Approval of Bible translations by the USCCB

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ron_Conte

Guest
Since the new code of Canon Law (1983), vernacular translations need approval of the Bishops’ Conference or the Holy See.

Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

USCCB has approved of a number of translations:
usccb.org/dpp/translations.htm

USCCB Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures
1991 – Present

Books of the New Testament, Alba House
Contemporary English Version - New Testament, First Edition, American Bible Society
Contemporary English Version - Book of Psalms, American Bible Society
Contemporary English Version - Book of Proverbs, American Bible Society

The Grail Psalter (Inclusive Language Version), G.I.A. Publications
New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, National Council of Churches
The Psalms, Alba House
The Psalms (New International Version) – St. Joseph Catholic Edition, Catholic Book Publishing Company
The Psalms – St. Joseph New Catholic Version, Catholic Book Publishing Company
Revised Psalms of the New American Bible
So You May Believe, A Translation of the Four Gospels, Alba House
Today’s English Version, Second Edition, American Bible Society
Translation for Early Youth, A Translation of the New Testament for Children, Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society

The RSV2 is not on this list. Does anyone know if it is approved by another conference or by the Holy See?

Most of the approved translations are Protestant translations, loose translations, and/or inclusive language translations.

I think that the USCCB is doing a poor job of fulfilling their role under Canon 825.1

Does anyone know anything about the St. Joseph New Catholic Version?
 
I too find it odd that most approved on the list are Protestant and loose and inclusive language versions. I also think they did a poor job following the cannon law. I will look into why the RSV2CE isn’t approved.
 
The RSV-CE 2ed. is not a new addition, but a revision, and as such, doesn’t need the same approvals. I believe that the revisions were indeed signed off upon in some form, however.
 
Rolltide said:
The RSV-CE 2ed. is not a new addition, but a revision, and as such, doesn’t need the same approvals. I believe that the revisions were indeed signed off upon in some form, however.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but they nevertheless obtained USCCB approval anyway. Good for Ignatius.
 
I don’t currently have the RSV-CE2 (i have the RSV-CE1). How does the text referring to the approval read? The RSV 2 isn’t listed on the USCCB page about translations, so I was wondering about that.
 
Ron_Conte said:
I don’t currently have the RSV-CE2 (i have the RSV-CE1). How does the text referring to the approval read? The RSV 2 isn’t listed on the USCCB page about translations, so I was wondering about that.
Click to expand...
With ecclesiastical approval of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
 
I found this on the Ignatius Press Blog site, in relation to the approval of the RSV-2CE;

Reply from Ignatius Press:
"There are no approval issues in the Second Edition.
Proposed changes were sent to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (which was then the National Conference of Catholic Bishops) and we were told that changes were of a sufficiently editorial nature to support retention of the previously granted Imprimatur. Later changes, made in conformity with translation guidelines of the Vatican document, Liturgiam Authenticam, were approved directly by the Congregation for Divine Worship, which also reviewed all of the text.

I would still like to have a list of the changes and a list of those who were in charge of it.
 
So that explains why the second edition is not on the list from the USCCB site. Good. Thanks to those who responded.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Since the new code of Canon Law (1983), vernacular translations need approval of the Bishops’ Conference or the Holy See.

Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

USCCB has approved of a number of translations:
usccb.org/dpp/translations.htm

USCCB Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures
1991 – Present

Books of the New Testament, Alba House
Contemporary English Version - New Testament, First Edition, American Bible Society
Contemporary English Version - Book of Psalms, American Bible Society
Contemporary English Version - Book of Proverbs, American Bible Society

The Grail Psalter (Inclusive Language Version), G.I.A. Publications
New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, National Council of Churches
The Psalms, Alba House
The Psalms (New International Version) – St. Joseph Catholic Edition, Catholic Book Publishing Company
The Psalms – St. Joseph New Catholic Version, Catholic Book Publishing Company
Revised Psalms of the New American Bible
So You May Believe, A Translation of the Four Gospels, Alba House
Today’s English Version, Second Edition, American Bible Society
Translation for Early Youth, A Translation of the New Testament for Children, Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society

The RSV2 is not on this list. Does anyone know if it is approved by another conference or by the Holy See?

Most of the approved translations are Protestant translations, loose translations, and/or inclusive language translations.

I think that the USCCB is doing a poor job of fulfilling their role under Canon 825.1

Does anyone know anything about the St. Joseph New Catholic Version?
Click to expand...
Ron,

I’ve never seen this, so, thanks for digging it out.

I definitely agree with you that “the USCCB is doing a poor job of fulfilling their role under Canon 825.1”. Of course, so is the corresponding Canadian bishops’ organization, the CCCB.

Is there a listing somewhere of all the earlier versions of which they “approve”? On second thought, it wouldn’t change my opinion one way or another of any particular translation I happen to like, since, given what’s listed above, I’m sure to be even more disappointed with their job in this area.

I’m just wondering on what basis were these approved, and for what purpose? Private reading, liturgical, teaching/preaching?
 
Keep in mind that there haven’t actually been very many English translations of the Bible produced since 1991. It’s not necessarily a reflection on the USCCB that they tend to approve translations that are more literary than literal, if this is all that’s being produced.
 
This is from EWTN, regarding versions that have been approved by the USCCB up to 1992. Note that almost all of the versions we use today were produced BEFORE 1991:

Liturgical Use in United States

There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn. [See note on inclusive language]

Devotional Reading

A bewildering array of Catholic Bibles are available for personal use. They all have imprimaturs, but not all avoid the use of inclusive language. That use is indicated in the summary. The order is generally chronological.
**
  1. Douai-Rheims.** The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai. Bishop Challoner’s 1750 edition, and subsequent revisions by others up to the 20th century, is the most common edition. Retains some archaic English. The 1899 edition is available from TAN Books. The text is widely available on line, including EWTN’s library.
    **
  2. Confraternity Edition.** Begun in 1936 by the American bishops’ Confraternity for Christian Doctrine as a translation from the Clementine Vulgate. The publication of Pius XII’s encyclical Divino afflante spiritu (1943) caused the translation committee to switch to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. Not all books were completed by the time of Vatican II (1962-1965). Those that were finished were used in the liturgy in the 1950s and 60s. Published in a dignified American idiom. Though hard to find, this edition of the Scriptures is worth possessing.
    **
  3. Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Catholic Edition.** Translated for an American audience from the original languages in the 1940s and 1950s by the National Council of the Churches of Christ, and adapted for Catholic use by the Catholic Biblical Association (1966). Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press, and available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.
    **
    4.1 New American Bible or NAB (1970).** Translated from the original languages by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine according to the principles of Vatican II for use in the liturgy. It was the basis of the American Lectionary from the 1970s until 2002. A good translation, but it was criticized for its changing of some traditional and familiar expressions, such as “full of grace”.
    **
    4.2 NAB with Revised New Testament (1986).** A restoration of some traditional familiar phraseology. Unfortunately, it also included some mild inclusive language. No longer widely available, owing to the publication of the revised Psalms (see next entry).
4.3 NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991). It was due to the use of vertical inclusive language (re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States.
**
4.4 Modified NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (2000-2002).** This title is of my own invention. It does not refer to any currently available Bible, but to the NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised NT, as modified by a committee of the Holy See and the Bishops for use in the liturgy. It is the text found in all current Lectionaries in the U.S… The Holy See accepted some use of inclusive language, where the speaker/author intended a mixed audience (e.g. “brothers and sisters”, instead of the older “brethren”), but rejected it in references to God or Christ, and man, where the word has anthropological and theological significance (e.g. Psalm 1:1, with reference to Adam and Christ). Whether a Bible will be made available having these modified NAB texts is not known at this time. Since they do not extend to the entire Bible, it is possible that none will be, as that would require further editing of the underlying NAB text.

5. Jerusalem Bible (1966). A translation based on the French edition of the Dominicans of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, who translated it from the original languages. This Bible is the one used by Mother Angelica on the air. The full version has copious footnotes but is hard to find, as it has not been recently republished. A Reader’s Edition, without the full footnoting, is available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.

6. New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language in some unacceptable places. With this exception, like the predecessor RSV, it is a good formal equivalent translation (i.e. literal, but literary).

7. New Jerusalem Bible (1990). A revision of the Jerusalem Bible directly from the original languages. It contains inclusive language, similar to that rejected in the revised NAB by the Holy See for use in the liturgy, but is considered a very literary text, and comparable in quality to the NRSV in scholarship.
**
8. Today’s’ English Version - Catholic (1992).** This is the Catholic edition of the popular Good News Bible by the American Bible Society. Translated according to the principle of dynamic equivalence for readability. The same principle was used by ICEL to translate the Mass texts. Would be better to call a paraphrase than a translation.
 
Manfred said:
Ron,

I’ve never seen this, so, thanks for digging it out.

I definitely agree with you that “the USCCB is doing a poor job of fulfilling their role under Canon 825.1”. Of course, so is the corresponding Canadian bishops’ organization, the CCCB.

Is there a listing somewhere of all the earlier versions of which they “approve”? On second thought, it wouldn’t change my opinion one way or another of any particular translation I happen to like, since, given what’s listed above, I’m sure to be even more disappointed with their job in this area.

I’m just wondering on what basis were these approved, and for what purpose? Private reading, liturgical, teaching/preaching?
Click to expand...
I think that is the full list. There are no earlier texts.

I would prefer it if the Bishops, instead of the administrative acts of approving of translations, books via the imprimatur, teachers via the mandatum, would teach about Scripture, theology, etc. If a particular idea is contrary to the faith, instead of denying the imprimatur, they should teach against that idea. Or if a particular theologian has a good approach, then they should take up that same approach and confirm it as good. It is not very helpful to the faithful if a Protestant, loose, inclusive language translation has a mere approval without any comments or teaching from the Bishops. How does that help anyone?
 
I agree with you Ron. Although I also don’t find the RSV-CE fit for the Catholic Church, but yet somehow its made its way into it.
 
The RSV-CE has its strengths and weaknesses.
I would not go so far as to say it is unfit for use by the Church.
It would be preferable to have a more Catholic translation.
 
I guess that I am pretty picky about what translation I read. I have seen the differences in the Douay-Rheims and the Protestant based Bible of that era vs. the Catholic and Protestant based Bibles of today. After reading the Douay-Rheims, I just got accustomed to that. I wish more Bibles followed that of the Douay-Rheims.
 
The Douay-Rheims and Confraternity versions are the only bibles that are really Catholic. When I read the Douay, I feel I am reading the real deal. The USCCB is a joke on this stuff. Why would they approve the Contemporary English Version? It doesn’t even have the “apocrypha” in it.
 
johnbres2 said:
The Douay-Rheims and Confraternity versions are the only bibles that are really Catholic. When I read the Douay, I feel I am reading the real deal. The USCCB is a joke on this stuff. Why would they approve the Contemporary English Version? It doesn’t even have the “apocrypha” in it.
Click to expand...
I too feel that I am reading the real deal with the Douay-Rheims
 
I prefer the original Douai Rheims over Challoner, even though I admire his work. Both of those texts are out of date and in need of some improvement. The faithful need a conservative Catholic translation, one that is more literal than most modern translations, from the Latin, in the tradition of the Douai Bible. My own translation from the Latin, the CPDV, is here:
sacredbible.org/catholic/index.htm

estimated date of completion, early 2009.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top