Monday, December 3, 2012

Semi-Regular Weekly Poll

Which was the best Catholic Bible edition released in 2012?

  • HarperOne NABRE
  • Baronius Press Knox Bible
  • OSV Saints Devotional Bible NABRE
  • Other?

Freeblogpolls

More polls: snabblån

11 comments:

Theophrastus said...

First, I notice there is a yet another HarperOne edition being released tomorrow: link.

Second, I still maintain that the OSV Saint's Devotional Bible was one of the worst releases of 2012.

But so many to choose among -- why not the Harvard-Dunbarton Oaks Vulgate Bible (still being published in 2012)? How about the Saint John's Bible (which had its final volume in 2012)? Really, is the our selection so meager that it is limited to just three Bibles this year?

Timothy said...

Theophrastus,

I'll check out the link. But the answer is generally yes to your question. I also tried to include only complete bibles that were Catholic-specific.

Timothy said...

Theophrastus,

Do you have any idea what a 'non-flex imitation leather' cover may be? Did they hear the complaints of people, like myself and others on this blog, who felt the imitation leather they released back in May was not very good?

Biblical Catholic said...

I've been looking forward to the Know reprint for several years now, so I guess I'll have to say that one....although the Harper One NABRE is excellent as well....

Theophrastus said...

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm guessing that "non-flex imitation leather" is a leather-like hardcover. I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

Deep South Reader said...

I have a big problem with the introductions to the Harper NABRE. Too much modernism at work. Specifically, in the intro to Luke (and I paraphrase) the anonymous intro author (irony?) states that Luke must have been written after 70 A.D. because of "the author's familiarity with the event" of the sacking of Jerusalem. Then the introduction author provides citations for statement in parentheses. What verses does he/she cite....wait for it...THE WORDS OF CHRIST.

In other words, the intro author believes that LUKE must have (1) written the Gospel after 70AD and (2) simply INSERTED those words into Christ's mouth...because Christ certainly couldn't have said them. Why?.....because a modernist theologian doesn't believe in prophesy or miracles. Such beliefs are...ahem...antiquated and not enlightened.

I may be over the top on this because the comment is very subtle. But the presupposition that Jesus couldn't have known about the future sacking of Jerusalem steps firmly into heresy. Oh and of course this Bible is held out as THE American Catholic Bible.

Do we expect heresy to always be blatant and ill-willed?

Tell me if I'm over the top please.

Biblical Catholic said...

Oh, you haven't even begun to consider the truly offensive nature of the notes in the NAB...I could go on for hours just listing problems with the notes....

Just keep in mind however that the notes were written in 60's and 70's when the Church was.......not exactly governed by the greatest bishops that the world has ever known....indeed, I could go on for hours just listing all the horrible decisions and statements made by Catholic bishops from about the mid 60's to the mid 90's....


There are currently plans to revise the notes in the NAB from top to bottom, and I'm sure they will be significantly improved.....just try to ignore them.

The bishops we have today are much, much, much better than the ones we had 20,30,40 years ago, indeed I could go on four hours just listing all the ways in which today's bishops are better....

I like the translation, for the most part, but I despise the notes and introductions, so just try to ignore the notes, indeed I would recommend trying to find an edition that puts the notes in the back instead of in the margins, so that they can be more easily ignored.

CJA Mayo said...

Oxford used to publish editions with notes in the back, but I think the USCCB put a stop to it. You can probably find a used edition in that format.

Imagine how surprised I was, not to harp on the Lutherans too much this week, when I got my Lutheran Annotated Apocrypha, and found it read far more faithfully and "Catholic-ally", with the mind of the Church, than the introductions to the deuterocanonicals in the NAB/RE - and the Lutherans don't consider the books Scripture!

(The same holds triply true for the protocanonicals in the Concordia "Lutheran Study Bible".)

Timothy said...

Let me just say, that while overall the Baronius Press Knox Bible is the best in my mind, I really really really like the page format in the HarperOne NABRE. I was thinking about this just a day ago when I was flipping through some Protestant Bibles at a local bookstore, lamenting the fact that they are still light years ahead in regards to producing beautiful and modern looking Catholic Bible editions. It actually reminded me of one of my first blog post which was titled 'Catholic Bibles Stink' or something like it.

Biblical Catholic said...

I said the same thing in another thread but I'll say it again just for kicks, the quality of the binding and so forth is not something that matters to me...indeed, I tend to despise books which are allegedly 'well made' because it is near impossible to keep the stupid thing open and actually be able to read it, you have to physically hold the cover in place, and if you let go for even one split second, the stupid thing slams shut. and keeping it open is a struggle because you're constantly fighting against its desire to close shut, about the only thing you can do is put it on a table, then grab a paperweight or a stapler or something and physically weigh down the left side of the book to keep it open and prevent it from slamming shut.....and when you actually need to read that left hand page it's a struggle to somehow remove the paperweight and still keep the book open long enough to keep it from closing, then when you move on to the right hand page put the paperweight back.....sigh....

I hate that....but everyone says 'wow look at the quality of the binding'....

Well that kind of nonsense is why I have moved almost completely to e-books, I only pick up an actual print copy of something when no e-book can be found.

CJA Mayo said...

That means a book is badly made, and side-sewn or glued. One of the hallmark features of a good binding is that it will lay open completely flat out of the box.

The two best I've ever seen at this (beyond hardcovers) were the French Morocco original-size NCPB, and the Berkshire "genuine leather" MacArthur, which veritably spring open in the hand - it has to do with the proportions of the text-block, as a short and stout format will lay open flat, but, will have six inches of spread pages laying in the opposite hand, needing to be balanced, and thus wanting to slide shut (like the Clarion in Genesis).

But, no doubt, a "quality binding" that won't lay open is the very definition of a horrible binding, which I have found on Ignatius Books, Bantam UK books, and Image/HarperOne books most specifically. It's like the text falling in to the gutter: it means the binding is bad, no matter how it's advertised. If you get a tight binding of that sort, no matter how it was advertised (and Catholic books are nearly always advertised to be much better than they are, sometimes with outright lies, such as Bibles that are glued advertised as "smyth-sewn"), the binding is bad and the advertisement was lying.

Don't hold that against true good bindings, which generally don't need any advertisement or bragging at all (beyond a Mark Bertrand review): the back of my $250 Cambridge Clarion edge-lined goatskin box says:

"Genuine leather, two ribbon markets, red-under-gold page edges, smyth-sewn binding"

Now, except for page edges, the Ignatius RSV-2CE is advertised using the same words, and there is the distance between heaven and hell as the difference in quality between the two books.

For the most part, in Bibles, you're not going to find one that feels decent "out of the box" for under $150.