H
Holly3278
Guest
Many people have complained that the NAB is not a good Bible because of the commentary in it. Also, the RSV-CE is known to be a better Bible. Why don’t we use the RSV-CE instead of the NAB for Mass? 
- Status
K
kajehas
Guest
Because the USCCB owns the copyright to the NAB.
P
Penitus
Guest
It’s politics, sadly. The NAB is so terrible.
L
lanceg
Guest
Even better than the RSV CE is the Confraternity version. Our Greek Catholic Church uses the Confraternity, with modernized spelling, for our Gospel book and Apostolos (Epistles book). It contains much more dignified language. The RSV is a great translation, but it leaves out some key verses that our important to our lectionary tradition.
H
Holly3278
Guest
What verses does the RSV-CE take out?
C
Cranch
Guest
Your comment is not surprising in that you are referring to New Testament readings. Though the Confraternity New Testament is a revision of the Challoner Douay-Rheims (with reference to the Vulgate), I wanted to mention that is not the case for the Confraternity Old Testament. Those Old Testament books identified as the Confraternity translation—the number of books varies from bible to bible as the translation process occurred over time—were translated from the original languages. With some revision, they now make up the NAB Old Testament. The exception is Genesis which was completely retranslated for the NAB.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Why is the RSV-CE the recommended Bible for Catholic apologetics? Thanks,
G
garysibio
Guest
From your keyboard to God’s ears.Many people have complained that the NAB is not a good Bible because of the commentary in it. Also, the RSV-CE is known to be a better Bible. Why don’t we use the RSV-CE instead of the NAB for Mass?
It’s not just the commentary that is problematic with the NAB. There are also problems in the text itself.
It would be nice if the NAB underwent another revision to deal with its problems, especially, but not limited to, inclusive language.
Gary
L
lanceg
Guest
It is true that the Old Testament of the NAB is virtually the same as the Confraternity, but it is not as much as an abomination in the Old Testament as it is in both editions of the NAB New Testament. The Psalms are much better than the current NAB, which uses excessive inclusive language. the Book of Genesis was completely redone for the NAB.
I also have two Douay-Confraternity Bibles, which feature the Douay Old Testament, and the Confraternity New Testament. I enjoy that Bible quite a bit. It is very hard to find; it was the official edition of the Catholic Bible from only 1950-1952, although one publisher kept it in print into the early 60’s. The rest of the Confraternity/NAB Old Testament began appearing in installments in 1952.
M
Manfred
Guest
I’ve often wondered about this myself; I’ve even rationalized why no Catholic bible can ever be truly acceptable to all Protestants. Consider:
liberal Protestants will accept anything, including the NRSV, RNAB, or any other politically-correct version, though they would probably frown on a more traditional translation with a male-gender bias;
evangelical Protestants have generally distrusted even the Protestant RSV, so a Catholic RSV is even more suspect to them; they are blissfully content with their NonInspiringVersion; at least the NASB makes some reasonable attempts at fidelity to the original-language texts;
fundamentalist Protestants trust only the KJV, which, for the most part, is not suitable for Catholic apologetic work.
However:
if you own an RSV-CE, you can read in the Introduction that for many years following the Reformation, both Catholic and Protestant bibles were most likely translated to conform to “doctrinal presuppositions”; hence, neither side would trust the other’s bible for ecumenical theological discussion and study;
but look what the editors of the RSV-CE did: it took what was essentially a mainstream Protestant translation in the KJV tradition and edited in some Catholic preferences in the NT only; and they listed all the changes in an Appendix for ready reference! Now anyone could plainly see how a bible supposedly translated with the least amount of theological bias could, with slight alterations (and relatively few at that), be made suitable for Catholics.
Just my take on it; no one at CA has ever satisfactorily addressed this question, though.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
The real truth is that the Confraternity Douay translation with post Challoner and pre Olinger Psalms from the Bea Psalter approved by Pope Pius XII is the closest to accurate of any bible we currently have in English.
But what I really don’t get about the question is the sheer lunacy of using a Protestant translation of the bible for the Catholic mass!
I’ve got an easy solution–translate the nova Vulgata into English and then use that in mass!
And if there are any parts of that that are eggregiously wrong take it up with the Congregation for Worship and the Pope!
But mainly just make sure that the American bishops stay out of the buisness of translating anything!
But what I really don’t get about the question is the sheer lunacy of using a Protestant translation of the bible for the Catholic mass!
I’ve got an easy solution–translate the nova Vulgata into English and then use that in mass!
And if there are any parts of that that are eggregiously wrong take it up with the Congregation for Worship and the Pope!
But mainly just make sure that the American bishops stay out of the buisness of translating anything!
P
puzzleannie
Guest
the broader question which I have never heard answered is why, in the US, formerly the RSV-CE, Jerusalem Bible and NAB were approved for the lectionary but now (don’t know the date) only the NAB. Most of the original RCIA materials I have from the 80s use either of the 1st two for lectionary commentary and BOW, and either is preferable IMO to the NAB. JB is still my favorite for the gospel of John esp. the Lenten RCIA (cycle A) gospels
G
garysibio
Guest
They are all still approved, they are just not used in the USA. In the English-speaking world outside of the USA (which uses the NAB) and Canada (where trickery was used to get the NRSV in use), the Jerusalem Bible (1966 version) is used in the lectionary. Sadly, the RSV-CE, the best of the three translations, isn’t used anywhere as far as I know.
Gary
P
puzzleannie
Guest
in answer to a pp, the RSV-CE is the favorite of many apologists because it is an “ecumenical” translation, by a committe of scholars, Catholic and non-Catholic.
D
davidc2
Guest
The current Lectionary being used in the US is a variation of the RNAB. I have not heard of any Bible being published which corresponds directly to it.
When the current Lectionary was promulgated it specifically abrogated the use of any other lectionary after a period of time. The idea, I think, was to force everyone to use the new lectionary.
There are approved English-language Lectionaries based on the RSV and Jerusalem Bibles - but they may not be used in the US for liturgy.
When the current Lectionary was promulgated it specifically abrogated the use of any other lectionary after a period of time. The idea, I think, was to force everyone to use the new lectionary.
There are approved English-language Lectionaries based on the RSV and Jerusalem Bibles - but they may not be used in the US for liturgy.
M
Marysann
Guest
Kajehas hit the nail on the head. Our parish used the RSV lectionary until the day that the USCCB withdrew permission to use it. I am sure that lectionary is in a closet waiting for the day that permission will be granted for it to be used again. I would gladly make a yearly contribution to the bishops to make up for the money they would loose when parishes stopped buying NAB lectionaries if that is what it would take for them to permit the use of the RSV lectionary again.
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
That’s an absolutely terrific question. However, my understanding is that current rules do not allow more than one English translation to be used within the United States for the Lectionary.
Standards for the lliturgy as set forth in a 2001 instruction from the Vatican (more specifically from the Congregation for Divine Worship): *Liturgium Authenticam *. Paragraph 36 begins by stating
*
In order that the faithful may be able to commit to memory at least the more important texts of the Sacred Scriptures and be formed by them even in their private prayer, it is of the greatest importance that the translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for liturgical use be characterized by a certain uniformity and stability, such that in every territory there should exist only one approved translation, which will be employed in all parts of the various liturgical books.* (emphasis added)
That rules out the possibility of more than English translation being used in the United States in the lectionary.
Interestingly, the paragraph concludes:
The Conferences of Bishops are strongly encouraged to provide for the commissioning and publication in their territories of an integral translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for the private study and reading of the faithful, which corresponds in every part to the text that is used in the Sacred Liturgy.
That has not happened yet – the NAB we can buy in the store does not match the NAB we hear in the lectionary.
Gary is correct that a variety of different translations are used in different regions. I have read the RSV is in the lectionary for the Antilles – so if you’ve been waiting for a reason to move to the Bahamas or Jamaica, here is your chance!
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Does the RSV-CE come in a leather bound addition?
M
Manfred
Guest
What you have written is indeed true, Bible Reader, but it still does not answer the question of puzzleannie and the rest of us, namely, BUT WHY THE RNAB? Surely there must be some bright bulbs among the episcopacy who can clearly see the RNAB, albeit a product of their sponsorship, is lacking in literary quality and dignity. Let us not forget the Vatican still prohibits the 1991 Psalter of the RNAB from being used in the liturgy, Deo gratias, and even from appearing on its website!
Few Catholic apologists and biblical exegetes, it seems, ever base any of their works on the RNAB. The translators of Vatican documents and Papal writings shy away from the RNAB and tend to use the RSV-CE. And then, of course, there’s the issue of the Catechism, whose Scripture citations are generally from the RSV (and, unfortunately, the NRSV, another version that ranks right down there with the RNAB).
The CCC’s NRSV citations are pretty tame and do not include the passages with inclusive language.
- Status