Translations of the Bible - NAB vs. RSV2CE

[BartholomewB]

I really don’t understand why for a Christian Bible that the Hebrew-based Old Testament is considered superior to the Greek-based Septuagint

One is the original, the other is a translation. That’s the starting point, though of course there are some other factors to be taken into consideration.

We can find instances where present-day translators of the NT, instead of translating exactly what they see in the Greek text, revert instead to the original Hebrew form of an allusion or quotation. One example is Jesus’ reply to Peter in Matt 18:22. Should the number be shown in English as “seventy times seven,” i.e. 490, or as “seventy-seven”? This has been discussed on other threads:

Contradiction in Septuagint Translation? Sacred Scripture

Another numerical discrepancy, which is of particular interest because Jesus alludes to this verse in a well-known saying: Lamech’s threat in Gen. 4:14. In the Masoretic text, Lamech says "seventy-seven times” but in the Septuagint it’s “seventy times seven times.” (Warning: the Hebrew word order may show up reversed, thanks to my computer.) כִּ֥י שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יֻקַּם־ קָ֑יִן וְלֶ֖מֶךְ שִׁבְעִ֥ים וְשִׁבְעָֽה׃ ὅτι ἑπτάκις ἐκδεδίκηται ἐκ Καιν ἐκ δὲ Λαμεχ ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά These are the number…

 

[Xarto]

I recently bought the RSV2CE version of the Didiache Bible because I’d read that the NABRE notes were more on the liberal side and I wanted to avoid that.

 

[PeterT]

PeterT:

I really don’t understand why for a Christian Bible that the Hebrew-based Old Testament is considered superior to the Greek-based Septuagint

One is the original, the other is a translation. That’s the starting point, though of course there are some other factors to be taken into consideration.

Except for the inconvenient fact that the Masoretic Hebrew text isn’t the original. It had been edited and modified to help combat the spread of Christianity.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of a much older version of Hebrew scripture. Some argue that it captures more faithfully the words of the Hebrew scripture that was used during the days that Christ roamed the Earth.

 

[BartholomewB]

“Some argue” is not the same as being a generally recognized historical fact.

The Dead Sea scrolls showed that some passages of the pre-Masoretic text were indeed closer to the Septuagint. However, there isn’t much evidence to substantiate the old claim – dating back to Justin Martyr – that the rabbis had deliberatey tampered with the text for anti-Christian purposes. What passages did you have in mind?

 

[Vico]

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?

The Byzantine Catholic Lectionary (Liturgies, Gospel Book, Epistle Book) uses a modified NAB 1970 and Grail Psalms 1963. For study group we use the Ignatius Bible (RSV-CE2). I think one deacon teaches using the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV with Apocrypha.

One difference is phrasing with inclusive language in the RSV-CE2. The 1970 NAB and later RSV do not have the sweeping inclusive language. Inclusive language is used (at least in part) in the later versions of the NAB since 1970, which means the 1986 RNAB New Testament, 1991 RNAB Psalter, and NABRE in 2011.

 

[phil19034]

Regarding the “I am” statements… most translations sort of hide them a bit in their attempt to make them sound more like natural speech. For example, you may see “I am he” or “It is I,” when the Greek (and Latin for that matter) that underlies it actually says simply “I am.” See John 6:20 or 18:5. In 6:20, the NAB text says “It is I” but alerts the reader in the footnote it’s an “I am” statement. In 18:5 they put the “I am” in the text. That’s just some off the top of my head.

Did they fix this issues with the NAB when they created the NABRE?

 

[phil19034]

Just adding my two cents (not that my opinion is worth much more than that).

The advantage of the NAB-RE is that it’s the closest translation to what you’ll hear every day/Sunday at Mass (if you live in the U.S.). You’re already familiar with the translation. Footnotes aren’t part of the inspired Word and can easily be ignored (unless you’re looking for more of a study-bible type Bible). I also find that the NAB-RE sometimes works to clarify passages that (for me) are a little obscure in the RSV-2CE. That being said, I’m not the biggest fan of the NAB-RE. Sometimes the translation is so clunky that it reads more like the original text was plugged into Google-translate - one of the downsides to a translation that was done via a committee, I suppose.

The RSV-2CE is good, but for me the English doesn’t flow well and some passages remain rather obscure. I know many scholars (particularly Protestant converts to Catholicism) prefer this translation, but I suspect that more than a few of them prefer this because the RSV-2CE (based off of the RSV before it) is simply a Catholic revision of the KJB.

My personal favorite Bible is the Jerusalem Bible (followed closely by the New Jerusalem Bible). I’ve adopted this Bible for my own devotional reading because when I first read St. Paul’s letters translated in the JB it was like I was reading them for the first time. Paul’s letters actually made sense to me - which is more than I can say for any other translation of his letters that I’ve read. I also like the JB because any time I hear scholars like Hahn or Pitre correct the translation of a word or phrase from the NAB-RE or the RSV-2CE, they always end up using the exact wording I find in the JB.

All this being said, I think the best thing to do is to have a small collection of translations because no one translation is going to be perfect. And, of course, balance out those translations by reading the Catechism side-by-side with the Bible.

I recently bought the RSV2CE version of the Didiache Bible because I’d read that the NABRE notes were more on the liberal side and I wanted to avoid that.

I said this before (I think way earlier in this thread), but anyone who likes the NABRE, but wants to say away from the comments should consider purchasing the New African Bible.

The New African Bible uses the translation of the NABRE, but they did not include the comments. The CCD gave them permission to use the translation & to eliminate the comments.

So, in my opinion, it’s another good option.

NOTE: the African Bible is the older version which does NOT use the NABRE, so don’t get the two confused. If you are going to purchase, buy the New African Bible

God Bless

 

[PeterT]

Just adding my two cents (not that my opinion is worth much more than that).

The advantage of the NAB-RE is that it’s the closest translation to what you’ll hear every day/Sunday at Mass (if you live in the U.S.). You’re already familiar with the translation. Footnotes aren’t part of the inspired Word and can easily be ignored (unless you’re looking for more of a study-bible type Bible). I also find that the NAB-RE sometimes works to clarify passages that (for me) are a little obscure in the RSV-2CE. That being said, I’m not the biggest fan of the NAB-RE. Sometimes the translation is so clunky that it reads more like the original text was plugged into Google-translate - one of the downsides to a translation that was done via a committee, I suppose.

The RSV-2CE is good, but for me the English doesn’t flow well and some passages remain rather obscure. I know many scholars (particularly Protestant converts to Catholicism) prefer this translation, but I suspect that more than a few of them prefer this because the RSV-2CE (based off of the RSV before it) is simply a Catholic revision of the KJB.

A Catholic Bible that reads smoother than the NABRE or the RSV-2CE is newly available ESV-CE (English Standard Version - Catholic Edition). The new Catholic lectionary of India is based on it as will be the future lectionary of the Catholic Church of Scotland. The Catholic Church of England and Wales is thinking about adopting it too.

Catholic Bibles | Online Bible Store | ESV Bible – Catholic Edition

 

[Swordsman]

Well, I wouldn’t say these were exactly things that needed to be “fixed,” as much as they were translator decisions. Don’t forget, as I said, the NABRE already points out these “I am” statements better than most other English translation. This wasn’t a problem- it was one of the strengths of the translation in my opinion.

Peace.

 

[Vico]

…
I suspect that more than a few of them prefer this because the RSV-2CE (based off of the RSV before it) is simply a Catholic revision of the KJB.
…

Staunch KJ-onlyists would disagree with a near connection of RSV and KJV since RSV is based on Vaticanus/Westcort-Hort and KJV from Erasmus Greek / Textus Receptus.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

They may disagree with it, but it’s clearly stated in the introduction to the RSV that it is a revision of the KJV.

 

[Vico]

They may disagree with it, but it’s clearly stated in the introduction to the RSV that it is a revision of the KJV.

Yes, indirectly through the American Standard Version (1901) and British Revised Version (1881-5).