RSV Confusion

[swampboy]

I have been reading the various postings regarding the RSV-CE and the numerous issues pertaining to this translation. All I have to say is that I am really confused as to which is the “best”. I have the second edition and think it is okay–however, I have read that there are even several issues with some of the edits that were made to this newer version. I have been going crazy trying to find the “best” (i.e. most accurate and readable) translation. I have tried and tried to like the D-R and RSV but find myself continually going back to the NJB, despite some of the strange phraseology. I know the RSV is a far better translation as far as the literal aspect goes (used by most EWTN folks, the Pope, Catechism, etc.), but I think it is more difficult to extract the meaning of certain things (which the NJB makes much easier IMO). The D-R is great, as is the KJV, as they are very poetic but difficult to read for any length of time. I do not mind the archaic English, actually I prefer it, but I think that modern translations may be better for me.

Now, I would like to give the RSV another try, and am thinking of buying one of the original ones (not sec. ed.). I know the old “blue back” is laid out terribily, but it has the thees and thous that I like as well as cross-references and such. I have been looking at the 2006 Oxford Readers Edition (amazon.com/Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Bible/dp/0195288653/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t)). DOes anyone have any thoughts on this version? Does it have cross-references? I want a full size version–which is best? I see that there are pages and pages of info on the RSV and that different publishers used different year revisions etc. in newer editions. I find it all quite confusing, as well as aggravating–I may just stick with the NJB!
Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[mccorm45]

Swampboy,

I definitely feel your pain. I, like you, am always going back and forth between translations. I also end up using either the NJB or the RSV.

One problem with the RSV that you linked to is that it is very bare-bones. Not much in it, besides the text. The end notes are there, but there are no crossreferences at all.

As for me, I typically use the Oxford Annotated Bible RSV edition (1977): amazon.com/Annotated-Apocrypha-Standard-Expanded-Hardcover/dp/0195283481/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197141669&sr=1-6

While it is not perfect, I think it is the best, along with the NJB, study Bible out there for Catholics. The type-setting is much better on the eyes, it includes cross-references, and some notes…most of which are helpful. They also have a leather edition, which is not too big, yet not too small.

Unfortunately, the Deutero-canonicals are placed in the back, with some of the Orthodox apocrypha and some of the translations are different…but this is only minor. (The main one being “highly favored” as opposed to “full of Grace” in Luke 1.

 

[swampboy]

Mccorm45,
Thank you for your insight. Does that New Oxford RSV edition you use retain the “thees” and “thous” in the Psalms? Is it the same (or similar) version of text contained within the blue Ignatius? How about text size? Is it laid out better than the other versions that are on the market? Sorry for all the questions!! If only the NJB did not have so many quirky phrases I would not even be looking at another translation!!

The 2006 Oxford readers edition looks like a real high quality book, but I do not think it has any references or substantial notes–but I am not sure about that. Hopefully someone will enlighten me. Thanks again.

 

[rocketrob]

swampboy,
This RSV situation is, unfortunately, more confusing than it has to be…I think that there must be copyright issues that have led to the proliferation of so many different versions.

I agree with you that the Oxford bibles seem to be of the best quality and most pleasing fonts, etc. You may be able to actually see one at a Barnes and Noble…I saw one there once. They are strictly Reader’s Editions, however. Unfortunately, they do not have any section headers, or cross-references. They do have the RSV-CE end notes, and a nice section at the end related to Catholic Devotional prayers, etc.

Other than that, I’ll simply quote from a reply that I made in the “Best RSV-CE” post…

To answer your question, Scepter appears to currently publish two versions of the RSV-CE (both in leather, or something like leather.)

One is published by Thomas Nelson for Scepter, and is exactly the same (size, text, font and all) as the original (blue) Ignatius first edition (which is published by Thomas Nelson for Ignatius Press). I own this particular Scepter bible, and prefer it to the Ignatius edition (which I also have in the paperback version at work) mainly because the text is not nearly as cramped near the binding. In other words, you don’t have to force the bible open to see the text near the inside margins.

The second is a compact version co-published with Oxford University Press. I do not have this version, but I do have the Oxford compact bible, and the Ignatius compact bible (which I gave one of my children). I believe all the compact bibles, unless they’ve started to be “fixed,” have applied the Catholic additions from the mid-60’s to the newer 1971 version of the RSV NT. So, they are not exactly the same as the Ignatius first edition.

On top of these editions, you have the RSV-CE second edition by Ignatius, and then the Reader’s Edition of the Oxford bible (bigger than the compact version) in which Oxford tried to go back to the original RSV-CE text, but apparently didn’t quite totally accomplish this.

Sincerely,
rocketrob

 

[rocketrob]

ps,
My personal favorite combination of the currently available RSV-CEs would be the text of the original RSV-CE along with the appendix listing the changes from the RSV, with the section headers and maps of the RSV-2CE, cross-references and end or foot notes from either the RSV-CE or -2CE, with publishing (ie, fabrication quality) by Oxford University Press along with their Catholic Prayers and Devotions and Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) sections.

Many people seem to buy several RSV-CE versions…maybe I’m not the only one looking for some of these combinations.

 

[swampboy]

Rocketrob:
Thanks for the helpful info. I may look into the Scepter edition only because I want the original blue Ignatius text, including x-ref, in a more friendly readable format. I also would like to see a version exactly as you described. The RSV-2CE is okay, but I do not completely trust all of the changes that were made. I do not know why they couldn’t have just made a few wording changes, added the nice section headings and left the rest alone!! The layout is great but there is something about the text…

I am beginning to think that there is no such thing as the “best” translation. I have so many of them, each having its own pros/cons, but none completely satisfy me. I do like the NJB, as I find it does convey the general meaning most of the time, but its deviation from the literal sense makes it difficult sometimes, particularly is you do not know what the literal sense states. But I have noticed that if you compare text, the NJB is usually closer (in meaning) than some.

I notice that most folks on EWTN use the blue Ignatius and not the RSV-2CE…I wonder why. However, on the Journey Home program last night they (Marcus Grodi and Fr. Pacwa) compared Hebrews 11:1 between the KJV and RSV—the KJV/DR was found to be more accurate. I went to my NJB and found the text to be completely different, of course, but the footnote was the same as the RSV—the conveyed meaning of the NJB text however was similar if read properly, but one would need to know how to interpret it.

Thanks again.

 

[mccorm45]

Mccorm45,
Thank you for your insight. Does that New Oxford RSV edition you use retain the “thees” and “thous” in the Psalms? Is it the same (or similar) version of text contained within the blue Ignatius? How about text size? Is it laid out better than the other versions that are on the market? Sorry for all the questions!! If only the NJB did not have so many quirky phrases I would not even be looking at another translation!!

The 2006 Oxford readers edition looks like a real high quality book, but I do not think it has any references or substantial notes–but I am not sure about that. Hopefully someone will enlighten me. Thanks again.

Yes, the RSV that I am speaking of does retain the thees and thous in the Psalms. The text is virtually the same as the RSV Catholic edition, the only differences would be those found in the appendix to the RSV CE New Testament. (It is at the back of the blue Ignatius version.)

I really enjoy the text size…clearly the largest of all the RSV’s on the market. It does not have paragraph headings, but it is made up for with a better laid out page, with its very clear font. (It is 100% better than the RSV-CE Ignatius Blue version.) I think it is very nice on the eyes and a true joe to read.

 

[rocketrob]

Rocketrob:
Thanks for the helpful info. I may look into the Scepter edition only because I want the original blue Ignatius text, including x-ref, in a more friendly readable format. I also would like to see a version exactly as you described. The RSV-2CE is okay, but I do not completely trust all of the changes that were made. I do not know why they couldn’t have just made a few wording changes, added the nice section headings and left the rest alone!! The layout is great but there is something about the text…

swampboy,
If you want the original RSV-CE text with the endnotes, then I think you only have the option of the versions published by either Ignatius Press or Scepter. Like I said in my earlier post, it is my definite impression that the Scepter version gives you more inside margin. But other than that, it is exactly the same font, typeset, etc, than the version put out by Ignatius. I believe that is because both versions are actually provided (at least originally) by Thomas Nelson.

I notice that most folks on EWTN use the blue Ignatius and not the RSV-2CE…I wonder why.

I have also noticed that the RSV-2CE edition has not really taken off as far as endorsements are concerned. Catholic Answers itself is still endorsing the first version: catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

Other noted apologists or Catholic commentators may go so far as to state that the RSV-2CE is an acceptable, or more “user friendly” version, but they seem to prefer the original RSV-CE: jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/bible/index.html (and then go down to the Revised Ignatius Bible post).

I think the reason they do is because the roots of the original RSV-CE can be traced back to a specific effort on the part of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain, and it possesses an authentic Imprimatur. The RSV-2CE, on the other hand, seems to be the work of a single publishing house…albeit, a highly respected one. The question is…will it stand the test of time, or fade away.

However, on the Journey Home program last night they (Marcus Grodi and Fr. Pacwa) compared Hebrews 11:1 between the KJV and RSV—the KJV/DR was found to be more accurate.

They were undoubtedly discussing Pope Benedict’s recent Encyclical, Spe Salvi: jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/12/approved-transl.html

As seen in the above post, that particular passage was explicitly pointed out and discussed.

I myself have been driven nuts trying to find the “perfect” translation and study bible. Currently I am using the RSV-CE by Scepter and the Douay Rheims (which I just upgraded with some gift coupons to the Haydock commentary version). That seems to be the smallest number I can condense to…but it seems to be working out for me.

Sincerely,
rocketrob

 

[JDHallKY]

I have been looking at the 2006 Oxford Readers Edition (amazon.com/Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Bible/dp/0195288653/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t). DOes anyone have any thoughts on this version? Does it have cross-references?

That is the exact Bible I use, and I love it. I looked long and hard for a nice leather-bound RSV-CE. For some reason, Protestant editions of the Bible are readily available in nice leather in numerous editions, and I have several nice Bibles from my Protestant days (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, etc.) But, it took me the longest time to find a nice leather RSV-CE.

As for the specifics, this Bible was a joint effort by Oxford University Press and Ignatius Press. It includes what I believe are the same endnotes (at the end of each testament) that the Ignatius Bible does (I don’t have an Ignatius Bible but I looked through one at a bookstore). It includes Dei Verbum and a Treasury of Prayers from the Catholic tradition.

However, it does not have cross-references. That’s why it’s called a Reader’s Edition. It has a very clean layout, with the text organized to make devotional reading as easy as possible, with no distractions on the page. If you are looking for a study bible, it’s probably not best, but if you are looking for a nice, easily readable edition of the RSV-CE, then I heartily recommend it.

Hope this helps.

 

[RedSoxFan]

I have been reading the various postings regarding the RSV-CE and the numerous issues pertaining to this translation. All I have to say is that I am really confused as to which is the “best”. I have the second edition and think it is okay–however, I have read that there are even several issues with some of the edits that were made to this newer version. I have been going crazy trying to find the “best” (i.e. most accurate and readable) translation. I have tried and tried to like the D-R and RSV but find myself continually going back to the NJB, despite some of the strange phraseology. I know the RSV is a far better translation as far as the literal aspect goes (used by most EWTN folks, the Pope, Catechism, etc.), but I think it is more difficult to extract the meaning of certain things (which the NJB makes much easier IMO). The D-R is great, as is the KJV, as they are very poetic but difficult to read for any length of time. I do not mind the archaic English, actually I prefer it, but I think that modern translations may be better for me.

Now, I would like to give the RSV another try, and am thinking of buying one of the original ones (not sec. ed.). I know the old “blue back” is laid out terribily, but it has the thees and thous that I like as well as cross-references and such. I have been looking at the 2006 Oxford Readers Edition (amazon.com/Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Bible/dp/0195288653/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t)). DOes anyone have any thoughts on this version? Does it have cross-references? I want a full size version–which is best? I see that there are pages and pages of info on the RSV and that different publishers used different year revisions etc. in newer editions. I find it all quite confusing, as well as aggravating–I may just stick with the NJB!
Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I really love my Ignatius verson of the RSV-CE. The prayers at the back of the book are among my favorite to read. Though this is a compact version not a full size version.

 

[swampboy]

Thanks all for your helpful insight. Rocketrob–is this the Scepter version you are talking about?
amazon.com/Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Leather/dp/1594170347/ref=pd_sim_b_title_13

I have been comparing the RSV-2CE with an online version of the RSV-CE and find that there are several changes in the text other than the thees, thous and other “archaic” wording. They do not seem to be that significant but who knows?? Like I noted before, if the second version is that good, why aren’t all of the theologians using it? The Oxford readers edition looks like a nicely made book, but I want something with the notes and x-references–one reason I stick to the NJB.

I am getting the Haydock DR for Christmas–can’t wait to take a look. I guess if it was easy to choose the “best” translation then there would be one less thing to discuss here and one less thing to obsess over.

 

[Manfred]

swampboy,

You sound like me. That’s good 'cause it shows I’m not alone in this. That’s bad 'cause it shows I’m not alone in this. Somehow the Church has been a bit delinquent in ensuring we have a decent, accurate, dignified English translation for the Mass and for private reading and study.

Seriously, I own a regular edition NJB (purchased in 1987), the Ignatius blue hardcover RSV-CE, and a TAN Douay-Rheims.

Yes, the NJB, by far the best among the three for layout, user-friendliness, abundance of study aids (sub-headings, footnotes, cross-references), has some quirky renderings, but gives a pretty smooth ride. If anyone tells you it’s not “literal” enough for catechetical or study purposes, then ask him/her why did Fr. John Hardon use the original (1966) JB as the Scripture text for his “Catholic Catechism”? The NJB is far more consistent in its renderings and far less paraphrastic than the JB.

Yes, the whole RSV situation is way too confusing and there’s probably no one publisher’s edition that’ll make me happy. Darned print’s too small an/or little white space on page and/or chintzy study material. (Aside: the Catechism did NOT specifically use the RSV-CE; it used an ecumenical edition, containing the 1971 NT sans Catholic changes, as well as that awful NRSV. Also, the Pope probably doesn’t need to use this version; he’s got the Nova Vulgata.)

Yes, the D-R is beautiful with its “archaic” language, probably the most accurate of the three (though some frown on its being a translation from the Vulgate instead of the “original” languages), but requires more than a little effort to read and comprehend. If you’ve previewed the Haydock Commentary online, you’ll notice that it can be as obscure as the text it purports to expound on.

On a scale of translation style ranging from dynamic-equivalent on one end to formal-equivalent at the other, the NJB goes on the D-E end, the D-R on the F-E end, the RSV-CE right smack in the middle. And I’m one of those who feel the RSV-2CE is a “work-in-progress” that stopped way short of being a first-class translation.

 

[rocketrob]

Thanks all for your helpful insight. Rocketrob–is this the Scepter version you are talking about?
amazon.com/Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Leather/dp/1594170347/ref=pd_sim_b_title_13

Yes, but I have the burgundy (more like brown) and indexed version. If I had it to do over again, I probably wouldn’t pick indexed…it seems like you have to be careful not to snag the pages when trying to quickly flip through the bible.

Here’s the publisher’s page: scepterpublishers.org/product-exec/product_id/27/category_id/

Maybe I should take another look at that New Jerusalem Bible someday. I had it once in the text only version (standard edition I think they called it), and that was the bible that convinced me that I’m not a text only bible kind of guy. I think you really miss out on a lot by not having the cross-references readily available.

rocketrob

 

[swampboy]

Rocketrob–thanks for the link and additional info. I also prefer a bible with x-references and notes, as I feel it helps me in many ways (plus it just seems “right” to have all of that info included).

Manfred–I have read quite a few posts by you over the last year or so I guess regarding this same issue. I sometimes think I might need therapy to help me with my obsession with finding the “true translation”. I have purchased so many different translations it is becoming concerning. I realize that the RSV-CE may be the best overall for general reading and study, however I personally have come to grips with accepting the NJB as a decent-enough translation, and to try and end my obsession and spend more time reading and less time searching. It is too bad that the NASB doesn’t include the “apocrypha”–I actually think that translation is one of the best–it’s the one I carry to work and take into the deer stand.

I think I may buy one last bible (not counting the Haydock of course) and pick up that Scepter RSV. Then I need to liquidate and sell a bunch on ebay to make room and keep my wife from nagging about my so-called problem

 

[mccorm45]

swampboy,

You sound like me. That’s good 'cause it shows I’m not alone in this. That’s bad 'cause it shows I’m not alone in this. Somehow the Church has been a bit delinquent in ensuring we have a decent, accurate, dignified English translation for the Mass and for private reading and study.

Seriously, I own a regular edition NJB (purchased in 1987), the Ignatius blue hardcover RSV-CE, and a TAN Douay-Rheims.

Yes, the NJB, by far the best among the three for layout, user-friendliness, abundance of study aids (sub-headings, footnotes, cross-references), has some quirky renderings, but gives a pretty smooth ride. If anyone tells you it’s not “literal” enough for catechetical or study purposes, then ask him/her why did Fr. John Hardon use the original (1966) JB as the Scripture text for his “Catholic Catechism”? The NJB is far more consistent in its renderings and far less paraphrastic than the JB.

Yes, the whole RSV situation is way too confusing and there’s probably no one publisher’s edition that’ll make me happy. Darned print’s too small an/or little white space on page and/or chintzy study material. (Aside: the Catechism did NOT specifically use the RSV-CE; it used an ecumenical edition, containing the 1971 NT sans Catholic changes, as well as that awful NRSV. Also, the Pope probably doesn’t need to use this version; he’s got the Nova Vulgata.)

Yes, the D-R is beautiful with its “archaic” language, probably the most accurate of the three (though some frown on its being a translation from the Vulgate instead of the “original” languages), but requires more than a little effort to read and comprehend. If you’ve previewed the Haydock Commentary online, you’ll notice that it can be as obscure as the text it purports to expound on.

On a scale of translation style ranging from dynamic-equivalent on one end to formal-equivalent at the other, the NJB goes on the D-E end, the D-R on the F-E end, the RSV-CE right smack in the middle. And I’m one of those who feel the RSV-2CE is a “work-in-progress” that stopped way short of being a first-class translation.

I can’t help but agree with everything you are saying in this post Manfred…but with the few interactions we have had I am sure you know that already. I am confident that people can use the RSV/NJB/DR with great profit.

I also have the problem the swampboy alluded to…always looking for the perfect translation, while not just being happy with what is out there now until something better comes along. I am seriously considering selling my Bible collection and just focusing on two or three translations. I guess the only real hope out there is that the Ignatius people actually finish the Ignatius Study Bible before the Second Advent. At that point, nobody will need it then!

 

[rocketrob]

Manfred–I have read quite a few posts by you over the last year or so I guess regarding this same issue. I sometimes think I might need therapy to help me with my obsession with finding the “true translation”. I have purchased so many different translations it is becoming concerning…I personally have come to grips…to try and end my obsession and spend more time reading and less time searching.

swampboy,
You have raised an interesting point that seems to apply to many of us participating in these forums. This desire to approach and consume scripture is undoubtedly rooted in our deep and innate desire to know God. All scripture points to Christ, the incarnate Word of God. And so it must be a basic, natural urge to want to read Scripture, in which God reveals parts of Himself to us.

However, as with so many of our basically good desires, I wonder if we don’t have to constantly be on our guard to make sure that this desire doesn’t become disordered to the point that our time-consuming search for the “perfect translation” doesn’t impede our ability to actually read, understand and apply God’s Word in our lives.

The production of certain translations seem to have done us no big favors in this regard. And I am not a big fan of attributing all of our problems to “spiritual warfare.” But maybe something like that is (and has been) going on here. The publication of Sacred Scripture sure could be considered a big target, and many people do seem to be confused and distracted by seemingly endless debates about the “best translations, etc.”

So perhaps your suggestion to spend more time reading and less time searching is a good and timely one!

rocketrob

 

[swampboy]

Rocketrob–I agree with you 100%. Sadly, distrust is inherent in our very being due mostly to the decay of the society we live in today. You would think that those publishing Sacred Scripture would want to ensure that their products are accurate and objectively unbiased. However, the more I learn about the interpretation of scripture and the inaccurate nature of various translations, the more I am disheartened by the seemingly “personal agendas” of certain individuals and/or groups being interjected into the Word of God (particularly in so-called study bibles). Without going back to the original manuscripts (which are likely not “original”), it seems as if no translation is perfect. For Catholic bibles, I like the way the NJB flows. I realize that conservatives shudder at the very notion of reading the NJB, but I personally can get around the inclusive language. The RSV is more literal but I do not think it reads as well, so for me it is likely better for confirming the “true nature” of some of the weird NJB phrases. The DR is great, but I am not familiar enough with the Bible to be comfortable with using it as a primary source due to different names and numberings. Not trying to knock the DR or offend any of its admirers, but I often wonder how much “Catholic” was translated into this version, seeing as to how some phrasing and words are unique to this translation. With that said, I guess the only one kind of split 50/50 down the middle due to the presence of both Catholics and Protestants on the committee is the RSV.

Nevertheless, I guess as long as you are reading the Bible in general it really should not matter which translation you are using…I am sure we all possess the grace to extract via our own personal way of interpretation the true essence of what is being conveyed. As far as I am concerned, as long as “man” (or human beings–if you find it less offensive) is involved in any aspect of the process, whether it be translation, printing or reading, I am sure something will be screwed up.

 

[Manfred]

I notice that most folks on EWTN use the blue Ignatius and not the RSV-2CE…I wonder why. However, on the Journey Home program last night they (Marcus Grodi and Fr. Pacwa) compared Hebrews 11:1 between the KJV and RSV—the KJV/DR was found to be more accurate. I went to my NJB and found the text to be completely different, of course, but the footnote was the same as the RSV—the conveyed meaning of the NJB text however was similar if read properly, but one would need to know how to interpret it.

Thanks again.

The Challoner-Rheims NT, translated, as all know, from Vulgate manuscripts, renders Hebrews 11:1 as follows:

“Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.”

Here is the same verse from the 1941 Confraternity NT, a revision of the Challoner-Rheims NT, and also translated from Vulgate manuscripts:

“Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that are not seen.”

The footnote to this verse states:

"The sense is: ‘faith is assurance in the case of things that are hoped for, it is conviction about things that are not seen.’

And the RSV, translated from the Greek, has:

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

So?

Well, as we can see, the Rheims-Challoner and the Confraternity are virtually identical in the text; both use “substance” and “evidence”.

But the Confraternity’s footnote, which purports to give the sense from the Greek, is very, very close to that of the RSV, whose first edition of the NT did not appear till 1946 - five years AFTER the Confraternity NT. :yup:

And how about the NJB, you might ask?

The 1985 NJB, translated from the Greek:

“Only faith can guarantee the blessings that we hope for, or prove the existence of realities that are unseen.”

And its accompanying footnote:

"variant: ‘Faith is the assurance of things hoped for (heaven) and the conviction of things unwanted (hell).’

OK, it got “assurance” right, but then it seems to go off in another direction with the allusion to hell. But this version does tend to do that from time to time.

 

[swampboy]

Manfred,
I blew the dust off a few of my NAB copies and looked at Hebrews 11:1. Interestingly enough it was very close to the RSV–actually the footnotes of one NAB differ from the other ( I thought all NAB footnotes were the same) actually explaining the interpretational issues pertaining to the Greek and the reason why they translated the way they did for the NAB.

I have been contemplating for a while now about purchasing the Oxford NAB study bible–any comments about this book or the translation itself? I find the NAB easy to read–similar to the NJB–but not as accurate IMO; however, it is the translation used at mass–just not anywhere else!! I do not find it to be all that terrible, but maybe I am missing something. I do know some people who go to the NAB to help them understand certain things. Are all NAB’s created equal?

 

[Manfred]

Manfred,
I blew the dust off a few of my NAB copies and looked at Hebrews 11:1. Interestingly enough it was very close to the RSV–actually the footnotes of one NAB differ from the other ( I thought all NAB footnotes were the same) actually explaining the interpretational issues pertaining to the Greek and the reason why they translated the way they did for the NAB.

I have been contemplating for a while now about purchasing the Oxford NAB study bible–any comments about this book or the translation itself? I find the NAB easy to read–similar to the NJB–but not as accurate IMO; however, it is the translation used at mass–just not anywhere else!! I do not find it to be all that terrible, but maybe I am missing something. I do know some people who go to the NAB to help them understand certain things. Are all NAB’s created equal?

Well, you are likely aware that there was the original 1970 NAB, and now there is the RNAB with the 1986 NT and the 1991 Psalms. To be precise, the version used in the US Lectionary does NOT strictly match the RNAB, since Rome itself, Deo gratias, intervened and ordered changes in those areas where doctrine would have been adversely affected.

As for (R)NAB study bibles, the St Joseph editions are probably the most common; the Oxford edition seems to have a lot more in it, but some of the articles I’ve sampled some time ago were VERY liberal. far more so than the NJB.

All NAB or RNAB texts are “equal”; the various study editions are not necessarily so.