Translations of the Bible - NAB vs. RSV2CE

  • Thread starter Thread starter JayCL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JayCL

Guest
I have a St. Joseph edition of the NAB, but I was reading online that the footnotes/intros aren’t great (hearsay, for all I know, but it got me wondering). Today I should be receiving in the mail my Ignatius RSV2CE Bible, which I’m told is the translation used by the Vatican for English languages communications, etc, while missals in the States use the NABRE, which is pretty close to the NAB. Can anyone weigh in on this?

I know from a Catholic group I used to belong to on Facebook (which I no longer use, hence, I’m here now) that there are those who are Douay-Rheims-only and that’s all good and fine, but I’m NOT looking for a translation with archaic English (no offense, just not my flavor).

What are you folks’ thoughts on NAB/NABRE vs. RSV2CE?
 
Last edited:
As someone who grew up with the Douay (parents had it in the house and I read some of it) and the NAB (used this in high school for Bible classes) and now mostly reads the NABRE because it’s free online at the USCCB and Vatican websites, the NAB and its footnotes always struck me as being sort of a “hippie Bible” in that every time some violence happens in the OT, it goes into some long discussion about how God doesn’t really approve of violence, this is just here for blahblahblah. I can almost see the earnest peace marcher Bible study leader emphasizing this to the rest of the study group, whom, he assumes, have never cracked open a Bible in their life.
Some of the footnotes also repeat the same information like 3 and 4 times in a section.
If you need a decent footnote, look up a Haydock footnote (you can also find those free online).

The text is okay I guess, except for the Psalms. I’d really rather just read the KJV psalms to be honest, and I’m not a convert from Protestant or anything, the KJV psalms are just better.

I have an RSV2CE around here somewhere but because it’s in book form and I’m always online I haven’t really had a chance to look at it yet.
 
I don’t know what you mean. I just didn’t want anyone to misconstrue my use of the word “archaic” and think that I was disrespecting older forms of English. I’ve encountered some folks in past conversations in other places that seem to infer that by “older/ancient/archaic” that I’m somehow disdainful of it.
 
Ooooooh! Yes thank you! I re-read my original post. Thank you for pointing that out! <3
 
JayCL said:
What are you folks’ thoughts on NAB/NABRE vs. RSV2CE?
Click to expand...
Unless you’re in the US and want to see the exact wording used for the readings at Mass, get the RSV2CE. It’s a better balance between being dynamic and being literal without the thees and thous. Even if you want the exact Mass readings, you can look up the NABRE on the USCCB website.

So really, just stick with the RSV2CE.
 
Last edited:
That’s what my intuition was telling me too. Thanks! I look forward to reading my Ignatius Bible when it shows up today! ❤️
 
Fauken said:
Unless you’re in the US and want to see the exact wording used for the readings at Mass, get the RSV2CE. It’s a better balance between being dynamic and being literal without the thees and thous.
Click to expand...
NAB and NABRE are productions of the USCCB, that is, the bishops of the United States played an active role in producing the translation and the commentary. NABRE has not been approved for liturgical use, so USA lectionaries are based on NAB.

RSV is an older translation made by translators trying to produce a translation to be used by all denominations. It was the first to use the Dead Sea Scrolls, though a great deal of insight has been gained since then. It was replaced by the NRSV, which is used in the Canadian lectionary iirc.

The RSV2CE is an adaptation of the RSV by a groups of Catholics who did not approve of the work of the US bishops. I do not know the extent to which they included insights from more recent developments such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their purpose seemed to be primarily a more literal translation, or sometimes in line with their idea of traditional Catholic translations.

The Jerusalem bible was translated from the French translation from the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem. It has been used in British lectionaries, though they may be migrating to the ESV (? not sure of that). The notes for the Jerusalem were revised, and then the translation in the RNJB, by Henry Wansbrough osb.
 
Dovekin said:
The RSV2CE is an adaptation of the RSV by a groups of Catholics who did not approve of the work of the US bishops. I do not know the extent to which they included insights from more recent developments such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their purpose seemed to be primarily a more literal translation, or sometimes in line with their idea of traditional Catholic translations.

The Jerusalem bible was translated from the French translation from the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem. It has been used in British lectionaries, though they may be migrating to the ESV (? not sure of that). The notes for the Jerusalem were revised, and then the translation in the RNJB, by Henry Wansbrough osb.
Click to expand...
As FYI - the RSV-2CE is approved as the lectionary in some Caribbean countries and African countries.

In regards to the ESV-CE, India and Scotland have approved it for their lectionary. However, at the moment, England & Wales are not following Scotland.
 
The NABRE (the 2011 version, not the 1970 version) isn’t bad. It’s just the comments that are lacking.

As note: the New African Bible uses the translation of the NABRE, but the New African Bible eliminated the bad comments from the NAB

So if you like the translation of the NAB/NABRE, but don’t like the comments, purchase a New African Bible

 
The Catholic Church prefers accurate translations:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...ds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html

which also means updated scholarship. Given this list of Catholic Bibles,


it will usually refer to recent editions which are based on updated scholarship for scholarly work, the liturgy, etc. Examples are the NAB, NRSVCE, and so on.

These and earlier editions are fine for personal study, but for scholarship, liturgy, etc., it wants updated versions that are accurate.

For now, it waits for those to be completed. For example, the new NABRE which should be approved for personal study, catechism, and the liturgy, will be available in a few years:

https://www.catholicbiblical.org/nab-nt-revision-project

Meanwhile, it was reported that an updated edition of the NRSV will also be available:

http://catholicbibletalk.com/2019/0...f-breadcrumbs-for-the-upcoming-nrsv-revision/

Given that, what I did for now was get durable, hardcover but cheap editions (around $15 each, I think) of the NABRE for scholarship and a prayer Bible which uses NRSV CE for personal study.
 
The non-Catholic RSV (on which the Catholic version is very closely based) is used by the theology faculty of Oxford University. From an academic point of view that is a very strong endorsement.

However do not dismiss Douay Rheims, which has correctly translated some key passages to reflect Catholic truth as expounded by the Patristic fathers.
 
There is nothing in terms of modern “updated” scholarship that would deter me from giving the DR final say.

To answer the OP’s question, I respect the RSV 2CE and trust it more than the NAB/NABRE. I’m no scholar but I spent enough time digging for answers on this topic to be confident in my personal conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Douay is still accurate enough to be used at EF Masses.
I don’t see all this continuous re-translating as achieving any greater “accuracy”. It’s diminishing returns at this point afaik. It’s not like there’s some glaring error in the existing Bibles.
 
The RSV2CE is regarded by most Catholic Bible Scholars to be a far superior work. The NABRE went through a long process, with the first translation even being rejected by the Vatican, before it was eventually changed enough to be acceptable.
 
Yes, the differences between one modern translation and another tend to pretty minimal. The main observable differences are in the introductions and footnotes, and for those the two I like best are the first (1966) Jerusalem Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible.
I haven’t yet had a good look at the Revised New Jerusalem Bible, published just last year.
 
I have always preferred the RSCV2 but lately have also found (through Universalis) the Jerusalem Bible and am finding that it helps give more depth to the readings as well. The NAB—meh, I save that for Sunday Mass in my St. Joseph Missal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top