New American Bible 2025

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spyridon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Spyridon

Guest
Does anyone have any information regarding the New American Bible 2025 New Testament revision?

It’s a joint project undertaken by the USCCB, the Catholic Biblical Association (CBA), and Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD).

But the last thing I heard about it was a couple years ago on the CBA website when this was posted:

Introduction:

At their June 2012 plenary meeting, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) approved the initiation of a revision of the New American Bible New Testament and entrusted that work to the oversight of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Following the development of a plan and budget for the project, the work began in 2013 with the appointment of an editorial board consisting of five members, all of whom are active members of the Catholic Biblical Association. The editorial board then drafted a document detailing the “Process and Principles” of the revision project, which were approved by the USCCB.

In July 2014 the revision project was announced to CBA members present at the Annual Meeting at Providence College. In Fall 2014 additional revisers were recruited, who will work together in five teams covering five sections of the New Testament (Matthew & Mark; Luke & Acts; Johannine Literature; Pauline Literature; and Catholic Epistles). Work by the revision teams will begin in early 2015. Following the necessary approvals for liturgy and for publication of a Scripture translation, publication of the final text is expected around 2025.

The three-fold purpose of this process is to produce a translation of the New Testament that is even more suitable for individual study and devotion, catechesis, and proclamation within the Sacred Liturgy. The goal of the revision is to improve a good translation with a focus on fidelity to the original text, clarity of expression, appropriate consistency in rendering Greek into English, and suitability for public proclamation. The revised translation aims to facilitate the reader’s or hearer’s encounter with Jesus Christ through his Word and to build up faith, hope, and love.

Editorial Board:

Dr. Harold Attridge
Rev. Christopher Ciccarino
Dr. Mary Healy
Rev. Felix Just, SJ
Rev. Edward Mazich, O.S.B.
Most Rev. Donald Trautman (Advisor)
Mary Elizabeth Sperry (USCCB Staff)

Anybody got anything?
 
Spyridon said:
The three-fold purpose of this process is to produce a translation of the New Testament that is even more suitable for individual study and devotion, catechesis, and proclamation within the Sacred Liturgy. The goal of the revision is to improve a good translation with a focus on fidelity to the original text, clarity of expression, appropriate consistency in rendering Greek into English, and suitability for public proclamation.
Click to expand...
Wow… the spin doctors worked overtime on this press release! “More, better, good!”, but yet “we’re not doing it because it needs improvement, oh, not at all!” :roll_eyes:
 
I’m so tired of revisions to the NAB. This would be like the third round since the 1970s, no? It’s simply not necessary to adjust a Bible translation that often.
 
Last edited:
The 2025 will be the fifth edition. If you count the precursor to the NAB, the Confraternity, then it would be like the 9th edition.

You’ve got:

1970 New American Bible (NAB)

1986 Revised NAB (RNAB) - this uses the 1970 OT and Psalms, with a fresh NT translation - this is the Bible used in the Lectionary of Mass in the USA. A very slightly modified version anyway.

1991 RNAB - same as the 1986 but with a new, horrible translation of the Psalms which was deemed unfit for the Liturgy

2011 NAB Revised Edition (NABRE) - the fourth and current edition of the NAB. It utilizes the same 1986 NT, but the entire OT and Psalms have been revised.

That brings us up to date.

It looks like the 2025 will most likely utilize the 2011 OT/Psalms (although I’d really like to see the OT updated in some places, especially Genesis), and will use a revised NT.
 
Last edited:
For Liturgy, I reckon I’m stuck with whatever the bishops want to use, but for reading, I’ll stick with the old 1970 edition I grew up with, or Mom’s Douay from 1961, or several other old ones I have around, or even the RSV-CE.

There is absolutely no reason to keep revising the NAB over and over. The English language hasn’t changed that much in my lifetime.
 
The 1970 NAB is a solid Bible to stick with.

The 1970 OT is whats used in the Roman Mass

The 1970 OT and NT are both used in the Liturgy of the Hours.

The 1970 NAB is also widely used Liturgically in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

A Bible which is so widely used Liturgically, to me, is akin to having Gods stamp of approval on it.
 
Last edited:
I’ll give you one solid reason which makes revising the NAB a good idea for the USCCB:

$
 
Spyridon said:
I’ll give you one solid reason which makes revising the NAB a good idea for the USCCB:

$
Click to expand...
That’s mean. Where did that come from?

Why don’t you read this USCCB financial report?
USCCB FInancial Statements 2015-2016

Publications and royalties are listed, and do not account for much revenue. I don’t see how that could even enter their minds as they consider improving the translation.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
There is absolutely no reason to keep revising the NAB over and over. The English language hasn’t changed that much in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
Although I am not involved with biblical translations, I would assume that biblical scholars, linguists, and theologians are aware of the difficulties, uncertainties and, frankly, the shortcomings of any version of the Bible. Sure, we have translations that are “good enough,” but I think it is a good and holy endeavor to take another look at the translation from time to time.
 
Last edited:
I’d agree with you if this were just another Bible translation for use by scholars or whoever, but because the NAB is used for Mass, it’s jarring to hear the readings changing around in the vernacular several times in the course of one’s lifetime. I also have no idea why they just didn’t “get it right the first time”.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I also have no idea why they just didn’t “get it right the first time”.
Click to expand...
Good question.

Reminds me of a cute story about my youngest child. When he was about 6 years old, they introduced the new translation of the Roman Missal. Up to that point, it was not apparent that he paid any attention to the Mass, but on that occasion, during the Eucharistic Prayer, he leaned over to me and said “He’s saying different words.” Praise God, the kid was listening!
 
The truth is mean sometimes.

We’re not the nice Church; we’re the true Church.

If you think money isn’t a motivating factor for the USCCB and the NAB Bible, I’d like for you to come check out a bridge I’m selling.

Money is not the only reason for them revising the NAB. But it most certainly is a motivating factor. And if it wasn’t, then why are they so strict with the copyright to the NAB? There’s no reason besides money. The NAB makes the USCCB mucho deniro. To think otherwise is either plain old ignorance, or willful ignorance.
 
Last edited:
And thanks for providing that financial statement -

It’s proof of exactly what I said.

2016 total revenues from sales of publications: 6.36 million dollars.

I dunno about you, but my yearly income between my wife and I combined is about $15,000.

6.36 mil is an awful lot of money in my eyes.
 
Spyridon said:
why are they so strict with the copyright to the NAB?
Click to expand...
Though copyright is popularly seen as a way of preserving profits, it is also serves to protect the work from arbitrary modifications. Without a copyright, republishers could change the wording to suit themselves, and still call it the New American Bible.
 
Sure that’s a factor.

But one of the main factors is almost certainly money.

Cmon man, don’t you know money makes the world go round?
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
The truth is mean sometimes.
Click to expand...
But what you are saying is an (uncharitable) presumption, not the truth. Unless you can point to some sources or have some inside information from those who work in the USCCB and are directly responsible for this decision.

There are some good names on the Editorial board, so if they think they can improve upon the 1986 NT, then they can have at it. Maybe then the translation of the NAB will actually be able to match what is used in the Lectionary. That would be a good thing and reason enough for (yet another) revision. I’ve long found it unfortunate that we don’t actually have a Bible we can buy off the shelves that directly matches what we hear at Mass.
 
I’m not saying that’s not a reason for the revision.

I’m saying it’s obviously also a primary reason that they will profit monetarily from it.

If money wasn’t a motivating factor, why don’t they simply charge what it costs them to produce it? Why are they making a profit if money has nothing at all to do with it?

Come now - the Bishops need money as much as we do.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to make that profit either. I’m simply stating an objective fact that a big reason for the constant revisions is the financial factor.
 
Last edited:
Do you also believe charities like the Red Cross and Catholic Charities exist for nothing more than philanthropic heart warming charity?

Do you not know charity is big business in the US?

Let us reason together. High ranking religious authorities have been profiting off the masses for millenia, and it still happens today in the Church. Is it wrong? Maybe. Does it happen? Absolutely.
 
Last edited:
If you were saying that money is “likely” to be “one” factor, that would be one thing. I might even agree with you. But you are saying it is “certainly” the “primary” factor. That is something you cannot know, and it is a false and uncharitable way to paint the picture.

I can get NAB bibles for as low as $4.35 a copy. The NAB is right up there on the USCCB website for all to access free of charge. If they wanted to use it as a financial gravy train, they are going about it in a peculiar way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top