The New American Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Another bugaboo…Luke 2:14 in NAB: "…and on earth peace to those on whom his (“his” should be capitalized) favor rests. Douay-Rheims “…and on earth peace to men of good will” and Ignatius Bible “…and on earth peace among men with whom he (should be capitalized) is pleased!”. Oy!!! :-)1
 
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 modified version of the NAB is what is used at Mass in the United States. But not every English-speaking country uses it.
 
CalCatholic said:
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.
Click to expand...
I actually find myself liking the NABRE. I’m still very cautious about the notes but from the looks of it, the translation itself is quite good. It’s still not enough to get me to move away from my RSV-CE as a primary translation, but I’m quite happy with it as a secondary/comparative Bible. I have a New Catholic Answer Bible on the way which uses this translation. The inclusive language is tolerable for me and is used to what I think is a reasonable degree, while retaining masculine language where needed, unlike the NRSV.
 
porthos11 said:
I actually find myself liking the NABRE. I’m still very cautious about the notes but from the looks of it, the translation itself is quite good. It’s still not enough to get me to move away from my RSV-CE as a primary translation, but I’m quite happy with it as a secondary/comparative Bible. I have a New Catholic Answer Bible on the way which uses this translation. The inclusive language is tolerable for me and is used to what I think is a reasonable degree, while retaining masculine language where needed, unlike the NRSV.
Click to expand...
I agree about the NABRE, the biggest improvement for me was the new Psalms. The 1991 Psalms were not very good overall (the 1970 Psalms were much better), much of the inclusive language was removed in the new Psalms!
 
I like best the D-R, and use the RSV-CE. As a child, I was raised using the KJV, then began using the NASB (long before entering into communion with the Catholic Church).

Recently, a CAF member posted a New D-R of the Gospels, and I am looking forward to reading them in this new version. (Thanks to the hard work of someone posting here! 👍) I pray it receives Imprimatur soon.

I enjoy the language of the D-R and that probably colors my view of the matter, I never found it overly complex (same for the KJV, which served well for a time but now I would not use). I especially like the footnotes that add to my understanding of the context and content. I have thumbed through the NAB and find that it’s just not for me, though it may be fine for someone else. 🙂
 
Joe_5859 said:
The modified version of the NAB is what is used at Mass in the United States. But not every English-speaking country uses it.
Click to expand...
The US is the only nation on earth that uses the NAB, hence the title. Canada has the RSV-CE and other English-speaking countries have their own versions. It bugs me that we have to settle for a version that is not fit for liturgical use. It cries out for further modification or replacement, IMO.
 
curiousman2 said:
Another bugaboo…Luke 2:14 in NAB: "…and on earth peace to those on whom his (“his” should be capitalized) favor rests. Douay-Rheims “…and on earth peace to men of good will” and Ignatius Bible “…and on earth peace among men with whom he (should be capitalized) is pleased!”. Oy!!! :-)1
Click to expand...
The Confraternity Bible has Luke 2:14: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will”

Not as politically correct as the current Gloria (or the prior version), but awfully close.
 
po18guy said:
The US is the only nation on earth that uses the NAB, hence the title. Canada has the RSV-CE and other English-speaking countries have their own versions. It bugs me that we have to settle for a version that is not fit for liturgical use. It cries out for further modification or replacement, IMO.
Click to expand...
The Philippines uses the NAB.
Canada uses the NRSV.
 
porthos11 said:
The Philippines uses the NAB.
Canada uses the NRSV.
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it, I do seem to remember something about the Philippines using it. I am thinking that it may be partially due to the US military involvement there in recent decades(?)
 
po18guy said:
Now that you mention it, I do seem to remember something about the Philippines using it. I am thinking that it may be partially due to the US military involvement there in recent decades(?)
Click to expand...
I can confirm it. The Philippines uses the same Lectionary as the U.S.

Canada uses a modified NRSV, not the RSV-CE.
 
The New African Bible DOESN’T use the NABRE’s horrible notes! It is the only NAB out there that doesn’t.

If you like the NABRE but hate the notes buy the New African Bible.

I don’t like the NABRE translation but the Psalms and the Old Testament of the NABRE are a little better.
 
The New American translation certainly has its problems both in translation and the content/orthodoxy of its footnotes. With that said, it is a perfectly fine translation to use for casual reading and reference. The one thing I do like about the New American Bible is the headings on each chapter/story/division in the chapter itself. That I think is its strongest point. Although my RSVCE divides stories and thoughts in the text, there are no headers to really highlight different parables for example. I have a parallel New Testament with eight different translations including the RSVCE (my favorite) and Douay-Rheims. In textual comparison, I think the NAB translation is fairly accurate although banal and plain. Just stay away from the commentary. Recommended commentaries like the Navarre Biblical Commentary or the Ignatius Study Bible (Curtis Mitch/Scott Hahn). Both very beautiful, great for lectio divina, and totally orthodox. That’s my two cents.
 
porthos11 said:
I actually find myself liking the NABRE. I’m still very cautious about the notes but from the looks of it, the translation itself is quite good. It’s still not enough to get me to move away from my RSV-CE as a primary translation, but I’m quite happy with it as a secondary/comparative Bible. I have a New Catholic Answer Bible on the way which uses this translation. The inclusive language is tolerable for me and is used to what I think is a reasonable degree, while retaining masculine language where needed, unlike the NRSV.
Click to expand...
Lots of win in this post! 👍
 
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...
Should we modify the “Hail, Mary” prayer as it is not scripturally accurate? “Hail, favored one”?

Saint Jerome translated it “gratia plena” full of grace in his Latin Vulgate between the years 382 and 405. Since he was a master of the scriptures, I go with him. The Knox Bible as well as the RSV-CE and RSV-2CE both have it “full of grace” Essentially, all other English language translations are protestant-based, as is even the RSV. The protestant King James Bible seems to praise Mary more highly than the Catholic bible.

Luke 1:28
King James Version (KJV)
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Luke 1:28
New American Bible/Revised Edition
And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

Huh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top