Just wanted to pass along an update concerning the NAB that was posted by Mary Sperry, who serves as associate director for USCCB permissions and NAB utilization. On the Fans of the NABRE Facebook page, she made the following announcement:

“I was going to put this in the comments of an earlier post, but it’s a big enough deal to deserve its own post! The liturgical edition of the NAB, including the revised NT, is going to the bishops for approval for liturgical use in November 2024. I’m not sure which day that vote will be on the agenda.”

Later in the comments, she mentioned: “If it is approved, it goes to Rome for confirmation. Once confirmed, we begin the publishing process.”

40 thoughts on “NAB Revision Update”

  1. So realistically 2026? Rome will probably take at least 9 months? So, August 2026 for Rome’s approval at the earliest. And then starting the publishing process.

    1. This is almost the same schedule as in 2010; the vote was only about 3 or 4 months earlier. I think the USCCB vote was in June or July 2010, and it was published on Ash Wednesday in 2011. It doesn’t have to be a long process. I think it will probably be published either on the feast day of Saint Jerome in September (a traditional date for publishing new Bible translations) or, if not by then, by the first week of Advent in November.

      1. The 2010 Old Testament did not go to the body of bishops or to Rome. It was approved by the USCCB Administrative Committee in September 2010 and published in March 2011.

    1. I could be wrong, but I think I remember Mary mentioning (a year ago) that they were considering a new name for the NAB.

      1. A name change is probably long overdue. It was named “New American” both because of a little patriotic pride that it was the first brand new translation from scratch to originate in the US and be entirely the work of American scholars and because they were hoping it would be an ecumenical Bible adopted by some Protestant churches that read the deuterocanonical books in church, such as the Episcopal church. Both things are now irrelevant, and the name is too similar to the “New American Standard”, so much so that when talking about the NAB online on a forum with non-Catholics some think you are talking about the NASB. The NAB came first, by about a year, but the NASB is more widely known in Protestant and evangelical circles.

        1. They want to take out the ‘American’ because the translation is intended (hopefully) for use by all English readers.

  2. That’s great news. I seem to recall a comment on a previous post regarding the revision update stating that it absolutely under no circumstances would be ready by 2025. Any word if there will be a version at some point containing pastoral footnotes??

  3. That is great news. I’ve come to have a sincere appreciation for the NABRE. Any word on if there will be an edition containing pastoral footnotes?

    1. Kyle,

      Much like I mentioned above about a possible new name for the NAB, I feel like I remember Mary mentioning that they were considering offering this new edition with two different sets of notes. One that was going to be more limited and the other more in line with what we see in the current NABRE.

      1. Thank you for the response Timothy. I greatly appreciate it. The NABRE is my go to translation along with the Knox and DR for reference. I’ve done a full 180 on the book introductions and notes in the NABRE, I have come to value you them as a very useful tool alongside a Haydock commentary for a more full picture of the historical and textual context. God bless.

  4. I don’t want to rain on this parade, but frankly, I’m not expecting this translation to be any better than the current translation-which is awful. I’ll stick with the RSVCE 1st edition. It’s too bad local parishes don’t have the freedom to use a better translation than the NABRE.

    1. I always wonder just how familiar the NAB people who make the complaint that it is supposedly “terrible.” there are some bad translations and some that are not very accurate here and there, but this is true of every translation on the market. It is the nature of committee work, as anyone who has ever served on a committee can attest, that sometimes the only way to arrive at a majority vote is by adopting something that no one likes. That is why Congress often passes laws like the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind that no one in Congress seems to like or is willing to defend.

      But the truth is that many of the translations people hate are extremely literal and very accurate. The NAB is one of the most literal translations on the market, especially in the New Testament,. and if it comes to it, accuracy is far more important than literary quality.

  5. It sounds like the recent comment on the “Short Video Preview of Ignatius Catholic Study Bible” post that said the new Liturgical Bible wasn’t on the agenda spoke too soon. Glad to hear there’s finally light at the end of this tunnel. I hope it retains one of the aspects where the NABRE surpasses every other mainstream translation, which is that the NABRE used the LXX and DSS significantly more than they do.

  6. Still not coming in 2025… so we have a long wait ahead.

    Speaking of James’s comment above, the NT translation isn’t bases on the LXX or DSS. So I don’t think this liturgical NAB will make any more or less use of the LXX & DSS than it already does.

    It’s quite concerning to me the way that Ms. Sperry worded things. One, she specifically writes “the liturgical edition of the NAB” which makes it sound like they do not have a new name for this translation and will continue using the NAB rubric.

    The other, she says “the revised NT” as if this is not a new translation but a mere revision of the ’86 NT.

    Taken together, this contradicts what I’ve said earlier, what Devin Rice has said earlier (reporting on what was said in an August 2022 Fans of Nabre interview) and what another fellow (not remembering his username) has said. Obviously, Ms. Sperry would know, we would not.

    But if this is not a new translation and will just be marketed as yet another NAB, that completely cools any interest I had in this project. A huge “no thanks” from me, seeing as there would be no significant reason to use this upcoming NAB over NABRE. The wording she chose is very concerning.

    Also, why did so many people here claim that the revision (or new translation, whatever the case) wouldn’t require confirmation from Rome? Now she says the publication process will be in stasis until such confirmation is given.

    All around, this sounds worse and worse.

    1. I never said the NT was based on the LXX/DSS lol. It’s been stated that they decided to edit both the NT and the OT for this revision, and so all I’m saying is I hope they retain that mindset with the OT. Hence my words: “I hope it [that is, this new revision/edition] retains one of the aspects where the NABRE surpasses every other mainstream translation, which is that the NABRE used the LXX and DSS significantly more than they do.” I don’t see where you got the idea that I think the LXX/DSS are about the NT.

      1. I never claimed you said the NT revision would be based on the LXX/DSS. Or that you somehow misconstrued it to be the case. No reason to laugh while flying off the handle over a misreading and misunderstanding.

    2. How could the NT possibly be based on the DSS or LXX when those are both OT texts? Am I missing something?

      I still don’t understand why people think it is going to be a long turnaround of several years for Vatican approval. It didn’t take long last time, why should it take long this time?

  7. Though it’s primarily a NT revision, I wish we could get a little more information about any of the tweaks rumored to be textured into the 2010 OT too. I actually like the NABRE OT quite a lot (“Oracle of the LORD!”) and I’d like to know more about what they saw fit to tweak in keeping with the new NT text.

    Also, do we know if the new “liturgical edition” comes with its own Psalms, or if (like the RNJB) it will be published with the Abbey Psalter we’ll actually use in the liturgy?

    1. I like the NABre OT a lot too. It1is probably the best English translation of the Hebrew scriptures—better than NRSVue. I hope it stays the best and is not watered down by “high churchy” language.

      The NABre New Testament is very difficult to read out loud and for personal study. For that reason, I have been eagerly anticipating this update. It could be the best all-around English Bible ever for personal study!

    1. They need to get the word “American” out of it entirely, that was just a little nationalistic boasting about it being the first new translation originating in the United States and translated entirely by American scholars. 50 Years later, that boast is no longer relevant, and the use of the word “American” prevents it from being used in the English-speaking world outside the United States.

    2. Translations seem obsessed with the word “new,” so “New Liturgical Bible” won’t surprise me if that’s it, even though “NLB” will inevitably get confused with the NLT.

      1. Liturgical Bible would be a weird name because the Bible still wouldn’t be exactly the same as in the liturgy, certain modifications need to be made even under the best circumstances. The name also wouldn’t make it clear exactly what the Bible was, that it is the next in the long line of Catholic Bibles for the American Church going back to the Confraternity Old Testament of 1941. Imagine you’re a Catholic, or even a non-Catholic or non-Christian, who is at Barnes and Noble (pretty much the last of the big brick-and-mortar book store chains) looking at Bibles. You see something called “The New Liturgical Bible” or a similar name, and you don’t follow a blog like this one to keep you up to date on such things, are you going to have any clue what that name is supposed to mean? Unlikely. Are you going to buy it? Again, unlikely. I mean, I suppose that if one is curious, he or she could pick it up off the shelf and read the inside cover and look at the preface to see what it is, but most won’t do that, they will just “it’s probably just another weird Bible written for crazies” and then move on to other versions.

        So somehow, they need a name that signifies both that this is the latest in a long tradition of Catholic Bibles in the United States and probably already have a copy of at home, but that it is a fresh start and not just the same Bible you already have, I have no idea what name might accomplish that. It will be a tall order indeed,

          1. So long as it says something like “A Revision of the New American Bible Revised Edition of 2011” on the cover to completely explain what it is that might work.

  8. I hope this next NAB / Liturgical bible will have the footnotes in a type size readable without a magnifying glass.

  9. Tim,
    Since you seem to have some connection to Mary Sperry, do you know if there is any talk about any emendations for the new lectionary?

    Per Felix Just S.J. on his website, Canada has made alterations to text of the lections which include the following:

    It corrects some grammatical problems caused by biblical passages being taken out of context, such as missing antecedents, incomplete sentences, or changes in speakers.

    It is more positively disposed toward women, both by omitting some negative statements and by adding some positive comments.

    It often gives more explicit historical details to set a reading in context better, especially in readings from the Old Testament.

    It makes the strophes of the Responsorial Psalms slightly longer and of more equal length.

    It sometimes provides further theological arguments, especially in the Letters of Paul.

    https://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Differences-Canada-USA.htm

    All of these seem like good ideas that the U.S. should consider.

    One example not found in the Canadian Lectionary that might be useful would be expanding the 2nd reading from Galatians 4:4-7 used on New Years Day/Solemnity of Mary to include the three prior verses. This would give better context that the freedom which Christ gives is from the fallen spiritual powers and that the Law/Torah was acting as a guardian/tutor.

    Or the 2nd reading for Year B- 3rd Sunday of easter (1 John 3:1-2) which is incredibly short and expanding it to say verse 8.

    1. I will cross post my reply here:
      All of these are questions that the Committee on Divine Worship would decide. The only one that is a no-brainer is this: It corrects some grammatical problems caused by biblical passages being taken out of context, such as missing antecedents, incomplete sentences, or changes in speakers. We do that now. For example, it’s not helpful to start a reading by saying “He said to them”. Apart from that, I have no idea what the bishops might decide.

  10. The RNJB outperforms the NABRE (and other Catholic trans.) on many arenas. It uses the beautiful Revised Grail Psalter, it expands and illuminates its predecessor in a way that is both more formal and elegant, it is sensitive to traditional renderings (Virgin, spirit of God, full of grace), and it is more widely adopted for the liturgy—Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and Maylaysia. The translations from the 20th century are soon going to become dated, at the upcoming turn of the quarter of this century we ought to embrace the best we have for our time; so far it seems like Conception Abbey has it right with their Psalter—and since the RNJB uses ‘that’ with the Revised Grail, it is a translation second to none (in my opinion).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.