"Catholic approved" Bibles

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

I have some concerns and questions about some Bibles that the Church has approved. One is Today’s English Version. It says in there that the Conference of Catholic Bishops has approved it, but it contains Luther’s sola fide addition. It also says, in Matt. 16:18 “You are a rock, and on this rock foundation…”
Why has this (obviously Protestant) Bible been approved for use by Catholics?

Also, I have been told many times that the word used by Gabriel at the Annunciation means “Full of Grace” in Greek and was used as a title to Mary. But every single Catholic Bible (not just “Catholic approved”…the Bibles that say Catholic Bible) that I’ve looked at just says “highly favoured one” just like the Protestant translations. And, so far the only Bible I’ve seen that has the Magnificat as “My soul *magnifies *the Lord” is the KJV, which is certainly not approved by the Church…all the Catholic translations I’ve seen say “My soul proclaims the Lord”.
Why is this?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Fidelis]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!
I have some concerns and questions about some Bibles that the Church has approved. One is Today’s English Version. It says in there that the Conference of Catholic Bishops has approved it, but it contains Luther’s sola fide addition.

How so? Do you have a specific verse in mind?

It also says, in Matt. 16:18 “You are a rock, and on this rock foundation…”
Why has this (obviously Protestant) Bible been approved for use by Catholics?

Because they obviously recognized the need for a dumbed-down Bible, but lacked the means to produce one themselves. It should always be made clear to Catholics that paraphrases such as these are useful for making the Bible more readable for those who have a hard time with more precise Bibles, but they should recognize their limitations and not expect doctrinal precision. For that, there are several other good Bibles available. In fact, it’s a good idea to have more than one translation on hand anyway.

Also, I have been told many times that the word used by Gabriel at the Annunciation means “Full of Grace” in Greek and was used as a title to Mary. But every single Catholic Bible (not just “Catholic approved”…the Bibles that say Catholic Bible) that I’ve looked at just says “highly favoured one” just like the Protestant translations.

My RSV - Catholic Edition says “Hail full of grace” with “highly favored daughter” as a footnote.

And, so far the only Bible I’ve seen that has the Magnificat as “My soul *magnifies *the Lord” is the KJV, which is certainly not approved by the Church…all the Catholic translations I’ve seen say “My soul proclaims the Lord”.

My RSV - Catholic Edition says “magnifies” as does a Protestant version of the RSV that I have.

 

[mgarstin]

The Latin Vulgate is the only bible ever to be declared “free from error” by the Church.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

Which is the RSV? What does that stand for?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Fidelis]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

Which is the RSV? What does that stand for?

In Christ,
Rand

Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition. It is available elswhere on this site or at Catholic bookstores. Visit my website linked below and see the link “Getting Started” for more details.

 

[cardenio]

I’ve got a TEV bible that I got in first grade. I looked for the Nihil Obstat & Imprimatur and it’s not there.’’

mgarstin:

The Latin Vulgate is the only bible ever to be declared “free from error” by the Church.

No it’s not… the english versions we used in school had a Nihil Obstat & Imprimatur on them.

 

[Sherlock]

Just a clarification: the RSV Catholic edition is a good translation, but I have heard some doubts expressed about the NRSV—the New Standard Revised Edition. I haven’t looked at it myself, so I’m just passing this along…

 

[porthos11]

The Today’s English Version comes in two formats: (1) the standard “Protestant” format that comes with the 39 Protocanonical OT books and the NT; and (2) an “Ecumenical” format that contains the Deuterocanonical material sandwiched between the protocanonical OT and the NT. It is this Ecumenical edition (identified by a Maltese Cross on the cover) that contains the imprimatur and nihil obstat.

The TEV is a loose dynamic translation, very close to a paraphrase. It’s terribly popular here in the Philippines. It was also my first Bible, but I can no longer use it for serious study or even for devotion. I use both the RSV-CE and the original Jerusalem Bible.

And yes, it does say “alone” in Rom 3:28, or something to that effect.

(What’s so un-Catholic about “magnifies”? It’s simply the direct English translation of “magnificat”, which is in the Vulgate.)

 

[porthos11]

Sherlock:

Just a clarification: the RSV Catholic edition is a good translation, but I have heard some doubts expressed about the NRSV—the New Standard Revised Edition. I haven’t looked at it myself, so I’m just passing this along…

RSV-CE = YES!
NRSV = NO!!

The NRSV contains heavy inclusive language, which seriously waters down Christian theology. For example, St. Paul in his letters, addresses his audience as friends rather than as brothers (adelphoi) or brothers and sisters (fair enough). It also waters down our adoption as sons of God, reducing us to mere “children” in Galatians (“Sons” here is about relations, not gender. Everyone baptized is a son of God [including the women] because we are heirs. Think Semitic).

All in all, while I do have an NRSV, I use it only for cross-reference or when the RSV-CE uses some obscure word.

 

[alih]

sombody help me…i recall in an “adoremus bulletin” read some time back, the vatican rescinded the imprimature on one or more bibles previously approved. this was done in that, it was determined that the language was dogmatically defective.
maybe someone will be able to research this and give an answer. have a good year. alih.

 

[porthos11]

alih:

sombody help me…i recall in an “adoremus bulletin” read some time back, the vatican rescinded the imprimature on one or more bibles previously approved. this was done in that, it was determined that the language was dogmatically defective.
maybe someone will be able to research this and give an answer. have a good year. alih.

Not really. The Vatican rescinded approval of certain Bible translations for use in the Lectionary.

In the US, there used to be three approved Lectionary texts: from the New American Bible 1970 edition, the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, and the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition. A few years ago, the USCCB drew up new Lectionary texts based on the New American Bible with the 1986 Revised New Testament and the 1991 Revised Psalms. Rome rejected the proposed texts due to inclusive language and sent them back to the bishops for revision, and allowed some inclusive language in the NT readings.

Ultimately, Rome approved the new lectionary, with the NAB 1970 OT and Psalms, and a somewhat modified 1986 Revised NT. Upon approval, permission to use the RSV-CE and JB lectionaries were withdrawn (regrettably).

So it was really the 1991 Psalms that were rejected for use in the liturgy, but the imprimatur and nihil obstat remain in the NAB.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

(What’s so un-Catholic about “magnifies”? It’s simply the direct English translation of “magnificat”, which is in the Vulgate.)

Peace be with you!

Nothing at all! I was just wondering why it DOESN’T appear in the Catholic Bibles I’ve seen and it DOES appear in the KJV, which is not a recommended Bible for Catholics (I was saying the KJV got that part right).

In Christ,
Rand

 

[porthos11]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

Nothing at all! I was just wondering why it DOESN’T appear in the Catholic Bibles I’ve seen and it DOES appear in the KJV, which is not a recommended Bible for Catholics (I was saying the KJV got that part right).

In Christ,
Rand

Ow. Sorry

My RSV-CE has “magnifies”. The NAB Revised NT has “proclaims the greatness.” The Liturgy of the Hours also has “proclaims the greatness”.

Oh well, “magnify” does indeed mean “proclaims the greatness” but it just sounds more poetic. That’s one difference between literal and dynamic translations.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

porthos11:

Ow. Sorry

Peace be with you!

I wasn’t trying to be rude…I hope it didn’t seem that way. I use caps to make certain words just stick out. Sorry if I seemed rude!

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Sherlock:

Just a clarification: the RSV Catholic edition is a good translation, but I have heard some doubts expressed about the NRSV—the New Standard Revised Edition. I haven’t looked at it myself, so I’m just passing this along…

The RSV-CE (Also known as the Ignatius Bible) is very good for scriptural research, and is a more faithful translation from the original languages. The NRSV has much more “inclusive” language, and is considered more politically correct. But since when is Jesus concerned with being PC. Don’t use the NRSV. Bible book stores sell them cheap for a reason, they stink.

 

[mdstanzel]

Even Protestant churches reject the NRSV for similar reasons. I was told once by a Church of Christ preacher that the NAB is a very good translation. I have an issue with bishops allowing “iinclusive language” though. What was the inclusive language?

This is why I refer to about 5 or 6 different translations. I like a more literal translation with Greek. But I refer to other versions to see how they translated the same passages. It works for me. That’s how I made my way back to the Catholic Church. But the catachism is a remarkable resource. I am just really getting into it in more depth. It’s amazing. This should be required reading for every literate Catholics, especially priest, deacons, teachers and such (hands on people), in the form of a class like bible study.

 

[lak611]

The Today’s English Version comes in two formats: (1) the standard “Protestant” format that comes with the 39 Protocanonical OT books and the NT; and (2) an “Ecumenical” format that contains the Deuterocanonical material sandwiched between the protocanonical OT and the NT. It is this Ecumenical edition (identified by a Maltese Cross on the cover) that contains the imprimatur and nihil obstat.

The TEV is a loose dynamic translation, very close to a paraphrase. It’s terribly popular here in the Philippines. It was also my first Bible, but I can no longer use it for serious study or even for devotion. I use both the RSV-CE and the original Jerusalem Bible.

The Good News Bible or Today’s English Version was designed to be an extremely easy-to-read Bible, especially for those who did not understand English well.

In addition to being a Dynamic Equivalence version, the Good News Bible is also what some translation theorists call a “Common Language” version. “Common Language” is defined as the language which is “common to the usage of both educated and uneducated” in any given language, (3) or, to put it more bluntly, it is the level of language used by uneducated people and children. Bratcher says that the version was originally conceived as one which would be suitable for people who speak English as a second language.

from this website bible-researcher.com/tev.html

 

[mdstanzel]

The Good News Bible is “good” only starting fires in your fireplace, paper wieght, chocking a door, leveling a table, you know stuff like that. My aunt gave me a Good News New Testament for my first communion. That’s the bible I started reading at the age of 14. I moved from that to the NAB. The NAB is hard to read at times (at that age) but it was better. I’ve never tried the Jerusalem Bible . My dad liked it a lot. I’ver heard poor reviews on the New Jerusalem Bible. But my experience is limited with those. I’ve been reading the NIV for most of my adult life along with my NAB for balance. I like to see how the KJV puts things. I have a parallel bible with KJV, NIV and Greek with literal translations-my favorite when I really want to get screwed up.

Back to subject. Red letters drive me nuts. But I’ve learned to ignore them now in my Breviary. So if I come across it in a bible, I’m likely to ignore it now.

 

[Nagoda]

I am a huge fan of the New Jerusalem Bible. I find it to be very easy to read and a good, faithful literal translation (considering it goes from the hebrew masoretic/greek septuagint (and on occassion the original french translaion) to english its harder to get anything closer than that) and use ti in my scripture studies alongside (on occassion) The Message by Eugene Peterson for the occasional rare paraphrase and my Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Study Bible for Old Testament studies.

 

[Cranch]

Peace be with you!

I have some concerns and questions about some Bibles that the Church has approved… Why is this?

Rand-
There are lots of answers to “why” but for me they don’t satisfy. You need to check out the Douay-Rheims. As a very literal translation of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, it of course renders every one of your cited verses properly. The Douay-Rheims was the first Catholic bible in English and pre-dated the Protestant KJV—by 30 years in the case of the New Testament. Today’s D-R is the 18th-century Bishop Challoner revision of the original. In one form or another, the D-R was*** the*** Catholic bible in English for 350 years. Next to today’s pedestrian translations it is a towering and poetic achievement.