I have to comment also... What a world of differencr between the CBA 1942 commentary and say the New Jerome Commentary or the commentary of the NABRE.
Catholic scholarship went from far right traditional fundamentalism to far left liberalism.
Our modern biblical scholars need to temper critical scholarship with patristic tradition. We have gone way too far to the left, for example, translating Hebrew Ruach Elohim as a Mighty Wind instead of Holy Spirit or at least Divine Wind is unacceptable. And the NABRE commentary on Gen 1 is pretty awful too - not because it is written from a historical-critical perspective, but because it is written from a historical-critical perspective with a complete neglect for theological-traditional exegesis.
I pray for two things for the NABRE - for some modernist translations to be fixed, such as Gen 1:2 Mighty Wind to Holy Spirit, Isa 7:14 young woman to virgin, Luk 1:28 favored to full of grace.
Also that there will be two editions, maybe a College edition with historical critical based commentary, and a laymans edition with theological-traditional commentary.
Truly understandable, not only you want it, but nearly all Americans.
For one thing, Dr. Mary Healy, which is a member of the NT Revision team is not much of a fan of historical-critical approach as she demonstrated her preference for theological notes on EWTN's show Journey Home show, which a link was posted in this blog.
That being said, I think that (I am not a canon lawyer, but I certainly see) the Canon Law itself has a loophole when it comes to quality of Biblical notes.
The Canon Law merely states that every Catholic Bible must have notes to accompany the reader, but it did not qualify which type of notes are needed to be in it.
In the 1960's, cardinal Cushing of Boston gave the imprimatur to the then "Common Bible", a mild redo of the Revised Standard Version: no notes except some cross references and textual notes.
My current St. Ignatius Bible, RSV 2CE, also has no notes except some textual notes and some very sporadic and short one sentence comments.
I already own one, I bought a Didache NABRE as soon as I found out it contained both the historical-critical NAB commentary and the spiritual commentary of the Didache.
I wish every version of the NAB contained the Didache commentary...
I sincerely believe the NAB commentary has the potential to scandalize, especially Protestant readers who hold a high view of Scripture. The NAB commentary makes it seem as though all Catholics believe in JEDP (they dont, I believe Moses wrote the Torah), as though Daniel and Isaiah could not see the future (I believe they did and that Daniel was written by Daniel in the 500s and Isaiah was written by Isaiah in the 700s), or that we are schizophrenic with out own Tradition - "Matthew is traditionally the author of his gospel, but that is now untenable..."
The way the NAB commentary presents the Historical critical theories as proven fact with no alternative is imprudent at best, and potentially scandalous.
I personally understand these theories are those of modern scholarship, and only some scholars at that.... But without doing a large amount of research.... Agh Im babbling.
This transcription was made with the understanding that the original copyrights for these two works were not renewed and that they have since entered the Public Domain.
What I am saying is that I believe that is a false assumption. Given that the 1941 Confraternity NT never went out of print, I rather seriously doubt that the copyright was not renewed in 1969.
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015005548741;view=1up;seq=841;skin=mobile This is the Confraternity Bible read online. I think it's 1961 St Joseph edition Confraternity Bible but I could be wrong about it
But if the copyright was granted or renewed in 1962, then it is still valid today.
Under the copyright act of 1978, as amended in the Sonny Bono Act of 1998, any book which was under copyright in 1978 will keep its copyright until 95 years after its first publication. So if was granted a copyright in1962, then this copyright was still valid in 1978, and thus it remains under copyright until 2057.
For books written after 1978, the copyright is valid until 70 years after the death of the author, and for corporate owned works, for a period of 95 years.
So by that rule, the 1970 NAB, being owned by a corporation, remains under copyright until 2065. And the Confraternity NT of 1941 remains under copyright until 2036, 95 years after its publication.
Under the pre-1978 law, a copyright was granted for 28 years, and could be renewed once, for a total of 56 years. 56 years is a reasonable length of time.
The reason for the 1978 law was to bring US law into conformity with the Bern Convention which is a treaty we had signed. Under the 1978 law, a copyright was good for the life of the author plus 50 years, while copyright for corporate owned works lasted for 75 years.
The 1998 law extended it to 70 years, and 95 years for corporate owned works. The United States is the only country in the world that has a copyright that lasts that long.
There was absolutely no reason for the 1998 law extending copyright for an additional 20 years except that Congress was doing the bidding of prestigious copyright holders who didn't want to lose their gravy train.
Not one single new work has entered the public domain since 1978, but a bunch of stuff was set to expire on January 1, 1999, so Congress extended those copyrights by another 20 years.
So, nothing is set to enter the public domain until 2019, assuming that Congress doesn't pass a new extension in 2018, which they probably will.
Enough is enough, it is time to allow these nearly 100 year old copyrights expire.
Yes, but as I said, the 1941 Confraternity NT has never been out of print. It was up for renewal in 1969, and I simply cannot believe that they would have allowed the copyright to lapse at that point when it was still being sold and when it would be another year before the publication of the NAB New Testament in 1970.
I would hire a lawyer to check with the patent office to make sure that the copyright was not renewed before putting it online because I just can't believe that they would be so irresponsible as to allow the copyright to expire when it was still in print and still being sold.
I have no clue as to the reliability of the source (having only done a quick Google search), but according to this site, at least, it appears that its copyright is "expired".
14 comments:
This is a wonderful resource, thanks for sharing.
I have to comment also... What a world of differencr between the CBA 1942 commentary and say the New Jerome Commentary or the commentary of the NABRE.
Catholic scholarship went from far right traditional fundamentalism to far left liberalism.
Our modern biblical scholars need to temper critical scholarship with patristic tradition. We have gone way too far to the left, for example, translating Hebrew Ruach Elohim as a Mighty Wind instead of Holy Spirit or at least Divine Wind is unacceptable. And the NABRE commentary on Gen 1 is pretty awful too - not because it is written from a historical-critical perspective, but because it is written from a historical-critical perspective with a complete neglect for theological-traditional exegesis.
I pray for two things for the NABRE - for some modernist translations to be fixed, such as Gen 1:2 Mighty Wind to Holy Spirit, Isa 7:14 young woman to virgin, Luk 1:28 favored to full of grace.
Also that there will be two editions, maybe a College edition with historical critical based commentary, and a laymans edition with theological-traditional commentary.
Sorry for the small rant...
God bless
Truly understandable, not only you want it, but nearly all Americans.
For one thing, Dr. Mary Healy, which is a member of the NT Revision team is not much of a fan of historical-critical approach as she demonstrated her preference for theological notes on EWTN's show Journey Home show, which a link was posted in this blog.
That being said, I think that (I am not a canon lawyer, but I certainly see) the Canon Law itself has a loophole when it comes to quality of Biblical notes.
The Canon Law merely states that every Catholic Bible must have notes to accompany the reader, but it did not qualify which type of notes are needed to be in it.
In the 1960's, cardinal Cushing of Boston gave the imprimatur to the then "Common Bible", a mild redo of the Revised Standard Version: no notes except some cross references and textual notes.
My current St. Ignatius Bible, RSV 2CE, also has no notes except some textual notes and some very sporadic and short one sentence comments.
Jason P-
I think what you want is the Didache Bible (NABRE).
http://www.theologicalforum.org/ProductInformation.aspx?BrowseBy=Category&CategoryId=124&ProductId=518&force=1
So far, it's the only Catholic Bible I've found with precisely the mix of dogmatic and scholastic notes you described. I love it.
-Chris
Is this legal? This text doesn't go into the public domain until 2036 at the earliest.
I already own one, I bought a Didache NABRE as soon as I found out it contained both the historical-critical NAB commentary and the spiritual commentary of the Didache.
I wish every version of the NAB contained the Didache commentary...
I sincerely believe the NAB commentary has the potential to scandalize, especially Protestant readers who hold a high view of Scripture. The NAB commentary makes it seem as though all Catholics believe in JEDP (they dont, I believe Moses wrote the Torah), as though Daniel and Isaiah could not see the future (I believe they did and that Daniel was written by Daniel in the 500s and Isaiah was written by Isaiah in the 700s), or that we are schizophrenic with out own Tradition - "Matthew is traditionally the author of his gospel, but that is now untenable..."
The way the NAB commentary presents the Historical critical theories as proven fact with no alternative is imprudent at best, and potentially scandalous.
I personally understand these theories are those of modern scholarship, and only some scholars at that.... But without doing a large amount of research.... Agh Im babbling.
Lord have mercy
This transcription was made with the understanding that the original copyrights for these two works were not renewed and that they have since entered the Public Domain.
What I am saying is that I believe that is a false assumption. Given that the 1941 Confraternity NT never went out of print, I rather seriously doubt that the copyright was not renewed in 1969.
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015005548741;view=1up;seq=841;skin=mobile This is the Confraternity Bible read online. I think it's 1961 St Joseph edition Confraternity Bible but I could be wrong about it
Michael, sure no problems thanks yeah that's good it's 1962. I think it's better than RSVCE and NABRE
But if the copyright was granted or renewed in 1962, then it is still valid today.
Under the copyright act of 1978, as amended in the Sonny Bono Act of 1998, any book which was under copyright in 1978 will keep its copyright until 95 years after its first publication. So if was granted a copyright in1962, then this copyright was still valid in 1978, and thus it remains under copyright until 2057.
For books written after 1978, the copyright is valid until 70 years after the death of the author, and for corporate owned works, for a period of 95 years.
So by that rule, the 1970 NAB, being owned by a corporation, remains under copyright until 2065. And the Confraternity NT of 1941 remains under copyright until 2036, 95 years after its publication.
I don't disagree with you on that.
Under the pre-1978 law, a copyright was granted for 28 years, and could be renewed once, for a total of 56 years. 56 years is a reasonable length of time.
The reason for the 1978 law was to bring US law into conformity with the Bern Convention which is a treaty we had signed. Under the 1978 law, a copyright was good for the life of the author plus 50 years, while copyright for corporate owned works lasted for 75 years.
The 1998 law extended it to 70 years, and 95 years for corporate owned works. The United States is the only country in the world that has a copyright that lasts that long.
There was absolutely no reason for the 1998 law extending copyright for an additional 20 years except that Congress was doing the bidding of prestigious copyright holders who didn't want to lose their gravy train.
Not one single new work has entered the public domain since 1978, but a bunch of stuff was set to expire on January 1, 1999, so Congress extended those copyrights by another 20 years.
So, nothing is set to enter the public domain until 2019, assuming that Congress doesn't pass a new extension in 2018, which they probably will.
Enough is enough, it is time to allow these nearly 100 year old copyrights expire.
Yes, but as I said, the 1941 Confraternity NT has never been out of print. It was up for renewal in 1969, and I simply cannot believe that they would have allowed the copyright to lapse at that point when it was still being sold and when it would be another year before the publication of the NAB New Testament in 1970.
I would hire a lawyer to check with the patent office to make sure that the copyright was not renewed before putting it online because I just can't believe that they would be so irresponsible as to allow the copyright to expire when it was still in print and still being sold.
I have no clue as to the reliability of the source (having only done a quick Google search), but according to this site, at least, it appears that its copyright is "expired".
http://www.derose.net/steve/Bible/EnglishBibleTranslations.html
Post a Comment