Catholic and Protestant Bible Translation

[Bible_Reader]

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

Anna

Anna: I wasn’t going to pursue it (it all seems a bit legalistic), but since you ask …

It is worth reading the full context of the quote. The quote starts out with the 400 years line, and refers back to the KJV which was definitely a Protestant translation. The introduction asserts that the RSV “has been acclaimed on all sides” and then, a few sentences later, it goes on to discuss the initial effort made in 1953 for a common Bible translation.

I am not sure why you think the introduction implies that the RSV is a “Protestant Bible” – it explicitly asserts that the underlying texts are common to both Protestants and Catholics.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna: I wasn’t going to pursue it (it all seems a bit legalistic), but since you ask …

It is worth reading the full context of the quote. The quote starts out with the 400 years line, and refers back to the KJV which was definitely a Protestant translation. The introduction asserts that the RSV “has been acclaimed on all sides” and then, a few sentences later, it goes on to discuss the initial effort made in 1953 for a common Bible translation.

I am not sure why you think the introduction implies that the RSV is a “Protestant Bible” – it explicitly asserts that the underlying texts are common to both Protestants and Catholics.

Missed the point entirely; but as you wish. . . . .
Anna

 

[Bible_Reader]

I’m sorry Anna, I thought I was tracking what you said. Perhaps I could ask you to restate your point.

My point is that there has been an evolution in Catholic Bible translation – so that now Catholics (like Protestants) primarily use original language texts. Catholics also allow ecumenical translations. (As you are a non-Catholic who interacts on CAF, perhaps you are not opposed to ecumenical efforts.) The NRSV and the NAB, perhaps the two most important contemporary translations for English speaking Catholics, are both ecumenical.

Clearly some conservative Protestants still feel uncomfortable about Catholic involvement in Bible translations: to the best of my knowledge, there were no non-Protestant translators for the NIV, NKJV, NASB, or HCSB translations.

The ESV is a special case since it is a revision of the RSV, but the “ESV translation committee” was all Protestant (and all-male). However, Crossway did allow Oxford University Press to commission an ESV with an Apocrypha (very slightly modified from the RSV Apocrypha).

 

[Mark_David]

Yup - snip, snip; “we don’t like these books; out they go”. Furthermore, Luther was quite open about his dislike, or even hatred, of several books of the Bible, even outside of the so-called Catholic deuterocanon (Esther, Song of Solomon, and James come to mind). Yet more factors that weakened my faith in the Protestant view.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m sorry Anna, I thought I was tracking what you said. Perhaps I could ask you to restate your point.

My point is that there has been an evolution in Catholic Bible translation – so that now Catholics (like Protestants) primarily use original language texts. Catholics also allow ecumenical translations. (As you are a non-Catholic who interacts on CAF, perhaps you are not opposed to ecumenical efforts.) The NRSV and the NAB, perhaps the two most important contemporary translations for English speaking Catholics, are both ecumenical.

I think our discussion turned into an argument (I accept my part in that) when it should not have. I am more than open to ecumenical translations. I collect translations of the Bible and find the history of the transmission of Scripture fascinating.

I agree that there has been an evolution in Catholic Bible translations, as is the case with Anglicans, Orthodox, and some Protestants–though there is still the King James-only crowd and other such factions.

I have The New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV, an Ecumenical Study Bible. So, I am aware of the ecumenical nature of the NRSV and RSV.

I want to purchase a NRSV Catholic Edition Study Bible. I like comparing passages and reading the commentaries. That pushes me into more study of the transmission of Scripture, and also into further study of Christian history.

Clearly some conservative Protestants still feel uncomfortable about Catholic involvement in Bible translations. . . .

Absolutely, some conservative Protestants are very uncomfortable with Catholic involvement with Bible translations. In fact, a long time conservative Protestant friend came to visit me a few years back; and was shocked and appalled by the fact that I had a Catholic Comparative New Testament in my home. At that time, I had not yet left the Baptist Church; but I was beginning to study and to question things-not cool in the Baptist church, btw.

My whole point in quoting the Intro to the CE of the RSV is to show that we do not need to be so suspicious of one another, with the advancements in Biblical translations. The RSV and NRSV is acceptable to both Catholics and Protestants (not all.)

Though I am surprised the Catholic Church did not produce an independent translation, considering the vast library of the Vatican (which must be incredible), the availability of many reliable manuscripts, and considering the role the Latin Vulgate has played in the Catholic Church. I’ve met Catholics here who claim the Latin Vulgate is the greatest translation of the Bible ever produced and are very loyal to the Douay-Rheims–yet are unaware that the CCC uses the NRSV and RSV in Scripture references.

I suppose in light of textual criticism and the discovery of so many manuscripts, not available at the time the Vulgate was produced (or the KJV for that matter); it does make sense to adopt a translation such as the RSV or NRSV, instead of starting from square one.

Obviously, the Catholic Church trusts these translations; but did make some changes—which would mean the RSV/NRSV are not purely ecumenical—otherwise, no changes would be needed. The changes are interesting. Most involve what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes, which perhaps reveals an interesting theological bias on both sides. “What goes where” is certainly worth reviewing. Also, some of the wording is different. Luke 1:28 is an interesting passage and an example of both different wording and placement in body of text vs. footnotes.

**Luke 1:28 **

RSV: And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

RSV-CE: And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace,(a) the Lord is with you.(b)
Footnotes:
(a) Or O favored one
(b) Other ancient authorities add “Blessed are you among women!”

---

NRSV: And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!”(a)
Footnotes:
(a) Other ancient authorities add “Blessed are you among women!”

NRSV-CE And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you.’ (a)
Footnotes:
(a) Other ancient authorities add “Blessed are you among women!”

What happened to “full of grace”? It’s missing from both the NRSV and NRSV-CE.

As I said, very interesting subject.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Bible_Reader]

Thanks for the fascinating thoughts, Anna – and I don’t wish to argue.

I think that the reason for changes in the RSV-CE was that it was important that there be some Catholic involvement in producing that edition. That meant that some changes had to be made (otherwise it would hardly count as Catholic involvement!) Since editors Fuller and Orchard had to change something, so they made a few changes to the RSV NT (they left the OT unchanged, except for some additional notes). Many of those changes were subsequently adopted in the RSV71.

My personal view: I don’t think that the RSV-CE changes were particularly important, and I know many Catholics who use the RSV71 (for example, the New Oxford Annotated Bible.) (For example, in the English translation of the current Pope’s Jesus of Nazareth, the translator uses the RSV71 rather than the RSV-CE, as you can note from consulting the copyright page of Jesus of Nazareth, volume 1.) Also the RSV-2CE does not have an independent imprimatur, although it has many more changes from the RSV-CE than the RSV71 has!)

Regarding “full of grace”, it is interesting to note that this phrase is also not used in the NAB. I know you can find many threads here on CAF which discuss this issue at length.

Thanks again for your posts. I always find your posts to be thought-provoking.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thanks for the fascinating thoughts, Anna – and I don’t wish to argue.

I think that the reason for changes in the RSV-CE was that it was important that there be some Catholic involvement in producing that edition. That meant that some changes had to be made (otherwise it would hardly count as Catholic involvement!) Since editors Fuller and Orchard had to change something, so they made a few changes to the RSV NT (they left the OT unchanged, except for some additional notes). Many of those changes were subsequently adopted in the RSV71.

My personal view: I don’t think that the RSV-CE changes were particularly important, and I know many Catholics who use the RSV71 (for example, the New Oxford Annotated Bible.) (For example, in the English translation of the current Pope’s Jesus of Nazareth, the translator uses the RSV71 rather than the RSV-CE, as you can note from consulting the copyright page of Jesus of Nazareth, volume 1.) Also the RSV-2CE does not have an independent imprimatur, although it has many more changes from the RSV-CE than the RSV71 has!)

Regarding “full of grace”, it is interesting to note that this phrase is also not used in the NAB. I know you can find many threads here on CAF which discuss this issue at length.

Thanks again for your posts. I always find your posts to be thought-provoking.

Bible Reader,
You are right. There really are very few differences between the RSV and RSV-CE. I know Catholics here who say they use the New Oxford Annotated Bible, which I have. Though, I would like to purchase a Catholic Edition Study Bible for the Catholic commentaries. Any suggestions?

I have enjoyed this discussion, and I learned some things from you. That always makes me feel like time on these forums is well spent. I can’t say that about every discussion.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yup - snip, snip; “we don’t like these books; out they go”. Furthermore, Luther was quite open about his dislike, or even hatred, of several books of the Bible, even outside of the so-called Catholic deuterocanon (Esther, Song of Solomon, and James come to mind). Yet more factors that weakened my faith in the Protestant view.

Mark David,
Welcome to CAF. These are great forums!

Luther definitely had his own ideas about things. Some of his writings did damage to my Protestant views as well. I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church, where very little history of the Church was ever discussed. I was really quite shocked, when I began my own studies.

Peace to you, and I hope you enjoy the forums,
Anna

 

[Mark_David]

Mark David,
Welcome to CAF. These are great forums!

Luther definitely had his own ideas about things. Some of his writings did damage to my Protestant views as well. I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church, where very little history of the Church was ever discussed. I was really quite shocked, when I began my own studies.

Peace to you, and I hope you enjoy the forums,
Anna

Hi Anna, and thank you

I was drawn to the Reformed Baptist part of Protestantism for some years, and painfully struggled with faith. Yes, I regularly read the Bible (through Calvinistic glasses) - and I am deeply grateful for that head-start - but, of course, none of it ever felt “real”. History was hugely obscure to me before the Reformation, as well; that troubled me, because I couldn’t understand why Christ would’ve let his Church go astray for 1500 years. Also, I often wondered: Why would God remain silent after writings of the Bible? It seemed like the only other contact with Him was through prayer - and that felt, as John Piper once put it (to paraphrase), like being on a bearably-audible walkie-talkie in a war zone. I pray that Piper will understand why that is, now.

I’m so glad to be back home in the Catholic Church. Many of my worries and doubts have been addressed and cured.

God bless.

 

[CalCatholic]

NRSV: And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!”(a)
Footnotes:
(a) Other ancient authorities add “Blessed are you among women!”

NRSV-CE And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you.’ (a)
Footnotes:
(a) Other ancient authorities add “Blessed are you among women!”

What happened to “full of grace”? It’s missing from both the NRSV and NRSV-CE.

As I said, very interesting subject.

Peace,
Anna

Anna, the NRSV and the NRSV-CE use the same translation text (see below), the difference is the NRSV-CE has all the books of the Catholic canon in Catholic order. The NRSV with Apocryphal/Deutrocanonical Books has the Catholic canon and the other books that make up the Orthodox canon. The Apocryphal/Deutrocanonical Books are usually placed between the OT and the NT.

Here is an excerpt from the intro to the NRSV-CE: “The New Revised Standard Version is truly an ecumenical translation, for it was produced by Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and Jewish scholars. **Because of this Catholic presence no change in the translation was requested for this edition. **The only exceptions are the Book of Esther, which exists in two different forms that are explained below, and the Book of Daniel, which includes the deutrocanonical portions that are listed below.”

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna, and thank you

I was drawn to the Reformed Baptist part of Protestantism for some years, and painfully struggled with faith. Yes, I regularly read the Bible (through Calvinistic glasses) - and I am deeply grateful for that head-start - but, of course, none of it ever felt “real”. History was hugely obscure to me before the Reformation, as well; that troubled me, because I couldn’t understand why Christ would’ve let his Church go astray for 1500 years. Also, I often wondered: Why would God remain silent after writings of the Bible? It seemed like the only other contact with Him was through prayer - and that felt, as John Piper once put it (to paraphrase), like being on a bearably-audible walkie-talkie in a war zone. I pray that Piper will understand why that is, now.

I’m so glad to be back home in the Catholic Church. Many of my worries and doubts have been addressed and cured.

God bless.

Mark David,
You’ve just written a beautiful testament to your faith. That is always inspiring. I am glad you found your way to the Catholic Church.Hopefully, we will run into each other on other threads.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, the NRSV and the NRSV-CE use the same translation text (see below), the difference is the NRSV-CE has all the books of the Catholic canon in Catholic order. The NRSV with Apocryphal/Deutrocanonical Books has the Catholic canon and the other books that make up the Orthodox canon. The Apocryphal/Deutrocanonical Books are usually placed between the OT and the NT.

Here is an excerpt from the intro to the NRSV-CE: “The New Revised Standard Version is truly an ecumenical translation, for it was produced by Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and Jewish scholars. **Because of this Catholic presence no change in the translation was requested for this edition. **The only exceptions are the Book of Esther, which exists in two different forms that are explained below, and the Book of Daniel, which includes the deutrocanonical portions that are listed below.”

CalCatholic,
I appreciate the quote from the NRSV-CE. I know there is a difference in the placement of the Deuterocanonical Books; and they did use the same texts/Manuscripts-obviously.

However, there were some changes made in the Catholic Edition of the N.T., but they were minor. As I said before, most changes involve what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes, which perhaps reveals an interesting theological bias on both sides (or perhaps not). “What goes where” is certainly worth reviewing. Also, some of the wording is different.

I have The Catholic Comparative New Testament.** List of Changes in the RSV New Testament for the Catholic Edition** appears in** Appendix 2**. It contains columns entitled, **Passage, RSV, RSV-CE, RSV Footnotes and RSV-CE Footnotes.

Another example is Mark 16:9-20. In the RSV, this passage is placed in Footnote a, which says, “Other Ancient authorities omit verses 9-20. Some ancient authorities conclude Mark instead with the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told and after this Jesus himself sent them from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”

The RSV-CE: "insert into the text the entire Italicized verses 9-20 from note k and add k at the end of verse 20."

As I showed before, the phrase “full of grace” in Luke 1:28 is found in the RSV-CE, but not the RSV. The phrase vanished from both the NRSV and NRSV-CE.

All of the changes are very interesting-especially considering the same manuscripts were used.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Bible_Reader]

I would like to purchase a Catholic Edition Study Bible for the Catholic commentaries. Any suggestions?

That New Oxford Annotated Bible based on the RSV has Catholic contributors, by the way!

I’m guessing that you are interested in purchasing a single-volume Catholic study Bible – if you want to purchase a multi-volume edition, there are a number of choices. I mention this because there is as much difference of opinion on Biblical interpretation among Catholic scholars as there is among Protestant scholars. It is best to think of a commentary as representing “a” Catholic view rather than “the” Catholic view.

For a version which uses the RSV, there are two choices (both NT only):

(New Testament)Ignatius Catholic Study Bible

(New Testament) Expanded EditionNavarre Bible

Both are relatively conservative, and the Navarre Bible has a strong Opus Dei flavor to it. The Ignatius volume is less than one-fifth the cost of the Navarre, so that probably makes the most sense to start.

If you want a copy of the new 2011 edition of the NAB, I recommend the following (forthcoming) study Bible:

, Third EditionCatholic Study Bible

because many of the contributors to it are the same as editors of the NAB. It tends to have a more scholarly (some would say liberal) view.

However, if you are just buying a study Bible for the commentary, you may want to just buy a standalone commentary volume. A few Catholic ones are:

The Collegeville Bible Commentary (more aimed a lay readership; the NT has a revised volume)

International Bible Commentary (more scholarly, ecumenical, neither liberal nor conservative)

New Jerome Bible Commentary (scholarly-liberal)

You’ll find plenty of recommendations on CAF for Orchard’s 1953 Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture but I find his approach rather dated. However, it accurately represents scholarly opinion pre-Vatican II, and since Orchard was one of the editors of the RSV-CE, it is quite compatible with that volume.

You will also find recommendations for the e1859 Haydock Bibl (based on the Douay-Rheims-Challoner). I cannot recommend this volume – I find it hard to read (simply because of the font, abbreviations, and print quality used) and – of course – it reflects a 19th century understanding of the Bible. I suspect that some of the most fervent admirers of this volume have not actually read very much of it. If you are interested in it, though, I suggest you spend a few hours with the online version to see if it useful.

I’m a bit of a Bible nerd, and I own (and more important, have read!) all of the volumes listed here (except I’ve only read the first and second editions of the Oxford Catholic Study Bible – the third edition comes out in July). So if you have any questions about them, please ask.

And if you are interested in multi-volume sets (or commentaries on a single Biblical book), let me know – the range of choices really expands.

 

[Bible_Reader]

However, there were some changes made in the Catholic Edition of the N.T., but they were minor. As I said before, most changes involve what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes, which perhaps reveals an interesting theological bias on both sides (or perhaps not). “What goes where” is certainly worth reviewing. Also, some of the wording is different.

I think Anna and CalCatholic are talking about two different things here – CalCatholic was talking about the NRSV and Anna is talking about the RSV-CE.

As CalCatholic mostly correctly notes, the NRSV-CE uses the NRSV without additional changes (except for the books included and order of the books). There are some very slight changes because the NRSV-CE uses the NRSV-Anglicised, which is slightly different from the NRSV(-American).

As Anna correctly notes, the RSV-CE had a number of minor changes from the RSV.

(It is worth noting that the Catholic lectionary used in Canada based on the NRSV did change some of the wording. Similarly is a new lectionary being developed for England and some other English-speaking countries outside North America. The committee developing that lectionary is currently negotiating with the NRSV copyright holder over the extent of changes that can be allowed in that lectionary.)

 

[Anna_Scott]

That New Oxford Annotated Bible based on the RSV has Catholic contributors, by the way!

I’m guessing that you are interested in purchasing a single-volume Catholic study Bible – if you want to purchase a multi-volume edition, there are a number of choices. I mention this because there is as much difference of opinion on Biblical interpretation among Catholic scholars as there is among Protestant scholars. It is best to think of a commentary as representing “a” Catholic view rather than “the” Catholic view.

For a version which uses the RSV, there are two choices (both NT only):

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (New Testament)

The Navarre Bible (New Testament) Expanded Edition

Both are relatively conservative, and the Navarre Bible has a strong Opus Dei flavor to it. The Ignatius volume is less than one-fifth the cost of the Navarre, so that probably makes the most sense to start.

If you want a copy of the new 2011 edition of the NAB, I recommend the following (forthcoming) study Bible:

The (Oxford) Catholic Study Bible, Third Edition

because many of the contributors to it are the same as editors of the NAB. It tends to have a more scholarly (some would say liberal) view.

However, if you are just buying a study Bible for the commentary, you may want to just buy a standalone commentary volume. A few Catholic ones are:

The Collegeville Bible Commentary (more aimed a lay readership; the NT has a revised volume)

International Bible Commentary (more scholarly, ecumenical, neither liberal nor conservative)

New Jerome Bible Commentary (scholarly-liberal)

You’ll find plenty of recommendations on CAF for Orchard’s 1953 Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture but I find his approach rather dated. However, it accurately represents scholarly opinion pre-Vatican II, and since Orchard was one of the editors of the RSV-CE, it is quite compatible with that volume.

You will also find recommendations for the 1859 Haydock Bible (based on the Douay-Rheims-Challoner). I cannot recommend this volume – I find it hard to read (simply because of the font, abbreviations, and print quality used) and – of course – it reflects a 19th century understanding of the Bible. I suspect that some of the most fervent admirers of this volume have not actually read very much of it. If you are interested in it, though, I suggest you spend a few hours with the online version to see if it useful.

I’m a bit of a Bible nerd, and I own (and more important, have read!) all of the volumes listed here (except I’ve only read the first and second editions of the Oxford Catholic Study Bible – the third edition comes out in July). So if you have any questions about them, please ask.

And if you are interested in multi-volume sets (or commentaries on a single Biblical book), let me know – the range of choices really expands.

Bible Reader,
I really appreciate all the time you took to offer suggestions. Great, btw. I am aware that the Oxford Annotated Bible has Catholic contributors. I have it and the notes are very good.

I know the text of Catholic and non-Catholic Editions of the RSV and NRSV are basically the same. I’m wanting a Catholic Study Bible for the Catholic commentary. So, I’ll weigh all the options you suggested.

Sometimes, when I’m studying a certain passages, I go to B&N and look them up in different Bibles and check the footnotes and commentaries–coffee goes well with these efforts. :coffeeread:

I’ve been collecting Bible translations. I don’t think one can have too many.

Thanks again for all your help,
Anna

 

[mariafransisca2]

You should read the catholic bible, for example, the Douay Rheims bible (www.drbo.org) It will bring you to a more clearer view of the bible, because it is translated under the obedience of the church. While the protestant one is done on an individual basis, I don’t know but if you want to be lead by the holy spirit you have to be obedient.

So I would say that the catholic translation is lead by the Holy Spirit.

catholicholybible.blogspot.com/

 

[Mark_David]

It’d be nice (if it hasn’t been done yet) to have a Douay-Rheims updated to contemporary English, and no other changes. I really like the (N)RSV-CE bibles so far; and the NAB is enjoyable for casual reading. I’ve glanced over the NJB and CPDV, but they haven’t really grabbed me yet.

As for Protestant versions, I regularly used the KJV and ESV; also the NKJV and YLT. The NIV was too “dynamic” for me in terms of study, but it reads well on its own terms. In any case: I’m done with incomplete bible versions.

 

[Anna_Scott]

You should read the catholic bible, for example, the Douay Rheims bible (www.drbo.org) It will bring you to a more clearer view of the bible, because it is translated under the obedience of the church. While the protestant one is done on an individual basis, I don’t know but if you want to be lead by the holy spirit you have to be obedient.

So I would say that the catholic translation is lead by the Holy Spirit.

catholicholybible.blogspot.com/

mariafransisca2,
Welcome to CAF-great forums!

I appreciate the link and found these three links there-all very helpful:
Douay Rheims Bible: drbo.org/
New Jerusalem Bible: catholic.org/bible/
New American Bible: vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

So, thank you.

I agree that one must be lead by the Holy Spirit.

I have compared passages with the Douay-Rheimes along side the Latin Vulgate.

Also, I do like the NJB and the commentary it contains.

We’ve been talking about the RSV and NRSV. Both have a Catholic Edition, with very few changes made. The RSV and NRSV are both used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in Scripture references.

Peace,
Anna