Does the NAB compromise Scripture?

In another thread there was an accusation made against the NAB that it compromised our faith, that it mistranslated the original languages, that the translators deliberately translated “God” as “creator.” Is there any truth to this accusation?

The word “creator” is found 24 times in the entire NAB. Let’s look at those passages (by citation only, to keep this post short).

Gen 14:19 “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the creator of heaven and earth;” – the word “creator” is the Hebrew word *qanah *-- and it means "creator."
Gen 14:22 But Abram replied to the king of Sodom: “I have sworn to the LORD, God Most High, the creator of heaven and earth…” – the word “creator” is the Hebrew word *qanah *-- again, "creator."
Judith 9:12 “Please, please, God of my forefather, God of the heritage of Israel, Lord of heaven and earth, Creator of the waters, King of all you have created, hear my prayer!” This one is difficult because the NAB uses an older manuscript than the DR or any other version (except the NRSV with Apocrypha). The translation is correct based upon the Greek.
JUDITH 13:18 “Then Uzziah said to her: 'Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies.” – again, the Greek translates as “creator”, not God.
2MACC 1:24 “The prayer was as follows: 'Lord, Lord God, creator of all things, awesome and strong, just and merciful, the only king and benefactor,” Here we can look at the Latin and see that the word here is *creator *-- Latin for "creator."
2MACC 7:23 “Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shapes each man’s beginning, as he brings about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life, because you now disregard yourselves for the sake of his law.’ Martyrdom of Mother and Sons…” Again, the Latin word used for “creator” is creator.
2MACC 13:14 “Leaving the outcome to the Creator of the world, and exhorting his followers to fight nobly to death for the laws, the temple, the city, the country, and the government, he pitched his camp near Modein.” Same Latin word…
ECCL 12:1 “Remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come And the years approach of which you will say, I have no pleasure in them;” Here we find the Hebrew word *bara *which also means "to create, to cut down, to feed, creator."
SIRACH 3:16 “A blasphemer is he who despises his father; accursed of his Creator, he who angers his mother.” The Latin here is “God,” the Greek is "Lord."
SIRACH 4:6 “For if in the bitterness of his soul he curse you, his Creator will hear his prayer.” The Greek has an indefinite reference.
SIRACH 7:30 “With all your strength, love your Creator, forsake not his ministers.” The Latin is “God”, the Greek is "himn that made you."
SIRACH 24:8 “Then the Creator of all gave me his command, and he who formed me chose the spot for my tent, Saying, ‘In Jacob make your dwelling, in Israel your inheritance.’” The greek is “creator”.
SIRACH 32:13 “Above all, give praise to your Creator, who showers his favors upon you.” The Greek here is "Lord."
SIRACH 33:13 “Like clay in the hands of a potter, to be molded according to his pleasure, So are men in the hands of their Creator, to be assigned by him their function.” The Greek here is "maker."
ISA 40:28 “Do you not know or have you not heard? The LORD is the eternal God, creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint nor grow weary, and his knowledge is beyond scrutiny.” The Hebrew is *bara *which means "creator."
ISA 43:15 “I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.” The Hebrew here is again bara.
ISA 45:18 “For thus says the LORD, The creator of the heavens, who is God, The designer and maker of the earth who established it, Not creating it to be a waste, but designing it to be lived in: I am the LORD, and there is no other.” The Hebrew word is bara.
ISA 57:19 “I, the Creator, who gave them life. Peace, peace to the far and the near, says the LORD; and I will heal them.” The Hebrew word is bara.

continued in next post…

continued from previous post…

JER 10:16 “Not like these is the portion of Jacob: he is the creator of all things; Israel is his very own tribe, LORD of hosts is his name.” The Hebrew doesn’t actually use a word – instead it’s an indefinite "he."
JER 51:19 “Not like these is the portion of Jacob, he is the creator of all things; Israel is his very own tribe, LORD of hosts is his name.” This is a copy of 10:16, and again the reference is indirect.
MT 19:4 “He said in reply, 'Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’…” The Greek here reads “he which made them” – Creator.
ROM 1:25 “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” The Greek here is *ktizO *-- creator.
COL 3:10 “and have put on the new self, which is being renewed, for knowledge, in the image of its creator.” The Greek is again ktizO.
1PT 4:19 “As a result, those who suffer in accord with God’s will hand their souls over to a faithful creator as they do good.” The Greek here is *ktisteôs – *creator.
[font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]So, the bottom line is that no, the NAB did not make the change that it was accused of making.[/size][/font]

Deacon Ed

Thank you -

Great Post Deacon Ed. :thumbsup:

I was wondering, you sighted the latin in some of these quotes, were any of these books originally written in Latin? I thought that most were in Greek or Hebrew. If so, which ones were originally in Latin?:confused:

[quote=e-catholic]Great Post Deacon Ed. :thumbsup:

I was wondering, you sighted the latin in some of these quotes, were any of these books originally written in Latin? I thought that most were in Greek or Hebrew. If so, which ones were originally in Latin?:confused:
[/quote]

The Deutereocanonical books were probably originally in Greek. I cited the Latin because it was the source of the DR translation and this may have been the source of the original claim. For the Greek of these I was using the Septuagint. In 2 Macc 1:24 the word is ktistEs which means “creator.” In 2 Macc 7:23 the same word is used.In 2 Macc 13:14 we again find the same word. Judith 9:12 uses a different form of the same word. Judith 13:18 uses the expression: “blessed be the Lord God who has created…”

I was trying to save a little time in what I wrote… shame on me.

Deacon Ed

No part of the Scriptures were written in Latin and the early church did not speak Latin. Which is why I’m eternally confused by those who are so devoted to the use of the language in liturgy.

-Michael

Any and all translations of the Scriptures are going to contain this sort of thing as in the process of translating the translator must apply some interpetation to what is being translated.

This is why when one is doing a Bible Study it is a good idea to read the same passages in multiple translations.

[quote=SouthCoast]No part of the Scriptures were written in Latin and the early church did not speak Latin. Which is why I’m eternally confused by those who are so devoted to the use of the language in liturgy.

-Michael
[/quote]

Michael,

While you are correct that the bible was not originally written in Latin, the Catholic Church used the Vulgate as the normative translation. As a result, many people have grown attached to translations that come from the Vulgate.

Deacon Ed

**The question beckons-Why the need to retranslate a Bible? Was something done or Performed in Vatican II not theologically correct as per the “Old” translation??? What the heck is “vertically inclusive language”? **

Right from the EWTN Archives, and scrolling down to good old number 4. The New American Bible-that is to be used in ALL lectionaries (that means church readings) and translated in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
Why would we need a new Translation-To skew the church even more and now the Bible, the most sacred book, in order to make it “in the spirit of Vatican II”. Now I cant even trust the readings I hear in Church thinking that words have been changed to brainwash me into thinking like a Modernist.
And as far as what Deacon printed, I went to the Vatican web site and there is page after page of footnotes that have been substituted and changed, I would not even try and paste that.

Bible Versions and Commentaries

Liturgical Use in United States

There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn. [See note on [url=“http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm#inclusive”]inclusive language]

Devotional Reading

A bewildering array of Catholic Bibles are available for personal use. They all have imprimaturs, but not all avoid the use of inclusive language. That use is indicated in the summary. The order is generally chronological.

Douai-Rheims. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai. Bishop Challoner’s 1750 edition, and subsequent revisions by others up to the 20th century, is the most common edition. Retains some archaic English. The 1899 edition is available from TAN Books. The text is widely available on line, including EWTN’s library.

New American Bible or NAB (1970). 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”.

NAB with Revised New Testament (1986). 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).

**NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament **(1991). 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.

**4.4 *Modified *NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (2000-2002). **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.

[quote=CrusaderNY]Right from the EWTN Archives, and scrolling down to good old number 4. The New American Bible-that is to be used in ALL lectionaries (that means church readings) and translated in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
[/quote]

Correct, in the United States the NAB is the standard text to be used at Mass.

Why would we need a new Translation-To skew the church even more and now the Bible, the most sacred book, in order to make it “in the spirit of Vatican II”. Now I cant even trust the readings I hear in Church thinking that words have been changed to brainwash me into thinking like a Modernist.

Hmmm…you answered your own question. I submit that the reason for the new translation was to get closer to the original meaning of Scripture rather than use a translation of a translation. It also allows the use of more current language than was found in, say, the Challoner Revision of the DR (and the original DR was impossible). So, no, your suggested answer is certainly without merit or basis in fact – unless, of course, you are willing to do some actual thinking of your own to find cases where the original meaning of scripture was “skewed.” Otherwise we simply have your assertion and, as the old Latin phrase tells us, *Gratis affirmatur, gratis negatur *(What is freely asserted is freely rejected.)

And as far as what Deacon printed, I went to the Vatican web site and there is page after page of footnotes that have been substituted and changed, I would not even try and paste that.

Well, then, how about posting a URL, or would that be too much trouble? After all, I spent several hours doing the research to reject one claim – and I notice you don’t even address what I posted. How sad.

Deacon Ed

Sorry Deacon, unfortunatly I was a drop out seminarian and now have a job that I work at approximately 14 hours a day and can only spend so many hours of a day on theology. I do expect that my church though would be the source that I can trust, but they only seem lately interested in pleasing liberals as yourself who are (non Catholic-you are Orthodox if I remember correctly) and not tried and true die hard Catholics as myself.

I will try better to please you next time and if I have some time later I shall find the links

and God bless to you also

[quote=Deacon Ed]Correct, in the United States the NAB is the standard text to be used at Mass.

Hmmm…you answered your own question. I submit that the reason for the new translation was to get closer to the original meaning of Scripture rather than use a translation of a translation. It also allows the use of more current language than was found in, say, the Challoner Revision of the DR (and the original DR was impossible). So, no, your suggested answer is certainly without merit or basis in fact – unless, of course, you are willing to do some actual thinking of your own to find cases where the original meaning of scripture was “skewed.” Otherwise we simply have your assertion and, as the old Latin phrase tells us, *Gratis affirmatur, gratis negatur *(What is freely asserted is freely rejected.)

Well, then, how about posting a URL, or would that be too much trouble? After all, I spent several hours doing the research to reject one claim – and I notice you don’t even address what I posted. How sad.

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

[quote=CrusaderNY]Sorry Deacon, unfortunatly I was a drop out seminarian and now have a job that I work at approximately 14 hours a day and can only spend so many hours of a day on theology. I do expect that my church though would be the source that I can trust, but they only seem lately interested in pleasing liberals as yourself who are (non Catholic-you are Orthodox if I remember correctly) and not tried and true die hard Catholics as myself.

I will try better to please you next time and if I have some time later I shall find the links

and God bless to you also
[/quote]

Well, where do I start. First, I am Catholic – Roman Catholic by birth, bi-ritual by permission of Bishop Tod Brown and Bishop John (ELYA) and, now, Abp. Cyril (BUSTROS). I serve both a Latin and a Melkite parish. I work a full time job as a webmaster. I’m a police chaplain.

People who know me would be surprised to find me characterized as “liberal” since, in point of fact, I am not. I am a conservative.

As a conservative, as a deacon who has been charged with presenting the truth of the Catholic Church I utterly reject any attempt to defame the Church, to demean her role in the world, or to make scurrilous accusations about her.

I trust you will, at some point, actually do your own research instead of parroting what you find on the the web – especially since what you find is so poorly researched it makes you look bad.

Deacon Ed

The question beckons-Why the need to retranslate a Bible?

Because it is profitable. :wink:

http://pserve.club.fr/OBrother4.JPG

"Sales, Mr. McGill, sales! And what do I sell? The Truth! Ever’ blessed word of it, from Genesee on down to Revelations! That’s right, the word of God, which let me tell you there is damn good money in during these days of woe and want! Folks’re lookin’ for answers and Big Dan Teague sells the only book that’s got 'em!"

  • from "Oh Brother, Were Art Thou?"

Defame the church? Well I think retranslating the Bible to make her views-her liberal modernistic views to support her Vatican II agenda-defamed herself with no help of by me. To actually go and retranslate a Bible and to take out words that you feel are “insensitive” is Protestant and unacceptable.

And as far as your continued assertions that I have offered nothing to support my claim, I have given EWTN and the US Catholic Bishop websites and summaries of the NAB, its reason for the “retranslations” and the like. If you expect me to go and compare it word for word to my DR Bible, that I know came from Saints in the 1500’s and not some Modernist Thelogians bent on changing the church to satisfy some Ecumenical Novus Ordo agenda, then I would not hold my breath. Just the idea that the church would go so far as touch the Bible on top of all of the other changes, that are against past teachings, just gives the traditionalist and conservatives more reason to doubt the road our beloved church is going down, and that something is seriously “rotten in Denmark”

[quote=Deacon Ed]Well, where do I start. First, I am Catholic – Roman Catholic by birth, bi-ritual by permission of Bishop Tod Brown and Bishop John (ELYA) and, now, Abp. Cyril (BUSTROS). I serve both a Latin and a Melkite parish. I work a full time job as a webmaster. I’m a police chaplain.

People who know me would be surprised to find me characterized as “liberal” since, in point of fact, I am not. I am a conservative.

As a conservative, as a deacon who has been charged with presenting the truth of the Catholic Church I utterly reject any attempt to defame the Church, to demean her role in the world, or to make scurrilous accusations about her.

I trust you will, at some point, actually do your own research instead of parroting what you find on the the web – especially since what you find is so poorly researched it makes you look bad.

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

Melkite is Greek…As in Greek Orthodox

Case Closed

[quote=Deacon Ed]Well, where do I start. First, I am Catholic – Roman Catholic by birth, bi-ritual by permission of Bishop Tod Brown and Bishop John (ELYA) and, now, Abp. Cyril (BUSTROS). I serve both a Latin and a Melkite parish. I work a full time job as a webmaster. I’m a police chaplain.

People who know me would be surprised to find me characterized as “liberal” since, in point of fact, I am not. I am a conservative.

As a conservative, as a deacon who has been charged with presenting the truth of the Catholic Church I utterly reject any attempt to defame the Church, to demean her role in the world, or to make scurrilous accusations about her.

I trust you will, at some point, actually do your own research instead of parroting what you find on the the web – especially since what you find is so poorly researched it makes you look bad.

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

[quote=CrusaderNY]Melkite is Greek…As in Greek Orthodox

Case Closed
[/quote]

Showing your ignorance. Melkite is Melkite Greek Catholic Church, as in Byzantine Catholic.

Father Deacon Ed is a bi-ritual deacon who serves both the Latin Catholic Church and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

If I was you I would take Father Deacon Ed’s advice as to doing your own research. It is better to keep one’s mouth closed and allow others to think of you as a fool than it is to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Ignorance-I would think you should show some charity, you and your Deacon there are very very arogant and mean people and you show your true colors.

Whether he is Greek Orthodox or Byz or whatever-It is STILL NOT CATHOLIC-And to be a bi-ritual Deacon-what does that mean, one day you decide to be Catholic and serve the Catholics and the next day you put on your Byzantine hat and serve non-Catholic Byzantians? Does not work and probably more Vatican II “allowances”

[quote=ByzCath]Showing your ignorance. Melkite is Melkite Greek Catholic Church, as in Byzantine Catholic.

Father Deacon Ed is a bi-ritual deacon who serves both the Latin Catholic Church and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

If I was you I would take Father Deacon Ed’s advice as to doing your own research. It is better to keep one’s mouth closed and allow others to think of you as a fool than it is to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
[/quote]

[quote=CrusaderNY]Ignorance-I would think you should show some charity, you and your Deacon there are very very arogant and mean people and you show your true colors.

Whether he is Greek Orthodox or Byz or whatever-It is STILL NOT CATHOLIC-And to be a bi-ritual Deacon-what does that mean, one day you decide to be Catholic and serve the Catholics and the next day you put on your Byzantine hat and serve non-Catholic Byzantians? Does not work and probably more Vatican II “allowances”
[/quote]

I am a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic.

The Catholic Church is more than just the Roman Catholic Church.

Seems you do not understand that and until we get past that hurdle there is no dealing with you.

The Melkite Greek Catholic Church, headed by Patriarch Gregory has one eparchy (or diocese) in the USA, the Eparchy of Newton, which is headed by Archbishop Cyril. This Church is in communion with the Holy Father. Its liturgy resembles the Orthodox but it is in union with Rome and is Catholic.

Father Deacon Ed serves there as well as serving as a deacon in the Roman Catholic Church. Just as a bi-ritual priest does.

I am a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic. My Church is headed by Metropolitan Archbishop Basil. My Church has four eparchies in the USA. They are the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, this is where the Metropolitan is, the Eparchy of Passaic, Bishop Andrew, the Eparchy of Parma, Bishop John, and the Eparchy of Van Nuys, Bishop William.

I live in Rochester, NY. So I live in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester, the Melkite Catholic Eparchy of Newton, the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic, (and to throw a wrench in the matter) the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Stamford.

Now as I am a Byzantine Catholic I am under the Jurisdiction of Bishop Andrew but I attend Saint Nicholas Melkite Greek Catholic Church as there is no Byzantine Catholic parish for me to attend.

Hope this helps you out a bit.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P1.HTM

This is the New American Bible link, right from the Vatican Archives, with a preface, which explains that the DR bible was the FIRST Catholic bible, and the “Need” for the “New” translation.

It comes equipt with subscripts and footnotes, so the “dumb” and ignorant reader, as you have called me, can be brainwashed into believing and understanding exactly as how the Apostles really meant for us to understand this Bible, that is the 50 “scholars” or however many they referenced in the preface who “retranslated” the Bible starting in 1970, in the spirit of Vatican II.

All things being said, this is a farce and you yourself have no defense for something as deceitful as retranslating a Bible to suit a Council’s point of view, a controveral council at that, as the Church appears to have done after Vatican II.

[/font]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV7.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVA.HTM

[quote=Deacon Ed]Well, where do I start. First, I am Catholic – Roman Catholic by birth, bi-ritual by permission of Bishop Tod Brown and Bishop John (ELYA) and, now, Abp. Cyril (BUSTROS). I serve both a Latin and a Melkite parish. I work a full time job as a webmaster. I’m a police chaplain.

People who know me would be surprised to find me characterized as “liberal” since, in point of fact, I am not. I am a conservative.

As a conservative, as a deacon who has been charged with presenting the truth of the Catholic Church I utterly reject any attempt to defame the Church, to demean her role in the world, or to make scurrilous accusations about her.

I trust you will, at some point, actually do your own research instead of parroting what you find on the the web – especially since what you find is so poorly researched it makes you look bad.

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

[quote=CrusaderNY]Whether he is Greek Orthodox or Byz or whatever-It is STILL NOT CATHOLIC
[/quote]

Melkites have been in union with Rome for several centuries now. Rest assured, they are Catholic.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.