I believe I misspoke at about the 29:22 point. I should have said that the RSVCE and the NCB make Christ's deity clear.

Thank you for this great review; I believe you made it at my request! I love this translation because it reads very smoothly; the editing and English style lean toward simplicity, clarity, and elegance. There is more paragraphing. Paul’s endless and convoluted sentences are made intelligible. Ambiguities are, for better or worse-but always for the sake of clarity-resolved, often leading to surprising meanings I’d never before encountered. The translation is full of happy surprises. In this way its philosophy of translation embraces dynamic equivalence. The notes are pastoral in character, not philological. As an editor of academic books and journals, I give this translation a standing ovation for its making the crooked straight and the rough places plain.

A well made Catholic bible is a breath of fresh air tbh

I got mine in "giant" print. The cross references and notes are at the end of each book. It includes the verses that are usually removed from modern bibles. All together this is an enjoyable read.

Great work, Grant. Your reviews are an important work that helps a lot of people in their study and absorption of God's holy Word. His blessings on you, sir.

This is one I have placed for order - very good review as always. I like the more conservative approach and translations as I explore my Catholic roots again in my older age. Thank you for putting this together

Thank you for this incredibly detailed review, much appreciated!!! Peace be with you!

Another great video. Thank you for the work you do!

Thank you so much Dr Jones for your awesome video reviews.

This is fantastically useful information and very well explained. Thank you so much for sharing your time and your knowledge.

It's an interesting quirk of history that, while the textual basis of Scripture was one of the most hotly contested battlegrounds in the reformation era, today the critical text has resulted in a near unanimity between protestants and roman catholics on the text of Scripture. Today there is an increasing minority on both sides holding to the 'traditional' texts-- The MT/TR for proddies and the Clemantine Vulgate for the trad cats. I'm not sure if such a development should be met with joy or horror. What a fascinating time to be alive and Christian.

I used to own a leather bound copy of this, from what I recall the paper was amazing.

Looks very nice. Thanks for the video!

Another good video, Dr. Jones. Aside from the reviews on the Catholic Bible Talk blog, this is my first time seeing more of the nuts and bolts of this NCB. I agree with the characterization of it as a "more conservative NABRE," but in spite of common criticisms of the NABRE, I think its strength is in its cross-references and its extensive adoption of LXX/DSS readings, which this NCB seems a bit flimsier on. I've been told the 2025 NABRE (which apparently might be coming with a name change), in addition to revising the notes (and providing two editions: one with extensive text-critical notes and another with a leaner, and possibly more pastoral, set of notes) will be making more adjustments to the OT in addition to the intended NT revision; since it's a liturgical Bible, going off of the current Roman Missal, I'm curious if that 2025 revision will adopt a conservative bent by reverting its 2011 change in Isaiah 7:14, as well as adopt the traditional Luke 1:28 reading, both in line with the lectionary. I'll also be interested to see if they go even further in terms of the LXX/DSS readings, if they are going to be further tweaking the OT translation from 2011. Coupled with the "Liturgical ESV-CE Bible" that's apparently in the making in the UK with no definite release date (ESV-CE with further liturgical edits to the translation, Abbey Psalms and Canticles used for the book of Psalms, etc.), the NA-29 Greek New Testament which is expected in the next 2 years or so, and the Augustine Institute's "Catholic Standard Version" project that caused a bit of an online fuss during the December 2022-January 2023 period (and raised questions about their commitment to the ESV-CE), it's going to be quite interesting to see how all these forthcoming resources are received.

I have the medium size blue dura lux edition. I've really enjoyed it. The notes are much better than the NABRE and it has many passages that are found in the LXX and not in the Masoretic text.

Missed your reviews Dr. Jones

I have several different copies of this bible. There are notes in it that are very solid, but there are some that have a weird liberal slant. The view on the pentateuch is totally off.

My dream is to have all versions of the bible with the ancient scriptures. Thank you sir for theses reviews.

You're the best Bible review channel! I don't think you have stated what denomination you are. I'm guessing maybe Anglican?

I have the New Testament and Psalms in this translation. It is my favorite, as it is smooth reading in a portable, large print format.

Thanks for reviewing this Bible. I recently bought another edition of the NCB, but I haven't used it much yet. BTW, do you know that's there's a Didache Bible in the NABRE? It has 2 sets of notes: the ones that always accompany the NABRE and the Didache Bible notes and articles.

Maybe you have already answered this elsewhere, but whatever happened to your "Bible in English" channel? I very much enjoyed listening to your recordings in the past, but now I cannot find them.

Hi Dr Jones. Thank you for your review of this Bible. I am Catholic and personally use this Bible. I don’t agree with all the notes and commentary. I’ve noticed a few liberal slants on things. Thank you and God Bless

I never understand why they don’t add the church fathers comments, and yet they feel free to add their own ideas, as if they know better with the help of their smart phones and ipads! Kind of silly.

I find your videos very relaxing. And I'm just curious, were you in the military ever? I ask because the way you wear your watch is common in the military (or so I've heard).

Is the New Catholic Bible the text of the New American Bible, or a different translation?

Thanks for the very nice review. It looks like a decent Bible to get. When you say "no maps," I know the NABRE St. Joseph's Bible had maps sometimes in the books themselves such as the start of Ezra. Is the "no maps" no maps at all or no maps section?

Is it correct to say that this is the only translation, other than the Douay Rheims, which has the "Hail, full of Grace" at Luke 1:28?Edit: I stand corrected, the RSVCE2 has it as well.

The problem I have with this translation is that it is not close enough to the NA 28 and not willing enough to go with variants in the Dead Sea Scrolls when merited. As far as presentation and the quality of the book construction and the way it looks....I love that aspect. I have a NABRE that looks like this but I have to check if it has a sewn binding. I love sewn bindings!

It seems that generally speaking, the translators wanted an in-between of the RSV-2CE and the NABRE. Their claim that the translation is literal is quite amusing, as it's a Catholic NIV with gendered language. Which is your favorite among the three most prominent Catholic Bible translations (NABRE, RSV-2CE, and NCB)? Is there another that I didn't list that you would pick? Again, thanks for the review; as always, it was fantastic and in-depth!

I wonder if Exodus 1.1 is actually a typo that has never been corrected. Verse 5 notes that "Joseph was already in Egypt."

Is NCB a version of NABRE or a new translation of Bible? I personally think the best Catholic only translation is NABRE family. But the ecumenical ones like RSV/NRSV(UE)/ESV are better than NABRE and much more useful.

I have the Marriage edition of that same Bible 😭 but mine isn't hard cover.

I loathe that any catholic bible would have notes that cling to the documentary theory, considering it is expressly stated as a matter of faith that we *have* to hold it was authored by Moses. From the Pontifical Biblical Commission prior to 1907: (which prior to 1970 acted as an arm of the magisterium, compared to the post 1970 where it now acts as an advisory board): Whether the arguments gathered by the critics to attack the authenticity of the Mosaic sacred books, which are designated by the name of the Pentateuch, are of such weight, that after so many testimonies of both Testaments taken together, the perpetual consent of the Jewish people and the constant tradition of the Church, as well as the internal indications which are drawn from the text itself, give the right to affirm that these books were not authored by Moses, but were for the most part drawn up from sources later than the Mosaic age? Answer: Negative From Pope St. Pius X later: “Pope St. Pius X (Praestantia Scripture, Nov 18, 1907) "We do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions."

I had a question: Book of Daniel and Esther are the only books of OT/MT which have variation with LXX version. Esther is considered to be a historical novel/story like Judith & Tobit. So, is Daniel just an Israelite novel/story meant for instruction only, or is it an actual historical/theological book like Jeremiah, Hosea etc? What is the Christian consensus?

I have a Catholic Bible New revised standard edition. Why do I need a new one?

I've read that this Bible translation has many typos

What translation/version is this based on? Is the "NCB" the translation name too?

Does this edition come with the Rosary and Station of the Cross inserts?

Ask this Catholic, do l read NAB/NABRE notes No, I am not of a modernist AKA heretic mindset, they contradict magisterial teaching and logic. On a different topic, I was very glad to see your notice, about this review of NCB Bible today, I look forward to your reviews, thank you so much, Brother 🙏🔥🤟⛪👨‍👩‍👧‍👦🇺🇸

I'm surprised that the NCB ranks so low in literalness. I was guessing that it ranked MUCH higher. E.g., John 8:15, the NCB reads "You judge by the flesh, whereas I do not judge anyone." Virtually all of the more "literal" translations (DR, KJV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, LSB) use "flesh." The less literal translations avoid "flesh," e.g., NABRE ("appearances"), RNJB ("human standards"), NSRVue ("human standards"), CSB ("human standards"), NET ("outward appearances"), NIV ("human standards"), and NLT ("human standards").

The New CAtholic Bible is not the same as the New American Bible, which is used in Catholic services.

The norms for Scriptural scholarship are to be found in “Divino Afflante Spiritu” issued by Pope Pius XII in 1943. This requires all Catholic translations of the Sacred Scriptures, in future, to be direct, literal, translations from the original languages, using the best and most accurate sources. After this direction was issued, it was no longer possible for the English speaking nations to continue to use either the Douay Rheims or the Knox translations, since they are not direct translations from the original languages, but translations from the Vulgate with the original languages compared, where necessary. I do still use the Knox translation, since I have the full, three volume, version, which has Monsignor Knox’s full translator’s notes, where he sets out where the Vulgate departs from the original languages. He was a Geek and Hebrew scholar and he translated the whole Bible single handed. As a result, his translation does read very easily, since it was not put together by a committee, as are most translations. In England, until recently, we have used two translations. The Jerusalem Bible (1966 edition) is used in the Lectionary, with some modifications introduced by Pope Benedict XVI. For teaching and study purposes and for translating passages included in document issued from Rome, until recently, the second Catholic edition of the RSV has been used. Now, this is to be replaced by the Anglicised Catholic edition of the ESV, which is now to be used for all purposes, rather than using two translations side by side, as in the past. So, the Lectionary has been revised to use the ESV. In Canada, the NRSV is used. In the USA, the New American Bible is used. This was formerly known as the “Confraternity Bible” since it was prepared by the US Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. It is considered to be a good, direct, literal translation from the original languages. It is not used in England, or in other English speaking countries, since the English is a little too American in style. I cannot really see why the translation publicised by this video should be necessary. There are already good translations which satisfy the norms set in 1943. I shall, myself, probably continue to use both the RSV (second Catholic edition) and the Knox version, for study purposes, since these contain much useful historical information. For example, since the Church used the Vulgate for so many years, it is useful to know how the Vulgate translates particular passages (sometimes, not quite accurately). Finally, of course, I do have a King James Bible (with Apocrypha) since the language is familiar in many cases. The original KJV remains such a good and accurate translation that a version has been produced using the modern equivalent English where the language has changed over the centuries, the New KJV. This is the version used by the Eastern Orthodox Churches in England and also by most of the Pentecostal and similar fundamentalist Churches.

12:35 I spot Documentary Hypothesis notes. What a pity such modernist heresy is found everywhere and is claimed as truth. Will definitely not be purchasing this otherwise beautiful bible.