[DIDACHE]: NRSV 2CE vs. NABRE?

  • Thread starter Thread starter VacareDeo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

VacareDeo

Guest
Hi All,

For those who own or have access to both or any of the Didache bible book below, can you please shed some light on what’s the difference between the two editions ?

The Didache Bible: New American Bible, Revised Edition
Hardcover: 2506 pages
Publisher: Midwest Theological Forum; 1st edition (2015)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1939231175
ISBN-13: 978-1939231178
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1939231175

The Didache Bible: Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition
Leather Bound: 1960 pages
Publisher: Ignatius Press; Ignatius Edition Leather edition (January 10, 2015)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1586179721
ISBN-13: 978-1586179724
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1586179721

From what I can see the NABRE edition seems to be wordier or has 546 more pages ?

Thanks in advance,
 
That’s odd. I have the RSV-CE2 version, and there certainly doesn’t seem to be anything missing.
 
The NABRE is wordier only because of the footnotes. Every NABRE is printed with the same footnotes. The RSV-CE normally has minimal footnotes. So the NABRE is lengthier to begin with because of this.

I’m not sure if the Didache - NABRE version then adds the additional footnotes or not (I would guess it does or it would be the same as every other NABRE).
 
Last edited:
ajcstr said:
’m not sure if the Didache - NABRE version then adds the additional footnotes or not
Click to expand...
It does.

I have my Didache NABRE in front of me now.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The Didache commentary is in the red box, the NABRE footnotes above that and cross references above that and then biblical text above that.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

On the left is the NABRE introduction to 1 Thess, on the right the Didache intro.

This is why the Didache NABRE is quite a bit bigger than the Didache RSV-2CE.
 
I know it may seem excessive, but it’s actually very useful.

The NABRE footnotes are more geared towards scholarly historical-criticism, whereas the Didache notes are more geared towards Patristics, spirituality, and apologetics.

For the average layperson, and especially for an inquirer or neophyte, I’d say the Didache notes are much, MUCH better.
 
I have the RSV-CE version of it, but I have not had the time to spend with it.
 
One interesting anomaly is that occasionally the Didache note will flat out contradict the NABRE note.

The NABRE note will say “the author did not mean to say xyz.”

The Didache note will say “this text means xyz.”

It’s interesting when that happens, if you’d like I could try to find a couple examples to show you.
 
I can understand that given the Didache footnotes are more conservative than the NABRE. Would not be surprised if they do that on purpose.
 
There are some real stinkers in the NABRE commentary.

It took me a long time to learn to appreciate the NABRE simply as a translation, and to let go of my animosity toward it because of the garbage comments occassionally made in its apparatus.

I still get angry and irritable when I read “Matthew was not the author of the Gospel in his name” or “the author of Matthew got confused and misunderstood the OT and created the awkward picture of Jesus riding 2 animals” and other such nonsense.

As if the bible scholar in the 20th century was so much smarter than the primitive Saint Matthew.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top