New American Bible (NABRE) Revision Out Ash Wednesday!

[cothrige]

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.

One must wonder what person would think there is any good to be found in “approving” a Bible with notes and commentary while not intending to approve those notes or commentary. Doesn’t sound very sensible to me. And approving the NIV in any way makes me wonder whether the USCCB approvals should not rather be seen as warnings on what to avoid? I think it is patently obvious that most bishops singly, and certainly the whole body together, have no interest at all in helping people form a Catholic identity. As a matter of fact, I think they are actively interested in doing the opposite.

 

[Corki]

**One must wonder what person would think there is any good to be found in “approving” a Bible with notes and commentary while not intending to approve those notes or commentary. ** Doesn’t sound very sensible to me. And approving the NIV in any way makes me wonder whether the USCCB approvals should not rather be seen as warnings on what to avoid? I think it is patently obvious that most bishops singly, and certainly the whole body together, have no interest at all in helping people form a Catholic identity. As a matter of fact, I think they are actively interested in doing the opposite.

I don’t understand any good to be found in approving a Bible that doesn’t even have all the books either. The linked USCCB page does not restrict its approval to just the text and not the notes so a layperson going to that site would have no way of knowing that the commentary was not approved. At the very least, approval by the USCCB of a Protestant Bible should be accomanied by a **.

The one that caught my eye was the “Today’s English Version” aka the Good News Bible.

 

[mccorm45]

I don’t understand any good to be found in approving a Bible that doesn’t even have all the books either. The linked USCCB page does not restrict its approval to just the text and not the notes so a layperson going to that site would have no way of knowing that the commentary was not approved. At the very least, approval by the USCCB of a Protestant Bible should be accomanied by a **.

The one that caught my eye was the “Today’s English Version” aka the Good News Bible.

First off, it is simply the approval of the translation itself. Obviously many different publishers could use that approval to create a Catholic edition, as some have done with the Good News Bible. The Good News Bible comes in Catholic editions with the Deuterocanonical Books. The USCCB is the authority in the US to approve Bible translations according to Canon Law. Thus, those approvals on the site only represent the translation listed.

I don’t believe the USCCB has approved any full Protestant-only Bibles. In regards to the NIV, it is simply the edition of the NIV Psalms. The NIV Psalms were then published by Catholic Book Publishing in an edition with Catholic notes and introductions. The approval is for the NIV Psalms, not the entire NIV.

 

[garysibio]

Is this new revision just the OT or will it also revise the NT?

 

[mccorm45]

Is this new revision just the OT or will it also revise the NT?

It is only the OT, including the Psalms. The revised OT is suppose to follow the more formal/literal approach of the current NAB NT, which was revised in 1986.

 

[garysibio]

It is only the OT, including the Psalms. The revised OT is suppose to follow the more formal/literal approach of the current NAB NT, which was revised in 1986.

Thanks

 

[melchesidechpio]

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

and your point being??? My statement was meant as a retorical (sp??) question

 

[Vico]

Blogspot gave more detaiils: catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2010/12/nab-nt-series.html

They are all translated with a balance between formal and dynamic equivalence.

1. 1970 NAB - OT & NT dynamic equivalance but no inclusive language
2. 1986 NAB - NT revised with more formal equivalence with dynamic equivalence in some places, and some inclusive language
3. 1991 NAB - Psalms revised
4. 2011 NAB - OT & Psalms revised like 1986 NT with more formal equivalence, and some inclusive language

So it seems that the 1970 NAB and the 2011 NABRE are each completed using the same translation methodology throughout.

 

[Geremia]

Here is the De profundis (source):

PSALM 130*

Prayer for Pardon and Mercy

1A song of ascents.
I

Out of the depths* I call to you, LORD;
2Lord, hear my cry!
May your ears be attentive
to my cry for mercy.a
3If you, LORD, keep account of sins,
Lord, who can stand?**(“http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms-130.shtml#23130003-b”)
4But with you is forgiveness
and so you are revered.*
II

5I wait for the LORD,
my soul waits
and I hope for his word.c
6My soul looks for the Lord
more than sentinels for daybreak.d
More than sentinels for daybreak,
7let Israel hope in the LORD,
For with the LORD is mercy,
with him is plenteous redemption,e
8And he will redeem Israel
from all its sins.f

Compared to the Douay-Rheims’s version:

1 Out of the depths I have cried to thee, O Lord:
2 Lord, hear my voice. Let thy ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication.
3 If thou, O Lord, wilt mark iniquities: Lord, who shall stand it.
4 For with thee there is merciful forgiveness: and by reason of thy law, I have waited for thee, O Lord. My soul hath relied on his word:
5 My soul hath hoped in the Lord.
6 From the morning watch even until night, let Israel hope in the Lord.
7 Because with the Lord there is mercy: and with him plentiful redemption.
8 And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

It is amazing how the Douay-Rheims has so much more meaning packed into just about the same number of words as the NABRE.

Also, it still seems strange to me that any Bible be copyrighted…