JD Flynn, editor and co-founder of The Pillar, reports that the USCCB just approved the revised New American Bible text for liturgical use by a vote of 216-4. It will now be sent to the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (abbreviated DDW) in Rome for review.
On Monday, The Pillar published a new article on the revised NAB (or liturgical Bible). A few details stood out to me:
A Composite Text
The article describes the new liturgical Bible as being composed of three elements:
- The 2010 NABRE Old Testament
- The Abbey Psalms and Canticles
- A new New Testament translation
This seems to indicate that the 2010 NABRE Old Testament will remain unchanged, except for substituting the Psalms and Old Testament canticles from the Abbey Psalms and Canticles.
Additional Details on the New Testament Translation
Here are a few interesting facts on the New Testament translation:
- The process began in 2013 with approval of a list of potential editors by the USCCB Subcommittee on the Translation of the Scripture Text
- 5 Editors and 18 revisers worked on the translation
- Initial translation was completed in 2019 and submitted to the subcommittee for feedback.
- Translators received hundreds of pages of suggestions on the initial draft
It sounds like one of the key goals of the text is to improve the readability and intelligibility of the 1986 NAB New Testament while still maintaining academic excellence. Mary Sperry described it this way: “The bishops wanted this to be one text that would be suitable for liturgical proclamation, for personal study and prayer, for personal devotion prayer, and for catechesis and teaching. It had to be academically excellent but inspiring. You have to be able to hear it and understand.”
What Happens Next?
There is no set timeline for the DDW to review the liturgical Bible text. If the DDW grants confirmation to the new text without any requested changes, new bibles could be printed soon afterward (after design and typesetting).
Ultimately, the USCCB’s goal is to use the new liturgical Bible text as the basis for a Lectionary and for the scripture quotations in the Liturgy of the Hours. These efforts will take additional time after confirmation by the DDW. Mary Sperry is quoted in the article as describing the process this way: “It’s a Texas-two step. Step one: Get a Bible. Step two: Make it a lectionary.”
If only… If only…. By now the Nicene Creed would still be “in process”… SHAMEFUL how slow they have been… Other English speaking countries are far ahead of us, but hey, our bishops are on X…
I just wanted to comment about the possibility of changes in the NABRE OT (2011). I just asked Mary Sperry of the USCCB if there would be any changes to the OT. Her reply was: “Very, very few changes, and mostly formatting at that.”
It will be interesting to see where these few changes are found, when this revised NAB is published.
If they’re simply going to reuse the existing NAB OT, I can’t see how I can get excited about this. I mean, this means most of the text will be unchanged compared to the current NAB. It’s “mostly old”. I really, really do not like how they did Isaiah 9:5, a rendering that makes me question whether the translators even know English.
The good news – with this verse at least – is that it will be taken not from the NABRE but from the Abbey Psalms and Canticles, which utilizes the more traditional translation: ” his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
That is quite a list of things they are trying to do accomplish with the NT, I hope it works out. The premise that the NAB is an academically excellent translation only needing to be easier to read might be a problem/lead to an extremely thought for thought translation.
The OT being the same NAB OT seems like an oversight or just something they will put up with until that is eventually redone too for another revision of the… US Liturgical Bible (USLB)? Just guessing!
“That is quite a list of things they are trying to do accomplish with the NT, I hope it works out.”
I had a similar reaction. That list of goals is going to require a balancing act. I’d be very surprised if they end up swinging wildly in a thought-for-thought direction, though. It wouldn’t match the translation philosophy of the NABRE Old Testament and the Abbey Psalms and Canticles. I suspect it will end up being somewhere in the general vicinity of the NRSV — fairly literal, but more inclined to smooth out the grammatical roughness in the Greek than the current 1986 New Testament.
Why do I suspect that this translations only purpose is to create revenue for the USCCB? The translation is simply awful. Why not use either the RSVCE, the NRSVCE, or the ESVCE? Why not allow a parish/diocese to use the translation they want to use?
As I understand it, the decision to use the NAB exclusively was a result of the Vatican directive Liturgiam Authenticam, which says the following in paragraph 36:
“In order that the faithful may be able to commit to memory at least the more important texts of the Sacred Scriptures and be formed by them even in their private prayer, it is of the greatest importance that the translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for liturgical use be characterized by a certain uniformity and stability, such that in every territory there should exist only one approved translation, which will be employed in all parts of the various liturgical books. This stability is especially to be desired in the translation of the Sacred Books of more frequent use, such as the Psalter, which is the fundamental prayer book of the Christian people. The Conferences of Bishops are strongly encouraged to provide for the commissioning and publication in their territories of an integral translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for the private study and reading of the faithful, which corresponds in every part to the text that is used in the Sacred Liturgy.”
Prior to Liturgiam Authenticam, the USCCB (which was then called the NCCB) had approved multiple translations to be used in lectionaries. If I remember right, I think both NAB and RSV lectionaries were allowed, and possibly the JB as well.
As an American Catholic I really want to love the NAB. The Bible is “a Catholic book” and this is the book produced by the American USCCB. It should be the standard. But it is sadly far from it. I keep giving it second chances (scores of chances at this point) but whenever I pick it up there is just some awkward wording or some historical critical footnote that completely turns me off from using it for anything other than a reference. Effectively achieves the opposite of the stated intention of it being an all-purpose bible as far as I’m concerned.
The awkward wordings I can learn to live with, but the requirement to publish the historical critical footnotes with every NABRE means every published version is a liberal (theological sense) study Bible. I could get down with a NABRE that just has the cross references and translation notes, no commentary. That would make the book a lot smaller too opening up new form factors for publishers.
While I believe this new revision is separate from the footnotes I can’t help myself… just another thing on the footnotes – why on earth do the footnotes not point us to the catechism? Like in the style of the Didache Bible. NAB is the official bible of the American Catholic Church, it should be pointing to the catechism and explain how certain verses are interpreted in church teaching not questioning whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch or opining about the “Q” hypothesis. The “official” USCCB Bible should build and edify the faithful not lead us to question the biblical foundations. There are plenty of resources for someone trying to question the faith, our own Bible doesn’t have to be part of that.