Having been on this board for nearly 3 months, I have come across some posts that speak negatively of the New American Bible. My primary Bible is an NAB. Is this a bad thing? If so, what do you recommend I pick up?

BTW, I also have a St. Joseph Bible, which is knda falling apart.

I think the notes reflect the best of unsubstantiated and partially invented modern biblical scholarship.

The translation is okay, except for the fact that it has inclusive langauge, which doesn't properly reflect the original text (Plus you get horrible translations like Psalm 1:1: "Happy those who do not follow...")

You're most likely looking for a modern English bible, so I would get the Revised Standard Version, which is relatively hard to get.

Thanks, Sean. There's a gift shop about 10 miles from here with a good selection of Bibles. Perhaps they'll have one.

The NAB translation is also clunky to my ears.

I don't think anyone would claim that the NAB is a tremendous achievement in English literature. It is OK, but uneven in spots. The revisions to the NT and psalms in 1988 improved some aspects of the text, but also brought a certain amount of inclusive language. Some of the footnotes leave a lot to be desired. The US Bishops hold the copywrite on the NAB translation. If you are happy with this Bible, keep it. (I do think that your "St. Joseph Bible," if you examine it closely, is also the NAB translation. The "St. Joseph Bible" is the title given by one particular publisher of the NAB, which is available from many different publishers.)

If you are looking for a different translation, the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition is the way to go. Just make sure it is the "Catholic edition." This translation has somewhat more poetic and 'churchy' language than the NAB, and some people find that difficult to deal with, especially in the letters of St. Paul. It is available over the internet from various publishers (Specter, Ignatius, Oxford U. Press, for example), and perhaps if you buy it at Amazon or BarnesandNoble.com you will get a small discount. Of course, you will not be able to "feel" the Bible until after you pay your money that way.

The NRSV, Catholic Edition, or any Douay-Rheims Bible is suitable.

I second this recommendation.

I prefer the RSV Catholic edition or the DR. If you can get the DR with the Haydock commentary that is an excellent find but will likely cost you more. You have to to be careful with the RSV footnotes even in the Catholic edition because some with Protestant explainations still slipped in (like Mal. 1:11). The NAB is written in simpler English on purpose and that sometimes takes away from the beauty of the passage when compared to the RSV or the DR. I beleive the NRSV has inclusive language but I am not sure.

People, people
there can only be one awesome Bible (besides the original texts) and that is the RSV (revised standard version). It's actually got it all quite accurate. Wonderful stuff.

The problem with the D/R is that the English language has moved some since it was prepared. If you want to read it devotionally, go for it, but if it's tempting you to a surprising conclusion, check with a more recent translation before considering other options.

There is also the question of the textual basis of the D-R. It was originally translated from the Latin Vulgate (although the 18th century update by Bishop Challoner supposed had some original language input).

Since the 1943 encyclical Divino afflante spiritu by Pope Pius XII the Church has called for translations to be done from the original language texts, not from a Latin translation. This was re-affirmed by the Vatican II Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum and even the 2001 Instruction Liturgiam authenicum dealing with scriptural translations for use in the liturgy!


Edward Pothier

For the most part, I don't really care for the NAB, there is one chapter I think that sounds better than any other translation: Gen. 1. The rythm of the verses beats all the others.

I base almost all my apologetic work off the RSV unless I have to use the KJV for the KJV Onlyist. As you said the DR is good for devotional reading, so is the St. Joseph version of NAB. That version of the NAB is quite different from the normal NAB which begs the question why it is considered the same translation.

If there's anything that the Qumran scrolls has taught us, it is that the "original" Hebrew of the OT that we have today is significantly flawed. The Septuagint is much closer to the original (and coincidentally, many of the measurements in the Septuagint are a lot more believable).

I would rather base something on the Vulgate, which is based upon the LXX, than the MT anyday.

It may have nothing to do with a "St. Joseph" version of the NAB.

The NAB was first published in 1970. There was a completely new edition of the New Testament of the NAB published in 1986. This Revised 1986 NT is a much better translation than the 1970 first NT edition, although some dislike the quite mild inclusive language. So one must be sure of which NAB New Testament edition is included in your Bible, the 1970 or the 1986 one. (There are "St. Joseph" editions of both.)

The Old Testament of the NAB was not changed in 1986. There was a Revised Psalms in 1991 which had some problems. There is work going on for a complete Old Testament revision.

The version used in the current USA LECTIONARY is based on the 1970 NAB OT including Psalms and the 1986 NT, both with some modifications done by a Vatican committee for use in the Liturgy.


Edward Pothier

That makes sense, I have the older NT. It is more poetic than the current NAB I see in paperback.

The older NT was translated quickly in the late 60s and the very beginning of the 1970 in order to provide a common text for the revised liturgy in English. The OT had been translated during the 60s at a more cautious pace. So the 1970s NT had some glitches, and a few unsolicitous phrases. My favorite whopper? In the infancy account in Luke's Gospel, the 1970 edition tried to be very precise and very contemporary. In Luke 2:7, they knew that most Americans did not use the word "inn" regularly, and it congered up images of Holiday Inns. The ancient world did not work that way. But there was no word in modern English that quite met the exact ancient practice of openning a home, room, or other place to travelers who would all pack in together. So what did they do? In 1970, it seemed a good idea to say: "because there was no room for them in the place where travellers lodged." A mouthful, and it did not exactly sound right, whatever its precision. By 1988, they came to their senses, and said "there was no room for them in the inn." Most of us, after all, did not exactly think of them as walking up to the reservation desk and saying: "I have a priceline reservation."