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

Status
Not open for further replies.
catholic03 said:
Here is a review of my exact copy:

Click to expand...
I have this bible too. It’s a combination of the original Jerusalem Bible (JB) with the 1963 Grail Psalms. It’s the official Bible for the Catholic Church in Great Britain and Ireland. I just wish they came out with an edition of this Bible with larger-sized type.
 
I do like how the keys of St Peter are stamped on the back in gold. My missal is their CTS Daily Catholic Missal (I live in New Zealand so it is the best one to use) and it is of the same wonderful quality. It is a brick, extraordinarily thick which is a pain. Carrying it to Mass is trying.
 
The translation of the newest version of the NAB, the NABRE (New American Bible - Revised Edition) is fine, IMHO, but not the best. It’s a bit “clunky” in certain places.

But what others have already pointed out, what’s horrendous about the NAB (and NABRE) is many of its footnotes and even worse, its introductions to the books of the bible. It’s shocking to think those introductions were written by someone who was actually Catholic. To me most of the introductions appear to have been written by people who wanted to DISCREDIT the sacredness of the Holy Bible.

The New Living Translation Catholic Edition (NLT-CE) is an excellent dynamic (functional equivalence) translation of the Bible. I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants an easier to understand Catholic Bible. Its introductions to the books of the bible and its footnotes are fine and orthodox. The only minus is that it doesn’t come in a full-blown “study edition” with more extensive footnotes and longer and more detailed introductions.
 
Last edited:
One of my all-time favorite English translations of the Holy Bible is the Revised English Bible (REB) with Apocrypha published by the Oxford Press. It’s an ecumenical bible while not officially approved by the Catholic Church had a lot of Catholic scholars who worked with their Protestant counterparts in creating one of the most beautifully written Bibles in the English language.

https://www.amazon.com/Revised-English-Bible-With-Apocrypha/dp/0191012130/
 
Which version of the NAB are you talking about? There have been like 5 since 1970.

One aspect I dislike about the NAB is how the USCCB keeps updating it. I heard the New Testament is currently being updated (again), and is poised for a 2025 release. I frankly do not like seeing the Word of God being “updated” this much. The English language has not changed that significantly in the past 50 years.

The fact the NAB has been updated so many times in its young history tells me it’s just not a good translation.

It also lacks the beautiful and poetic language of older translations in my opinion.

The RSV-2CE is a great translation if you need modern English. And I would highly recommend it over the NAB.

The Douay-Rheims is still my “go-to” Bible when I need solid Catholic teaching.

Another great translation that hardly ever gets mention is the Ronald Knox version. Absolutely fantastic translation, and one that was fully endorsed by Pope Pius XII.

The Confraternity New Testament is also a fantastic update to the Douay-Rheims, a shame they couldn’t have done the same for the Old Testament!
 
Last edited:
Hello everyone.
I’m just reading all the comments and criticisms so far.
I’m just wondering whether someone could just give one example of each of these criticisms so I and anyone else can get a feel about what we are actually talking about?
I’m most grateful. Please pick the worst example if you can to illustrate your point.

Please give one example of:
  1. Text not reflecting Hebrew or Greek
  2. Awful footnotes
  3. Theological questionable content
The inclusive language I can see everywhere so that’s fine but it’s just the above points I would like to have a firm grip on.

@po18guy
@edward_george1
 
Last edited:
Yes, the CTS Bible uses the Jerusalem Bible. The New Jerusalem Bible is a fundamentally different translation.
 
I’ll have to pull a copy of it to give you a direct quote, if that’s what you’re looking for, but one of the more egregious footnote issues is where Jesus says that it is not what goes into the mouth, but what comes from the heart, that makes one unclean, “by this he declared all foods clean.” The 1970 NAB footnote says something to the effect of that Jesus was an observant Jew and he didn’t mean that unclean foods were suddenly not unclean. It’s not even theologically problematic (it denies the Divinity of Christ), it’s just nonsensical.
 
Mark 7:19 (Thus he declared all foods clean): if this bold declaration goes back to Jesus, its force was not realized among Jewish Christians in the early church; cf. Acts 10:1-11:18
Click to expand...
I do not have a copy of the 1970 translation, but this is the note from the 1986, which is currently in use. Does it address the problem you described?

The NAB was translated and issued in 1970, based on the Confraternity edition. The NT was translated and approved in 1986. The OT was translated by 2001, the US bishops had a subcommittee examine it and it was approved in 2008. The NABRE, containing the 1986 NT and the 2008 OT, was released in 2011. The translation of the Psalms were treated a bit differently, but that is the basic timeline for the translations.
 
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.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
The NAB and the NABRE are not that different from each other, except for maybe the Psalms.
Click to expand...
FYI - There are actually major differences with the Old Testament between the NAB & NABRE. That’s that the NABRE project started with - retranslating the Old Testament. Soon, in the early 2020s the New Testament translation will be complete - at which time the NABRE (if they don’t rename the new one) will be totally different from the NAB translation.

The article posted above by @ralfyman discusses this at the end of the article
 
edward_george1 said:
I’ll have to pull a copy of it to give you a direct quote, if that’s what you’re looking for, but one of the more egregious footnote issues is where Jesus says that it is not what goes into the mouth, but what comes from the heart, that makes one unclean, “by this he declared all foods clean.” The 1970 NAB footnote says something to the effect of that Jesus was an observant Jew and he didn’t mean that unclean foods were suddenly not unclean. It’s not even theologically problematic (it denies the Divinity of Christ), it’s just nonsensical.
Click to expand...
What’s funny is that the footnotes are so bad that the Africans publish the NABRE with all footnotes scrubbed and call it the “New African Bible”!
 
catholic03 said:
My 4 volume Liturgy of the Hours says the NAB is “highly acclaimed”!
Click to expand...
The Liturgy of the Hours uses the 1970 NAB translation. They thought it was great when they released it, but quickly realized it was terrible, which is why it’s been updated so often.

Personally, I would second guess the opinion of any Catholic publisher who deliberately removes beautiful Catholic drawings from their prayer books and replaces them with 1970s “art” that makes one think they are on an acid trip when looking at them… 😉
 
Last edited:
catholic03 said:
Hello!

I have a few copies of the Bible in a few different translations. Although I got my hands on the New Living Translation Catholic Edition which I would recommend (the Protestant edition is the most popular Bible in the last 20 years) because of its accurate rendering in the modern language, I still like the NAB. I am not American, but it is so easy to understand the text and it also seems literal. Although the NLT is somewhat literal the NAB seems to preserve the literal language in an way that is as easy to understand as the NLT.

I have other translations including the RSVCE and the Douay Rheims, but I do like the NAB.

I do not understand why there seems to be so much dislike towards this edition which I like a lot.

In Christ.
Click to expand...
Some like more literal rather than more dynamic translations. Many Catholic versions are approved for study. It is a different matter for the Lectionary in various countries. (For example, Canada uses a version based upon the New Revised Standard Version and many other countries have a version based on the Jerusalem Bible.)

The 1970 NAB OT with 1986 revision of the NT continues to be used as a base for the Lectionary in the US because a newer English translation has not been approved to replace it, but the Lectionary is not identical to the 1970 NAB. Vatican officials said the problems with the NRSV and NAB Psalter involve doctrinal and theological issues and are not just matters of style. Not approved for liturgy in the US as of July 27, 1994:
  • New Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible
  • New American Bible revised Psalter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top