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

[Dovekin]

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 .

Acts 6:8 uses the word plere-which means full. Luke 1:28 does not. Your complaint is that it is too literal?

Your comment on Luke 1:45ff is indecipherable. The note describes “a Jewish Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate at this point.” How does that become “Luke simply made up”?

These criticisms seem pretty confused. Maybe they are based on the 1970 translation?

 

[Dovekin]

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.

The NT was not written in classical Greek, but in “common Greek.” This dialect developed, possibly among Alexander’s soldiers, as something that everyone would understand. Perhaps that is what we call “the 6th grade level” today?

 

[po18guy]

The notes are in fresh off the press NAB/REs. Can you not see that it is strongly suggested that Luke (OK, made up is not clear)…let’s say “copied and pasted” the Magnificat and that Mary never uttered a single word of it?

As to Luke 1:28, does the Greek not use “Chaire Kecharitomene”? Other than perhaps a reference in Maccabees, isn’t that the only place in the scriptures where it is used?

But! We are not talking of Greek here, but English, into which all has supposedly been accurately translated. Mary comes out as ‘favored’ and Stephen ‘filled with grace’. That’s the English, and that’s the beef I have with it.

Please call Dr. David Anders and correct him, if this is off-base.

 

[po18guy]

Wiki states “junior high” reading level for the NAB. For the NAB/RE, it claims “highschool” which I am guessing used to be junior high level - but that’s another subject for another thread.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I find some of Paul’s letters hard to follow even in the NABRE. It’s not really the DR’s fault.

 

[po18guy]

Not blaming Dr. Anders, as he is my interwebz mentor. Saint Peter wrote that Saint Paul’s letters were hard to understand and that is borne out again and again. And, for that reason, the innovators rely heavily on Saint Paul.

 

[anon91549587]

Thanks for replying. I feel the need to pray for you during this period. Take care .

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Prayers are always welcome, thank you.

 

[Dovekin]

The notes are in fresh off the press NAB/REs. Can you not see that it is strongly suggested that Luke (OK, made up is not clear)…let’s say “copied and pasted” the Magnificat and that Mary never uttered a single word of it?

I do not get it. Isn’t the alternative you are offering that he “copied and pasted” from Mary??

We know Luke made extensive use of “copy and paste.” He tells us he is going to do that in the first verses, and large sections of his gospel are nearly identical to Mark. The commentary strongly suggests that St Luke assembled from various sources and arranged them in an “orderly account.” I would object to any commentary that says otherwise.

As to Luke 1:28, does the Greek not use “Chaire Kecharitomene”? Other than perhaps a reference in Maccabees, isn’t that the only place in the scriptures where it is used?

The septuagint of Sirach 18:17 also uses kecharito-, where it is translated gracious or kind.

Mary comes out as ‘favored’ and Stephen ‘filled with grace’. That ’s the English, and that’s the beef I have with it.

That is also the Greek. The real issue seems to be why does the Vulgate use plena gratia? That is the Latin equivalent of πλήρης χάριτος which is used in Acts 6:8 but not of κεχαριτωμένη from Luke 1:28.

I am not trying to persuade anyome. I just do not understand why these minutiae drive people into such hostile positions. There is a malaise in the Church, as you said, but I think it comes from the years of people pushing outdated forms on the Church instead of developing expressions that are better understood. The problems with NAB that have been offered here do not seem like much of a support for rejecting the bishops’ translation.

 

[C.Longinus]

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).

Did you even understand the point of the whole passage? It’s saying that Jesus didn’t know what would happen to Him accurately! It’s the same logic that scholars use to play down the veracity of the prediction of the destruction of the Temple!

 

[C.Longinus]

We know Luke made extensive use of “copy and paste.” He tells us he is going to do that in the first verses, and large sections of his gospel are nearly identical to Mark. The commentary strongly suggests that St Luke assembled from various sources and arranged them in an “orderly account.” I would object to any commentary that says otherwise

Or, another possibility is that Mark copied and pasted from Luke. The possibilities are endless. What’s more probable is that both guys wrote independently from each other with different audiences in mind.

 

[Dovekin]

Did you even understand the point of the whole passage? It’s saying that Jesus didn’t know what would happen to Him accurately! It’s the same logic that scholars use to play down the veracity of the prediction of the destruction of the Temple!

He says none of the passion predictions “can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself.” He is probably commenting on the form of the predictions, not the conttent. These predictions are in the style of early preaching formulae; there are significant differences between Mark and Matthew that we barely notice, which means the form in either Mt or Mk does not go back to Jesus, or neither does.

Why would the note say Jesus did not know what was going to happen to him, when it had just talked about “Jesus’ revelation of his coming death”? It does not make sense to read it the way you propose.

another possibility is that Mark copied and pasted from Luke. The possibilities are endless. What’s more probable is that both guys wrote independently from each other with different audiences in mind.

It is a possibility. However Luke tells us that he has several accounts he is reading, and that he decided to produce “an orderly account.” Mark says nothing like that. Luke copying and pasting seems more likely, particularly since the language is identical to Mark in some passages. It is hard to imagine that happening if one is not influenced by the other.

 

[Crusader13]

I find some of Paul’s letters hard to follow even in the NABRE. It’s not really the DR’s fault.

Same here. I did find a lot of clarity when I read them for the first time using the Knox Bible.

In fact, I think Msgr Knox did an outstanding job in translating the NT and this Bible has been my go to Bible as of late. The OT, while still quite good, does have quite a few instances where I prefer the DR.

 

[po18guy]

Interesting comments, but to me they cloud the issue and marginalize rather than clarify.

 

[phil19034]

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.

???

The RSV was not incomplete. If you think that preface implies that, please quote the section, because I don’t see it.

The difference between the NRSV and the RSV is that the NRSV is revision of the RSV, which uses a lot of inclusive language.

 

[C.Longinus]

He is probably commenting on the form of the predictions, not the conttent. These predictions are in the style of early preaching formulae; there are significant differences between Mark and Matthew that we barely notice, which means the form in either Mt or Mk does not go back to Jesus, or neither does.

That’s a post hoc.

 

[C.Longinus]

It is a possibility. However Luke tells us that he has several accounts he is reading, and that he decided to produce “an orderly account.” Mark says nothing like that. Luke copying and pasting seems more likely, particularly since the language is identical to Mark in some passages.

That’s not what Luke said.

Luke 1:1-3
Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

What Luke is saying is this:

There are already many accounts of the events concerning Jesus, as they were handed on to us by Jesus. What I’ve done is my own research, and with that research I’ve written an account that is faithful to these events.

It doesn’t say Luke copied and pasted. The only Gospel you could make a case for is John, because much of that information is written with knowledge of the Synoptics.

 

[PeterT]

PeterT:

To me most of the introductions appear to have been written by people who wanted to DISCREDIT the sacredness of the Holy Bible.

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.

Because how can any book be considered sacred if it bears false witness? If it violates God’s Eighth Commandment?

To insert into a bible a letter wrote by someone who was NOT St. Peter but to call it a letter from St. Peter would be bearing false witness, a forgery and very sacrilegious.

The very early church fathers were very aware about the many forgeries being circulated about that people were claiming were written by some of the more famous Apostles. The early church fathers were extremely careful to only include the gospels and letters that they deemed (discerning through the help of the Holy Spirit) that were authentic and omitted the rest. They based their decision on copies of the Gospels, Letters and the Old Testament that now 1800-1900 years later unfortunately no longer exist.

And yet fast forward to the late 19th Century and throughout the 20th and 21 Century, and now we have biblical “scholars” making pronouncements about the authorship each book the bible, not from the original manuscripts or the earliest copies of the original manuscripts, but copies that were produced hundreds of years AFTER the original manuscripts of the New Testament and THOUSANDS of years of Old Testament was written in Hebrew and then in Greek.

Personally, I trust the judgement of our early church fathers, many who are saints, like St. Athanasius of Alexandria, about authorship of the books of the Bible than academic biblical scholars who might (or might not) be saints.

 

[PeterT]

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.

The Catholic editions of the RSV (and the NRSV) are not INCOMPLETE in any manner. They have all the required books of the Bible.

 

[C.Longinus]

**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]

Why would the note say Jesus did not know what was going to happen to him, when it had just talked about “Jesus’ revelation of his coming death”? It does not make sense to read it the way you propose

It literally states that Jesus could only foresee that He might suffer and die, but be vindicated by God, not that He knew that He’d suffer, die and rise. This doesn’t just do a disservice to the reader: it goes against God Himself!