What's wrong with the NAB and NABRE?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stuartbrianhenlis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
thought that rejected Psalms version was not published, or no longer published? Did copies of it even get out
Click to expand...
Oh no, it was unfortunately published for almost two decades.

NAB bibles with the botched Psalter fill the shelves of thrift stores. If you pick up a NAB and it says something like “with revised NT and Psalms” then that is a version with the defective Psalms.

Like I said, any 3rd edition NAB printed between 1991-2010 will have the botched, defective, rejected Psalter.

The 4th edition NAB / NABRE has a great new translation of the Psalter, so thank God the old horrible translation has been phased out and is no longer published.
 
Last edited:
Did I just see someone say that St Jerome might not be in heaven?
 
@Tis_Bearself

I just looked at it - it’s the third edition 1991 NAB.

But they don’t include the book of Psalms. Lol.

Look at the link you posted - there is no Psalms.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

See - no Psalter 😃
 
Last edited:
You’re right, I just noticed that. I haven’t gotten in my reading as far as Psalms yet.

I think the last time I read Psalms online I used USCCB site.
 
The USCCB site uses the 4th edition NAB / NABRE.

The Psalms in the NABRE are wonderful.
 
The footnotes are garbo. The translation is adequate, but the RSVCE is much better.
 
We can all have our preferences about style. That doesn’t condemn the NAB or NABRE.

However, saying that the footnotes are not theologically sound… I disagree entirely. Did the tax collector Matthew write the gospel associated with his name? No. I don’t think so. Did Luke “make up” the Magnificat? No… “Luke” used existing “canticles” in the particular context in which they fit in this gospel story. That Mary literally spoke these words to Elizabeth when she visited her is a benighted view.
 
Um…you were there? You have newly discovered, confirmed documents from eyewitnesses to refute the gospel accounts…info that was unavailable to the Early Church Fathers, for instance?

Keep in mind that no amount of doctoral degrees, books read or books written, no techniques of textual analysis can come remotely close to bringing a modern scholar to assurance as to who wrote what, who said what, other than what is actually written in the NT, in a culture light years different from our own.
 
Since the Visitation believed to be based on a early tradition in the Church, the author of Luke used an existing hymn and had Mary, the Mother of God, speak it.

That Mary said something to that effect we cannot know for certain because the story has been retold to us, and the original is lost to obscurity.

That this is the case does not take away from the value of the story. If we hope to find a literal historical recitation, we’ll be disappointed. If we take the inspired author for the value of the story, - spiritually and theologically - it can be enriching.
 
Last edited:
I’m glad to see you understand the limitations of modern scholarship. What I don’t understand is how treating the gospels as literal, historical renderings of events makes any sense at all.

It’s hardly about refutation… except refutation of a credulous interpretation of the scripture.
 
Honestly, nothing is wrong with the NAB or NABRE. Some people on these forums like to nitpick it, but it is fully approved by the bishops. The bishops even hired a team of theologians and biblical scholars to do the translation. I would trust the opinion of the bishops and scholars over anything someone on these forums says.

CountrySteve
 
CountrySteve said:
Honestly, nothing is wrong with the NAB or NABRE. Some people on these forums like to nitpick it, but it is fully approved by the bishops. The bishops even hired a team of theologians and biblical scholars to do the translation. I would trust the opinion of the bishops and scholars over anything someone on these forums says.

CountrySteve
Click to expand...
The translation is not heretical, thus it is approved. That does not mean it is the best possible translation. One can say it got a passing grade.

The NAB and NABRE are much more endorsed by liberal scholars than by conservative scholars.
 
stuartbrianhenlis said:
Hi all!

I frequently read negative comments about the NAB. Some people say it’s liberal, others just plain don’t like it, period. So, would someone explain to me exactly wrong with it?

Thanks,
Stuart
Click to expand...
I had a lot of trouble with some of the footnotes, which seem to poo-poo Catholic Doctrine. Until I found out that this is an ecumenical Bible, with the purported (name removed by moderator)ut of “separated brethren”. Apparently, they made their weight felt, in the footnotes.

So, when I read the NAB, I merely ignore the footnotes. I find it very easy to read.
 
I have the NAB St. Joseph’s edition, but I don’t read the footnotes. Opinion’s on this version?
 
Call me crazy, but I actually don’t mind the NABRE at all. ¯\(ツ)/¯
 
Last edited:
AmbroseSJ said:
That is actually a Protestant concept. In fact Protestant Bibles (at least in the past) were ostentatiously advertised as devoid of notes (excepting only marginal references of course.)
Click to expand...
Speaking of Protestant concepts, nice job of proof texting!

Without considering my last sentence, you twisted the concept of my post.
 
Hereiam said:
Speaking of Protestant concepts, nice job of proof texting!

Without considering my last sentence, you twisted the concept of my post.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you have any idea what proof texting is! I definitely considered your last sentence, and totally disagree with you, and stand by my post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top