Monday, March 27, 2017

NLT-CE Poll

Will you purchase the new NLT-CE when it is released in the Fall?
Yes
No
Thinking About It
poll generator

26 comments:

Ed Rio said...

Count me out. The Oxford large print NABRE meets my needs! I need to chisel out daily time to read that. It's been a slow process getting into a routine since Mom came home.

Biblical Catholic said...

Only if it is available as an e-book.

Deacon Dave said...

On one hand want to purchase to show interest/support...on the other I never buy hardbound or paperback Bibles and would wait for a duraflex/faux leather/bonded leather edition. Really do not want yet ANOTHER Bible on the bookshelf unless it will be used.

rolf said...

Yes, because any non-Catholic publisher who is 'wanting' to publish a Catholic edition of the Bible is rare!

Erap10 said...

Wow so far the votes are generally even

Robert C. said...

Can we possibly expect a Tyndale Select edition in edge-lined goatskin or calfskin?

Timothy said...

That will only happen if this edition is purchased by enough people so to suggest that there is a market to do a premium. I hope so.

Jerry Mc Kenna said...

I put myself on the mailing list. It all depends on money.

Eric Barczak said...

The number of thees/thys/thous is directly proportional to my level of interest.

(In other words, very little to none)

Anonymous said...



Well, considering that I probably have access to over 25 different Bible translations - most of which were free - contained within two little Bible apps alone. I can't really justify buying another Bible. Although, it does look like a nice edition

Pax,
John

Russ said...

I'm a bit surprised at all the "no" votes.

Anonymous said...

I voted no. Nothing against the translation, I just have no use for it.My next Bible purchase is going to be a nice Douay-Rheims from Baronious Press.

Anonymous said...

I voted no, after looking at the translation online. It didn't seem to fill any particular niche left by all the many translations I already have, or improve on any one of them in a discernible way. The only other thing that could possibly interest me is a proper "premium bible", because of the lack of "premium" in Catholic bibles. I might be convinced to buy a "meh" translation for its pretty clothes, just for the novelty. But this one is plain.

I see little value in supporting Protestant publishers in making Catholic editions by buying bibles I do not particularly want. I don't think that that will do much at all, and if it does something, I'm not sure that it will do the right thing. If that publisher's bottom line ticks up marginally, will they understand that the message I'm sending is "mediocre translation in a forgettable packaging, but here's some charity money to encourage you to do better"? I doubt it.



Anonymous said...

This is an interesting post - Thank you Timothy.
I voted "no"...,but not because I have any strong dislike for the NLT. To be honest I'm actually not familiar with it, other than having a couple of close Protestant friends who use it as well as others for their various scriptural studies and readings.
I don't feel "wanting" for another translation at the moment, especially since Catholics already have the Douay-Rheims, RSV-CE, Knox, NAB-RE, and others, etc...
Now, if Tyndale announced they were to release the above translations in a premium edition...that might be a different story :)
To each his own...

Timothy said...

Of course, if this edition doesn't sell, there will be no future editions in any translation. This has been an issue for a long time, whenever a Protestant or secular publisher offers a Catholic Bible. They will not invest the resources in future premium or at least quality editions if they think no one will buy them. Same thing happened when Zondervan published a lovely NRSV Catholic Women's Devotional Bible.

Anonymous said...

That's a great point, but I just can't justify spending $25 on a translation I won't use with the hope that Tyndale, or any other publisher, "might" produce a premium Bible in a Catholic preferred translation down the road...
Then again, I completely understand if this is a translation you will use often and benefit from...

Biblical Catholic said...

I voted 'maybe' because I'm not really a fan of the NLT, and I already have so many Bibles that it is hard for me to justify even one more.

I don't really find that it could persuade publishers to invest more in Catholic Bibles all that persuasive.

The two Bibles that I wold most like to see in a Catholic Edition are the ESV and the NASB, and the reason why neither of those exists is because of antI-Catholic sentiment by the publisher, not economics. Nothing except the copyright being sold to a new publishers else is going to convince Crossway Publishing of the Lockway Foundation to invest in a Catholic Bible.

Anonymous said...

FWIW, I've recently asked the Lockman (not Lockway) Foundation about publishing a NASB with Apocrypha. Their answer was that they would not publish a combined bible, but possibly a separate NASB Apocrypha volume. They said that it is not a priority considering their other editorial projects (after all, they are about to publish a revision again), but they did not say that it is unthinkable.

Russ said...

To be honest, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, but I can't see purchasing an old relic of a bible like the DR. I think some Catholics are of the opinion that the DR was written on parchment by Peter and Paul and the rest of the apostles, and then handed on to their successors. It's like some of our Protestant friends when it comes to the King James Version. If you listen to some of them you would think that the King James Version was given to Moses on Mount Sinai and it's been in circulation ever since. I would much rather read a new Catholic version of the dynamic NLT based on much better manuscripts than one of those old translations where every other word you have to look up in the dictionary because the words aren't in use any longer. They were fine for their time but there is simply better products out there.Heck, I would read a new translation of the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita over those ancient translations.

To each his own...

Anonymous said...

The Douay-Rheims is a literal translation of the Vulgate. The Council of Trent "... ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition ... be ... held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever." The Challoner revision of the DR, which is what most people today call the DR, corrected the DR towards readability largely based on the King James Version. That's interesting for two reasons. First, whatever one might think about the Anglicans, the KJV simply is one the literary masterpieces of the English language. Second, the KJV translation of the OT did include the Deuterocanonicals (if separated out as Apocrypha), and its NT was based on the "Textus Receptus", like basically all early Protestant NTs. Ironically, the Textus Receptus was compiled by Erasmus, a Catholic priest, and dedicated to Pope Leo X. Furthermore, it was compiled largely from late Greek manuscripts in the Byzantine text family. That's by far the largest group of available NT manuscripts, and as the name indicates, basically represents the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Erasmus however "massaged" these Eastern Orthodox sources to be compatible with the Latin. So the Challoner DR was indirectly aligned with Erasmus' homogenisation of Eastern and Western textual tradition, through the lens of one of the masterpieces of English literature.

I think the modern preference of the Masoretic text (over the Septuagint and Vulgate) and the Alexandrian-dominated Nestle-Aland type of compilations over a Textus Receptus style Byzantine-Latin fusion are well-meaning, but mistaken. They basically ignore the weight of Church tradition, which to me guarantees the spiritual correctness of the biblical text, and instead try to establish a "historical" correctness in a (frankly not well-defined) search for the "original" text.

To me the real problem with the Douay-Rheims-Challoner is simply the lack of a decent update. I want a modern bible that corresponds to what the Church and her saints have read, from the Church Fathers to the Scholastics, in West and East, not some text that fulfils some current academic opinions of being close to the original. (I'm afraid the Knox translation doesn't quite do that trick for me...)

Biblical Catholic said...

"FWIW, I've recently asked the Lockman (not Lockway) Foundation about publishing a NASB with Apocrypha."

Yes, I know it is Lockman, notice how it came right after I said Crossway, it was a typo.

Anyway, I really like the NASB, easily the most literal of all the modern translations.

It if wasn't the RSV and the NRSV, the NASB would be the best translation on the market. The NASB is more literal than either the RSV or the NRSV, but significantly less literary, unlike the RSV and NRSV, the NASB doesn't really have any truly memorable passages that stick with you long after you read them.

It was created due to the negative evangelical response to the 1952 RSV and was designed to be a more conservative alternative to the RSV, which they considered a 'liberal' Bible. If it wasn't for the RSV, the NASB would be a slam dunk best translation available, but with the RSV, the very existence of the NASB is a little more difficult to justify.

Truthfully, the same could be said about the ESV I think. Indeed, given that estimates are that the text of the ESV is more than 94% identical to the 1971 RSV, it is even more difficult to make a case for the existence of the ESV.

But I would love to see both Bibles in a Catholic Edition anyway, even if neither is as good as the RSV or NRSV.


In general, I don't really much care for the whole dynamic equivalent school of translation. For one thing, dynamic equivalence is a philosophy which tends to lead to incredibly biased translation, It is much more difficult to impose a bias on a literal translation precisely because the requirements of the translation philosophy tend to prevent excessive paraphrase and to stick to the text. All literal translations tend to say essentially the same thing, so there isn't a lot of room for bias. When your philosophy is 'I am going to stick to the exact words of the original as much as possible' you don't really have a lot of leeway to impose a bias. Moreover, dynamic translations they are rarely quotable or memorable.

Mark D. said...

I checked off "mabye." I see a definite value in having a dynamic equivalence translation on the shelf next to a more literal translation. My normal combination is the NEB with Apocrypha used together with the NABRE. My NEB is getting long in the tooth and I have been preparing myself for the day when it shuffles off the mortal coil. I've got a copy of The Message Catholic Edition and I like it (I've been using it since Advent as my main Bible) so I don't know if I will need another dynamic/paraphrase translation in the near future. I may just stick with The Message and use it combination with the NABRE. However, if I didn't already have a copy of the The Message, I would be strongly tempted to take a look at a good quality Catholic edition of the NLT to use alongside the NABRE.

Now, what I would really like is a mainstream translation that didn't have the word "New" in the title! I mean, c'mon: NRSV, NJB, NABRE, NEB, NIV, NASB...sheesh.

Biblical Catholic said...

What I do wonder about, with the use of the word 'New' is what comes after 'New', do they add 'Revised' in front of it again?

For example, if and when the New Revised Standard Version is revised, what will its name be? Will it be the 'Revised New Revised Standard Version'? And then maybe the next one after that can become 'New Revised New Revised Standard Version.'

Once you call something 'New' that seems to be the end, you can't really go anywhere from there.

Francesco said...

Likely they'll just keep the name as-is. Worked for the NAB between 1986 and 2011 and the NIV since 2011.

Biblical Catholic said...

The NAB didn't change its name, that is true, but it did have indications on the cover that the text had been revised, calling itself 'The New American Bibe with Revised New Testament and Psalms'

Steve Molitor said...

Re the NRSV Catholic Women's Devotional Bible, my wife has that bible. I gave it to her as her confirmation gift. I was her sponsor.

She brought it to bible study at a parish in the neighborhood we had just moved to, and proudly showed off her new bible. The moderator told her it was a "Protestant" bible, and that furthermore she had a protestant attitude towards biblical interpretation. She had trouble accepting certain passages literally, which was "protestant". That's completely backwards of course, but they were hazing her in a weird sort of way. She had told them she was a new Catholic, and I guess they were going to show her how to be a 'real' catholic or something. But they were completely ignorant of catholic teaching, and the bible.

We found a different parish in a our new neighborhood (and it turned out our home is in the new parish boundaries anyway).