What don't you like about NAB?

[Epistemes]

There seem to be a sizeable amount of people here who do not care for the New American Bible, often preferring the Douay-Rheims or RSV-CE over it. I, personally, find this strange since the NAB gets several often debated translated passages correct, including Gen 22:18; Matt 16:18; John 19:5,14; Gal 2:16, etc. Even the NAB’s Luke 1:34 is entirely more tolerable than the RSV-CE’s “no husband” - taking into account that the RSV-CE gets Luke 1:28 correct (“Hail, full of grace”) while NAB curiously gets it wrong (“favoured”).

In fact, comparing some lists from previous discussions on this board, most notably the “RSV-CE Needs Corrections” thread, comparing the NAB to the RSV-CE to the Douay-Rheims, *I find that where the RSV-CE falls short the NAB gets it right and has similar renderings as the old faithful D-R itself. *

The commentaries in the NAB aren’t the best, no, and is a main gripe of mine - however, I’ve *learned *to appreciate those commentaries to a certain extent since Ignatius does not appear to be in a rush to publish a one-volume bound edition of any study bible, and the best we can do for commentaries in the Douay-Rheims is to purchase the Haydock-Douay-Rheims and a small wagon to tote it in.

If you think the translation of the NAB is awful and should be condemned, then why? Please provide us some examples.

Does it just not read as easily as the RSV-CE?

Can you not get past the gender inclusive language, which, while greater than the New Jerusalem Bible, is most definitely less than the amount found in the NRSV?

Where does the NAB leave you dry?

 

[NotWorthy]

I can recall some of the commentaries sound like they came out of a Presbyterian Junior Seminary class. (I only use Presbyterians because Scott Hahn once described how anti-catholic they tend to be. Nothing against their scholarship). I wish I could remember where, but it was like, “what in the world are they talking about”.

 

[porthos11]

I find the text of the NAB pretty much fine. I can even understand some of the emendations they tried to make (such as rearrangement of verses, or insertion of certain words). In fact, in many places, the rearrangement brings out the context better.

As for the notes, I’ve since learned to filter out the questionable ones and recognize the value of those that actually clarify certain historical, linguistic, and cultural contexts, and I must admit the NAB notes have been quite helpful to me many times. Other stuff like Marcan priority, or “Jesus didn’t really predict his passion” I can simply swallow it and ignore.

For me though, the worst part of the NAB OT is the shoot of Jesse being referred to as a “God-Hero” instead of “Mighty God.” I don’t call it inaccurate, just grating on the ears. And I still say that the 1991 Psalms should go.

 

[Manfred]

There seem to be a sizeable amount of people here who do not care for the New American Bible, often preferring the Douay-Rheims or RSV-CE over it. I, personally, find this strange since the NAB gets several often debated translated passages correct, including Gen 22:18; Matt 16:18; John 19:5,14; Gal 2:16, etc. Even the NAB’s Luke 1:34 is entirely more tolerable than the RSV-CE’s “no husband” - taking into account that the RSV-CE gets Luke 1:28 correct (“Hail, full of grace”) while NAB curiously gets it wrong (“favoured”).

In fact, comparing some lists from previous discussions on this board, most notably the “RSV-CE Needs Corrections” thread, comparing the NAB to the RSV-CE to the Douay-Rheims, *I find that where the RSV-CE falls short the NAB gets it right and has similar renderings as the old faithful D-R itself. *

Where the RSV-CE falls short, one can always count on the Douay-Rheims to get it right; one need not resort to the NAB.

The commentaries in the NAB aren’t the best, no, and is a main gripe of mine - however, I’ve *learned *to appreciate those commentaries to a certain extent since Ignatius does not appear to be in a rush to publish a one-volume bound edition of any study bible, and the best we can do for commentaries in the Douay-Rheims is to purchase the Haydock-Douay-Rheims and a small wagon to tote it in.

You’re right: it’s gonna take years (!) for Ignatius to combine all this commentary into one volume. But I understand the French Jerusalem Bible started out this same way (in the 1940s, I believe) before the (French) one-volume edition was published in 1956.

One place the NAB commentary was above reproach was in the footnote in John 20 re “whose sins you shall forgive”; the Council of Trent had mandated a note in all Catholic bibles to the effect that this was a “proof text” for the absolution of sins by a priest. I know of no other Catholic bible that followed this directive (even the D-R Challoner missed it, though I can’t speak about the Haydock).

Aside: the English-lamguage JB and even the NJB managed to get it all - text, cross-references, footnotes - in one volume first time around. And many of their notes are of the “technical” type; e.g., what the Hebrew text said, and how it could be interpreted variously.

If you think the translation of the NAB is awful and should be condemned, then why? Please provide us some examples.

No, not condemned, but also not given the status accorded to it by some posters merely because the US bishops (who commissioned it) have mandated its use in the liturgy.

Does it just not read as easily as the RSV-CE?

Actually, in many places, such as the Prophets, the NAB reads easier than the RSV-CE. In fact, the 1970 NAB NT’s rendering of the Pauline Epistles was VERY readable. I find Paul hard to read in ANY version, with the D-R being the most difficult, the RSV-CE a definite improvement, and the 1970 NAB the clearest. Unfortunately, this ease of reading/comprehension of Paul comes with a price - the injection of the translators’ interpretations.

Can you not get past the gender inclusive language, which, while greater than the New Jerusalem Bible, is most definitely less than the amount found in the NRSV?

Yes, the NJB is less offensive wrt its inclusive language than the RNAB. Where Paul wrote of “the new man” in Ephesians of the NJB, this was rendered “new person” in the RNAB. The RNAB, with its “Amen, amen”, “behold”, etc. wouldn’t have been so bad had inclusive language and excessive paraphrasing (“four in the afternoon” instead of “the tenth hour”; “a week later” instead of “eight days later” not been the rule.

Where does the NAB leave you dry?

The 1986 NT, for sure. And the Pentateuch. And the Historical Books (Samuel to Maccabees). The Wisdom Books (Job to Sirach), particularly the 1970 Psalms (NOT THE 1990 VERSION), are actually rather good, yes, better than the RSV-CE in lots of places. But then again there’s that annoying habit of moving whole passages around in Job and in Proverbs 5 and 6 which makes me throw my hands up.

 

[Epistemes]

Hi Manfred!

Where the RSV-CE falls short, one can always count on the Douay-Rheims to get it right; one need not resort to the NAB.

No, not condemned, but also not given the status accorded to it by some posters merely because the US bishops (who commissioned it) have mandated its use in the liturgy.

No doubt, you’re right; however, *if *a person wished to read a one-volume compromise between the RSV-CE and the DR, I personally think the NAB is the closest to this that English-speaking Catholics will be offered for some time. If the NJB translation was not quite so dynamic, and had actually rendered Gen 22:18; Matt 16:18, John 19:5, 14, etc. accordingly, as the DR, then it might be the best compromise…yet unfortunately it fails in this regard.

One place the NAB commentary was above reproach was in the footnote in John 20 re “whose sins you shall forgive”; the Council of Trent had mandated a note in all Catholic bibles to the effect that this was a “proof text” for the absolution of sins by a priest. I know of no other Catholic bible that followed this directive (even the D-R Challoner missed it, though I can’t speak about the Haydock).

Aside: the English-lamguage JB and even the NJB managed to get it all - text, cross-references, footnotes - in one volume first time around. And many of their notes are of the “technical” type; e.g., what the Hebrew text said, and how it could be interpreted variously.

As porthos stated above, I’ve learned to overlook some of the commentaries. Sure, it’s uncomfortable to read the introduction to Ephesians (‘Recent scholarship has suggested that Paul did not write this letter,’ or, ‘This letter was most likely not written to the Ephesians, per se, but to Asia Minor at large’). I cannot regard any of these commentaries as being the final say on matters, and will not. Where people (and I include myself in that category) run into problems is when these commentaries are taken as the *concrete dogma *of the Church, and not for what they are: scholarly biblical commentary. Of course, the uninitiated might not so easily understand that the commentators were merely putting forth *suggestions *, not dogma in certain cases.

Actually, in many places, such as the Prophets, the NAB reads easier than the RSV-CE. In fact, the 1970 NAB NT’s rendering of the Pauline Epistles was VERY readable. I find Paul hard to read in ANY version, with the D-R being the most difficult, the RSV-CE a definite improvement, and the 1970 NAB the clearest. Unfortunately, this ease of reading/comprehension of Paul comes with a price - the injection of the translators’ interpretations.

Yes, the NJB is less offensive wrt its inclusive language than the RNAB. Where Paul wrote of “the new man” in Ephesians of the NJB, this was rendered “new person” in the RNAB. The RNAB, with its “Amen, amen”, “behold”, etc. wouldn’t have been so bad had inclusive language and excessive paraphrasing (“four in the afternoon” instead of “the tenth hour”; “a week later” instead of “eight days later” not been the rule.

There’s a section in my NAB Catholic Study Bible (Second Edition), which I’m not sure if it’s included in regular editions of the NAB (such as the St. Joseph), which discusses the translation of the NAB and why certain words or phrases were rendered as they were.

For instance, the translators felt that certain words or phrases translated literally would present more confusion for the common reader, thus causing a disappreciation for those readers who are not biblical scholars or do not wish to purchases multiple Bibles for an understanding of one phrase. I can appreciate this because there’s a Korean girl in my RCIA class who is just learning to speak English, and this past Wednesday she was presented with her own copy of the NAB. Now, which would be more confusing for her, to read such words as “holocaust,” “cereal offering,” etc. in the text of the OT with their modern English equivalents (i.e., WWII Holocaust and breakfast cereal) or to have these terms rendered as close as possible to their Hebraic *and *English meanings? “Four in the afternoon” is a trade-off, especially when the text does read “the tenth hour,” but how many readers are going to be completely aware of the fact that the day, in Biblical times, began at 6 AM then attempt to count ten hours beyond that? Such is clearly impractical.

The 1986 NT, for sure. And the Pentateuch. And the Historical Books (Samuel to Maccabees). The Wisdom Books (Job to Sirach), particularly the 1970 Psalms (NOT THE 1990 VERSION), are actually rather good, yes, better than the RSV-CE in lots of places. But then again there’s that annoying habit of moving whole passages around in Job and in Proverbs 5 and 6 which makes me throw my hands up.

I wasn’t aware of this. Could someone show me some examples?

What makes the Psalms so horrible?

 

[Manfred]

Hi Manfred!

There’s a section in my NAB Catholic Study Bible (Second Edition), which I’m not sure if it’s included in regular editions of the NAB (such as the St. Joseph), which discusses the translation of the NAB and why certain words or phrases were rendered as they were.

For instance, the translators felt that certain words or phrases translated literally would present more confusion for the common reader, thus causing a disappreciation for those readers who are not biblical scholars or do not wish to purchases multiple Bibles for an understanding of one phrase. I can appreciate this because there’s a Korean girl in my RCIA class who is just learning to speak English, and this past Wednesday she was presented with her own copy of the NAB. Now, which would be more confusing for her, to read such words as “holocaust,” “cereal offering,” etc. in the text of the OT with their modern English equivalents (i.e., WWII Holocaust and breakfast cereal) or to have these terms rendered as close as possible to their Hebraic *and *English meanings? “Four in the afternoon” is a trade-off, especially when the text does read “the tenth hour,” but how many readers are going to be completely aware of the fact that the day, in Biblical times, began at 6 AM then attempt to count ten hours beyond that? Such is clearly impractical.

Epistemes,

To me, explaining an unfamiliar rendering of a Hebrew or Greek word or phrase in the text is what good footnotes are for! So, to me, e.g., “the tenth hour” should be in the text, and “four in the afternoon” in a footnote.

The 1970 edition of Psalms - wherein Psalm 1 began “Happy is the man” - is a very nice translation, probably because this was the very first version I encountered back in 1960 when I received a copy of that “Confraternity” hybrid bible. These, for the most part, are still in the US lectionary. I say, “for the most part”, because, here and there, “the man” has been replaced by “the one”.

The 1990 Psalms, on the other hand, are so inclusivized as to border on heretical; as you know, Rome rejected the whole book outright for any liturgical purposes.

Job gets out-of-sequence around chapters 24-28, if I recall. And Proverbs does something similar with verses in chapters 5 and 6.

IF ONLY the NJB were even a bit more on the traditional side! But it would appear its editors were more concerned about being innovative and creative in their renderings than following the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek as closely as they claim they did.

Manfred

 

[Cranch]

…But then again there’s that annoying habit of moving whole passages around in Job and in Proverbs 5 and 6 which makes me throw my hands up.

Here is something I posted about the NAB in the RSV-CE needs corrections thread when this topic floated up:

Check out the major surgery they did on 1 Kings chapters 4 and 5. Compare to the RSV-2CE or the Douay-Rheims (where the book is called 3 Kings). The question is why was it done?!

As far as the 1991 NAB Psalms, Manfred has addressed the Vatican requiring a retranslation be made for parts of the U.S. lectionary. The Vatican may have been concerned primarily about inclusive language, I don’t know, but for me it goes beyond that. Check out the start of Psalm 23:

Pre-1991 NAB Psalter:

1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 In verdant pastures he gives me repose;
Beside restful waters he leads me;
3 he refreshes my soul.
He guides me in right paths
for his name’s sake.

1991 NAB Psalter:

1 The LORD is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack.
2 In green pastures you let me graze;
to safe waters you lead me;
3 you restore my strength.
You guide me along the right path
for the sake of your name.

 

[Manfred]

As far as the 1991 NAB Psalms, Manfred has addressed the Vatican requiring a retranslation be made for parts of the U.S. lectionary. The Vatican may have been concerned primarily about inclusive language, I don’t know, but for me it goes beyond that. Check out the start of Psalm 23:

Cranch,

Actually, the Vatican rejected the entire edition of the NAB’s 1991 Psalter; yes, for its inclusive language, as you illustrate in Psalm 23 (22 Vulgate ).

The US Lectionary still uses the 1970 edition of the Psalms, with a “strategic” substitution for “man” here and there. After all, we hear these at Mass, and we don’t want to leave anyone out, now, do we?

 

[Epistemes]

Epistemes,

To me, explaining an unfamiliar rendering of a Hebrew or Greek word or phrase in the text is what good footnotes are for! So, to me, e.g., “the tenth hour” should be in the text, and “four in the afternoon” in a footnote.

I can agree with this; however, considering the format of the NAB, with cross-references and commentaries galore, any actual footnote would be quite lost and easily glossed over. the question is, if the translators had ample marginal space for the footnote, would they have used it, or would they still have translated the nuance in the vulgar vernacular into which it was being translated?

The 1970 edition of Psalms - wherein Psalm 1 began “Happy is the man” - is a very nice translation, probably because this was the very first version I encountered back in 1960 when I received a copy of that “Confraternity” hybrid bible. These, for the most part, are still in the US lectionary. I say, “for the most part”, because, here and there, “the man” has been replaced by “the one”.

The 1990 Psalms, on the other hand, are so inclusivized as to border on heretical; as you know, Rome rejected the whole book outright for any liturgical purposes.

Job gets out-of-sequence around chapters 24-28, if I recall. And Proverbs does something similar with verses in chapters 5 and 6.

I had not noticed any of this before. The preface and commentary/footnotes to these changes are so brief and vague that it really does beg asking, “Yes, we know this has been transposed, but by what liberty have you done so?”

 

[Cranch]

Cranch,

Actually, the Vatican rejected the entire edition of the NAB’s 1991 Psalter; yes, for its inclusive language, as you illustrate in Psalm 23 (22 Vulgate ).

The US Lectionary still uses the 1970 edition of the Psalms, with a “strategic” substitution for “man” here and there. After all, we hear these at Mass, and we don’t want to leave anyone out, now, do we?

I’m confused, Manfred. I quoted Psalm 23 as an example of badness that “goes beyond” inclusive language. What I meant to show was it is just plain clunky compared to the relative poetry of the earlier version. I thought inclusive language (which, like you, I dislike) was reserved for instances not referring to God. The use of he and you in these two versions of Psalm 23 refer to God. In this case at least, is this not simply a change from third person to second person rather than an (inappropriate) attempt at inclusivity? Or am I misinformed about the inclusive language rules in the NAB? Here is another 1991 Psalter quote for comparison from Psalm 2:

2 Kings on earth rise up and princes plot together against the LORD and his anointed

 

[runandsew]

Well, I personally love my “children’s picture bible”.

I think one of the issues is with the footnotes.

I think that everyone should have at least two versions, so they can reference confusing passages with another version to see if that will clear it up.
I had to reference the RSV to see what the NAB was talking about when it said the Philistines developed “Hemorrhoids” when they took the Arc of the Covenant

 

[Epistemes]

I think that everyone should have at least two versions, so they can reference confusing passages with another version to see if that will clear it up.

I agree; however, not everybody will think likewise. To some people, a Bible is a Bible is a Bible (and all Bibles should say the same thing), and many uninformed individuals will likely just pick up the Bible known to be used during Mass thinking that ‘if it’s good enough for Mass, it’s good enough for me.’ Those of us “in the know” (even though I often feel I don’t know much regardless of having perused Bible translations for some time now ) are aware of the discrepancies between the Lectionary and what we’re being sold from our favorite Catholic Bookstore. Is the NAB the worst possible choice an individual could make under such circumstances? Probably not the worst, no, but by and large there appears to be a shift by the knowledgeable Catholics to try and emphasize the Douay-Rheims and RSV-CE ahead of the NAB.

I actually have an acquaintance (from a Catholic family) who says he has never read the Gospels. He obviously isn’t going to want to read two translations, and so it’s likely he’ll choose one Bible. I would offer him the text of the NAB, but others might recommend the Douay-Rheims *or *the RSV-CE, at the risk of certian features (e.g. understanding the text, or heavy Protestant influence)

 

[mrs_abbott]

I love my NAB! It’s easy to read, at least I think so. But then again, I’m not a traditional Catholic.

 

[LRThunder]

If the NAB has a problem of having too much inclusive language, then why was it approved in the American dioceses? Was it the US Bishops that approved its use or was it the Vatican?

 

[jmcrae]

Cranch;

The “you” in Psalm 23 is from the original. It changes in the fourth verse from talking about God, to talking to Him. You’ll see that in all the translations - maybe you didn’t notice it before because of the rhyme between “he” and “thee.”

As to the NAB itself - I like the translation itself, for the most part, and I don’t have any issues with “inclusive language,” since it doesn’t go overboard. (I also like the NRSV, though) - but some of the footnotes are, shall we say, crazy-making, especially when trying to teach a class.

I am thinking of banning the NAB from my classroom just because the footnotes go all stupid just when you need them to be fairly smart.

I think they should put out a Bible that has the text of the NAB (with one or two fix-ups, Luke 1:42 in particular) and the footnotes from the Haydock Douay-Rheims.

 

[Epistemes]

As to the NAB itself - I like the translation itself, for the most part, and I don’t have any issues with “inclusive language,” since it doesn’t go overboard. (I also like the NRSV, though) - but some of the footnotes are, shall we say, crazy-making, especially when trying to teach a class.

I am thinking of banning the NAB from my classroom just because the footnotes go all stupid just when you need them to be fairly smart.

Some of the commentaries do seem to raise more questions than answers.

[And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with liking the NRSV, despite its superlative use of inclusive language. That is to say, the NRSV is a Bible with superb scholarship behind it, just like the NJB - yet between the NJB’s uber-dyanamic equivalence and the NRSV’s uber-inclusiveness, there doesn’t seem to be any scholarly translated Bible that doesn’t drift in some unnecessary direction.]

 

[NotWorthy]

I had to reference the RSV to see what the NAB was talking about when it said the Philistines developed “Hemorrhoids” when they took the Arc of the Covenant

I love that one. It turns out that hemorrhoids is more accurate than boils. The golden tumors that the Phillistines gave to Israel along with the return of the ark, were actually golden hemorrhoids!!!

Can you imagine where they got the mold for that from?

 

[maria_rose]

Where the RSV-CE falls short, one can always count on the Douay-Rheims to get it right; one need not resort to the NAB.

You’re right: it’s gonna take years (!) for Ignatius to combine all this commentary into one volume. But I understand the French Jerusalem Bible started out this same way (in the 1940s, I believe) before the (French) one-volume edition was published in 1956.

One place the NAB commentary was above reproach was in the footnote in John 20 re “whose sins you shall forgive”; the Council of Trent had mandated a note in all Catholic bibles to the effect that this was a “proof text” for the absolution of sins by a priest. I know of no other Catholic bible that followed this directive (even the D-R Challoner missed it, though I can’t speak about the Haydock).

Aside: the English-lamguage JB and even the NJB managed to get it all - text, cross-references, footnotes - in one volume first time around. And many of their notes are of the “technical” type; e.g., what the Hebrew text said, and how it could be interpreted variously.

No, not condemned, but also not given the status accorded to it by some posters merely because the US bishops (who commissioned it) have mandated its use in the liturgy.

Actually, in many places, such as the Prophets, the NAB reads easier than the RSV-CE. In fact, the 1970 NAB NT’s rendering of the Pauline Epistles was VERY readable. I find Paul hard to read in ANY version, with the D-R being the most difficult, the RSV-CE a definite improvement, and the 1970 NAB the clearest. Unfortunately, this ease of reading/comprehension of Paul comes with a price - the injection of the translators’ interpretations.

Yes, the NJB is less offensive wrt its inclusive language than the RNAB. Where Paul wrote of “the new man” in Ephesians of the NJB, this was rendered “new person” in the RNAB. The RNAB, with its “Amen, amen”, “behold”, etc. wouldn’t have been so bad had inclusive language and excessive paraphrasing (“four in the afternoon” instead of “the tenth hour”; “a week later” instead of “eight days later” not been the rule.

The 1986 NT, for sure. And the Pentateuch. And the Historical Books (Samuel to Maccabees). The Wisdom Books (Job to Sirach), particularly the 1970 Psalms (NOT THE 1990 VERSION), are actually rather good, yes, better than the RSV-CE in lots of places. But then again there’s that annoying habit of moving whole passages around in Job and in Proverbs 5 and 6 which makes me throw my hands up.

hi,
I’m getting lost with all the abbreviations. what is:
RSV-CE
JB
NJB
ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS : WHY ARE THERE SO MANY VERSIONS OF THE CATHOLIC BIBLE?
WHICH ONE’S THE BEST FOR STUDY ANPRIVATE READING?
HELP PLEASE!

 

[Cranch]

Cranch;

The “you” in Psalm 23 is from the original. It changes in the fourth verse from talking about God, to talking to Him. You’ll see that in all the translations - maybe you didn’t notice it before because of the rhyme between “he” and “thee.”

Hi jmcrae - I think you’re confused about what I was trying to say in my earlier posts above. Bear with me as I try to make it clear. While I mentioned inclusive language in my post #7, I excerpted verses 1–3 of Psalm 23 in both the original NAB and the 1991 revised NAB Psalter for one reason: to compare the two to each other in order to simply show the poverty of language in the newer version.

However Manfred, in post #8, claimed my post illustrated the NAB’s use of inclusive language.

I disagreed in post #10, saying the change from the use of “he” in the original NAB Psalm 23, verses 1–3 to the use of “you” in the 1991 NAB Psalm 23, verses 1–3 was a change from third person to second person; not an instance of inclusive language.

I was not discussing any other verses of the Psalm other than 1–3. I did find your comment about “all translations” confusing, though, as the 1991 NAB Psalm 23 does not use the word “he” anywhere, unlike traditional renderings. The change you point out from “about God” to “to God” that occurs in verse 4 is completely lost in the 1991 version where “you” is used everywhere. Your rhyme comment confused me also because in the older translations, it’s thou and thy, not thee. Hope this has clarified things!

 

[lak611]

hi,
I’m getting lost with all the abbreviations. what is:
RSV-CE

Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition

JB

Jerusalem Bible

NJB

New Jerusalem Bible