Bibles

[tobinatorstark]

If you look at this page you’ll see exactly which translations have received imprimatur in the USCCB since 1991. Of course, it is always possible that a translation received imprimatur before 1991, from another Conference of Bishops, or directly from the Vatican.

Under Canon Law 825, special rules apply for publishing and imprimatur of translations of Sacred Scripture: namely, approval by a Conference of Bishops or directly from the Vatican. Before the 1983 release of the current version of Canon Law, individual Bishops could grant imprimatur.

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.
§2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members of the Christian faithful in collaboration with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures provided with appropriate annotations.

I know this one by heart. It has been brought up numerous times. I still am utterly disgusted with some of the decisions the USCCB. When the 1991 Psalms came about Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati is the one who issued the Imprimatur. I honestly think the USCCB has not reviewed such translations and revisions such as the 1991 Psalms from the NAB or NIV Psalms along with the NRSV to make any good decisions. I think I will stick to my Douay-Rheims and avoid any Bible that had Protestants on the translation committee

 

[Bible_Reader]

I know this one by heart. It has been brought up numerous times. I still am utterly disgusted with some of the decisions the USCCB. When the 1991 Psalms came about Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati is the one who issued the Imprimatur. I honestly think the USCCB has not reviewed such translations and revisions such as the 1991 Psalms from the NAB or NIV Psalms along with the NRSV to make any good decisions. I think I will stick to my Douay-Rheims and avoid any Bible that had Protestants on the translation committee

In fact, if you are referring to the Challoner revision, most observers think that DRC is closer to the KJV than the Vulgate. See, for example, this assessment by Cardinal Newman (search for the term “Protestant”.)

 

[tobinatorstark]

In fact, if you are referring to the Challoner revision, most observers think that DRC is closer to the KJV than the Vulgate. See, for example, this assessment by Cardinal Newman (search for the term “Protestant”.)

so are you referring to the D-R a Protestant Bible??? The KJV borrowed heavily off of the Rheims NT and made changes. I have read this article many times before

 

[1holycatholic]

Latin Vulgate(I would suggest not reading that unless you know Latin), Douay-Rheims(word for word English translation of the Vulgate), RSV-CE(Best modern translation), Jerusalem Bible(YHWH used instead of Lord, but overall a decent translation), New Jerusalem Bible(Borderline heretical), New American Bible (worst translation of Psalms ever, Revised NT and Psalms rejected by Vatican for Liturgical use, RNAB is lectionary), NRSV(flat out horrible inclusive language), Good News Translation (don’t even pick up a copy of this Catholic edition. Poor excuse for a Bible). Ronald Knox Translation should be in print very soon, by Baronius press. If you don’t go with the Douay-Rheims and go with a more modern Bible, I would recommend the Ignatius Bible (RSV-CE)

Why so?

 

[mccorm45]

Why so?

Yeah, Tobinator, why such harsh words? The NJB is no where near being heretical, and to be honest, saying that it is “boarderline heretical” is kind of irresponsible of you. To say such a thing, you would need to provide proof.

As for the NAB, I certainly agree that the '91 Psalms are not very good, but the NT and OT are liturgically approved for the USA. Have there been some changes to the text for the Mass? Yes, but even with those changes the NAB NT is still the base translation for Scriptural readings at Mass in the USA. (I would imagine that it is well over 90% the same as the NAB you can buy in the store.)

 

[Bible_Reader]

so are you referring to the D-R a Protestant Bible??? The KJV borrowed heavily off of the Rheims NT and made changes. I have read this article many times before

Well, it is true that KJV was influenced by the 1582 Rheims (as well as the Geneva and Bishop), but of course the 1610 Douay, which appeared roughly contemporaneously with the 1611 KJV, did not influence it.

However, few Catholics use the original 1582/1610 D-R today – they are much more likely to use the Challoner revision, which was influenced by a Protestant translation. Being familiar with the article, you will have noted that many of the KJV influences on Challoner were in the Old Testament.

My point, of course, is that there is no commonly used Catholic English translation that is free of Protestant influence. For better or worse, every commonly used Catholic English Bible today bears significant Protestant influence.

 

[Bible_Reader]

I must confess that I do not understand how Baronius Press has authorization (as a Catholic publisher) to print the Knox OT, since my understanding is that the OT never received imprimatur. (My copy of the Knox OT does not have an imprimatur.)

 

[tobinatorstark]

Yeah, Tobinator, why such harsh words? The NJB is no where near being heretical, and to be honest, saying that it is “boarderline heretical” is kind of irresponsible of you. To say such a thing, you would need to provide proof.

As for the NAB, I certainly agree that the '91 Psalms are not very good, but the NT and OT are liturgically approved for the USA. Have there been some changes to the text for the Mass? Yes, but even with those changes the NAB NT is still the base translation for Scriptural readings at Mass in the USA. (I would imagine that it is well over 90% the same as the NAB you can buy in the store.)

Mother Angelica has quoted as the NJB heretical. I however might disagree with her on some point in this translation. I slightly would recommend the NJB over the NAB, NRSV and the Good News Translation. The inclusive language says it all for the NJB. I don’t want to sound too critical about the NJB, but overall it can be improved on dramatically.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I must confess that I do not understand how Baronius Press has authorization (as a Catholic publisher) to print the Knox OT, since my understanding is that the OT never received imprimatur. (My copy of the Knox OT does not have an imprimatur.)

That is something you’d have to ask Baronius Press. I haven’t seen an OT, I have just seen an NT.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Why so?

inclusive language

 

[mccorm45]

inclusive language

It is important to distinguish what kind of inclusive language we are talking about here. If we mean vertical inclusive language, refering to God, then of course that is wrong. But, if we are talking about horizontal inclusive language, refering to people and the use of terms like “men” or “brothers” when the text suggests it means both men and women, then that is a whole different story. One could certainly argue how well a particular translation has implimented (horizontal) inclusive language, but to say that it is heretical is clearly wrong. The Vatican has allowed some horizontal inclusive language to be used in the Mass, as well as in scriptural translations. I need not mention that at the beginning of any reading from Paul at Mass, the lector says “Brothers and Sisters”, while the text only mentions “Brothers”.

Another case in point is the fact that the NAB is the english Bible translation on the Vatican website, except for the '91 Psalms. The NAB NT, which uses modest horizontal inclusive language, is available for search, while the '91 Psalms, which uses both horizontal and vertical inclusive language, it absent. This may be a very good indication as to what the Vatican thinks about this issue.

So no matter what you may think about inclusive language, you need to be careful before you throw out words like “heretical”.

 

[Manfred]

Maybe. Even though I haven’t really looked at it though, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was better than the '91 NAB Psalms.

Also, I have never seen an approved NIV New Testament for Catholics. I am not sure one exists, although if there was one I would appreciate any evidence of it.

Tim,

I googled “NIV Catholic Edition” and came up empty. That is, some of the links referred to an “NIV Catholic edition” when what was actually meant was either the NRSV or the NAB.

Still, at some bookseller’s site a while back, I could’ve sworn there was a Catholic edition of the NIV NT. While I was certainly underwhlemed by the whole thing, I could understand it, since (1) many Catholics read it (the NIV, that is) because they have relatives/friends who like it, and (2) the NIV OT could never be approved for Catholic use without the deuterocanon.

Now while I may have been wrong re the NIV NT, it would appear there is a Catholic edition of the NIV Psalms. Is it better than the RNAB? Probably, but mainly because it doesn’t get all inclusive and stupid like the RNAB Book of Psalms. I’m sure no changes were made to the NIV Psalms by any Catholic scholars.

 

[Cranch]

I must confess that I do not understand how Baronius Press has authorization (as a Catholic publisher) to print the Knox OT, since my understanding is that the OT never received imprimatur. (My copy of the Knox OT does not have an imprimatur.)

It is odd that you find no imprimatur. The original Knox OT was published in two volumes in 1949, some four years after his New Testament. The complete Knox translation of the whole Bible was first published in one volume in 1955. I have the one-volume Second Edition from 1956. It carries the imprimatur of Bernard Cardinal Griffin, Archbishop of Westminster, given at Westminster on December 8, 1954.

 

[mccorm45]

Tim,

I googled “NIV Catholic Edition” and came up empty. That is, some of the links referred to an “NIV Catholic edition” when what was actually meant was either the NRSV or the NAB.

Still, at some bookseller’s site a while back, I could’ve sworn there was a Catholic edition of the NIV NT. While I was certainly underwhlemed by the whole thing, I could understand it, since (1) many Catholics read it (the NIV, that is) because they have relatives/friends who like it, and (2) the NIV OT could never be approved for Catholic use without the deuterocanon.

Now while I may have been wrong re the NIV NT, it would appear there is a Catholic edition of the NIV Psalms. Is it better than the RNAB? Probably, but mainly because it doesn’t get all inclusive and stupid like the RNAB Book of Psalms. I’m sure no changes were made to the NIV Psalms by any Catholic scholars.

Manfred,

I was able to find out a little more info on the St. Joseph NIV Psalms: catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2009/05/catholic-edition-of-niv.html

It is interesting that this edition comes with its own footnotes, cross-references, and textual notes. Although I am still unaware if there were any changes to the scriptural text itself.

 

[tobinatorstark]

It is important to distinguish what kind of inclusive language we are talking about here. If we mean vertical inclusive language, refering to God, then of course that is wrong. But, if we are talking about horizontal inclusive language, refering to people and the use of terms like “men” or “brothers” when the text suggests it means both men and women, then that is a whole different story. One could certainly argue how well a particular translation has implimented (horizontal) inclusive language, but to say that it is heretical is clearly wrong. The Vatican has allowed some horizontal inclusive language to be used in the Mass, as well as in scriptural translations. I need not mention that at the beginning of any reading from Paul at Mass, the lector says “Brothers and Sisters”, while the text only mentions “Brothers”.

Another case in point is the fact that the NAB is the english Bible translation on the Vatican website, except for the '91 Psalms. The NAB NT, which uses modest horizontal inclusive language, is available for search, while the '91 Psalms, which uses both horizontal and vertical inclusive language, it absent. This may be a very good indication as to what the Vatican thinks about this issue.

So no matter what you may think about inclusive language, you need to be careful before you throw out words like “heretical”.

It’s kinda hard to argue with someone like Mother Angelica.

 

[mccorm45]

It’s kinda hard to argue with someone like Mother Angelica.

Well, you decide who you are going to side with in this hypothetical debate you have made up. I am simply pointing out what the Church has accepted. Again, we are talking about the use of the term “heretical” in regards to inclusive language. To begin with, you might want to make sure what kind of inclusive language Mother Angelica was talking about, vertical or horizontal. Clearly, vertical inclusive language distorts the revealed truths of the identity of Triune God, which is clearly wrong and will never be allowed in Liturgy of the Church. The NRSV does not do this, nor does the NJB or the NAB NT. (The NAB '91 Psalms are a different and somewhat strange creature in regards to this topic.)

If you want to place in opposition Mother Angelica and what the Church has decided is an acceptable amount of horizontal inclusive language then go ahead…but I am not.

 

[David_Zampino]

It’s kinda hard to argue with someone like Mother Angelica.

Mother Angelica has quoted as the NJB heretical. I however might disagree with her on some point in this translation. I slightly would recommend the NJB over the NAB, NRSV and the Good News Translation. The inclusive language says it all for the NJB. I don’t want to sound too critical about the NJB, but overall it can be improved on dramatically.

As much as I respect Mother Angelica – and I do, tremendously – she, by herself, hardly represents the Magisterium of the Church. And, not to put too fine a point on it, she can (and has) at times been perhaps overly harsh?

Now, I will freely agree that there are better translations out there than the NJB. But, as another poster has pointed out, one must carefully distinguish between “horizontal” inclusive language (which honestly, I don’t like, either in Scripture or in hymnody) and “vertical” inclusive language – which is a far more serious matter all together.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Well, you decide who you are going to side with in this hypothetical debate you have made up. I am simply pointing out what the Church has accepted. Again, we are talking about the use of the term “heretical” in regards to inclusive language. To begin with, you might want to make sure what kind of inclusive language Mother Angelica was talking about, vertical or horizontal. Clearly, vertical inclusive language distorts the revealed truths of the identity of Triune God, which is clearly wrong and will never be allowed in Liturgy of the Church. The NRSV does not do this, nor does the NJB or the NAB NT. (The NAB '91 Psalms are a different and somewhat strange creature in regards to this topic.)

If you want to place in opposition Mother Angelica and what the Church has decided is an acceptable amount of horizontal inclusive language then go ahead…but I am not.

I am with Mother Angelica on this one. Any inclusive language is bad if you look at it from a fine point. That is fine that you don’t agree with me on this matter. I am not looking for someone to agree with I am rather stating something I feel strongly about.

 

[mccorm45]

I am with Mother Angelica on this one. Any inclusive language is bad if you look at it from a fine point. That is fine that you don’t agree with me on this matter. I am not looking for someone to agree with I am rather stating something I feel strongly about.

That’s fine, but you fail to address any of the points I have tried to bring up. You simply say it is bad, without making any comments about the different types of inclusive language philosophies or how it has/has not been accepted by the Church in its various types. You simply stand behind a statement made by Mother Angelica, with or without clarification, instead of what the Church has actually done in regards to this issue. I guess that doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[David_Zampino]

I am with Mother Angelica on this one. Any inclusive language is bad if you look at it from a fine point. That is fine that you don’t agree with me on this matter. I am not looking for someone to agree with I am rather stating something I feel strongly about.

I don’t like ANY inclusive language, and I’ve tried to make that clear. However, you should be able to distinguish between the horizontal (offensive, but not necessarily textually inaccurate) and vertical (heretical). They are not in the same category, and to suggest that they are weakens your own position. This is something I feel EXTREMELY strongly about – but am able, while still disagreeing, to differentiate between the two positions.

Because I am able to make this differentiation, I am able to appreciate the scholarship, with regard to use of texts not available to the 16th and 17th century translators, while still deploring those occasions when political correctness runs amok. I am not going to disregard the last 400 years of scholarship because some of the scholars held politically correct (though theologically incorrect) opinions concerning the use of male pronouns.

In other words, I recognize the error of political correctness, but choose not to throw the baby out with the bath water.