Thursday, January 1, 2015

"One Bible, One Year" for 2015

A few days back I decided to do commit to using one Bible edition for one year.  I provided a poll for you, my faithful readers, to help me in this process by choosing between three editions that I would be happy to use exclusively for 2015.  So, with your consultation, I have decided to follow your recommendation.  The winner of the poll, by one vote, is the 1991 New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV.

This may be a crazy idea, but it is something that I have wanted to do for a long time.  I am quite comfortable with the NRSV, and as the years have gone by, and through my own personal prayer and teaching, I currently prefer it to the other translations.  It is by no means perfect, but it has a lot of advantages to it, which I will talk about at a later time.  I also believe that this NOAB (1991) is the high water mark of all the Oxford study Bibles.  It maintains the fine, concise annotations that are found in the RSV edition, with some slight additions and updates to it, while providing generous margins for personal annotations.  The type is also very clear and easy to read, which makes it helpful to teach from.  It is also not as heavy as the later NOAB's.

Now, I have added one, well maybe two (or three) caveats to this venture.  I pray the Liturgy of the Hours each day, so I can't get around using the translation provided in the official version.  Secondly, as you can see on the photo, I am going to use the HarperOne Compact Thinline NRSV w/ Apocrypha for times when I cannot bring the bigger NOAB with me.  This will not happen all the time, of course, but I can't see myself bringing the NOAB to a prayer group meeting.  So consider this a kind of tag-team effort, when necessary.  Finally, and this would be exceptional if it were to happen, if Allan's were to produce an amazing NRSV (Catholic or w/ Apocrypha) this year then I may have to suspend this experiment.  I am sorry, I am just a weak man.  However, I don't anticipate this so I doubt that this will be an issue.

With all that said, I want to assure you that I will still be doing Bible reviews in 2015.  I simply will not be using those Bibles for everyday use.

Last but not least, I know that a number of other people will be joining me in this Bible crusade.  Along with my occasional posts concerning my experiences, some have been willing to do guest posts as well.  If those people could simply, once more, comment below with which Bible they will be sticking with for 2015, I would be grateful.

Many blessing to all of you and Happy New Year!

57 comments:

Russ NY said...

Tim: Both of those versions are in leather?

Russ NY

Timothy said...

Russ,

The compact is bonded leather.

Erica McCrea said...

Tim,

I think I'm going to copy you and use the NOAB 3rd ed. loose-leaf I have in tandem with a Harper Thinline. (Which I haven't purchased, but will soon.) The Harper seems like an excellent copy to tide me over until I can purchase a Cambridge. (A Cambridge Bible of any sort is certainly on my wishlist.)

But of course, moderation, penance, etc. No Cambridge until next year! And I've really been looking to purchase a thinline Bible; when I graduated high school in my Protestant days, our church gave us each one with our name on it. I used it in all of my reading and Bible classes. It was such a good format and I'd really like something similar. Now if only it had cross-references... Sigh. You are so right—immediate Leonard's sendoff, if it did.

Erica McCrea said...

Tim,

I am deeply ashamed. I was doing a bit of snooping on Amazon, thinking wistfully of your lovely French Morocco NRSV Reference, when lo and behold, I discovered the same Bible in bonded leather.

It is used of course, but if the description holds true, its only fault is a sticker on the front end page with the previous owner's name. Sadly, I have not yet fulfilled my life-long dream of a real leather Bible, but at such a steal I wasn't about to let it go.

I'll be shelving my trusty hardcover RSV-2CE, and bringing my new family member back to college along with the NOAB monster. It's official—my 2015 Bibles.

Ed Rio said...

Tim,
I'm going to go with the RSV-CE New Testament and Psalms. There's a 4 week Psalm schedule sheet somewhere on my computer that I might print out and use for prayer. It won't be the actual Liturgy of the Hours, but it will provide some variety and simplicity. Both of which I could use more of.

rolf said...

Ok Timothy, the best I can (attempt to) do on this one Bible one year plan is to read the whole Bible in one year using only one Bible. I chose: readthecatholicbibleinayear.wordpress.com
I like this reading plan because it chooses one reading from the OT one from the psalms and one from the NT each day.

I am going to use my Oxford large print NABRE (that I had rebound because of the comfortable leather cover and the large font size (12). Day one was today, game on!

Anonymous said...

Tim,

I also have the same bible editions in your poll - the Cambridge NRSV and NOAB NRSV (2nd ed) and they are my favorite editions. Both have their merits, as you've pointed out, but if I had to choose only one to be my "one bible" it would be the Cambridge NRSV. The reason over the NOAB edition? The size is more suitable for me for an everyday bible. The NOAB is by no means a monster-sized bible, but it is large enough that I would find myself not picking it up as often as I would the Cambridge edition. And since picking up the bible is the first step to reading it, Cambridge is the "one."

Best of luck with your endeavor! I am going to use the Cambridge edition exclusively this year (or at least try my best to do so!). It will be interesting to see how much I miss using my study bible editions.

Michael P.

owen swain said...

=======
Hello Timothy,

Using one bible for one year. A meaningful challenge. An opportunity to de-clutter the mind, re-focus the heart and re-purpose how we go about "using" the bible.

As I was on that page even before reading your post I am happy to join you.

My aim is to combine a daily prayerful and lived reading of The Life With God Bible NRSV with the Deuterocanonical Books with The Magnificat monthly, International Edition toward a renewed life in-Christ and his Church. P.S. Love that Renovaré recognizes the second-canon books enough to name them as such and not with the A-word ;-)

- - -

My reality is that I will likely not use absolutely-only one bible in 2015. I am bound to pick up this one and that one to compare at some point but to be able the end of a year to have even one bible that looks like it has been lived-in because it has been lived-in, well, that would be golden.

Truth; I have not had a bible that looked that lived in since my beat-to-heck NIV Thinline in ugly turquoise circa 1982. I only had one bible then, that was it and did I use it! If there is anything to be said for having been a bible-thumping Christian there is that. Even my pastor-self's preachin'' bibles didn't look like that old NIV and perhaps ironically, I've never had so many editions at one time since I became Catholic and that in the search for the more non-existent that the Unicorn, perfect Catholic bible. Time indeed to center down.

My plan then, as I join you and those of your readers who are joining you is is to read/pray, the daily mass-readings lectio divina style in that one-bible. I'll make it my go-to and go-with bible; go-to along with other spiritual reading; go-with to mass/adoration/etc. I'll set aside a long standing poorly done practice of the LoTH (perhaps unrealistic with my state in life)) and combine my one bible-one year with the aforementioned Magnificat (M.P./E.P./N.P - plenty!).

Timothy, thanks for being who you are and doing what you do. Your blog is one of the first Catholic blogs I found and remains one of the few I continue to actually follow. Cheers. Happy New Year. God bless.

Russ NY said...

Tim, it's Day Two and I'm still using just the one bible. I wasn't sure I would make it this far.
:)

Timothy said...

It may be a difficult year for us both!

David Garcia said...

Hey Tim!
As you know, I wrote a blog post about this. Rather than retyping everything, the post is here regarding which Bible I am using and why:

http://www.solitarypilgrimblog.com/2014/12/common-english-bible-my-2015-bible.html

Cheers!

Dave

Deacon Dave said...

Question (kinda related): I cannot find out if the NRSV is still on the "no no" Catholic list for catechetics (I know it is for liturgy). Anyone know? Thanks.

Timothy said...

Deacon Dave,

A couple thoughts:
1) It is approved for liturgy in Canada and as you know the NAB is in the US.

2) The NRSV, along with the RSV, is the translation used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

owen swain said...

In Canada, Deacon Dave, the NRSV *is* liturgy. Being Canadian it is one of the reasons I chose it that and the fact that it is used by the CCC along with the NRSV older sibling, the RSV. Fr. James Martin, an American Catholic Jesuit, endorses it and uses it in his latest book, Jesus: A Pilgrimace. Harper Catholiday Bibles publish a beautiful inexpensive Catholic edition packed with Catholic artices on bible reading and living from Our Sunday Visitor and the whole package carries both USA and Canadian bishop's "Imprimatur".

The only place I've found the NRSV on "no no" lists is on outdated and poorly informed Internet paged.

owen swain said...

Pardon the above, multiple errors. Typing on a "smart"phone with auto"correct" is a painful thing.

Byzantine Rite Catholic said...

Regarding the NRSV being a 'no, no': Yes, it is employed in the Canadian Lectionary, but only in a revised form which conforms to Liturgiam Authenticam, which your NRSV's (all of you) will not. There are VERY good reasons NOT to use the NRSV - the Fathers would have rejected it based on the translation of Psalm 1 alone. The fact that St. John's used this translation for their 'illuminated' Bible is, frankly, disturbing. The theology of this translation is not compatible with historical, apostolic Catholicism.

David Garcia said...

BRC,
Two questions:

1. Why exactly is it disturbing that it was used for 'illuminated' Bible?
2. If the Vatican used it for the Catechism, that should be good enough for anyone.

This concept of using the NRSV is for PRIVATE use. This whole 'one bible for one year' journey is not about what translation is being used in the lectionary but rather about our private spiritual life and teaching and the NRSV is just fine for that. And the NRSV Catholic edition does have an imprimatur/nihil obstat. Do we now disregard those as well?

owen swain said...

Where opinion abounds grace abounds all the more. Peace. Out.

Russ NY said...

Byzantine:
I don’t know how many Church Fathers there were in the early church, both East and West, but I do know that you’re talking about a considerable number of people spread out over hundreds of years, and how anyone can say “the Fathers would have rejected it (the NRSV)” for their translation of Psalm 1 alone is most likely unknowable and unprovable. A quick internet search finds the great saints Jerome and Augustine on opposite sides when it came to interpreting Psalm 1. It would be interesting if someone would do a study on this, but I would imagine the Church Fathers are all over on this interpretation as much as we are today.

Now, back to my NRSV....



Gerald de Belen said...

Though I have my Daily Roman Missal, I think, "One Bible, One Year" challenge is a good personal one to do.

It would be nice to poll on which versions were used for the challenge.

But I'll choose an RSV-2CE for the challenge, maybe following the reading plan suggested by rolf, for various reasons:

1. So far, the RSV is the most ecumenical version available for Catholics, BRC would have to agree with this. This is the version preferred by 'conservative' Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics, Catholics that have love for the Latin liturgical heritage with a taste for modern language, and also for coming close to Protestants who are starting to love its cousin, the ESV.

2. Being the version mostly updated to Liturgiam Authenticam, this simply fits to the school of translation Vatican wants us to feel at home at.

3. Reading magnificent Biblical passages, especially those used in high liturgical days, is just astonishing and not watered down, either linguistically or theologically.

4. For me, RSV is the best mashup of KJV verbiage and Latin liturgical tradition. If only the Douaic heritage continued, maybe it could have flourished well or even better than the KJV heritage. So a nice compromise is RSV-2CE.

5. It also helps you increase your vocabulary, a dual purpose indeed.

David Garcia said...

Gerald,
I too love the original RSV for all the reasons you stated above. Wonderful translation.

But there are significant problems with the RSV-2CE...it comes in only ONE edition (that awful red cover), very poor binding, terrible font, did I mention the terrible cover?, loss of some majestic 'older' English that gave it its KJV flavor, no margins, cramped/odd-sized pages, weird cream colored pages, and no real cross references in the OT.

IF Ignatius could get it together or partner with a quality publishing house and put out a stellar-bound RSV-2CE, unfortunately that edition will never catch on like it should. So for now, sticking with the 'old' RSV is the better option.

If one wants a truly ecumenical modern translation, the CEB is the way to go (yes it has editions with the 'apocrypha').

rolf said...

David, I would have to side with Gerald on this one. I prefer the RSV-2CE because it eliminated a lot of the archaic language (especially in the Psalms). I like the cover on the Ignatius RSV-2CE, sure I wish it was genuine leather but that is not a problem that is unique to Ignatius. I only wish that the font size was 10-12, otherwise the pages are clean and easy to read. I don't write in my Bibles so I don't need space on the outer margins. The Didache Bible 'should' be coming out this month (hard cover) and by next year maybe we will have the full Ignatius Catholic Study Bible?!? As far as the binding on the RSV-2CE Bible goes, I bought mine in 2006 when they first came out and I am still using it. It was my main Bible from 2006-2011 and was used everyday and is still going strong! If someone dreads the cover design or bonded leather, you can put it in a genuine leather zippered cover (like I did).

Deacon Dave said...

Timothy & Owen...Thanks for the update and clarification on the NRSV. yes it was (I think) a webpage where I found that information). What is the Harper Catholic Bible that you mentioned, with the Catholic supplements? I would love to look it over. Thanks.

owen swain said...

Deacon Dave, the ISB for the Harper/Harperone Bible with the One Sunday Visitor section on Catholic spiritual living/scripture reading with the mind of the Church is 0062048376 [black] imitation leather - not even close to imitation leather but for 15.67 Canadian -and less USD I imagine, who can make a fuss? The dueterocanonical books are in their Catholic order.

Deacon Dave said...

Thanks Owen! Happy New Year and God bless!

owen swain said...

Thinking on Gerald's notes:

"1. So far, the RSV is the most ecumenical version available for Catholic", or so the publishing houses and marketers continue to claim. Maybe mid-last century but that is a highly contestable claim today.

"2. Being the version mostly updated to Liturgiam Authenticam, this simply fits to the school of translation Vatican wants us to feel at home at.", in public worship ie formal liturgy. Church does not make such a claim per personal study or even teaching per se outside of liturgy.

"3" not wanting to assume you imply that the othe translations discused in this thread are watered down :) The NRSV is more literal in meaning in the Hebrew Bible portion than the RSV, enough that the lack of Christological meanings historically imported on the text confuses many into assuming it to be theologically lite. Interestingly it is that accuracy to original documents that makes the NRSV more ecumenical than its predecessor RSV and later RSV "mashups" less so despite claims.

"4" want a real RSV mashup go for the RSV2CE for a bit o this and a bit o that to make us Catholics happy.

"5" That's true. Older language can stretch a person to the good.

I enjoy the RSV and it over it's "mashup" siblings the RSVCE/RSV2CE and would love to own the classic 1977 RSV-NOAK

That said, I truly value the NRSV and feel it unfortunate the bad rap it gets among certain Catholic camps and certain Protestant camps.

Anyway, on this the sixth day of our shared journey, the feast of the Epiphany and in my nation the feast day of St. Andre Bessette may we emulate his passion for the Gospels, for the reading and living oit of their truths in our life regardless of our (and I clearly include myself!) pet translation as a world looks on and reads the epistle of each of our lives looking for a reason for the hope the dwells within us.

P.S. The fully dramatized audio RSV- NT (Truth & Life) of a few years back is stellar. If only it were NRSV :-)

owen swain said...

Argh, smartphone typing errors. Apologies; again.

Above:

"othe translation" should read "other translation"

"1977 RSV-NOAK" should of course be "RSV-NOAB" as in New Oxford Annotated Bible.

Jason Engel said...

I just can't do it ;) I have too many beautiful Bibles in various translations and love them all on their own merits; to pick just one for a year when all those other beauties rest on my bedside table gathering dust....

So, I am attempting to commit to two reading plans for the year instead. One plan to take me thru the entire Bible in a year at 3-4 chapters per day cover to cover, and because I can't stand being in the OT for months on end a second plan that goes thru the NT in 90 days at 3-4 chapters per day (so I can get the NT 4 times in the upcoming year, plus double up on it during the last 3 months of the year).

*IF* I were going to commit to just one Bible for an entire year, it would probably be a HarperOne compact thinline NRSV with Apocrypha (I really really wish H.O. had created a Catholic compact like they created compacts of the other two editions of the NRSV). Yes, my ESV Heirloom Thinline is wonderful to hold; yes, my NLT Pitt Minion is my favorite compact of all time; yes, my rebound REB in green sokoto goatskin is the apple of my eye; none of them compare to the pure Awesome Sauce (TM) that is the NRSV, even in lowly bonded leather. Now if only the Saint John's Bible were a little more portable....

(Seriously, if an entire community of highly educated and deeply committed monks and nuns and priests spent 2+ years praying and researching and comparing translations and arrived at the answer that the NRSV is the best translation for the SJB to carry the Bible into the next 2,000 years, then it's good enough for a lowly sinner like me).

rolf said...

Jason, I feel your pain! That is why I decided to do a one year reading plan (through the entire Bible) with just one Bible, and still use other translations for prayer and other readings. It is hard enough for me to stay with one Bible for the reading plan alone, what can I say I am weak.

Gerald de Belen said...

For all NRSV users, I just want to ask these questions, because for a time before, I also considered it for using as my primary version.

1. How do you deal with unique renderings chosen by NRSV, especially those incompatible with liturgy, especially in the "virgin" in Isaiah, and "son of man" in Ezekiel and Daniel?

2. Too inclusive language, for me, is a bit misleading at times, especially those verses pertained by Jesus to an individual believer.

Erica McCrea said...

Gerald,

1. Daniel 7:13 has a footnote showing "Son of Man," as well as "Ancient of Days" where the NRSV has used "Ancient One." Isaiah 7:17 also mentions the Greek rendering, "virgin," in a footnote.These renderings are not unwarranted and are technically correct—I believe the Hebrew used in Isaiah does translate as "young woman." (Although I don't know Hebrew, just what I've read.) They are just less traditional, but the footnotes do a good job of showing different translations possibilities.

2. I haven't yet found a passage in the Gospels where the inclusive language bothers me, but as in translation variations, there is always a footnote showing the original, i.e. "him." I've been very surprised; I don't find the inclusive language to be as bothersome as I thought it might be.

Overall, the NRSV is a good translation. As much as I love my RSV, I have to say I find the NRSV a smoother read—many archaisms and odd sentence structures have been revised to make things more readable. Sure, it's been a challenge, because my memory usually recalls the older style, but for sitting down and reading, I think the NRSV offers a much better experience than its RSV cousin, and I'm even using the RSV-2CE. (Don't tell Ignatius I've switched sides...)

CarlHernz said...

Gerald,

While myself more inclined to use the NABRE, the reason for Isaiah 7:14’s rendition stems from two reasons: the direct reading of Hebrew text as recognized by the Church and a dramatic change in the meaning of the word “virgin,” especially since the 1960s.

Both the NRSV and now the NABRE provide a direct reading of Isaiah 7:14, providing the modern reader the closest experience to reading Hebrew themselves while using modern, currently understood terms. The text actually reads something closer to: “The maid is pregnant and will bear a son…”

The word for “maid” in my rendition is the closest term English has probably ever had for the Hebrew term “almah” in Isaiah 7:14. Unfortunately the English term “maid” has changed from its original meaning to an exclusive one describing a woman who cleans a home or a hotel room. It originally meant a “young woman” during an era when young women did not regularly engage in premarital sexual relations. Translators cannot use the word “maid” anymore because of the modern connotation. That being said they cannot rightly use “virgin” either in rendering Isaiah 7:14 from Hebrew because that would require a different Hebrew word, “betulah.”

St. Pope John Paul II made reference to this fact, stating: “In the Hebrew text this prophecy does not explicitly foretell the virginal birth of Emmanuel: the word used (almah), in fact, simply means ‘a young woman’, not necessarily a virgin. Moreover, we know that Jewish tradition did not hold up the idea of perpetual virginity, nor did it ever express the idea of virginal motherhood.”—“Isaiah’s Prophecy Fulfilled in Incarnation,” by Pope John Paul II as printed in L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 7 February 1996, page 11.

This doesn’t mean that the idea of a woman with her virginity intact was thrown out of the picture in ancient exegesis. The choice of the Jewish translators of the Septuagint show that a midrash reading of Isaiah had already developed to suggest that many saw an interpretation implying a miraculous conception in the verse.

Since the NRSV is a translation of Hebrew and note Greek or Latin versions of Isaiah, it offers the current English equivalent of "almah." The footnote to this verse tells us that the Greek Septuagint uses "virgin" in this instance.

As for terms like “son of man” for Ezekiel being changed to “mortal” in the NRSV, that is also very precise. While the term is literally “son of man,” the way it is used by God in Ezekiel is as a replacement for the prophet’s name to remind him of his insignificance in comparison with YHWH. The term could be paraphrased to something like “O, puny little human.” But I myself find “O mortal” as expressed in the NRSV inventive, smacking of usage found in science fiction and fantasy games more than giving the average reader a correct understanding of Ezekiel’s place in comparison with God--by that is my personal opinion on that rendering.

As for inclusive terminology about Jesus being problematic in the NRSV, you will have to give a specific example. It is true that readers unfamiliar with certain Hebrew texts and their meanings can miss out on some Christological typology offered by a more literal rendition in some instances.

CarlHernz said...

Just read my previous comment, and while apologizing for the typographical errors has become too often an earmark for my numerous skips on the keyboard, I do have something to add to it as well.

First the sentence in the next to the last paragraph, "But I myself find 'O mortal' as expressed in the NRSV inventive..." should read:

"But I myself find 'O mortal' as expressed in the NRSV too much of an invention...."

In other words I was saying that it can sound too much like a stretch of English to read that for some who are accustomed to typically hear that phrase in fantasy fiction genres (i.e., hearing an alien invader tell the citizens of earth that "mere mortals are no match for his superiority," etc., etc.)

What I wanted to add is that I am at a crossroads in Bible choosing myself and am considering following Timothy's own choice for Scripture usage in 2015.

Not only do I admire Tim, his viewpoint and his work very much, I have found that I do myself little favor by choosing to stick with the NABRE perhaps. It is by far one of the most literal renditions of the Scriptures I have found--and I say that as a Hebrew and Greek reader.

But it is tough to understand, often mirroring how difficult it can be to get through a passage in the original language when you are devoid of spiritual tradition. This is excellent from a critical standpoint and approaching the text from a purely academic focus, but making a scholar and making a disciple are not one in the same thing.

Jews do not read the Hebrew text completely devoid of tradition. In fact a traditional reading is generally chosen when we approach the sacred text, not a purely scholastic one. I have been reminded recently and repeatedly by clergy in the Church to make sure I bring such cherished facets of the Jewish people part of my contribution to Catholicism. Choosing to read a text that not only came about with Jewish scholarship but often preserves this approach in its rendition might be far more helpful to my spiritual help than I have previously thought.

The flow of the NRSV is definitely superior to other versions in English. And while the literal reading of the NABRE can indeed be beneficial and will surely benefit the Church for years to come, literalism doesn't always match what the Hebrew or Greek reader comes away with from the text. The words you read may literally be choppy and sound clunky, but what you understand can flow beautifully in the mind and soul. This makes the NRSV a good and balanced choice, one that I think I will be taking up myself this year.

Thanks again, Tim, for enlightening us by sharing something you are personally doing in your spiritual life.

Timothy said...

Carl,

It is always a pleasure to see you comment, I truly mean that! I appreciate your perspective on the NABRE, which most people simply overlook. It is a very good translation, which deserves not only wider readership but also to be bound in a beautiful, definitive edition. Over these past few days, there have been times when I have wondered if I should have gone with the NABRE for 2015.

Again, it is wonderful to see you in the comments!

owen swain said...

Carl,
Thank you for your considered responses and thank you indirectly from now needing to reply per the NRSV save to add two notes:


1. Should anyone wish to seriously seek answers to the accuracy and translation philosophy of the NRSV one need only search this blog to find considerable discussion already produced in posts and comment threads. And, the answers to the above questions as well as being addressed in the translator notes (which are an integral part of the translation itself) and the translations Introduction may be found on the Internet (rough there one must sift through a good deal of misinformation as well).

2. A seldom perhaps never addressed issue with the approach translation detractors take is so obvious once stated that one wonders why we do no see it stated. Namely, while we hold the Bible in the very highest esteem we are not people of the Book exclusively. The Bible is not the Catholics final source or only source of authority. How is this relevant to the kind of questions made above?

As a Protestant governed by the-bible-only I very much needed "my" translation to say as clearly and unequivocally as possible exactly what my tradition stated about doctrine and practice. I would have denied that, of course as that is isegesis. But we all knew that is what was going on, each theological camp favouring a particular translation over another because it said on key places what they needed it to say. It goes on to this day. That is, when all is said and done, why the ESV for example, exists.

As a Catholic I do not need my bible to say "full of grace" when a questionable at best case is made for it. I do not "need" OT verses to state in English the Christological truths I "know" are present - but that were not in the mind of the human author or their audience of the time - because I do not live and breathe by the-bible-only. I understand with the aid of 2000 years of Church teaching and I have a deeper respect for a translation that is historically accurate in its text. Why such a big deal then of the need for "Virgin", or "Son of man" let alone "son of man" when the original and oldest sources do not intend it? Why "chalice" or "full of grace" when the original and most authentic sources do not explicity provide for those choices? My faith is not shaken at all by "cup" or "favoured one" or "greetings" over the convention of "hail". If anything my faith is made more sure in an accurate translation partnered with a living teaching Church.

But sure, if someone needs their Isaiah to say "virgin" in order to "agree" with a Gospel writer's inspired interpretation of the passage in translation "young woman" "virgin" when addressing a different audience in a new time with new import in order that that Christian's faith not be shipwrecked, well and good. This personal or camp need need not be template onto others. And again, lest we forget, the concerns of L.A. In relation to translation as used for public liturgy is a different matter and has been noted and conveniently skipped over, above.

Speaking of the NAB/NABRE, it is an interesting blend in taking advantage of modern translation sciences in its text with notes mandated by its translation commissioning body that requires the inclusion of helpful explanatory notes to aid the casual or novice reader in making the Christological/Soteriological etc connections. I prefer the NRSV for reasons noted above but enjoy NAB/RE and respect it's qualities just mentioned.

Tim,
It won't be a sin and no one here will hold it against you should you suddenly and so early on wish to switch to the NABRE ;-)

Cheers, all.

owen swain said...

Tim,

Thanks for posting the above note is spite of more grammar and spelling errors - I really must quit replying via smartphone. I hope my intended meanings still show.

Two that just grate are my accidental reversal of, " "son of man" let alone "Son of man" " and my omission of "to" @ ""young woman" [to] "virgin" when ..."

Selah.

P.S. Would be lovely to have Theophrastus's input on this but he may be forgiven he's just grown weary of the NRSV debates. :)

Timothy said...

Owen,

No problem. Everyone who reads this blog puts up with my terrible grammar, so I am very liberal in overlooking others mistakes! :)

As for Theophrastus, I am sure he will be around. Perhaps I should get a bat signal, like in the old batman series.

Erica McCrea said...

Hahaha! "It's a bird, it's a plane, it's THEOPRHRASTUS!" But all jokes aside, I also really like the NABRE. It's not my favorite, but I say this as a former Protestant coming from a KJV-NKJV background—the RSV and NRSV just sound better to my ear because it's very similar to what I memorized as a kid. (Sometimes I type things on Bible Gateway and can't find verse numbers in the NRSV because of my KJV brain... :) )

What kills me with the NABRE is the usual layout—the double columns with one side as footnotes just make everything very hard for me to read. I've honestly been thinking about the Harper or St. Benedict NABREs because they have the notes at the bottom I think. Oxford puts them at the back, but I like notes on their pages. The translation itself is not bad, but the way most publishers print the notes is irritating.

rolf said...

Erica, the Little Rock Catholic Study Bible has single column NABRE text with the notes at the bottom of the page. The cross references are neatly on the outer page edge. It is a little chunky (2632 pages) but is very readable.

Ed Rio said...

I'm struggling with this already! Started off with the JB, then changed my mind and was going to read the RSV-2CE NT and Psalms (Mainly because of the convenient size)....BUT!....with it's paper color and kind of glossy pages it's not easy on my eyes at all! I know I'm overdue for an eye exam, but this is one book I have a hard time seeing clearly. Back to the JB study edition for me! (Except for Liturgy of the Hours.) Middle age must really be kicking in, because the top things wanted in a Bible are white matte paper with little/no bleed through and a nice sized clear type of font.

Gerald de Belen said...

Again I ignited a discussion here... :)

owen swain said...

Is that all this was Gerald? I thought your essential question was in an effort to genuinely learn. Ah well, to each there own.

P.S Again you'll need to include in your question group of "all NRSV users" the commissioners and editorial body of the CCC.

David Garcia said...

We are two weeks in and i just wanted to check in and see how everyone is doing with this discipline??? I am firmly committed to my CEB w/Apocrypha. :)

Dave

Timothy said...

Dave,

I've been doing some flirting with some others. Confession time! :)

David Garcia said...

Tim,

Oh come on! You sparked this and you are supposed to be the example! :::: waving finger::::: Tsk tsk....

Timothy said...

I'm weak

rolf said...

Ah Timothy, have you been spending a little 'extra' time with that new Didache Bible? Oh it always starts out that you are just reviewing it for the Blog, but when that is done your still reading it aren't you? Well look at the bright side, your 15 days into the one Bible challenge with only about ONE YEAR to go!

owen swain said...

Happily I am committed to my project that I had decided on prior to the extra motivation provided by Timothy. Namely making one bible my primary if not exclusive choice for 2015.

"The Life With God Bible, NRSV with Deuterocanonical Books" ISBN - 13: 9780061627026 is proving to be a gem that it is becoming my constant (all be it over only 15 days) choice and the more I use it the less I tend to reach for the others. This is what I want to engage my heart and soul and practice not only my mind; practical wisdom and experience not merely the knowledge pursuit of translation and notes version comparison and information accumulation (this is not a reflection of what I think others are/were doing but what most of my own bible-activity had become of late).

Timothy said...

I am still on the boat! Have yet to abandon the "One Bible, One Year" initiative. Always nice to see new Bibles, but I am happy with the NRSV. Although I am contemplating switching up the compact for the New Life with God. I like the size of the print a bit more.

owen swain said...

Oooo, nice re-choosing choice, there Timothy. Mind you, I'm openly biased on that possible choice ;-)

David Garcia said...

Owen... would you be able to post an actual picture of one of the pages with Bible text? The previews on Amazon only show the introduction and index. So I don't know what the Bible text pages look like. IS this single column? Double? Cross-references? Devotional only?

Thanks!!!

Dave

Timothy said...

Dave,

Check this site. Christian book has an excerpt:

http://www.christianbook.com/revised-standard-version-deuterocanonical-imitation-leather/9780061627026/pd/627026?product_redirect=1&Ntt=9780061627026&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCG

owen swain said...

David, thanks for your question.

Better than page scan or photo here's a very full preview - better than Amazon's


http://browseinside.zondervan.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061627026

Double column text. Double column notes. Though I prefer what I have seen of, I think it's you, you're favoured CEB in terms of layout. However, the text and note text is very readable.

No cross references in the text, some in the notes though not enough to make it useful for "study" per se.

I find the notes to be both study and devotional with the study being nothing academic in the way of the NOAB say yet more practical in terms of application to life that what I read in the NABRE/Little Rock (which I found to be good basic Catholic informational with interesting liturgical tie-ins but discupleship-practical-lite).

The text-notes and the broader notes follow the Spiritual Disciplines as laid out by Renovare ministries, that is to say very ecumenical, very generous toward Catholic/Orthodox tradition and at times even Tradition and heavily informed by historic Catholic monastic/mystic practice.

Timothy has a review from several years ago which I only very recently found while searching the internet in order to consider purchasing this book.

http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2009/08/life-with-god-bible-review.html

owen swain said...

Ah, cross posted with Timothy's linking to the same location. Cheers :)

David Garcia said...

Thanks fellas!!

David Garcia said...

Owen,
Excellent thanks!! Yes, the CEB study Bible is by far my favorite layout of any 'study' Bible. The problem is that it's a beast! SO I use it for study with a text decotone CEB with apocrypha for every day (2015 one bible challenge).

Thanks again! This Bible may need to be obtained by me. ;)

Dave

Gerald de Belen said...

Oh well, I got misunderstood here. I was meant to put my comment in a light delivery. I didn't expect opinions to explode. I didn't thought that my remarks will be taken diligently. No playing intended. I apologize.