Are Catholics forbidden to read non-catholic Bible?

[amoiesu]

you’re right about missing books and about the footnotes (which are easily ignored as they are fine print at the bottom of the page like ours) but you’re wrong about the text.

the wording is the same and unchanged. i used to be a protestant, so i would know. in fact, protestants are really strict about accuracy and are probably afraid of catholic bibles for that reason, since until recently catholic bibles were translated from the vulgate instead of directly from the hebrew and greek. some protestant bibles even come with hebrew and greek dictionaries in the back just to prove how accurate their translating was and give you the opportunity to do your own translating if you’re up to the challenge.

so even if a protestant bible is missing a lot of words, the words that are there are as trustworthy as any catholic translation.

once a long time ago in the 1500s martin luther added the word alone to a verse about faith, and wanted to throw out some new testament books, but both of his ideas were undone by the other “reformers” because they knew better than to mess with the Scriptures any more than they already had.

 

[amoiesu]

i agree with you about the notes. i like reading nab because it’s what is read at Mass, but i’m so ashamed of the notes that go with it that i actually cover that part of the page with stickers so i don’t have to look at them!

 

[po18guy]

As to bible translations, the KJV is not at all bad - it’s just incomplete. However, as much as the KJV OT is praised for its florid language, the NT is stilted and does not flow as well as the D-R.

I always and everywhere recommend the 1941-1969 Confraternity bible, as the NT, next to the Knox, is the best English language translation, IMO. The OT ranges from pure D-R to a smattering of Confraternity OT translations mixed in. It was never printed in completed form, as the NAB killed it off

The Knox is occasionally criticized for being idiosyncratic. Well, it is the product of a single brilliant mind, just as the Latin Vulgate was the product of Saint Jerome. What do we want, committee-think?

For a daily reader, non-Catholic but not bad at all, consider the Oxford-Cambridge Revised English Bible w/Apocrypha-Deuterocanon. It was translated with (name removed by moderator)ut from the Catholic Churches of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, although a purely Catholic version is not offered. Very readable and rather good from a Catholic standpoint. They are dirt cheap on Amazon/eBay, often found in good/excellent condition for less than $10.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but nicely put.

 

[GiftofMercy]

There is a huge difference in the first three words of the translated Christian Bible, be it a Catholic or Protestant edition, and the text of Biblical Hebrew in the Hebrew Bible i.e. the JPS. The difference centres around the first Hebrew word Beresit. The Christian Bible translates this as ‘in the beginning’. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. A reading of Biblical Hebrew text Genesis 1:1 ‘when God began to created the heavens and the earth’.
The Hebrew Bible is the Christian Old Testament.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

First, I misspoke slightly. The old canon law of 1917 does forbid non-Catholic Bibles under Canon 1399. However, the business about burning a Protestant Bible or giving it to a priest is actually in the Catechism of St. Pius X, Question 32.

Second, the short answer to your question is that if Catholics are aware of a rule in the Canon Law or in the Catechism, yes they should follow it. It is the job of their catechists, the priests etc to make them aware. Also in this day and age when most people can read and access the Internet, Catholics should read the official Catechism (Available free online at the Vatican website, or you can buy a hard copy from a Catholic bookstore) and know the basics of what’s in it.

Catholic lay people are generally not expected to go plowing through Canon Law because it’s complicated and often needs the interpretation of a canon lawyer (see for example the Canon Law Made Easy blog where a lawyer answers people’s questions, or the explanations of our resident canon law experts on here) . Anything really important for the lay person is spelled out in the Catechism in easier language.

In my case the business of burning Protestant Bibles in the 1917 code never came up because we didn’t have any Protestant Bibles in our house before 1983 and in fact we barely even knew or interacted with any Protestants then. Except my grandma, who wasn’t giving us Bibles.

 

[amoiesu]

there’s different degrees of literalness, 'cause what you translate has to make sense grammatically for english speakers, but the basic text is the same. for example, you won’t see a single translation that reads “in the end” instead of “in the beginning”. the words are accurate even when they’re not as literal. it’s the same as the difference between catholic translations. the douay-rheims, nabre, and new jerusalem all read very differently at times, but it’s the same bible. crazy cultists like the jws and mormons aside, protestants don’t go around changing the words of the bible for propaganda purposes like a lot of people seem to think.

 

[amoiesu]

i’m glad that was changed. burning any bible seems like a sacrilege. even if it’s incomplete, it’s still God’s Word. that would be like burning a new testament 'cause the old testament wasn’t included or burning a catholic bible because a page from exodus fell out and got lost. missing words doesn’t make the remaining words any less sacred.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Book burning generally looks bad by today’s standards.

I can sort of understand though, because the idea was to keep Catholics from being misled by Protestants trying to convert them, which was a big concern back then.

 

[GiftofMercy]

Its not in the literalness or not, of translations, that the difference lies, it is in the definite article. There is no definite article in the Biblical Hebrew text. The translated versions have added a definite article.
This has led to a great debate about how the first 3 verses of Genesis are to be read and understood. At present there are 4 main possibilities being debated. The arguments are complex and protracted and really need their own thread. It would be unfair to hijack this thread and take it off topic.
We could do quite an extensive thread on Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible - the Old Testament, and the differences in translations in the Christian Bible , and the exegesis found in both texts. Wordplay, for instance, found throughout the Hebrew Bible, is lost in translation.

 

[John_Martin]

I don’t think Catholics are thinking clearly - when a protestant bible is created, it is put together in a “Protest” against Catholicism, saying, “Here is the way the Bible ought to be, and the only things you ought to read.”
Try quoting Wisdom or Tobit or talking about “doing Penance” to a protestant as Scriptural. There will be Protest that it is not, and their self defined (rather than apostolically defined) bible will be held up as proof to you that, “Wisdom and Tobit and doing Penance are not in the ‘real 66 book bible’.”

A rule about not reading is not the important thing; a protestant bible is a protest that your Catholic Bible is in error - that is why protestant bibles were published, to replace your (our) error as Catholics.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

you’re right about missing books and about the footnotes (which are easily ignored as they are fine print at the bottom of the page like ours) but you’re wrong about the text.

the wording is the same and unchanged.

I’m not sure if I wasn’t clear or if I am misunderstanding your comment. As far as text, such as Greek or Hebrew, wasn’t what I meant but rather there are so many protestant translations of the Bible, which bothered me a lot during my protestant years, that the way some are translated, the wording promotes a protestant view rather than Catholic.

For example in the Catholic Douay Rheims Luke 1:28 is translated:

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

In the protestant Living Bible it is translated:

28 Gabriel appeared to her and" said, “Congratulations, favored lady! The Lord is with you!

and even in the RSV:

Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!

Gone from most protestant bibles is: Blessed are you among women.

though it is in the Authorized KJV:

Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

This is just one example. You can check out all the different translation of protestant and Catholic Bibles here, though there are only a couple of Catholic translations listed. We don’t have quite so many.

Luke 1:28 DRA - - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

give you the opportunity to do your own translating if you’re up to the challenge.

This is not a good thing. As Catholics we should always read the Bible under the guidance of the Church. It is people doing their own translating which caused so many divisions.

Personally I prefer the Douay Rheims. It is just so Catholic. The more I read it, the more I love it. The Knox Bible is very good also.

http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=28#x

http://catholicbible.online/knox?bible_part_no=2&book_no=3&chapter_no=1

God bless

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I can sort of understand though, because the idea was to keep Catholics from being misled by Protestants trying to convert them, which was a big concern back then.

and still is a big concern.

Plus many of the notes that were added to the protestant Bibles were and still are protesting the Church.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Aside from some major doctrinal differences, especially concerning the sacraments, I would trust the footnotes of a Bible edition from a conservative Evangelical publisher over the disastrous notes in the NAB.

It has tons of maps, timelines, art, pictures, historical context, charts, etc. - all useful tools for any Christian.

In all charity while I will admit the notes in the NAB are pretty poor, I would caution any Catholic from reading a protestant study bible. The notes could easily lead someone astray from the Church and put their soul in danger.

If one does choose to read a protestant bible, I would definitely avoid a study bible and if you already have a study Bible I would be wary of the notes…

Sorry but even the maps and timelines could be eschewed from the truths of the Catholic church.

 

[tonyh12]

Yes my Protestant bible is chained up so no one can read it lol. Seriously though I don’t see any reason for catholic to read non-catholic bible just get Catholic one, but realise that doesn’t answer your question which I assume is no but inadvisable especially bibles that are published by faiths that conflict substantially catholicsm even JW new world edition changes divinity of Christ first line of John - pretty dangerous stuff I’m sure there are similar odd translations out and about.

 

[amoiesu]

douay-rheims sounds nice, but it’s not very accurate. we’ve gotten better at translating since then. the reason ‘blessed art thou among women’ isn’t in luke 1:28 is because it’s not supposed to be there, and catholic translations don’t have it either; it was probably a translation error. it is in luke 1:42, though.

contrary to old days beliefs, protestants don’t twist wording for propaganda purposes. i used to be a protestant and back then i thought catholics were the word twisters, but then i actually read a catholic bible and found they were both exactly the same in their wording. we’re all wrong about each other and need to be careful about the accusations we make.

paraphrase translations, like living bible, aren’t supposed to be accurate. educated protestants know they are meant for simpler devotional reading and not serious study. more used for study purposes are niv and nasb.

there is nothing wrong with do-it-yourself translating, which is why the Church has never condemned it but encouraged it. on the contrary, she encourages us to try to understand our bibles as best as possible. the Church wouldn’t give us a bible that contradicts her, so we don’t need to be afraid of understanding the bible as clearly as possible and think that if we translate accurately, we will lose our faith over contradictory verses. the Church and the Bible are one, just as true faith and true reason are one.

St Jerome said “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”. if you come across something confusing, you can ask someone for help, but fear of not perfectly understanding every word of Scripture shouldn’t keep you from serious study and translating and research to try to understand the Bible better.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

blessed art thou among women’ isn’t in luke 1:28 is because it’s not supposed to be there, and catholic translations don’t have it either; it was probably a translation error.

It depends on the manuscript being used. It is in some Catholic translations.

contrary to old days beliefs, protestants don’t twist wording for propaganda purposes.

In all charity, I also was protestant for very many years, I’m not saying that anyone twists scripture for propaganda but beliefs determine how a verse should be translated.
Yes living bibles are for devotions but the belief will still determine the “devotional” translation.

Luke 1 was just one example.

we don’t need to be afraid of understanding the bible as clearly as possible

This I agree with but the only way to truly understand the bible correctly is under the teaching of the Church.
It is important when studying to be sure you have good Catholic guidance and study material.
Private interpretation is what has led to so many denominations.

God bless

 

[Michael_Anthony]

Sometimes the other translations may be a bit closer or more easily readable (though often also errant), another use is in dialoguing with Protestants, they often don’t want to trust our translations, so using theirs can be helpful. Also sometimes you may want to quote something in its most commonly recited form which is usually the KJV translation such as “thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor” which in most modern translations lacks some of the formal feel (no thee’s, thy’s, thou’s, etc.).

 

[Michael_Anthony]

It actually isn’t independent translating that got us into this mess (of division), independent translating was used to help support the theology of those who broke away, but even in extreme cases, it isn’t erroneous translation so much as erroneous removal and addition that causes issues (ie. Luther added "alone’ into his German translation so as to support Sola Fide, and removed 7 books which would contradict his changes). These are people editing, not people translating, in fact Dr. Scott Hahn as a protestant had been forced to begin to see the Catholic church’s side when he was translating part of John 6 for a class and the class learned that properly translating it, it had to read “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood” as opposed to the way they were used to interpreting it.

The NAB has several other issues in its translation such as Gender Neutral language in places that harm some of the effects of verses, but not to the extreme of some protestants who refuse to call God “Father” or “Son” preferring terms like "Creator’ and “Savior”.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Yes, I agree all these things that you mention certainly have also caused a lot of mess and definitely much division.