Will someone please explain the NAB to me, please?

  • Thread starter Thread starter damooster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

damooster

Guest
So, I’m trying to figure out the status of the NAB. I’m a new convert, so please forgive me if this seems elementary to you.

My understanding is that portions of the NAB were rejected by the Vatican, so the corrections were made and are awaiting approval. Is this accurate?

It’s all confusing because then I read statements like this one on Wikipedia:
However, the New American Bible remains the official English-language Catholic translation for the United States, as is reflected by its use on the Vatican website.
Click to expand...
So, is it “safe” for someone to read the NAB, or should they wait until the changes are approved? How can they allow a Bible to be used in Mass readings when it hasn’t been approved?

Thanks.
 
I always thought the parts that were later “disapproved” were corrected in the Lectionary, but not in the NAB Bible itself. I’m not 100% sure on this, though.
 
Yes, it is safe. As with all translations, it is not completely literal. In fact, it is one of the least literal of translations. That is why is very readable. As long as one is rooted in ones faith, there is nothing to be worried about, but that caveat applies to all Scripture.
 
damooster said:
My understanding is that portions of the NAB were rejected by the Vatican, so the corrections were made and are awaiting approval. Is this accurate?
Click to expand...
Your word “rejected” is too strong. The Vatican has not rejected the NAB. The problem with the NAB is that the translation is not as accurate as it should be. The Lectionary is from the NAB, and the Lectionary has already been revised to reflect the more accurate translation. The classic example is:

NAB - Luke 1:28
28 And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

RSV - CE - Luke 1:28
28 And he came to her and said, “Hail,** full of grace**, the Lord is with you!”

In the NAB, “favored one” does not impart the meaning that Mary was sinless, i.e. full of grace. Whereas in the RSV - CE, “full of grace” does impart that meaning. Also, this verse is where we get the Hail Mary prayer from: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee…” We can’t see that origin in the NAB version.

So, while the NAB is under revision to be improved, as the Lectionary already is, it is not rejected. It is approved for use, or “safe” as you put it. But if it makes you feel better, you can use the RSV - CE (Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition).
 
jpjd said:
Your word “rejected” is too strong. The Vatican has not rejected the NAB. The problem with the NAB is that the translation is not as accurate as it should be. The Lectionary is from the NAB, and the Lectionary has already been revised to reflect the more accurate translation. The classic example is:

NAB - Luke 1:28
28 And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

RSV - CE - Luke 1:28
28 And he came to her and said, “Hail,** full of grace**, the Lord is with you!”

In the NAB, “favored one” does not impart the meaning that Mary was sinless, i.e. full of grace. Whereas in the RSV - CE, “full of grace” does impart that meaning. Also, this verse is where we get the Hail Mary prayer from: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee…” We can’t see that origin in the NAB version.

So, while the NAB is under revision to be improved, as the Lectionary already is, it is not rejected. It is approved for use, or “safe” as you put it. But if it makes you feel better, you can use the RSV - CE (Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition).
Click to expand...
I would also add that you might consider looking to see if the Bible you purchase is in compliance with Liturgiam Authenticam, the authoritative document of the Holy See that governs translations. the RSV-CE 2nd Edtion by Ignatius Press conforms the LA.

It is interesting to note that the Lectionary, which is based on the Revised NAB, is the next one to undergo a new translation. I am hopeful that we will be getting a better translation, one that is easier to proclaim than what we already have.

You might be interested in reading this article by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. It is a real eye-opener:

adoremus.org/0306BibleTranslations.html

His criticism of the NAB is on-target and worth reading.
 
I guess it is a good question to ask whether a translation should strive for accuracy in translation or accuracy in doctrine. I prefer the former and allow the latter to take care of itself. In that sense, I personally do not prefer rendering a translation just to reflect “the way it’s always been done.”
 
It depends on what you’re looking for. The NAB is a perfectly fine translation and is probably more “accurate” in its rendition of the original texts/languages whereas liturgical translations are meant to be more traditional and are translated to purposely reflect teachings. However if you’re new to Catholicism you might want a more liturgical/traditional translation to better understand where the Church gets its teachings from.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
It depends on what you’re looking for. The NAB is a perfectly fine translation and is probably more “accurate” in its rendition of the original texts/languages whereas liturgical translations are meant to be more traditional and are translated to purposely reflect teachings. However if you’re new to Catholicism you might want a more liturgical/traditional translation to better understand where the Church gets its teachings from.
Click to expand...
That’s a good thought. I have read through the Bible in three translations and have used a myriad in my life from time to time. I honestly do not think there is a lot of difference between the most. The Living Bible stands out as the one exception that comes to mind.

I would suggest that if one wanted to buy a Bible, to go on line and read different ones side by side. Then, by which one you like. Most importantly, whatever you by, when you come across a passage that seems inconsistent with Catholic teaching, look deeper at it, read other translations, or get help. Chances are it is the translation, in the text or the culture, that is tripping you up.

I had this happen just this week when my wife was asked about Mary being a virgin “unitl” she gave birth to Jesus. Even traditional translations can cause error.
 
pnewton said:
I guess it is a good question to ask whether a translation should strive for accuracy in translation or accuracy in doctrine. I prefer the former and allow the latter to take care of itself…
Click to expand...
I am in full agreement here.

It is important to have complete integrity in the translation. The traditional faith can be expounded in the gloss.
 
I was reading through the NAB…and it is quite different from the other translations.

Such as Job chapter 41, reads entirely different. How much of the NAB is like this, and why?
 
remember, wikipedia is basically articles people submit, no real way to form an opinion

here is an article here in the library
catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

also, as a revert, i have found i tend to look for a study bible similar to what i’m used to in the protestant tradition, haven’t found one yet.

as far as the NAB goes, i would put in in a similar way of how the NIV reads- my preference has become the RSV
 
NAB Bibles (at least Catholic Edition, not sure if there’s any other kind) have an Impramatur, this mean’s it’s formally approved by the Church and does not violate faith or morals. When you select a bible, if you want a genuine Catholic bible then you should select one which has an Impramatur, followed by the name of the Bishop who authroized it.

You’ll find there is a health diversity of english language Catholic bibles to select from. From the Douay Bible, originally published just prior to KJV, with similar language and subsequently gaining a interesting symbiotic relationship with the Protestant bible, to the RSV-CE which many people like, to the NAB and others.

I would certainly recommend you get a copy of the NAB, it’s very handy to have if you want to have a bible to take to mass with you so you can read along (my fiance and I do this). I would also recommend you get a good study bible, the only reason why I don’t recommend the NAB for this purpose is due to it’s contravertial notes. Personally I like the Rev. Haydock Douay-Rheims bible for study:

inhisname.com/product.php?product=42012

You can test drive the Doay (sans Haydock notes) here:

drbo.org/
 
I prefer the Douay-Rheims…it is the most accurate translation from the Latin
 
corsair said:
Which is why I stick with the DR/Challoner.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And why the Church should have too. No, I’m not an over the top “onlyist”, but really, it was used for how many years, why change?
 
I enjoy reading the NAB, but I am wondering if its good for memorization, because some of the verses don’t match up with the other versions.
 
Magnavox said:
I enjoy reading the NAB, but I am wondering if its good for memorization, because some of the verses don’t match up with the other versions.
Click to expand...
The New Testament is fine, it matches up with protestant Bibles, it is in the Psalms and some of the prophets were you may have some differences. However the NAB Old Testament including the Psalms are being reivsed, so there maybe some changes in verse numbering.
 
michaeldaniels said:
I prefer the Douay-Rheims…it is the most accurate translation from the Latin
Click to expand...
It came as a direct translation from the Vulgate, if I recall. I think it is the only translation that used Latin only and did not incorporate any of the earlier texts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top