Your View's on the NAB

[lak611]

I got my 1970 NAB in the UK. IIRC,the other NAB I have - which is the St.Joseph edition - is that of 1986; also bought in the UK; I don’t think I’ll be getting that of 1991 ​

You are lucky to have gotten the 1970 version when it was still available. Since it is copyrighted by the USCCB, they discontinued it when the later versions were published. The only version currently published and available anywhere is the 1991 version.

 

[Manfred]

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

:tiphat:

I disagree with you both.

The RSV-CE is for reading.

The D-R is for study.

 

[lak611]

I disagree with you both.

The RSV-CE is for reading.

The D-R is for study.

I agree with you, Manfred.

 

[porthos11]

I disagree with you both.

The RSV-CE is for reading.

The D-R is for study.

I’d say the reverse.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

How long a history had Christianity in the year 40 ?​

 

[COPLAND_3]

Gottle of Geer,

Maybe nine years.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’d say that All versions of the RSV ERR in terms of doctrine on the Eucharist, penance, and the granting of absolution.

Why read such lies?

 

[japhy]

I have the RSV-2CE; it’s pretty good, although there are parts which I think still need to be re-translated to correspond with the Biblia Nova Vulgata as per Liturgiam Authenticam. I can’t stand the NAB, if only because the Bible version and the Lectionary version AREN’T THE SAME!

Also, its footnotes are full of statements that either a) argue against teachings of the Church, b) seriously call said teachings into question, or c) make the gospels sound like revisionist history. (See my upcoming thread on Mark 3:14-19.)

 

[tobinatorstark]

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.

I agree with you that the NAB is for reading and the Douay-Rheims is for studying. I use the Douay for both reading and studying. Occasionally do I use the NAB for some purpose. A former priest at my church, he is now at a different church told me that the Douay-Rheims is the best you can go by. Not to knock the NAB. It is a good translation, but I don’t agree with some of the words they use in place of some that are in the Douay

 

[bkovacs]

I just want to know what people think about the NAB. Then I will tell you my views and opinions.

NAB= Inclusive language
Bad thing in my book?. Same with NJB and NRSV

Much prefer
Douay Rheims
RSV-CE
NCB (New Catholic bible = New Catholic Bible from the UK)
Orthodox Study Bible = Great for Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians

 

[patrick457]

I just want to know what people think about the NAB. Then I will tell you my views and opinions.

The original 1970 edition which I have is not that bad (yet), in my opinion when compared to the present (1991) version. Yhe prefaces and footnotes are not as problematic as the present one, though the original was also plagued by the “JEPD, Markan priority and Q being paraded around as fact” problem and some rather non-traditional renderings, a number of which the 1991 edition restored back; for example, the 1970 had “and the Word was in God’s presence” which the 1991 renders as to “and the Word was with God” (I do wish the infamous “highly favored” was also amended, though). Another strength of the original 1970 edition is that it is not gender-inclusive.

So, for reading, I use the original NAB (or D-R), and for studying, I use the original Hebrew or Greek (or sometimes the Vulgate), doing a little comparison between these and various other English translations (admittedly, I could not read much Hebrew or Greek; which necessitates the comparison and copious use of dictionaries, usually Strong’s).

 

[Vincenzo]

I agree with you that the NAB is for reading and the Douay-Rheims is for studying. I use the Douay for both reading and studying. Occasionally do I use the NAB for some purpose. A former priest at my church, he is now at a different church told me that the Douay-Rheims is the best you can go by. Not to knock the NAB. It is a good translation, but I don’t agree with some of the words they use in place of some that are in the Douay

I’ve settled on the Confraternity version which is essentially a Douay but offers greater readability with some language slightly modernized (but not dumbed down or inclusive). There are a couple compact editions still in print 1, 2] and other editions can be easily found at used online book stores. I recently bought a beautiful presentation Confraternity bible, used, but like new condition:

 

[tobinatorstark]

I have seen the Confraternity only a handful of times. The place where meet for my church group has an old Confraternity there given to the church 1953. It is pretty beat up but I try to make sure that it is open during the meetings. I haven’t read from it, but I feel that it is probably the only translation out there beside the Douay-Rheims that is worth reading. I keep emphasizing that the other translations like the NAB and RSV-CE I just don’t feel compelled to read them and find them lackluster. I have the confraternity on my wish list.

 

[Rose_Commander]

To me, I love the Douay-Rheims Bible, the Revised Standard Version, and the 1970 New American Bible. I do not like the 1991 New American Bible because it has heretical commentary and the Intros to the Books makes you feel that the Bible is not Inspired and written by the Holy Writers.

 

[lak611]

NAB= Inclusive language
Bad thing in my book?. Same with NJB and NRSV

Much prefer
Douay Rheims
RSV-CE
NCB (New Catholic bible = New Catholic Bible from the UK)
Orthodox Study Bible = Great for Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians

The NJB is the least offensive in terms of the inclusive language. It is more literal than the original JB. I agree with you in all areas except for the NJB.

 

[Ruthie]

I love the English language, with all its depth and beauty. Because of that, I use two of the loveliest chapters in the Bible to compare translations: the 23rd Psalm (22nd to you DR folks) and 1 Cor 13.

The NAB does OK on 1 Cor 13, but its translation of the 23rd psalm is dreck. It pulls 2/3 of the meaning out of it. For example, there is a connection between “He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name’s sake” and “I shall dwell in the house of the LORD for ever” that is completely lost in the NAB.

As for those footnotes … does anyone publish a NAB that just has the text?

I use, both for reading and studying, the RSV-CE 2nd Edition. I’ve looked into the DR, but can’t help comparing it a little unfavorably to the KJV, which I still love. That’s just a question of habit, though.

Ruthie

 

[porthos11]

The NAB does OK on 1 Cor 13, but its translation of the 23rd psalm is dreck. It pulls 2/3 of the meaning out of it. For example, there is a connection between “He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name’s sake” and “I shall dwell in the house of the LORD for ever” that is completely lost in the NAB.

That entirely apt term applies not only to Psalm 23 but to the entire 1991 book of Psalms in the NAB. The original 1970 NAB Psalms were way better.

The Psalms are actually the worst part of currently available NAB’s.

 

[bkovacs]

You know its funny though. We all pretty much don’t care to much for the 1991 version of the NAB, but the USCCB and Catholic Book Publishing Company still consider it the standard for the American Church. Sad isn’t it. Money is more important than what the faithful desire.

 

[Cranch]

I’ve settled on the Confraternity version which is essentially a Douay but offers greater readability with some language slightly modernized (but not dumbed down or inclusive).

I have seen the Confraternity only a handful of times…I haven’t read from it, but I feel that it is probably the only translation out there beside the Douay-Rheims that is worth reading.…I have the confraternity on my wish list.

With apologies to those who have seen it already, here is a summary of the makeup of the Confraternity Bible which I have posted in the past:

The Confraternity translation was done under the auspices of the U.S. bishops and was originally planned as a revision of the Douay-Rheims (except for the Psalms which were to follow Pope Pius XII’s new Psalter from the Hebrew). The New Testament was published in 1941 after five years of work. However, after Pope Pius XII’s encyclical on scripture studies, Divino afflante Spiritu in 1943 encouraged consideration of the original texts, the bishops overhauled the Confraternity project and the Old Testament was translated from scratch from the original Hebrew. As OT books were completed, various editions of the Confraternity Bible were published with the Douay translation used for the gradually shrinking remaining portions of the OT that had yet to be translated. The Confraternity translations of the Books of Genesis to Ruth were first published in 1952; the Wisdom (or Sapiential) Books, Job to Sirach, in 1955; the Prophetic Books, Isaiah to Malachi, in 1961. The remaining books were finished by 1969, but these never appeared under the Confraternity name as far as I know. They were added to the existing Confraternity OT, Genesis was completely retranslated, other minor changes were made and a new translation of the New Testament from the Greek was added. The result was the 1970 New American Bible (NAB). The NAB was now the new official bible of the U.S. bishops. That is why the hybrid Confraternity version went away.

Make some comparisons between the NAB and the OT books your Confraternity title page says are newly translated. You will find the NAB OT in the Confraternity and vice-versa (with the exception of Genesis which is a unique translation in the Confraternity editions).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle of Geer,

Maybe nine years.

Which rather changes the perspective - St.Paul was not uncontroversial in his time either. The critics of the critics have no sense of historical perspective - or is it mean to say that ?​