Complete List of Catholic Translations of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guardian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Semper_Fi said:
In layman’s terms inclusive language is the practice of secularists translating the Bible who wish to see women have more “power” in the church. Rome has rejected the recent translations of the New American Bible which is used in Sunday liturgy in Latin Catholic parishes in the United States (mandated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or USCCB for short).

Canadian dioceses use a much worse translation, which is the New Revised Standard Version - “Catholic” Edition.
Click to expand...
In terms of inclusive language the NRSV is worse than the NAB, but overall, as a translation of the Hebrew and Greek, the former owns the latter. There’s not really much of a comparison in terms of scholarship and good English.

I read the NAB from time to time, but the deeper I get into it the more painful it is.
 
Cajetan said:
In terms of inclusive language the NRSV is worse than the NAB, but overall, as a translation of the Hebrew and Greek, the former owns the latter. There’s not really much of a comparison in terms of scholarship and good English.

I read the NAB from time to time, but the deeper I get into it the more painful it is.
Click to expand...
For something possibly historically significant regarding the Catholic OT, have you seen the NETS? It is a quite recently completed translation project of the Septuagint that used the NRSV as a base text, however, it has all inclusive language removed. The translators didn’t necessarily take the NRSV verbatim in all the places where the Masoretic Text matches the Septuagint, either, but it has at least some relationship to the NRSV. (I haven’t looked to in-depth into comparing the two.)

ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/

amazon.com/New-English-Translation-Septuagint/dp/0195289757
 
mmortal03 said:
Update due to disappointing news about the Oxford Press Reader’s Version:
  1. Douay Rheims-Challoner (very literal)
  2. Haydock Douay Rheims (Troy-Challoner) (very literal)
  3. Original Douay Rheims (ridiculously literal)
  4. Confraternity Bible (NT only) (literal)
  5. Mgr Knox Bible (literal)
  6. Ignatius Study Bibles (by book) (1966 RSVCE) (literal)
  7. Navarre Bible (1966 RSVCE) (literal)
  8. Ignatius 2nd Catholic Ed RSVCE (Rev of the 1966) (literal)
  9. Oxford RSV Catholic Bible Compact Version ('71 RSV + the '66 CE verses, but in the compact only) (literal)
  10. 1966 Jerusalem Bible (dynamic equivalence)
  11. Christian Community Bible (1st-3rd Edtns) (dynamic eq)
  12. New American Bible 1970 (dynamic equivalence)
  13. New American Bible 1986 (in-between formal and dynamic eq)
  14. New Revised Standard Version (“literal” w/ inclusive lang)
  15. Christian Community Bible (Later Edts) (dynamic eq)
  16. 1985 New Jerusalem Bible (dynamic equivalence)
  17. Catholic Living Bible (dynamic equivalence)
  18. Good New Bible (dynamic equivalence)
1-12 are free from inclusive language
13-18 contain varying amounts of inclusive language
Click to expand...
There are two more versions that should be added to this lengthy list- the New English Bible (1970) and it’s 1989 revision, the Revised English Bible, both sponsored by several Churches in the British Isles, including the Roman Catholic Church.

The original NEB is quite free in its rendering, but presents some fresh readings. It is a joy to read.

The REB was revised to be more literal, but still has the literary style of the NEB.

The British make good Bible translations.
 
Manfred said:
You have to remember that the USCCB sponsored the translation of the NAB. While they did mandate its use (with necessary Vatican corrections!) in the liturgy in the US, it is NOT mandated for private reading or even formal study, Deo gratias (though I’ll bet the bishops feel it should be).

To add a bit more cynicism: since the USCCB holds the copyright to the NAB, they probably derive revenue from its sales. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
They do derive revenue from its sales, and that is why we are stuck with it.

My local Byzantine Churches uses an amended edition of the Confraternity Bible for our Gospel and Epistles books.

Perhaps someday the 2nd Catholic RSV will be the official version.

But perhaps they will just eventually start from scratch.
 
What changes did the Byzantine Church make in the Confraternity Version?

Are they good changes?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
What changes did the Byzantine Church make in the Confraternity Version?

Are they good changes?
Click to expand...
Jerry, the changes are not dramatic. The late Mekite Bishop Joseph Raya amended the Confraternity text.

Basically, there are two major groups of changes-
  1. When the Latin is significantly different from the traditional Byzantine Text, the translation is revised to reflect this, since the Byzantine Text is the official NT for the Byzantine Church. I can’t think of a specific example right away. There are not that many, and in the Latin and Greek both retain several NT verses that modern version leave out.
  2. personal pronouns, Such as Thy, Thee, and thou, are converted to “your” and “you,” except when quoting the OT, the thees and thous are retained.
Otherwise you can scarcely tell the different. I bring my Confraternity New Testament to Divine Liturgy, and the lectionary will read word for word the vast majority of the time. There is occassionally other slight word changes, but the basic translation and phraseology remains in tact.
 
lanceg said:
There are two more versions that should be added to this lengthy list- the New English Bible (1970) and it’s 1989 revision, the Revised English Bible, both sponsored by several Churches in the British Isles, including the Roman Catholic Church.

The original NEB is quite free in its rendering, but presents some fresh readings. It is a joy to read.

The REB was revised to be more literal, but still has the literary style of the NEB.

The British make good Bible translations.
Click to expand...
Lance,

Can you cite any sources that substantiate your statement that both the NEb and REB have the approval and/or sponsorship of the Catholic Church in Britain? This is certainly news to me if true, but, to be honest with you, I don’t think either one is all that great, particularly with regards to fidelity to the originals. As for literary style, both have a decidedly-British flavor, not unlike the decidedly-American flavor of the NAB and RNAB.
 
Manfred said:
Lance,

Can you cite any sources that substantiate your statement that both the NEb and REB have the approval and/or sponsorship of the Catholic Church in Britain? This is certainly news to me if true, but, to be honest with you, I don’t think either one is all that great, particularly with regards to fidelity to the originals. As for literary style, both have a decidedly-British flavor, not unlike the decidedly-American flavor of the NAB and RNAB.
Click to expand...
Manfred,

I am only claiming Catholic sponsorship for them. There is a page at the front of both versions listing the Roman Catholic Churches of England & Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Plus, the editors note the involvement of Catholic Sponsors in their introduction.

Older copies of the NEB may not list the Roman Catholic Church, but later copies do, and so does the REB.

I believe also that the NEB was approved at one time at least, for lectionary use in New Zealand.

The Wikipedia article on the REB list Catholic sponsorship:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_English_Bible

The article on the NEB does not, but it is wrong.

I enjoy both versions. They are not on the formal equivlanence end of the translation spectrum, especially the NEB. But I find some beautiful renderings in the Psalms.
 
Hello, I need a bible in Italian to attend the churche here in Turkey. Is anyone to help me?used, old etc. There’s no bible seller here, where I live. Thank you…:o Murat,18
 
Translations are literal or loose as a matter of degree. Sometimes one verse will be rendered more literally, and another verse more loosely within the same translation.
  1. Douay Rheims-Challoner (literal) - less literal than the original Rhemes Bible
[02.] Haydock Douay Rheims (Troy-Challoner) - this is not a different translation, but an edit of Challoner. There are dozens of edits of Challoner’s work including about 4 or 5 that he worked on himself
  1. Original Douay Rheims (literal) - a literal translation, but it is not extremely literal; an inter-linear translation is an example of an extremely literal translation (this is useful as a study guide, and so it is not ridiculous)
  2. Confraternity Bible (NT only) (literal)
  3. Mgr Knox Bible (loose) Knox takes many liberties with the text, rephrasing it rather loosely; this cannot be considered a literal translation.
  4. Ignatius Study Bibles (by book) (1966 RSVCE) (literal)
  5. Navarre Bible (1966 RSVCE) (literal)
These are the same RSV-CE, which is fairly literal, but which has the fault of not translating the OT in the light of the NT. It is less literal than Challoner.
  1. Ignatius 2nd Catholic Ed RSVCE (Rev of the 1966) (literal)
  2. Oxford RSV Catholic Bible Compact Version ('71 RSV + the '66 CE verses, but in the compact only) (literal)
  3. 1966 Jerusalem Bible (dynamic equivalence) - a loose translation; the term ‘dynamic equivalence’ was invented by a man who did not believe that the Bible is inspired or inerrant, and who greatly preferred loose over literal translations. The term is therefore biased against literal translations.
  4. Christian Community Bible (1st-3rd Edtns) (dynamic eq)
    a loose Catholic translation; most loose Catholic translations tend to reflect liberal theological influences, but this one is rather conservative.
    bible.claret.org/bibles/english.htm
  5. New American Bible 1970 (dynamic equivalence)
  6. New American Bible 1986 (in-between formal and dynamic eq)
The NAB 1986 is not much different from the NAB 1970, even though the changes were intended to be more literal. What translators consider to be literal is a moving target, and as the decades have passed, what used to be consided loose, then is called literal.
  1. New Revised Standard Version (“literal” w/ inclusive lang) - not a literal translation
  2. Christian Community Bible (Later Edts) (dynamic eq)
  3. 1985 New Jerusalem Bible (dynamic equivalence)
  4. Catholic Living Bible (dynamic equivalence)
  5. Good News Bible (dynamic equivalence) - very loosely translated, with liberal theological influences; takes appalling liberties with the text. e.g.
Is 7:14 Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’

Luke 1:28 The angel came to her and said, “Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!”
1:29 Mary was deeply troubled by the angel’s message, and she wondered what his words meant.

[Why would Mary be deeply troubled by this particular rephrasing of the Angel’s words? They watered down the meaning of verse 28 so much that verse 29 no longer makes any sense]

“1-12 are free from inclusive language” - all Bible editions contain some inclusive language, including all source texts; there are always some terms in the text that refer to persons generally, without specifying gender: ‘the people’, ‘the Israelites’, ‘all’, ‘they’ etc.

13-18 contain varying amounts of inclusive language

I would add #19 CPDV
 
JoeyWarren said:
hmmmmmmmm, can you put that into layman’s terms?
Click to expand...
Best way for me to explain how some versions have been revised to be more inclusive is via example.
Ephesians 5:21
New American Bible 1970
21 Defer to one another out of reference for Christ.
22 Wives should be submissive to their husbands as if to the Lord

New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
21 Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.​

The revised edition has the husband also be subordinate to the wife, which makes the wife inclusive in terms of being in charge.
If you take literal translation the bible says wives are the only ones being subordinate. However, continue reading to Ehpesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church. He gave himself up for her”

Yes, Christ died a horrific death for His church. That’s a lot of love.

These verses quickly determine for me if the bible has become “inclusive”.

The precise translation makes sense, for to use an analogy: The family is the ship, the dad the captain, and the wife is first mate who captain loves greater than his own life.
If captain, dad, believes best route is destination A, and
first mate, wife, believes best route is destination B, and
they must take orders from one another…
how chaotic.

While the literal translation has a loving capatain, aka dad,
deferring to his first mate, aka wife, who captain greatly loves, and
then captain, aka dad, makes the final call.
Sounds like smooth sailing.
 
I’ve often wondered if having multiple translations to choose from has been a blessing or a hindrance. For every Knox and Confraternity bible translation that we have, we also got a NAB and New Jerusalem bible to go with them.

Sometimes I can’t help but ask if the Vatican should take a similar approach to what the Jehovah’s Witnesses did with their New World Translation. Just put forth a bible for the entire Catholic faithful to use and simply translate that into the various languages across the globe.

That may help to eliminate many of the issues we have with inclusive language and notes that more often than not, call into question teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church, rather than to reinforce them.

However, a task of this magnitude could create more problems of its own and in the end, we could be stuck with a translation that reflects a theology of the modern times and not necessarily that of ancient tradition.
 
Crusader13 said:
I’ve often wondered if having multiple translations to choose from has been a blessing or a hindrance. For every Knox and Confraternity bible translation that we have, we also got a NAB and New Jerusalem bible to go with them.

Sometimes I can’t help but ask if the Vatican should take a similar approach to what the Jehovah’s Witnesses did with their New World Translation. Just put forth a bible for the entire Catholic faithful to use and simply translate that into the various languages across the globe.

That may help to eliminate many of the issues we have with inclusive language and notes that more often than not, call into question teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church, rather than to reinforce them.

However, a task of this magnitude could create more problems of its own and in the end, we could be stuck with a translation that reflects a theology of the modern times and not necessarily that of ancient tradition.
Click to expand...
Because the JWs limit their members to their translation- is because its their translation. The have twisted, manipulated the text to conform to their tenets of belief. Would you what your membership to see why they’ve been discouraged to read other biblical resources- because their text has been so debased?
To limit the translation to one for the whole church wouldn’t be useful and would discourage biblical scholarship, which is not static , but moves forward.
Translations are tricky things. It is truly an art which requires knowledge of time place and culture , in order to given you a more accurate translation. Archaeology and other extra-biblical resources, especially the discovery of ancient libraries , have given us a more clear vision of the sociology and language of the past. Room has to be given to have an on going line of translations, especially since new discoveries are found constantly. The newer translations should be able to utilize any findings that clarify or get us closer to the original lost texts. Which , Ultimately, is what the translator is or should be trying to do. That goes for any ancient document.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top