From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
| WikiProject Bible (Rated start-Class) |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
| Start |
This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| WikiProject Christianity (Rated start-Class) |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
|
|
What are the official bible translations for Catholics in other English-speaking countries? 220.253.154.109 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't really belong in the article, but I believe every other English-speaking country uses some combination of the RSV, NRSV, Jerusalem Bible, or New Jerusalem Bible, usually with options. In fact, the JB and RSV were options alongside the NAB in the US until five or six years ago, although even then, the NAB was almost universally used in the US. --MikeND05 20:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Traditionalists"
I have some problems with the way the criticisms mentioned in the article are attributed to "traditionalists." First, the Wikipedia article on traditionalist Catholics associates the term primarily with those who prefer pre-Vatican II liturgy. Those, including scholars, who have problems with the NAB are hardly limited to that relatively small group. Second, if the term is going to be used, its use needs to be regulated somehow. It looks like you're using the term as an epithet to use it four times in a section, each time with quotation marks around it. Third, does it really matter if the people criticizing the NAB are traditionalists? Couldn't we simply say that many Catholics have serious reservations with the translation? I would have simply edited this myself, but it appears that this language has been there for awhile, so I thought some people would prefer to discuss it first. --MikeND05 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the exact same thing when I read the article, even before seeing your comment. I removed the scare quotes and included conservative Catholics as having problems with the NAB, as there are plenty of Novus Ordo people (and even secular scholars!) who don't buy into "higher criticism". JoeFink (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
