G
garysibio
Guest
I’m talking about in English.
- Status
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Yes and no:
catholicnewsagency.com/news/new-american-bible-to-be-revised-into-single-translation/
As far as I know, no one is working on it yet. I would imagine given the recent rancor between the bishops and the Catholic Biblical Association, they (the CBA) will not be involved.
G
garysibio
Guest
Oh no. Not another NAB revision! It needs to be dumped, not revised.
Battle with the CBA??? What happened? I missed that one.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
The issue (money):
ncronline.org/news/justice/us-bishops-biblical-association-dispute-over-royalties
The resolution:
ncronline.org/news/us-bishops-biblical-association-resolve-dispute
But as a result of the dispute, the bishops rejected the CBA’s proposal to revise the Grail Psalter and eventually awarded all royalties from the revised psalter to the Catholic publisher GIA instead, which is privately owned last I knew.
Lots and lots of $$ at stake.
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Couldn’t we just go back to the Douay-Challoner Version or the Revised Standard Version?
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
The bishops could of course, but they don’t own the copyright to either of these versions. The NAB and its various successors are big cash cows.
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Cash Cows or White Elephants?
Do I understand correctly that the RSV is the Bible used in Catholic Churches in Canada? I thought I read or heard that someplace.
G
garysibio
Guest
The RSV-CE is used in the English-speaking Caribbean. I believe Canada used the NRSV. Apparently there was a bit of subterfuge in this case.Cash Cows or White Elephants?
G
garysibio
Guest
I would actually prefer a ESV-CE. There is a ESV translation of the deuterocanonicals but they are called the apocrypha and published as an appendix. They could be integrated into the protocanonicals.
G
garysibio
Guest
That certainly does not make the USCCB look good.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Haha I will leave people to their own conclusions.Cash Cows or White Elephants?
The Canadian Catholic Church uses the NEW Revised Standard Version (NRSV) in their lectionary–and thus their bishops pay royalties to the National Council of Churches. The American Catholic Bishops tried to follow the Canadians in also using the NRSV, but failed when they submitted their request (in the form of a revised lectionary) to Rome. I don’t think the Catholic Church participates in the National Council of Churches, so they don’t reap any of the financial royalties of the NRSV. But I think the American Bishops saw the NRSV as one possible way out of their royalty entanglement with the CBA.Do I understand correctly that the RSV is the Bible used in Catholic Churches in Canada? I thought I read or heard that someplace.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
As I recall, the Australians (Catholics) are going to use the ESV-CE as a basis for their upcoming revision of the lectionary.
Also (but I could be wrong here) I think the Anglican Ordinariate in the U.S. will be developing their own lectionary based on the RSV-CE.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Gary Sibio wrote: Oh no. Not another NAB revision! It needs to be dumped, not revised.
I am with you entirely on that, Gary!
The N.A.B. is irredeemably bad, totally mediocre, with, in most editions, frequently very dangerous footnotes. 
Throw it out!!!In the Dominion of Canada and in the U.K. we don`t use this rotten N.A.B. paraphrase as our liturgical Bible. The problem is, thankfully, only an American one.
Get with the rest of the Catholic world and DUMP the N.A.B.!
H
HillbillyHermit
Guest
The Vatican site has the NAB with footnotes: vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM
If you don’t care for the translation, that’s one thing, but to call it rotten, etc. is maybe gettin’ a little too big for yer britches. Has authority been given to CAF members and no one clued the Vatican in on it?
If you don’t care for the translation, that’s one thing, but to call it rotten, etc. is maybe gettin’ a little too big for yer britches. Has authority been given to CAF members and no one clued the Vatican in on it?
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Hillbilly Hermit wrote: *The Vatican site has the NAB with footnotes: vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM
Just dump it, dudes, for there are numerous good English Catholic Bibles being used elsewhere in the world, so why should the U.S. cling to the N.A.B.? Just because it is American? How about the Catholic criteria coming first, not the national ones! (Besides, it is the R.S.V. Catholic Editions that the Vatican itself uses as its officially-sanctioned Bible.) The R.S.V. has its own lesser problems, but it is a much better Bible overall and it is a genuine translation, not a paraphrase.
If you don’t care for the translation, that’s one thing, but to call it rotten, etc. is maybe gettin’ a little too big for yer britches. Has authority been given to CAF members and no one clued the Vatican in on it?*
We both are right. I did not way that ALL of the N.A.B. editions are afflicted with equally dreadful footnotes, but that most of them are (or so they seem). Nor are all of the footnotes equally bad. I have one N.A.B. edition that is rather innocuous theologically in its footnotes, with little to which to object, but the others have many really bad and damaging footnotes. And no, I have not seem every single one of the revisions which the N.A.B. has gone through so endlessly and to all too little effect. (Why should I, since I am in Canada, not the N.A.B.-besotted U. S. of A.)? I`ve had enough of the N.A.B. as it is, since it lowers the value of so many publications that quote from it.Just dump it, dudes, for there are numerous good English Catholic Bibles being used elsewhere in the world, so why should the U.S. cling to the N.A.B.? Just because it is American? How about the Catholic criteria coming first, not the national ones! (Besides, it is the R.S.V. Catholic Editions that the Vatican itself uses as its officially-sanctioned Bible.) The R.S.V. has its own lesser problems, but it is a much better Bible overall and it is a genuine translation, not a paraphrase.
A
alfafemme
Guest
The Vatican site has the NAB with footnotes: vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM
If you don’t care for the translation, that’s one thing, but to call it rotten, etc. is maybe gettin’ a little too big for yer britches. Has authority been given to CAF members and no one clued the Vatican in on it?
AMEN! I had to laugh out loud at Hillbilly’s comment. Good one, brother.
There’s a very readable version of the bible, The Catholic Living Bible, copyright date 1979, available on Amazon.com. Now I’m sure you’re all gonna shoot it down but it’s the first time I ever sat down with the bible, like you do with a book, and just read and read it. It did a world of good for my understanding of what happened, and it is this bible that has made a bible reader out of me. I have found all the translations, other than this, to be much harder to understand.
After having read the Catholic Living Bible, I’ve come to refer back to RSV and now I understand what it said. For me, this has been a great thing.
Best Wishes to all,
Francesca
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Alfafemme wrote: *AMEN! I had to laugh out loud at Hillbilly’s comment. Good one, brother. There’s a very readable version of the bible, The Catholic Living Bible, copyright date 1979, available on Amazon.com. Now I’m sure you’re all gonna shoot it down but it’s the first time I ever sat down with the bible, like you do with a book, and just read and read it. It did a world of good for my understanding of what happened, and it is this bible that has made a bible reader out of me. I have found all the translations, other than this, to be much harder to understand.
After having read the Catholic Living Bible, I’ve come to refer back to RSV and now I understand what it said. For me, this has been a great thing.*
As someone has said, and been quoted on C.A. fora, the best Bible is the one that you will read. There is truth in that, but I would take exception to any paraphrase (of which the N.A.B. is a mediocre Catholic one, the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible both very Catholic good ones, especially when their often borderline-impious footnotes are omitted) being used for close Bible study, apologetics, or for public reading in the liturgy. For those purposes any paraphrase just is not appropriate or adequate, whether the Catholic Living Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, or the N.A.B. It is encouraging to see that you have been led back to the R.S.V., which is a Bible that bears the weight of study.
H
HillbillyHermit
Guest
The NAB isn’t a paraphrase.
catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide
americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0704.asp
I still have my Catholic Living Bible. It got a lot of use.
C
CalCatholic
Guest
Yeah, some people like to throw the ‘paraphrase’ bomb
around to trash a ‘translation’ of the Bible that they don’t like. The NABRE, NJB, the Jerusalem Bible are all translations, some a little more dynamic than others, but are ‘translations’ none the least.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Cal wrote: Yeah, some people like to throw the ‘paraphrase’ bomb around to trash a ‘translation’ of the Bible that they don’t like. The NABRE, NJB, the Jerusalem Bible are all translations, some a little more dynamic than others, but are ‘translations’ none the least.
Thats emotional loyalty babble. A paraphrase, whole or partial (the N.A.B. being in the middle of that range), still is a paraphrase, whether its one that you like or loathe.Just take a real full equivalency translation like the R.S.V. or the English Standard Version with Apocrypha and compare it to a reasonably lengthy passage in the N.A.B. and it is disturbing just how much the meaning is compromised, seriously here and there, less so elsewhere. The Jerusalem Bible is a paraphrase, too, but a more cautious and responsable one than the N.A.B. happens to be.
- Status