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

Status
Not open for further replies.
PeterT said:
The translation of the current version of the NAB, the NABRE (New American Bible Revised Edition) is fine overall. There’s still some rough spots like Genesis 1:2, but I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it. Just skip the Introductions and take the footnotes with a large grain of salt.
Click to expand...
I want to second this. It is the NAB that I read cover to cover numerous times, that started my passion to learn more about my faith. It is the NAB that I used through my discernment and Ordination as a Deacon. It is still a Catholic Bible.
 
PeterT said:
One should note that when the Vatican quotes Holy Scripture in its documents (including the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)), it uses the RSV (CE or 2CE) for the English translation of the document. It’s doesn’t use the NAB (and its variants) nor the Jerusalem Bible (JB) and its variants nor the NRSV-CE. The Vatican’s English translation of choice is the RSV.
Click to expand...
The Copyright notice in the CCC says they adapt RSV ©️ 1946, 1952, 1971 and NRSV ©️ 1989.

I do not know what the Vatican uses for other documents.
 
Last edited:
That’s my point: a Catholic edition has to be made, and another edition so that it can be used for liturgy.

It’s used by the Vatican for the Catechism and various documents but not for liturgy in different parts of the world. In these cases, the NAB, JB, and even a Catholic edition of the ESV are used.

There is an NRSV-CE, but likely some will need an NRSV-2CE or some other revision for liturgical use.

Work is being done on a new version of NABRE that can be used for prayer, catechism, and liturgy, which means it involves coordination with and approval from the Vatican.

I mentioned elsewhere that the Church should have taken a coordinated effort on this in the first place instead of relying on ecumenical groups or Catholic ones holding on to copyrights to come up with their own translations, then having to come up with a new edition to meet Catholic or even liturgical needs.
 
ralfyman said:
I mentioned elsewhere that the Church should have taken a coordinated effort on this in the first place
Click to expand...
As I have said, this is what was done. And then the Vatican changed the rules, most noticeably in translations for liturgy. It is not as if the US bishops acted on their own, or the International Committee on English in the Liturgy disobeyed or ignored regulations or people in the Vatican. They worked with them, and then the rules changed.
 
I am referring to this issue concerning the Psalms. The 1970 and 1986 versions were acceptable, but the 1991 version was rejected. Later,
The current liturgical text of the Psalms was modified under the supervision of the Congregation of the Holy See and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for use in the Roman Catholic liturgy in 2000.
Click to expand...
The point is that translators should coordinate with the Vatican and others to receive supervision and to see if any rules are changed.
 
Yes, and that’s shown in your article. The translators and several bishops pushed for “‘gender-neutral’ lanugage” or approved translations that did, only to be rejected by the Vatican, which far from changing rules gave one that was so vague (“or ‘free translation’”) that it was interpreted by various groups to include “inclusivism”.

Copyright holders and translators want to reach the widest audience so that publishers will use their translations, and that includes using inclusive language and lower reading levels (e.g., probably 7th to 8th grade for the U.S. population, which is the reading level needed to understand NABRE). But the Church also expects to use the same translations for liturgical purposes, adding to that changes to meet regional language requirements (such as differences in idiomatic expressions, which means different translations in English have to be used in various regions), and the point that several copyright holders are ecumenical (as in the case of those that own RSV and even ESV, which is used in India), which means they don’t have to coordinate with the Church (i.e., given approval, a Catholic edition has to be released, followed by another Catholic edition that can be used for liturgy).

And when improvements in translations are made given new scholarship and discovered manuscripts, we’re back with the same problems.

One more point to consider: the translations are generally approved for personal use and catechism. The problem is liturgical use.
 
ralfyman said:
One more point to consider: the translations are generally approved for personal use and catechism. The problem is liturgical use.
Click to expand...
I have far less of a problem with using a variant of the NAB for liturgical use in the Lectionary and Roman Missal versus its required footnotes and introductions in the Bibles people purchase for home use.

The reason is because while the version of the NAB used in the Lectionary isn’t the best written translation, it’s fine for proclamation purposes at Mass. Clunky as its translation can be, it’s still okay to hear and it won’t lead anyone astray.

The intros and footnotes of the NAB (including the NABRE) are another matter. Those introductions and footnotes can seriously cause some of the faithful to start to have doubts about the sacredness and holiness of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
In 1992, the American bishops approved the NRSV translation at the request of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy. It was then submitted to the Holy See for confirmation as required by canon law, which was then given by the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW).
Click to expand...
A translation done in the 80s was approved for use in the early 90s, only to be unapproved a few years later. The only explanation for that is that the CDW changed its stance on translations to be used in the liturgy. The NAB translation, that followed the same practices as the NRSV, was also not approved in 1994 for the same reaons.

You seem to be suggesting a different explanation, that the translators did not work with the Vatican. I do not see any evidence for that. As I understand it, that is simply not how these things are done.
 
Last edited:
According to your source, the revised NAB Psalter was completed in 1991, accepted by the CDW in 1992, and rejected in 1993. My guess is that it was accepted for personal use and catechism but not for liturgy, which is part of the point that I’ve been making.

That’s why they are now working with the Vatican to come up with a translation that can be used for all three purposes, which is the second part of my point: they could have done this earlier.

It’s much more difficult for NRSV and ESV because these are made by groups outside the Church. That means in order to use them, one or more Catholic editions have to be made (ESV-CE for India, and NRSV-CE and probably something like NRSV-2CE for those that want to use NRSV-CE for liturgy).
 
I wish they could have had at least different editions of the NAB, such as one for lectio divina, another for historical and linguistic scholarship, etc.
 
ralfyman said:
the revised NAB Psalter was completed in 1991, accepted by the CDW in 1992, and rejected in 1993. My guess is that it was accepted for personal use and catechism but not for liturgy, which is part of the point that I’ve been making.
Click to expand...
1991. November: American bishops approve NRSV and RNAB Psalter for liturgical use and submit it to the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship.
1992: April: Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship sends letter to American bishops approving the text of NRSV (No lectionary was submitted) and RNAB Psalter.
Click to expand...
The acceptance in 1992 was by the CDW, whose concern is liturgy. They would not be the Vatican agency approving it for personal use or catechesis. Cardinal Keeler said Abp Agnelo confirmed his 1994 letter was “the withdrawal of the permission to use the New Revised Standard Version for liturgical purposes.”

Withdrawal of permission implies a change of position in my mind. You do not understand it that way, but I cannot see why. Do you have anything other than your “guess” to support the idea that the NAB was created without cooperation with the Vatican?
 
You are right: their concern is liturgy.

According to another chronology, what was approved was the proposal for liturgical use. This might explain why the Lectionary for the Psalms was submitted for approval several months after. The rejection was announced a year after that.

In short, they published a revised Psalter in 1991, then another edition approved by bishops and published in 1992. After that, they submitted a proposal to have it for liturgical use in April, 1992, and the proposal was approved. They submitted the Lectionary to the Vatican in November, 1992 for approval, and it was rejected in November, 1993.
 
Your chronology is off a little, but that is not a big deal. Just puzzling.

The issue is whether the translation of the NAB was done in coordination with the Vatican, just like the current translation. There are some differences certainly, but basically the NAB and its revisions were crafted by translators and the US bishops to be used for study, liturgy and personal prayer. In 1994 the CDW “withdrew permission” for liturgical use, an abrupt change of direction, which does not change that the translations were done with the Vatican all along.

The current effort could meet the same fate, even though they are trying to get a translation that can be used for any purpose. They may, with all working together, produce an approved translation that is then “unapproved” when someone finds something wrong with it. The only thing preventing that from happening is Magnum Principium, which clarified the lines of authority.
 
The chronology I shared is the same, except that it indicated that what was approved in April was a proposal for liturgical use. That’s why the Lectionary was sent in November, and that was rejected.

Also, according to the article that you shared, various liturgists oppose the Holy See, with various bishops arguing for more inclusive language. The same article implicitly shows that the problem stems not from changes in rules or changes in direction but lack of rules concerning inclusive language, and that is very difficult to make.

Given that, there has to be coordination. That is, any changes concerning inclusive language should be discussed first with the Vatican before the translation is published.

If there is no agreement, then perhaps they can come up with more than one edition: one with as much inclusive language as the bishops want and a label stating that the edition cannot be used for liturgical use, and another edition that can be used for that.

Do the same for notes, i.e., one with the notes intact and another without, so that publishers can use that to come up with lectio divina editions, etc.
 
The issue is whether the translation of the NAB was done in coordination with the Vatican, just like the current translation. There are some differences certainly, but basically the NAB and its revisions were crafted by translators and the US bishops to be used for study, liturgy and personal prayer. In 1994 the CDW “withdrew permission” for liturgical use, an abrupt change of direction, which does not change that the translations were done with the Vatican all along.

I am repeating myself in case you want to actually address the issue. If you have any evidence that the Vatican opposed inclusive language before 1994, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, I will take the CDW approving the use of the NAB and NRSV for liturgy as evidence that they did not oppose them. And that when they withdrew approval, they changed their rules.
 
Last edited:
You’re not reading the chronology I sent correctly. The pertinent parts are quoted below:
1992

April: The Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW) sends a letter to US bishops approving the proposal for liturgical use of the NRSV (no Lectionary was submitted) and the RNAB Psalter.
…
June, November: At their plenary meetings, the American bishops approve a new Lectionary incorporating the RNAB New Testament and Psalms and submit it to the Vatican for approval.
…
1993
…
November: The 1991 Revised Grail Psalter incorporating feminist language is rejected for liturgical use by the bishops at the NCCB meeting.
Click to expand...
You’re confusing the proposal to use the RNAB Psalter for liturgy with the lectionary.

What they sent was not a copy of the RNAB Psalter but a proposal to use it for liturgical use. The proposal was approved in April.

After the proposal was approved, they sent the lectionary for approval in November. That lectionary was rejected the following year.

In short, there was no “abrupt change in direction” and they did not withdraw approval. What was approved was the proposal. What was rejected was the lectionary that was sent after the proposal was approved.

About changing rules, given the timeline, it appears that the Vatican neither opposed nor supported inclusive language before 1994. Instead, it argued that translations should be “accessible at all times” (1965) and should be accurate (1969).

In short, the Vatican did not change their rules. Rather, they gave a general one: accessibility.

U.S. bishops interpreted accessibility as including inclusive language in 1990. The Vatican did not respond until the proposed lectionary containing inclusive language was sent to them in November 1992.
 
ralfyman said:
You’re not reading the chronology I sent correctly. The pertinent parts are quoted below:
1992

April: The Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW) sends a letter to US bishops approving the proposal for liturgical use of the NRSV (no Lectionary was submitted) and the RNAB Psalter.
…
June, November: At their plenary meetings, the American bishops approve a new Lectionary incorporating the RNAB New Testament and Psalms and submit it to the Vatican for approval.
…
1993
…
November: The 1991 Revised Grail Psalter incorporating feminist language is rejected for liturgical use by the bishops at the NCCB meeting.
Click to expand...
What does the US bishops rejecting the Revised Grail have to do with the Vatican’s decision on the RNAB psalter? The pertinent quote is:
1994: July 27: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) declares that the NRSV is not to be used in liturgy or catechetics. Consequently the CDW rescinds approval of both NRSV Bible and RNAB Psalms by letter to bishops’ conferences.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The Vatican approval of the NRSV and RNAB for liturgical use in April 1992 shows that the CDW did not oppose the use of inclusive language. The July 1994 letter that “rescinds approval” shows a definite change of position. The lectionary was never explicitly rejected. Rescinding approval for the RNAB implicitly rejected the lectionary based on it.
ralfyman said:
U.S. bishops interpreted accessibility as including inclusive language in 1990. The Vatican did not respond until the proposed lectionary containing inclusive language was sent to them in November 1992.
Click to expand...
Why is the CDW approval not a response?
[/QUOTE]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top