Catholic and Protestant Bible Translation

[gucci13ph]

Hi,

I am new here and not sure if there is an existing thread on this one. I would like to ask the difference between catholic translations of the bible (for example NAB) and Protestant (Example NIV). I believe that NIV does not recognize the book of Maccabees, as well as some differences in translations. Please enlighten me. Thanks

Miguel

 

[djd83]

Welcome!
Protestant Bibles do not contain the ‘apocryphal’ books such as Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and additions to Daniel and Esther. These were removed from the Bible during Reformation on what I believe to be false claims.

As regards translation, I think the NIV may be a bit biased, i.e. it only mentions ‘tradition’ in a negative light… I’m sure there are other biases I don’t know about…

 

[gucci13ph]

Thank you =)

 

[Dave_B]

Hi,
I am new here and not sure if there is an existing thread on this one. I would like to ask the difference between catholic translations of the bible (for example NAB) and Protestant (Example NIV). I believe that NIV does not recognize the book of Maccabees, as well as some differences in translations. Please enlighten me. Thanks Miguel

Welcome to the fourm. Being a (Catholic-friendly) Protestant I use the NIV. The “deuterocanonical” books, removed by Martin Luther, were viewed as Bible canon by the apostles.
This page may be of interest scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

 

[puzzleannie]

In addition some (not all) translations of the bible done under auspices of one or another Protestant group are undertaken with an agenda. That might be a fundamentalist focus, that is, always choosing the option of a word or sense that reinforces a fundamentalist viewpoint, or inclusive language, or social justice, or rejecting any word that favors a Catholic stance in favor of another word. (words like presbyter translated as elder rather than priest is an example.) I know some people criticize the RSV because it was translated by a team of scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, but to my mind that is better because their scholarship can “cross-check” itself and avoid those slanted, agenda-driven choices. For my money a translation done by a “mixed” team of scholars with the goal of most accurately rendering the meaning of the original in the translation, without destroying what is unique in the original, is better than a so-called Catholic translation driven by an agenda, like liberation theology or inclusive language. And many modern “Protestant” study bibles do include the deutero-canonical books in the interests of completeness and having them available since they have been in use for the entire life of the Church.

 

[WorkerPriest]

Friend,

Luther removed nothing from the Bible of his day (cf. Luther’s German translation.) The King James translators didn’t, either (cf. the 1611 Authorized Version.) These were largely late 19th and 20th century innovations by fundamentalist inspired Americana, which eventually infected Lutheran and Anglican churches.

Also, the NIV is a poor translation. It is not well tied to the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) more often choosing to paraphrase than translate. It also has a fundamentalist evangelical slant away from Sacramental Theology, which shows up particularly in their New Testament translation.

Better translations include the NKJV and ESV (New King James Version, and the English Standard Version.) The former uses the Byzantine text forms, the latter uses the critical texts, but both reference the others by footnote and crossreference, and are very accurate translations. Of particular note, I would offer the Orthodox Study Bible is wonderful, translating the OT from the Septuagint Greek (with a very few cross referenced Hebrew notes, unfortunately) and using the NKJV as the NT translation of the Byzantine Greek, and retains all the Septuagint deuterocanonical books that the Fathers (and the Reformers) would have held in their Bibles.

Peace be with you all.

Welcome to the fourm. Being a (Catholic-friendly) Protestant I use the NIV. The “deuterocanonical” books, removed by Martin Luther, were viewed as Bible canon by the apostles.
This page may be of interest scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

 

[pablope]

Friend,

Luther removed nothing from the Bible of his day (cf. Luther’s German translation.) The King James translators didn’t, either (cf. the 1611 Authorized Version.) These were largely late 19th and 20th century innovations by fundamentalist inspired Americana, which eventually infected Lutheran and Anglican churches.

Also, the NIV is a poor translation. It is not well tied to the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) more often choosing to paraphrase than translate. It also has a fundamentalist evangelical slant away from Sacramental Theology, which shows up particularly in their New Testament translation.

Better translations include the NKJV and ESV (New King James Version, and the English Standard Version.) The former uses the Byzantine text forms, the latter uses the critical texts, but both reference the others by footnote and crossreference, and are very accurate translations. Of particular note, I would offer the Orthodox Study Bible is wonderful, translating the OT from the Septuagint Greek (with a very few cross referenced Hebrew notes, unfortunately) and using the NKJV as the NT translation of the Byzantine Greek, and retains all the Septuagint deuterocanonical books that the Fathers (and the Reformers) would have held in their Bibles.

Peace be with you all.

Very informative, WorkerPriest…thank you.

Do you know the reason why the DCs were removed?

Just some questions: What do yo mean by “critical texts”?

 

[Salvatore123]

I don’t mean to get too “picky”, but actually, St. Jerome, in consulting the Massoretic text for his OT translation into the Latin Vulgate did not believe the “deuterocanonicals” were inspired either. This caused a great deal of problems for him, and as a result, he lived the remainder of his life in what was then referred to as a “cave”.

Remember that Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to produce the Latin Vulgate, and Jerome - true to his commission - DID include the deuterocanonicals. Whether he changed his mind about the canonicity before he died, I don’t know. His final “product” however, included them and Trent finally (and formally) confirmed them as canonical, along with the other books of the OT and NT.

Although Luther did not “remove” any books (he didn’t have any authority to remove anything), he did TEACH that several books were not canonical, including ones accepted by Protestants, such as James (which he called “an epistle of straw” because of its specific discussion of the value of good works), and others that did not fit his ideology of his later life.

What I have always thought funny about the KJV is the word “authorized”. Simply because King James gave his “blessing” on that translation, it suddenly became “authorized”? Odd, considering James had no more authority over any non-British subjects than you or me, and yet what he proclaimed to be God’s word was called “authorized” . . .

 

[mcrow]

In the grand scheme of things, as long as you have access to all of the books in the Catholic Bible, it doesn’t matter than much which translation you use.

99% of the verses translate the same overall meaning between most translations. I would stay away from the very dynamic translations just for the fact that instead of reading the word of God you are reading what someone else thinks the wordo of God is saying. To some extent this is the case with all translations but it’s particularly bad in dynamic bibles.

However, most people will notice little, if any difference between the bibles except some use more modern language and other older english.

Personally, I have two bibles:

RSV ( a good Catholic translation with all of the books)
TNIV ( much like NIV, very easy to read but does not have the deuterocanonical books)

The other big thing is inclusive language, but that doesn’t really bother me much.

 

[WorkerPriest]

Friend,

Regarding St. Jerome, you’re right-- and his consternation was something that not just Luther, but Erasmus and others during the 16th century picked up on. The historical aspects of the arguements are important to keep in context. Though I can’t put my finger on the reference, if memory serves, St. Jerome did eventually concede the proper place of the deuterocanonical books in the canon, though regarded them as something of a lower tier of authority.

For Luther, it wasn’t so much what agreed or disagreed with him, but rather which texts within the canon were most reflective of Christ. For Luther (and successive generations of confessional Lutherans) the central hermenuetic of Holy Scripture is Christ. Hence, we have no problem with either the shorter or longer lists of canons, but we do put emphasis on those texts which reveal most clearly the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving work. It is an approach to Scripture that has patristic roots in the east and west, and is reflected nicely in the recently published Orthodox Study Bible.

As for the Authorized Version of 1611, that’s an accident of history, too. Keeping in mind, that within the Anglican Church of the 16th and 17th centuries, authority rested with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the King of England. That authorization was reflective of their local church… and it makes a bit more sense, since they were the seat of English language and culture, and best suited to make English translations of the Holy Scriptures.

Peace to you.

I don’t mean to get too “picky”, but actually, St. Jerome, in consulting the Massoretic text for his OT translation into the Latin Vulgate did not believe the “deuterocanonicals” were inspired either. This caused a great deal of problems for him, and as a result, he lived the remainder of his life in what was then referred to as a “cave”.

Remember that Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to produce the Latin Vulgate, and Jerome - true to his commission - DID include the deuterocanonicals. Whether he changed his mind about the canonicity before he died, I don’t know. His final “product” however, included them and Trent finally (and formally) confirmed them as canonical, along with the other books of the OT and NT.

Although Luther did not “remove” any books (he didn’t have any authority to remove anything), he did TEACH that several books were not canonical, including ones accepted by Protestants, such as James (which he called “an epistle of straw” because of its specific discussion of the value of good works), and others that did not fit his ideology of his later life.

What I have always thought funny about the KJV is the word “authorized”. Simply because King James gave his “blessing” on that translation, it suddenly became “authorized”? Odd, considering James had no more authority over any non-British subjects than you or me, and yet what he proclaimed to be God’s word was called “authorized” . . .

 

[WorkerPriest]

Glad to be of service.

It’s hard to put a finger on all the motives that infused 19th and 20th century American protestantism, but it’s probably worth noting that there was a palpable anti-catholic rhetoric throughout it. Caught up in that anti-catholicism were often the historically sacramental Reformation churches (especially Lutherans and Anglicans, and some Methodists) who to the average fundamentalist looked a bit too “romish.” Under that kind of pressure, I think many of the Lutherans and Anglicans started to acquiesse on the Scriptures. In the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, I believe it also coincided with the general move from German to English, as most German speaking American Lutherans used Luther’s German translation (complete with deutercanonicals,) the way Anglicans used the 1611 KJV. Any way it played out, I think it was an impoverishment.

As for the “critical texts,” in Biblical translations there are various scholarly camps. I am not a scholar, just a humble priest. However, I believe the camps can be divided into those that followed the Tubingen school of Higher Criticism, often prefering to rely on a minority of texts (mostly of Alexandrian provenance) that reflected a reduced text that they would claim is more free of historical accretions or distortions, and the other camp which followed the majority of texts (of which the Byzantine texts are a model, as well as the Textus Receptus of Erasmus which was the basis of the KJV and some of Luther’s work.) Until the 19th and 20th centuries, the vast majority of Biblical scholars prefered the Byzantine texts because of their greater use across the broadest swath of Christendom. But after the Higher Criticism revolution, and the rise of deconstructionism in Biblical studies, the Alexandrian, or “critical texts” became the vogue.

There are few English translations which use the old majority, Byzantine text forms as the primary basis for their work. Those that focus on the minority critical texts, include the RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, and most of the modern catholic study Bibles (I think the D-R was the last of the catholic Bible translations that stuck with the Vulgate, which is closer to the majority text forms.) Among the modern translations sticking with the majority text forms, are the KJV, the NKJV, and the Orthodox Study Bible.

While I prefer the Byzantine texts for a basis, I often recommend that a person have at least two Bibles for comparison, one from each camp. In that spirit, I would recommend having a NKJV and an ESV, as both are very good scholarly works, and each represents a particular textual tradition. Amongst the modern Roman Catholic translations, I don’t have enough exposure to make a good recommendation. Though I’ve probably gushed over it too much already, that Orthodox Study Bible is a real English treasure.

Blessings to you.

Very informative, WorkerPriest…thank you.

Do you know the reason why the DCs were removed?

Just some questions: What do yo mean by “critical texts”?

 

[jblake]

I would like to ask the difference between catholic translations of the bible (for example NAB) and Protestant (Example NIV).

Catholic Translations have the Imprimatur of the Catholic Church. Protestant translations don’t have anything even remotely similar. Anglican Translations theoretically get approval by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Catholic translations tend to be in the middle of the Literal/paraphrase continuum. Popular Protestant translations tend to be on the paraphrase end of that continuum.
Liturgical Protestant translations cover the entire range of that continuum.

Protestant translations contain the 66 Book Protestant Canon.
Catholic translations contain the 73 Book Catholic Canon.
Anglican translations contain the 76 Book Anglican Canon.
Orthodox translations contain the 79-81 Book Orthodox Canon.

Modern Protestant translations tend to be based on the WLC and USB-4/NA-27, with nods to whichever other original language texts favours their theology.
Catholic translations tend to lay slightly more weight on the Vulgate, rather than the WLC & USB-4/NA-27, but they also look at other original language texts.
Anglican translations tend to follow WLC & USB-4/NA-27.
Orthodox translations tend to follow the LXX & Byzantine texts.

Given a choice, my preference would be:

• Orthodox Translation;
• Anglican Translation;
• Catholic Translation;
• Protestant Translation;

But throw all of that away.
If you are Catholic, you need a Catholic Bible. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Here, the crucial thing is whether or not you will read it. A paraphrase that you read twice a day is going to contribute far more to your Spiritual Grown, than a parallel Vulgate/NA-267/WLC/DRC that you leave unopened for fifty years.
WorkerPriest;:

Luther removed nothing from the Bible of his day (cf. Luther’s German translation.)

Epistle to the Laodiceans is the name of the book that you are looking for.

IOW, if you are going to claim that Luther removed books from the Bible, at least get the name of the book he can legitimately be credited with removing, correct.
Salvatore123;:

he did TEACH that several books were not canonical,

It was more nuanced than that. Other that EpLao, he taught that he did not think that they were canonical, but merely “good reading”. In his questioning of the canonicity of several texts that are in the Protestant Canon, he was simply following lines of questioning about canonicity that earlier theologians had raised.

What I have always thought funny about the KJV is the word “authorized”. Simply because King James gave his “blessing” on that translation, it suddenly became “authorized”?

Whilst King James requested that translation, he did not give it his approval. The “Authorization” is from Canon Law, and the approval of the ArchBishop of Canterbury.

 

[gucci13ph]

Thanks for all who posted their messages. I’m really learning a lot. Is a listing of the different translations available (ie the translations for Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc). I was trying to look for one but could not find one…

Thanks in advance.

 

[djd83]

Well, I haven’t been able to find a list, but here are some I can think of at the top of my head:

Protestant versions:
King James Version
New KIng James Version
New International Version
New American Standard Version
New World Translation
Living Bible
Revised New Intl. Version

Catholic Versions:
New American Bible
New American Bible-Revised (releases later in 2011)
Douay-Rheims
Revised Standard Version
jerusalem Bible
Catholic Public Domain Version

I’m sure there are plenty of others that I just can’t think of at the moment…

God bless!
djd

 

[NoelFitz]

The RSV is really a Protestant version.

I read in Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version:

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) is an English translation of the Bible published in the mid-20th century. It traces its history to William Tyndale’s New Testament translation of 1525. The RSV is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901.[1]

The RSV posed the first serious challenge to the popularity of the King James Version, aiming to be a readable and literally accurate modern English translation of the Bible. The intention was not only to create a clearer version of the Bible for the English-speaking church, but also to “preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the centuries” and “to put the message of the Bible in simple, enduring words that are worthy to stand in the great Tyndale-King James tradition.”

The RSV was published in the following stages:

* New Testament, First Edition (1946; originally copyrighted to the International Council of Religious Education)
* Old Testament (and thus the full Protestant Bible) (1952)
* Apocrypha (1957)
* Modified Edition (only a few changes) (1962)
* Catholic Edition (NT 1965, Full RSV-CE 1966)
* New Testament, Second Edition (1971)
* Common Bible (1973)
* Apocrypha, Expanded Edition (1977)
* Second Catholic Edition (2006)

 

[Anna_Scott]

Catholic Translations have the Imprimatur of the Catholic Church. Protestant translations don’t have anything even remotely similar. . . . .But throw all of that away. If you are Catholic, you need a Catholic Bible. No ifs, ands, or buts.

jblake,

Really? Protestant translations don’t have anything even remotely similar? Throw all of them away?

This is a quote from the** Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version**, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

“This edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible has been prepared for the use of Catholics by a committee of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. It is published with ecclesiastical approval and by agreement with the Standard Bible Committee and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States. . . . A small committee of members of the Catholic Bible Association was formed and permission obtained to examine this translation and suggest any changes that might be required to make it acceptable to Catholics. The Standard Bible Committee of the U.S.A. was then approached and they gave warm welcome to the proposal."

The Catholic Bible Association adopted the Revised Standard Version, used primarily by non-Catholics and edited it for Catholic use. The RSV became the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. It has been reissued under the title, **The Ignatius Bible. ** There were very few changes made to the text of the Catholic Editions.

In addition, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, uses the RSV and NRSV by permission from the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
“Scripture quotations contained herein are adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States, and are used by permission. All rights reserved.”
Link to Member Communions and Denominations of the National Council of Churches: ncccusa.org/members/index.html

You said, “If you are Catholic, you need a Catholic Bible. No ifs, ands, or buts.” So, why did the Catholic Church adopt a Protestant translation rather than using an English translation of the Latin Vulgate or any other Catholic Bible, for that matter?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Bible_Reader]

You said, “If you are Catholic, you need a Catholic Bible. No ifs, ands, or buts.” So, why did the Catholic Church adopt a Protestant translation rather than using an English translation of the Latin Vulgate or any other Catholic Bible, for that matter?

Anna, the history of the RSV-CE is tied closely to Vatican II.

First, the RSV was not a “Protestant translation” – you will recall, for example, that RSV translator Harry Orlinsky was Jewish – not Protestant.

Vatican II’s* Dei Verbum* (see paragraph 22) opened the way to ecumenical translations with Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. The RSV-CE was one of the first fruits of this new collaboration. It may interest you to know that New American Bible is also an ecumenical translation with Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic translators (I think there are Orthodox translators as well, but I am not sure.)

The 1971 revision of the RSV incorporated many of the Catholic revisions. And in a sense, the RSV was not complete until 1977 when it produced an ecumenical version that also included books in the Orthodox Deuterocanons.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, the history of the RSV-CE is tied closely to Vatican II.

First, the RSV was not a “Protestant translation” – you will recall, for example, that RSV translator Harry Orlinsky was Jewish – not Protestant.

Vatican II’s* Dei Verbum* (see paragraph 22) opened the way to ecumenical translations with Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. The RSV-CE was one of the first fruits of this new collaboration. It may interest you to know that New American Bible is also an ecumenical translation with Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic translators (I think there are Orthodox translators as well, but I am not sure.)

The 1971 revision of the RSV incorporated many of the Catholic revisions. And in a sense, the RSV was not complete until 1977 when it produced an ecumenical version that also included books in the Orthodox Deuterocanons.

You’re right, I could have referred to the RSV as a “non-Catholic” translation, adopted and adapted by the Catholic Church and reissued as The Ignatius Bible.

In my previous post; I did provide a Link to Member Communions and Denominations of the National Council of Churches: ncccusa.org/members/index.html to show the different Churches involved in this translation.

So, yes, the RSV can be viewed as “ecumenical.” However, the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version commented on the fact that the Catholic view of Protestant translations has changed (and vice versa)–a comment that would have been unnecessary, if the RSV could not be viewed, at least by some, as falling into the category of “Protestant Bibles”:

Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version
The Catholic Comparative New Testament
“For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other’s translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions. It must be admitted that these suspicions were not always without foundation. At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike.”

So, perhaps we are both right.
Anna

 

[Bible_Reader]

You’re right, I could have referred to the RSV as a “non-Catholic” translation, adopted and adapted by the Catholic Church and reissued as The Ignatius Bible.

Actually, the Ignatius so-called “Second Catholic Edition” is another animal altogether – it is not at all clear how that version was revised – the process was not transparent.

The NCCUSA membership list is not a good representation of the translators of the RSV and NRSV. First, the NCC was not even formed until 1950, five years after the first NT edition of the RSV appeared. And the membership has changed a great deal since 1950. And the translators are rather different than the church membership: there was definitely significant Catholic involvement in the NRSV, although there has never been representation in the NCC of the Catholic Church.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Actually, the Ignatius so-called “Second Catholic Edition” is another animal altogether – it is not at all clear how that version was revised – the process was not transparent. . . . .

Bible Reader,
So, no comments on the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version?

Anna