Description:
We are pleased to offer our popular NCV New Testament and Psalms together in one volume in four different bindings. Both texts are complete and therefore their best and most-lauded features remain: readability; copious, well-written, and informative footnotes; photographs; maps; and the words of Christ in red. This New Catholic Version translation, in conformity with the Church's translation guidelines, is intended to be used by Catholics for daily prayer and meditation , as well as private devotion and group study. Accolades we have received from satisfied readers of the NCV New Testament: "The words of scripture come alive before your eyes.... The notes bring a depth to the scriptures I have found in few other translations." "...the NCV...will likely be my first choice when looking for a translation that is clear, immediate, and speaks directly to the heart." Features gilded edges. group study. Accolades we have received from satisfied readers of the NCV New Testament: _The words of scripture come alive before your eyes_. The notes bring a depth to the scriptures I have found in few other translations._ _ _ the NCV_ will likely be my first choice when looking for a translation that is clear, immediate, and speaks directly to the heart._ Gold edging.
So, does anyone actually read from this translation by Catholic Book Publishing? It is sort of an enigma. What I mean by that, is that there has been very little fanfare about its release and information about it is sparse. What are your thoughts on this bible?
26 comments:
Never read it. As an aside though, there should be a global ban on any bible in the English language having the word "new" in it. I am pretty sure the NAB, NRSV and the NJB no longer fit that bill.
http://www.catholicbookpublishing.com/products/1392 available now
http://www.catholicbookpublishing.com/products/1393 available Oct 1
http://www.catholicbookpublishing.com/products/1394 available now
http://www.catholicbookpublishing.com/products/1395 available Oct 1
http://www.catholicbookpublishing.com/list/keyword/New+Testament+Psalms
It's interesting that 2 of the 4 bindings are available now while the
other two are October 1.
And in each availability there's one binding is $10.95 and one at $17.95
I have the larger study edition NCVNT, a pocket NCVNT and the pocket NCV Psalms. I like the psalms a lot. I find that the NT seems similar in translation and notes to the NABRE but I haven't really been examined that (just a general overall impression) so someone else can verify or deny it. I do like though...very much.
Are there samples available online somewhere?
There hasn't been a lot of fanfare, but the NCV New Testaments sure are widely distributed. I see them all the time in both Catholic and secular bookstores. Often, they are the only NT-only Catholic Bibles in stock. I still haven't bought one, though.
Nice question.
Those publisher webpages suggest that's the 2002 NCB Psalms, also asked about here
http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2015/07/ncv-answers.html?m=1
SHALOM
It sure would be nice to see a complete Bible - the NCV NT and Psalms with the NABRE OT. Except in the OT use the 1951 Confraternity translation of Genesis (IMO the best modern translation of Genesis available) and instead of using the NABRE commentary use the New African Bible OT commentary....
That would be an incredible hybrid Bible.... a man can dream. If only I was super rich and could afford to pay a bookmaker to custom make me that.
I have the smaller NCV St. Joseph edition and I read from it quite a bit. It is very easy to understand. I like the headings which I find helpful and the introductions to the books are quite long actually and do a good job introducing each book. The notes are helpful too. It slightly larger than pocket size but is quite totable. I enjoy reading this translation.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-OE-St-Joseph-Catholic-Version/dp/1941243371/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500552972&sr=8-1&keywords=new+catholic+version+new+testament
This may show my ignorance but why are translations approved with this warning. ' and stating that the translation is intended for private use and study only and may never be used for liturgical purposes.'
"This may show my ignorance but why are translations approved with this warning. ' and stating that the translation is intended for private use and study only and may never be used for liturgical purposes.'"
Because they aren't approved for use in the liturgy. To approve them for the liturgy would require approval from Rome.
I have both of these but have not yet had a chance to read either one.
"As an aside though, there should be a global ban on any bible in the English language having the word "new" in it. I am pretty sure the NAB, NRSV and the NJB no longer fit that bill."
What about New York? New Hampshire? Newfoundland? Or even worse New Newfoundland? Or New Scotland Yard?
In the short time I've had/read it, I like the NCV MUCH better than the NAB(RE) New Testament. It flows very well yet while tending toward the formal equivalence translation spectrum: it's a great balance; it isn't clunky like the NAB NT often tends to be (cf. Matt 19:6 for a good example of the NABRE's clunkiness). So far I think the introductions and notes are much better, too.
I would love to see this in a complete Bible edition.
Leighton,
How does the NCV render Mt 19:6?
Thanks!
Steve,
Here you go: "And so they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate."
In trying to be inclusive, the translators seemed to forget everything they learned in high school English! The NCV is able to accomplish the objective of inclusivity without butchering the English.
Corr.: I meant to say "In trying to be inclusive, the NABRE translators seemed..."
Thanks Leighton. I was wondering which way they went on this one: use 'man' (smooth, literal, not-inclusive), or 'no one' (smooth, not literal, inclusive). The NIV and bibles have the exact same translation here, minus the 'And' at the beginning.
I agree this is much smoother. It's not quite as precise, since 'let not man' / 'no human being' leaves open the possibility that God could separate. Not that God would, just sayin' it's not precisely the same thing.
This is typical NABRE NT - it tries to be both very precise and somewhat inclusive, which occasionally awkward results. If one thinks that 'anthropos' really means 'humans' here, then arguably it's even more precise than 'man'. But awkward, and I think most people would understand that 'man' would refer to both sexes here.
I wager that NABRE 2025 will say 'let not man separate' or similar, based on what they did with the OT.
Yes, I can't imagine they'll leave the NABRE NT version of Mt 19:6 as it stands today: "Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” As Fr. Neuhaus pointed out, the implication with this translation is that it IS possible for human beings to separate what God has joined together, even if they MUSTN'T, which is obviously not the meaning that the translators intended.
It astounds me that this sort of thing got past the final editors. The NRSV renders it: "Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." Much better!
I hope that with the likes of a stellar biblical scholar such as Dr. Mary Healy on the editorial board, the revisers will do better this time around.
Unfortunately, the current NAB NT has many clunky and imprecise phrasings in my opinion. Take, for instance, John 8:36: "So if a son frees you, then you will truly be free." Most, if not all, Bible translations render it "the son," rather than "a son." This seems to obscure the meaning and I wonder why the NT translators went with a nontraditional choice on that. (I am no Greek scholar, so perhaps there is a good reason that eludes me.)
Another instance is found in Phil 4, verse 11: "Not that I say this because of need, for I have learned, in whatever situation I find myself, to be self-sufficient." Self-sufficient? That seems counter intuitive to Paul's consistent attitude of surrender: does he rely on himself, or on Christ, of whom he can say: "I have the strength for everything through him who empowers me"? "Content" is the NRSV rendering, rather than "self-sufficient," and it seems more consistent with Paul.
Finally, the other example that comes to mind is 2 Tim 4:7: "I have competed well; I have finished the race; I have kept the faith." The NRSV: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." It seems the latter is a perfectly acceptable translation, and "fought the good fight" certainly rallies the faith more than the bland, "I have competed well," even if both choices are technically accurate translation choices.
I use the NAB(RE) for catechesis, etc., and see a lot of good in it (especially in the revised OT), but find the NRSV-CE and RSV-CE (and even the NJB) much more conducive to personal study and devotion.
So, it seems like we still don't really *know* much about the New Catholic Version. Why it was made, what exactly the translation philosophy was, whether it has any future pretensions towards getting approved for liturgical use anywhere, whether they're working on the OT...
I have tried to get some info from them, with no success.
Timothy--
see your blog of July 15, 2015. I sent you letter from publisher regarding the NCV
Lenny V
Thanks Lenny! Totally forgot about that. Here is the link for those interested: http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2015/07/ncv-answers.html?m=0
So is the word "American" in the title of the NAB the *sole* reason they had trouble marketing the NAB internationally, and thus decided to commission a new translation? Maybe they really should rename the NABRE in 2025. But I see that this topic was already covered in the comment section for that 2015/07 post.
Don't mean to dominate the comment section, but I thought of a few more questions for anyone who actually has this NT:
1. People supposedly like the footnotes. Supposedly they're more "conservative"/"faithful" than the NAB notes? Can anyone comment on that? Are the notes of a "sorta just rephrasing the text" variety, or is someone moderately knowledgeable apt to learn a lot from them? What's the balance between merely textual/catechetical/historical-critical/life application notes? Any favorite or least-favorite notes? Who gets quoted a lot: the catechism, church fathers, contemporary scholars, others, no one...?
2. How's the inclusive language?
3. Thomas said above that the introductions to the various books are good and long. Do they discuss dating, authorship, and things like that? What sort of positions do they take? Marcan priority?
4. Are the notes footnotes or endnotes? Will they be footnotes or endnotes in these new editions? Thought I saw a review that said the New Testament notes were endnotes in some compact edition of this thing, and boy do I not want to deal with endnotes.
If we change just one letter, we can call it the "Now Catholic Bible" (Now Jerusalem Bible, Now American Bible) and then it will never go out of date!
Well done sir! :)
Anonymous, It does give markan priority. And says both matthew and luke had mark available to them. It says matthew was first written not fully in the 40's or 50's and later in full form a little after 70 a.d.
John 1:4 reads "and the life was the light of the Human race. It uses man for most of the verses, at john 1:9 it reads "The true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world, He was in the world."
Post a Comment