The NABRE, St Joseph Edition
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июл 2024
- A review of the St. Joseph Edition of the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE), published by Catholic Book Publishing Corporation. The ISBN is 9780899426419. This volume is covered in Dura-Lux imitation leather, and the binding is sewn. Text is formatted in two columns, organized into paragraphs. The print is dark with little fading, the font is 9 pts in height, and, although the text is not line-matched, the paper is sufficiently opaque so that show-through is not an issue.
The translation itself is neither especially literal nor free. The Old Testament sometimes translates the Septuagint or the Dead Sea Scrolls rather than the Masoretic Hebrew. The New Testament relies heavily on an earlier edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek text. I include two charts early in the video that show the NABRE’s relatively high rate of agreement with the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, and its somewhat lower rates of agreement with the Robinson-Pierpont and Westcott & Hort texts.
Detailed Contents
00:00 Details (dimensions, margins, layout, font …) four charts
00:15 The NABRE New Testament and Greek New Testaments - percent agreement - two slides [for an explanation, see my video “A Four-Dimensional Perspective on Bible Translations”]
01:25 The ISBN (9780899426419)
01:40 Dimensions compared to other Bibles
02:29 Page layout
03:20 The font in the text
04:12 The text is not line matched
04:58 The footnotes
06:07 Paper qualities (it is a bit blue)
07:15 Print non-uniformity / fading
07:45 Book introductions
09:06 Books of the Bible do not always start on a separate page
09:35 The words of Christ are in black ink
09:59 Lists of collaborators
10:23 The Bible dictionary
10:39 The readings for Sunday (through 2040)
11:20 The numerous inserts on heavy paper (including the glossy maps)
14:03 Paste-down construction, paper liner, burgundy and gold head and tail bands, red ribbon
15:20 The imprimatur and nihil obstat
15:58 The table of contents
16:42 An essay on the Holy Land, with black-and-white photographs
17:21 Preface to the NABRE Old Testament
18:21 A close-up look at the text, and the font compared to that in a Douay-Rheims Bible, an RSV2CE from Ignatius Press, and the Didache Bible
19:50 The Bible is sewn and it lies open
20:25 Overcast stitching and the five lines of thread in the gutter
21:04 A few of the black-and-white illustrations
21:49 How literal is this translation? My translation continuum chart and three instances where the NABRE New Testament is not quite literal
23:00 Psalm 1 in the NABRE, compared to Psalm 1 in the older NAB
24:14 Psalm 14 in the NABRE, compared to Psalm 14 in the older NAB
24:35 Revelation 3.20 does not show a bias against grammatically masculine pronouns
25:14 What do brackets mean in the NABRE New Testament? They mean the enclosed words are likely genuine, but there is some doubt about them
26:08 Revelation 3.20 in the 2011 NIV, to show how gender neutral translations deal with the text
26:35 The NABRE follows the Septuagint in Genesis 1.9
27:39 The NABRE follows the Septuagint in Genesis 4.8
28:25 The NABRE is influenced by the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Deuteronomy 32.8
29:16 The NABRE in follows the Septuagint in Psalm 145.7
29:43 The NABRE does not follow the Septuagint in Isaiah 7.14, a prophecy of the Messiah’s birth
30:28 The NABRE does not follow the Septuagint in Psalm 40.7, a prophecy of “Christ’s self-oblation”
31:10 The NABRE’s footnotes at Isaiah 60.1 contrasted with a footnote from the Didache Bible
32:20 The NABRE’s footnotes at Isaiah 61.1-3 make no mention of the Messianic fulfillment of the passage, as explained in Luke 4.18-19
33:34 The NABRE’s footnote on Matthew 16:21 denies that Christ predicted his passion
34:14 The NABRE’s footnote on Luke 1.46 and following denies that Mary spoke the Magnificat
35:13 A closer look at the Dura-Lux cover
36:20 Summary (pros and cons)
This Bible and similar ones are described at the publisher’s web site: catholicbookpublishing.com/read/presentation-bibles
Great looking bible.
Hi you should review the Saint Joseph New Catholic Bible which is a fresh 2019 translation of the same company. They are publishing NABs for years. Now they have their own translation.
Thank you for the GREAT review!!
Thank you, Mark!
Another thorough review! My wife uses the large print version with references inserted after each book. I use the larger size version which is easier on the eyes.Liked the Interesting comment that the Didache bible enforces the Catholic faith and the NABRE tends to cast doubt on some issues . I use both.
Sir: I enjoy all your videos! Please keep up the good work.
I must ask- any chance you will review the Ronald Knox Translation?
Thanks and be well.
Thank you for the view and comment! I hope to post a review of the Knox translation on either the 23rd of 24th of May 2020.
Hello! I'm a new subscriber and I absolutely love your in-depth reviews - thank you so much for taking the time to go through each Bible in this way. Would you suggest this Bible is a good size for an every-day carry/every-day reading? My personal Bible got lost in my move and if I'm going to have to buy one again, I figure I may as well save up for a nice one like this! Thank you in advance!
Thanks for the kind comment, Dani Bin! This Bible small enough to carry, but the font is large and dark enough for most people to read comfortably. The paper is fairly opaque also. It could be what you're looking for.
@@RGrantJones Thank you so much for the quick response! You can call me Dani :) I discovered your reviews via a Facebook group and have thoroughly enjoyed them! Do you know how this size compares to a personal size?
Thank you again!
I just picked up the New Catholic Bible St. Joseph Personal Edition yesterday. Explanatory notes seem much better than the NABRE and the run on sentence issues from the NABRE are eliminated. They render Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin" and Luke 1:28 "Hail full of grace." It's not marketed as a study bible but I'm going to use it as one for the charts, maps, pictures, and notes.
An interesting change compared to the 1970 NAB occurs in Matthew 1:19, where the NABRE, by inserting a "yet", completely changes what Joseph's being "righteous" (or "upright" in the NAB) actually refers to: "... was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her ..."
Can you review Robert Alter's 3 volume commentary "Hebrew Bible: A Translation With A Commentary"?
Thank you for your helpful review of this edition of the NABRE. May I suggest a review of the Catholic Study Bible, Third Edition? It is another edition of the NABRE with a substantial amount of extra material in the form of reading guides and articles. ISBN 978-0-19-936277-6.
Hi thank you so much for the review. I have mixed feelings on the translation. The NABRE, it must be said, is merely a revision of the NAB OT and Psalms: the NT is unrevised. The Psalms are a big improvement and in general having compared it with the previous edition, I find them to be more literal. However, again what really gets to me is the use of gender neutral language in the OT and the avoidance of masculine pronouns even when the text requires it. I don't understand how if the text says ''man'', that ''man'' is not the actual translation. It is very strange to me.
Thanks for commenting, John! I agree. It will be interesting to see the extent to which gender neutral language is introduced into the New Testament in the next revision, which I understand is scheduled to happen in around 2025.
I quite agree. I think the "gender neutral language" is an entirely unjustified trend or political fad. What a preposterous idea! I don't like the study notes in this Bible. If I were a Catholic, I would be totally turned off by them.
Would you be willing to review a NCB translation Bible? This is the translation that all new Saint Joseph Edition Bibles come in and I am a big fan of the translation.
That translation has been recommended to me before. I've thought about reviewing the NCB, but I've had difficulty finding a copy with a sewn binding and no red letters.
@@RGrantJones Unfortunately, their giant print edition is the only one with no red letters. It's advertised as the same dimensions as the large print but thicker because of the 14 pt font.
@@KatherineWeasley - thanks for posting that information. A 14 pt font is much too large for most people, I think.
A very lovely review, thank you! I found this Bible just gorgeous-I love the color and the vine/leaf work, along with the curvy border, gold highlighting and gilding, and the color inserts inside. I’m not a fan of the paper or the font, although I do like the larger text size. The dictionary is helpful, but a concordance would be more so. The notes are garbage in my opinion, as they cast doubt and do not strengthen faith and tradition. All in all this is a decent Bible that I think would last a good while, if one could stomach the notes. The translation is fine, although I know some people don’t like it. Good and thorough review, thanks so much.
Thank you for the kind comment, Winnie! I'm glad the review was useful to you. You could always ignore the notes, or draw a line through the more offensive ones.
Starting over the page numbers in the New Testament isn't actually all that uncommon, at least around where I live.
I have that one, but some of the interpretive notes are outrageous. Funny thing is its Catholic but based on the Masoretic Text. Very strange. Except for the inclusion of the books that St. Jerome named Apocryphal. Also, prophecies concering the coming of Messiah in OT are attributed to being about various rabbis and rulers.
I usually prefer 10 pt font (large print), but is this 9 pt very readable? Many thanks!
It's printed darkly and the paper is opaque, but it does seem small to my old eyes. Thanks for commenting, Fernando!
@@RGrantJones well, I am sure it would seem small to my equally old eyes!! Thanks very much
@@RGrantJones I was recently in email conversation with Dr. Carol Newsom who was one of the editors of the NRSV 5th edition about text critical issues. Her major area of research has been the Dead Sea Scrolls. This may interest you:
Well, how one uses text criticism in translation depends on one’s aims.
Religious Jews are not oriented to finding the “oldest” form of the text but rather the traditional form of the text. So there is very little use of the LXX in the text criticism of the New Jewish Publican Society’s Tanakh.
Catholic scholars certainly translate from the MT but are far more open to alternative readings from the LXX, because of the esteem in which they hold the LXX.
Protestant scholars made the assumption (not always well grounded, it turns out) that the LXX was derivative and periphrastic and so they tended not to adopt LXX readings. After the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and a changing understanding of textual history, it turns out that some LXX manuscripts and traditions preserve quite faithful translations of sections of the Hebrew Bible that represent earlier stages in the development of some biblical books (Jeremiah is a case in point).
Nowadays the quest for a text “as close as possible to the original” has largely been given up with the recognition that in most cases there never was what we would call an “original.” Textual fluidity was the norm in ancient scribal cultures, and changes, large and small, continued to be made well into the Second Temple period. Some portions of the text stabilize earlier (the Pentateuch, for example). Others exist in two or more literary editions (Esther, Daniel), indicating lively literary as well as textual creativity. And what is one to make of Jubilees or the Temple Scroll? Are they “biblical” or “non-biblical.” Of course they didn’t get canonized (except Jubilees, which is canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church). But in some circles they do appear to have been as authoritative as what we term biblical books.
So, the NRSV is probably the best in text critical terms in my opinion, but the NIV and the NAB (rev) are also very sound, with the NIV a bit less hospitable to the LXX and the NAB more hospitable.
Oh-textual differences didn’t bother Second Temple Jews. At Qumran there is a commentary on Habbakuk that cites one version of the text and then bases its interpretation on another version of the text. And they collected and copied different versions of the biblical text, with no indication that one or another was considered “better.” It’s only after the destruction of the temple that the Rabbis (fairly arbitrarily) chose one set of biblical scrolls to become the basis for the MT. Without the temple, then the Torah had to become the unifying element for diaspora Jews.
@@FernandoSerna1654 - thanks very much for sharing that.
judging from this new Roman Catholic Bible, most specifically from some comments in the notes, i wonder where Roman Catholic theology stands today... i thought that they were fairly conservative on Christ and His Messiahship ... but what does this edition reflect about their theology today...?
I defer to the Catholic subscribers. Perhaps some of them will respond to your question.
To Helge Evensen above, up until Pope Francis, the Roman Catholic Church was/is traditional. This present Pope is portraying traditionalists in a bad light and, worse case scenario, there will be a schism if the modernist German hierarchy has their way. And, if any one told me 20 years ago that this could likely happen, I would not have believed it.We have antipopes before but this one will have to be waited out for his reign to end like the other bad apples before him. The Pope cannot change church doctrine. I reccomend The Catechism of the Catholic Church by Cardinal (Pope Benedict) Ratzinger. I hope this helps.
helge evensen
I have yet to meet a Catholic who love the notes in the NABRE. I honestly do not know what they were thinking by including the most liberal notes of certain current theologians.
the NAB and NABRE notes are not reflective of modern Catholic scholarship and date back to modernist 1970s historical criticism.
Grant I appreciate your reviews as all ways they are always informative I recommend the following book for Catholic Christian Bible commentary "Catholic Bible Dictionary general Editor Scott Hahn. You will find it balanced and faithful to the Teaching of the Church. God bless .
I enjoy the translation because it's refreshing sometimes to get away from the KJV/RSV/ESV centered language, but these footnotes just seem wild. I have a paperback of this translation and they look like the same footnotes so it must be the default for this translation which is rather concerning. It's similar to the footnotes from the Jerusalem Bible videos that you did in that they cast doubt on scripture! Now I would understand if these bibles are for secular study, but these bibles are obviously intended for believers and these footnotes are not helpful. It's almost like you reading scripture and then the footnote says "Yeah uh just ignore what you just read here."
In my criticism of this Bible I forgot to mention that you did another excellent review. I always enjoy watching your videos!
Thanks for the gracious comments, Hardin! I agree. I don't understand the mindset of the bishops who permit (or encourage?) the publication of notes like those in Bibles intended for believers.
The only saving grace that I can think of is that most orthodox Catholics, from parents to teachers to priests, do not use the NABRE to teach the faith. Kids in Catholic schools that are essentially secular may use the NAB but I doubt they are digging into the notes.
Beautiful bible
I think I found my next Bible
I have just watched your video and am very surprised at the textual changes. I have The Fathers of the Church Bible 2013 by Our Sunday Visitor Inc incorporating NABRE 2010 edition. I am very happy with it and certainly would not like this publication. Who authorised the changes? I wonder does Psalm 33 v. 17 b still end : " ...it cannot be saved" as opposed to "cannot save" as per Grail Psalms 1963?
Yes, Psalm 33.17 still ends, "it cannot be saved."
@@RGrantJones Thanks for that confirmation. So the Psalms are those approved by USCCB in 2010. Can you advise the dates of Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur for the bible you reviewed ? My NABRE states : Revised NT approved 27 August 1986 ; OT approved 30 September 2010.
@@petermarshall5363 - Those are the same dates as in my copy, visible at the 15:23 point in this vide.
@@RGrantJones Thank you. I couldn't quite see the info on screen. If that's the case I don't understand the authority for the textual changes you highlighted in the video. Is there any explanation for the departure from the approved text? In the meantime I'm having a problem obtaining the Didache Bible from Ignatius Press here in UK. Apparently the supplier is out of stock with no date for further copies!
Refer to Fr Charles Murr's interviews, they'll perhaps shed some light on what has happened & why.
this is not the same as the "second edition".?.. i think it is 2006 .... this is a revision done after 2006...?
Wikipedia discusses the various editions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible
👍
This is not one that I've read before, I'm more of a literal translation person myself. But the print and layout looks good. I do much prefer when Bibles are all black letters too, so I like that about this bible.
I agree. From a design perspective, I think it was done well. And I don't have any severe criticism of the translation, though I've seen some negative review articles on the internet. Like you, l prefer literal translations, but dynamic equivalence translations are useful. As I mentioned in the video, I prefer more traditional explanatory notes. Thanks for the comment!
Hello
i have this bible 📿
This Bible has really ugly maps. :D
Do you think NABRE is a good translation? Is it better than RSV or RNJB?
I am seriously disappointed with RNJB, It reads very well, but not a good study Bible. So will have to wait for Ignatius, and discard RNJB. I wanted to buy Orthodox Study Bible, but it has negative review by you and other academics. But Amazon reviews are very high.
I think the NABRE is an okay translation. It doesn't excite me, and I usually don't go out of my way to consult it. In addition, it's usually printed with skeptical notes, and if I understand you correctly, you would prefer a Bible that doesn't take a humanistic approach.
My chief problem with the Orthodox Study Bible is that it was advertised as a translation of the Septuagint, but in fact it's a translation of the Masoretic Text inconsistently modified in the direction of the Septuagint. You have to decide whether that matters to you. But based on our past conversations, I don't think you would find the Orthodox Study Bible's notes very helpful. The notes tend to be doctrinal, and they often discuss the views of the Church Fathers. My impression is that you would like a study Bible that focuses more on historical and cultural details that put the various books in perspective.
19:50 21:03
I will never understand the hate for the notes. Apart from a few that always get quoted as wrong, the rest are fine.
I think the hate comes from: that the notes are useless, are too critical and are not faithful to the traditional authorship and the regular ones you see
@@deusvult8340 that’s a good place to start. This thing is an embarrassment to the Catholic Church. Shoot, the Vatican uses the RSV for official translations. What’s that tell you?
"Sons of God" is correct in Deuteronomy 32:8. God had 70 sons.
😳😳😳😱8Quando l'Altissimo divideva i popoli,
quando disperdeva i figli dell'uomo,
egli stabilì i confini delle genti
secondo il numero degli Israeliti.
An example of a horrible rendering from the NABRE taken from this Sunday's Gospel reading. The particular verse which stuck out is Luke 12:15.
Here's the rendering from the NABRE: Then he said to the crowd, “Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one’s life does not consist of possessions.”
Now the RSV-CE: And he said to them, “Take heed, and beware of all covetousness; for a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”
The Douay-Rheims: And he said to them: Take heed and beware of all covetousness; for a man's life doth not consist in the abundance of things which he possesseth.
The KJV: And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
Is there any wonder that many of us Catholics have come to despise the NABRE? They convoluted the wording just to avoid using the term "man". Ugh!!!
Could younplease send me the Bible please?
Why are you whispering?
He isn't whispering at all
The USCCB (US Catholic bishops) *requires* publishers to print the notes with the NABRE. I don’t use the term heretical lightly, but they’re truly heretical. There is an outright disdain for Christian faith in them.
Here’s an example:
Mat 27:29 Crown out of thorns: probably of long thorns that stood upright so that it resembled the “radiant” crown, a diadem with spikes worn by Hellenistic kings. The soldiers’ purpose was mockery, not torture.
Our Lord will be happy to know he wasn’t being tortured. My copy ended up in the recycling bin after I read that.
I also won’t buy or read a translation that says “young woman” instead of “virgin” anymore, personal choice. Again, shocking for an approved Catholic translation to be deliberately avoiding the virgin birth prophecy. The Catholic church obviously has bigger internal problems than this, but this is a symptom of rot. I am a former RC from birth, currently non-denominational.
Joel Tunnah Most knowledgeable Catholics will agree with you that this Bible is complete trash. The good thing is that this translation is only used at Mass in the United States, and only in the Latin rite. None of the other rites use it, which I am happy about.
The example you cite does not involve heresy at all. There are no Church doctrines that relate to the crown of thorns. I don't see any disdain for the faith in suggesting that the crown of thorns might have been meant as a mockery instead of a torture device.
The NAB notes expect the reader to do more heavy lifting than many people realize. They are designed to help you get into a time machine and understand the context and intentions of the biblical authors. At first, this is disorienting, because the cultural context is so different from today. For the most part, the notes leave it to the reader to bridge the gap between the original context and a modern life of faith. This is not what many readers are looking for, and it makes studying scripture more difficult. In the end, though, it can lead to a much deeper understanding of scripture and faith (and indeed a truer understanding, because it attempts to look at history accurately, rather than looking back on it through a modern lens).
@@Lux_Aeterna I agree that the Church Fathers had a much different approach to Scripture than modern historical scholarship, and this is an important fact that places historical scholarship in proper perspective. If a person merely treats the bible as a historical artifact, he is missing the key point. On the other hand, the divine inspiration of Scripture took place in a specific historical context, and if we truly want to understand the message that God intended to convey, it is important to understand the historical context in which the biblical books were written.
We are now 2,000 years after Jesus, with centuries of cultural changes and theological reflection on the texts of the New Testament. It's possible to treasure that tradition of theology while also engaging in historical research to understand what the New Testament writers intended to convey, and how it might differ from common perceptions today. That can be jarring, but it isn't contrary to the faith. In fact, it helps us to stay grounded in the faith as it was originally handed on to us.
@@Lux_Aeterna In my view, there is no opposition between saying that Sacred Scripture is a historical document and that it is the inspired word of God, profitable for teaching the faith in all ages. In fact, I believe both are true. I also think that there is great danger in ignoring the historical context, because it can easily lead to wildly incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Consider the protestant reformation. Many of the protestant reformers misinterpreted St. Paul's letters (specifically his teachings on salvation and redemption) because they didn't understand the cultural context in which he was writing. In that case, modern historical-critical scholarship has led many protestant biblical scholars (E.P. Sanders, N. T. Wright, James Dunn, to name a few) to realize that some of the key assumptions of the protestant reformers were simply incorrect.
The NAB notes are squarely aimed at helping the reader understand each book of the Bible in its original historical context. This is indispensable for the New Testament, because it helps to avoid anachronistic misinterpretation along the lines of the protestant reformers. The Old Testament is an interesting puzzle, though. The early Christians clearly did not read the Old Testament with an eye to understanding its teaching in its original context. For them, Jesus Christ, as the fulfillment of the Old Testament hopes, provided the key for understanding the Old Testament, even if the original authors of the Old Testament would have never imagined that God would redeem his people in such a radical way. For the early Christians, God revealed in mystery in the Old Testament what he later revealed in truth to all in Jesus. Thus, they could look back and see rich symbolism throughout the Old Testament and read the Psalms as prayers that Jesus himself prayed.
From a purely historical-critical perspective, the way the early Christians interpreted the Old Testament was hopelessly anachronistic and incorrect. But of course, the resurrection of Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit spurred them to see everything in the Old Testament in a new light. To me, this is where the NAB notes are lacking. They focus on understanding the Old Testament in its original historical context, while the Christian perspective on the Old Testament must be thoroughly reworked by knowledge of Jesus.
@@Lux_Aeterna If I'm understanding you correctly, it seems that your point is focused on interpreting the Old Testament. Do you believe that historical-critical methods are useful for the New Testament?
I suspect that the center of the difference between us is this question: is historical-critical scholarship incompatible with the Christian faith? My answer to that question is "no," but I essentially agree with the points you raised about the Old Testament. I would say that historical-critical methods are, by nature, incomplete. To me, that doesn't mean that they have no value. Scripture has many levels of meaning. As Christians with the light of faith, we can look back to the Old Testament and see how it prefigures the New Testament in many different ways. But for the Jewish people who lived before Christ, no one would have imagined a Messiah like him. It took Jesus "opening the scriptures" to his apostles and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost for the apostles to truly understand how the scriptures were fulfilled.
The fulfillment (in Christ) was a new revelation that placed everything that came before it in a new context. That doesn't mean that the Old Testament was not divine revelation for the people who read it prior to Christ, though. The elements of the Old Testament that prefigure the New Testament had other meanings for the Jewish people, and these meanings are not totally devoid of merit. As a Christian, I believe that those meanings are incomplete, but I don't think it is contrary to the faith to try to understand what those scriptures meant to the people who read them hundreds of years before Jesus.
For the New Testament, I would go further still: It is very important to use historical-critical methods to study the New Testament, because our historical circumstances and culture is so different from the time when it was written. If we want to accurately understand what Jesus taught and what the early Christians believed, historical-critical scholarship is extremely important. The New Perspective on Paul in protestant scholarship is only one example, as I mentioned before.
a dreadful translation. why are we Catholics stuck with this? (I know the answer, as does the USCCB).