Ascension Press has released an FAQ page with basic information and pricing for their upcoming editions of the Catholic American Bible (CAB), planned for publication on Ash Wednesday (February 10th) of 2027. There will be several options, ranging from a simple paperback to premium natural grain leather:
- Paperback: $19.99
- Leatherlike: Standard Print in black, brown, green, and white or Large Print in black and brown, beginning at $39.99
- Standard Leather: Standard Print and Large Print in red, beginning at $59.99
- Premium Leather: Standard Print and Large Print in black, beginning at $119.99
- Premium Natural Grain Leather: Standard Print and Large Print in black, beginning at $189.99
All editions will feature typsetting by 2K/Denmark and newly-created line art inspired by the olive tree. An edition of the Great Adventure Catholic Bible using the CAB translation is also planned, but it is not clear from the FAQ whether it will be published at the same time as the other editions above or at a later date.
A few other details caught my attention in the FAQ:
- The updated four-volume lectionary using the CAB translation is scheduled for a vote by the USCCB in November of 2026 (next month).
- The footnotes in the CAB will primarily focus on understanding the canonical text without delving into areas of scholarly debate, unless the scholarly debate is relevant for understanding the text as it currently stands. I suspect this means that a lot of the NT notes from the 1986 NAB New Testament speculating on which parts of the gospel traditions can be ascribed to the Q source (as one example) are unlikely to be carried over into the CAB.
Great news about the notes. I wonder if this will lead to greater adoption.
I do wonder about the sales, no version of the NAB has ever appeared on the “10 Best Selling Bibles” lists you often see because all of the retailers that those lists are made from are evangelical book sellers who don’t sell any Catholic Bibles. But there are about 70 million Catholics in the US, and nearly every teen who goes through CCD or OCIA is given a copy. Even if no other copy was sold (unlikely), that has to be sales of millions every year. I would be very surprised if the NAB isn’t among the highest-selling Bible in the United States.
I believe at my parish we give out the New Catholic Bible from Catholic Bible Press, but I do agree with you that the NABRE is probably more popular than it seems. This is anecdotal but it seems like the RSV-2CE is more popular with apologists I follow (it is a great translation though too!)
The RSV-2CE was extremely niche before the Bible in a Year podcast gave it a megaphone and instantly made it better known to laypeople. You were often much more likely to see the original RSV-CE still being cited, though I’ve noticed Catholic Answers and other Catholic publishers seem to have finally moved on to the 1971 RSV. While it’s still very much an “Apologist’s Bible,” the combination of the Great Adventure Bible, the aforementioned podcast, and the completion of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible did a lot for its reputation. Kind of like how Word on Fire single-handedly tried to rehabilitate the NRSV-CE’s reputation online.
The Catechism uses the RSV, although this is likely because the catechism is geared towards the entire English-speaking world and not just the United States. In addition, I think the RSV likely has a lower licensing cost and a less restrictive license.
I get the sense that the NAB licensing fees are rather high, with much stricter terms. I mean, there must be some reason other than personal preference why almost all Catholic authors, even those in the US, cite the RSV rather than the NAB
Would be good to have the Great Adventure Bible in an edition with the CAB translation (including its introductions and footnotes), thereby it becoming more of a genuine study Bible.
Still hoping for a single column edition at some point.
Anything will be better than the various incarnations of the NAB translation. I will hold off purchasing until I read some passages of the CAB. It can’t possibly be worse, can it?
Don’t ask unless you want to find out…
Here are some verses for you to compare:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQPSQjDeRZWJvFbjfh1G69E9grtpH7dQTHPv-PRxazYQmyWePxx0DT5Z1Pw7NoKeA/pub
I’m just glad the CAB is rendering Peter’s Aramaic name as “Kephas” rather than “Cephas.” Once the new lectionary comes out, I will no longer have to endure lectors calling him “See-fus.”
Depends on your definition of worse. It seems quite possible the OT is the NAB OT (with the exception of the Abbey Psalms). Only the NT is technically new.
Revisions to the OT are confirmed; we don’t know how extensive they will be. As long as they change Genesis 1:1-2 and Issiah 9:6 to something resembling linguistic sanity, it would be huge improvement.
Even if the NAB preserves some of the most disliked translations in certain passages, I’m willing to bet that revising the notes will lead many critics to soften on the CAB, even if they now just think it’s bland. After all, in my experience, a lot of the critics go after the translation just because they were already going after the notes, or are ill-informed and are actually just criticizing the original 1970 NAB still.
The notes are really bad, though, for example, the note in Luke about Simeon’s statement to Mary saying “a sword will pierce your heart also”, is that it refers to the pain Mary experiences when Jesus “disowns her”….it is just absolutely amazing to read that in a Catholic Bible.
On the other hand, the Orthodox Study Bible, the NET Full Notes Edition, and the ESV Study Bible say it refers to the agony Mary will experience seeing her son being crucified. When evangelical commentaries are more Catholic than a Bible published by the Catholic bishops, you know things are pretty bad.
Can anything good come out of the ESV Study Bible?
I’ll still wait until it’s actually out before buying anything, because I want to see the CAB text and notes myself first, but I wouldn’t be opposed to the most expensive “premium natural grain leather” option, simply because it would save me the cost of just rebinding the CAB myself, which I’d planned to do long before we even knew what it’d be called. I just don’t want to leap into such a purchase blind and then learn there’s actually a bunch of typos in the first printing.
Found some potentially new information– publishers just started being given access to the New Testament text as of a couple days ago, which probably explains the TAN preorder delay and the lack of images.
https://www.catholicpublishers.org/news/catholic-american-bible-slated-for-february-2027-publication
I’ve always considered each version of the NAB to be a gauge or barometer for judging the state of the American Church and its bishops. The text and notes in the 1970 version were a warning to us that Catholicism was in trouble. The 1986 NT text was an improvement in some ways, but the notes were worse than the previous version. Sound, responsible interpretation was giving way to scholarly theories, often more Protestant than Catholic, and sometimes contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The 1990 Psalter told us that the translators were willing to sacrifice clarity and fidelity to political pressure. And the present revised OT contains an improved text and notes in many places, but it is troubling in others. I don’t see how it could be the basis for liturgical texts, as is. I’ll be very interested to see what further changes will be made to the CAB OT, and I’ll be thrilled if only the number of controversial notes in the NT is substantially reduced. I see the logic in requiring that all Catholic Bibles must be supplemented with footnotes. But this is no longer logical when those footnotes question or contradict Catholic teaching. And it all reveals an awful lot – and I do mean “awful” – about the state of our bishops.
I would sincerely love to be able to make the CAB my main Bible version for teaching, but it’s hard to imagine, considering its history. For now, I prefer the New Catholic Bible. It’s certainly not perfect, but at least it follows a more traditional rendering of key passages and spares one the shock translations of the NAB lineage.
No, I think you are right. I don’t know if you have ever actually seen the original 1970 NAB New Testament, but it is very late 60s, and not in a good way. It deliberately avoids using conventional Biblical or theological language; it doesn’t even speak of the “Kingdom of God”; it speaks rather of the “dominion of God”. It is very hippy dippy.
The 1986 New Testament is a step in the right direction, as it restores more traditional language, but it still isn’t very literal, and it involves some rather obnoxious and unnecessary “inclusive language”, although not nearly as bad as the NRSV 3 years later.
The 1991 Psalms are, in general, atrocious, with lots of unnecessary inclusive language.
Now, the 2011 OT and Psalms are a dramatic step in the right direction; the revision was substantial and mostly for the better, especially in the Psalms, where much of the traditional language from the KJV/RSV/NRSV has been introduced. If there is a problem, it is that the revisions were too conservative, leaving too many bad renderings, such as Genesis 1:1-2 and Isaiah 9:6, untouched.
I think we have good reason to believe the next revision will be significantly better.
As you note, the quality of each revision is a reflection of the state of the Catholic bishops at the time it was done. The 70s-90s were bad; you had bishops like Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee saying that he was proud of the fact that the Catholics in his diocese were ignorant of their faith (I wish I was making this up. He really did say this), and you had bishops like Raymond Lucker of New Ulm, Minnesota, who was a member of Call to Action. (Remember them?)
But thanks to the appointments of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the quality of bishops increased (Bishop Robert Baron is still something of a liberal on doctrine, but he is light-years ahead of someone like Weakland).
Moreover, in the early 2000s, “Progressive” Catholicism imploded, and it has been in rapid decline ever since, which is why the 2011 OT is so much better than the 1970.
How is Bishop Barron “liberal” on doctrine?
He’s not, unless you wanna play “gotcha” with every word someone says, which I don’t. I’m extremely grateful for his ministry and presence in the Church.
Me too!
It is clear from what he has said that he has been exposed to fairly “progressive” views as part of his priestly formation, for example, when he said “Christ is the privileged path to salvation”, which sounds like universalism, or his repeated references to God as a “parent” on his “Catholicism” series, he seemed to be going out of his way to avoid using masculine language.
Perhaps because he questions whether any souls are in hell and because he’s said that the Church is too concerned about the “pelvic issues”? I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard the pelvic issues mentioned in a homily – ever. Rather, the Church is scandalously silent about that whole category of sin.
Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins; save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of your mercy.
Yes, I’ve read the 1970 NAB. “John the baptizer” comes to mind. And I totally agree with your post. I’m cautiously optimistic about the CAB, but certainly not naive. We’re not out of trouble yet.
I groan every time I look at the list of revisers for the 1986 NAB New Testament. Oh, Theodore McCarrick – isn’t that just lovely? Perhaps I should throw that NT in the trash, together with Rupnik’s art works.
For a long time, I’ve wanted to write an article called “The Gay American Bible.” I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the subtle rehabilitation of homosexuality in the NAB footnotes paralleled the height of the clerical sex scandals in America. Sodom has become just another city that was guilty merely of social injustices, nothing more.
Again, the qualities of the NAB have been a reliable reflection of the qualities of the American clergy. And I can’t help but suspect that the flaws of that version were a subtle preparation for the homosexual frenzy that was brewing in the American Church.
McCarrick was only one of dozens of contributors; I doubt his contributions were any more substantial than those of anyone else on the committee. It is my understanding that his name has been carefully edited out, which seems absurd to me; you can’t rewrite history.
I pray one day I will be alive to see a new Catholic Bible in English with the Septuagint psalm numbering and no inclusive language.
Amen!
There is zero possibility of Septuagint numbering. It would be the only English Bible in print with such a numbering and would confuse pretty much everyone except the most academically inclined
The GACB uses Masoretic numbering, with LXX number in brackets (e.g. Psalm 51[50] )
Catholic Bible Press’s RSV-2CE also uses Masoretic with LXX numbering in brackets
Not a Catholic Bible, but the forthcoming Ancient Christian Study Bible from Oxford, hopefully coming next year, will probably use Septuagint psalm numbering as the primary. Also, the Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) Old Testament project appears to have been revived, with a planned completion date of “approximately two years.” That’ll likely do the same.
My personal wish at this point in my faith life is that the American church could accept a lectionary text, knowing full well that it is imperfect and that no translation will ever be perfect, without trashing the people who created it or the bishops who approved it. God knows that many bishops have failed the Church in many ways, but they are also the ones who have responsibility for His Church. I’ve done my share of criticizing the NAB. When I was younger, I thought I was “in the know” and had a sense of personal pride and superiority because I switched from the NAB to the RSV-2CE. As I’ve gotten older, I look back on my mentality then as being too motivated by dissentions, factions, and party spirit (Galatians 5:20). I’m weary of the infighting.
Believe it or not, I agree with you, Marc. I’m weary of all the infighting, too, and would hate to contribute one iota to it. But I care profoundly about evangelization and catechesis, and the lectionary is the only exposure to sound Catholic teaching that most Catholics receive. Most hear not a word from the Catechism, nor do they study it on their own, nor are they encouraged to do so. So, there are just those two or three readings from Holy Mass. And as if to undermine the force even of those, there are the long-form/short-form options for the Gospel Reading. These are often based, not on the length of the reading, but on its content. If there is a moderate length Gospel Reading that contains one of Our Lord’s “hard sayings” – something moral that contradicts American libertinism – then THAT becomes the portion omitted in the short form. Hence, we’re in a battle even at Holy Mass regarding “all those who, holding to the truth, pass on the Catholic and Apostolic faith.” There is a concerted effort to keep from the faithful some portion of the Gospel that violates American secularism and the culture of death and perversity. At the very least, then, we desperately need a solid translation of Holy Scripture that is clear and faithful and that does not affirm something in the text but then question or deny it in the footnotes. And the NAB lineage is notorious for doing this.
So, I don’t think we lay people can indulge in the luxury of standing by and letting the clergy always have their way. That’s precisely what allowed the sex scandals to happen. And don’t forget the Covid 19 sacramental blackout. We were denied the sacraments, even as we were suffering and dying. I consider that to be one of the most important lessons in ecclesiology.
It’s not as if we’re lambasting the clergy. A couple restrained comments about bishop Baron doesn’t add up to clergy-bashing. After all, he is known for trying to get around a defined dogma of the Church called hell and its eternity. How on earth can he reconcile this with the words of Christ? I once tried to discuss this issue with him on his YouTube channel, but he simply deleted and locked the comments. So much for the participation of the laity in the mission of the Church! And yes, this topic just happens to be one of the pet peeves of liberalism.
Hey there, brother, I absolutely sympathize with some of the lectionary issues you mentioned, and your anger at the suspension of public Masses during Covid. But, simply for the sake of defending someone’s good name, I’d direct you to this section of Word on Fire’s website, where Bishop Barron actually has an FAQ regarding his position on the nature of eschatological hope – which is regularly misrepresented. https://www.wordonfire.org/hope/
I certainly wouldn’t want to be mischaracterized as a Modernist and/or universalist just because I held an optimistic eschatological view!
And Marc: AMEN!!
Father –
I’ve read through the linked website and I have to say that Bishop Baron seems to have softened his stance. Now the emphasis is on not INSISTING that everyone will be saved. Clever. I guess he’s had to modify his stance as a bishop, and my disagreement with him goes back to when he was a priest.
He was the right man to provide the forward for Balthasar’s book, Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? It was this situation that caused Fr. John Hardon to refuse to be published by Ignatius Press. So, this disagreement doesn’t come down to one puny insignificant little layman.
From the Diary of Saint Faustina:
“Today, I was led by an angel to the chasms of hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of torture I saw: the first torture that constitutes hell is the loss of God; the second is perpetual remorse of conscience; the third is that one’s condition will never change; the fourth is the fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it- a terrible suffering, since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God’s anger; the fifth torture is continual darkness and a terrible suffocating smell, and, despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own; the sixth torture is the constant company of Satan; the seventh torture is horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies. These are the tortures suffered by all the damned together, but that is not the end of the sufferings. There are special tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings, related to the manner in which it has sinned. There are caverns and pits of torture where one form of agony differs from another. I would have died at the very sight of these tortures if the omnipotence of God had not supported me. Let the sinner know that he will be tortured throughout eternity, in those senses which he made use of to sin. I am writing this at the command of God, so that no soul may find an excuse by saying there is no hell, or that nobody has ever been there, and so no one can say what it is like.
I, Sister Faustina, by the order of God, have visited the abysses of hell so that I may tell souls about it and testify to its existence. I cannot speak about it now, but I have received a command from God to leave it in writing. The devils were full of hatred for me, but they had to obey me at the command of God. What I have written is but a pale shadow of the things I saw. But I noticed one thing: that most of the souls there are those that disbelieved that there is a hell. When I came to, I could hardly recover from the fright. How terribly souls suffer there” (#741)!
Please note especially these statements:
“I am writing this at the command of God, so that no soul may find an excuse by saying there is no hell, or that nobody has ever been there, and so no one can say what it is like.”
“But I noticed one thing: that most of the souls there are those that disbelieved that there is a hell.”
As a reminder, this blog post is about Ascension Press releasing 5 editions of the Catholic American Bible in 2027. This is not the place to be arguing about Bishop Barron. I very rarely close comments on this blog, but this discussion has gone incredibly far off topic. This is a courtesy warning.
The “long” and “short” readings are made by the Vatican.
I agree that the short reading sometimes distorts the reading. One classic example is the Parable of the Talents, where the short version has the praise of the first two servants but omits the condemnation of the third.
But that is a universal lectionary; it is like that for all languages in all countries. That is not something the US bishops have control over. FWIW, I have seen a parish read the short reading.
I know it’s the lectionary as it comes from Rome that has the short reading options. I didn’t claim it was an American arrangement, but only that it suits American secularism.
Amen ^^
Thanks for that.
Thank you. My comments were based on the bishop’s own statements, not on hearsay. Perhaps he’s somewhat modified his position. I hope he has. And I did not call him a modernist, nor a universalist, nor even directly even a liberal.
That was how I was as well, back in my 20s. It was just arrogance and pride on my part. I remember refusing to use the NRSV and the NABRE because of inclusive language. When I would compare the NRSV with the RSV, most of the time I’d prefer the former over the latter, but would refuse to admit it to myself!
Sadly, for many of us, the good Lord above doesn’t remove the scales from our eyes all at once, but rather by piecemeal.
Thank you. My comments were based on the bishop’s own statements, not on hearsay. Perhaps he’s somewhat modified his position. I hope he has. And I did not call him a modernist, nor a universalist, nor directly even a liberal.
Understood, thanks. God be with you in your prayer and study!
May the Lord remember us all!
Most Holy Theotokos, intercede for our clergy.
Here we have one of the most influential and respected Catholic evangelists since the death of Blessed Fulton Sheen, and yet there are some who prefer to point out the speck in his eye rather than acknowledge the good he is doing for the Church. I am guessing they may not be able to see this irony because of something blocking their view 😉 …I certainly know what that is like because I have often struggled with beam-vision myself
This has gotten so out of hand. A couple of us have made statements about bishop Baron and those statements were challenged. So, we explained and defended our positions, and now we’re being accused. If you don’t agree with us, so be it. But the heat and volume here are due to our having to explain ourselves.
Theologians far more intelligent than I have made the same criticisms of the bishop’s statements about hell. They just didn’t make them here.
Please read the statements from Saint Faustina that I’ve left, and then let’s all just drop the discussion.
From Fr. John Hardon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNyeGPACoFo
I’m really hoping for preview images soon for the interior of the Ascension CAB editions (and for that matter the TAN editions). I am on the autism spectrum, and certain fonts (such as the front in CBP’s large print NABRE) really do wonky things for my sensory issues.
Some of the most pleasing fonts and easier on my sensory issues are the Augustine Institute’s ESV-CE and the Zondervan NRSVue text block.
Fascinating, thanks for sharing! I really like the Augustine Institute’s and Cambridge’s ESV-CE fonts, but I can barely read the Catholic Bible Press NABRE and Zondervan NRSVue fonts – they appear fuzzy and cramped to me…
I am unsure about whether I will ever buy a CAB bible. I already have a number of translations, and will have the CAB translation read to me at Mass. I will likely get a daily missal with the new translation. But a separate bible for an unremarkable translation? I’m not sure I see a compelling reason. After all, the OT is apparently unchanged apart from the Psalms, so the rest will not get the Abbey swap. I’m already not looking forward to hearing Wonder Woman’s therapist proclaimed at Christmas (Isaiah 9:5’s “Wonder-Counselor”). Not just the RSV2CE, but the NCB too seem better in terms of traditional rendering.
What would be your motivation to get a CAB?