Theologians, Bible Scholars, and the NAB

[HillbillyHermit]

A post in another thread , found here, mentioned that the people who are criticizing the NAB are theologians and Bible scholars. Who are they? Could someone provide links to these criticisms? Maybe this is opening up a can of worms, but I’d like to know. I’m far from an expert, but would bet that criticisms by experts for any translation can be found. As for me, I’ll trust our Bishops. They’re our Apostles.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I agree. Who with credentials is leveling the criticism? And why would we think they are more credible than the theologians and scholars who gave us the NAB under the direction of the Vatican?

 

[babs57]

A post in another thread , found here, mentioned that the people who are criticizing the NAB are theologians and Bible scholars. Who are they? Could someone provide links to these criticisms? Maybe this is opening up a can of worms, but I’d like to know. I’m far from an expert, but would bet that criticisms by experts for any translation can be found. As for me, I’ll trust our Bishops. They’re our Apostles.

I think you’re right about there being criticisms for every translation. That’s probably why there are so many to begin with. However, the following is one of many things I have read and have been hearing re: the NAB

"Richard John Neuhaus described the confused state of affairs surrounding Roman Catholic Bible versions in 2001:

At present, three translations are approved for Catholic liturgical use: the New Jerusalem, the RSV, and the New American Bible (NAB). The lectionaries and the several publishers of Mass guides, however, use only the NAB. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a wretched translation. It succeeds in being, at the same time, loose, stilted, breezy, vulgar, opaque, and relentlessly averse to literary grace. The bishops had the NAB updated to the Revised New American Bible (RNAB), but Rome had objections to that and hurriedly appointed a committee to fix it up into what might be called the Amended Revised New American Bible (ARNAB), which will soon become mandatory in lectionary use. Technically, the RSV and New Jerusalem are still permitted but, with ARNAB as the mandatory translation of the future, nobody has any interest in printing lectionaries or Mass guides using those versions. There is the additional oddity that you cannot buy an ARNAB Bible, since only the pericopes (liturgical readings) exist in ARNAB-talk. So Catholics do not have a Bible for personal or group reading that uses the same text that they hear at Mass."

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A post in another thread , found here, mentioned that the people who are criticizing the NAB are theologians and Bible scholars. Who are they? Could someone provide links to these criticisms? Maybe this is opening up a can of worms, but I’d like to know. I’m far from an expert, but would bet that criticisms by experts for any translation can be found. As for me, I’ll trust our Bishops. They’re our Apostles.

My all time favorite was the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine edition which was around in the 50’s and 60’s but I gave mine away. Now I use the Duay-Rheims with Haydock commentary, not elegant and literal to the Latin. But the commentary is excellent - though the sentence structure and grammar is a bit strange.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I think you’re right about there being criticisms for every translation. That’s probably why there are so many to begin with. However, the following is one of many things I have read and have been hearing re: the NAB

"Richard John Neuhaus …

Fr. Neuhaus wasn’t a theologian or a scholar. He was … well, he was a conservative activist, I suppose we could say. He did write some books and was an “adviser” to GW Bush. His criticism:

At present, three translations are approved for Catholic liturgical use: the New Jerusalem, the RSV, and the New American Bible (NAB). (He means in English. Obviously there are far more translations that are approved.) The lectionaries and the several publishers of Mass guides, however, use only the NAB. (That’s correct, it was also designated as the translsation to be used in RCIA.) It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a wretched translation. It succeeds in being, at the same time, loose, stilted, breezy, vulgar, opaque, and relentlessly averse to literary grace.

Correct. And if you don’t want those things, you should learn to read Greek and Hebrew. The point of the translation is to UNDERSTAND. To give the reader the translation that most precisely translates the intended meaning of the sacred writer.

No one is more qualified to decide that than the Church.

 

[Contarini]

Fr. Neuhaus wasn’t a theologian or a scholar. He was … well, he was a conservative activist, I suppose we could say.

I think it’s unfair to say that Neuhaus wasn’t a theologian or a scholar. It’s true that he wasn’t an academic–he didn’t have a Ph.D. But he had a seminary degree and spent his life engaged in intellectual endeavors. He was prodigiously learned and respected intellectually even by those who disagreed with him strongly. He was more than just an “activist.”

First Things has not been the same without him.

Edwin

 

[Corki]

A post in another thread , found here, mentioned that the people who are criticizing the NAB are theologians and Bible scholars. Who are they? Could someone provide links to these criticisms? Maybe this is opening up a can of worms, but I’d like to know. I’m far from an expert, but would bet that criticisms by experts for any translation can be found. As for me, I’ll trust our Bishops. They’re our Apostles.

The Bishops are not Apostles, they are the successors to the Apostles but we know what you mean.

The Bishops(USCCB), to my knowledge have never endorsed the NAB as a “better” translation. They endorsed it as the **preferred **translation for Mass and public liturgies. This has as much to do with the ease of reading it out loud as to the technical intricacies of the translation. They also have the copyright on the NAB so they are protective of it - not in a bad way - but they are careful about how it is used and distributed and which notes are published along side it.

Of course there will be critics and the amount of credibility you give each critic will depend mostly on how you plan to use the Bible. As mentioned, if you are planning in-depth Scripture study, a Bible with a tighter translation and scholarly commentary will be better. No one claims, to my knowledge that the NAB is one of those translations.

If you want to do the readings of the day prior to Mass, the NAB (or New Jerusalem in some countries) is your best bet. Unless you attend a EF Mass, reading the D-R is not going to work as pre-reading.

If you want to choose a Bible for personal spiritual reading, any approved translation is fine. The Jerusalem Bible (NOT the New Jerusalem Bible) is one of my favorites for this even though it is a more dynamic translation.

There are fans and critics of all of them. There are theologians and Scripture scholars in both camps for EVERY translation.

 

[HillbillyHermit]

The Bishops are not Apostles, they are the successors to the Apostles but we know what you mean.

Glad you knew what I meant despite my lack of good wording of it.

There are fans and critics of all of them. There are theologians and Scripture scholars in both camps for EVERY translation.

I think my main reason for wanting to see some theologians’ and scholars’ opinions of it is, just like many other forums/sites, the “armchair quarterbacks” (not meaning to be disrespectful) have a tendency to read an opinion given and take that as a reliable source. I’ve been a member/lurker of a few forums for musicians, and they’re notorious for misinformation and repeating hearsay. Misinformation can spread like wildfire on the Internet. There are a lot of folks here with, I think, good intentions who want to pass on the Truth of our Faith, but we’re all human and can make mistakes, even with the noblest of intentions. Enough years on the ol’ 'net have made me not trust info when someone mentions expert opinion and doesn’t provide a source to back it up. That’s why as a safety measure I look to Church authorities and submit to them on matters not set in stone, so to speak, until enough reliable info from other sources can be found.

I’ve read Fr. Neuhaus’ criticisms of the NAB and its footnotes/introductions a few times. The main thing I noticed was his dislike of its literary quality. It, IMO, wasn’t enough for me to think that the Bishops were asleep at the wheel when this translation was being approved.

Another thing I’d like to see, if it’s even possible, is where the NAB was changed for use in the Mass readings. It’s been said that the Vatican rejected the Psalms and some other things, but I haven’t found documented proof of this. That would carry a lot of weight with me also as far as the quality of the NAB translation is concerned.

 

[Corki]

Glad you knew what I meant despite my lack of good wording of it.

I think my main reason for wanting to see some theologians’ and scholars’ opinions of it is, just like many other forums/sites, the “armchair quarterbacks” (not meaning to be disrespectful) have a tendency to read an opinion given and take that as a reliable source. I’ve been a member/lurker of a few forums for musicians, and they’re notorious for misinformation and repeating hearsay. Misinformation can spread like wildfire on the Internet. There are a lot of folks here with, I think, good intentions who want to pass on the Truth of our Faith, but we’re all human and can make mistakes, even with the noblest of intentions. Enough years on the ol’ 'net have made me not trust info when someone mentions expert opinion and doesn’t provide a source to back it up. That’s why as a safety measure I look to Church authorities and submit to them on matters not set in stone, so to speak, until enough reliable info from other sources can be found.

I’ve read Fr. Neuhaus’ criticisms of the NAB and its footnotes/introductions a few times. The main thing I noticed was his dislike of its literary quality. It, IMO, wasn’t enough for me to think that the Bishops were asleep at the wheel when this translation was being approved.

Another thing I’d like to see, if it’s even possible, is where the NAB was changed for use in the Mass readings. It’s been said that the Vatican rejected the Psalms and some other things, but I haven’t found documented proof of this. That would carry a lot of weight with me also as far as the quality of the NAB translation is concerned.

I know it’s wikipedia, but this link gives a good summary of some of the revisions that were required by the Vatican, including the problem with the Psalms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible

 

[HillbillyHermit]

Thank you, Corki. I’ll check that out.

Since the original post I’ve been searching EWTN’s Catholic Q&A section for opinions on the NAB. There’s a priest on there, Fr. John Echert, S.S.L. who has some negative opinions of this translation. It says on the site that…

Father Echert has the Licentiate in Sacred Scripture (S.S.L.) degree from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome with additional graduate studies at the Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem.

The above quote can be found at this link.

It looks like it’s safe for me to say he’s a Bible scholar.

Here are some of his answers concerning the NAB:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=380014&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=473269&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=292311&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=411954&Pg=Forum7&Pgnu=1&recnu=6

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=523946&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=288236&Pg=Forum7&Pgnu=3&recnu=61

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=531548&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

I could go on, but my eyes are getting tired.

 

[babs57]

Fr. Neuhaus wasn’t a theologian or a scholar. He was … well, he was a conservative activist, I suppose we could say. He did write some books and was an “adviser” to GW Bush. His criticism:

At present, three translations are approved for Catholic liturgical use: the New Jerusalem, the RSV, and the New American Bible (NAB). (He means in English. Obviously there are far more translations that are approved.) The lectionaries and the several publishers of Mass guides, however, use only the NAB. (That’s correct, it was also designated as the translsation to be used in RCIA.) It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a wretched translation. It succeeds in being, at the same time, loose, stilted, breezy, vulgar, opaque, and relentlessly averse to literary grace.

Correct. And if you don’t want those things, you should learn to read Greek and Hebrew. The point of the translation is to UNDERSTAND. To give the reader the translation that most precisely translates the intended meaning of the sacred writer.

No one is more qualified to decide that than the Church.

I have stated many times that I’m sure there are no doctrinal errors. But, I have to say that the RSV is just as easy to read, more beautifully rendered (IMO), and according to my interlinear bible and lexicon, more faithful to the origional language. (NOT THAT I READ GREEK!! It’s just that when I have looked certain things up, I have found some moments.)

HOWEVER… It (the NAB) is a better translation than some others. And I don’t have any problem listening to it at Mass. It’s a good read for out-loud reading.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I think it’s unfair to say that Neuhaus wasn’t a theologian or a scholar. It’s true that he wasn’t an academic–he didn’t have a Ph.D. But he had a seminary degree and spent his life engaged in intellectual endeavors. He was prodigiously learned and respected intellectually even by those who disagreed with him strongly. He was more than just an “activist.”

I don’t think it’s an issue of fair, just fact, and I wasn’t insulting him, he was not a Biblical scholar and not a theologian. His criticism wasn’t even based in theology, anyway, but in language use. The thread asked for theologians and Biblical scholars.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I have stated many times that I’m sure there are no doctrinal errors. But, I have to say that the RSV is just as easy to read, more beautifully rendered (IMO), and according to my interlinear bible and lexicon, more faithful to the origional language. (NOT THAT I READ GREEK!! …).

That’s the point, though, being faithful to the language doesn’t make a good translation. Being faithful to the meaning of the writing does. That’s why we depend on these Biblical scholars who don’t just know language but the history and culture and language dynamics of the people.

 

[babs57]

“That’s the point, though, being faithful to the language doesn’t make a good translation. Being faithful to the meaning of the writing does. That’s why we depend on these Biblical scholars who don’t just know language but the history and culture and language dynamics of the people.”

Biblical scholars like the ones who translated the RSV? My point is that a lot of experts prefer it, not that the NAB is unscholarly. [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Corki]

“That’s the point, though, being faithful to the language doesn’t make a good translation. Being faithful to the meaning of the writing does. That’s why we depend on these Biblical scholars who don’t just know language but the history and culture and language dynamics of the people.”

Biblical scholars like the ones who translated the RSV? My point is that a lot of experts prefer it, not that the NAB is unscholarly. [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

A dynamic translation alone doesn’t make a good translation either - especially for study. You need a balance of being faithful to the language but also aware of the nuances of meaning. For my money, the RSV-CE does a good job at including both.

 

[babs57]

:grouphug:

A post in another thread , found here, mentioned that the people who are criticizing the NAB are theologians and Bible scholars. Who are they? Could someone provide links to these criticisms? Maybe this is opening up a can of worms, but I’d like to know. I’m far from an expert, but would bet that criticisms by experts for any translation can be found. As for me, I’ll trust our Bishops. They’re our Apostles.

I trust our bishops too. I feel like I am constantly defending them lately! I know they are smarter and holier than me. I don’t even speak Latin, much less Greek or Hebrew. But we all have preferences, and different needs for different applications. I have been reading, and it seems that a lot of the people that are criticizing the NAB are apologists. Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, Karl Keating, etc. I trust their opinions. But I can read for myself as well. There are some blatent mis-renderings in the NAB that I DON’T LIKE. :nope:

CONFESSION!! I am a Bible GEEK! :choocho:

Now, I have to go plan a CCD lesson on the Creation for 6 year olds. It’s been great talking to you all! :grouphug:

 

[Julia_Mae]

“That’s the point, though, being faithful to the language doesn’t make a good translation. Being faithful to the meaning of the writing does. That’s why we depend on these Biblical scholars who don’t just know language but the history and culture and language dynamics of the people.”

Then do you have a link to some experts who have a reason why the RSV is better than the NAB that the Church prefers for Americans who speak English.

A dynamic translation alone doesn’t make a good translation either - especially for study. You need a balance of being faithful to the language but also aware of the nuances of meaning. For my money, the RSV-CE does a good job at including both.

But this isn’t an “I like it!” thread unless you are a theologian or a Biblical scholar. From the OP:

A post in another thread , found here, mentioned that the people who are criticizing the NAB are theologians and Bible scholars. Who are they? Could someone provide links to these criticisms?

 

[Corki]

Then do you have a link to some experts who have a reason why the RSV is better than the NAB that the Church prefers for Americans who speak English.

Do you have a link to your claim that** the Church **prefers the NAB? As far as I know, the USCCB prefers the NAB for liturgy and has never expressed a preference for one translaton over another for private spiritual reading or for more academic Scripture study. Not to mention that the USCCB is not “the Church”, not even for all English speaking Catholics.

But this isn’t an “I like it!” thread unless you are a theologian or a Biblical scholar.

You are the poster who made the assertion that a literal translation was not required for a good translation. My point is just that a dynamic translation is not required either. My opnion in that matter is just as valid as yours, which was also an “I like it!”.

 

[HillbillyHermit]

There was only one other name I could think of concerning theology and the Bible, and that is Dr. Scott Hahn.
The only thing I’ve found so far from him was on this page of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology site:
Link

It’s about Ham’s sin after the flood.

The following is a small excerpt from the above link with emphasis added by me.

What’s going on in the story of Ham uncovering “his father’s nakedness” (see Genesis 9:22)? In Hebrew, this phrase is a figure of speech used to describe incest (Leviticus 20:17; 18:6-18. **Note: In other places besides the story of Noah and Ham, The New American Bible translates this phrase as “to have intercourse with.” The Revised Standard Version in all cases keeps the more literal translation “uncover the nakedness of.” **See RSV-Leviticus 20:17; 18:6-18).

Not what I’d call very critical.

Then I found a link to the RSV-CE and the description stating it’s the preferred modern translation. He doesn’t strike me as someone who criticizes much, so I won’t spend any more time searching for anything of that nature there.

I have been reading, and it seems that a lot of the people that are criticizing the NAB are apologists. Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, Karl Keating, etc. I trust their opinions. But I can read for myself as well. There are some blatent mis-renderings in the NAB that I DON’T LIKE.

I’ve noticed the same thing. Here’s one written by Jimmy Akin:
Link

A few paragraphs I found interesting…

The third problem is that I just think the NAB is a lousy translation. There was a period in which I would tense up at Mass every day, worried about what the NAB would get wrong today. There are so many squishy, tone-deaf, and way-beyond-the-text translations in the NAB that anyone with a knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew has to cringe when it’s read at Mass.

That’s not to say that it never gets it right. In fact, I’m using the NAB as the Bible translation I’m quoting in a booklet I’m writing for Catholic Answers right now. The reason is that, in this case, the NAB happens to better render the passages I most need to quote. But this is an exceptional situation. In general, I can’t recommend it.

He thinks it’s a lousy translation but he’s quoting it in a booklet he is writing. That strikes me as odd. Am I the only one confused by this? Is he a Bible scholar also?

And Corki,
I read the Wiki article you linked to. From what I’ve gathered from that and some other digging, a big criticism of the NAB would be inclusive language in some theologically important places. There was something about that on the EWTN site too. I could probably find the page and provide a link if someone wants it. Basically it said that the Bishops sent the NAB Lectionary to Rome, it didn’t pass (sorry for the lack of proper wording), and the wrong use of inclusive language had to be cleaned up, with folks from Rome lending a hand.

It probably seems like I use EWTN a lot, but I try to stick with a few sites I’ve come to trust. The list for that is short.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical on faith criticized a German translation of the bible that had been approved by the German episcopal conference of bishops.

He said that the old Vulgate translation of Hebrews 11:1 that “faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things that are not seen;” was superior to the modern translation approved by the German episcopal conference of bishops translation that was similar to many current day PROTESTANT translations that says “faith is the ASSURANCE in things that are hoped for, it is a CONVICTION about things that are not seen”

Pope Benedict XVI said that the Protestant understanding and translation was SUBJECTIVE when it came to the nature of faith and the old Vulgate translation was more ACCURATE because it indicated that our faith is based on SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE–it is not merely a SUBJECTIVE experience as the PROTESTANTS would have people believe.

Now from this we see a couple of things: One is that Pope Benedict XVI criticized a translation approved by an episcopal conference of Catholic bishops–he did this in an ENCYCLICAL.

If Pope Benedict XVI can indeed criticize a translation approved by an episcopal conference of bishops then please don’t say things here such as how we should follow the lead of the USCCB–another episcopal conference of Catholic bishops–

Tell me: Is Pope Benedict XVI in a papal encyclical THEOLOGIAN enough–BIBLE SCHOLAR enough for the NAB sycophants to recognize as knowing enough to criticize a translation approved by a Catholic episcopal conference of Catholic bishops?

For one thing–just because the USCCB approved any edition of the NAB does not mean that they agree with each and every translation choice made in any NAB translation.

In other words they don’t vote one each and every translation choice.

Some times NAB translation choices ARE BAD!

How do we know this is true? We know this is true because of the translation choices that were made in the NAB in regards to inclusive language that were so egregious that the Holy See would not let them be used in the liturgy!

Now I’m not saying that the NAB is all bad–even though I think it uses stilted awkward wooden English style that is anything but style–it has atrocious notes!–and it doesn’t get the Hail Mary right–"Hail favored one is Protestant not Catholic–and "a young woman will conceive in Isaiah 7:14 is SO BAD that even PROTESTANT translations get that right while the MODERNIST NAB translators think they have to be cute by half and get the verse DEAD WRONG!!!

Let’s PRAY that the final group of NAB translators who will attempt to make the NAB the standard text for personal devotion, biblical study, and the lectionary and the liturgy will be better than the ones who since 1970 have made the NAB a purely atrocious Catholic translation of the bible!