New American Bible (NABRE) Revision Out Ash Wednesday!

[mccorm45]

For more info, goto the USCCB site here.

For a question and answer interview I had with one of the people from the USCCB regarding the NABRE, go here.

 

[InnocentSmith]

Thank-you so much for posting this.

 

[melchesidechpio]

For more info, goto the USCCB site here.

For a question and answer interview I had with one of the people from the USCCB regarding the NABRE, go here.

very informative. Would you recommend that one purchase this revision after its release? Why or why not?? After reading this the Q and A. I have decided to stick with my Douay-Rheims and pass my current NAB to any children I may have as a starter Bible. I will pass on the Revision

 

[Ignatius]

For more info, goto the USCCB site here.

For a question and answer interview I had with one of the people from the USCCB regarding the NABRE, go here.

I wish they would stop trying to resuscitate it. Let’s move to the RSV-CE(2) as the official text for all uses.

 

[mccorm45]

very informative. Would you recommend that one purchase this revision after its release? Why or why not?? After reading this the Q and A. I have decided to stick with my Douay-Rheims and pass my current NAB to any children I may have as a starter Bible. I will pass on the Revision

One will have to wait to see how the translation reads. I am sure there will be sample texts of the NABRE available in the coming weeks.

 

[melchesidechpio]

I wish they would stop trying to resuscitate it. Let’s move to the RSV-CE(2) as the official text for all uses.

I highly disagree. As part of their job the U.S.C.C.B. is working on making the NAB a better translation for all of us. Not a fan of the NAB, but also hopping from on Bible to another as the “official text” for all users is little extreme. If that is the case why not revert to the Douay and the Latin Vulgate???

 

[melchesidechpio]

One will have to wait to see how the translation reads. I am sure there will be sample texts of the NABRE available in the coming weeks.

Thank you!!! I will look forward to seeing sample texts

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

I wish they would stop trying to resuscitate it. Let’s move to the RSV-CE(2) as the official text for all uses.

I highly disagree. . Not a fan of the NAB, … If that is the case why not revert to the Douay and the Latin Vulgate???

I love the Douay-Reims version, but we need a modern language translation, of which the RSV-CE is excellent and NAB is only mediocre. The biggest problem with the NAB is the troublesom commentary, which is unchanged in the NABRE. It’s commentary is very problematic and that is not even being addressed in the NABRE. In fact, answer by the spokesperson to the questions about the commentary that is unfaithful to the Church was patently dismissive. This gives a clear indication that the committee of the USCCB has no intention of actually correcting this problem. The most effective approach is to just kill the thing. There are better translations and the committee obstinately clings to the erroneous commentary.

 

[melchesidechpio]

I love the Douay-Reims version, but we need a modern language translation, of which the RSV-CE is excellent and NAB is only mediocre. The biggest problem with the NAB is the troublesom commentary, which is unchanged in the NABRE. It’s commentary is very problematic and that is not even being addressed in the NABRE. In fact, answer by the spokesperson to the questions about the commentary that is unfaithful to the Church was patently dismissive. This gives a clear indication that the committee of the USCCB has no intention of actually correcting this problem. The most effective approach is to just kill the thing. There are better translations and the committee obstinately clings to the erroneous commentary.

my advice to you is to contact the U.S.C.C.B with your concerns. McCorm45 had a good Q and A on his blog in which he dealt with his concerns towards the NABRE. I agree that the NAB is mediocre and the RSV-CE is and excellent translation. However, we need to have continued dialogue with our bishops and address our concerns. Even if the RSV-CE was standard in our lectionaries, which would be great, you would still have people complaining about the translation that is used in liturgy.

 

[Corki]

For more info, goto the USCCB site here.

For a question and answer interview I had with one of the people from the USCCB regarding the NABRE, go here.

McCorm,

I read this interview. It was very interesting.

I hope I am not taking this off topic but what is the list Miss Sperry kept pointing back to? Her link didn’t work for me but I found one list on the USCCB site that seems a little odd. It includes Protestant Bibles (without all the books ) but not such Bibles as the RSV-CE, the NRSV or the Ignatius Bible. What is the list supposed to represent?

 

[mccorm45]

McCorm,

I read this interview. It was very interesting.

I hope I am not taking this off topic but what is the list Miss Sperry kept pointing back to? Her link didn’t work for me but I found one list on the USCCB site that seems a little odd. It includes Protestant Bibles (without all the books ) but not such Bibles as the RSV-CE, the NRSV or the Ignatius Bible. What is the list supposed to represent?

If this is the list you are speaking of, then it is simply those Bibles published after 1991 which are approved by the USCCB for private reading and study. It doesn’t necessarily reflect any liturgical approval for Mass. All “Catholic” Bibles need to be approved by the national bishop’s conference according to canon 825. An example of one that was not is the NLT Catholic Reference Edition which was published in the 1990’s and is out of print.

 

[Corki]

If this is the list you are speaking of, then it is simply those Bibles published after 1991 which are approved by the USCCB for private reading and study. It doesn’t necessarily reflect any liturgical approval for Mass. All “Catholic” Bibles need to be approved by the national bishop’s conference according to canon 825. An example of one that was not is the NLT Catholic Reference Edition which was published in the 1990’s and is out of print.

Yes, I realize this wasn’t a list for Mass. What I don’t understand is why the USCCB would approve Protestant Bibles, and presumably their Protestant notes, for Catholics to use for private reading and study. It makes sense that they would maintain such a list for Catholic Bibles but not for Protestant ones.

 

[mccorm45]

Yes, I realize this wasn’t a list for Mass. What I don’t understand is why the USCCB would approve Protestant Bibles, and presumably their Protestant notes, for Catholics to use for private reading and study. It makes sense that they would maintain such a list for Catholic Bibles but not for Protestant ones.

The approval is for the translation ionly, not the notes or commentary. For example, the USCCB approved the NIV Psalter. If you purchase the Catholic-approved NIV Psalms, you will notice that the notes and commentary are Catholic. More on that edition here.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

I love the Douay-Reims version, but we need a modern language translation, of which the RSV-CE is excellent and NAB is only mediocre. The biggest problem with the NAB is the troublesom commentary, which is unchanged in the NABRE. It’s commentary is very problematic and that is not even being addressed in the NABRE. In fact, answer by the spokesperson to the questions about the commentary that is unfaithful to the Church was patently dismissive. This gives a clear indication that the committee of the USCCB has no intention of actually correcting this problem. The most effective approach is to just kill the thing. There are better translations and the committee obstinately clings to the erroneous commentary.

my advice to you is to contact the U.S.C.C.B with your concerns. McCorm45 had a good Q and A on his blog in which he dealt with his concerns towards the NABRE. I agree that the NAB is mediocre and the RSV-CE is and excellent translation. However, we need to have continued dialogue with our bishops and address our concerns. Even if the RSV-CE was standard in our lectionaries, which would be great, you would still have people complaining about the translation that is used in liturgy.

The Bishops are not the problem. It is the faceless bureaucrats that perpetrated this are perpetuating it. Unfortunately, they are not accountable and are not going to change.

 

[melchesidechpio]

The Bishops are not the problem. It is the faceless bureaucrats that perpetrated this are perpetuating it. Unfortunately, they are not accountable and are not going to change.

Its still at matter to bring up with Bishops. Just because you don’t approve, there is no need to jump to conclusions. It finally took me 3 years to accept the RSV-CE. When I started reading the Bible it was either the NAB or Jerusalem NT and it was pure coincedence (sp) that I found the Jerusalem NT at my parents. I chose the NAB and found it lacking in spirituality. I still have that Bible and look at it on occasion. Today I read mostly the Douay-Rheims or the Latin Vulgate and sometimes the Confraternity NT. I just thinking you are over reacting to the situation

 

[Big_Dummy]

I think they should make the TEV catholic edition the offical bible.

 

[melchesidechpio]

I think they should make the TEV catholic edition the offical bible.

Why would you say that???

 

[Ignatius]

Its still at matter to bring up with Bishops. Just because you don’t approve, there is no need to jump to conclusions. It finally took me 3 years to accept the RSV-CE. When I started reading the Bible it was either the NAB or Jerusalem NT and it was pure coincedence (sp) that I found the Jerusalem NT at my parents. I chose the NAB and found it lacking in spirituality. I still have that Bible and look at it on occasion. Today I read mostly the Douay-Rheims or the Latin Vulgate and sometimes the Confraternity NT. I just thinking you are over reacting to the situation

Here is an example of the kind fo problems the NAB is causing: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7453520#post7453520.

If even one sole is scandalized by this it is one too many.

 

[Epistemes]

Here is an example of the kind fo problems the NAB is causing: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7453520#post7453520.

If even one sole is scandalized by this it is one too many.

Scandalized is way too strong of a word. Simply because the historical-critical footnotes are not spiritually edifying does not make them scandalous. As should be obvious from the recent Q&A for the NABre, the NAB strives to be an academically sound translation like the NRSV for Catholics. It’s for this very reason that the NAB seems to read awkwardly, at least the Revised New Testament (but I suspect the Revised Old Testament will do likewise): it preserves the “taste” of the Greek-Hebrew idiom in its word-for-word approach in as close of an English idiom as possible. If this person is “scandalized” by non-issues such as what *one *Bible says about Creation, that’s their problem, honestly. The footnotes in the NAB are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what our priests (here North America/Europe) have learned in the seminaries: a friend in seminary recently had to write a paper *in defense *of Jesus the hermaphrodite. Not only did he write the paper, but he is still a faithful, practicing Catholic committed to becoming a priest - which is evidence that this rhetoric of the footnotes in the NAB being scandalous is overrated. My suggestion is to read a book, any book, on contemporary biblical scholarship and realize that the NAB footnotes are mild considering the alternatives.

 

[garysibio]

I highly disagree. As part of their job the U.S.C.C.B. is working on making the NAB a better translation for all of us. Not a fan of the NAB, but also hopping from on Bible to another as the “official text” for all users is little extreme. If that is the case why not revert to the Douay and the Latin Vulgate???

because this the 21st century, not the 16th.