The review says, “it employed “dynamic equivalence” in places for the sake of gender-neutral language.”
Depending on where and why, gender-neutral language can be reasonable or ridiculous. On the whole, I prefer a more literal approach and to let the modern reader appreciate the original, but I’ll admit the first Bible I used was the Living Bible. And at 12-13, that was what I needed.
FWIW, I prefer the RSV/ESV for general reading, the NASB for comparing verse-by-verse or with a commentary, and the (heresy!) New English Bible for reading big chunks (10-20 chapters) at once.
In the end, a good commentary is needed for those of us who don’t read Greek or Hebrew. Sometimes there isn’t a good way to translate the meaning without a lot of commentary to explain the nuances. Cheers!
Still, I used it to clinch arguments with my former (Episcopal) pastor because ECUSA seminaries haven't required Latin, Greek OR Hebrew in 50 years! Our former church used the RSV - my favorite passage to hate was Matthew 22:21 "emperor" when the original Greek clearly says "Caesar".
The NAB doesn't just employ dynamic translation where there's a 'gender neutral' issue - it uses it elsewhere as well. I have a bunch of work coming in here so don't have time to check right now. But my major objection is the horrid, obtuse, clunky language. NOT suitable at all for reading aloud in church. Check out Luke 2 for a really lame version of something we all know by heart from King James.