2019 New Catholic Bible

Right, first you post ridiculous claims about manuscripts selected indiscriminately, then you ask me to create a new thread while thrashing this one, then you falsely equate scholarship with modernism.

Meanwhile, Homeschool finds this entertaining. That’s the same user who, in another forum, drops off every argument and then proceeds to post the same wrong points in new threads.

This is trollish behavior, and based on some absurd view that the Church has to return to the early part of the nineteenth century, if not earlier. It’s pointless explaining what’s basic to both of you, especially given the point that the Church itself has been supporting this for over a century:

Last edited:
I am sorry that you have perceived and thus reacted as you have. We are not saying what you think we are saying. Now, I come across as pedantic - that is my particular neurology. However, knowing this, I must moderate my words and balance them with charity - a constant struggle.
There is a dedicated thread on that forum (I would have created a subforum but I don’t have the security permissions to do that) where anyone may post defenses of the OF (Novus Ordo) to their heart’s content. If anyone chooses not to use it, that’s their prerogative. CCS is about as lightly moderated as it is possible for a forum to be.
Never been to a Latin Mass. If that is what is offered, I will attend. At the same time, some of the vituperous commentary and bigotry directed at the Novus Ordo - in and of itself - is unwarranted, as Pope Benedict XVI made perfectly clear. Vice versa is included here. The Church was the recipient-victim of this world’s perfect storm of unrelenting worldly influence upon the faith and the hierarchy. The sexual/cultural revolution was the Covid-19 which few had correctly anticipated.
The Novus Ordo cannot be invalid or every NO mass since 1969 has been idolatry. There is room for both in the universal Church, as we saw under Benedict XVI. Yet, we failed humans break up into tribes,as Saint Paul lamented in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17.
Please go. Here are some good Latin Mass resources. (And please note it is not just a question of language, it is a different missal, that of Pope St Pius V with very minor revisions between 1570 and 1962.)

These are just a few. So far as I can tell, none of them are involved in any kind of separatism, either actual or perceived.

I always say, go three times, three consecutive Sundays if you can. The first time, you’ll probably be totally bewildered. That’s okay. Don’t give up. The second time, it’ll be a bit more recognizable. By the third time, things will start to “jell”. At that point, you’ll know whether it’s for you or not.

The Latin liturgical texts of the Roman Rite, while drawing on centuries of ecclesial experience in transmitting the faith of the Church received from the Fathers, are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal, just recently brought forth. In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.[20]


“Preface to the New Revised Standard Version”
Following the publication of the RSV Old Testament in 1952, significant advances were made in the discovery and interpretation of documents in Semitic languages related to Hebrew. In addition to the information that had become available in the late 1940s from the Dead Sea texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk, subsequent acquisitions from the same area brought to light many other early copies of all the books of the Hebrew Scriptures (except Esther), though most of these copies are fragmentary. During the same period early Greek manuscript copies of books of the New Testament also became available.

In order to take these discoveries into account, along with recent studies of documents in Semitic languages related to Hebrew, in 1974 the Policies Committee of the Revised Standard Version, which is a standing committee of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., authorized the preparation of a revision of the entire RSV Bible.

“Preface to the Revised New American Bible Old Testament”

Where the Old Testament translation supposes the received text—Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be—ordinarily contained in the best-known editions, as the original or the oldest extant form, no additional remarks are necessary. Where the translators have departed from those received texts, e.g., by following the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text, accepting a reading of what is judged to be a better textual tradition, as from a Qumran manuscript, or by emending a reading apparently corrupted in transmission, such changes are recorded in the revised edition of the Textual Notes on the New American Bible. Additional information on the textual tradition for some books may be found in the introduction to the book in the same Textual Notes.

In particular, important manuscripts from Cave 4 of Qumran, as well as the most useful recensions of the Septuagint, have been consulted in the preparation of 1 and 2 Samuel. Fragments of the lost Book of Tobit in Aramaic and in Hebrew, recovered from Cave 4 of Qumran, are in substantial agreement with the Sinaiticus Greek recension used for the translation of this book. The lost original Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees is replaced by its oldest extant form in Greek. Judith, 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther are also translated from the Greek. The translation of The Wisdom of Ben Sira is based on the original Hebrew as far as it is preserved, with corrections from the ancient versions; otherwise, the Greek of the Septuagint is followed. In the Book of Baruch the basic text is the Greek of the Septuagint, with some readings derived from an underlying Hebrew form no longer extant. In the deuterocanonical sections of Daniel (3:24–90; 13:1–14:42), the basic text is the Greek text of so-called Theodotion, occasionally revised according to the Greek text of the Septuagint.
I actually have far less of a problem with the suggestion that hitherto unknown texts could refine and make more precise what the original texts (which have been lost) said, than I do with many other things that have been proposed in the past 60-odd years of the Church. What I do have a problem with, is any suggestion that something essential to the Deposit of Faith (and there is such a thing, contrary to what Cardinal Pierre is rumored recently to have said) has been hidden from us for 2000 years.

Case in point, I have heard that the actual text of Matthew 19:24 refers to a rope, and not a camel — you can remove strands from a rope until it is a thread, which may be an analogy to stripping away those things that would hold a rich man back from the Kingdom of God. The word gamla in Aramaic can be either “camel” or “rope”. Makes sense. Is it part of the Deposit of Faith, viz. Catholic doctrine, that Our Lord referred to a camel and not a rope? I tend to doubt it. So something like that is fair game, and we stand in debt to those Scripture scholars who can make such refinements. Again, Fr Laux notes that any apparent errors (if this can be called an “error”) in Scripture are due to the translations, not the original text.

Haydock says this about Matthew 19:24:

It is easier for a camel,[5] &c. This might be a common saying, to signify anything impossible, or very heard. Some by a camel, would have to be meant a cable, or ship-rope, but that is differently writ in Greek, and here is commonly understood a true camel. (Witham) — But nothing is impossible to God.



Camelum, Greek: kamelun, which is observed to be different from Greek: kamilos, a cable, or ship-rope. See Mr. Legh, Critica Sacra.

And, of course, Matthew was written in Aramaic, not Greek. The Greek is just a translation.
Some more points to consider about new translations:

“Three Bulls” or “Three-Year-Old Bull”? (1 Sam 1:24)?

“But the English Standard Version translators went with a reading found in the Septuagint and one of the DSS (4QSama):” refers to the latter.

For Zechariah 8:17, the Old Greek translated the first word in the Hebrew text (אִישׁ) as a distributive term meaning “each other, another,” which put at the end, similar to every major English version. For example, the NIV reads, “Do not plot evil against each other.”

In the new fragment, the same term is translated by a different Greek word at the beginning. Using an interlinear approach—finding a corresponding word without accounting for the context of its use—the verse starts by representing the same Hebrew word as “man.” It forms an overliteral translation: “As for a man, do not plot evil against his neighbor in your heart.”
From over 20 years ago, showing that this issue isn’t new:

Or consider Psalm 145, an acrostic where each verse begins with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This chapter was always a head-scratcher because the verse for one letter is missing in the standard Hebrew text. But a phrase with that letter turned up in a Dead Sea scroll and is tacked onto 145:13 in most recent translations:p. ‘’God is faithful in his words and gracious in all his deeds…’‘
Finally, from Reddit, which needs to be verified:

That is, the reference to Deuteronomy.

I think this is more than enough evidence to show why new translations involving recent manuscript discoveries are important for greater accuracy in translation. The issue has nothing to do with “modernism”.
No, actually, I’m willing to give our commentator’s sources a fair hearing, and as long as nothing of the Deposit of Faith is disturbed, and no implication is made that the Church has been robbed of essential truths for 2000 years due to lack of authentic Scripture — and he is implying no such thing — I have no issue with refining our knowledge of what those original, authentic Scriptures said. Again, to return my example of “is it a rope or is it a camel?”, I’m not sure that the Church has ever infallibly taught that Our Lord was, indeed, talking about a camel. You can strip a rope down to a thread, and then you can thread your needle, but you can’t whittle a camel down to the size of a gnat (at least not without making a horrid mess, and having nothing left that could properly be called a camel). Even Haydock leaves “wiggle room” for exegesis such as this.
I’ve decided only to read and watch. As to certain posts, Catholics SHOULD NOT be angry, except when directly confronting evil. Difference of opinion is not evil. Leave that to the internet psychopaths on YouTube.
I’ve decided only to read and watch. As to certain posts, Catholics SHOULD NOT be angry, except when directly confronting evil.
I’ve never been angry a moment of my life when engaging in Catholic social media. The truth will always emerge victorious, even if we can’t see that happening, or when it’s vague as to what that truth actually is.

Actually, I’m just beyond thankful that Catholic social media, and Catholic online content and access in general in general, even exist. I’m old enough to remember, and lived through enough of the tumult and confusion of the 1970s, when being a faithful, orthodox, traditional-leaning Catholic consisted of going to the mailbox and waiting patiently for CUF’s monthly magazine or the weekly copy of the National Catholic Register or The Wanderer. Dr Warren Carroll (requiescat in pace) assisted me via correspondence in putting together a Catholic history curriculum at my secular university when I was an undergraduate. There was no such thing as email or YouTube.

I also remember being raised down in a valley where we could not get Sunday Mass on TV from cities that were just a bit too far away, and for some reason, the only NBC affiliate we could pick up, wouldn’t carry Christmas Midnight Mass from the Vatican. Now, we have the TLM streaming on demand, ditto live Eucharistic Adoration, ditto Catholic opinion and commentary too abundant ever to watch or listen to it all. How times have changed.

So, compared to back then, yes, in spite of all the confusion, Catholic life is pretty sweet. I’m sure there are those highly placed in the Church, who wish that the Internet had never existed, that everyone would just sit docilely and accept whatever aberrations come down the pike, ignorant of any alternatives. But you know what they say about wishing — wish in one hand, and spit in the other (I cleaned that up a bit), and see which hand gets full first.
Last edited: