'Catholic' Interconfessional translations

  • Thread starter Thread starter t6n3d
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

t6n3d

Guest
Why would the Church want to expend any time or resources to collaborate on an ecumenical version of Scripture? Since the Church is the guardian of Sacred Scripture, she has the fullness of it. Why would she want to water it down to make it more palatable to denominations that are naturally at odds with the Church?
 
Last edited:
I think there have been some attempts to come up with translations that ecumenical groups could use to pray together in common.

I do not like the idea either.
 
Such an edition already exists. The Oxford-Cambridge Revised English Bible w/Apocrypha-Deuterocanon. It was a translation done in the UK with the intention of eliminating denominational bias, which had certainly crept into the various translations. It was done with the (name removed by moderator)ut - not instigated by - the Catholic Churches in the UK (England, Ireland, Scotland).

IMO, it is not a perfect translation (which is?), but it is a fine daily reader and I consider it superior to the rather flaccid NAB and NAB/RE. What is more, excellent to like-new copies may be had online (eBay, Amazon, ThirftBooks) for about $10.

I contacted Cambridge and was advised that, due to the cost or re-setting the type, no Catholic specific version was intended. It was formatted in the pre-internet days (1989 originally). For a Catholic Edition to be profitable, they would need an order of something like 50,000 copies. Too bad, really. Even as is, it deserves a spot on one’s spiritual bookshelf.
 
The Good News Bible, aka Good News for Modern Man, is a translation of the New Testament that was supposed to be usable by many denominations. It was the preferred Bible for Bible study groups for a while in the 1970s. My mother somehow had a copy around the house that I’m sure she had to get for some group because she would not have bought such a version herself for her own use. I tried reading it once and if you think the NAB and NABRE are flaccid, Good News was worse.
 
I’m talking about any translation that is a collaboration of the Catholic Church with others. What specifically triggered it is both the NRSV-CI, and The Message - Catholic Edition.
 
Last edited:
Just because the Church is the guardians of Scripture doesn’t mean they can’t use outside translators.

For example, one of the best Catholic translations in English is the RSV. This was PRIMARILY translated by Protestants who were faithful the the ancient languages.

The RSV (esp the version that has Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees, etc) has been considered the best “inter-confessional” Bible in English.

That version of the RSV is one that Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestants, etc can all accept.

Such a Bible is great for academics & apologetics.

I hope this helps
 
Last edited:
I understand it was meant for people whose reading skills, or reading skills in English, were really basic.
Might be fine for them, but as someone with college level reading skills, I’ll pass.

And yeah, stuff like Jesus “rebuking” his mom…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
40.png
Tis_Bearself:
I tried reading it once and if you think the NAB and NABRE are flaccid, Good News was worse.
Click to expand...
I did not get past John 2:4, where Jesus ‘rebukes’ His mother, telling her “You must not tell me what to do!” 😮

AYKM?
Click to expand...
The scary thing is that the Good News Bible - Catholic Edition is approved to be used for Children’s Masses in England & Wales.

(Though: I must be honest, I’m not sure if the Catholic Edition correct any translation issues)
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I understand it was meant for people whose reading skills, or reading skills in English, were really basic.
Might be fine for them, but as someone with college level reading skills, I’ll pass.
Click to expand...
That’s not saying much. The NAB/NABRE was designed to be on an 8th grade reading level too.
 
In the Yank version, it most certainly does not. John 2:4, literally is “What to thee and (to) me?” Clearly anti-Catholic thought was put into that particular verse - and if that one, which others?
 
phil19034 said:
The scary thing is that the Good News Bible - Catholic Edition is approved to be used for Children’s Masses in England & Wales.
Click to expand...
I fear my mother may have had to use that Good News paperback Bible during the one year she taught CCD. If so, it is likely yet another reason she quit after one year.
 
IMO, the pinnacle is the Knox and the 1941 Confraternity bible. 100% solid Catholic.

For all its praises, the RSV leaves me flat. The Jerusalem is a little “loosey-goosey” and others have their varying degrees of frustrating verbiage.
 
po18guy said:
IMO, the pinnacle is the Knox and the 1941 Confraternity bible. 100% solid Catholic.

For all its praises, the RSV leaves me flat. The Jerusalem is a little “loosey-goosey” and others have their varying degrees of frustrating verbiage.
Click to expand...
I think the RSV-2CE is an improvement from the regular RSV-CE

Knox is good, and Confraternity is ok. But the CCD won’t allow the Confraternity Bible to be re-printed.
 
Good? OK? What high standards!

I prefer the translations based on the Clementine Vulgate. Many say they are idiosyncratic. So be it! Committee-think has ruined many a good translation. And, Saint Jerome’s translations have a certain warmth, a human touch to them - in spite of his alleged irascibility.
 
It has been a few too many decades since I have read John’s Gospel in Greek; but I am not convinced that is an “anti Catholic” translation; it may be a more literal translation.

I think before we ascribe motives to any translator, we need a whole lot more information, not only about the translator, but also about the languages from which the translation is derived.

I don’t know of any Protestant churches which would come up with anything anti Catholic concerning the fact that Christ responded to his mother indicating that He had ot started his public ministry and her request to Him was indicative of opening that ministry by a public miracle.
 
Fine. But, did Mary ever do anything to merit a rebuke?

This is the crux of the matter. What do young minds full of mush think about that?

The allegedly Good News Translation is the only English language translation to even suggest a rebuke.
 
Last edited:
I almost sense an implication that Scripture Scholars are going to “skew” translations of Scripture for or against a Catholic translation. I suspect that if one gets to the level of a PhD is Scripture, one will find that there are plenty of Protestant scholars at that level who are in agreement with Catholic scholars at that level; it then becomes an issue of what methodology is used to translate, and there is not a specific “Catholic” methodology.
 
His comment certainly could be seen as a rebuke as it is one sentence long; she asks and He comes back with an interesting reply. And “tone of voice” which we tend to put into anything we read may imply a rebuke, or make the sentence into something else softer but still with a range of emotions which might not reflect what someone who has read a lot of Scripture might come up with.

And that is part of the danger of “proof texting”. On its own, however you see it translated, she is asking something and He appears in essence to say “No.”

We have no knowledge of what Mary and Jesus may have discussed, if anything, concerning His public ministry and when and where that might begin. We are dropped, unannounced and with no background on the matter into the scene where Christ begins public ministry. Even if it is not a rebuke, it certainly is not an assent to resolve the fact that the wedding party had run out of wine.

And she makes no response to His comment; her conversation with Him ends and she turns to the servants.

As an interesting footnote, both the NAB and the Jerusalem Bible note that a literal translation is “What is this to me and to you?” (NAB); “What to me and to thee” (Jerusalem). So one can complain that they don’t like a literal translation (and I get it); but to claim it as anti-Catholic misses the mark. Or should I say, skews the mark. Perhaps before we cast aspersions, we should do a bit more research. Perhaps the issue is that we are not first century Jews, with the understanding that a phrase as abrupt as that comes across is one that is used elsewhere in the OT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top