S
SacredHeartFan
Guest
I just want to know what people think about the NAB. Then I will tell you my views and opinions.
- Status
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
The actual text is flat, uninspiring, and often dull. Not as bad as the New World Translation of the JW’s. (Yeah, darning with faint praise)
The footnotes and the introductions are egregiously bad–“Markan Priority” asserted as a given fact, “Q” and all the rest of it. The Bishops were either party to this are are guilty of not paying attention–sort of like them allowing their offical reviewer give a 'thumb’s up" to Brokeback Mountain and The Godlen Compass
The footnotes and the introductions are egregiously bad–“Markan Priority” asserted as a given fact, “Q” and all the rest of it. The Bishops were either party to this are are guilty of not paying attention–sort of like them allowing their offical reviewer give a 'thumb’s up" to Brokeback Mountain and The Godlen Compass
S
SacredHeartFan
Guest
although it was a mistake on the movies it was not on the NAB. I have talked to many priest and other religious around and they have all said that the most accurate English translations are the NAB and RSV, ecsially (spelling?) the footnotes.
M
m134e5
Guest
It reads a bit more like a magazine than I like a bible to read. I prefer a more refined style- especially in those books which are poetry.
L
louder
Guest
I find that I’m very dissatisfied with the NAB. On a practical level, the way St. Paul is translated is very confusing and not very coherent at times. The NAB is also awkward for public reading, with syntax problems, and gender neutral phases being improbable. A prime example of this is Lk. 9:47, “Jesus realized the intention of their hearts and took a child and placed it by his side.” Really, “placed it” is not true to the english language. There is also the problem of the NAB moving verses in some of the books of the Old Testament to get the “correct version” on the book. As if they know better than thousands years of tradition. Just my personal opinion, but I would love a new translation to come out, but looking at how long the Sacramentary is taking, maybe I’ll just take the NAB with the good and the bad that entails.
S
SacredHeartFan
Guest
Some people on these forums have said that some of the footnotes are heritical, and I would like for them to point this out to me. Thanks!
T
TemplarKnight
Guest
The NAB is for reading.
The Duoay-Rheims is for studying.
The priests that told you " that the most accurate English translations are the NAB and RSV, ecsially (spelling?) the footnotes." Do not know what they are talking about.
Even in the NAB it declares it is not the most accurate translation.
The Duoay-Rheims is for studying.
The priests that told you " that the most accurate English translations are the NAB and RSV, ecsially (spelling?) the footnotes." Do not know what they are talking about.
Even in the NAB it declares it is not the most accurate translation.
B
Brother_John
Guest
T
TemplarKnight
Guest
That’s because great minds think alike
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
This translation, like many big translation projects, have a big translating team, and sometimes, especially with the NAB, there are portions that are very good, and others that are subpar. I rarely even use the NAB anymore. As a translation, I am unsatisfied. As for the footnotes and introductions, I am totally disgusted! If I was a beginner in my faith and just started reading the Bible and was using the NAB with its footnotes, I would really question the reliability of the Christian faith because of the way the footnotes and introductions lead one to believe that the books of the Bible were actually written by people who were not who they claim to be written by, or how portions were sort of added on much later on.
L
lak611
Guest
I especially find the book introductions problematic. I believe that the Gospels are historical and written by the men whose names are given. To read that Matthew was not written by Matthew the Apostle, but rather by some anonymous person, is problematic to me. See this link.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
lak611,
I am looking foward to checking out your link. This school of thought reminds me of those who deny the Virgin birth, bodily resurrection, miricles, etc etc. Just the idea that Jonah did not actually write Jonah and that it is a cute little fiction story, or that Daniel is a forgery written by someone who tried to make it look like Daniel wrote it, and then tried to pass off being a prophet who predicted events but wrote them after they happened, or that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible but it was a mixture of traditions thrown into together, etc etc etc, and all this we are expected to believe that the Bible is reliable and inspired! I think that that school of thought is dangerous, and most definatly unorthodox! I guess I sound bitter!
I am looking foward to checking out your link. This school of thought reminds me of those who deny the Virgin birth, bodily resurrection, miricles, etc etc. Just the idea that Jonah did not actually write Jonah and that it is a cute little fiction story, or that Daniel is a forgery written by someone who tried to make it look like Daniel wrote it, and then tried to pass off being a prophet who predicted events but wrote them after they happened, or that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible but it was a mixture of traditions thrown into together, etc etc etc, and all this we are expected to believe that the Bible is reliable and inspired! I think that that school of thought is dangerous, and most definatly unorthodox! I guess I sound bitter!
C
Cranch
Guest
Heretical is a strong word. I would say seriously problematic and at times faith-undermining. Here is something I posted in a NAB thread from before your joining CAF:
Here is another older thread on the subject.
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
They are part of the problem
Markan priority, pseudographical (spell?) Pauline Epistles (or Petrine, or Johanine or Judean) and the never-proven “Q” (“Quelle”, german for “source”) are the inheritance of scholars opposed to Christianity-way back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Deists and atheists who where opposed to the supernatural, to God in the world, who supposed that the Gospels HAD to have been written 150-200+ years after the events in them, etc… The suppositions have long since been discredited, and a terse introduction will call them “theories” but later on they are presented as demonstrated fact. This is not scholarship, it is propaganda.
S
SacredHeartFan
Guest
Many people in the Biblical ages would use other important people’s names when they wrote. You also have to remember that these are NOT church doctrines, nor are they saying it is.
S
SacredHeartFan
Guest
At least I’m not going on about the NIV!!! 
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
Nor am I saying that it is Church doctrine. I understand that some people did falsely use others names to their writings in order to draw attention to them. I guess if I used one of my Bible commentaries that I have put together and attribute it to Dr. Scott Hahn, I am sure more people would be interested in reading them. But we are talking about Sacred Scripture, inspired by God, which has a deep rich tradition of who the authors were, that has been undermined by so-called scholars within the last 150 years. This approach that the NAB footnotes take is a school of thought that has a very short history, and basically goes against traditional beliefs that are grounded in what has been handed down to us by the Early Church Fathers and the Rabbanic traditons that was before them.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Apart from the use of sexually neutral language in editions since 1986, I have no objection to it. The use of such language is annoying & IMO very unwise; but it is not an objection to the NAB in itself. I have a copy of the 1970 edition, & apart from the poor lay-out of the text - which is greatly improved in later editions, I have no objections to that I can think of. I much prefer the 1970 NEB, which I’ve always liked.
I never liked the JB much either: the language was plodding.One of the strengths of the NAB, ISTM, is that it is not purely a Catholic project. 59 of the translators were Catholic, four Protestant, & one Jewish. I wish the Biblical text in the Anchor Bible project - which is fully inter-confessional - could be published as a Bible. That said, there are far too many translations (I think, anyway).
As for the notes: what is being said needs to be said. Somehow or other Biblical criticism needs to be much better appreciated, otherwise the man in the pew is going to have no idea of why the scholars say what they do. Other Churches have had trouble bridging the gap between scholars & non-scholars, so the narrower the gap in the CC, the better: it has to be bridged somehow. The editors of the notes were in an impossible situation: either one risks scandalising people - or one keeps quiet & pretends that Biblical scholarship stands where it did in 1950. Does one upset people - or tell them comforting lies
? There is no painless answer - it’s something we all have to work through together.
L
lak611
Guest
The 1970 edition of the NAB is out of print. The only way to get that edition is through e-bay or from a store or website that sells used books. The only edition available new is the 1991 version, with the inclusive language and the Psalms that were rejected for use in the Mass.
- Status