What's Wrong with NAB?

[DJ_Pius_X]

I asked a friend which Catholic Bible I should get the other day. He told me that on no account should I get the NAB. Are there others who feel the same way? Why?

The American Council of Catholic Bishops uses it, right? It seems like a good bible.

 

[WoundedIcon]

Eh, it’s basically clunky sounding and the footnotes are liberal as hell. Plus some of the translation choices were guided by liberal scholarship (one passage was basically translated to read contradictorily because the scholars believed that it was a contradiction.)

I’d personally recommend the RSV-CE. I have some reservations about some Protestant influence, but compared to the liberal Protestant-like tinge of the NAB it’s nothing. It reads well, sounds nice (being derivative of the KJV), but is modern and scholarly too.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I’m sure you’ve already heard of them, but the RSV-CE 2nd edition is good as well as a Douay-Rheims version.

Peace,
Phil

 

[JulianNorwich]

Since our liturgical readings are drawn from the NAB, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t want to use it.

 

[ZDHayden]

Having been raised on the KJV, the NAB is rather ugly when read aloud. The beauty of the words should be a priority, not just the accuracy. The NAB is, as far as I can tell, no where near accurate to the Nova Vulgata. The old Douay version is closer - and it was a translation of the old vulgate. The NV - despite all the accusations against it - is beautiful Latin. When read aloud, there is a rhythm to it, and, (suprisingly!) if you use the Classical pronunciation, it even has a sort of melody (not as refined or stunning as Cicero or Vergil, but still there). It is also phenomenally close to the Greek. THAT is what a translation should be. I have all but given up on English translations. I tolerate the RSV-2CE and the Douay, but neither are there.

But, I don’t blame the translators entirely - the hardest thing to do in literature is to produce a good translation - it is harder than even coming up and writing something of one’s own. You have to take into consideration not only vocabulary and grammar, but the connotations of each word, the culture of the time that produced it, the intentions of the author, as well as trying to mimic the author’s style in a language not their own.

Thus, my main problems with the NAB are artistic and linguistic in origin. I only ever pay attention to the NAB at Mass, though I have a study Bible for that translation.

 

[Joe_5859]

Okay, the NAB isn’t that bad. It is an approved Catholic translation, a variation of which is what we read at Mass every day here in the U.S. Reading it is probably not going to lead you into heresy.

Are there problems with it? Sure. Any translation has its weaknesses. The NAB takes a more “dynamic equivalence” approach to translation whereas the RSV takes a more literal approach. That can make the NAB more readable to the average Catholic, but then you also lose some of the idiomatic expressions from the original texts.

My main problem is with the introductions and footnotes. They seem to put forth the modern historical-critical method gone awry as though it is undisputed fact. I personally think it’s a bit irresponsible to bring up disputes about authorship and the like in a text that is basically geared towards the masses. It sows seeds of doubt about the inspiration of Scripture, IMO. Of course, they do the same thing in most high school textbooks as well.

But, being aware of its limitations, I see no reason not to use it. I personally prefer the RSV, but I think it’s always good to have lots of translations on hand. That way, if you come across a passage that is difficult or doesn’t sound quite right, you can compare with other translations and get a better grasp of it. Of course, it is ideal to look back to the original languages, but not all of us are called to be biblical scholars and be fluent in ancient languages. But it is good to get at least a passing familiarity with the ancient languages whenever possible.

You might take a look at Catholic Answers’ tract on Bible Translations for a bit more in depth discussion of these issues.

 

[ZDHayden]

Of course, it is ideal to look back to the original languages, but not all of us are called to be biblical scholars and be fluent in ancient languages. But it is good to get at least a passing familiarity with the ancient languages whenever possible.

Hmm . . . perhaps it is because I may be called to be a Classicist but I think that being at least proficient in the ancient languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Coptic especially) is part of the ideal of an educated Catholic. Sure, doctrine and dogma and teachings come first, and always should be improved upon. But the ancient languages can inform the individual in such a way as translations cannot. For example: I read once that one cannot understand St. Augustine in translation.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Out of curiosity, what would be a few examples of the “liberal problem” with the NAB?

 

[Joe_5859]

Hmm . . . perhaps it is because I may be called to be a Classicist but I think that being at least proficient in the ancient languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Coptic especially) is part of the ideal of an educated Catholic. Sure, doctrine and dogma and teachings come first, and always should be improved upon. But the ancient languages can inform the individual in such a way as translations cannot. For example: I read once that one cannot understand St. Augustine in translation.

Yes, I certainly agree that it is ideal. But I think most Catholics might be scared away if we emphasize it too much, at least right away. I’m just thinking of some of the Catholics I know. Getting them to read an English translation of Scripture is hard enough.

 

[ZDHayden]

Yes, I certainly agree that it is ideal. But I think most Catholics might be scared away if we emphasize it too much, at least right away. I’m just thinking of some of the Catholics I know. Getting them to read an English translation of Scripture is hard enough.

Hey - I’ll volunteer (It’ll give me work!), as I’m on the teaching track for Latin at my university, and have started learning Greek on my own, on top of my Philosophy and Communication classes (my Latin professors also teach Greek - it was one of them who advised I also pick up Greek) and have my eyes on Hebrew, Coptic, and Aramaic. We can start teaching with our priests!

 

[puzzleannie]

I asked a friend which Catholic Bible I should get the other day. He told me that on no account should I get the NAB. Are there others who feel the same way? Why?

The American Council of Catholic Bishops uses it, right? It seems like a good bible.

there are some people who take issue with the footnotes to the NAB, because you see of course their unaided scholarship trumps that of the US Bishops and those they appoint

it is only fair to note however that they had to try 3 times before Rome approved it for liturgical use, and even then the psalms are still unacceptable. to make it easier on yourself choose a bible approved in that translation by Rome, and by your country’s bishop’s conference, then you are not forced to second guess the translators.

 

[Joe_5859]

Out of curiosity, what would be a few examples of the “liberal problem” with the NAB?

Here’s an example. In the Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew, it puts forth the “Two-Source Theory” as the most likely manner in which the Gospels were composed.

Sure, maybe it’s correct that it is the theory “now favored by the majority of scholars”, but it was also condemned by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Certainly, they qualify it by saying: “The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability.” But then they go on to articulate this one position (i.e. the Two-Source Theory) at great lengths – and in the process, they call the traditional position “untenable”. They completely ignore any evidence for the traditional belief that Matthew actually wrote the Gospel of Matthew and that he wrote it first.

Thus, the clear implication is that Catholics used to believe this traditional view, but now the majority think otherwise. The average Catholic is going to assume that the “majority of scholars” is correct, especially since they bring up no counter-evidence whatsoever.

 

[Joe_5859]

Hey - I’ll volunteer (It’ll give me work!), as I’m on the teaching track for Latin at my university, and have started learning Greek on my own, on top of my Philosophy and Communication classes (my Latin professors also teach Greek - it was one of them who advised I also pick up Greek) and have my eyes on Hebrew, Coptic, and Aramaic. We can start teaching with our priests!

 

[revert_jen]

Since our liturgical readings are drawn from the NAB, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t want to use it.

Actually, although the texts were originally from the NAB, they had to be revised before they could be used in the Lectionary. This is for the Mass translation we have now–I don’t know if further revisions were made to the texts for the new Mass translation.

Plus, of course, you don’t have footnotes at Mass.

To the OP: I would certainly not go so far as to say you should never use it, but I find that it is a little bit too much like having someone chew your food for you. I would prefer a translation that is a translation, with a bit less interpretation, myself.

I believe you can find both it and the RSV-CE and the NAB online. Pick some passages from both the OT and the NT that you are familiar with, read both versions online, and see which one you feel more comfortable with. The right Bible, as they say, is the one you will read.

What I would strongly recommend against, however, is “The Catholic Study Bible” (Oxford University Press) which is based on the NAB. I got one when I first came back to the Church, and it almost sent me back to the Protestants, because the (somewhat Evangelical) Protestant Churches I had attended clearly believed in God and the possibility of prophesy (e.g. in OT times) and miracles and so forth. Reading the Catholic Study Bible, I was beginning to doubt if Catholics really did. In the end I actually threw it away (well, technically, ripped off the covers and recycled it), and I am not a person who gets rid of books often or lightly.

So, as long as you just get the actual Bible, and don’t pay too much attention to footnotes and so forth (which in any translation are not part of the actual inspired text anyway), the NAB is OK. But I’d check out other versions as well before deciding.

–Jen

 

[polackt]

I found it very clunky to read; and it is in the process (and I think completed) of being revised in part because it is known for being a difficult read. For a more readable and some thing accurate translation, I would recommend the RSV. Here’s a helpful guide, though a personal one, that gives a little more insight into different Catholic Bible versions. The person is in process of ranking their top five Catholic Bibles:
catholicbibles.blogspot.com/search/label/Top%205%20Bibles

God Bless,

Tim

 

[James924]

Hmm . . . perhaps it is because I may be called to be a Classicist but I think that being at least proficient in the ancient languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Coptic especially) is part of the ideal of an educated Catholic. Sure, doctrine and dogma and teachings come first, and always should be improved upon. But the ancient languages can inform the individual in such a way as translations cannot. For example: I read once that one cannot understand St. Augustine in translation.

I agree and think Latin and a bit of Greek and Hebrew should be a standard part of Catholic education in Catholic Schools. Could you explain why you mentioned Coptic though? I’ve heard of the Coptic Church but am otherwise ignorant of it and of the language.

 

[James924]

there are some people who take issue with the footnotes to the NAB, because *you see of course **their unaided scholarship ***trumps that of the US Bishops and those they appoint.

Our Lord’s Passion Predictions

Matt 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

Matt 17:22-23*As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.” And they were greatly distressed. *

Matt 20:17-19*And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”
*

NAB Footnote to Matt 16:21 regarding all three Passion Predictions

“Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Mt 17:22–23; 20:17–19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable (PROBABLE??) that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death (PERHAPS?) , but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Mt 26:29).”

The USCCB can keep whatever aided scholarship is being used by those they appoint. I, as a catholic, want nothing to do with it.

 

[ZDHayden]

I agree and think Latin and a bit of Greek and Hebrew should be a standard part of Catholic education in Catholic Schools. Could you explain why you mentioned Coptic though? I’ve heard of the Coptic Church but am otherwise ignorant of it and of the language.

Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Church Slavonic and Coptic are the historical liturgical languages of the Universal Church. The See of Alexandria historically used Coptic; the Russian Orthodox historically used Church Slavonic, the See of Jerusalem historically used Hebrew.

Coptic is a descendent of Egyptian, which heavily influenced Hebrew (like Greek heavily influenced Latin).

I have a particular interest in the classical Christian liturgical languages and I think that to achieve unity among all of Christendom we need those who understand most, if not all, of Christendom. We need diplomats. Language is just one area to begin. Language is a window into culture. I am a Roman Catholic - and wouldn’t give up my Roman-ness for the world, but I have started to integrate certain aspects of spirituality and religious culture of our Eastern brethren. I am sick of the divisions - I will do what is necessary to help treat the wounds.

I am interested in languages, history and philosophy, so my focus, I think, should be in the linguistic-cultural aspects of the various ancient forms of Christianity. One puny American scholar, however, cannot achieve anything.

I think it is important for those of us loyal to Peter to understand our brethren - never sacrifice doctrine, but seek understanding. Greek and Hebrew and Latin, especially, should be required in Catholic education (at least the rudiments of Greek and Hebrew, and proficiency in Latin) - Coptic and Church Slavonic should be offered as electives at the college level. The best way to speak to a people is to speak and understand their language. I do think a large factor in the Great Schism was a mutual lack of understanding each other’s linguistic heritage. Any possible barrier in communication must be torn down, and those who are loyal to Peter must make the first move.

Sorry if this seems as if it is rambling.

 

[Crumpy]

I’ve heard it said that the NAB is a paraphrase translation. some who criticize the translation point to this feature.

I think the translation can be somewhat misleading, too.

the NAB seems to take the rule of translating the word “cup” as “chalice” so that we Catholics are using the word most politically correct. You know, “Father let this CHALICE pass from me.” I think the word “chalice” overdoes the political correctness.

the word “chalice” makes us think of a precious liturgical vessel that we are familiar with in our modern liturgy. I’m not so sure that THAT was used at the last supper or what Jesus was referring to during His agony in the garden.

That word is a distraction to me. The “cup” that Jesus wanted HIs Father to pass from Him during the agony was not a pretty thing. It was a reference to the suffering that He was to undergo. In my non-academic way of thinking, it’s confusing to refer to that as a “chalice.” There was nothing beautiful about THAT cup.

 

[steve53]

The NAB turning “wineskins” into “bottles” is all I need to know.

Not for me.