Why do People Dislike the New American Bible (NAB)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott84 said:
Which version of the NAB are you talking about? There have been like 5 since 1970.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is a good point. There are so many NABs out there it’s hard for me to know exactly which one I was hearing or reading at any given moment.

I’m frankly sick of the constant revising of the Bible. It’s another reason to just use Douay Rheims, Haydock, or some other old approved Bible that isn’t going to be changing every ten years.
 
Last edited:
ralfyman said:
Scholars interviewed for this article recommend NABRE, together with the NRSV, because of newly discovered manuscripts and updated scholarship.

However, for the same reasons, and given the desire to have translations that can also be used for liturgy, then one should consider waiting for the updated NABRE, which will come out in a few years, and the NRSV Updated Edition.

For now, what I did was get a cheap, hardcover edition of NABRE, which already comes with scholarly notes, for study, and a cheap, hardcover Catholic Prayer Bible (Lectio Divina Edition, and which uses NRSV-CE) for prayer and reflection.
Click to expand...
I don’t know… the article you post seems to promote the RSV-CE the most. The Navarre Bible, the Ignatius Study Bible, the Didache Bible, etc all use the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE (Yes, I know there is now a NABRE version of the Didache Bible, but the article links to the RSV-2CE version).
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
They’re probably noticeable to a Bible scholar. I didn’t see much change as a layman who reads the Bible a couple times a week.
Click to expand...
Yeah. To the average lay person, some of the differences are only noticeable when you compare the two versions of a verse side by side.
 
Scott84 said:
The fact the NAB has been updated so many times in its young history tells me it’s just not a good translation.
Click to expand...
The NAB came out in 1970.
In 1986, the revised NT was released. Editions said “with revised New Testament.”
Within a few year, they began translating the OT, which was finished in 2001. A subcommittee of the US bishops approved it 7 years later and the NABRE was published in 2011 with the ‘86 NT, ‘08 OT.
That is 3 of the 5 editions. The other 2 peobably just had to do with the Psalm translation, but I am not sure.

In 50 years, the NT and the OT were retranslated once each. I do not see how that is “updated so many times.”

The 1970 translation was approved for liturgical use. The revised editions have not been. The desire for a translation that can be used liturgically as well as for study is why they are retranslating the NT again.
 
ratio1 said:
And just wondering what do you think is the reason that there are these nonsensical things still in it?
Is it because the editors have been alerted to these things and decided not to change them?
Or is it because knowledgeable people who notice these things but decided not to alert the editors?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
As we have all noted, the Church is experiencing a periodic malaise. This is reflected in various ways - weak catechesis, inconsistent teaching, relativism, poor levels of discipline and many other manifestations of our age. Sadly, the NAB is part of that malaise.

For me, one huge textual problem (which has been corrected in the lectionary version but not for you and I) is how Mary is addressed in Luke 1:28. “Favored one” is diminished even in comparison with the King James Version (“highly favored”). This does not match the Greek or Church tradition or even intellectual pursuit. Page forward to Acts 6:8. There we see that Stephen was “filled with grace” but the Blessed Virgin is not. AYKM?

Look at the footnotes for Luke 1:45 and following. They strongly suggest that Luke simply made up Mary’s Magnificat and inserted it to make the story more pleasing. This raises the question of what else he allegedly “made up.”

The intro to Matthew states with authority that we have no idea who actually wrote the Gospel. It is called Matthew for the sake of convenience. If that is the case, then why is it not the Gospel according to Phillip, or the Gospel according to Simon the Zealot?

Modernism (and the worst aspects of historical-critical textual criticism) has crept in and there is, what seems to me, to be arrogance on the part of the translators and ‘notationists.’ They seem to presume that advanced degrees (of what value?) allow them greater knowledge of historical facts than those who were actually there! Entropy applies to all things, both material and intellectual and history is no exception. For that reason, the Church has the Apostolic Tradition to teach us correctly.

The NAB and NAB/RE have been cleansed of a substantial part of the supernatural elements of the faith - part and parcel of modernism.

Oh, almost forgot: From the ‘Rheims-Douai’ to the 1969 Confraternity bible, all had the prayer to the Holy Spirit preceding the scriptures. That has been omitted (to what end?) and to me is a glaring error.

There are undoubtedly numerous additional points which are highly questionable. There are better bibles. The Church founded by Christ has done better and can do better. IMO, she must do better.

EDIT: Typos. Also, for those reading, get a 1941-1969 Confraternity bible. It began with pure D-R Old Testament (not a bad thing…) combined with the simply excellent 1941 Confraternity New Testament. For $10-$20 on eBay, you can have a bible with solid, uplifting, confidence inspiring intros and footnotes. Set one side-by-side with an NAB or NAB/RE and you will feel cheated by the current “approved” bible.
 
Last edited:
I disliked the NAB from the moment I picked it up. And this was back when I knew nothing about translation methods or different versions of the Bible that we used as Catholics.

I honestly thought the NAB was the official bible for the entire Catholic Church at the time I bought it. Lol

Nevertheless, I tried to read it for years, but no matter what I did, I found that bible to be so boring and dry. I didn’t discover other Catholic translations until a few years later, so my dislike of the NAB wasn’t influenced by anything other than my own preference.
 
I think the problem with RSV is that it’s incomplete, which is why they had to come up with NRSV, at least according to the preface. I don’t know what the problems are with NRSV, but the translators have decided to come up with an updated edition of that. From there, we will probably have to wait for a Catholic edition of that, probably followed by another Catholic edition that can be used for liturgy.

For NABRE, I think they decided to revise the NT section so that the translation will be accepted by the Church for use in liturgy, and it should come out in 2025.
 
PeterT said:
To me most of the introductions appear to have been written by people who wanted to DISCREDIT the sacredness of the Holy Bible.
Click to expand...
I don’t follow this line of thinking. Maybe because I’m a “new” Catholic & completely embrace VII.

IMO, what makes the bible stories sacred is not about whichever individual the Holy Spirit used to pen a letter or book, but that the Holy Spirit inspired many men from all walks of life to put pen to paper (or chisel to stone tablet).

It no more rocks my faith to learn St Peter didn’t write 2nd Peter than it did to learn Moses didn’t write Deuteronomy.

Same thing with Genesis. Doesn’t affect me one bit if God created the universe in 6 days or 10,000 years. I know God created the universe. How is beyond my understanding.

At the same time, I do like reading different versions & different notes. I just don’t see anything horrendous in any Catholic approved bible.
 
You left out the NAB with revised Psalms from 1991, that counts as a revision.
 
Thanks. I did mention them, but without the specificty of the date 1991. Someone said there were 5 editions, but I only see 4, so far.
Dovekin said:
That is 3 of the 5 editions. The other 2 peobably just had to do with the Psalm translation, but I am not sure.
Click to expand...
 
Justin_Mary said:
At the same time, I do like reading different versions & different notes. I just don’t see anything horrendous in any Catholic approved bible.
Click to expand...
You’re gonna find some stuff from me:

Matthew 16:21-23:

[21-23] This first prediction of the passion follows Mark 8:31-33 in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on (Matthew 16:21) Matthew has emphasized that Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Matthew 17:22-23; 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Matthew 26:29). [SOURCE]

So Jesus can’t predict the future? I’m shleep.
 
And to top it off, they deny the one NT passage that proves there is a purgatory:

No one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if some one’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor 3:12-15)

[Verse 15] Will be saved: although Paul can envision very harsh divine punishment (cf 1 Cor 3:17 ), he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere (cf 1 Cor 5:5 ; 11:32 [discipline]). The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.
 
I can’t believe those introductions are posted on the usccb website. It’s appalling.
 
As distressing as the last 60-70 years have been for the Church, she has weathered far, far worse. Prayer is needed that hearts may change.
 
Last edited:
Do you find the DR difficult to read in terms of texture? It was a mental workout to read Paul’s letters , the sentences seem really disjointed.
 
Matthew 16:21-23:

[21-23] This first prediction of the passion follows Mark 8:31-33 in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on (Matthew 16:21) Matthew has emphasized that Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Matthew 17:22-23; 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Matthew 26:29). [SOURCE]

So Jesus can’t predict the future? Then what does “Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death” mean?
 
Take the book introductions and footnotes out and you would have a mediocre, run of the mill bible (6th grade reading level). With them in, it tips the balance decidedly into the negative, IMO.

It has been 50+ years since I read at the 6th grade level. I want a translation that feeds me both spirtually and linguistically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top