M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I know a lot of Catholics say that the New American Bible is a bad translation of the Bible. I like see examples why it is such.
- Status
L
ljubim
Guest
I’ve never heard that before!
It’s the one chosen to be used for mass… I can’t imagine these claims holding any credibility at all.
It’s the one chosen to be used for mass… I can’t imagine these claims holding any credibility at all.
C
CDNowak
Guest
The most immediate difference between the NAB and other translation is the quality of the language, the NAB being the more plain, RSV more sacral but not archaic, Douay-Rheims (or -Confraternity) sacral and archaic.
The footnotes in the NAB seem to be unbalanced in the use of historical-critical method of study, IMO. The notes in the RSV are more translation notes and cross references, Confraternity has mainly cross references with a few historical notes. I need to pick up a good commentary series, but will probably do it piecemeal over the next six years or so.
IIRC, there are some translation inaccuracies in the NAB (not as many as some would like to believe, but enough to keep another reference on hand). The RSV-2nd Catholic Edition was edited specifically to conform with the Liturgicam Authenticam, the guide for translating liturgical texts.
The use of the NAB may be an artifact of copyright: the USCCB holds the copyright for the NAB (and has used it somewhat aggressively, suppressing a daily Mass readings podcast because they were using the NAB).
The footnotes in the NAB seem to be unbalanced in the use of historical-critical method of study, IMO. The notes in the RSV are more translation notes and cross references, Confraternity has mainly cross references with a few historical notes. I need to pick up a good commentary series, but will probably do it piecemeal over the next six years or so.
IIRC, there are some translation inaccuracies in the NAB (not as many as some would like to believe, but enough to keep another reference on hand). The RSV-2nd Catholic Edition was edited specifically to conform with the Liturgicam Authenticam, the guide for translating liturgical texts.
The use of the NAB may be an artifact of copyright: the USCCB holds the copyright for the NAB (and has used it somewhat aggressively, suppressing a daily Mass readings podcast because they were using the NAB).
L
lakeview
Guest
It’s largely a matter of taste. It’s not so much “bad” in the sense of inaccurate or mistaken, but some find it awkward and poorly worded. For example, Isaiah 9:2 says “and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” The NAB translation is “They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.” Not that different, but I don’t like the phrase “God-Hero”. Another problem some have is not with the translation but with some of the footnotes that deal with authorship, form-criticism, etc.
The other issue is that there are better translations available, such as the RSV-2nd Catholic Edition. But there are detractors of that translation as well. The important thing is to find a translation that you like to read, then read it! Listen to what is says through the Church and live it as best you can.
F
Fidelis
Guest
Yes, I would agree: overall the NAB is a pretty good translation if you are looking for a more of a dynamic equivalency; i.e. translating it so that it might be more understandable for modern and less literate ears. It’s a good Bible to use for Catholic group study because most Catholics that own Bibles have this translation, and it is easy to understand. I don’t think it is horrid or as unusable as some people (mostly Douay-Rheims-onlyist types) like to make it out to be.
There are a few passages that are really annoying in the way they were translated, however, and some that are downright inaccurate.There’s a lot of unnecessary gender-bending (like saying ‘person’ or ‘one’ to translate the horribly offensive noun ‘man’), Please don’t get me started on the footnotes – there are a number of threads already currently discussing this anyway. Not all of the notes are bad or unhelpful, mind you, but enough insipid to bad ones to make it a chore sometimes to avoid.
There are a few passages that are really annoying in the way they were translated, however, and some that are downright inaccurate.There’s a lot of unnecessary gender-bending (like saying ‘person’ or ‘one’ to translate the horribly offensive noun ‘man’), Please don’t get me started on the footnotes – there are a number of threads already currently discussing this anyway. Not all of the notes are bad or unhelpful, mind you, but enough insipid to bad ones to make it a chore sometimes to avoid.
C
CalCatholic
Guest
When the 1970 edition was released, the New Testament was criticized for not being literal enough. When the NAB N.T. was revised in 1986, it became a more literal translation, but inclusive language was introduced into it which again angered many more people. When the Psalms were revised in 1991 they also received inclusive language.
The NAB Old Testament has been revised but is awaiting another possible revision of the Psalms, this added to the 1986 N.T. will be the new NAB. If inclusive language is added to the O.T. (which I am sure will happen) then some people will not be happy with that.
I don’t mind the NAB, it is not my favorite translation, I do think the Psalms can be improved. The use of the plural to avoid using the word ‘he’ (in Psalm 1 for exp.) “Happy those who do not follow the counsel of the wicked,” Instead of “Happy (or Blessed) the man who does not follow follow the counsel of the wicked,” Other transaltions will use, “Happy (or Blessed) is the one who does not follow the counsel of the wicked,” but then they must use ‘he’ (instead of they) in later verses which is less inclusive. This destroys the Christological meaning that this Psalm has always had, as referring to Christ. (This is probably why the U.S. Bishops rejected the current NAB Psalms for use in the upcoming revision of the Roman Missal).
Psalm 23 can be improved. To avoid using the word ‘he’, the NAB inserted the word ‘you’, as if they are afraid to call our Lord 'He." Verse 3; “you restore my strength”, How about ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ which would give the transalion a little more depth. Verse 6; “I will dwell in the house of the Lord for years to come.” How about ‘for the rest of my life’ or something similar. ‘For years to come’ almost sounds conditional. These are just a couple of examples that apply to many of the Psalms.
I think when the O.T. is revised and the Psalms are revised, the NAB will be a much better translation than it is in its current form. There will always be people that can’t accept the NAB because of the use of inclusive language, but the NAB is going to be used in our Liturgy ‘for years to come’.
The NAB Old Testament has been revised but is awaiting another possible revision of the Psalms, this added to the 1986 N.T. will be the new NAB. If inclusive language is added to the O.T. (which I am sure will happen) then some people will not be happy with that.
I don’t mind the NAB, it is not my favorite translation, I do think the Psalms can be improved. The use of the plural to avoid using the word ‘he’ (in Psalm 1 for exp.) “Happy those who do not follow the counsel of the wicked,” Instead of “Happy (or Blessed) the man who does not follow follow the counsel of the wicked,” Other transaltions will use, “Happy (or Blessed) is the one who does not follow the counsel of the wicked,” but then they must use ‘he’ (instead of they) in later verses which is less inclusive. This destroys the Christological meaning that this Psalm has always had, as referring to Christ. (This is probably why the U.S. Bishops rejected the current NAB Psalms for use in the upcoming revision of the Roman Missal).
Psalm 23 can be improved. To avoid using the word ‘he’, the NAB inserted the word ‘you’, as if they are afraid to call our Lord 'He." Verse 3; “you restore my strength”, How about ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ which would give the transalion a little more depth. Verse 6; “I will dwell in the house of the Lord for years to come.” How about ‘for the rest of my life’ or something similar. ‘For years to come’ almost sounds conditional. These are just a couple of examples that apply to many of the Psalms.
I think when the O.T. is revised and the Psalms are revised, the NAB will be a much better translation than it is in its current form. There will always be people that can’t accept the NAB because of the use of inclusive language, but the NAB is going to be used in our Liturgy ‘for years to come’.
B
BerhaneSelassie
Guest
Terrible translation that ignore tradition, even more terrible notes at times that seem to deny scriptural inerrancy and tradition. Ben Douglass was working book by book for a while to point out the horrible errors in the NAB. see pugiofidei.com/NAB.htm and here pugiofidei.com/NAB2.htm
He has examples there. The NAB has that Mary sinned, the apostles had the right to be married, that it is wrong for a religious leader to be called father.
For the least the NAB notes read:
The NAB should be scrapped. Some of the NAB translation for certain verses seem to come out of no where also, its certainly not a literal translation, at times it seems paraphrased, and as if a Protestant were making a bible for catholics to read
He has examples there. The NAB has that Mary sinned, the apostles had the right to be married, that it is wrong for a religious leader to be called father.
For the least the NAB notes read:
What garbage, the NAB is saying its wrong to call priests father! among other nonesense.
The NAB should be scrapped. Some of the NAB translation for certain verses seem to come out of no where also, its certainly not a literal translation, at times it seems paraphrased, and as if a Protestant were making a bible for catholics to read
C
crazzeto
Guest
It’s in no way bad, I recommend every Catholic own one, most espeacially because it’s the translation used in Mass. That said, I also just recently bought a Douay Rheims bible, after being pionted to their website which is excellent (best web bible). I find the Douay Rheims to be quite helpful in terms of study, the Old English style helps more closely recreate what I’m constantly being reminded (listening to many different speakers) I’m missing out on by not, my self, being able to read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin. Basically, I feel like, based on what’s been described to me as to how things are worded in the original language (or at least in the vulgate) the Douay Rheims seems to bring a lot of that out more clearly.
That can be important in some cases, because unfortunetly a lot of people tend to read the bible with no consideration for the historical context, and certainly no consideration for the fact that you are reading a translation, of a translation, of a copy etc… You get my drift. Not that I’m saying any bible out there doesn’t accuratly and fully repersent the source material. I’m just saying that due to language choices, in some cases the NAB can sort of, conceal what is there, or make it more difficult to make the connections.
That can be important in some cases, because unfortunetly a lot of people tend to read the bible with no consideration for the historical context, and certainly no consideration for the fact that you are reading a translation, of a translation, of a copy etc… You get my drift. Not that I’m saying any bible out there doesn’t accuratly and fully repersent the source material. I’m just saying that due to language choices, in some cases the NAB can sort of, conceal what is there, or make it more difficult to make the connections.
A
adriancombe
Guest
No translation is perfect. The observations already made are valid, and one could find similar or worse faults with most other translations. A good practice for scripture study is to read several translations and when there is a disagreement, try to find out why.
J
j_mart
Guest
The NAB is such a lousy translation, you will not see any non-Catholic buying it. Evangelicals really will buy almost any decent translation, Cathoic as well. Witness the sales of the JB. But NAB? Laugh out loud. Liberal AND tin-eared. Simply awful by any translation standards. Indicative of post-Vatican II idiot Catholic malaise. Of course, people who are unable to think the Bishops capable of such bad stuff will insist it is the APPROVED version, even as it ignores Rome’s language concerns.
C
crowcounty
Guest
its english is the problem
B
Brendan
Guest
One thing to keep in mind is that the NAB texts had to undergo some modificaiton before they were approved for use as a Lectionary texts.
So what you hear at Mass does not exactly match to the text of the NAB. The first one that comes to mind is Luke 1:28
The NAB renders the text as “highly favored daughter”. The Greek work used there is Kecharitomene. It’s most literal translation would be " you (female) who have been previously and completely made perfect in Grace and who continues to be perfect in Grace)
The Lectionary simplifies that to the traditional “Full of Grace”. That kind of shows some of the mistakes that the NAB makes.
The root word charitoo means Grace or Favor, but why translate it as ‘favor’ here, but not in Ephesians 2:8, where the same root is also used. Also there is nothing in there as meaning 'Highly", rather, it is “Perfectly”. And of course, the word “daughter” doesn’t exist at all, only that the subject is female. Even more specifically, it refers to a feminie subject, as Gabriel uses “Kecharitomene” as a title as if that is who Mary IS, not as a description\adjective of Mary.
D
DorianGregorian
Guest
It’s difficult for me to label a translation bad, but I think it departs from traditional Catholic Biblical Scholarship.
First off the Old Testament is right off the bat, way to Ecumenical for my taste. Trent laid down the name and order of the books quite clearly (bible-researcher.com/trent1.html) and the NAB departed from this both by Protestanizing the Old Testment. That is they changed the names of the books to reflect the Masoretic Text (which is unreliable at best, the oldest complete manuscripts date from the 9th century AD as opposed to the Septuagint (which dates nearly 1,000 years earlier, and as the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, are more accurate to the original text). In addition while the number of books were kept the same, the order was changed (1 & 2 Maccabees for example appear in the middle as opposed to the end).
While the NAB uses a good text for it’s translation, the Novum Testamentum Graece, I can not comment on how accurate it is, as I have no knowledge of Greek. However the NAB, most especially the Pslams (which the Vatican doesn’t even put on their website) is a striking departure from the text of the Vulgate. This is because the text of the Vulgate was largely ignored during the translation. While it is good to use the Greek text, we must remember the Vulgate essentially took a “snapshot” of the ancient manuscripts, that is while they are not the original text, they are translated from Manuscripts even older than the ones we have today (especially the Deutro-Canonicals, some of which are a direct copy of the Vetus Latina [around 150]).
While I don’t like the literacy of the NAB, it’s largely irrelevant when talking about Scholastic accuracy. The NAB had a good motive, but I think it should be largely revised, or if necessary replaced. I know (sadly) that we will never have the D-R in the NO Lectionary, but we need something else as this translation of Scripture is clearly not bringing people closer to God.
Laus Deo
First off the Old Testament is right off the bat, way to Ecumenical for my taste. Trent laid down the name and order of the books quite clearly (bible-researcher.com/trent1.html) and the NAB departed from this both by Protestanizing the Old Testment. That is they changed the names of the books to reflect the Masoretic Text (which is unreliable at best, the oldest complete manuscripts date from the 9th century AD as opposed to the Septuagint (which dates nearly 1,000 years earlier, and as the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, are more accurate to the original text). In addition while the number of books were kept the same, the order was changed (1 & 2 Maccabees for example appear in the middle as opposed to the end).
While the NAB uses a good text for it’s translation, the Novum Testamentum Graece, I can not comment on how accurate it is, as I have no knowledge of Greek. However the NAB, most especially the Pslams (which the Vatican doesn’t even put on their website) is a striking departure from the text of the Vulgate. This is because the text of the Vulgate was largely ignored during the translation. While it is good to use the Greek text, we must remember the Vulgate essentially took a “snapshot” of the ancient manuscripts, that is while they are not the original text, they are translated from Manuscripts even older than the ones we have today (especially the Deutro-Canonicals, some of which are a direct copy of the Vetus Latina [around 150]).
While I don’t like the literacy of the NAB, it’s largely irrelevant when talking about Scholastic accuracy. The NAB had a good motive, but I think it should be largely revised, or if necessary replaced. I know (sadly) that we will never have the D-R in the NO Lectionary, but we need something else as this translation of Scripture is clearly not bringing people closer to God.
Laus Deo
I
Izdaari
Guest
There is at least one conservative evangelical who has and uses the NAB, me. It’s not my favorite (the ESV is), but I consider it a decent dynamic-equivalent translation, roughly on a par with the NIV, and I include it as one of the many translations I use. I’ve even taken it to church (Pentecostal) a few times.
Some of the vocabulary is a bit odd, unfamiliar to me, like the use of “holocaust” for “burnt offering” but stuff like that is no big deal really, except for comfort level. My main reason for buying it was to have the Apocrypha in another translation.
J
JustaServant
Guest
I prefer the Douay-Rheims as a study Bible. I agree to an extent with other posters here that the NAB is a little too ‘modern’ for me.
Maybe I’m just getting old…
P
patrick457
Guest
The Hebrew has “Pele Yo’etz, El-Gibbor, Avi-ad, Sar Shalom.” IMHO ‘Father-forever’ may be a good rendering for Avi-ad; the word gibbor denotes a “strong/mighty [man]” but I’d agree with you that God-hero sounds rather strange to the ears, but it’s hardly a new invention: as far as the 19th century, there were already those who think that God-hero is a more better rendering of El-Gibbor.
That’s also the main problem I have with the footnotes and the prefaces: they’re too one-sided, only following the JPED or the Two-Source Hypothesis and the Markan priority, making you think that they’re the only legitimate ‘scholarly’ opinions out there (I wish they’d at least devote more space for the other solutions to the Synoptic Problem, such as the Augustinian or the Griesbach and present a more balanced view). They’re taking this to the point that in some places, they just say ‘Matthew/Luke did so-and-so to Mark’s text’ without further elaboration, as in the following example (footnotes for Matt. 27:11 and 22):
King of the Jews: this title is used of Jesus only by pagans. The Matthean instances are, besides this verse, Matthew 2:2; 27:29, 37. Matthew equates it with “Messiah”; cf Matthew 2:2, 4 and Matthew 27:17, 22 where he has changed “the king of the Jews” of his Marcan source (Mark 15:9, 12) to “(Jesus) called Messiah.” The normal political connotation of both titles would be of concern to the Roman governor. You say so: see the note on Matthew 26:25. An unqualified affirmative response is not made because Jesus’ kingship is not what Pilate would understand it to be.
Let him be crucified: incited by the chief priests and elders (Matthew 27:20), the crowds demand that Jesus be executed by crucifixion, a peculiarly horrible form of Roman capital punishment. The Marcan parallel, “Crucify him” (Mark 15:3), addressed to Pilate, is changed by Matthew to the passive, probably to emphasize the responsibility of the crowds.
P
patrick457
Guest
Actually, I’d say rather that the names were harmonized to what many in the English-speaking world are used to. If the names were changed to reflect the Hebrew, then we should have the books of Bereshit or Tehilim instead of “Genesis” or “Psalms” (which themselves are borrowings from the Greek).
Also, to say that the Masoretic text is ‘unreliable’ is more of a gross generalization. You are correct that in many readings, the oldest Biblical fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls support the Septuagint over the Masoretic (proving that many of the variants in Greek were also present in early Semitic manuscripts). However, there were also many texts found which support the Masoretic, suggesting that an ancestor of the Masoretic text was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BC. The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant, now lost, that differed from the proto-Masoretic text.
You’re correct that the Vulgate puts 1-2 Maccabees at the very end of the OT. However, here’s the Septuagint order, where the books are grouped as (books not in the Catholic canon in brackets):
LAW: Genesis, Exodos, Leuitikon, Arithmoi (Numbers), Deuteronomion
HISTORY: Iesous Naue (Jesus Nave/Joshua), Kritai (Judges), Routh, 1-4 Reigns (1 Samuel-2 Kings), 1-2 Paralipomenon (1-2 Chronicles), [1 Esdras] (aka 3 Esdras in the Vulgate), 2 Esdras (Ezra-Nehemiah), Esther, Ioudith, Tobit, 1-2 Makkabaion, [3 Makkabaion]
WISDOM: Psalmoi [with Psalm 151], [Prayer of Manasses], Iob, Paroimiai (Proverbs), Ekklesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Salomon, Wisdom of Iesous Seirach (Ben Sira, Sirach, Ecclesiasticus), [Psalms of Salomon]
PROPHETS: The Twelve: Osee (Hosea), Amos, Michaias (Micah), Ioel, Obdias (Obadiah), Ionas, Naoum, Ambakum (Habakkuk), Sophonias, Angaios (Haggai), Zacharias, Angelos/Messenger (Malachi)
Esaias, Ieremias, Barouch, Threnoi (Lamentations), Epistle of Ieremias, Iezekiel, Daniel
APPENDIX: [4 Maccabees]
I’d say that the NAB is more of a traditional English/Vulgate-Septuagint hybrid, book order-wise: the books are categorized as they are in the Septuagint (Pentateuch, History, Wisdom, Prophets), but most of the 46 books of the OT are ordered as English Bibles traditionally ordered them - which in turn descended from the Vulgate book order. Since the books of Maccabees are considered historical, it would be just natural to put them under the “Historical Books” category.
You’re right about that. Some books such as Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees, are all taken from Old Latin translations without any revision (Vetus Latina is not a single translation, but is a blanket term for Latin translations of the Scriptures, of varying quality, which existed before the Vulgate, made by various local Latin-speaking churches). The Vetus Latina Gospels were corrected with reference to the oldest Greek manuscripts available to St. Jerome. A few others, such as Baruch, 3 Esdras, Acts, Epistles, and the Apocalypse were also revised from Vetus Latina.
The rest are either translations from the Septuagint (the Gallican Psalter, the deuterocanonical parts of Esther), Theodotion’s Greek translation (the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel), Aramaic (Tobit and Judith), or Hebrew (the rest of the Old Testament; the PsalterIuxta Hebraicum)
I wholeheartedly agree.
B
BerhaneSelassie
Guest
Yes, read the Douai Rheims, or Jerusalem Bible, or the RSV CE, just don’t read the NAB, boycott it, maybe then the USCCB will come out with a new and good translation. I compared the NAB published last year to one from the mid 90’s and the only difference was that the mid 90’s one did not have Pope Benedict XVI’s name, while the pages, the awful foot notes, the translation were all the same with all the same mistakes
T
teachccd
Guest
The main thing that it wrong with any translation is that most Catholics fail to read them. Ask any group of Catholics when it was the last time that they opened a bible. You’d gladly hand out the NAB and pray that they would read it. I guess that it is good that in the early centuries of the Church there were no debates about translations since it was a mere treasure to have access to a bible at all… that’s my two cents. Now continue discussing the pros and cons of the NAB…teachccd
K
KingTheoden
Guest
Did someone say sacred language? No, I must be wrong. This is a thread on the NAB!
When I converted, I got the NAB. I have to be honest, I was exited about it as I was everything that was happening at that point. Since then, I have had the chance to improve my knowledge of the Church, her history and scholasticism, and the challenges we face from the world. Some of these challenges come back to that ‘spirit’ we always hear about.
Honest assessment: Skip the NAB. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
The footnotes are awful. I times I wonder what the scene was like when they were compiling these terrible commentaries; did they intend to out-Protestant the Protestants or was it just by accident?
There is a general skeptical tone obvious through the footnotes. It is the same feel that comes from exceptionally leftist professors; haughty condescension despite the actor’s blaring incompetence. It seems they look for excuses to water down the fact that these writings were inspired.
NAB approaches to the Gospels is similar to how a secular grad student would come at them: as a cultural, sociological tradition that can be explained and rationalized like any piece of writing.
I can’t speak Greek, so I can’t get into particular translation problems. However, it is very, very clear that the NAB compilers did not have the same spirit as the men who gave us the Douay Rheims.
When I converted, I got the NAB. I have to be honest, I was exited about it as I was everything that was happening at that point. Since then, I have had the chance to improve my knowledge of the Church, her history and scholasticism, and the challenges we face from the world. Some of these challenges come back to that ‘spirit’ we always hear about.
Honest assessment: Skip the NAB. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
The footnotes are awful. I times I wonder what the scene was like when they were compiling these terrible commentaries; did they intend to out-Protestant the Protestants or was it just by accident?
There is a general skeptical tone obvious through the footnotes. It is the same feel that comes from exceptionally leftist professors; haughty condescension despite the actor’s blaring incompetence. It seems they look for excuses to water down the fact that these writings were inspired.
NAB approaches to the Gospels is similar to how a secular grad student would come at them: as a cultural, sociological tradition that can be explained and rationalized like any piece of writing.
I can’t speak Greek, so I can’t get into particular translation problems. However, it is very, very clear that the NAB compilers did not have the same spirit as the men who gave us the Douay Rheims.
- Status