The New American Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The only thing I don’t like about the NAB, is the liberal commentary.😦
 
I studied Scripture in a Catholic seminary in the 1960s, and I’ve been a catechist ever since. My favorite professor is now a bishop who is on the committed that has produced the various editions of the New American Bible, so maybe I’m prejudiced in favor of it. I find the NAB to be very readable and to be very close to a literal translation of the original texts. I really like the footnotes, and I especially like the introductions presented for each book of the Bible. I suppose the footnotes might cause difficulties for people who are closer to Protestant fundamentalism, but they cause no difficulty for me as a Catholic with a pretty good education in Scripture.

However, our professors (including my favorite one) had us use the Oxford Annotated Edition of the Revised Standard Version, and that has been my favorite Bible translation since the 1960s. Its language is beautiful and very literate, and yet it’s a very close translation of the original languages. Our professors let us use the RSV as an aid to translating the Greek New Testament, so I can vouch for its accuracy. I got an “A” in New Testament Greek.

I like the NAB, and the old testament revision in the new NABRE (revised edition) is particularly good, although there are places where I find the language to be a bit clumsy. All in all, I’d prefer the Revised Standard Version or the New Revised Standard Version.

-Joe Offer-
 
I prefer it to the RSV-CE. Especially, because it’s what is used for Mass.
 
marymyheroine said:
I prefer it to the RSV-CE. Especially, because it’s what is used for Mass.
Click to expand...
The version used at mass is a modified version of the NAB - the original was unacceptable in certain regards for liturgical use. The gender-inclusive language was the main culprit. Interestingly, we cannot buy the version currently used at mass. I note also that the catechism uses the RSV-CE in its scripture quotes.
 
po18guy said:
The version used at mass is a modified version of the NAB - the original was unacceptable in certain regards for liturgical use. The gender-inclusive language was the main culprit. Interestingly, we cannot buy the version currently used at mass. I note also that the catechism uses the RSV-CE in its scripture quotes.
Click to expand...
The catechism also uses the NRSV.
 
dmar198 said:
The footnotes of the New American Bible have a really complicated story behind them. Some of them are great – when I read the Book of Revelation with the New American Bible’s footnotes, I was left wondering not what the Book means but wondering why people think it’s confusing at all.

So it depends on what footnotes you’re looking at. The reason many of them are bad is because the scholars they chose to write the footnotes were not teachers of Catholic tradition but of modern historical critical research methods. Historical criticism is fine, but the emphasis on that is so heavy that you don’t get Catholic tradition almost at all in the Bible’s footnotes, and a lot of good Catholic info gets left out. Here are a few examples:

The footnote on Genesis 1:26 says: Let us make: In the ancient Near East, and sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth. This scene accounts for the plural form here."

Now traditional Catholic interpretation says that the phrase “Let us make” refers to the Trinity. It uses a plural personal pronoun because there is a plural number of persons in the Godhead. But an even deeper problem is that it almost suggests that the text is just a primitive way of thinking that we shouldn’t believe in in modern times. “Oh, this was an ancient way of imagining God in a sort of polytheistic way.” Um, no, Catholic tradition doesn’t suggest that polytheistic thinking is halfway endorsed in the Bible. Especially not in the Creation account.

Another example is in Matthew 16:23, where Jesus tells the disciples that He is going to be handed over to the Pharisees and crucified. The footnote says, “Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Mt 17:22–23; 20:17–19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Mt 26:29).”

Now why the heck does it say these statements can’t go back to Jesus Himself? The idea that Jesus couldn’t have said this makes no sense. One would think that the author was suggesting that Jesus didn’t know the future. But the very next breath says that it is “probable” that He did. It looks like the editor of the footnotes disagreed with the author of the footnotes and added a clarification, but it weakens the first remark, “neither this nor the two later passion predictions…go back to Jesus,” and makes it look contradictory and silly. Not to mention that it’s not based on Catholic tradition but on modern historical critical scholars, who so often are ready to assume that any prediction of the future is impossible.

Anyway those are two quick examples from the top of my head. Another one would be that, somewhere in the Old Testament, there was a Protestant footnote writer who wrote that the Old Testament forbids images to be made. Which is not only not Catholic tradition, it’s a classic Protestant heresy. Why the heck is it taught in a Catholic Bible? But I can’t find the footnote that says that right now after an internet search, so take that as it stands. Anyway, the footnotes are basically a mixed bag. And it would just be nice if they were based on Catholic tradition more than they currently are.
Click to expand...
The footnote for Gen 1:26 says, “Man here is 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,” My NAB is the Catholic Study Bible, 1990. Perhaps it was changed in the updated NAB a few years ago. Your footnote citation for Mt 16:23 is actually 16:21.
 
I like it because it is the official English translation of the church and the only Catholic English translation from the original texts. But I have no problems with the other translations. The Douay Rheims has very rich language that can give the scripture better meaning and lead to better understanding. For example, NAB describes the virtues as faith, hope, and love. DR describes these as faith, hope, and charity. When we use the word charity in place of love, it gives love the proper meaning in faith. Interestingly, the KJV also uses charity.

New American Bible (NAB) – 1970 - This translation is most familiar to Catholics from the readings at Mass. It is the first English Bible from the Catholic Church translated from the original texts. It is at the eleventh grade reading level and is direct in style. (New Advent website)

Douay Rheims Bible - 1582 NT, 1610 OT - This (english) translation of the Latin Vulgate (St. Jerome translation into Latin from the Greek and Hebrew) is the closest translation to the King James Bible. This translation was used before the NAB. (New Advent website)
Revised Standard Version (RSV) - 1952, CE 1966 - Some say this is the best English translation for Bible study because it closely follows the Hebrew and Greek originals. It is a revision of the English Bible in the King James tradition. It is written at a tenth grade level. (New Advent website)

Jerusalem Bible - 1966 = This French translation served as the basis for an English translation in 1966, the Jerusalem Bible. For the majority of the books, the English translation was an original translation of the Hebrew and Greek; in passages with more than one interpretation, the French is generally followed. For a small number of Old Testament books, the first draft of the English translation was made directly from the French, and then the General Editor produced a revised draft by comparing this word-for-word to the original Hebrew or Aramaic. The footnotes and book introductions are almost literal translations from the French. (Wikipedia)

New RSV (NRSV) – 1989 - The NRSV presents us with a major shift into contemporary English. (Theology Today website) Ignatius Bible is the Catholic RSV/NSRV versions.
 
MrL said:
The footnote for Gen 1:26 says, “Man here is 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,” My NAB is the Catholic Study Bible, 1990. Perhaps it was changed in the updated NAB a few years ago.
Click to expand...
Contrast this modern NAB footnote with that of the NAB’s immediatle predecessor, the Confraternity Bible, 1949 edition:
1 - Ver. 26. Let us make man etc.: this image of God in man is not in the body, but in the soul, a spiritual substance, endowed with understanding and free will.
Click to expand...
And from the 1952 edition:
Ver. 26. Let us make man to our image. This image of God in man, is not in the body, but in the soul: which is a spiritual substance, endued with understanding and free will.
Click to expand...
So, in one short generation (1949-1969), it seems that we go from possessing our likeness to God as a spiritual substance, to a simple, natural requirement of the physical task He has in mind for us. The older notes appear to say that we are given dominion because we resemble God, while the newer notes seem to say that we resemble God because of the dominion He has given us. I find this generational morphing in the footnotes interesting, yet it is but one of the plethora of reasons (post #20) why I very seldom refer to the NAB. But, as an ecumenically-focused, laity-driven bible, I see the NAB as the best example out there.
 
If anyone thinks Matthew himself probably authored parts of the Sermon on the Mount then the NAB notes are for you.
 
As I have stated in the past, I like the NABRE and the notes don’t bother me. I know to use the notes as a guide along with the teachings of the Church Fathers and the Catechism. The notes in many cases include theories developed by modern scholarship, people can take them or leave them. Much of this is also being taught at the Catholic University that I have attended, the Catholic Bible Institute that is sponsored by our Archdiocese. The NAB/RE **and its notes **have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for over 40 years. Now does that mean that you have to use them, no.

For those who like the NAB but wish it would tone down its notes a little, and maybe are not wild about inclusive language, might find **the 1970 version of the NAB **a little more to their liking. This version of the NAB was published from 1970-1985 (in 1986 the NT was revised into the current NT that is used today).
The 1970 NT like the 1970 OT and Psalms (which is still used in the U.S. Mass today) does not use inclusive language and is a little more dynamic in its translation (like the Jerusalem Bible) but makes it great for private, devotional reading. The 1970 NAB Bible (incl. the NT) has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur for the Liturgy of the Mass, July 29, 1976.
 
po18guy said:
Main issues I have with the NAB and its derivative:
  1. Mary is not full of grace (Luke 1:28)
Click to expand...
I hate to play devil’s advocate but I can’t really find any translations aside from the Douay-Rheims that say “hail, full of grace” as opposed to “highly favored”
 
followingtheway said:
I hate to play devil’s advocate but I can’t really find any translations aside from the Douay-Rheims that say “hail, full of grace” as opposed to “highly favored”
Click to expand...
The RSV-2CE/CE also has '‘full of Grace’, but you are right most other translations don’t.
 
Not having “Full of grace” encapsulates everything that is wrong with modern “Catholic” translations of the bible. I maintain that if they don’t have “Full of grace” they aren’t really Catholic.

I guarantee you that the people that favor not having “Full of Grace” in the bible will not try to go out and sell that notion to the average Catholic in the pews–they know the average Catholic wouldn’t countenance that nonsense!
 
followingtheway said:
Why though? What’s the story behind that?
Click to expand...
There are a couple of ways to look at the story behind that. One way is to look at “full of grace” and “highly favored” as synonymous, because divine grace is divine favor, i.e. love, bestowed on us undeservedly.

A more traditional way to look at it, at least in English-language Catholic apologetics from the post-Reformation period, focuses on the fact that “full of grace” is an older and more accurate translation of the Greek phrase “kecharitomene,” which is used in this passage, than “highly favored” is. Catholics often use Luke 1:28 to support several Catholic doctrines about Mary, because “full of grace” indicates that Mary was completely holy (it also indicates several other things – the Greek word means a lot, but it takes a while to unpack). “Highly favored” doesn’t suggest the same thing, and when Protestant translations translate it that way, it’s an example of translation bias.
 
followingtheway said:
What are other Catholics’ opinions on the New American Bible? When I had CCD for my Confirmation, this is the Bible that they gave us. What are people’s general opinions on it? I heard it’s Vatican-approved, if I’m not mistaken. Maybe I am?

So what are people general opinions on the New American Bible? I don’t know much about it. So could people fill me in?

If you like it, why?
If you don’t, Why?
Click to expand...
I do like it because it’s easy to read but my favorite Bible is the Jerusalem Bible Reader’s Edition. A wonderful Bible to just read. If I could have only one Bible, this would be it.
 
As mentioned on a previous thread on this issue - i am a Catholic teacher and discourage the use of the NAB in Catholic schools because of the ‘non Catholic’ flavour of the footnotes.

Hopefully the rebellious anti-Catholic Catholic scholars are becoming a thing of the past.
 
Translations that uae full of grace in Lk 1:28:

Douay Rheims
Confraternity
Knox
RSV-CE 1sr & 2nd Ed.
Christian Community Bible

Most of the rest use some variation of favored one/highly favored, except the Good News bible, which uaes Greatly Blessed.

I don’t know if I’d use that as the sole litmus test for the quality of a translation. I would consider it as one of several factors, but certainly not a deal breaker for me. A lot of people like the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem bibles and they’re fairly non traditional in somw of their translation choices.

Ultimately translations are a personal preference, with the one a person will actually read being truly the best.
 
tvknight415 said:
Translations that uae full of grace in Lk 1:28:

Douay Rheims
Confraternity
Knox
RSV-CE 1sr & 2nd Ed.
Christian Community Bible

Most of the rest use some variation of favored one/highly favored, except the Good News bible, which uaes Greatly Blessed.

I don’t know if I’d use that as the sole litmus test for the quality of a translation. I would consider it as one of several factors, but certainly not a deal breaker for me. A lot of people like the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem bibles and they’re fairly non traditional in somw of their translation choices.

Ultimately translations are a personal preference, with the one a person will actually read being truly the best.
Click to expand...
I’ve never seen that Christian Community Bible before. Apparently, it’s a Catholic translation and is in use by the Claretian missionaries – do you know if it has an imprimatur? I looked up a bunch of passages in it and I like it’s style.

***Update: It does have an imprimatur – from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.
 
The Christian Community Bible is available on kindle if you have it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top