NAB and the NABRE

[JTornado1]

Has anyone read the NABRE? Which do you like better, the NAB or the NABRE?

I have a copy of both and I noticed that in the NAB, Isaiah 7:14 is rendered "virgin", but it is rendered "young woman" in the NABRE.

Isaiah 10:1 NAB: "Woe to those who enact unjust statutes and who write oppressive decrees,"

NABRE: "Ah! Those who write unjust statutes, who write oppressive decrees..."

Isaiah 10:5 NAB: "Woe to Assyria! My rod in anger, my staff in wrath."

NABRE: Ah! Assyria, the rod of my wrath, the staff I wield in anger."

Isaiah 57:1-2 NAB: "The just man perishes, but no one takes it to heart. Devout men are swept away, with no one giving it a thought. Though he is taken away from the presence of evil, the just man enters into peace; there is rest on his couch, for the sincere, straightforward man."

Isaiah 57:1-2 NABRE: "The just have perished, but no one takes it to heart; the steadfast are swept away, while no one understands. Yet the just are taken away from the presence of evil, and enter into peace. They rest upon their couches, the sincere, who walk in integrity."

Why the change from singular to plural in Isaiah 57:1-2?

Any thoughts on these changes and others in the NABRE?

 

[ebia]

Looks good from that selection

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

The NABRE sounds horrible.

 

[Adam Warlock]

.

 

[BabyChristian22]

I don't like the NAB or the NABRE. Some of the commentary in the NAB contradicts Vatican II and common sense, and the translation sounds watered down in places making the word of God sound weak. From what you've posted, the NABRE translation sounds even worse. Instead, I recommend the RSV-CE, Jerusalem Bible (1966 only), Douay-Rheims, or the Navarre Bible.

 

[Adam Warlock]

I don't like the NAB or the NABRE. Some of the commentary in the NAB contradicts Vatican II and common sense, and the translation sounds watered down in placesm making the word of God sound weak. From what you've posted, the NABRE translation sounds even worse. Instead, I recommend the RSV-CE, Jerusalem Bible (1966 only), Douay-Rheims, or the Navarre Bible.

RSV-CE and Douay-Rheims are excellent (not saying that the others aren't, just don't have experience with them yet!).

 

[Unix]

I have the 1970 NAB New Testament in two volumes, first volume with the Gospels, second volume with the rest. And a NABRE Oxford Large Print. I don't recommend them for most parts and to most people. The text is not that good. I'm not interested to buy the 1970 NAB OT, instead I use Confraternity version, NABRE, REB, Revised Jewish Publication Society Psalter, Updated Bible Version 2.16. For the NT I use many more versions.
I like the 1966 Jerusalem Bible (JB) and 1989 Revised English Bible (REB) (REB especially for the Pauline epistles) better.
However, I use NABRE Old Testament for some parts of the Old Testament, which You can see in a post I've written December 24th 2011 edited on December 26th 2011 (although I will make changes in that list when I progress):
1 Jn 2:5 - Christian Forums
... I agree that the JB was known as having brilliant readings.

For Isaiah the JB is much better than any other version. The Qumran scrolls were used for Isaiah in JB, the first version where they were used.
More about the JB:
NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Jerusalem Bible
1 Jn 2:5 - Christian Forums
The CTS New Catholic Bible - Catholic Answers Forums

For Sirach and about Joseph in Genesis, the predecessor: Confraternity Version, is the best!

Regarding the New Testament, I use both NAB and NABRE very little. The few passages I, so far (I haven't went through most of the Bible), where I prefer the NABRE over all other Bibles I have (and I think I have all I want to have), are:
Mt 20:25-27, 22:16b; Jn 14:22-23a, 26b-c; 2 Cor 1:4a, 6a, 12d, 2:4d; Hebrews 3:6a, c, 5:1a, 5:5b, 11-12, 6:13-14, 18b, 20b, 7:22, 9:1-10, 10:12-13; 2 Peter 2:9, 11-13a, 14b; 1 Jn 2:1: But if anyone does sin, 3:2b, 4b, 8a, 15a, 16, 24a, 4:4, 6c, 5:2: the children of God, 5a, 9: is surely greater, 10c, 17b.
The notes in NABRE on Jn 5:39 and Hebrews 2:5-18 are good.
I agree on that the notes of both NAB and NABRE are not worth reading!
1970 NAB is the best for Hebrews 7:27, 8:2-3, 9:11-13, 10:1-3

I'm probably going to choose NAB for more passages, when I progress. I progress a bit slow You see!

I don't like the NAB or the NABRE. Some of the commentary in the NAB contradicts Vatican II and common sense, and the translation sounds watered down in placesm making the word of God sound weak. From what you've posted, the NABRE translation sounds even worse. Instead, I recommend the RSV-CE, Jerusalem Bible (1966 only), Douay-Rheims, or the Navarre Bible.

 

[BabyChristian22]

I still have a deluxe New American Bible from when I didn't know that there are bad Catholic Bible translations. I'm often tempted to burn it because of the bad translation and commentary, but I end up keeping it for the nice glossy pictures and maps of the ancient Holy Land. And, I'm not sure if it's a bad enough translation to burn. I just know that I won't buy one again.

 

[FullyMT]

I don't like the NAB or the NABRE. Some of the commentary in the NAB contradicts Vatican II and common sense, and the translation sounds watered down in places making the word of God sound weak. From what you've posted, the NABRE translation sounds even worse. Instead, I recommend the RSV-CE, Jerusalem Bible (1966 only), Douay-Rheims, or the Navarre Bible.

Such as...?

 

[ebia]

Such as...?

I was wondering much the same.

 

[BabyChristian22]

I don't like the NAB or the NABRE. Some of the commentary in the NAB contradicts Vatican II and common sense, and the translation sounds watered down in places making the word of God sound weak. From what you've posted, the NABRE translation sounds even worse. Instead, I recommend the RSV-CE, Jerusalem Bible (1966 only), Douay-Rheims, or the Navarre Bible.

Such as...?

In Vatican II, it basically says that we have to believe that Matthew wrote Matthew. But in the New American Bible Commentary it says we don't know who wrote it. The ironic thing is that my deluxe NAB contains the section of Vatican II about scripture where it contradicts what it says in the NAB commentary on Matthew. Compare these quotes to each other:

"The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." - Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation

"The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience..." - NAB introduction commentary on the gospel according to Matthew

 

[ebia]

In Vatican II, it basically says that we have to believe that Matthew wrote Matthew. But in the New American Bible Commentary it says we don't know who wrote it. The ironic thing is that my deluxe NAB contains the section of Vatican II about scripture where it contradicts what it says in the NAB commentary on Matthew. Compare these quotes to each other:

"The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." - Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation

"The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience..." - NAB introduction commentary on the gospel according to Matthew

The Vatican II quote doesn't say you have to believe that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel. It says it is of apostolic origin.

 

[BabyChristian22]

The Vatican II quote doesn't say you have to believe that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel. It says it is of apostolic origin.

The NAB commentary calling it "the unknown author" still contradicts Vatican II since if the author is unknown there isn't a way to be sure that it's of apostolic origin. It's heretical at worst and confusing at best. The commentary comes across as being very skeptical about the gospel origin.

 

[ebia]

The NAB commentary calling it "the unknown author" still contradicts Vatican II since if the author is unknown there isn't a way to be sure that it's of apostolic origin. It's heretical at worst and confusing at best. The commentary comes across as being very skeptical about the gospel origin.

That doesn't follow. Tradition had asserted with far more authority and far more univocally, and much more reasonable basis, that it has apostolic authority than who it's author is. We know it's apostolic because that was part of the reason for picking it. And if you had any doubt you know because VII says do.

We don't know who wrote Hebrews, but its still deemed to be of apostolic authority. We don't know who wrote most of the OT but it's still canonical.

 

[BabyChristian22]

That doesn't follow. Tradition had asserted with far more authority and far more univocally, and much more reasonable basis, that it has apostolic authority than who it's author is. We know it's apostolic because that was part of the reason for picking it. And if you had any doubt you know because VII says do.

We don't know who wrote Hebrews, but its still deemed to be of apostolic authority. We don't know who wrote most of the OT but it's still canonical.

The article at the following link has something interesting to say about it:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DEISYN.txt

 

[ebia]

The article at the following link has something interesting to say about it:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DEISYN.txt

As it says, V2 deliberately did not define who wrote the gospels.

 

[BabyChristian22]

As it says, V2 deliberately did not define who wrote the gospels.

But it also says that it's always been the unanimous tradition in Christianity that Matthew was written by Matthew. Although VII is vague on it, it still doesn't deny that Matthew was written by Matthew. And so far, there has been no real evidence to prove otherwise. There's only been popular modern theories and speculation. I think they are passing fads.

 

[ebia]

But it also says that it's always been the unanimous tradition in Christianity that Matthew was written by Matthew. Although VII is vague on it, it still doesn't deny that Matthew was written by Matthew. And so far, there has been no real evidence to prove otherwise. There's only been popular modern theories and speculation. I think they are passing fads.

The question was "why do you think it contradicts V2?". We've ascertained that it doesn't.

That it contradicts someone else's interpretation of tradition is no surprise.

 

[ralfyman]

The NABRE because it's updated. Wait for revisions of the NT to be completed so that it can also be used for both private study and liturgical use.

The same goes for NRSV. Hopefully, something like NRSV-2CE will appear.

 

[Michie]

Why is a thread from 2011 being bumped up? Catholics have Church approved translations of Scripture.