Theologians, Bible Scholars, and the NAB

[HillbillyHermit]

Jerry-Jet- take a breath, relax.

If you could provide a link to the letter that contains Pope Benedict XVI’s criticism of a German Bible translation I’d appreciate it.

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?

I hope that wasn’t directed toward me. Like I said before, I want more to go on than just what folks are saying on a forum. It’s not meant to be disrespectful, but people do tend to jump on a bandwagon without any proof given.

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–

I follow the Bishops until given enough proof to do otherwise.
I may not always be the sharpest Crayon in the box, or read everything that the Popes have written, but would appreciate a little more respect, Jerry-Jet. I believe Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His Church, and His Mother as the Queen of that Church, and knowing that we’re all human, will strive to be obedient to its leaders unless it’s clear that I should do otherwise.

:shamrock2:God Bless :shamrock2:

 

[CalCatholic]

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!

Since when has any bible scholar agreed with every verse or word that is in a translation.
Any translation can be picked apart by scholars, and individual words or verses can be disputed, even among the same translation team. Different translations use various Hebrew and Greek texts for their translation, insuring there will be differences, so which one is wrong? It is silly to tear apart different translations that are approved for use by the Church for personal study. You make not like a translation, we get it, but what you dislike another likes, so who is right?

 

[HillbillyHermit]

It is silly to tear apart different translations that are approved for use by the Church for personal study.

The English translation on the Vatican website is the New American Bible. The footnotes and introductions are there too. Not sure if all of them are, but a lot of the ones people seem to have trouble with have been found there. It’s not just the USCCB that’s being trusted, Rome is looked to also. The Psalms don’t have links on the contents page, but they are still there if you go to Job 42 and click Next.

So far the only things I’ve really seen negative about the NAB is:
The inclusive language problem in the Psalms.
Being a dynamic translation, it wouldn’t be the best for word/phrase study.

 

[CalCatholic]

So far the only things I’ve really seen negative about the NAB is:
The inclusive language problem in the Psalms.
Being a dynamic translation, it wouldn’t be the best for word/phrase study.

Actually the NABRE is closer closer to the formal side of the translation scale than it is to the dynamic side (‘A User’s Guide to Bible Translations’, by David Dewey). The original 1970 NAB NT (though it did not use inclusive language) was much more dynamic than the current 1986 NT. The NABRE revision of the 1991 psalms was a huge improvement! The current NABRE is less formal than the RSV/NRSV but is more formal than the NJB or the Jerusalem Bible. A graduate theology course that I took at a local Catholic University suggested the we use a formal translation for the course and suggested the NRSV, RSV or the NAB. I have used the NAB/RE with the RSV-2CE side by side for my daily readings, on and off since 2006, and found them to be pretty comparable, IMHO (sometimes one or the other would have a better rendering of a certain reading).

 

[mccorm45]

This debate will, of course, change in about ten years or so when the NAB is revised again. Cardinal Weurl and the USCCB has decided to revise the NAB NT, with slight changes to the NABRE OT, along with the notes. The intent is that there will be a single translation, useful for study, which mirrors what is heard at Mass. This project has not yet started, but from all indications will take at least ten years to complete, with the task of translating, notes, and approval from Rome for the lectionary. The revised Grail Psalms will be the ones included in this new new new NAB, whenever it comes out.

catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2012/09/usccb-and-nab-report.html?m=1

 

[CalCatholic]

This debate will, of course, change in about ten years or so when the NAB is revised again. Cardinal Weurl and the USCCB has decided to revise the NAB NT, with slight changes to the NABRE OT, along with the notes. The intent is that there will be a single translation, useful for study, which mirrors what is heard at Mass. This project has not yet started, but from all indications will take at least ten years to complete, with the task of translating, notes, and approval from Rome for the lectionary. The revised Grail Psalms will be the ones included in this new new new NAB, whenever it comes out.

catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2012/09/usccb-and-nab-report.html?m=1

It will be nice to have one translation for devotion, study and the liturgy! But alas, it is still not the D-R, so the haters will remain!

 

[HillbillyHermit]

Actually the NABRE is closer closer to the formal side of the translation scale than it is to the dynamic side (‘A User’s Guide to Bible Translations’, by David Dewey). The original 1970 NAB NT (though it did not use inclusive language) was much more dynamic than the current 1986 NT. The NABRE revision of the 1991 psalms was a huge improvement! The current NABRE is less formal than the RSV/NRSV but is more formal than the NJB or the Jerusalem Bible. A graduate theology course that I took at a local Catholic University suggested the we use a formal translation for the course and suggested the NRSV, RSV or the NAB. I have used the NAB/RE with the RSV-2CE side by side for my daily readings, on and off since 2006, and found them to be pretty comparable, IMHO (sometimes one or the other would have a better rendering of a certain reading).

Thanks for the correction. It’s hard keeping track of all this stuff.

mccorm45:

This debate will, of course, change in about ten years or so when the NAB is revised again. Cardinal Weurl and the USCCB has decided to revise the NAB NT, with slight changes to the NABRE OT, along with the notes. The intent is that there will be a single translation, useful for study, which mirrors what is heard at Mass. This project has not yet started, but from all indications will take at least ten years to complete, with the task of translating, notes, and approval from Rome for the lectionary. The revised Grail Psalms will be the ones included in this new new new NAB, whenever it comes out.

I remember reading about that. It would be great to have a Bible with the list of Mass readings in the back and have them match what’s heard at church . Hopefully there are some large print editions of it too, 'cause in about 10/+ years that will come in very handy!

 

[mccorm45]

It will be nice to have one translation for devotion, study and the liturgy! But alas, it is still not the D-R, so the haters will remain!

You are, of course, correct! Even if the Vatican sanctioned one English language translation from te Nova Vulgata they would have complaints. Of course, such a bible will not likely happen.

 

[HillbillyHermit]

It will be nice to have one translation for devotion, study and the liturgy! But alas, it is still not the D-R, so the haters will remain!

Unfortunately, there will always be complainers. That’s why in some ways I regret starting this thread. They tend to end up as an excuse for people to pile on to those who don’t share their Bible preference.

Mccorm45- I saved your link for later reading.

As of right now, there isn’t anything said by theologians/scholars that would convince me that picking up my NAB would be a bad thing. That said, sure there are things that could be better, but that can be said about any translation IMO. Even the links I’ve provided that are very critical of the NAB and its notes don’t make me think it should be avoided like the plague. Usually those who are the most harsh in their criticisms are not the most reliable sources of info. Besides, when in doubt, there’s always the Catechism to keep us on track.

 

[babs57]

This is from the link provided by mccorm45:

Bishop Michael Byrnes: (Auxiliary, Detroit) This announcement is very welcome to me, having taught Scripture in the seminary for the last number of years. [In 2003, he earned his doctorate in Sacred Scripture from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. Returning to Detroit, he joined the faculty of Sacred Heart Major Seminary, and was named vice rector in January 2004. He was named auxiliary bishop in March 2011. - Ed.] Dealing with the New American Bible for study is very difficult, and so I’m grateful that study is an important priority here. I’m fully supportive of this. I hope in our working with the liturgical use of the text, that we’re willing to leave the difficult passages, the difficult translations, the difficult constructions present. Our people, in order to increase their biblical literacy, need to learn how to wrestle with the Scripture. One of my big complaints about the NAB in teaching has been: It tries to remove the difficulties with some of the hard passages. And I hope we leave them in, because it forces us to exercise ourselves spiritually and intellectually in order to penetrate the Scripture. Thank you.

Here is a bishop and a man of letters who seems relieved that revisions are coming. He mentions that ONE of his complaints is that the NAB tries to remove some of the difficulties with the “hard passages”.

I think some of the difficulty in finding scholarly criticism is that the theologians,bishops, scholars, etc. don’t want to make waves. They are not really in a position to be as vocal with their criticisms as we, the laiety, can be.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Pope Benedict XVI in the Encyclical Spe Salvi in paragraph 7 criticizes the
German episcopal conference of bishops translation of Hebrew 11:1.

Read the whole paragraph oh you supporters of the NAB!

If you’ve got a problem with Catholics here criticizing NAB translation then answer me this–Do you have a problem with Pope Benedict XVI criticizing the translation of Hebrew 11:1!!!

 

[CalCatholic]

Pope Benedict XVI in the Encyclical Spe Salvi in paragraph 7 criticizes the
German episcopal conference of bishops translation of Hebrew 11:1.

Read the whole paragraph oh you supporters of the NAB!

If you’ve got a problem with Catholics here criticizing NAB translation then answer me this–Do you have a problem with Pope Benedict XVI criticizing the translation of Hebrew 11:1!!!

Who has a problem with criticism? I object to words like ‘heretical’, ‘paraphrase’, ‘isn’t Catholic’, etc. (and these are some of the nicer words used).
The Pope is commenting on one verse, so how does that make the NABRE and many other translations of the Bible entirely wrong? I am sure Pope Benedict could find a disagreement with one verse of any translation of the Bible.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’m not saying that the NAB is an entirely wrong bible.

I guess the reason I cited this encyclical is that many times here it seems like if you disagree with any NAB translation about any particular verse in the NAB you’ll invaribly hear someone say that since the NAB is approved by the USCCB that apparently people shouldn’t disagree with any of its translations.

There is no perfect bible and there is much good about the NAB.

I do believe that that if you did a poll of Catholics that there wouldn’t be alot of support for the translation in Isaiah 7:14 as “A young woman will conceive” instead of “A virgin will conceive” or “Hail favored one” versus “Hail full of grace”.

Probably if you asked many of the bishops of the USCCB if they agreed with those particular translations many would indeed say that they didn’t.

For what it’s worth when the USCCB approves the NAB they don’t vote about the accuracy of each and every verse in the NAB.

And many times it is not a matter of a bad translation versus a good translation it can be a matter of a good translation versus a better translation.

It is my opinion that “Hail full of grace” and “A virgin will conceive” are better translations.

The reason I cited Pope Benedict XVI in Spe Salvi was to show that it is definitely OK to not agree that a translation approved by an Episcopal Conference of Catholic bishops is always BETTER in each and every one of its translation choices.

I think it really bothers supporters of the NAB here when people point out these two translations.

I’m not trying to say that the NAB is a bad bible–I’m trying to say that there are places where it can definitely be improved and since it will be revised hopefully for one more final time I think it is a good thing if Catholics that visit these forum would know of these places.

If they convey their concerns over such passages to bishops who are members of the USCCB that will only be a good thing.

I’m not advocating disobedience to the Catholic Church and I’m not saying that the USCCB does not have authority over the approval of bible translations–

I am saying that it is not wrong to question approved bible translations–Pope Benedict XVI did that very thing in Spe salvi.

With all charity,

Jerry-Jet

 

[HillbillyHermit]

Jerry-Jet:

I guess the reason I cited this encyclical is that many times here it seems like if you disagree with any NAB translation about any particular verse in the NAB you’ll invaribly hear someone say that since the NAB is approved by the USCCB that apparently people shouldn’t disagree with any of its translations.

I’m not going to say that people shouldn’t disagree with translation choices in the NAB or any other Bible. There are some choices that make me scratch my head. That can be said for any of 'em though. My problem is with the people who have some pretty nasty things to say about a Bible. Stuff our mothers would wash our mouths out with soap -or smack us upside the head- for and for darn good reason.

Jerry-Jet:

do believe that that if you did a poll of Catholics that there wouldn’t be alot of support for the translation in Isaiah 7:14 as “A young woman will conceive” instead of “A virgin will conceive” or “Hail favored one” versus “Hail full of grace”.

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. (Isaiah (NAB) 7)

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah (RSV-CE) 7)

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 NAB-RE. Copied from the USCCB site)

I would be one of the Catholics who would definitely prefer the traditional translations of those verses.

Jerry-Jet:

I think it really bothers supporters of the NAB here when people point out these two translations.

Can only speak for myself, but what bothers me most is what a search of this site for “NAB” or “New American Bible” will turn up. Constructive criticism is one thing, but like CalCatholic said:

I object to words like ‘heretical’, ‘paraphrase’, ‘isn’t Catholic’, etc. (and these are some of the nicer words used).

I know the New American Bible isn’t a perfect translation, there’s no such thing, and I don’t think there ever will be. BUT… it is a good one, and I’ve found many of the notes helpful.

 

[Contarini]

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.

He wasn’t an academic theologian with a Ph.D., sure. But he was an ordained, educated clergyperson who published a lot of well-respected books on theological subjects. I think there’s a problem imposing the Ph.D. rule too strictly.

Peter Brown, for instance, is one of the most eminent scholars in his field in the world, and never got a Ph.D.

Edwin

 

[CalCatholic]

There is no perfect bible and there is much good about the NAB.

I do believe that that if you did a poll of Catholics that there wouldn’t be alot of support for the translation in Isaiah 7:14 as “A young woman will conceive” instead of “A virgin will conceive” or “Hail favored one” versus “Hail full of grace”.

And many times it is not a matter of a bad translation versus a good translation it can be a matter of a good translation versus a better translation.

It is my opinion that “Hail full of grace” and “A virgin will conceive” are better translations.

I can agree with this:thumbsup:

 

[markeverett49]

Fr. Neuhaus wasn’t a theologian or a scholar.

True, though he was a good writer and his criticism of the NAB was neither theological nor scholarly but that of a good writer (and good writer): it’s clunky and graceless. One of the hardest things for me to get used to after becoming Catholic(-having grown up on the KJV as a Southern Baptist) was hearing the Scripture read during Mass. “In verdant pastures he gives me repose”??? (From the 23rd Psalm) They’ve changed that now, and it’s a good thing, but it still lacks the sap and vigor of previous translations.

 

[Zenkai]

The NAB doesn’t seem to be a bad translation, it’s just the notes that aren’t very good.

 

[babs57]

The NAB doesn’t seem to be a bad translation, it’s just the notes that aren’t very good.

I have problems with the translation too.

Gen 1:2 …and darkness covered the abyss, while *a mighty wind *swept over the waters.

Now, I know that the Hebrew word can mean either wind or spirit, but EVERY translation I have (RSV, DR, KJV, NIV) translates it in this verse as “the Spirit of God”. The NAB translation seems not to attribute that wind to the Holy Spirit. But in the notes it says “…literally, the wind of God or the spirit of God”

Why, NAB, why??

Of course that is probably a comment for another thread.

 

[garysibio]

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?

What makes you think that the NAB was translated by people under the direction of the Vatican? Are you aware that the Vatican ruled that the revised Psalm of the NAB were so badly translated that they refused permission for them to be used in the liturgy?