Guest Review: Saint Benedict Press NABRE

Thank you to Michael P. for this guest review:

I was fortunate enough to receive the Saint Benedict Press NABRE Premium Ultra Soft edition from Timothy (the NABRE contest). Jonny's review of the Fireside's Companion Edition NABRE inspired me to review SBP's NABRE. I had the opportunity to inspect Fireside's Companion Edition that Johnny reviewed and Fireside's New Catholic Answer Bible (NCAB) and will make some comparisons to both:


1. Size and Cover: The size of the SBP edition is substantially the same as the Fireside Companion Edition. The photos compare it to Ignatius' RSV-2CE leather edition. I think the SBP cover is a little nicer than Fireside's Companion Edition, but the cover on the NCAB is as nice as the SBP, which is strange because Fireside says that their Companion Edition has the same cover as the NCAB. However, the NCAB is a slightly larger bible and more expensive.


2. Typeface and layout: Jonny did a great job explaining the difference between Fireside's Companion Edition and SBP's edition. So which is better? I think that depends on intended use. Fireside's cross references are much easier to use and locating verses is easier as well because the verse numbers are in bold print. So, if you plan on using these features, go with Fireside. In fact, if the larger size of the NCAB is not an issue, then I would recommend that edition because the font size is larger (but it's not a large print bible), making it easier to read, and I think it is a nicer edition overall than the Companion Edition. However, if you have another edition of the NABRE that you use for study like the Little Rock Catholic Study Bible (which I do and like very much), and want another edition of the NABRE that is more portable and is more inviting for prayerful reading of the bible (such as daily readings), I would recommend the SBP edition because the notes (which are at the bottom of the page beneath each column as opposed to only the right column on Fireside's edition) and verse numbers are less distracting than Fireside's edition (in my opinion).


3.Other details: It has one gold ribbon marker (as an aside, I wish publishers would make 2 or 3 ribbons the standard). The front of the SBP edition has a presentation page and Family Registry pages (births, marriages, deaths), the Succession of Popes, and a list of the collaborators for all the various editions of the NAB from 1970 to the present. The back of the bible has a calendar of readings for both weekday and Sundays throughout the year and several sections of prayers separated by the following categories: Favorite Catholic Prayers, Prayers to Jesus, Prayers to Mary, Prayers to and with the Saints, and at the end four simple color maps (Palestine in the Time of Jesus, and one for each of Paul's Journeys). Finally, SPB's edition has the words of Christ in Red, which I know is non-starter for many people. The photo, although not the best in clarity, gives you a good sense of what it looks like. I don't think it's as bright red as I've seen in other bibles and it doesn't bother me. Even if you're normally turned-off by red letter editions, I think the SBP edition should still be considered.


So, go to a Catholic bookstore, spend some time with the various editions, and get the one (or more than one!) that will suit your various needs. Remember, the best bible is the one you read!

"New Year, New Testament, New American Bible" Series

Indeed it is 2011, which from all indications will be the year that the NAB gets a makeover. As we learned last year, the NAB Old Testament and Psalms have been in the process of revision, and will join the previously revised NAB New Testament to form the New American Bible Revised Edition or NABRE. If you are looking for a refresher of what is going on with the NABRE, Mary Sperry, from the USCCB's NAB team, was kind enough to answer some reader questions, which you can view hear. As I mentioned late last year, I will be spending some additional time with the NAB NT and blogging about it in a series of posts.

One of the things I want to do is focus on the NAB text itself, with little attention on the commentary or notes which sometimes get discussed more than the translation itself. Also, I will try to point out places of similarity and difference with other translations like the RSV and NRSV. This will not be an exhaustive study, but rather a collection of some of my thoughts and experiences with the NAB NT text. So let's begin with the infancy narrative in Matthew:

Matthew 1:1
"The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (NAB)

"An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (NRSV)

** I tend to like the NAB version, which uses “book” and “Christ”, rather than “an account” and “Messiah”. The RSV is similar to the NAB in this case. Certainly the Greek behind going with “Christ” makes more sense, and seems more natural in my reading.**

Matthew 1:18
“Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.” (NAB)

“Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah* took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.” (NRSV)

**I prefer the use of the more traditional “betrothed” to simply “engaged”. I think in todays culture, where engagements are easily broken off, one looses the full meaning of what betrothal was back in 1st century Judea if it is simply translated as “engaged”. The NAB note on this is actually quite helpful: “Betrothal was the first part of the marriage, constituting a man and woman as husband and wife. Subsequent infidelity was considered adultery. The betrothal was followed some months later by the husband's taking his wife into his home, at which time normal married life began.” (Yes, I am aware that I referenced the NAB notes.)**

Matthew 1:20,23 & 2:1,13
**I like the NAB’s (and the RSV’s) use of “behold” to “see” or “look” which is found in many modern translations, like the NRSV. For me, it just sounds better and more immediate.**

Matthew 1:25
“He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus” (NAB)

“But knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” (RSV)

**Like the NRSV, the NAB went with “no relations” instead of the more literal “knew her not”. The reasons are certainly due to a desire by the translators to be clearer to the reader. The other notable instance, albeit in Hebrew, comes in Genesis 4:1. I tend to like the more traditional rendering here, simply because “knowledge” of a person seems to portray a little more depth to the relationship. While the renderings in the NAB or NRSV aren’t wrong or even bad, they tend, IMHO, to not portray the fullness of the marital relationship. (There is a nice article on “knowledge” in the Catholic Bible Dictionary edited by Scott Hahn.)**

Matthew 2:1
“When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem.” (NAB)

“In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem.” (NRSV/RSV)

**As The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (p.635) points out, magi were a caste of wise men specializing in astronomy, astrology, the interpretation of dreams, and sometimes magic. I tend to like the NAB’s decision to translate the term “magi” literally because it forces the reader to spend a little more time figuring out what a “magi” is and does. Why they may certainly be wise, it seems too generic of a way to describe this group. We shouldn’t do the same with other groups in the New Testament, like the Herodians or Judeans or Scribes. The NASB and NIV currently use “magi” as well. **

Advent Contest 2

As promised, there will be one more contest here on this blog for 2010, as we journey through this Advent season. This contest will be tied to a new series of posts, that I have already started and will continue into 2011, examining the NAB Revised New Testament, which will be a part of the upcoming NABRE. I have decided to use the NAB New Testament for my daily reading, Bible study, and even class work for the foreseeable future. I am hoping this will allow me to be better acquainted with the positive and negative features of the NAB NT in preparation for a thorough analysis of it in conjunction with the presumed publication of the complete NABRE in 2011. (Of course, if the NABRE will not be released in 2011, I have the right to immediately scrap this project and move on to something else.) With that being said, onto the contest.

The winner of this contest will receive:

1) ESV Thinline Bible (without Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha)

2) Berit Olam: 1 Kings

Here are the rules:

1) If you have a blog, please advertise this contest on your blog. (If you don't, you can still enter the contest.)


2) This contest is only for people who are in the United States or Canada. (Again, overseas shipping costs are a bit too high for me right now. Sorry.)

3) The question you need to answer in the comment box:

What should I name the upcoming series of posts focusing on my reading of the NAB Revised New Testament?


4) The contest ends on Saturday at 11:59PM EST.


5) One entry per person.

NAB NT Series

The year 2011 will likely mark the publication of the NABRE. For those who are just joining this blog, that is the New American Bible Revised Edition, which will include a revised Old Testament and re-revised Psalms. For some additional information on the NABRE go here for a helpful question/answer post with Mary Sperry from the USCCB, which was done earlier this year. Hopefully there will be some additional information, like an actual publication date, early in 2011.

I am planning to spend some time over the next month, through various posts and guest reviews, analyzing the NAB NT. The current NAB NT will be the New Testament in the NABRE, so perhaps it is time to give it a fresh look.

To kick things off, I want to paste some portions of the revised edition of the NAB NT preface. I am hoping to begin the discussion with the basics, so I ask that any comments focus primarily on the preface. There will be plenty of time to discuss this or that translation choice. To read the entire preface, you can go here. So here are some selections I have picked out:

1) The primary aim of the revision is to produce a version as accurate and faithful to the meaning of the Greek original as is possible for a translation. The editors have consequently moved in the direction of a formal-equivalence approach to translation, matching the vocabulary, structure, and even word order of the original as closely as possible in the receptor language. Some other contemporary biblical versions have adopted, in varying degrees, a dynamic-equivalence approach, which attempts to respect the individuality of each language by expressing the meaning of the original in a linguistic structure suited to English, even though this may be very different from the corresponding Greek structure. While this approach often results in fresh and brilliant renderings, it has the disadvantages of more or less radically abandoning traditional biblical and liturgical terminology and phraseology, of expanding the text to include what more properly belongs in notes, commentaries, or preaching, and of tending toward paraphrase. A more formal approach seems better suited to the specific purposes intended for this translation.

2) A particular effort has been made to insure consistency of vocabulary. Always to translate a given Greek word by the same English equivalent would lead to ludicrous results and to infidelity to the meaning of the text. But in passages where a particular Greek term retains the same meaning, it has been rendered in the same way insofar as this has been feasible; this is particularly significant in the case of terms that have a specific theological meaning. The synoptic gospels have been carefully translated so as to reveal both the similarities and the differences of the Greek.

3) An especially sensitive problem today is the question of discrimination in language. In recent years there has been much discussion about allegations of anti-Jewish expressions in the New Testament and of language that discriminates against various minorities. Above all, however, the question of discrimination against women affects the largest number of people and arouses the greatest degree of interest and concern. At present there is little agreement about these problems or about the best way to deal with them. In all these areas the present translation attempts to display a sensitivity appropriate to the present state of the questions under discussion, which are not yet resolved and in regard to which it is impossible to please everyone, since intelligent and sincere participants in the debate hold mutually contradictory views.The primary concern in this revision is fidelity to what the text says. When the meaning of the Greek is inclusive of both sexes, the translation seeks to reproduce such inclusivity insofar as this is possible in normal English usage, without resort to inelegant circumlocutions or neologisms that would offend against the dignity of the language. Although the generic sense of man is traditional in English, many today reject it; its use has therefore generally been avoided, though it is retained in cases where no fully satisfactory equivalent could be found. English does not possess a gender-inclusive third personal pronoun in the singular, and this translation continues to use the masculine resumptive pronoun after everyone or anyone, in the traditional way, where this cannot be avoided without infidelity to the meaning. The translation of the Greek word adelphos, particularly in the plural form adelphoi, poses an especially delicate problem. While the term literally means brothers or other male blood relatives, even in profane Greek the plural can designate two persons, one of either sex, who were born of the same parents. It was adopted by the early Christians to designate, in a figurative sense, the members of the Christian community, who were conscious of a new familial relationship to one another by reason of their adoption as children of God. They are consequently addressed as adelphoi. This has traditionally been rendered into English by brothers or, more archaically, brethren. There has never been any doubt that this designation includes all the members of the Christian community, both male and female. Given the absence in English of a corresponding term that explicitly includes both sexes, this translation retains the usage of brothers, with the inclusive meaning that has been traditionally attached to it in this biblical context. Since the New Testament is the product of a particular time and culture, the views expressed in it and the language in which they are expressed reflect a particular cultural conditioning, which sometimes makes them quite different from contemporary ideas and concerns. Discriminatory language should be eliminated insofar as possible whenever it is unfaithful to the meaning of the New Testament, but the text should not be altered in order to adjust it to contemporary concerns. This translation does not introduce any changes, expansions, additions to, or subtractions from the text of scripture. It further retains the traditional biblical ways of speaking about God and about Christ, including the use of masculine nouns and pronouns.

Ok, what do you think of these first three selections? The selections are focused on issues of translation philosophy, consistant vocabulary, and inclusive language.