J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I bet you could never find an American Catholic bishop who would fully endorse all of the NAB’s notes and stand by their accuracy if questioned by the pope.
- Status
K
Khalid
Guest
No, I meant the NAB. The Bible used for Mass is based on the NAB, but is no more than NAB than the ESV is. Have you happened to read any of the annotation in the NAB, especially that of the introductions to and annotation of the Pentateuch and Gospels?
Without mentioning the translation with disregard to tradition, and the OT translation with complete disregard for NT inspiration, inspired exegesis, tradition, or prophecy, and often deliberately translated - prophecy, that is - in the most obscure manner possible (in ways that are no way demanded by the Hebrew, and sometimes contravene it, and paying no attention to the God-inspired interpretation of the OT as given by the NT authors), with verses re-arranged and re-ordered to imply contradiction when none exists. That’s just “skeptical” or “secular”, not necessarily “anti-Catholic”: the annotation that contradicts 1900 years of tradition (especially in the Pentateuch and Gospels) is what is.
Note: as I’ve said otherwhere, the annotation is the lion’s share of the problem with the NAB in accord with its target market. The text itself is not horrible, but not good either, and there’s no room for “mediocre” Bibles; it should be excellent in some way, the way in which it is excellent determining its purpose and target market and ideal use and user, such as:
*]The cutting edge of scholarship: NOAB/NRSV
*]Widely used by scholars: NASB, ESV, NRSV, RSV, NIV
*]Faithful to (at least one) tradition, if not Capital T Tradition: DRC, CCD, Knox, KJV, OSB, RSV-2CE, NASB, NKJV, ESV
*]Easy to read and fresh: REB, Knox, Jerusalem Bible, NIV, CEV, TEV
*]Very literal: KJV, DRC, NASB, NKJV, Young’s, Concordant, Interlinears
*]Faithful to a specific textual family: ESV, NJPS (MT), OSB, NETS, Brenton (LXX), KJV, NKJV (TR), DRC, CCD (Vulgate)
And not mediocre all the way through, trying to master two or more trades and failing at both, like trying to make an NRSV faithful to tradition, or a Textus Receptus at the cutting edge of scholarship. For the simple faithful, faithful to tradition and ease of reading seem to be the two most pressing concerns. The NAB is good at none of the above categories; no scholars use it, nor is it at the cutting edge of scholarship: it presents opinions and speculation (some far out of date) as fact. It’s not faithful to tradition, it’s written in bad and stilted English, it’s sometimes very dynamic, sometimes extremely literal, and it uses an eclectic text.
Imprimatur doesn’t mean much anymore: it is a rubber stamp for what the scholars want to publish in the flavor of the day. The New Jerome Commentary has imprimatur - granted by its author - and, although it is a great historical-critical commentary, maybe the best one-volume in existence, is not faithful, is not Catholic, and, for the average layman, is damaging to faith and morals. That’s what imprimatur is supposed to guard against, and no one can say that the NAB annotation is strengthening to faith, or that it doesn’t or wouldn’t damage the faith of the simple faithful who read it.
It’s not that good of a historical-critical Bible either, but if it was marketed to seminarians, I would be much more gentle in my critiques of it (at least as goes the annotation, as some of the translation, such as Gen 1:1-3, is just plain wrong, as are many of the “conjectural emendations”). As is, it is marketed to the simple faithful as a Catholic Bible that is supposed to faithfully represent the teaching and mind of the Church. I couldn’t blame the average person, uninitiated in to the Critical Arts, for laughing Catholicism and/or Christianity out of the window after reading the NAB, with something along the lines of, “How do you believe this? Your own Bible tells you it’s full of lies and contradictions and mythology!”
M
mccorm45
Guest
Exactly. Any talk of the NABRE being anti-Catholic is simple nonsense. No translation of the original Biblical languages is perfect. Each English language Bible has it’s good and less-than translations. There can certainly be discussion and debate about the commentary in the NAB, which I think follows a philosophy that may be more suited to a biblical scholar than the typical Catholic.Some people really don’t like the NAB.
I think that there are legitimate critiques of the translation (and especially the footnotes and introductions), but it’s a bit extreme to call it “anti-Catholic”. If that were the case, we might as well accuse our bishops of being heretics.
As for the RSV, if you want the more updated edition, without the ‘thees’ and ‘thous’, your only option is the editions by Ignatius Press. However, if you like the original RSV, Saint Benedict Press has some lovely editions including the Catholic Scripture Stude International RSV which contains a lot of apologetic materials.
K
Khalid
Guest
There is quite a difference between Jack Chick anti-Catholic and unfaithful to Sacred Tradition, skeptical anti-Catholic. As I said in my above post, the latter may be better defined as “secular” or “skeptical” or “non-Christian” instead of “anti-Catholic”. The main matter being damage to faith, in direct violation of the imprimatur’s promise.
Just because the translation of John makes it more clear that Jesus is calling himself ego eimi doesn’t mean the translation is good, nor even acceptable (although the NAB NT text itself isn’t that bad, even if a little clunky, unlike the annotation and the text and annotation of the OT). It’s one small highlight that one would have to be blind to miss in a normal translation anyways. The systemic disregard for tradition, inspired NT interpretation, the possibility of prophecy or miracle, etc. more than makes up for a few uses of presbyter untranslated in Acts.
There is also a large difference between what I myself will read, what I myself believe to be the best, what I will recommend to amateur Biblical scholars or seminarians, and what I feel comfortable recommending to the average layman. For the average person, while reading the NAB or NOAB, he must keep by his side half a dozen apologetics books to keep his faith intact. The presentation isn’t the problem: the people it’s targeted at is. As also I mentioned, the NAB is not even a good historical-critical Bible like the NOAB.
The NAB is not fit for the average layman, nor is the NOAB 4th Ed. NRSV, any more than the “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible” is (that’s what the censor librorum is supposed to be for: I can’t help but believe in an earlier age, the NAB would have been put on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, even if it meant that Tyndale’s Bible had to be removed). The NOAB NRSV is invaluable for amateur Biblical scholars (the NAB really isn’t, as it’s lousy in any case); however, for personal reading or lectio divina, it’s not an acceptable solution, nor is it for someone who wants to read the Bible for edification in the faith, instead of learning textual and higher criticism.
Liturgiam Authenticam, 34:
Liturgiam Authenticam, 40:
Liturgiam Authenticam, 40:
Why should we read something that doesn’t meet the minimum, very clear and unambiguous statements set forth by the Vatican for the liturgical use of the Bible? For the increase of our secular, historical or general knowledge, or our knowledge of secular, naturalist Biblical history so that we may engage the same scholarship and unbelievers on their own ground? Of course - we should use the best possible (which happens to be the NOAB, HCSB, and NISB NRSVs). For the increase of our knowledge of the Faith, our edification in the faith, or our growth in the faith? As go the famously translated words of St Paul in the KJV: “God forbid!”
Just because the translation of John makes it more clear that Jesus is calling himself ego eimi doesn’t mean the translation is good, nor even acceptable (although the NAB NT text itself isn’t that bad, even if a little clunky, unlike the annotation and the text and annotation of the OT). It’s one small highlight that one would have to be blind to miss in a normal translation anyways. The systemic disregard for tradition, inspired NT interpretation, the possibility of prophecy or miracle, etc. more than makes up for a few uses of presbyter untranslated in Acts.
There is also a large difference between what I myself will read, what I myself believe to be the best, what I will recommend to amateur Biblical scholars or seminarians, and what I feel comfortable recommending to the average layman. For the average person, while reading the NAB or NOAB, he must keep by his side half a dozen apologetics books to keep his faith intact. The presentation isn’t the problem: the people it’s targeted at is. As also I mentioned, the NAB is not even a good historical-critical Bible like the NOAB.
The NAB is not fit for the average layman, nor is the NOAB 4th Ed. NRSV, any more than the “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible” is (that’s what the censor librorum is supposed to be for: I can’t help but believe in an earlier age, the NAB would have been put on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, even if it meant that Tyndale’s Bible had to be removed). The NOAB NRSV is invaluable for amateur Biblical scholars (the NAB really isn’t, as it’s lousy in any case); however, for personal reading or lectio divina, it’s not an acceptable solution, nor is it for someone who wants to read the Bible for edification in the faith, instead of learning textual and higher criticism.
Liturgiam Authenticam, 34:
The exegesis is speculative and unsound at best, and of low literary quality. None can deny that the NAB is one of the clunkier translations out there, and one of the most experimental in the rendering of texts, in departing from tradition for conjectural emendation and flavor-of-the-day scholarship.
Liturgiam Authenticam, 40:
The OT most certainly reads like the product of Humanist Jews or a skeptic’s Bible-as-Literature class, translated by those with no ear for euphony. It retains no traditional Catholic wording or interpretation, departing from it as often and as thoroughly as possible. There’s a pesky repetition of the call for sound exegesis, sorely lacking.
Liturgiam Authenticam, 40:
Again, this is failed miserably in the OT translation of the NAB/RE. Of the 133 canons of LA, the NAB falls below the standard more often than any other translation that I’ve seen, although it does retain some unique renderings (“Raca”, “Amen, Amen”) due to it.
Why should we read something that doesn’t meet the minimum, very clear and unambiguous statements set forth by the Vatican for the liturgical use of the Bible? For the increase of our secular, historical or general knowledge, or our knowledge of secular, naturalist Biblical history so that we may engage the same scholarship and unbelievers on their own ground? Of course - we should use the best possible (which happens to be the NOAB, HCSB, and NISB NRSVs). For the increase of our knowledge of the Faith, our edification in the faith, or our growth in the faith? As go the famously translated words of St Paul in the KJV: “God forbid!”
E
Elvis_Guy
Guest
To op … I have both RSV CEs … I prefer…the Navare…I have the “green” hardback nt…it’s the more compact one…BOTH are solid in doctrine re annotatations I simply like the Navarre being more “heavy” on the Church Fathers… But that’s a personal thing…really…have a look at both…I recommend the green (it lacks the Latin) but is much easier to tote…and look at the “ig”…see which…suits your interests, neither are bad … I fell in love with the Navarre …I have the big lol…nt w/Latin ! And the3 volume nt…then I got the compact gren …my personal fave! Sorry I can’t say one is better! Really…both are of slightly different…“focus” but…both good sound Catholic orthodoxy…IMHO (-: Godbless
K
Khalid
Guest
The Navarre is nice, but very expensive.
C
CalCatholic
Guest
Sounds like you need to ‘occupy’ the USCCB headquarters, since they are the ones who promote the NABRE. Personally I like the NABRE, and when I came into the Catholic Church, use of the NAB did not deter me from becoming Catholic. Historical- criticism did not deter my faith in Christ!
T
Ter1
Guest
Reading the anti-Catholic doctrine in the OSB (which is concentrated in the introduction - which is of very limited * value, as it’s essentially a bad polemic against Rome, and a retelling of the story of the Schism in a legendary manner with the viewpoints reversed - and essays in the back, and in the note on Petrine supremacy) is obvious, and it’s not in the text itself. The translation and annotation are faithful to the deposit of the faith, both for Catholics and Orthodox (the fact that it uses St Augustine heavily is one indicator of that, as many Orthodox have a low view of him), except on the one verse in Matthew. It’s much more faithful and Christ-centered (especially in the OT) and, ironically, more in accordance with the mind of the Catholic Church, than any Catholic Bibles out there except for the ICSBNT (for the NT) and the Haydock Bible, and to a point the Navarre Bible.
*
I agree with you on the translation/footnote content with OSB versus many Catholic bibles, that’s part of why I bought it (that and wanting an English version of the LXX to compare with my Septuaginta). I was just saying I’d seen a ‘slant’ in a number of the footnotes (not only the Petrine texts), that one should be aware of. Personally I’d love if the whole ‘what translation to use in the Lectionary’ issue were resolved by the ‘powers-that-be’ translating the New Vulgate into English (then we wouldn’t have to ‘doctor’ an existing bible text to match it with the Vulgate) and making such a translation available for people to buy, so my bible for Lectio would match what is read at Mass.
K
Khalid
Guest
E
Elvis_Guy
Guest
Well…I’m also a book collector…the bindings on the cloth cover hards the big orange w/Latin v and the compact Green minus Latin…both use “smyth” sewing it Ryan’s almost with life…for the non book nerds!
lol…any-who…smyth is a labor intensive but long lasting Stich!!! Plus it uses a higher grade paper, making it not so opaque hardly any bleed through and you do see this a bit on ignatious! Not bashing I have both…plus the Navs use a better ink…Tolkien y’all I was a book geek…
makes a difference in the final print an India ink or something similar cost more for the binders so you pay a bit more…that said…a good bible is a lifetime investment …and you either want a good leather cover OR…cloth over hardback…in the words of Robert E Lee referring to his Bible …:“a better friend you can’t have by day or by night!”
K
Khalid
Guest
Well…I’m also a book collector…the bindings on the cloth cover hards the big orange w/Latin v and the compact Green minus Latin…both use “smyth” sewing it Ryan’s almost with life…for the non book nerds!
- Oversewing is much more durable than Smyth-sewing (but it won’t lay flat at beginning and end). The Navarre Bible uses nice paper and is well-made - some smyth-sewn stuff (the NOAB) falls apart within a week!
- I believe the paper used in the NOAB is the standard acid-free archival paper used for most hardcover books (I don’t know the weight or whiteness, I’m not a paper nerd).
- They still use India ink? I thought that India ink didn’t bind to the paper fibers very well. At least it’s not oak gall, which rusts the paper. I assumed it was some synthetic pigment used, not lampblack. It’s printed in a decently heavy typeface, but the hardcover editions are formatted poorly (the typeface of the notes is far too large, equal to that of the text, and divided in to two columns in such a way as to make the Bible 10 volumes when it could have been 3 (if printed with the note typeface in the Haydock) or 4 (if it was normal note-style sans-serif 2.5-3-point smaller typeface).
- There’s no Bible out there where the text is good enough to actually bother buying it in an expensive Cambridge or RL Allen calfskin or pigskin edition. Good leather is durable, as the text-block will fall apart with heavy use before the cover will. Cloth over board isn’t, as the corners will get bumped, it is much easier to damage, etc. (although it’s much cheaper), and sewn bindings last longer in leather than they do in board.
That’s why I’m revising/translating my own version (starting from the DRC and from the Clementina and Novae Vulgatae and the Greek, with comparison - but no primary translation from - the Hebrew, unless it’s obvious the Hebrew contains a Messianic passage lost in the LXX, such as Ps 2:10) to match both modern scholarship, when it is possible, and the tradition of the Church (always), to be called, the “Corrected Catholic Version” or something similar. I should start a thread about it to get feedback (e.g. should I add annotation from the Church Fathers and modern orthodox commentators and theologians, and seek an imprimatur, or leave it as text-only? should I make a modern-language version without the “thees” and “thous”? As is, I’m writing it with the archaic pronouns, as it’s easy enough to Find+Replace all instances of “thee” and “thou” with “you” and “thy” and “thine” with “your”, but not easy to replace “you” and “your” with “thee”, “thou”, “thy”, and “thine”).
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Will your version at least have “In the beginning God”–“a virgin will conceive” and “Hail Mary full of grace”?
Why is it so hard for a Catholic version of the bible to at least get those right?
What is the NOAB? I don’t understand the O part. Every version of trhe NAB I’ve ever read wasn’t good.
If the Nova Vulgata was translated into English and printed would the world come to an end?
How many of the know it all class wouldn’t be able to take it?
Why is it so hard for a Catholic version of the bible to at least get those right?
What is the NOAB? I don’t understand the O part. Every version of trhe NAB I’ve ever read wasn’t good.
If the Nova Vulgata was translated into English and printed would the world come to an end?
How many of the know it all class wouldn’t be able to take it?
K
Khalid
Guest
Yes, in continuity with Sacred Tradition. I would call it the “Traditional Catholic Version”, except for the unwanted undertones that come with calling something “Traditional” in Catholic jargon. It’s to be an accurate, faithful Bible that any faithful Catholic can use without fear, unlike some of the stuff (NAB) that’s out there today.
I’m only done with Genesis 1-6 and John 1-3.
It’s in .pdf form (so it can be well-formatted for printing, using a very similar format to the Confraternity Pocket NT/Jerusalem Bible, single-column with interpunct separation of verses; I don’t know what to do about side-column references yet; if it becomes a project, maybe I can solicit donations or have another person add them? I’d like another person to check my translation as well, and another check it for good English style, so it will have the cadences of the DRC and KJV, and be beautiful for public reading and liturgical use) but I can transcript a few of the passages here:
Gen 1:1-2
I’m only done with Genesis 1-6 and John 1-3.
It’s in .pdf form (so it can be well-formatted for printing, using a very similar format to the Confraternity Pocket NT/Jerusalem Bible, single-column with interpunct separation of verses; I don’t know what to do about side-column references yet; if it becomes a project, maybe I can solicit donations or have another person add them? I’d like another person to check my translation as well, and another check it for good English style, so it will have the cadences of the DRC and KJV, and be beautiful for public reading and liturgical use) but I can transcript a few of the passages here:
Gen 1:1-2
John 1:1-10
K
Khalid
Guest
The NOAB is the “New Oxford Annotated Bible”, the current version of which is the NRSV with 250 pages of Biblical-minimalist essays and a notably left-of-center historical-critical slant in its copious annotation, much like a Protestant NAB with a much higher level of scholarship.
I can do a fresh translation of the Nova Vulgata directly from Latin using the DRC as boilerplate (so that the English will be good prose), which would be much easier for me (my Latin is better than my Greek and I won’t have to compare two texts, but just translate one straight through, and I wouldn’t have to write as many alternate readings in the margins), but possibly not as accurate as one using both Latin and traditional (TR/Byzantine) Greek texts (especially in the Deuterocanonicals).
My main objective, and thus problem with using only the Nova Vulgata, is that it would be impossible to get the imprimatur for, since all new translations since DAS have to come from the original languages in order to get the imprimatur. As is, I’m angling for the Greek with heavy Vulgate influence, which should be able to be imprimatur’d, at least for the New Testament. I’ll have to talk to a canonist (if anyone knows of one, point me in their direction) to see if an OT based on the LXX and Vulgate could receive imprimatur: the LXX translation, and our manuscripts of it, are much older than anything except for the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the DSS Hebrew often agrees with the LXX over and above the modern pointed Masoretic Hebrew of the 13-14th century.
J
johnbres2
Guest
Khalid,
I would recommend the modern “you had.” Also, I would not change a word from the KJV for John 1:1. In your perusal of original languages, I recommend you rely heavily on the KJV and DRC as sources, but modernize the more obscure language in those two. Good luck and God bless you and your task!
I would recommend the modern “you had.” Also, I would not change a word from the KJV for John 1:1. In your perusal of original languages, I recommend you rely heavily on the KJV and DRC as sources, but modernize the more obscure language in those two. Good luck and God bless you and your task!
- Status