I have several NABs, as well as an “RE” but only for reference.
Jimmy Akin refers to the NAB as a “squishy” translation, and I must agree with him. The RSV is not perfect, but I will take it over the NAB. The RSV or NRSV is quoted in the second edition of the catechism. The NAB/RE that is sold to us is not the same version used in the liturgy. What we hear is a modified form that the Vatican would accept for liturgical use only after the rampant gender-neutral language and other issues of the NAB were sufficiently fixed.
A few of my beefs with the NAB:
Mary is not full of grace in the NAB. Luke 1:28
Mary’s soul does not magnify the Lord Luke 1:46
Paul did not forgive sins in the person of Christ in the NAB. 2 Cor 2:10
The word “hell” does not appear in the NAB. Nope.
Elizabeth praises Mary (Luke 1:45) not because of her faith, but only because Mary believed that God would do what He said He would do. Excuse me, but that just sounds goofy.
Compare Luke 1:45:
Knox Bible (Bishop Fulton Sheen’s favorite)
Blessed art thou for thy believing; the message that was brought to thee from the Lord shall have fulfilment.
**And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.
Confraternity Bible ()
And blessed is she who has believed, because the things promised her by the Lord shall be accomplished.
Each of the foregoing blesses Mary for her belief, and at the same time is also a testament to Elizabeth’s belief.
Look at the NAB:
Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”*
We know that God can neither deceive nor be deceived. What is so blessed about taking God at His word?
And look at the NAB footnotes regarding Mary’s magnificat (underlining mine):
- [1:46–55] Although Mary is praised for being the mother of the Lord and because of her belief, she reacts as the servant in a psalm of praise, the Magnificat. Because there is no specific connection of the canticle to the context of Mary’s pregnancy and her visit to Elizabeth, the Magnificat (with the possible exception of v 48) may have been a Jewish Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate at this point in his story. Even if not composed by Luke, it fits in well with themes found elsewhere in Luke: joy and exultation in the Lord; the lowly being singled out for God’s favor; the reversal of human fortunes; the fulfillment of Old Testament promises. The loose connection between the hymn and the context is further seen in the fact that a few Old Latin manuscripts identify the speaker of the hymn as Elizabeth, even though the overwhelming textual evidence makes Mary the speaker.
Are you kidding me? Luke made it up? He just threw it in there because it sounded nice? These modernist commentators appear to assume that Luke essentially copied and pasted Hannah’s Canticle (1 Samuel 2:1-10) in his Gospel where it would sound good. Ugh. Enough deconstruction.
Some in the American Church cry out for a better translation.