Confused about Catholic Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter kfarose2585
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kfarose2585

Guest
I have three different Bibles, none of which are “Catholic”: the New King James Version (NKJV–annotated in a sometimes anti-Catholic way), the New International Version (NIV–same problem), and a Children’s Bible (which has a bunch of stories and pictures, but omits a lot of the “adult” stuff). I know that there is another thread about the Douay-Rheims Bible, which I have never even heard of, and the King James Version, which, if it’s anything like my NJKV, isn’t necessarily Catholic (mine doesn’t even include the Apocrypha–is that standard?). There was also mention of a few other versions, but I don’t know what all the acronyms stand for. Can someone please explain which versions are Catholic, and what distinguishes them from each other? Thank you.
 
The NAB is on the Internet. So you can read it and see how it is.
usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm

I’m Baptist and signed up for RCIA.

Aside from the deuterocanonical books, I think one of the biggest differences is the footnotes. A really important example of that is the footnote to Matthew 16:19. I never connected Matthew 16:19 with Isaiah 22:15-25. If I had noticed it, I might have converted to being Catholic long ago.

I’ll bet all Protestant Bibles do not mention Isaiah 22 in a footnote under Matthew 16:19. Look in your Protestant Bibles and see if any of them mention Isaiah 22 in a footnote under Matthew 16. I’d like to know. Thanks.

Isaiah 22 is what narrows the meaning of Matthew 16:19 down to what the Roman Catholics are saying all the time. The Catholics should quote Isaiah 22 along with Matthew 16 when they talk with Protestants about Peter.
 
40.png
kfarose2585:
I have three different Bibles, none of which are “Catholic”: the New King James Version (NKJV–annotated in a sometimes anti-Catholic way), the New International Version (NIV–same problem), and a Children’s Bible (which has a bunch of stories and pictures, but omits a lot of the “adult” stuff). I know that there is another thread about the Douay-Rheims Bible, which I have never even heard of, and the King James Version, which, if it’s anything like my NJKV, isn’t necessarily Catholic (mine doesn’t even include the Apocrypha–is that standard?). There was also mention of a few other versions, but I don’t know what all the acronyms stand for. Can someone please explain which versions are Catholic, and what distinguishes them from each other? Thank you.
Click to expand...
Ok. A “Catholic” Bible is a Bible with all the books approved by the Church at the Councils of Trent, Florence, Rome, Carthage and Hippo. That includes the “Apocrypha” although that is not the right word for them. They are actually called " deuterocanonical books". Protestants call them Apocrypha. The books are "Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees, 3 additional chapters of Daniel and 6 of Esther. Also a Catholic bible is one that is approved by the Church. I say that because not all bibles that contain all the books are approved.

SO whch ones are Catholic Bibles?

The Official Bible of the Church is the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The Official English Bible to be used in Churches in english speaking countries is that which is contained in the Lectionary. It is based on the New American Bible. The NAB contains inclusive language which the Holy See objects too so the text of the Lectionary was altered to remove the objectionable language.

The NAB itself is a very popular modern translation for reading and devotional prposes. If one can get past the inclusive language. (inclusive language is using neuter pronouns in referance to God and Christ.)

There is the Douai-Rheims. NT published in 1582 and OT published in 1607. It went through e few revisions and the 1899 edition can still be found. I believe Tan Books has it.

Confraternity Edition Published in a dignified American idiom. Though hard to find, this edition of the Scriptures is worth possessing.

Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Catholic Edition. A very readable and literal translation. And my favorite. Available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). Not as good as the former due to the use of inclusive languege. It was rejected for liturgical use for that reason.

Jerusalem Bible (1966). Excellent bible. The full version has copious footnotes but is hard to find, as it has not been recently republished. A Reader’s Edition, without the full footnoting, is available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.

New Jerusalem Bible (1990). Also not as good as the former. It contains inclusive language, similar to that rejected in the revised NAB by the Holy See for use in the liturgy.

WHY do Americans always have to make bad sequels?

And last is Today’s’ English Version - Catholic (1992). This is the Catholic edition of the popular Good News Bible by the American Bible Society. Translated according to the principle of dynamic equivalence for readability. Would be better to call it a paraphrase than a translation.
 
40.png
metal1633:
And last is Today’s’ English Version - Catholic (1992). This is the Catholic edition of the popular Good News Bible by the American Bible Society. Translated according to the principle of dynamic equivalence for readability. Would be better to call it a paraphrase than a translation.
Click to expand...
This is also the case with the NAB.

Mel
 
40.png
jmm08:
The NAB is on the Internet. So you can read it and see how it is.
usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm

I’m Baptist and signed up for RCIA.

Aside from the deuterocanonical books, I think one of the biggest differences is the footnotes. A really important example of that is the footnote to Matthew 16:19. I never connected Matthew 16:19 with Isaiah 22:15-25. If I had noticed it, I might have converted to being Catholic long ago.

I’ll bet all Protestant Bibles do not mention Isaiah 22 in a footnote under Matthew 16:19. Look in your Protestant Bibles and see if any of them mention Isaiah 22 in a footnote under Matthew 16. I’d like to know. Thanks.

Isaiah 22 is what narrows the meaning of Matthew 16:19 down to what the Roman Catholics are saying all the time. The Catholics should quote Isaiah 22 along with Matthew 16 when they talk with Protestants about Peter.
Click to expand...
I have done just that. And it is ignored or explained away. And I know why.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

It was not RCIA that revealed this to you. It was God. Some people are just not ready to listen. I learned long ago that you cannot argue someone into the Kingdom. We can give them the truth and plant seeds but it is God who will make it grow and bring in the Harvest.

Welcome Home.
 
40.png
Melchior:
This is also the case with the NAB.

Mel
Click to expand...
The history of the NAB is a little complicated.

The 1966 edition was a fairly good translation though criticized for its changing of some traditional and familiar expressions, such as “full of grace”. It was the basis of the American Lectionary from the 1970s until 2002.

In 1986 they revised the NT. The rendering of the underlying Greek is very good. The problems arose over Inclusive language in referance to God.

In 1991 it was AGAIN revised. This time it was the Psalms. It was due to the use of inclusive language that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States.

Then there is the MODIFIED NAB text found in all current Lectionaries in the U.S. It does not refer to any currently available Bible, but to the NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised NT, as modified by a committee of the Holy See and the Bishops for use in the liturgy. All inclusive language in referance to God was changed back to its original form and only some inclusive language in referaces to man was left. “Brothers and Sisters” instead of “Brethren” unless there was an underlying anthropological and theological significance.

If one wants to buy this bible text one needs to buy an actual Lectionary.

All in all I think either the Confraternity Edition or the Revised Standard Version sould be used in Church. My opinion.
 
40.png
jmm08:
I’ll bet all Protestant Bibles do not mention Isaiah 22 in a footnote under Matthew 16:19. Look in your Protestant Bibles and see if any of them mention Isaiah 22 in a footnote under Matthew 16. I’d like to know. Thanks.

My *New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha *(NRSV) does not reference Is 22, but says the following:

19 The keys of the kingdom are a symbol of Peter’s power as the leader of the Church. *Bind *and *loose *are technical rabbinic terms meaning “forbid” and “permit” some action about which a question has arisen.

According to **Protestant **Bible scholar F.F. Bruce (Hard Sayings of Christ) …

“And what about the ‘keys of the kingdom’? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or major domo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim: ‘I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open’ (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. In the early chapters of Acts Peter is seen exercising this responsibility in the primitive church. He acts as chairman of the group of disciples in Jerusalem even before the coming of the Spirit at the first Christian Pentecost (Acts 1:15-26); on the day of Pentecost it is he who preaches the gospel so effectively that three thousand hearers believe the message and are incorporated in the church (Acts 2:14-41); some time later it is he who first preaches the gospel to a Gentile audience and thus 'opens a door of faiths to Gentiles as well as Jews (Acts 10:34-48).”
 
That quote itsjustdave1988 provides from F.F. Bruce is just great. I never heard of him before.

itsjustdave1988: I wonder what excuse F.F. Bruce had for not becoming Roman Catholic? From what I’m finding out, he was an excellent and important New Testament scholar (Protestant). I find evidence that even Roman Catholics read his writing.

Remember that God is in control. Perhaps sometimes He places special people in special places for His reasons. Perhaps Protestant scholars wouldn’t be reading F.F. Bruce if he was Catholic.
 
40.png
metal1633:
Ok. A “Catholic” Bible is a Bible with all the books approved by the Church at the Councils of Trent, Florence, Rome, Carthage and Hippo. That includes the “Apocrypha” although that is not the right word for them. They are actually called " deuterocanonical books". Protestants call them Apocrypha. The books are "Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees, 3 additional chapters of Daniel and 6 of Esther. Also a Catholic bible is one that is approved by the Church. I say that because not all bibles that contain all the books are approved.

SO whch ones are Catholic Bibles?

The Official Bible of the Church is the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The Official English Bible to be used in Churches in english speaking countries is that which is contained in the Lectionary. It is based on the New American Bible. The NAB contains inclusive language which the Holy See objects too so the text of the Lectionary was altered to remove the objectionable language.

The NAB itself is a very popular modern translation for reading and devotional prposes. If one can get past the inclusive language. (inclusive language is using neuter pronouns in referance to God and Christ.)

There is the Douai-Rheims. NT published in 1582 and OT published in 1607. It went through e few revisions and the 1899 edition can still be found. I believe Tan Books has it.

Confraternity Edition Published in a dignified American idiom. Though hard to find, this edition of the Scriptures is worth possessing.

Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Catholic Edition. A very readable and literal translation. And my favorite. Available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). Not as good as the former due to the use of inclusive languege. It was rejected for liturgical use for that reason.

Jerusalem Bible (1966). Excellent bible. The full version has copious footnotes but is hard to find, as it has not been recently republished. A Reader’s Edition, without the full footnoting, is available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.

New Jerusalem Bible (1990). Also not as good as the former. It contains inclusive language, similar to that rejected in the revised NAB by the Holy See for use in the liturgy.

WHY do Americans always have to make bad sequels?

And last is Today’s’ English Version - Catholic (1992). This is the Catholic edition of the popular Good News Bible by the American Bible Society. Translated according to the principle of dynamic equivalence for readability. Would be better to call it a paraphrase than a translation.
Click to expand...
You forgot the translation by Monsignor Knox of England. It’s approved by the Church, very well written and it might appeal to those who enjoy the KJV prose…
 
Ok, the NAB is the first “catholic” bible I ever had. I got a paperback version. Right now the covers are taped on with duct tape. I first saw the Douay -Rheims version though Tan Publishers. I’ve also seen it in the Leaflet Missal catalog. Last fall I saw the hard cover edition in the Leaflet, so I gave the information and all to my mom, who got it for me for Christmas. The hard back costs about $35. Not cheap, but not too bad either. Back when I decided to become catholic, I used that as an excuse the buy the NKJV of the Life Application bible. Of course, I have to take care with the footnotes.
 
40.png
metal1633:
It was not RCIA that revealed this to you. It was God. Some people are just not ready to listen. I learned long ago that you cannot argue someone into the Kingdom. We can give them the truth and plant seeds but it is God who will make it grow and bring in the Harvest.

Welcome Home.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to take this thread off-topic, but I found this to be very true for myself. When I married my wife, I wanted no part of the Catholic Church (raised Protestant). Later, I decided to re-dedicate my life to Christ, and as I deepened my understanding of Christianity, it seemed that all roads pointed to the Catholic Church.
 
pacersFan: as they say, all roads lead to Rome! Hahaha. 😃

Thank you everyone for your enlightening posts on Catholic Bibles. Now all I need to do is figure out which one to buy! 🙂
 
40.png
kfarose2585:
Thank you everyone for your enlightening posts on Catholic Bibles. Now all I need to do is figure out which one to buy! 🙂
Click to expand...
My recommendation: get a “New American Bible” as your first Catholic Bible. If you are “just thinking” of joining the Catholic Church, why not sign up for RCIA? I’m told that the RCIA class explores issues at first and it only starts up once each year (usually right at this time). If you don’t start soon, you may need to wait longer.

I’m told that the NAB is used in RCIA classes (another good reason to get one). They are available in paperback (less expensive).
 
40.png
metal1633:
New Jerusalem Bible (1990). Also not as good as the former. It contains inclusive language, similar to that rejected in the revised NAB by the Holy See for use in the liturgy.

WHY do Americans always have to make bad sequels?
Click to expand...
You can’t blame the Americans for this one. The New Jerusalem Bible was a British undertaking, influenced by the 1973 French revisions to the original.
 
i have a question. i have the new jerusalem bible. do the footnotes of this bible are the same like in a king james bible? this is just for curiosity?:confused: lord make me an instrument of your peace:gopray:
 
jmm08 said:
My recommendation: get a “New American Bible” as your first Catholic Bible. If you are “just thinking” of joining the Catholic Church, why not sign up for RCIA? I’m told that the RCIA class explores issues at first and it only starts up once each year (usually right at this time). If you don’t start soon, you may need to wait longer.

I’m told that the NAB is used in RCIA classes (another good reason to get one). They are available in paperback (less expensive).
Click to expand...

More likely than not, if you go through RCIA they will give you a NAB. I would encourage you as well to explore RCIA. Some parishes have a home couple program that you meet with to just talk about your feelings in a very casual setting before formal RCIA meetings start. That might be a good introduction for you as well!

Your Brother In Christ,
Derek
 
mayra hart:
i have a question. i have the new jerusalem bible. do the footnotes of this bible are the same like in a king james bible? this is just for curiosity?:confused: lord make me an instrument of your peace:gopray:
Click to expand...
I have never read the footnotes in either one. But I would say that are not the same based on the fact that differant scholars and publishers are invloved…
 
Well, a couple days ago a friend gave me two Bibles. One is the NRSV; the other is the New Jerusalem Bible. I investigated them both, and see no inclusive language–God and Jesus both seem to always be “He.” I don’t think it is right to call either of them “It” or to call Jesus “She,” though I do wonder what is wrong with thinking of God as our Mother:

“Can a woman forget her baby at the breast, feel no pity for the child she has borne? Even if these were to forget, I shall not forget you” -Isaiah 49:15

Any thoughts?
 
40.png
kfarose2585:
… I do wonder what is wrong with thinking of God as our Mother …
Click to expand...
Well, if God were our Mother, that would give Jesus two mothers and no father.

I’m pretty sure I don’t want to go there.:bigyikes:

BTW, I would answer “I do wonder what is wrong with having women priests” in a similar manner… a priest, in persona Christi, is married to Jesus’ bride, the Church. Two brides, no groom… I’m pretty sure I don’t want to go there, either!
 
40.png
Erich:
Well, if God were our Mother, that would give Jesus two mothers and no father.

I’m pretty sure I don’t want to go there.:bigyikes:

BTW, I would answer “I do wonder what is wrong with having women priests” in a similar manner… a priest, in persona Christi, is married to Jesus’ bride, the Church. Two brides, no groom… I’m pretty sure I don’t want to go there, either!
Click to expand...
This is an area in which it is possible to get silly quite fast.
However, if we are made in the image of God, and God made male and female, is there no validity to the issue of God having some aspects that could be considered female? On the other hand, Revelation shows us the image of God as Father. God is not a male, which would be limiting. Neither is God a female, which would be likewise limiting for the same reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top