NAB
Fr. Neuhaus has criticized the NAB translation for years and his latest post at First Things continues it:
The New American Bible (NAB), an unfortunate translation episcopally imposed upon Catholics for readings at Mass, has prompted earlier comment in First Things (see here and here). The problem keeps coming back, not least in pastoral counseling. Take the woman who had had it with her husband’s lying to her. I mentioned to her Our Lord’s admonition to forgive “seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:22). That’s the way it reads in every widely used English translation, including the Douay-Rheims, an earlier English translation used by Catholics. Jesus obviously intended hyperbole, indicating that forgiveness is open-ended. Keep on forgiving as you are forgiven by God, for God’s forgiving is beyond measure or counting.
But this woman had been reading her NAB, according to which Jesus said we should forgive not “seventy times seven,” but “seventy times.” She had been keeping count, and her husband was well over his quota. Then there is Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, where in both passages Jesus says: “But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress.” In other widely used English translations, it is “unfaithfulness” or “marital unfaithfulness.” The Douay-Rheims says “excepting in the case of fornication.”
In both passages, the NAB puts it this way: “But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery.” Meaning a previous marriage had not been annulled by the diocesan marriage tribunal? Whatever.
Now to be perfectly fair, in the three passages mentioned there are ancient authorities that lend some support for the NAB translation. For instance, some ancient texts of Matthew 19 read “he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” which is closer to the NAB version. But in the tradition of translation, scholars have overwhelmingly decided that the manuscripts referring to unchastity or unfaithfulness are to be preferred.
Again and again, when manuscript authorities differ from one another, the NAB chooses against the scholarly consensus and the centuries-old tradition of English translation. Why is that? Is the purpose to deliberately destabilize the faithful’s already shaky familiarity with biblical texts? Maybe the idea is just to be different. What’s the point of a new translation if it isn’t very different from other translations?
The NAB is a banal, linguistically inept, and misleading translation. Why did the bishops force it upon the Catholic people, demanding that it and it alone be used in the readings of the Mass? Various answers are given: Because it was produced by the guild of Catholic biblical scholars and, while it may not be very good, at least it is ours. Because the bishops hold the copyright, and charges for using the NAB in Mass guides and elsewhere is a cash cow for the financially strapped bishops conference. Because the bishops really don’t care whether Catholics use a worthy and reliable translation of the Bible.
If the NCCB needs a revenue stream maybe they can request parishes to pay a fee so that they don't have to use the NAB. A kind of reverse royalty. When the new English translation is finally available it will be an odd contrast to still have those stilted readings from the NAB. It would be so much better to be able to use a translation such as the RSV-CE 2nd edition.
Fr. Neuhaus does not even mention just how bad the notes are for the NAB in this post. I remember early in my conversion I saw a study edition of the NAB at a book store and I was quite excited to get it. My excitement diminished over time as I read through it and looked at the footnotes. I often thought "that can't be right." Only later did I find that some of the footnotes portrayed a very modernist and almost Jesus Seminar feel and a fruit of the seventies in which they were written in. The footnotes have a "no it didn't happen" that way tone to them. They reminded me of a priest I met at my Mother's parish in the seventies who explained to me how all those biblical miracles really weren't miracles.
Jimmy Akin previously reviewed the NAB.
Known as 
Oh boy. For a 'Welcome Home' present, coming into the Church (on 4/7/07) I got a NAB Student Edition from a friend. Until Wed., I hadn't come upon anything that made me go "huh?" On Wed. I was reading out of Genesis. In Genesis 6:2 of the NAB, it says "the sons of heaven* saw how beautiful the daughters of man were..." So I followed the footnote and it says: the sons of heaven: literally "the sons of the gods" or "the sons of God," i.e., the the celestial beings of mythology. What?? Mabye its just me, but...
It's kind of like lamenting the existence of an aging hipster: the RNAB is on the way. Patience...
Read the RSV and Jerusalem Bibles (which I prefer for non-scholarly reading, as its British origin guarantees a poetic quality not found elsewhere) and ignore the rest.
The NAB translation is an embarrassment...almost as bad as the current sacramentary translation.
Fr. Philip, OP
The notes for the New Jerusalem Bible aren't much better. If you have read Papa Benedetto's forward to his book Jesus of Nazareth & want to see a prime example of the vaildity of his criticism of how the Historical Criticism method is misused the NJB notes are a prime example.
Thank God someone noticed it's a literary mess.
Like our music, which was written by "clergy" instead of a competent musician, it was decided by "liturgists", I guess, not people who knew and loved the written and spoken word.
Translators should be supervised by competent poets, novelists, playwrights--ones w/o ideological commitments, obviously. Accuracy and faithfulness do not mean "Ugly."
Fr. Philip
Can someone explain to me why, when there are so many better translations, we use the NAB for Mass? Every priest I know who is a scripture scholar has told me to read other translations. One priest has even gone so far to read another translation during Mass when he didn't like the NAB version of the gospel. OK, I know that's wrong, but it does indicate how priests who are well versed in scripture feel about it.
Your post complains against the NAB, quoting someone giving only two examples, the second being Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.
In reference to this "adultery" translation, I refer you to an alternative explanation.
Check out the Catholic Answers site discussing these words since they apply to many non-Catholics taking these verses to complain against annulments.
One such reference on their site is:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705clas.asp
In that article, a compelling case could be made that the NAB translation is more faithful to the Greek words and their intent (and therefore less likely to be abused in anti-Catholic rhetoric)than the other translations preferred by the author.
I do hope you temper your rants aginst the U. S. Heirarchy. I give you 2 for instances.
(1) To me the bishops are doing their job when they make a choice insuring uniformity of translations used in the liturgy.
(2) The bishop's website, as well as many others, provide free links to internet-accessible NABs. In other words - accusing them of using the NAB to rake in money needs more proof than someone making the accusation from a disagreement as to translation choice, not because they have produced evidence of financial corruption.
If financial corruption is the case, stop with the inuendoes and take the evidence to law-enforcement agencies to take those greedy so-and-sos down.
Peace,
Tom
It's the money (and the fact that no modernist would be caught dead saying there really are miracles). The local yokels of American catholicism are still 70s style modernists.
I completely concur with previous commenters on the general yuckiness of the New American Bible translation--the original 1970 version wasn't too bad, but the revised version with re-jiggered New Testament and Psalms is appalling.The notes and study guide are worse. It almost seems as if the editors are doing their best to undermine, rather than to build up, faith in Christ. I had a serious crisis of faith a couple of years ago, which I believe arose in part from reading the NAB with its sloppy translation and skeptical, deconstructionist attitude toward the text. I have an NAB Study Bible, but I gave up on it years ago and much prefer the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. The hand of political correctness lies heavy on the NAB's pages and it combines the clunky awkwardness of older translations with the worst modernist and post-modernist fondness for leftist and feminist agitprop. Truly the worst of both worlds.
Oh, and did I mention I don't like it much? :)
I find it significant that the English language versions of both the Catechism and the Compendium refer not to the NAB but to the RSV for Scripture citations--and the English version of the Compendium is published by the USCCB. It's almost as if the bishops themselves are embarrassed by this turkey of a translation.
If you think the NAB is going to go away soon, I would have to disagree with you.
And I can use Scripture to prove it. You see, you say the NAB is rife with the Spirit of the Seventies while I say unto you it is the Spirit of "Seventy Times Seven".
So you see, it never ends.
Just like Battlefield Earth.
Perhaps the most painful moment in the whole liturgical year is the Gospel reading for the Third Mass at Christmas, which is the Prologue to the Gospel of John (which is now read only once a year).
It is truly awful. "The Word is the light that lights up everybody." Or something like that. Makes it sound like they're talking about a flashlight or something.
Funny I never noticed them when I read my NAB (But then, I have the 1970 version, which has 'seventy times seven times' on Matt. 18: 22, plus on Matt. 5 and 19 it translates 'lewd conduct is a separate case). The footnotes, though a bit questionable on some points, at least is somehow passable though if you can't stomach them, just ignore the footnotes.
One thing I noticed about the 1970 NAB and the present one is that the text is so unliketheother that we might as well say they're different.
I like to add that footnote from Matt. 19 from the 1970 NAB:
'Literally except for 'porneia' i.e., immorality, fornication, even incest. A growing number of scholars consider this to refer to Christians who, prior to their conversion, had married within the prohibited degree of blood relationship as stated in Lv 18:6-18. The same position seems to be taken in Acts 15:20. As it stands, however, this Matthean clause of exception and that of 5:32 cannot be easily be reconciled with the absolute prohibition of divorce repeated in Mk 10:11f and Lk 16:18. Whatever may have been the situation prevailing among the Christians for whom Matthew wrote, the more stringent understanding of Jesus' words prevailed throughout the Church.'
Niall,
That's because the Compendium was translated in Rome. The USCCB didn't "translate" it for us.
Patrick,
I have the 1968 version. It reads as yours does.
Joanne or anyone else who knows,
when was the NAB's first edition released?
And,
Why did they have to revise the NAB into the form it appears today? The early editions of it were quite fine; why'd the Bishops of America change them into something that has the potential to be used in an unorthodox manner?
I agree with your assessment of the NAB Study Bible, which might be renamed "NAB Study Yourself Out of the Catholic Faith" bible.
I'm sometimes jealous of the NIV Study bible which at least has the self-confidence that Protestantism is true.
By the year 2020 perhaps Scott Hahn's RSV study bible will be out...:-) (Btw, I've heard it's not Hahn's fault but the publisher wanting money by publishing each book individually.)
Oops, Patrick, I was wrong. Mine is also from 1970.
(The "1968 edition" I read was in reference to the indulgenced prayer to the Holy Spirit inside the cover page)
According to Wikipedia,
"In 1970, the New American Bible (NAB) was first published."
Joanne, does your 1970 NAB have additional material? Mine has articles like 'The Bible in the Church', 'The Inspiration of Scripture', 'The Interpretation of Scripture', 'The Pagan World in NT times' and 'The English Versions of the Bible' (An article about the history of translating the Bible into English; the most useful in my opinion).