I like the D-R and its poetic language more like the KJV. But, I tend to use the NAB for personal devotional reading more often.
A little off topic but I think the commentary that the woman of Rev 12 is Israel is good - just incomplete. Mary is the personification of Israel and the Church at the same time. She is, in a sense, God’s people. One could say that Israel gave birth to the Messiah or that Mary gave birth to the Messiah. So, I don’t think it so much a Protestant commentary as it is an incomplete commentary. When I was a Protestant, I heard dozens of interpretations of who the woman was - and Israel was not any more common than other interpretations - and I even heard a few would would have said the woman was Mary. And I think the reason for that is because Protestants tend to make the mistake of assuming the woman can represent only one of those things - when in fact, she represents all - Mary is the fulfillment of all those types - the ark, Israel, the Church, the people of God, etc. I wax on because this was a major point to my conversion - realizing that the Catholics offered a fuller understanding that included all rather than a collection of options from which I had to choose one. I think I understand your concern and my rant is not intended to correct an inaccuracy or to nit-pick, just thinking out loud of my own journey. I’m not sure how the NAB could have improved the commentary without adding a whole lot of text to be fair to all the parallel symbols wrapped together in that text…but that seems to be pretty much true of any translation with commentary notes for any given scripture.
One thing I hate about the NAB I have is the concordance - it rarely has the text I remember from a given verse so I have given up using it. Every time I go to look for something I wonder why I bothered looking in the back of my NAB and end up going online or pulling out my old Strong’s. And it isn’t just because the translation changes the word in some cases - it is often that the word is there but the editors apparently did not see it as worthy of a concordance entry. Example: look for reconciliation and I would expect to find some for of that word with a reference to 2 Cor. 5:18-20 - instead, you find no form of that word at all. To be fair though, the “concordance” to which I am referring is actually a “Doctrinal Index” and not really a concordance. Which is irritating in itself since the NAB has both a “Doctrinal Index” and a “Bible Dictionary” which overlap a great deal and which are so shallow because of space that I would never refer to them for their intent anyhow - I wish they would replace both with a decent concordance. I don’t think I’ve tried the RSV or D-R concordance yet so I cannot comment on them.</ranting off>
God bless.