Why does the Vatican use the NAB on its site?

[James_2_24]

**We all have seen how bad the NAB can be for someone seeking out the truth. **

Why does the Vatican insist on using it on its web site?

Also, would this be an error on an issue of Faith on the Vatican’s part? After all, the Bible is probably the most important text our Faith has. If supporting a bad Bible such as the NAB on it’s web site is not a instance of leading the laity astray in a matter of Faith, what is???

 

[pnewton]

I do not think the NAB is a “bad” Bible. It is most assuredly a dynamic translation and therefore not very literal. It’s trade-off is that it is very readable. If one stays far, far, far away from the footnotes and commentaries I think you would be safe.

I am sure the reason it is used on their website is that it is used in the Mass readings.

 

[space_ghost]

**We all have seen how bad the NAB can be for someone seeking out the truth. **

Why does the Vatican insist on using it on its web site?

Also, would this be an error on an issue of Faith on the Vatican’s part? After all, the Bible is probably the most important text our Faith has. If supporting a bad Bible such as the NAB on it’s web site is not a instance of leading the laity astray in a matter of Faith, what is???

My guess is that the truth is just that… the truth… no matter which version of The Bible the Vatican uses, (and I meant the New Testament) the catholic church wrote the New Testament and they are not hung up on the version so much as they are the interpretation… Any way you say it… it’s still the same truth…, it’s only when it’s in the hands of those who have no business intrepreting for the rest of us that the version becomes and issue…
At least that’s what i think… how about you?..

 

[IoA]

No interpretation is going to be perfect, and the NAB has its faults. The NAB is fairly accessible (second only to the Good News Translation, which is really bad.

It’s important to note that the readings on the website are exactly as you will hear them at Mass.

 

[robertaf]

Greetings Church

Uhhhh, who says the New American Bible is bad for us? Which one would be good then? I use about 7 different versions and the New American is still the best out there, in my opinion.

I would say if they use it, then the Vatican knows best.

Have you ever taken a class in Scripture history?

 

[joshua1]

I just looked inside the cover of my NAB version of the bible and it has nihil obstat and an impramatur which means it has been reviewed. How can something so bad recieve these two clearances? I do agree about the footnotes though. They can be less than totally clear in their meanings.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**We all have seen how bad the NAB can be for someone seeking out the truth. **

Why does the Vatican insist on using it on its web site?

Also, would this be an error on an issue of Faith on the Vatican’s part? After all, the Bible is probably the most important text our Faith has. If supporting a bad Bible such as the NAB on it’s web site is not a instance of leading the laity astray in a matter of Faith, what is???

“Bad” by what standard ? It’s very different from the RSV, and even more different from the Challoner-Douai-Reims: but that does not make it inaccurate.​

It’s not translated from the Vulgate - but that does not make it bad or inaccurate.

It makes full use of the critical method - but that has been allowed by the Popes since at least 1943 and “Divino Afflante Spiritu”.

It does not translate all the proof-texts and “devotional texts” in the way found in some of the older English versions, Catholic and Protestant - that does not mean the translators are incompetent, malicious, heretical, deceitful, or ignorant.

Sometimes it rearranges the text, or omits or brackets verses, especially of poetry - that’s often because the way Hebrew poetry was written was not well understood until the late 1700s, so a disruption in a poetic passage was not always obvious. And the text is sometimes corrupt or uncertain, as at 1 Samuel 13.1, Judges 18.30. Sometimes, it is impossible to decide which reading is original, or which is to be preferred. And in Hebrew, some letters are very hard to tell apart, such as D and R. As the vowels were added very late, it’s not always clear whether one should read “Aram” or “Edom” - but the difference shows up in English, only people don’t always understand why there is a difference.

It’s quite clumsy or inelegant at times - but unfortunately, ability to see what words mean in a passage is not always accompanied by an equally great facility with the English language. That’s a weakness of the 1966 Jerusalem Bible - but it does not make the JB (or the NAB) misleading; just rather inartistic.

Sometimes the text is ambiguous - in Greek, “echete” in Romans 5 means “you [plural] have” & “Have [imperative plural]”. Translators have to choose. “Haima eautou” may mean “His = Jesus’] own blood” or “blood of His = the Father’s] own (Son)”. And some of these translations involve theological decisions - which involves decisions about the sacred writer’s theology and linguistic habits. There is vastly more to translation than grammar and vocabulary - especially with the Bible.

After all, there is no such thing as a perfect translation - just versions of varying merit, some of them better than others in one respect, some better in others. And there are different uses for translations - some are for study, some for public worship, some for those whose second language is English. ##

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I am going to try take a different path than the others to give a possible answer to this question.

Of all the English speaking countries, the United States has the largest Catholic population. I believe the official translation of the Bible to be used in all Liturgical texts and other official documents for the United States is to be the New American Bible. It would only seem proper to use the NAB on the Vatican web site for the English portion of the site.

Saying that, I usually user either the NAB or RSV when I am using the Bible for various purposes. I also have a number of other translations handy if I need them.

PF

 

[parishminister]

I have been told by several professors, clergy and religious that the NAB is the “preferred translation” for American Catholics. Every theology and Scripture course I have taken used the NAB for study. Some people believe that the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur don’t mean as much as they used to…that they are only as good as the bishop who issues the “approval” (that is not my personal view, btw). Having said that, if it’s good enough for the Vatican website to use, it’s good enough for me.

It’s easy to get confused here, with so many differing opinions. I am very confident that the Vatican would not use a translation that had been deemed to contain errors.

Peace…

 

[squirt]

WanderAimlessly:

Of all the English speaking countries, the United States has the largest Catholic population. I believe the official translation of the Bible to be used in all Liturgical texts and other official documents for the United States is to be the New American Bible. It would only seem proper to use the NAB on the Vatican web site for the English portion of the site.
PF

Ah, the old ‘the USA is bigger’ argument. I guess if the Vatican had selected the NRSV which is used in the Canadian lectionary, you could have taken the “Blame Canada” tack.

 

[copland]

I study the Greek, and am here to tell you that the NAB is one of the best as far as the New Testament is concerned. It is very faithful to the Greek. I noticed that one person on this thread said that it is not a literal translation but a dynamic [equiviolent] translation. That is so far from the truth. The fact is, is that it is a literal translation all the way.

Now, the Old Testament is not as good as the New Testament as far as the translation goes. I am not impressed with the work of the translators job in the OT, but the NT is very good.

And also, the NAB NT translation actually is one of the things that made me turn my eyes to the Catholic Church. I realized that the Catholic Church was not this evil organization(that is what I had always been told) that tried to keep it’s people from reading God’s Word but actually gave a translation that puts just about all the Protestant translations to shame, such as the KJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, etc etc.

So by all means the NAB is a very scholarly translation that is one of the best out there. But I do admit that the commentaries are untraditional in many places. But the translation is top notch!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

squirt:

Ah, the old ‘the USA is bigger’ argument. I guess if the Vatican had selected the NRSV which is used in the Canadian lectionary, you could have taken the “Blame Canada” tack.

Actually the NRSV was put into use in Canada without the required Vatican approval. When the Vatican rejected the NRSV for use as a liturgical text the Canadian bishops pleaded that they already had much invested in the Liturgical Books, and obtained a waiver to use the existing stock of books. The waiver is good for Canada only. However many US parishes use them illicitly.

 

[cmom]

Most people have no problem with the translation, its the rest of it that is the problem.

 

[porthos11]

Actually, the greatest defect of the NAB is the 1991 revised Psalms (terrible inclusive language). If you note the Vatican NAB online you won’t find the Psalms there.

I wish I could find an NAB with the 1970 OT (and Psalms) and the 1986 NT. That should be okay.

 

[Jennifer_J]

porthos11:

Actually, the greatest defect of the NAB is the 1991 revised Psalms (terrible inclusive language). If you note the Vatican NAB online you won’t find the Psalms there.

I wish I could find an NAB with the 1970 OT (and Psalms) and the 1986 NT. That should be okay.

The Psalms are on the USCCB’s NAB on line. I assume it’s the revised Psalms, though I didn’t look to make sure.

Jennifer

 

[Hananiah]

Many people on this thread have asked what is so bad about the NAB. I believe I can answer that question. In the introductions to the various books it invariably teaches that they were written far later than Christians have traditionally believed, often at great expense to the prophetic force of the book e.g. Matt 24:2, Daniel 11. The commentary embraces Atheist, Jewish, and Protestant interpretations, as well as accusing Scripture of egregious error and contradiction almost every other footnote. Finally, it often purposely mistranslates Scripture in order to reinforce these charges of error. I have documented this in Genesis, Matthew, and Daniel in my study The New American Bible: Is It Good for Catholics?.
Jacob Michael will be doing John and enlarging the section on Genesis. I think I will next to Acts.

 

[Hananiah]

As to the original question, I would say because the Church is in as sad of shape as she has been since the Arian heresy.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

squirt:

Ah, the old ‘the USA is bigger’ argument. I guess if the Vatican had selected the NRSV which is used in the Canadian lectionary, you could have taken the “Blame Canada” tack.

LOL.​

Sometimes it seems our USA brethren - and sistren - take for granted that cyberspace is the 51st State ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hananiah:

Many people on this thread have asked what is so bad about the NAB. I believe I can answer that question. In the introductions to the various books it invariably teaches that they were written far later than Christians have traditionally believed, often at great expense to the prophetic force of the book e.g. Matt 24:2, Daniel 11. The commentary embraces Atheist, Jewish, and Protestant interpretations, as well as accusing Scripture of egregious error and contradiction almost every other footnote. Finally, it often purposely mistranslates Scripture in order to reinforce these charges of error.

That last sentence seems to contain a very serious accusation: that either the translators were either incompetent, or malicious. There might be other possibilities, but I don’t know what.​

There are certainly readings of the OT in the translation which reflect a different reading of the vocalised text, or a different division of the consonantal text; but that is no evidence of foul play.

The translator has to be accurate, surely. And if there are reasons to translate the Hebrew in an untraditional way, then so be it. The authority of the Fathers was not an authority over the facts of Hebrew, or other ancient languages; any more than over the facts of geography or history. If the text of the Bible yields a sense that does not agree with them, then so be it. Losing a few “proof-texts” is not going to undermine the Gospel or the Church or the Christian Faith.

Quoting encyclicals is not going to settle the matter - the popes are not competent, as popes, in matters of Hebrew grammar or ancient Near Eastern culture. If - the for example - Pope were to say that Hebrew is adialect of English, his authority would have to give way to that of professional philologists. Philology, ancient history, astronomy, are not where the Pope’s competence lies - that is why there are specialists in these matters. Astronomers can’t pronounce on the Hypostatic Union, nor philologists on angelology - and the Pope has no jurisdiction over the natural sciences; including history and comparative religion and linguistics.

As Encyclicals written 100 years ago are not addressing the problems of today as they are today (for history does not stand still for anyone), it can’t be assumed without further ado that what was adequate in 1896 as comment on the problems current in 1896 is automatically valid for 1943. If what had been adequate in 1896 had been equally adequate in 1943, “Divino Afflante Spiritu” would not have been needed. If what was said in 1943 had been entirely adequate for the Church in 1993, the document of the PBC would not have been needed. BTW, it has the approval of the present Pope, who as as valid a pope as Leo XIII. Church teaching on Scripture did not stop in 1896 - nor did the investigation of the human side of the Scriptures. ##

I have documented this in Genesis, Matthew, and Daniel in my study The New American Bible: Is It Good for Catholics?.
Jacob Michael will be doing John and enlarging the section on Genesis. I think I will next to Acts.

 

[Hananiah]

## That last sentence seems to contain a very serious accusation: that either the translators were either incompetent, or malicious. There might be other possibilities, but I don’t know what.

So far I have found three places where they mistranslate Scripture in order to make it appear to be in error. In the first two cases, I do not believe they are intentionally malicious; they are simply following their historical critical theories to the logical conclusion. Essentially, they believe that the Pentateuch was weaved together from 4 sources which contradict each other on many points. The redactor who did the weaving took out a few of the contradictions, but left most in. In two instances that I have discovered in Genesis the NAB scholars reverse what they believe to be the machinations of their redactor, and put contradictions back in which they reckon him to have edited out. The third case is a prophecy in Isaiah about a light shining on Galilee of the Gentiles. They replace Galilee with “district” even though all Hebrew Mss. and the Septuagint say “Galilee.” I believe they did this intentionally to reinforce their claim that St. Matthew was mistaken in his application of the prophecy.

Quoting encyclicals is not going to settle the matter - the popes are not competent, as popes, in matters of Hebrew grammar or ancient Near Eastern culture.

But in the statements I quote they are not commenting on nuances of Hebrew grammar, but making solemn decrees on a matter of faith. And I believe those statements meet all the conditions of infallibility of Lumen Gentium S. 25. Also, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II teach the same thing.