Approved Study Bible Versions: Canon Law

[Crumpy]

There are so many threads about “which version of the Bible should I use?” that I hesitate to start another one, except for something which I never heard anybody say previously, so here goes.

I have not entirely read, but occasionally refer to my copy of **The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1990) **edited by Frs. Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Roland Murphy.

In section 68 on Texts and Versions of the Bible, paragraph 201, it states that in the 1918 Canon Law, Canon 1400, the Church allowed that Catholics could use both Catholic and non-Catholic versions of the Bible for study, but it recommended choosing Bibles that did not argue with Catholic teaching. (The Current 1982 version of Canon Law hardly touches on the subject at all.)

Section 68 then goes to state many of the modern versions available in 1990 and said that they’re all OK, although there still remain some sectarian squabling in the translations.

I hope this adds some clarity and reduces anxiety on the subject.

 

[brianmichael]

There are so many threads about “which version of the Bible should I use?” that I hesitate to start another one, except for something which I never heard anybody say previously, so here goes.

I have not entirely read, but occasionally refer to my copy of **The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1990) **edited by Frs. Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Roland Murphy.

In section 68 on Texts and Versions of the Bible, paragraph 201, it states that in the 1918 Canon Law, Canon 1400, the Church allowed that Catholics could use both Catholic and non-Catholic versions of the Bible for study, but it recommended choosing Bibles that did not argue with Catholic teaching. (The Current 1982 version of Canon Law hardly touches on the subject at all.)

Section 68 then goes to state many of the modern versions available in 1990 and said that they’re all OK, although there still remain some sectarian squabling in the translations.

I hope this adds some clarity and reduces anxiety on the subject.

cool, danke!

 

[tobinatorstark]

There are so many threads about “which version of the Bible should I use?” that I hesitate to start another one, except for something which I never heard anybody say previously, so here goes.

I have not entirely read, but occasionally refer to my copy of **The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1990) **edited by Frs. Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Roland Murphy.

In section 68 on Texts and Versions of the Bible, paragraph 201, it states that in the 1918 Canon Law, Canon 1400, the Church allowed that Catholics could use both Catholic and non-Catholic versions of the Bible for study, but it recommended choosing Bibles that did not argue with Catholic teaching. (The Current 1982 version of Canon Law hardly touches on the subject at all.)

Section 68 then goes to state many of the modern versions available in 1990 and said that they’re all OK, although there still remain some sectarian squabling in the translations.

I hope this adds some clarity and reduces anxiety on the subject.

I think you got your dates mixed a little. Code of canon Law in 1917 and Code of Canon Law in 1983. I haven’t got too far in Canon Law, but I can tell you what Bible versions are approved by the Church. They are: Latin Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, Confraternity Edition, Ronald Knox Translation, Jerusalem Bible, Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible and New Revised Standard Version. Unless you know Latin, the Vulgate probably isn’t for you. I recommend the Douay-Rheims. I read this version the most and it is the word for word English translation of the Vulgate. The New American Bible is what most of us have. Its revised version is our lectionary in the U.S. It’s notes however are contradictory to the Catholic Church. The NRSV is inclusive language as is the NJB. The Jerusalem Bible is alright. Yahweh is used instead of Lord, but that really isn’t a problem. The RSV-CE is probably the next best of the Bibles out on the market. Although it has Protestant based origins, it is quite accurate. If you found a Ronald Knox or Confraternity, I would treasure it. Odds of finding a Douay/Confraternity complete Bible is on the slim side. The Ronald Knox translation is supposed to be in print soon by Baronius Press.

 

[swampboy]

That’s very interesting…makes me feel better about using my KJV study bible which in my opinion is of much better quality than most of the Catholic ones I own. Personally, I do not see why Catholics should not be free to utilize whatever materials are out there (with discretion of course), particularly when what few Catholic resources are available are lacking in information, are poorly laid out, or are just as “questionable” as some of the Protestant materials (e.g., NAB). I like my DR Haydock and the JB but I will continue to use my KJV regardless.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If you want the least in error English translation Catholic bible available buy a Confraternity Douay bible from 1950-1954 with the New translation of the Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII.

The New Testament–the Old Testament–and the Psalms might not be perfect but they will be about as readable and understandable and still Catholic as any bible out there.

 

[Ignatius]

I’ve been using the Navarre Study Bible,

 

[Crumpy]

I think you got your dates mixed a little. .

Maybe. It’s hard at my cluttered desk to type and refer to the NJBC, which is a large volume (not to mention my failing eyesight, for sure).

The NJBC uses 1918 as the reference date for the Code of Canon Law and, yes, I am disgraced, they refer to the Canon Law of 1983. You “got me.” But, my summary of their text is what matters.

They not only cite Canon Law for sanctioning the use of non-Catholic Bibles, but they list a bunch of Protestant and Jewish Bibles that their generalizations refer to.

Section 68 is entitled Texts and Versions, and it discusses the major English language versions of the Bible, and gives a few examples of sensitive texts and how they are translated.

 

[Crumpy]

That’s very interesting…makes me feel better about using my KJV study bible which in my opinion is of much better quality than most of the Catholic ones I own. Personally, I do not see why Catholics should not be free to utilize whatever materials are out there (with discretion of course), particularly when what few Catholic resources are available are lacking in information, are poorly laid out, or are just as “questionable” as some of the Protestant materials (e.g., NAB). I like my DR Haydock and the JB but I will continue to use my KJV regardless.

Yes, I have a couple KJV’s for some reason. And, it’s handy because my Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance is totally referenced to the KJV. I use Strong’s Concordance regularly, and I know of no Catholic reference as handy as that for the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

I’m reading the New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, and it varies in from KJV on Ex 25:20. Even in the NAB there is a footnote that the “mercy seat” is literally a “cover” for the Ark of the Covenant. “mercy seat” is a wonderful term for the covering of the ark, but it is not a direct translation of the Hebrew. The rabbis note and take exception to the use of the term “mercy seat” but they know how well-intentioned the paraphrase in the KJV is.

“mercy seat” is called the “traditional translation” for the cover of the ark based on at least the KJV. The DR and NAB use “propitiatory” if I’m not mistaken.

 

[tobinatorstark]

That’s very interesting…makes me feel better about using my KJV study bible which in my opinion is of much better quality than most of the Catholic ones I own. Personally, I do not see why Catholics should not be free to utilize whatever materials are out there (with discretion of course), particularly when what few Catholic resources are available are lacking in information, are poorly laid out, or are just as “questionable” as some of the Protestant materials (e.g., NAB). I like my DR Haydock and the JB but I will continue to use my KJV regardless.

My question is why should we use a Bible that isn’t approved by the Church and doesn’t contain the all the Church’s teaching in it???

 

[swampboy]

I think we should use all scripture, as it all has value. I think that limiting ourselves to just one translation or those approved for “official” use is just as ignorant as believing that the KJV or DR are the only translations worthwhile to read. Plus, all one should need to do is read the intro material to Matthew found in our Church “approved” NAB to see why that argument doesn’t hold up. None of my Protestant bibles question the origins of the GOSPELS…yet the NAB and it’s borderline heretical notes do yet are still approved for use! You just need to be privy to the inherent problems and secure in your faith and there should be no problems regardless of which translation you choose.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I think we should use all scripture, as it all has value. I think that limiting ourselves to just one translation or those approved for “official” use is just as ignorant as believing that the KJV or DR are the only translations worthwhile to read. Plus, all one should need to do is read the intro material to Matthew found in our Church “approved” NAB to see why that argument doesn’t hold up. None of my Protestant bibles question the origins of the GOSPELS…yet the NAB and it’s borderline heretical notes do yet are still approved for use! You just need to be privy to the inherent problems and secure in your faith and there should be no problems regardless of which translation you choose.

I am not saying to limit ourselves to 1 translation, but we most certainly ought to obey what the Church has set up for us. We don’t need to be exposed the Protestant doctrine. We are Catholic and we need to be taught Catholic values.

 

[swampboy]

I am not saying to limit ourselves to 1 translation, but we most certainly ought to obey what the Church has set up for us. We don’t need to be exposed the Protestant doctrine. We are Catholic and we need to be taught Catholic values.

First off, if I interpreted the original post correctly, the Church does allow for the use of study materials that are not Catholic. Secondly, I entirely disagree that reading a KJV bible or any other Protestant material is going to cause anyone to defect to the “other side”, unless that person is gravely misinformed, insecure, or totally ignorant of their Catholic faith. I have read plenty of Protestant materials and speak with plenty of Baptists, including pastors, on a fairly regular basis and have no desire to become one. Lastly, if Catholics could produce a half-way decent study bible there wouldn’t be this issue…so until that time I will continue to do as I do and not worry about it.

 

[tobinatorstark]

First off, if I interpreted the original post correctly, the Church does allow for the use of study materials that are not Catholic. Secondly, I entirely disagree that reading a KJV bible or any other Protestant material is going to cause anyone to defect to the “other side”, unless that person is gravely misinformed, insecure, or totally ignorant of their Catholic faith. I have read plenty of Protestant materials and speak with plenty of Baptists, including pastors, on a fairly regular basis and have no desire to become one. Lastly, if Catholics could produce a half-way decent study bible there wouldn’t be this issue…so until that time I will continue to do as I do and not worry about it.

What about the Haydock Bible Commentary. You can’t go wrong with that. It’s language is a bit more modern than the Challoner.

 

[swampboy]

What about the Haydock Bible Commentary. You can’t go wrong with that. It’s language is a bit more modern than the Challoner.

I love the Haydock DR…in fact I am looking at it right now. That is my go-to bible for such purposes…however, it is old and not as complete in terms of x-refs and such as other bibles are…I guess my gripe is that there is nothing new that rivals the Protestant stuff as far as more modern study materials go. But I agree with you 100%…you really can’t go wrong with the Haydock:thumbsup:

 

[dans0622]

I have not entirely read, but occasionally refer to my copy of **The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1990) **edited by Frs. Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Roland Murphy.

In section 68 on Texts and Versions of the Bible, paragraph 201, it states that in the 1918 Canon Law, Canon 1400, the Church allowed that Catholics could use both Catholic and non-Catholic versions of the Bible for study, but it recommended choosing Bibles that did not argue with Catholic teaching. (The Current 1982 version of Canon Law hardly touches on the subject at all.)

It doesn’t really matter anymore, since the 1917 Code is no longer in force, but this is a rather loose interpretation of c. 1400. It said that those who were engaged in “biblical or theological studies” could use these Bibles, provided that their introductions and notes did not impugn Catholic doctrine. I would think that this only would have applied to those in formal studies.

Again, it doesn’t apply anymore. But, just for the sake of accuracy, I thought I’d put this out there.

Dan

 

[swampboy]

It doesn’t really matter anymore, since the 1917 Code is no longer in force, but this is a rather loose interpretation of c. 1400. It said that those who were engaged in “biblical or theological studies” could use these Bibles, provided that their introductions and notes did not impugn Catholic doctrine. I would think that this only would have applied to those in formal studies.

Again, it doesn’t apply anymore. But, just for the sake of accuracy, I thought I’d put this out there.

Dan

Thanks for the correction Dan. One thing you noted that I find interesting is that non-catholic bibles are said to be okay for use as long as the notes and intros don’t oppose catholic doctrine…yet the NAB is approved!! I just find that to be interesting.

 

[Digitonomy]

Here’s the actual canon:

Can. 1400. Usus librorum de quibus in can. 1399, n. 1, ac librorum editorum contra praescriptum can. 1391, iis dumtaxat permittitur qui studiis theologicis vel biblicis quovis modo operam dant, dummodo iidem libri fideliter et integre editi sint neque impugnentur in eorum prolegomenis aut adnotationibus catholicae fidei dogmata.

Source
And here are the other canons referred by 1400.

Can. 1391. Versiones sacrarum Scripturarum in linguam vernaculam typis imprimi nequeunt, nisi sint a Sede Apostolica probatae, aut nisi edantur sub vigilantia Episcoporum et cum adnotationibus praecipue excerptis ex sanctis Ecclesiae Patribus atque ex doctis catholicisque scriptoribus.

Can. 1399. Ipso iure prohibentur:

1.o Editiones textus originalis et antiquarum versionum catholicarum sacrae Scripturae, etiam Ecclesiae Orientalis, ab acatholicis quibuslibet publicatae; itemque eiusdem versiones in quamvis linguam, ab eisdem confectae vel editae;

2.o Libri quorumvis scriptorum, haeresim vel schisma propugnantes, aut ipsa religionis fundamenta quoquo modo evertere nitentes;…