FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What's wrong with the NAB?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
The only complaints I've heard about the NAB are that the study notes are awful. What about the translation itself?
(10-20-2010, 07:51 PM)damooster Wrote: [ -> ]The only complaints I've heard about the NAB are that the study notes are awful. What about the translation itself?

Not only is the translation lame from a literary perspective; it's also influenced by a spirit of Modernism, just like the footnotes.
The NAB with study notes came highly recommended during my RCIA process so I picked at up and I'm going thru it. I think the notes are actually very useful to show threads and parallelism throughout scripture. The background information is excellent. But if you don't give any credence to modern textual criticism then I wouldn't recommend it. However, if you've wondered about the differences between the creation story of Genesis 1-2 and the creation story in Genesis 3, then this will at least explain the modern theological approach to the biblical text.

I read the bible several times thru as a Protestant and I find the translation (so far) is acceptable. It's readable and accurate with good footnotes.
(10-20-2010, 07:51 PM)damooster Wrote: [ -> ]The only complaints I've heard about the NAB are that the study notes are awful. What about the translation itself?

Well, if you have the intellect and spiritual maturity of a 5 year old, the NAB would be perfect.  The NAB is a garbage translation ("interpretation"?).  It's dumbed down and childish.  How mature adult Catholics can stomach the NAB is beyond me.  Compare the first chapter in Genesis from an NAB to a Douay Rhiems or even the Revised Standard (Catholic version) and you can see the difference. 

BTW, in the NAB version of the first chapter in Genesis, can anyone explain what a "dome" is which separates the waters?  That one completely baffles me.  ???  Would it be comparable to "firmament"?
(10-20-2010, 07:51 PM)damooster Wrote: [ -> ]The only complaints I've heard about the NAB are that the study notes are awful. What about the translation itself?

The translation is unremarkable and deviates from traditional language for no apparent reason and has some gender issues.

No one I know actually likes the NAB (personally, I'd read the KJV before the NAB because at least the KJV is well written) unless it is the one they happened to grow up with.

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

Now, traditionally, the word "grace" is distinct from "favour" in English in theology and because this is an angel talking to Mary, most Catholics would stress the meaning of this greeting, but the translators here went with "favoured one" (which isn't literal from the Greek, which has the idea of "full of" attached, and "favour" also can be translated as "blessing" or "grace") for no reason except perhaps it waters down the understanding. The KJV, which aimed to be a poetic translation compared with the Greek, renders this single word as "thou that art highly favoured". The Latin translated "κεχαριτωμένη" as "gratia plena" ("full of grace" and used as an address to someone) and the English of this is normally given as "full of grace" because grace is theologically used, "graceful" would be misleading (although, literally correct, we do not use "graceful" in that sense), it is related to the Latin word and it is accurate. The protestants went with the longer phrase for linguistic reasons in the KJV.

The NAB dumbed it down, removed poetry and seems to be trying to be unique for no reason (there is a reason: they have copyright over it, so they have financial interest).

It was first published in 1970 and that should give you some idea of the climate in which the editors were. Furthermore, it has four editions, and many revisions where text was found to be inappropriate (usually because of gender issues). It constantly strives to push the boundaries of what is remotely acceptable. In fact, portions of it are unacceptable in the various issues. This is not the state where the translation under the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops should be, especially when there was a project (Confraternity Version) prior to this which was cancelled for the NAB after Vatican II and other translations existed.

When one examines the "why" of the NAB, one is stuck with financial interest and modernism.
(10-20-2010, 08:13 PM)mike6240 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-20-2010, 07:51 PM)damooster Wrote: [ -> ]The only complaints I've heard about the NAB are that the study notes are awful. What about the translation itself?

Well, if you have the intellect and spiritual maturity of a 5 year old, the NAB would be perfect.  The NAB is a garbage translation ("interpretation"?).  It's dumbed down and childish.  How mature adult Catholics can stomach the NAB is beyond me.  Compare the first chapter in Genesis from an NAB to a Douay Rhiems or even the Revised Standard (Catholic version) and you can see the difference. 

BTW, in the NAB version of the first chapter in Genesis, can anyone explain what a "dome" is which separates the waters?  That one completely baffles me.  ???   Would it be comparable to "firmament"?

"dome" would be accurate in this sense.
In the NAB Jesus was given wine before He died, and in the D-R He's given vinegar.
So, what's the "pecking" order?

For example:

D-R
RSV
JB
NJ
NAB

Personally, I prefer the RSV.
(10-21-2010, 12:40 AM)damooster Wrote: [ -> ]So, what's the "pecking" order?

For example:

D-R
RSV
JB
NJ
NAB

Personally, I prefer the RSV.

And then the NRSV at the bottom of the heap? Canada uses the NRSV for liturgical purposes *sigh*
(10-20-2010, 11:36 PM)dark lancer Wrote: [ -> ]In the NAB Jesus was given wine before He died, and in the D-R He's given vinegar.
He was given posca. It is made from old wine and vinegar and was very popular with the Roman army. Translating it as either word s appropriate.
Pages: 1 2 3 4