'Adios' to my Protestant Bibles

[KingAlfred]

Oh how I remember that day, myself.
I could not find a leather bound Catholic Bible at the bookstore I was shopping. I settled for a the Catholic Women’s Devotional NAB. I continue to this day to look for a beautiful leather bound Bible.
My prayers go out to you. It can be daunting.
And I, too, have one of those Protestant bibles with lots of notes. Keep it. You will miss it horribly one day.

Is that ever true. I’m already itching to reach for it. The feel of that soft leather, and the mere thought of all those notes…yup…I’m missing it.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

When I was in RCIA, someone asked about tossing their incomplete Bibles, and my priest said it wasn’t necessary, as they are still the Word of God. I concur with those who have recommended you hang on to it.

Oh how I remember that day, myself.
I could not find a leather bound Catholic Bible at the bookstore I was shopping. I settled for a the Catholic Women’s Devotional NAB. I continue to this day to look for a beautiful leather bound Bible.
My prayers go out to you. It can be daunting.
And I, too, have one of those Protestant bibles with lots of notes. Keep it. You will miss it horribly one day.

Nineveh’s Crossing has some lovely Bibles.

 

[KingAlfred]

When I was in RCIA, someone asked about tossing their incomplete Bibles, and my priest said it wasn’t necessary, as they are still the Word of God. I concur with those who have recommended you hang on to it.

Nineveh’s Crossing has some lovely Bibles.

Indeed, I will, and I miss it. Its red printing of everything Jesus said was very useful. My Catholic Bible is a bulky soft-bound book, with no highlighting. Still, I must seek total alignment of authoritative sources.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Indeed, I will, and I miss it. Its red printing of everything Jesus said was very useful. My Catholic Bible is a bulky soft-bound book, with no highlighting. Still, I must seek total alignment of authoritative sources.

Ah, but there’s a good reason why you won’t find a “words of Christ in red” Catholic Bible. We believe the whole Bible is the Words of Christ.

 

[KingAlfred]

Ah, but there’s a good reason why you won’t find a “words of Christ in red” Catholic Bible. We believe the whole Bible is the Words of Christ.

Careful. We also believe the Bible itself is part of a larger body of truth – the Catholic religion.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Careful. We also believe the Bible itself is part of a larger body of truth – the Catholic religion.

Well, of course. I was just explaining why we don’t do the “words of Christ in red” Bible editions - that I know of, anyway.

 

[KingAlfred]

Well, of course. I was just explaining why we don’t do the “words of Christ in red” Bible editions - that I know of, anyway.

I’ve noticed that the sayings of Jesus that I’ve read so far in my Catholic Bible are different from those in my Protestant Bible. Again, IMO, the idea is to downplay the Bible, and undercut the radical fundamentalism that ‘sola scriptura’ engenders. I view this as a positive thing.

 

[Contarini]

As Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, US Army Special Forces, eastern Cambodia, said, in *“Apocalypse Now”, *“Then it struck me…like a crystal bullet between the eyes”…

And maybe the source of your analogy should tell you something about the sanity of this sudden conviction.

Edwin

 

[jblake]

KingAlfred;:

Hmmm…that’s the first I’ve heard of that particular interpretation.

I doubt anybody will deny that translations can have an ideological slant. The New World Translation is probably the best known example of "ideologically biased translation.

Cross-references can be slanted towards a specific theology. (Dispensationalism was popularized because the Scofield Cross Reference System supports/teaches that strain of theology.)

Textual notes can be slanted towards a specific theology. The Disciple’s Study Bible has a number of examples of how textual notes are changed, to push a specific theological bias.

Commentary can easily be slanted towards a specific theology. (The Queer Bible, is merely one such example. The Life Application Study Bible is another example.

Maps* always* have an ideological/ theological bias. Whilst that bias is subtle, it nonetheless is present, and does have far reaching theological consequences.

xan

jonathon

 

[Newbie2]

The Bible is too close to our hearts for us to comment on it objectively.

But if everyone would comment on it subjectively, there’d be wild interpretations (such as from the Westboro Baptist “Church” in Topica, KS…the loonies who picket the soldier’s funerals).

While there cannot be complete objectivity, who knows the mind of God, we cannot depend completely on subjective assessment either. There should be balance…or is that what you’re saying?

 

[KingAlfred]

And maybe the source of your analogy should tell you something about the sanity of this sudden conviction.

Edwin

“He was close…real close. I couldn’t see him yet, but I could feel him.”
– Captain Willard, U.S. Army, somewhere in eastern Cambodia:hypno:

 

[KingAlfred]

But if everyone would comment on it subjectively, there’d be wild interpretations (such as from the Westboro Baptist “Church” in Topica, KS…the loonies who picket the soldier’s funerals).

While there cannot be complete objectivity, who knows the mind of God, we cannot depend completely on subjective assessment either. There should be balance…or is that what you’re saying?

I’m simply saying that as a Catholic, I should read a Catholic Bible. I’m also saying that, yes, after having read the Bible in various versions my entire life, I detect more than subtle differences in language among them.

 

[KingAlfred]

The KJV translators were Anglicans, not Reformed Calvinists. If you study English history you will see that Anglicans and the Reformed had strong disagreements. Richard Hookers “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” was in many ways a polemic against the Reformed view.

As far as Bible translations go modern textual scholarship is pretty much on a level playing field. Whether the scholar be Catholic or Protestants the field of languages and linguistics has a consensus of agreement. Personally I use the New Revised Standard Version because 1. It was done by BOTH Catholics and Protestants and I believe there were a couple of Eastern Orthodox scholars as well. So it has a broad range of scholarship.
2. Because of its “neutrality” in translating the texts with no “axes to grind” it is probably the most accurate translation available. The whole gender thing is a non-starter. Because the translators were honest enough to translate the text neutrally they were unfairly criticised of having a “feminist agenda”. If one is familiar with the source texts (greek, hebrew, latin, syriac) one will quickly see that for the most part the NRSV is pretty accurate and faithful to what the source texts say. The NRSV isn’t perfect, like any translation there is room for improvement, but at the end of the day the NRSV is the best translation available in modern English.

Well done, but the fact remains that the particular strain of the Protestant Reformation that ‘caught on’ in England in the 16th Century was Calvinism. Anglicanism therefore has a strong Calvinist sub-current coarsing through its veins. Yes…it also has a ‘high-church’, semi-Catholic strain, but the legacy of John Calvin is part of its story, nonetheless.

 

[KingAlfred]

I doubt anybody will deny that translations can have an ideological slant. The New World Translation is probably the best known example of "ideologically biased translation.

Cross-references can be slanted towards a specific theology. (Dispensationalism was popularized because the Scofield Cross Reference System supports/teaches that strain of theology.)

Textual notes can be slanted towards a specific theology. The Disciple’s Study Bible has a number of examples of how textual notes are changed, to push a specific theological bias.

Commentary can easily be slanted towards a specific theology. (The Queer Bible, is merely one such example. The Life Application Study Bible is another example.

Maps* always* have an ideological/ theological bias. Whilst that bias is subtle, it nonetheless is present, and does have far reaching theological consequences.

xan

jonathon

Spot on.

 

[Newbie2]

I’m simply saying that as a Catholic, I should read a Catholic Bible. I’m also saying that, yes, after having read the Bible in various versions my entire life, I detect more than subtle differences in language among them.

OK, I’m up with that.

 

[KingAlfred]

OK, I’m up with that.

 

[Psalter]

You’re doing the right thing, KingAlfred! Here is what Pope SAINT Pius X had to say about Protestant Bibles in the catechism he wrote:

29 Q. May any translation of the Bible, in the vernacular, be read?
A. We can read those translations of the Bible in the vernacular which have been acknowledged as faithful by the Catholic Church and which have explanations also approved by the Church.

30 Q. Why may we only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church?
A. We may only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church because she alone is the lawful guardian of the Bible.

31 Q. Through which means can we know the true meaning of the Holy Scripture?
A. We can only know the true meaning of Holy Scripture through the Church’s interpretation, because she alone is secure against error in that interpretation.

32 Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?
A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

33 Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?
A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

33 Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?
A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her.

Now, I’m still a baby Catholic, so I don’t know much about all the Popes, but I’m guessing that Pope St Pius X never read the footnotes in the NAB.

 

[caspianrex]

For what it’s worth, I’d like to share a Protestant viewpoint. Although I have been a Protestant all my life, among my many Bible translations, I have several Catholic translations. I learn much from every different version I have…even the bad ones. (And I’m not calling the Catholic ones bad; I’ve got a Jehovah’s Witness translation in my collection that’s pretty awful.)
If it’s just the translation itself you’re worried about, I would say there aren’t many significant differences between Protestant translations and Catholic ones. Sure, you’ll find a lot of Latinate constructions in a good ol’ Douay-Rheims, but the NAB is pretty close to most Prot translations.
As far as study notes go, yes, you will find a distinct Protestant slant in Protestant Bibles, but there is also a pretty wide spectrum of theological positions among different Catholic Bibles. The notes in the Jerusalem Bible, for example, are pretty different in tone from the notes in a Douay-Rheims printed in the early 20th century. (My grandmother’s old Douay-Rheims has some great anti-Protestant polemics in the notes!)
So, as long as you have a Bible somewhere in your collection that contains the deuterocanonicals, and has an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat, I don’t think having a couple Protestant Bibles would hurt. And from what I’ve seen on this forum, I would guess many Catholics would agree with me.

Peace,
Cory Howell
Nashville, TN

 

[tobinatorstark]

Now, I’m still a baby Catholic, so I don’t know much about all the Popes, but I’m guessing that Pope St Pius X never read the footnotes in the NAB.

correct. He never did because the NAB was released well after the death of Pope St. Pius X. died in 1914 and the NAB was released in 1970