Catholics who read Protestant Bibles

[patrick457]

Patrick wrote: *To be honest I very much like the apparatuses of the NA. It isn’t perfect or the best thing in the world, yes, but I think (just my opinion mind you) it’s one of the good ones out there. (The identical - at least nowadays - UBS Greek NT is designed to be more of a translator’s source text and so includes only ‘meaningful’ textual variants). What I really want to get my hands on though is the ongoing Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus series, although it’s apparently very pricey and hard to get.

And P.S.: I was talking about Young’s Literal Translation and not the KJV. *​

We are in a time when there is much disagreement about the textual basis of the New Testament. At least there are some encouraging signs that those who prepare the successive editions of the Nestle-Aland (and U.B.S.) “critical texts” are rethinking, gradually, the theoretical basis of their editions, which is the late 19th century approach of Westcott and Hort. Traditional, majority, “Byzantine” readings are somewhat less shunned than they used to be. That`s positive, at least.

Sorry about the mix-up in my mind between Youngs Literal Translation and the Authorised King James Version. Youngs work has held up well as a study tool, as one among others, and I use it, too, at times when an highly literal meaning can help to clarify things.

Personally I think that the Alexandrian or Western texts are in a way as much as ‘traditional’ as the Byzantine text. The thing, is I’ve pretty much reached a stage where I’ve really come to see all textual versions as more or less valid. The thing is with the Bible (and other literature, and many other stuff) is that while we often think of it in terms of an ur-text from which sprung different text families, in reality the further you go back in its literary history the less uniformity there is: there was diversity before uniformity set in, when a standard was set. The Masoretic text became the standard out of all the textual versions of the Hebrew Bible which existed before, the Byzantine text became the standard for the Greek NT out of the various text-types. So I’m right now pretty much in the position of ‘the Alexandrian is okay, the Byzantine is okay, the Western is okay’, that sort of thing.

And besides, nobody simply takes Westcott and Hort at face value today anyway AFAIK.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Patrick wrote: *Personally I think that the Alexandrian or Western texts are in a way as much as ‘traditional’ as the Byzantine text. The thing, is I’ve pretty much reached a stage where I’ve really come to see all textual versions as more or less valid. The thing is with the Bible (and other literature, and many other stuff) is that while we often think of it in terms of an ur-text from which sprung different text families, in reality the further you go back in its literary history the less uniformity there is: there was diversity before uniformity set in, when a standard was set. The Masoretic text became the standard out of all the textual versions of the Hebrew Bible which existed before, the Byzantine text became the standard for the Greek NT out of the various text-types. So I’m right now pretty much in the position of ‘the Alexandrian is okay, the Byzantine is okay, the Western is okay’, that sort of thing.

And besides, nobody simply takes Westcott and Hort at face value today anyway AFAIK.*​

Well, nobody is likely to be going to hell because of this sort of thing! However, the Critical Text thinking overevaluates the importance of Minority Text sources; this is the ongoing (from my point of view, polluting) heritage of Westcott and Hort, however much some of the rest of their work has faded in prominence. The Byzantine Text is, at the very least, as ancient as the Alexandrian Text and it is the predominant text type, although in the West the Old Latin and Vulgate Latin texts, representing translations of Western Greek texts, skewed the evidence slightly there.

In fact, I believe that both of these Latin text types are greatly undervalued. The recent effort to remake the Clementine Vulgate into something unnatural to it is a disgrace to the respect which ought to be due to the Western Latin tradition, rather than conforming it, in a new Latin Bible, in a way that is made to reflect the Alexandrian Greek text type rather than the Latin MSS. themselves, which deserve a lot more respect than this kind of treatment!

This is a complex issue (more so, probably, than it should be) and is not quite the centre of this forum`s attention. It does, however, affect the various Bible translations quite seriously, but there are other factors, too, such as Protestant or Unitarian-like bias.

 

[Matt86]

In England the Catholic Truth Societys edition of the Jerusalem Bible makes the most of the N.J.B.s best qualities and has edited it for public (liturgical) use. It is titled The C.T.S. New Catholic Bible.

That’s actually the original, 1966, Jerusalem Bible. We don’t use the NJB in the lectionary/liturgy. And we use the grail psalms, not the JB ones.

The original doesn’t have inclusive language.

The CTS Bible is essentially our lectionary: Original JB (substituting Lord for the JB use of ‘Yahweh’) and the Grail psalms.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Matt wrote: *That’s actually the original 1966 Jerusalem Bible, we don’t use the NJB in the lectionary/liturgy. The original doesn’t have inclusive language. *​

Oops, I meant to mention both the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles in that posting, but I had a mental flip-flop while doing so. I do have a copy of the Catholic Truth Society edition of the Jerusalem Bible with the Grail Psalter replacing the J.B.`s liturgically unsuitable Psalms. It is one of the few Bible paraphrases (that of Knox is another, earlier one) that really approaches the Sacred Text appropriately, without the usual excesses that paraphrases tend to have.

It is a pity that the U.S. is stuck using the mediocre New American Bible in the liturgy. Here in our Dominion of Canada (or, at least, in Québec where I live) the English Bible readings come from the New Revised Standard Version, not ideal, but a big improvement over the N.A.B.

 

[Cyklist]

The CTS is the ONLY (improved) version/edition/revision of the 1966 JB.

but I had a mental flip-flop while doing so

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Cyklist wrote: The CTS is the ONLY (improved) version/edition/revision of the 1966 JB.​

The Catholic Truth Society (C.T.S.) did a fine job enhancing the 1966 Jerusalem Bible (J.B.), for liturgical or any other good purpose. However, given how revisions tend to sink modern Bible versions ever futher into regions unsalvageable, it is surprising how well the New Jerusalem Bible (N.J.B.) actually turned out to be. It is better in some ways that the 1966 text, less good in other ways, but the two are recognisable one to the other as the same in essentials and wording when using them and each is unusually literary for a modern Bible. I think a lot of North American Catholics would find the C.T.S. Jerusalem Bible to their liking of they purchase it. Since I don`t use any paraphrase for study purposes, I regard, for home use, either the J.B. or the N.J.B. as only usable for some devotional purposes, though only seldom my own.

 

[preppyboy6]

It has “Cum approbatione ecclesiastica” in the front.

thank you for answering my question, i looked it up and basically what that means is that the Bible used in that area is valid only under that Bishop’s purview, so that Bible would not be valid here in the United States unless the Bishop of that particular Diocese gave it approval for use. i appreciate the answer, it gave me something to learn.

 

[preppyboy6]

Preppy Boy wrote: Whether a scholar approves it or not does not matter, what counts is the approval of the Magisterium, and i would advise you to check whether it has any of the following on the front cover, “Impramature” “Imprimi Potest” or “Nihil Obstat” if it doesnt have at least the first and third, it isnt Magisterium approved, and isnt valid, that is a fact, whether you like it or not, so if i sound obnoxious, dont bother reading my answers.​

An example, simplistic Preppy Boy: have you ever looked beyond the impritatur on such a gawdforsaken, heretical, unbelieving book as the New Jerome Biblical Commentary? If you do so and resolutely take what that book is, sacrilege much of it, seldom orthodox the rest of it, as what to believe, along with altogether too many of the other awful books that bear Nil obstat and Imprimatur, you are going to be one very mixed up buckeroo! These rogue bishops are not worthy to be identified with the Magisterium when they so abuse and betray their authority. What magisterium? The devillish magisterium (if there were such a thing) of the Unversalist-Unitarian cult? An imprimatur says very little anymore about conformity with Holy Tradition and the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church!

I could go on, but I won`t. That should not really be necessary.

very frankly, i dont care about your example, if your so called “Authorized King James Bible” (Which doesnt exist, i have checked multiple times) does not have Nihil Obstat or Imprimature, it isnt approved by the Magisterium, not the USCCB, and certainly not by the Vatican. So in reality, we are speaking about a book you continue to reference, and making off topic examples to another book is… well, off topic, my point is factual, it isnt arguable, If your King James Bible does not have Nihil Obstat or Imprimature on the front cover, it isnt valid, and certainly isnt authorized.

 

[bauerice]

Peppyboy certainly doesn’t sound like a 15 year old (profile). Hmmmm

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Preppy Boy wrote: *very frankly, i dont care about your example, if your so called “Authorized King James Bible” (Which doesnt exist, i have checked multiple times) does not have Nihil Obstat or Imprimature, it isnt approved by the Magisterium, not the USCCB, and certainly not by the Vatican. So in reality, we are speaking about a book you continue to reference, and making off topic examples to another book is… well, off topic, my point is factual, it isnt arguable, If your King James Bible does not have Nihil Obstat or Imprimature on the front cover, it isnt valid, and certainly isnt authorized. *​

So, what, go ahead avoiding the Authorised “King James” Version Bible if that suits you. Nobody is trying to force you on this matter. It is your choice and it’s on criteria that for you are exclusively important and pertinent. No big deal, Preppy, but don’t condemn others as sub-Catholic for choices, as I and others see it, that have deeper gounding.

In any event, there is a truly grand version that both of us two can agree about: the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version. I use it a lot and when I quote the Bible, I tend to quote Challoner’s verson.

 

[Nicea325]

very frankly, i dont care about your example, if your so called “Authorized King James Bible” (Which doesnt exist, i have checked multiple times) does not have Nihil Obstat or Imprimature, it isnt approved by the Magisterium, not the USCCB, and certainly not by the Vatican. So in reality, we are speaking about a book you continue to reference, and making off topic examples to another book is… well, off topic, my point is factual, it isnt arguable, If your King James Bible does not have Nihil Obstat or Imprimature on the front cover, it isnt valid, and certainly isnt authorized.

Then don’t read it…that simple!

 

[RileyG]

When I was 11 I was given a pocket bible (KJV) with the NT and Pslams and proverbs in it from my parish. I found that very odd.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Riley wrote: When I was 11 I was given a pocket bible (KJV) with the NT and Pslams and proverbs in it from my parish. I found that very odd.​

Given that the modern Church Lite has such an horror of the stalwat and venerable Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, making its availability too limited to permit a diversity of sizes and formats, the A.V. (K.J.V.) New Testament would have been the next best N.T. that they could have given to you.

Actually, the 1941 Confratenity Version N.T., a very fine 20th century translation, was available in such small sizes, too, for a few decades.

I am assuming that you would have been 11 in too recent decades for either the Challoner or 1941 Confraternity Version to have been available to give to you as a pocket Bible or N.T.

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

thank you for answering my question, i looked it up and basically what that means is that the Bible used in that area is valid only under that Bishop’s purview, so that Bible would not be valid here in the United States unless the Bishop of that particular Diocese gave it approval for use. i appreciate the answer, it gave me something to learn.

A Japanese language Bible would not see wide use in the United States anyway.

But getting back to the earlier issue, here is a Bible which is used in Protestant Churches, which has the Deuterocanonical books stuck in a section by themselves, and which is officially approved for use in Catholic Churches as well. That’s significant. There is also an edition without the Deuterocanonical books. And that one also has Cum approbatione ecclesiastica printed in the front. That’s even more significant.

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

Peppyboy certainly doesn’t sound like a 15 year old (profile). Hmmmm

15 years old? I didn’t catch that until now, but it does explain some of the responses.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Russ wrote: 15 years old? I didn’t catch that until now, but it does explain some of the responses.​

So, maybe there is hope for this child, this boy of the name “Preppy Boy”, When I think on how much my mind has changed and, I am pretty sure, grown, since that age, I would have to say that there is built-in hope for this kid. At least, one should not dismisss the possibility of it!

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

When I was 15 (40 years ago) my favorite Bible was Good News For Modern Man which replaced my King James Bible (give me points for staying on topic ) and I thought it was the best thing out there! I was not alone; when I went camping, that Bible was eaten by a raccoon. My next Bible was the Living Bible which became my most prized treasure in the world until a friend borrowed and didn’t return it. It was followed by the NASB, NIV (for a few years until I returned to the NASB), and finally back to the KJV of my childhood. Now that I’m Catholic, my main Bible is the RSV-CE.

Wow, 40 years have passed since my Good News for Modern Man days! If I was a child of Israel leaving Egypt and crossing the Red Sea back then, I would be entering the promised land and crossing the Jordan River just now.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Russ wrote:* When I was 15 (40 years ago) my favorite Bible was Good News For Modern Man which replaced my King James Bible (give me points for staying on topic) and I thought it was the best thing out there! I was not alone; when I went camping, that Bible was eaten by a raccoon. My next Bible was the Living Bible which became my most prized treasure in the world until a friend borrowed and didn’t return it. It was followed by the NASB, NIV (for a few years until I returned to the NASB), back to the KJV of my childhood, and now the RSV-CE. *​

Tokyo Russ, I just about lost control (“lost my cool”) when I read that a raccoon ate one of your Bibles! I did know a woman in a Lutheran (W.E.L.S.) inquirers` group back in the early 1980s in Ottawa whose dog chewed off and ate the leather covers of her Authorised “King James” Version Bible. I found another A.V. with white leather covers (such a nicely feminine touch!) to give to her as a gift, trying to stay one step ahead of anyone giving her (or convincing her to buy) the pennyawful New International Bible (N.I.V.) with which that pastor was so enamoured.

Yeah, qutie apart from such accidents, a lot of Christians have changed their loyalties about Bible versions, sometimes for better, more often for worse. As a kid, I was raised on the A.V. Bible . I never gave up on it, either, but I did have some secondary loyalties along the way, notably, starting as a teen, the Phillips N.T. paraphrase and, even earlier as a child, the Moffett Version, both of which I quite fancied (and I still have a literary hankering for the Moffett). The R.S.V. was a constant companion along the way and still is, in the various Protestant, Oecumenical, and Catholic transformations that it has undergone of which the R.S.V.-C.E. 2 is best. The Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version and the pre-1969 Confraternity Version came into my life as a Catholic and remain two of the only versions (along with the A.V.) that I really trust.

So, I hope that no more raccoon or other wildlife gets to my own favourite Bibles (or to yours)! Here in the remote Abitibi region of Québec we are never far from wildlife. The bears, especially, like to wander through the allies right here in the city itself looking for garbage cans to raid or berry-bearing trees to climb. They surely prefer the (to them) tasty remains of chicken dinners, peanut butter residue, and honey snacks more than they do Bibles. The big bruisers are so sweet, so long as one keeps some distance from these wild bears.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The one bible that I haven’t read that I would like to read is the Carey Revision of the Douay Rheims New Testament.

The Confraternity New Testament is available at the gift shop of EWTN.

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

I have and love the Confraternity New Testament as well. Oddly enough I never spent much time with the RSV until after I joined the Catholic Church!

That raccoon actually ate most of my Bible and left part of it for behind me, but who would want to carry a half-eaten clawed-up Bible to Church?. He started at the back and worked his way towards the front, which is perplexing since of all the books in the Bible, Revelation must be the hardest to digest.