Does ANYONE like the NABRE? (Revisited)

[MichaelT65]

I bought a copy of the NABRE because Amazon listed it as a Catholic bible.
Now I’m concerned that I made a mistake and need to know the exact objections some have and also what would you recommend since the NAB isn’t available?
I would also like information on the RSVCE.
Thanks

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

I bought a copy of the NABRE because Amazon listed it as a Catholic bible.

As they should; it is.

Now I’m concerned that I made a mistake and need to know the exact objections some have and also what would you recommend since the NAB isn’t available?
I would also like information on the RSVCE.
Thanks

Perhaps it would be more productive to know what are your concerns and objections with it? What’s changed since before your purchase?

 

[Usige]

The NABRE isn’t exactly high on my list of translations.

Personally I prefer the RSV-2CE for “modern” translations for its more literal translation and not changing the wording to use gender inclusive language where it did not exist in the original languages. In particular I like the Didache RSV-2CE published by the Midwest Theological Forum as it maintains the strengths of the RSV-2CE while adding cross references to the catechism.

 

[Beryllos]

I like the NABRE just fine. You did not make a mistake. Enjoy your new Bible.

The problem is not with the biblical text. The problem, as I understand it, is that some readers are offended by the introductory notes at the beginning of each book, and perhaps the footnotes on each page.

I myself do not see a problem with the introductions and footnotes. If you want more opinions about them, look at this recent CAF thread:
The NABRE Notes
and other threads that you might be able to find by searching CAF for the keyword NABRE or New American Bible.

Edit: I found an older thread that may be more helpful. The title may sound harsh, but it puts forth a question asked by many readers, and there are many excellent replies:
Is the New American Bible commentary heretical?

 

[phil19034]

In addition to the Didache RSV-2CE published by the Midwest Theological Forum, the Midwest Theological Forum also publishes a Didache NABRE Bible with notes from the Catachsism and from the NABRE footnotes.

As FYI to the OP, the NABRE is the closest thing to the Mass readings in the United States. The lectionary in the United States is based on a modified version of the NABRE (which is not in print as a Bible)

If you just want to read the Bible and learn the stories, the NABRE is great. If you are trying to do academic work or apologetics, then the RSV-CE is better. And if you want something a little more modern, then I feel the RSV-2CE is much better than the NRSV-CE

God Bless

 

[adamhovey1988]

I like it better than the NAB they had before but it is not my preferred version. The first Catholic Bible I had was an nrsv-ce and I know a lot of people hate that one but it’s not that bad. My main Bible is an RSV CE 2nd edition although I used to have the first edition. I have been reading the douay-rheims lately I don’t dislike it but it’s too archaic. I feel like rsvce is that right balance

 

[LiamQ]

… need to know the exact objections some have …

Okay, here’s my two cents.

I have not read very much from the NABRE, and the only version I own was a gift. However, like many others, just about anything I have read of the notes has been disappointing. I literally can flip open that Bible, look at any random piece of commentary, and find something I simply don’t find helpful. And believe me, I’ve been debating getting a NABRE for ages now, and always, always come to the same conclusions.

Just recently, I was looking at Hebrews 7 in the NABRE. Completely randomly. In fact, I was reading this because I was again considering purchasing this Bible from an online source, and one of the photos of it was opened up to this section. Here’s a bit of the context:

26 It was fitting that we should have such a high priest:[r] holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, higher than the heavens. 27 He has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day,[t] first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints men subject to weakness to be high priests, but the word of the oath, which was taken after the law, appoints a son, who has been made perfect forever.

Here’s some of the commentary on verse 27, which is bolded above:

Such daily sacrifice is nowhere mentioned in the Mosaic law; only on the Day of Atonement is it prescribed that the high priest must offer sacrifice…for his own sins and then for those of the people (Lv 16:11–19).

Now, I ask you. What could be concluded from this note? One might well conclude that the author of Hebrews is nuts, because he’s mentioning the High Priest of the Old Covenant doing something that the Mosaic Law didn’t command. A reflective reader might well find a doubt as to the accuracy of verse 27, because the notes here offer no help as to how the fact they mentioned can be squared with inerrancy. They simply let a particular statement dangle in mid-air, while someone like me is left wondering, “HUH?”

And here’s the thing. There’s another commentary that DOES mention this fact, but that presents it in a way which doesn’t necessarily lead a person to wonder what’s going on in the text. This commentary shows that the NABRE certainly isn’t making a bad observation, but just that it’s presenting things in a confusing manner.

Here’s the* Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - New Testament* covering the same verse:

The author appears to telescope the daily sacrifices offered by priests every morning and evening (Num 28:1-8) and the *annual *sacrifices of the Day of Atonement, which the high priest offered for the sins of Israel, including his own (Lev 16:11-19). This is in contrast to Christ, who offered only one sacrifice, and that for [H]is people and not for [H]imself. For a similar use of this technique [of telescoping], see note on Heb 9:12.

What a world of difference! In fact, I actually wonder whether the Ignatius Bible was not directly responding to the NABRE’s perspective on this verse. We get the same information, but it’s presented in a way that’s faith-affirming. We’re not simply told, “The author here makes mention of something that never happened, and who knows why he does that.” Rather, we’re introduced to the concept of literary telescoping, which is useful in interpreting this verse and others. It explains the text while not challenging its inerrancy. I find this approach to be most helpful and extremely prudent.

The NABRE doesn’t do that, it simply offers little comments that can leave a person scratching their head. As I say, I think I can do this sort of comparison with just about any page that I’ve ever looked at. And it moreover tends to present certain scholarly hypotheses as if they were the final say on a subject. There’s more of an emphasis on the human development of the text and, like many others, I find that this disrupts my reading rather than adds to it.

Having said that, to the best of my understanding, there’s nothing in the NABRE that one could not legitimately hold as an orthodox Bible scholar, and that’s important to keep in mind. I just personally think there’s more useful Bibles out there.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I like reading the NABRE for my own personal spirituality & edification.
I am not one to use footnotes when I am using my Bible for spiritual reading.

I do, however, prefer the RSV-Catholic for study purposes.

IMHO, a NABRE is fine for your typical American Catholic for devotional purposes.
If you want to be a more serious, scholarly type Bible reader, you can’t go wrong with the RSV-Catholic edition. I did not know there is a 2nd edition out, I may have to check into that.

With all that said, the best Bible is one that you are going to read.

 

[tvknight415]

The translation itself is fine. In fact, there are a few places I prefer it to orher translations (Gen 1, John 18). Most of the footnotes are fine; a few some people take issue with, but by and large they are safe. It’s a good middle-of-the-road translation.

With that said, I’d get the Didache NABRE edition. The Didache notes are great.

 

[phil19034]

I like reading the NABRE for my own personal spirituality & edification.
I am not one to use footnotes when I am using my Bible for spiritual reading.

I do, however, prefer the RSV-Catholic for study purposes.

IMHO, a NABRE is fine for your typical American Catholic for devotional purposes.
If you want to be a more serious, scholarly type Bible reader, you can’t go wrong with the RSV-Catholic edition. I did not know there is a 2nd edition out, I may have to check into that.

With all that said, the best Bible is one that you are going to read.

As FYI - the RSV-2CE is also known as the Ignatus Bible. The 2nd Catholic Edition is an update to the New Testimate only of the RSV-CE by Ignatus Press.

amzn.to/2gvaPXR

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

With that said, I’d get the Didache NABRE edition. The Didache notes are great.

FYI - you can get teh Didache NABRE edition here: amzn.to/2gZHGrv

and you can get the Didache RSV-2CE edition here: amzn.to/2haMVoN

NOTE: again, the RSV-2CE edition is also known as the “Ignatius Bible”

 

[Casilda]

For years I have had an old Douay Rheims published in the 1950’s. Since it’s a huge Bible I finally bought something more convenient to tote, a RSVCE recommended for Catholic Scripture Study classes. I do not like that one at all. Then my hubby buys a NAB. We do not like that one, either. I do like the Felix Amat Spanish Catholic Bible. So that one and our Douay are keepers.

Example
Isaiah 4:2, Douay Rheims
2 In that day the bud of the Lord shall be in magnificence and glory, and the fruit of the earth shall be high, and a great joy to them that shall have escaped of Israel.

RSVCE
2 In that day the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride and glory of the survivors of Israel.

NAB
2 On that day, The branch of the LORD will be luster and glory, and the fruit of the earth will be honor and splendor for the survivors of Israel.

Spanish, Felix Amat (1824, Spain)
2 En aquel dia brotara el pimpollo del Senor con magnificiencia y con gloria, y el fruto de la tierra sera ensalzado, y sera el regocijo de aquellos de Israel que se salvaren(Second-person plural future subjunctive form of salvar-verb meaning to save).

Translation
In that day the bud of the LORD will sprout with magnificence and with glory, and the fruit of the earth will be exalted, and will be the joy of those of Israel that will be saved.

 

[porthos11]

As FYI - the RSV-2CE is also known as the Ignatus Bible. The 2nd Catholic Edition is an update to the New Testimate only of the RSV-CE by Ignatus Press.

amzn.to/2gvaPXR

God Bless

The RSV-CE contains revisions only to the New Testament of the RSV.

The RSV-2CE contains editorial revisions to the entire RSV-CE, including the Old Testament.

 

[phil19034]

The RSV-CE contains revisions only to the New Testament of the RSV.

The RSV-2CE contains editorial revisions to the entire RSV-CE, including the Old Testament.

Thanks

 

[CountrySteve]

I bought a copy of the NABRE because Amazon listed it as a Catholic bible.
Now I’m concerned that I made a mistake and need to know the exact objections some have and also what would you recommend since the NAB isn’t available?
I would also like information on the RSVCE.
Thanks

Don’t worry about it, the NABRE is approved by the bishops. Also it is on the Vatican website, so as far as I know, Rome has no problem with it.

I prefer the RSV-CE because it is slightly more literal, but there is times when the NABRE gives a better translation than the RSV-CE.

 

[psalm90]

I had a Little Rock Scripture Study Bible which had the fourth updated translation (if I recall correctly). It was easy to read. but, that Bible had mostly the same footnotes etc. as earlier translations that I have seen. So, as to the translation itself, it was pretty good. I gave it away for reasons that I will not go into.

Remember, when comparing translations, that the translators are strongly restricted by copyright laws from copying the work of others. So, that results in what I think are odd wordings, from place to place.

I was stumped for a long time by one translation of the Psalms, which said in two places, worship the LORD in holy attire. What? Where do I buy that? – holy attire.

Well, shopping around in other Bibles, I came a more meaningful translation, worship the LORD resplendent in majesty. Now, this might be the “dynamic equivalent” translation, rather then the literal one, but I like it better.

I’ve recommended that people have a budget for a Bible study library, and that you have a couple translations, so that you can compare the translations, routinely. Consider the 1985 Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanakh (jewish scriptures). and, here, I reveal my bias for The Jewish Study Bible from Oxford University Press. Consider a copy of the translation of the Bible based on the Septuagint (I suggest the one from Oxford Univ Press).

The JPS version is loaded with translator’s notes, where the meaning of a phrase is uncertain. This uncertainty seldom comes out in Catholic Bibles (whichever).

Rather than trying to find the ‘ideal’ and ‘perfect’ translation, recognize the limitations of them all. Those of us who do not have knowledge of the original languages have to do what we can with the translations that are available to us.

Remember the hierarchy of study aids: Bible text, next step up is probably a “study” Bible, and the next big step up is a commentary which has copious footnotes, essays, and often a line-by-line analysis of the text.

Some have cited some examples. Here’s one for you to research: consider 1 co 14, where we are admonished to seek the gift of prophecy. Now, prophecy is barely mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, yet scripture says we are to seek it. So, go find a definition of prophecy someplace, for starters. then, dig into what the scripture is telling us to do. It seems that this would be important for the “new evangelization” but you tell me.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Supposedly the NABRE has gotten closer to a formal equivalency translation whereas the original NAB was more of a dynamic equivalency. However, I would suppose that the NABRE has worse inclusive language than the original NAB.

Stylistically speaking the NABRE is pedestrian and unlovely in much of its English, which may appeal to some that have difficulty with a classic literary style. IOW, it comes off a little common or vulgar rather than sacred.

IMHO, there is nothing really compelling about the NABRE other than its ubiquity; It’s not exactly what is used in the Liturgy, the RSV-2CE and the original or the New Jerusalem Bible are superior translations stylistically and have better notes, if we are dismissing the Vulgate translations out of hand.

I still prefer the D/R-Haydock Bible for devotional reading. However there are times I refer to my Ignatius Study Bible or Jerusalem Bible for alternate readings when the D/R is confused or difficult to understand -and that is not too uncommon, since the D/R is so literal combined with using or more antiquated English. E.g. being enlarged = being set free.

 

[Wendy1989]

I am going to assume (presume?) you are in the territory of the United States, which means that you are under the USCCB. Below is a link to the USCCB website that has the approved Bible translations as of 1983 Code of Canon Law:

usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/index.cfm

Some folks don’t like many of these translations but it depends on what you intend with the Bible.

In my case, I am a catechist for 5th grade Parish Religious Education Program (PREP) and I give my kids a copy of the NABRE. My reason is that these are almost the same as the readings during Mass. I want the kids to connect what they see in the Bible to what they hear at Mass and the best way is to use the same translation. I do this on the advice of a few Dominican (Congregation of St. Cecilia) nuns.

 

[po18guy]

The NABRE relies on the modernist historical-critical method, which downplays Church tradition. It is used in the US liturgy only in Vatican mandated modified form which is not available to the public (why?). A few gripes of mine:

The notes on Mary’s Magnificat suggest that Luke either fabricated or essentially copied and pasted the Magnificat into his Gospel as being appropriate - thus intimating that Mary never uttered those words.

The intro to Matthew states that the true author is unknown and the Gospel is attributed to Matthew for the sake of convenience.

We know that Bishops and Priests forgive sin in the person of Christ (in persona Christi). The NABRE (2 Cor 2:10) can go only so far as to admit that sins are forgiven in the presence of Christ.

Perhaps the most egregious and unfortunate juxtaposition of attributes:

Mary is greeted as “Favored one!” Luke 1:28.
Saint Stephen the Martyr is “filled with grace” Acts 6:8. Ugh.

Lately, I like the Oxford/Cambridge Revised English Bible (w/Apocrypha) (REB). It declares that Mary is “most favored” which is a decided step above the acclamation given in the NABRE. Paul forgave sin “as the representative of Christ”, which is clearer than “in the presence of.” It is not a Catholic edition, but contains all of the Catholic books. There are a few of the actual apocryphal books included, such as 1 & 2 Esdras.

The REB translation was done in cooperation with the Catholic Church hierarchy in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and seeks to reduce or eliminate denominational bias. I think the editors and revisers have done a superior job to those of the NABRE. Besides, good to near-new copies can be had from ThriftBooks for $4 shipped ($10 total order). Even if not your daily reader, it is a great reference translation to have on the shelf.

NOTE: Cambridge University Press entertains suggestions for new editions, so an email to bibles@cambridge.org if interested will encourage them to offer a purely Catholic Edition.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

po18guy:

Lately, I like the Oxford/Cambridge Revised English Bible (w/Apocrypha) (REB). It declares that Mary is “most favored” which is a decided step above the acclamation given in the NABRE.

The Ignatius Study Bible, which uses the RSV 2CE, has “full of grace.” There is also a great note of explanation there too. It contrasts the wording for Stephen in Acts to that here, using the Greek word found nowhere else in SS. The Vulgate’s gratia plena is fundamentally correct, but does not convey the depth of meaning found in the Greek (it says.) The Greek word implies a sense of having been, and is now filled with God’s grace. “favored one” or “highly favored” are dismissed as inadequate. “Most favored” seems better by comparison, but still inadequate. Being that THIS is the ONLY time in SS that an Angel addresses a person by a title rather than by name, you would THINK more care could be shown in its translation.

But if we are going to “settle” for the sake of …what?.. I don’t know, at least the NAB should settle for “Full of Grace” in deference to its long history and tradition. Certainly “favored one” is pathetic.

While this is only one fault, it is indicative of the inadequacy of this translation overall. I would love to get Gregory Martin’s opinion on the NAB!