The NAB translation/footnotes

[StColette]

Please note no debating lol

[cmotherofpirl]

Pal asked for information , not a debate, so this thread was moved here.
There is no debating on this board.

[StColette]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 21 2005, 11:23 AM']Pal asked for information , not a debate, so this thread was moved here.
There is no debating on this board.
[right][snapback]652598[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thanks Cmom

[phatcatholic]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm"][b]this article[/b][/url] on catholic translations says this about the NAB:[list][b]4.1 New American Bible or NAB (1970)[/b]. Translated from the original languages by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine according to the principles of Vatican II for use in the liturgy. It was the basis of the American Lectionary from the 1970s until 2002. A good translation, but it was criticized for its changing of some traditional and familiar expressions, such as "full of grace".

[b]4.2 NAB with Revised New Testament (1986)[/b]. A restoration of some traditional familiar phraseology. Unfortunately, it also included some mild inclusive language. No longer widely available, owing to the publication of the revised Psalms (see next entry).

[b]4.3 NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991)[/b]. It was due to the use of vertical inclusive language (re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States.

[b]4.4 Modified NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (2000-2002)[/b]. This title is of my own invention. It does not refer to any currently available Bible, but to the NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised NT, as modified by a committee of the Holy See and the Bishops for use in the liturgy. It is the text found in all current Lectionaries in the U.S.. The Holy See accepted some use of inclusive language, where the speaker/author intended a mixed audience (e.g. "brothers and sisters", instead of the older "brethren"), but rejected it in references to God or Christ, and man, where the word has anthropological and theological significance (e.g. Psalm 1:1, with reference to Adam and Christ). Whether a Bible will be made available having these modified NAB texts is not known at this time. Since they do not extend to the entire Bible, it is possible that none will be, as that would require further editing of the underlying NAB text.
[/list]i hope that helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[ironmonk]

Correction is not debating.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Well, the NAB is full of gender-revisionist language; that's the main thing I don't like about the text itself. The footnotes and introductions that often accompany it are what's really atrocious.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And the Church also approved the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-CE for use in the Mass is the U.S. For reasons that I'm unaware of, the NAB dominates.

[StColette]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 21 2005, 06:54 PM']Correction is not debating.
[right][snapback]653357[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I was referring to Littleles' post. It was inching toward a debate.

[Laudate_Dominum]

So that you don't think it's just me saying this, I've found a quote from James Akin that supports my view:

"The book introductions commonly state highly speculative higher critical theories as if they were facts and have a general tone which serves to undermine the reader's confidence in the books he is reading. To use the expression I did earlier, they tend to be faith-damaging rather than faith-building. The footnotes, likewise, are problematic. Some, especially in the early editions of the NAB, contained flat denials of Catholic doctrine, and even the footnotes of the more recent editions contain things that contradict what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says."

[StColette]

So I'm hoping they fixed these "flat denials of Catholic doctrine" in later edition ?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='StColette' date='Jul 21 2005, 07:10 PM']So I'm hoping they fixed these "flat denials of Catholic doctrine" in later edition ?
[right][snapback]653373[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I doubt it. Catholic Biblical scholariship is so messed up these days I don't see anything totally orthodox coming from the publishers who tend to publish these things. The Ignatius study Bible seems good, but it uses the RSV-CE translation anyway. All the editions that I own of the NAB are pretty problematic (some more than others).

[StColette]

That's really a shame

*sticks to the DRV*

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Can't wait for the new Ignatius Study Bible with "translation tweaks."

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 21 2005, 08:17 PM']I doubt it. Catholic Biblical scholariship is so messed up these days I don't see anything totally orthodox coming from the publishers who tend to publish these things. The Ignatius study Bible seems good, but it uses the RSV-CE translation anyway. All the editions that I own of the NAB are pretty problematic (some more than others).
[right][snapback]653382[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think St Ignatius and Navarre are the best notes to be had.

[phatcatholic]

i just bought Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts from the Ignatius Study bible.

heretics beware.......