Why did the Magisterium accept the NAB?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EphelDuath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EphelDuath

Guest
I understand that it’s important to reach to those whose English skills aren’t optimal, so a loose translations is understandable. But why such an overly liberal version?

If somebody made a translation that was loose but more orthodox to Catholic teachings, do you think the bishops would accept the new Missal?
 
The translation in the NAB doesn’t bug me so much, but the footnotes are a bit unsettling. I mean, they mention a bunch of disagreements between different parts of the Bible or between the Bible and history, and they basically just say “Oh, Jesus/this apostle didn’t actually write this. Some other writer fooled around and added this little line to the Bible. Problem settled.” Or they don’t come up with any “explanation” at all and just leave you just as confused. Could someone please explain to me how the NAB became so popular that it’s handed out for free to students in Catholic schools and used as the standard for Bible study? :confused: Thanks.
 
I agree with the poster above. It IS possible to be both critical and scholarly and orthodox, our current Pope proves this. Read “Jesus of Nazareth”. Breathtaking.

However, the NAB footnotes (St. Joseph Edition) are indeed somewhat theologically liberal and adhere to the “when in doubt, throw it out” rule of modernist exgesis.
 
mschrank said:
I agree with the poster above. It IS possible to be both critical and scholarly and orthodox, our current Pope proves this. Read “Jesus of Nazareth”. Breathtaking.

However, the NAB footnotes (St. Joseph Edition) are indeed somewhat theologically liberal and adhere to the “when in doubt, throw it out” rule of modernist exgesis.
Click to expand...
I’ve been reading Jesus of Nazareth lately. It is definitely a different approach at studying the life of Jesus than that of most “historical Jesus” authors out there.

Also, concerning my other post, I meant to say “Jesus/this apostle didn’t actually say/write this” in case somebody gets on my case that Jesus didn’t actually write anything that we have today.
 
My understanding is the USCCB holds the copywrite and thus any royalties from publishing Sacramentaries and Books of the Gospels would accrue to the USCCB.
 
Evan said:
My understanding is the USCCB holds the copywrite and thus any royalties from publishing Sacramentaries and Books of the Gospels would accrue to the USCCB.
Click to expand...
Evan, in this thou hast answered rightly.

I mean, how else would the NAB have become as pervasive as it has?
 
EphelDuath said:
I understand that it’s important to reach to those whose English skills aren’t optimal, so a loose translations is understandable. But why such an overly liberal version?
Click to expand...

FWIW -​

  • what is liberal about it ?
  • how is it overly liberal ?
  • what would be liberal but not overly so ?
If somebody made a translation that was loose but more orthodox to Catholic teachings, do you think the bishops would accept the new Missal?
Click to expand...

Are you asking about​

  • the notes
  • the translation-philosophy
  • the accuracy of the translation
  • the textual basis of the translation
  • or some combination of the above ?
 
The footnotes and introductions are too liberal. The translation itself is wonderful in some places but not very good in others. Not that it is not accurate in some places but they tend to use poor judgment for words that could have been made clearer, such as Gen. 1:2 “a mighty wind” instead of “spirit of God.” The Hebrew word **Ruwach **can mean spirit or wind, but then you have Elohim following which means “God.” Terrible judgment by the translators of the NAB!
 
Evan said:
My understanding is the USCCB holds the copywrite and thus any royalties from publishing Sacramentaries and Books of the Gospels would accrue to the USCCB.
Click to expand...
This makes a great case to use the liturgical forms and scriptural translations that are in the “public domain”. Most of the new scripture translations are not really improvements over the scholarly work of the past, but rather, an employment project for otherwise unemployable PhDs.
 
Can you give some examples of where the NAB has a bizarre or unorthodox rendering, such as Genesis 1:2, Psalm 22:17 and Luke 1:28?
 
The problem is that the notes and intros are part of the translation. I’ve never seen an edition without them. The opposition to the NAB would probably drop by 75% if they stripped out the commentary, or rewrote it, or used the Confraternity notes.

My copy of the Confraternity translation (the forerunner of the NAB) is from 1957. The notes and intros are wonderful! They are completely in line with Sacred Tradition, the Catechism, and orthodox Catholic belief. Comparing them to the NAB notes is like reading the books of two different denominations.
 
copland said:
The footnotes and introductions are too liberal. The translation itself is wonderful in some places but not very good in others. Not that it is not accurate in some places but they tend to use poor judgment for words that could have been made clearer, such as Gen. 1:2 “a mighty wind” instead of “spirit of God.” The Hebrew word **Ruwach **can mean spirit or wind, but then you have Elohimfollowing which means “God.” Terrible judgment by the translators of the NAB!
Click to expand...

I’d ask one of the Jews on the fora about this, just to make sure 🙂 - but, AFAIR, the use of Elohim after a noun has, or can in certain idioms have, an intensive or superlative force - so:​

  • trees of Elohim = mighty trees
  • wind of Elohim = mighty wind
 
Gottle of Geer,

I’d ask one of the Jews on the fora about this, just to make sure 🙂 - but, AFAIR, the use of Elohim after a noun has, or can in certain idioms have, an intensive or superlative force - so:​

  • trees of Elohim = mighty trees
  • wind of Elohim = mighty wind
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, this is very ancient Hebrew, even a Hebrew speaking Jew today does not automatically qualify as an authority. Though I would consider the Septuagint translators as authorites. They translated it into PNEUMA QEOU-spirit of God. Even Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion translated it PNEUMA QEOU. But I am sure you are right about trees of Elohim = mighty trees and wind of Elohim = mighty wind, though I would like to see some examples. St. Jerome translated it into spiritus Dei-spirit of God. But I am not saying that you are incorrect, but I just think that the NAB made a poor translation in Gen. 1:2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top