Are the modern Catholic Bible translations (RSVCE, New American Bible) reliable?
Robert Sungenis answers that the translations themselves are reliable, praising the 1971 New American Bible for accuracy without wooden literalism or dynamic equivalence. He holds that the problem is the historical-critical footnotes, such as the RSVCE2 note calling Genesis 1 a teaching of religious truth rather than a real account, which he calls a deal-breaker.
A viewer sent a copy of the RSVCE2 and asks about the reliability of modern Catholic Bible translations such as the RSV, RSVCE and New American Bible.
Answer
The translations themselves are pretty good, considering the modern historical-critical framework they were made in. I am actually impressed with the 1971 New American Bible; it is quite accurate, while avoiding both wooden literalism and the abomination of dynamic-equivalence, thought-for-thought translation. So the translations are not the problem. The problem is the notes, the footnotes they put in the pages of these Bibles. That is where historical criticism comes in, and those footnotes are atrocious. The RSVCE2 footnote on Genesis 1, for example, says the aim is "not to present a scientific picture but to teach religious truth," which quietly tells the reader not to take the details of the creation account as real. That kind of note is a deal-breaker.