not commenting on what the doctrine of the Church is, just the composition from a verbal standpoint. That means little to most of us since we are aware that the prophets who wrote Scripture often did not envisage the complete fulfillment of what they were writing or about how a small detail would play out on a larger scope through Christ in the future. Most Catholics tend to know this as a sort of “given.” But that plays little into our understanding of texts. Thus the mention of this “given” would be confusing as doctrinal commentary on the verse, except for the fact that it isn’t doctrinal commentary on the verse. It is a technical footnote on the language and subject matter. Almost no one I’ve spoken with knows about this.
While it is not the total solution, I think that the footnote apparatus needs to be made simpler while the education of us Catholics needs to realistically consider where we are, what we can digest on the subject, and the most practical way of getting a complete education in all things Scripture, doctrinal and technical. If I don’t speak or read Hebrew, Greek, and/or Latin, and I don’t know about manuscript transmission, how am I supposed to speak authoritatively on whether the NABRE is a good translation or not? And if I don’t know what you’re speaking about and you don’t know how much or how little I know about the subject at hand, how can we come to understand one another?
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Very interesting post, though I can’t help but feel that your optimistic interpretation about the footnote for 1 Cor. 3:15 is a bit of a stretch. It just seems far more likely that one of the Protestants or atheists on the translation committee tossed it in themselves, and it ended up getting approved because of the false spirit of ecumenism that prevailed in the '60s/'70s. 
G
grannymh
Guest
I have the *Saint Joseph Edition, The New American Bible, *Catholic Book Publishing Co. New York. It has two separate Imprimaturs, July 27, 1970 and August 27, 1986 which pertains to the Revised New Testament.
Footnote Genesis 1, 26 reads: “Man is here presented as the climax of God’s creative activity; he resembles God primarily because of the dominion God gives him over the rest of creation.”
I also have an older Fireside Family Edition, The New American Bible, Catholic Bible Publishers, Wichita, Kansas, which has the same footnote for Genesis 1: 26.
“Man is here presented as the climax of God’s creative activity; he resembles God primarily because of the dominion God gives him over the rest of creation.”
This Bible is the 1977-1978 Edition which only has the original Imprimatur.
***** How can there be such a difference in footnotes? Between the books I have and the one in post 7?
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
Then you got the point I was making.
It is a stretch, one that fits, but a stretch nonetheless because the comment is in reference to theoretic critical analysis and not doctrine.
Adding to your understanding, I was saying that the footnote is not marked that it is mentioning transmission methodology. The average reader has no way to know this. Therefore it reads as if it is expressing doctrine, while it is not.
Another thing that people forget is that the Catholic doctrine about purgatory is not explicitly derived from the Bible like a Protestant may claim their doctrine is. Sometimes because we get challenged by Protestants and their Bible-based-only theology we might forget that while we have support for this inspired teaching, that the basis for it is not Scripture. Jewish tradition had come to realize the reality of purgatory that got carried over into the Church, which is referred to in passing in 2 Maccabees and explicitly detailed in the Testament of Abraham, a Jewish writing of some hundred years before Christ, but neither are the explicit basis for the teaching. Rabbinical teaching combined with Christ’s own declarations on Gehenna and judgment all played a part in the Church Fathers accepting the teaching and subsequent connection with the 1 Corinthians text…
It is because of this fact that whatever reading you may give to my previous example (and that’s all it was, not a personal conviction), in my own humble and fallible opinion I believe St. Paul likely was thinking about purgatory as then understood by the Jews and Christians when he wrote 1 Corinthians 3:15. He may have even developed the illustration from the teaching. But this is only a theory of mine. Like the footnote in the NABRE reads, the context of the verse is not the subject of purgatory per se nor is the verse itself the origin of the teaching, merely a support and likely expansion on the Jewish view.
C
CalCatholic
Guest
The NAB Old Testament ( incl. the Psalms) was revised in 2010. Your additions of the NAB use the 1970 Old Testament. The notes in the Old Testament were also revised.
po18guy
Well-known member
Look at the board of editors and revisers of the NAB’s predecessor, the Confraternity Bible. All ordained clergy (Reverend, Very Reverend, Most Reverend, Right Reverend) with STD, SSD, STL and SSL after most names. Heavyweights in theological and scriptural training. And, the listing of their names is in the back, following the scriptures.
From the 1949 Confraternity Bible, the notes to Genesis 1:26 are as follows:
Jump to the revisers of the NAB: a mix of ordained and lay theologians, and one Presbyterian Pastor thrown in apparently for the sake of ecumenism. And, the listing of their names precedes the scriptures - they are right up front where you can read them first. This is a veritable sea change in the approach to the scriptures - and not a good one in my humble estimation. And the notes…
Examine a Confraternity Bible from the 40s or early 50s. Notice that the note and intros are solid, reassuring. The same in the NAB are blurry and confusing - a sure sign of the modernism that crept into the Church. Is it any wonder why this is viewed as a “squishy” translation?
Combine this with the average Catholic’s lack of knowledge of the catechism (doctrine) and the Church’s less than stellar teaching of doctrine in the past 50 years, and the results are guaranteed to lead the faithful all over the map.
From the 1949 Confraternity Bible, the notes to Genesis 1:26 are as follows:
A spiritual substance, and not a functional similarity, as implied by the NAB. Huge difference, as I see it.
Jump to the revisers of the NAB: a mix of ordained and lay theologians, and one Presbyterian Pastor thrown in apparently for the sake of ecumenism. And, the listing of their names precedes the scriptures - they are right up front where you can read them first. This is a veritable sea change in the approach to the scriptures - and not a good one in my humble estimation. And the notes…
Examine a Confraternity Bible from the 40s or early 50s. Notice that the note and intros are solid, reassuring. The same in the NAB are blurry and confusing - a sure sign of the modernism that crept into the Church. Is it any wonder why this is viewed as a “squishy” translation?
Combine this with the average Catholic’s lack of knowledge of the catechism (doctrine) and the Church’s less than stellar teaching of doctrine in the past 50 years, and the results are guaranteed to lead the faithful all over the map.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
It’s fine. I’ve got an NABRE, but the RSV-2CE is my favorite. The New American is the one promoted by the USCCB and various New American versions are pieced together to be used in Mass.
I like it because its a Catholic Bible. It’s kind of like a Catholic version of the NIV. Personally, the RSV is better because it is more literal but at the same time is still readable. It’s what they have over in England, and is what is used in the Catechism if I’m not mistaken.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
I don’t have much experience in Bible comparisons, but I have a NAB, and I like it.
Yes it is Vatican approved, as they have it on their site:vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM
The only criticism I have, which isn’t even a big deal because I’m unsure, is in Exodus 22
where it says “You shall not let a **sorceress **live,” I think the correct word is poisoner, or
someone who deals with drugs for spiritual purposes. Other translations will say witch al-
so, so I can’t beat up on the NAB for that too badly. I think this is a result of that witch-
phobia centuries ago.
It’s not a hill to die on though.
Yes it is Vatican approved, as they have it on their site:vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM
The only criticism I have, which isn’t even a big deal because I’m unsure, is in Exodus 22
where it says “You shall not let a **sorceress **live,” I think the correct word is poisoner, or
someone who deals with drugs for spiritual purposes. Other translations will say witch al-
so, so I can’t beat up on the NAB for that too badly. I think this is a result of that witch-
phobia centuries ago.
It’s not a hill to die on though.
D
dmar198
Guest
I don’t know. The text I quoted is found in the footnote on Gen. 1:26 in the New American Bible as currently posted on the USCCB website: usccb.org/bible/genesis/1#01001026-1
After reading your post I cross-checked it with the NAB I have upstairs, which is the Memorial Edition published in 1976 by Memorial Bibles International, Inc. – and you are absolutely right, the footnote is completely different, it is what you said. I have no idea why they’re different from the one on the USCCB website. After looking through three printed editions now, I wonder if any printed edition reflects what the USCCB has? I would think the USCCB one would be the standard, but who knows?
The Memorial Edition also lacks the commentary on Matthew 16:21-23 that I mentioned. But the St. Joseph printed edition contains it, and so does the USCCB website. I have no idea why there are so many differences, but I am genuinely surprised.
EDIT: According to Post 32, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11222572&postcount=32, the notes were revised in 2010 and all the print editions you and I have mentioned are from before that. So for 30 years the two footnotes I mentioned must not have been a problem.
po18guy
Well-known member
I have both NAB and NAB/RE for reference, but I do not read them other than sporadically. Give me the Knox, Confraternity, RSV-2CE, D-R or even the JB first.
For any who may not know, the USCCB website page as to “authorized editions” is potentially misleading. It lists only the editions approved since 1983, and notes only in the small print that all previous versions (Confraternity, D-R, etc.) remain approved. The English catechism uses quotes from the RSV-CE. No Catholic bible has ever been “unapproved.”
For any who may not know, the USCCB website page as to “authorized editions” is potentially misleading. It lists only the editions approved since 1983, and notes only in the small print that all previous versions (Confraternity, D-R, etc.) remain approved. The English catechism uses quotes from the RSV-CE. No Catholic bible has ever been “unapproved.”
D
dmar198
Guest
I’ve never noticed that webpage, but I don’t think it’s misleading. It’s pretty clear (to me anyway) that it’s only talking about Bibles approved since 1983 and that there are Bibles that were approved before that that remain okay.
po18guy
Well-known member
The subject comes up on a semi-regulr basis, so clearly there is some confusion. That page could certainly be more clear and plainly worded.
C
curiousman2
Guest
I use either the St Joseph Bible from the early 1960s or the Douay Rheims. I’ve given up on the newer translations.
- Status