Your View's on the NAB

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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!

That’s a rather distorted summary; but there it is. I used to feel the same; so I sympathise. The implications for what US Catholics think about the US Catholic bishops are alarming to say the least. That accusation (is it one ?) is serious - can you support it ? It does rather imply extreme carelessness on the part of the bishops, to say the least. If “that school of thought” is “dangerous” & “unorthodox”, why not complain to the Papal Nuncio ? Is it out of the question that, just possibly, the critics of the bishops may be mistaken ?​

Much more to the point is this -** inspiration** is not the same as, nor is it dependent on, traditional inscriptions of authorship; any more than the Virginal Conception of Jesus is the Assumption. There is not even a link by way of logical necessity; so to say on historical grounds that (for instance) Ecclesiastes & Wisdom are not by Solomon, does not affect the **theological **issue of their inspiration. The two questions are completely unrelated; they are connected only by being applied to the same set of objects - the books of the Bible. If people could only see this rather simple distinction, a lot of needless unhappiness might be avoided.

 

[juliamajor]

That’s a rather distorted summary; but there it is. I used to feel the same; so I sympathise. The implications for what US Catholics think about the US Catholic bishops are alarming to say the least. That accusation (is it one ?) is serious - can you support it ? It does rather imply extreme carelessness on the part of the bishops, to say the least. If “that school of thought” is “dangerous” & “unorthodox”, why not complain to the Papal Nuncio ? Is it out of the question that, just possibly, the critics of the bishops may be mistaken ?​

Much more to the point is this -** inspiration** is not the same as, nor is it dependent on, traditional inscriptions of authorship; any more than the Virginal Conception of Jesus is the Assumption. There is not even a link by way of logical necessity; so to say on historical grounds that (for instance) Ecclesiastes & Wisdom are not by Solomon, does not affect the **theological **issue of their inspiration. The two questions are completely unrelated; they are connected only by being applied to the same set of objects - the books of the Bible. If people could only see this rather simple distinction, a lot of needless unhappiness might be avoided.

Thanks- you explained in succinctly(something I can’t do lol) and clearly.

 

[tobinatorstark]

With apologies to those who have seen it already.

With apologies to what??? For Looking at or reading a perfectly good Bible in it’s hayday??? Have you ever seen a Confraternity edition or read out of it??? What is it with people telling me that the “modern” translations are “MUCH more ACCURATE” than those before 1800??? My main concern of these so called “modern” translation, is why are you saying that what the Bible said for 1400, YES, 1400 years in not as accurate because of some new text discovered. How do you know its legit??? How do you know its not bogus??? Can anyone answer that for me??? Further more, why do people here see Jimmy Akin as God and that he is a know it all? He isn’t but he is wise. I would love to discuss biblical/theological matters with this guy. I am sure he can give some insight to some questions I have as well as I hope that he can look upon me for advise as well. Not only as a Catholic, but as Christian, I need to look to others for advice and they need to also look to others for advice , not just myself

 

[mccorm45]

Cranch;4030682:

With apologies to those who have seen it already.

With apologies to what??? For Looking at or reading a perfectly good Bible in it’s hayday??? Have you ever seen a Confraternity edition or read out of it??? What is it with people telling me that the “modern” translations are “MUCH more ACCURATE” than those before 1800??? My main concern of these so called “modern” translation, is why are you saying that what the Bible said for 1400, YES, 1400 years in not as accurate because of some new text discovered. How do you know its legit??? How do you know its not bogus??? Can anyone answer that for me??? Further more, why do people here see Jimmy Akin as God and that he is a know it all? He isn’t but he is wise. I would love to discuss biblical/theological matters with this guy. I am sure he can give some insight to some questions I have as well as I hope that he can look upon me for advise as well. Not only as a Catholic, but as Christian, I need to look to others for advice and they need to also look to others for advice , not just myself

1. First off, Vincenzo thanks for the pictures…very beautiful Bible!
2. Tobinatorstark, I appreciate the questions you are asking and the passion that you show. I certainly have asked these questions as well, and yes they are very important questions.

You will never see me tell anyone to not read the Douay-Rheims Bible, since I think it is a great translation and holds an important part in the history of the Church. Yet, I will also say that there are many really good translations that have been produced during the last hundred years translated by honest people, both Catholic and Protestant, who truly seek to find out the precise words that were written by the original Biblical author. An example of someone who I highly respect as a translator is the late Bruce Metzger, who was an evangelical Protestant who chaired the Revised Standard Committee for many years. After reading a number of his works and articles, I have found him to be a very faithful and honest man who spent his life working with Catholics and Protestants in the area of textual criticism. Many people, both Catholic and Protestant, conservative and liberal, have great respect for him.

So, after much research on my own and academically at seminary, I prefer modern texts like the RSV/NRSV. The Church, since Pope Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu has encouraged translations back to the original languages, without neglecting the heritage of the Vulgate. Again, if you love the Douay-Rheims then read it and don’t let anyone tell you not to use it as your main Bible. I am not.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Not everyone is can the same thing from the same translation. With the people I know personally I recommend which Bible that would be well suited for them. Many of the them are new to scripture. I do feel that a person should read whichever translation they feel comfortable with. I take in consideration when they do ask me what I recommend and don’t I try to be as honest as possible. The Douay-Rheims isn’t for everyone and neither is the RSV-CE, JB, NJB, NAB, Confraternity or the Latin Vulgate.

 

[mccorm45]

Not everyone is can the same thing from the same translation. With the people I know personally I recommend which Bible that would be well suited for them. Many of the them are new to scripture. I do feel that a person should read whichever translation they feel comfortable with. I take in consideration when they do ask me what I recommend and don’t I try to be as honest as possible. The Douay-Rheims isn’t for everyone and neither is the RSV-CE, JB, NJB, NAB, Confraternity or the Latin Vulgate.

Well stated…I agree with you 100%

 

[tobinatorstark]

Well stated…I agree with you 100%

Thank you

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why is it that all the RSV-CE Protestant translation lovers and all the NAB lovers and all the Douay Rheims lovers have little or nothing to say against the Confraternity New Testament?

Maybe if they’re not saying too much against it–is it because it really is the best New Testament available?

 

[Cranch]

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).

quote=Cranch;4030682 With apologies to those who have seen it already.

With apologies to what??? For Looking at or reading a perfectly good Bible in it’s hayday??? Have you ever seen a Confraternity edition or read out of it???

Wow, talk about misreading the meaning of a sentence. As stated, I was merely offering an apology to anyone who might have already seen my summary of the history and makeup of the Confraternity Bible (in the event they might be bored by seeing it repeated here). The word “it” above in red refers to the summary which followed, not to the Confraternity Bible. And yes, I have seen and read from a Confraternity edition. I own three.

What is it with people telling me that the “modern” translations are “MUCH more ACCURATE” than those before 1800??? My main concern of these so called “modern” translation, is why are you saying that what the Bible said for 1400, YES, 1400 years in not as accurate because of some new text discovered.

You never heard that from me. And as my bible of choice is the Douay-Rheims, you’re not likely to. If you are referring to my statement:

The NAB was now the new official bible of the U.S. bishops. That is why the hybrid Confraternity version went away.

then you have likewise misunderstood a statement of fact to be an editorial comment. The biggest point my post was trying to make is that the Confraternity Old Testament and the 1970 NAB Old Testament are close to being one and the same thing; and so (unlike the Confraternity New Testament) the Confraternity Old Testament is outside the tradition of the Vulgate. I had thought that might be of interest to you as you identified yourself as someone unfamiliar with the Confraternity edition.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Why is it that all the RSV-CE Protestant translation lovers and all the NAB lovers and all the Douay Rheims lovers have little or nothing to say against the Confraternity New Testament?

Maybe if they’re not saying too much against it–is it because it really is the best New Testament available?

I can’t say anything against Confraternity because I haven’t read it. I have seen on, but haven’t read one. But I am sure it is an excellent translation. BTW has anyone here ever use Knox’s translation of the Vulgate

 

[japhy]

I can’t say anything against Confraternity because I haven’t read it. I have seen on, but haven’t read one. But I am sure it is an excellent translation.

My family has had one for a LONG time. We use it primarily at Christmas when setting up the nativity scene (reading Luke’s account of the census and birth). I remember language like “wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in the manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” I was also puzzled when I saw Chronicles I and II referred to as Paralipomenon… not to mention FOUR Books of Kings!

 

[tobinatorstark]

My family has had one for a LONG time. We use it primarily at Christmas when setting up the nativity scene (reading Luke’s account of the census and birth). I remember language like “wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in the manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” I was also puzzled when I saw Chronicles I and II referred to as Paralipomenon… not to mention FOUR Books of Kings!

glad to hear you enjoy it!!!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Confraternity New Testament is as good as the Vulgate gets in English. The Latin is translated in view of the Greek plus its style is modern English–not 1750s English of the Douay Rheims Challoner.

Since the Old Testament is identical to the NAB–except for Genesis–the NAB futher abominated it–that’s why I always recommend a Douay Confraternity bible.

Where the Vulgate stumbles most is with the Psalms–even St. Jerome translated them a third time after his second attempt which is basically in the Douay Rheims.

The Bea Psalter authorized by Pope Pius XII improves the Vulgate Psalms–though some critics think that it uses too classical of a Latin text–instead of the Vulgate of Jerome’s day which was less polished.

In some places it tends towards the Masoretic text but less so than any other modern versions of the Psalms.

I think that is a good thing. The Masoretic Psalms came much later–centuries after St. Jerome and were translated through Jewish eyes and not the eyes of the Catholic Church.

It sounds much better than the Olinger Psalms which would one day be in the NAB.

For all of these reasons I prefer Douay Confraternity Bibles from 1952 with the Bea Psalms.

In 1953 they started translating the Old Testament books that would one day become the NAB and that was a disaster!

The Douay-Confratenity Bibles are still based mostly on the Vulgate–the New Testament and the Psalms are written in modern English style and even the Old Testament of Challoner from the 1750s is more modern than the Douay Rheims or King James of the early 1600s.

They’re REAL Catholic bibles!

Free of Protestant and modern liberal errors in doctrine because they are based on the Vulgate.

And not impossible to read.

I do wish though that they used Anglican names instead of Latin ones but learning the Latin ones is worthwhile for one’s education.

We are to love the Lord with our “whole mind”.

Since that is true don’t look for the easiest bible to read–work the brain that God has given you and if it is a struggle for you–offer it up!

 

[Holly3278]

I think that the New American Bible is a decent Bible translation/version. However, I have heard that it’s commentary is not the best and not the most orthodox. I don’t know if that is true or not as I have never really looked in to it and I don’t look at the commentary that much.

 

[juliamajor]

You better read PiuxXii encyclica l5. ’ On the contrary in this our time, not only the Greek language, which since the humanistic renaissance has been, as it were, restored to new life, is familiar to almost all students of antiquity and letters, but the knowledge of Hebrew also and of their oriental languages has spread far and wide among literary men. Moreover there are now such abundant aids to the study of these languages that the biblical scholar, who by neglecting them would deprive himself of access to the original texts, could in no wise escape the stigma of levity and sloth. For it is the duty of the exegete to lay hold, so to speak, with the greatest care and reverence of the very least expressions which, under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, have flowed from the pen of the sacred writer, so as to arrive at a deeper and fuller knowledge of his meaning.

1. Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical as well as in other oriental languages and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply. This indeed St. Jerome strove earnestly to achieve, as far as the science of his time permitted; to this also aspired with untiring zeal and no small fruit not a few of the great exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the knowledge of languages then was much less than at the present day. In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.
2. The great importance which should be attached to this kind of criticism was aptly pointed out by Augustine, when, among the preto be recommended to the student of the Sacred Books, he put in the first place the carecepts to possess a corrected text. “The correction of the codices” - so says this most distinguished Doctor of the Church - “should first of all engage the attention of those who wish to know the Divine Scripture so that the uncollected may give place to the corrected.”[23] In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.
3. It is scarcely necessary to observe that this criticism, which some fifty years ago not a few made use of quite arbitrarily and often in such wise that one would say they did so to introduce into the sacred text their own preconceived ideas, today has rules so firmly established and secure, that it has become a most valuable aid to the purer and more accurate editing of the sacred text and that any abuse can easily be discovered. Nor is it necessary here to call to mind - since it is doubtless familiar and evident to all students of Sacred Scripture - to what extent namely the Church has held in honor these studies in textual criticism from the earliest centuries down even to the present day.
4. Today therefore, since this branch of science has attained to such high perfection, it is the honorable, though not always easy, task of students of the Bible to procure by every means that as soon as possible may be duly published by Catholics editions of the Sacred Books and of ancient versions, brought out in accordance with these standards, which, that is to say, unite the greatest reverence for the sacred text with an exact observance of all the rules of criticism. And let all know that this prolonged labor is not only necessary for the right understanding of the divinely-given writings, but also is urgently demanded by that piety by which it behooves us to be grateful to the God of all providence, Who from the throne of His majesty has sent these books as so many paternal letters to His own children.
5. Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent concerning the Latin Vulgate.[24] It is historically certain that the Presidents of the Council received a commission, which they duly carried out, to beg, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff in the name of the Council that he should have corrected, as far as possible, first a Latin, and then a Greek, and Hebrew edition, which eventually would be published for the benefit of the Holy Church of God.[25] If this desire could not then be fully realized owing to the difficulties of the times and other obstacles, at present it can, We earnestly hope, be more perfectly and entirely fulfilled by the united efforts of Catholic scholars. 'l’Divino Spiritu Afflante"

 

[juliamajor]

SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

1. The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God’s word and of Christ’s body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: “For the word of God is living and active” (Heb. 4:12) and “it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13).
2. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation; of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Where translations other than the Vulgate differ on matters of doctirne indeed they can be used. They cannot however hold precedence over the Vulgate on matters of doctrine.

The Vulgate can be used in “all disputations”.

The other translations cannot claim that! Not even Catholic ones like the NAB or the Jerusalem bible in any on its editions.

If you’ve got a problem with that you have a problem with the Ecumenical Council of Trent led by the Holy Sirit in communion with the Bishop of Rome!

 

[juliamajor]

Where translations other than the Vulgate differ on matters of doctirne indeed they can be used. They cannot however hold precedence over the Vulgate on matters of doctrine.

The Vulgate can be used in “all disputations”.

The other translations cannot claim that! Not even Catholic ones like the NAB or the Jerusalem bible in any on its editions.

If you’ve got a problem with that you have a problem with the Ecumenical Council of Trent led by the Holy Sirit in communion with the Bishop of Rome!

I guess Pius XII And Paul6don’t count? If they disagree with you then their documents don’t hold?What the successors to the popes do is expand and explain. and science that was not available at the time ,wisely is factored in. Too bad your faith in encyclicals and other church documents ended at Trent.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Their documents most certainly hold but their documents do not contradcit Trent.

Nothing they say reverses the truths of Trent. Nothing they say negates the Vulgate being used in “all disputations”.

Nothing they say negates the Vulgate from being free from error in terms of doctrine!

Nothing they say precluded Pope Jon Paul II from publishing the Nova Vulgata.

And nothing they say could stop the Holy See from instructing that the Vulgate be preeminent when questions arose concerning the liturgy.

Nothing they say could stop the Holy See from rejecting the inclusivist NAB’s Psalms from the liturgy.

Everything in the bible that does not involve faith or doctrine COULD BE changed if ancient original language texts deem that to be warranted.

What can’t change about the bible are its doctrines and the Vulgate does not err on those.

The bible can be improved. It’s doctrinal truth cannot be improved.

If the doctrinal truth of the bible can be changed then any sect or individual anywhere could just make it up to suit himself–there would be no objective truth!

If you could ask Pope Paul VI or Pope Pius XII right here and now if modern translations of the bible should be favored AGAINST the Vulgate on matters of faith and doctrine they would say No!

The bible can’t be changed to suit the prejudices of Proetestants or any other sect.

If someone wanted to say “cup” instead of “chalice” that would be quite alright–nothing doctrinal is involved.

If one wants to say “shall inherit” versus “may inherit” in John 3:16 that is Not alright! The doctrine of salvation cannot be changed because a Protestant wants it to be changed!

There’s nothing wrong with working with Protestants on translating the bible.

There is everything wrong with compromising on the doctrinal truth of the bible–that is preaching another gospel!

And it is cases like that where Satan uses the good intentions of ecumenicaly sensitive Catholics to warp the bible and dilute the truth!

 

[tobinatorstark]

Pope Pius XII and Pope Paul VI were wonderful people and they had wonderful encyclicals. In fact Pius XII’s encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu” is considered to be one of the best encyclicals written I have seen it time and again on this forum where people use this encyclical in all battles to defend the RSV-CE. They act like no other encyclical exist. “Divino Afflante Spiritu” made some excellent points, but I don’t think that this encyclical would endorse such a translation like the RSV-CE nor would Pope Pius XII or Pope Paul VI.