Does ANYONE like the NABRE?

[Jehuty_X]

1. It is “nice” to say, “use original languages as the basis for your vernacular translation”. But that original language is only as good as the manuscript being used for the translation. I can have a Latin translation of Isaiah and an ancient Hebrew translation of Isaiah. Just because we know that Isaiah was originally composed in ancient Hebrew does NOT necessarily mean that any given Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah is, by default, better than a Latin translation.

// ??? … how would a latin translation be better???

1. I apologize for repeating myself so often, but the question keeps coming up: my humble proposal for an accurate bible would be to consult two codices: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (which contains the oldest complete NT known to exist), and then the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the recent announcement of the “lead plates” that were discovered by a Bedoin that appears to bear an imprinted picture of Christ, along with some biblical script, one could consult all of these sources and put together a pretty darned good manuscript that I think anyone would be hard pressed to claim is inaccurate.

// i agree…

P.S. the biggest fault I have with bibles such as the NAB, NABRE, and even the RSV and RSV CE, is that they merely state that they consulted “original languages”, but I never see listed the NAMES of the texts they referred to as their bases for the translations.

// mainly biblia hebraica stuttgartensia, septuaginta, biblia sacra vulgata…you can even check on wikipedia…

 

[praxising]

I have this three volume set: amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+cambridge+history+of+the+bible&x=8&y=16

It is pretty much considered the “gold standard” in terms of bible history, and I have yet to find anything in it that suggest the Catholic Church “rejected” the Latin Vulgate.

That (and I am not referring to you, personally) just does not make sense, considering it was the Catholic Church who commissioned the Latin Vulgate.

Well, let me get my book back and look it up. Might be I am mis-remembering, but I don’'t think so. When was the CHB last revised, BTW? I haven’t read it since I was pretty young.

 

[praxising]

Here is an example of a verse where the NABRE does not match the Hebrew as well as the RSV and the NRSV. I am using the BHS for the Hebrew.

I simply chose this portion at random – I literally just opened the NABRE to a random page and set my finger down on the page with my eyes shut. If you would like me to analyze a particular chapter of the OT, just let me know.

1 Samuel 14:25

RSV: And all the people [footnote: *Heb

. land] came into the forest; and there was honey on the ground.

NRSV: All the troops [footnote:* Heb. land] came upon a honeycomb; and there was honey on the ground.

NABRE: Now there was a honeycomb lying on the ground,

BHS: וְכָל־הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ בַיָּעַר וַיְהִי דְבַשׁ עַל־פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה

Comment: The NABRE simply neglects to translate the phrase וְכָל־הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ, only giving the second half of the verse.

I’m sorry, I know you have to write this out by hand, but will you please give the sentences/ before and after Now there was a honeycomb lying on the ground, from the NABRE? I guess that’s a fragment anyway, so the rest of that sentence and what precedes it?

 

[praxising]

BibleReader,

Poor choice of words on my part.

I interpreted praxising as saying the Catholic Church rejected the Latin Vulgate as a valid bible, as opposed to what Jerome did PERSONALLY, on his own, and without oversight, from Rome.)

I’m sorry, I should have been more precise. Thanks CalCatholic. I just wanted to point out that new translations, or anything new, I guess, have always taken a while to be accepted. I don’t have a NABRE opinion, haven’t seen it.

 

[Bible_Reader]

I’m sorry, I know you have to write this out by hand, but will you please give the sentences/ before and after Now there was a honeycomb lying on the ground, from the NABRE? I guess that’s a fragment anyway, so the rest of that sentence and what precedes it?

Sure – here is the RSV, NABRE, and BHS. You will note that the RSV follows the Hebrew much more closely in several ways than the other translations. I have highlighted those portions in the RSV with underline and deficiencies in the NABRE with italics.

1 Samuel 14:24-26

RSV: 24 And the men of Israel were distressed that day; for Saul laid an oath on the people, saying, “Cursed be the man who eats food until it is evening and I am avenged on my enemies.” So none of the people tasted food. 25 And all the people [footnote: Heb. land] came into the forest; and there was honey on the ground. 26 And when the people entered the forest, behold, the honey was dropping, but no man put his hand to his mouth; for the people feared the oath.

NABRE: 24 Even though the Israelites were exhausted that day, Saul laid an oath on them, saying “Cursed be the one who *takes *food before evening, *before *I am able to avenge myself on my enemies.” So none of the people tasted food. 25 *Now *there was a honeycomb *lying *on the ground, 26 and when the soldiers came to the comb the honey was flowing; yet no one raised a hand from it to his mouth, because the people feared the oath.

**BHS:
**וְאִֽישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֥ל נִגַּ֖שׂ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֑וּא וַיֹּאֶל֩ שָׁא֨וּל אֶת־הָעָ֜ם לֵאמֹ֗ר אָר֣וּר הָ֠אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יֹ֨אכַל
לֶ֜חֶם עַד־הָעֶ֗רֶב וְנִקַּמְתִּי֙ מֵאֹ֣יְבַ֔י וְלֹֽא טָעַ֥ם כָּל־הָעָ֖ם לָֽחֶם׃ ס
וְכָל־הָאָ֖רֶץ בָּ֣אוּ בַיָּ֑עַר וַיְהִ֥י דְבַ֖שׁ עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַשָּׂדֶֽה׃
וַיָּבֹ֤א הָעָם֙ אֶל־הַיַּ֔עַר וְהִנֵּ֖ה הֵ֣לֶךְ דְּבָ֑שׁ וְאֵין־מַשִּׂ֤יג יָדוֹ֙ אֶל־פִּ֔יו

Note the NABRE omits וְכָל־הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ בַיָּעַר in verse 25 and וְהִנֵּה in verse 26. Next the NABRE translates יֹאכַל as “takes” rather than “eats” which is just weird since it is (a) unnecessary; and (b) in other places, the correct translation of this verb is given, e.g., Gen 3:11, 12, 13, 18, etc.

As a stylistic point (which arguably is not an issue of literalness) the NABRE also tends to translate the vav-prefix in a number of ways (“even though”, “now”) while the RSV is more conservative in keeping more uses as (“and”).

I want to emphasize that this passage was chosen at random, and the same pattern of omitting phrases and disconcordant translation (with no apparent reason) is repeated throughout the NABRE.

 

[johnbres2]

Sure – here is the RSV, NABRE, and BHS. You will note that the RSV follows the Hebrew much more closely in several ways than the other translations. I have highlighted those portions in the RSV with underline and deficiencies in the NABRE with italics.

1 Samuel 14:24-26

RSV: 24 And the men of Israel were distressed that day; for Saul laid an oath on the people, saying, “Cursed be the man who eats food until it is evening and I am avenged on my enemies.” So none of the people tasted food. 25 And all the people [footnote: Heb. land] came into the forest; and there was honey on the ground. 26 And when the people entered the forest, behold, the honey was dropping, but no man put his hand to his mouth; for the people feared the oath.

NABRE: 24 Even though the Israelites were exhausted that day, Saul laid an oath on them, saying “Cursed be the one who *takes *food before evening, *before *I am able to avenge myself on my enemies.” So none of the people tasted food. 25 *Now *there was a honeycomb *lying *on the ground, 26 and when the soldiers came to the comb the honey was flowing; yet no one raised a hand from it to his mouth, because the people feared the oath.

**BHS:
**וְאִֽישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֥ל נִגַּ֖שׂ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֑וּא וַיֹּאֶל֩ שָׁא֨וּל אֶת־הָעָ֜ם לֵאמֹ֗ר אָר֣וּר הָ֠אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יֹ֨אכַל
לֶ֜חֶם עַד־הָעֶ֗רֶב וְנִקַּמְתִּי֙ מֵאֹ֣יְבַ֔י וְלֹֽא טָעַ֥ם כָּל־הָעָ֖ם לָֽחֶם׃ ס
וְכָל־הָאָ֖רֶץ בָּ֣אוּ בַיָּ֑עַר וַיְהִ֥י דְבַ֖שׁ עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַשָּׂדֶֽה׃
וַיָּבֹ֤א הָעָם֙ אֶל־הַיַּ֔עַר וְהִנֵּ֖ה הֵ֣לֶךְ דְּבָ֑שׁ וְאֵין־מַשִּׂ֤יג יָדוֹ֙ אֶל־פִּ֔יו

Note the NABRE omits וְכָל־הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ בַיָּעַר in verse 25 and וְהִנֵּה in verse 26. Next the NABRE translates יֹאכַל as “takes” rather than “eats” which is just weird since it is (a) unnecessary; and (b) in other places, the correct translation of this verb is given, e.g., Gen 3:11, 12, 13, 18, etc.

As a stylistic point (which arguably is not an issue of literalness) the NABRE also tends to translate the vav-prefix in a number of ways (“even though”, “now”) while the RSV is more conservative in keeping more uses as (“and”).

I want to emphasize that this passage was chosen at random, and the same pattern of omitting phrases and disconcordant translation (with no apparent reason) is repeated throughout the NABRE.

I submitted part of your quote above at the NABRE facebook page, and they replied that the NABRE used the Septuagint for the 1 Samuel passage in question.

 

[CalCatholic]

As I wrote earlier, I like the NABRE. To begin with, if any translation is picked apart on these treads line by line, there are going to be people who disagree with which the way it was translated. No translation is perfect.

The NABRE is a little more dynamic translation the the RSV so it is not going to match up with the Hebrew as well. Translation choices at times may be made for readability or clarity. That is why it is always good to have at least a couple translations, one formal (like the RSV, D-R, etc) and one that is a little more dynamic (like the NABRE, Jerusalem, New Jerusalem, etc.) The NABRE is more formal than the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible, but there can be verses where that is reversed.

I have been using the NABRE daily since I picked up a copy about three weeks ago. I use in the LOTH twice a day and I have been using it in my daily Lectionary readings. In comparing it with the older NAB, I think it is an overall improvement. Are there verses which I wish were translated differently, yes (Isaiah 7:14), but there are many places that the NABRE did well; it retained ‘Son of Man’ throughout the OT, where many modern translations went with alternatives. The OT reads much more smoothly than the 1970 OT (which is what I want a slightly more dynamic translation to do). There are times I want a more formal reading of a passage and I will go to my RSV-2CE.

The Psalms are a great improvement over the 1991 NAB Psalms, for example; Psalm 1, ‘Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked’ and Psalm 23 which sounds very close to the RSV-2CE.

The NT has not changed from the 1986 NAB NT, and it remains the translation that the Catholic Lectionary in the USA is based upon

So when I want readability I will reach for the NABRE, when I need a translation that is a little more formal (for study) I reach for the RSV-2CE.

 

[Bible_Reader]

I submitted part of your quote above at the NABRE facebook page, and they replied that the NABRE used the Septuagint for the 1 Samuel passage in question.

(1) I am sorry to say that I cannot find any note in the NABRE mentioning it was using the Greek for these verses

(2) I am sorry to say that the Greek matches the NABRE much more poorly than the Hebrew.

LXX (Rahlfs): καὶ Σαουλ ἠγνόησεν ἄγνοιαν μεγάλην ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ καὶ ἀρᾶται τῷ λαῷ λέγων Ἐπικατάρατος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς φάγεται ἄρτον ἕως ἑσπέρας, καὶ ἐκδικήσω τὸν ἐχθρόν μου, καὶ οὐκ ἐγεύσατο πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἄρτου. καὶ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ἠρίστα. καὶ ιααρ δρυμὸς ἦν μελισσῶνος κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ ἀγροῦ, καὶ εἰσῆλθεν ὁ λαὸς εἰς τὸν μελισσῶνα, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπορεύετο λαλῶν, καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐκ ἦν ἐπιστρέφων τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐφοβήθη ὁ λαὸς τὸν ὅρκον κυρίου.

**New English Translation of the Septuagint: **24 And Saoul was ignorant with ignorance in that day, and he laid an oath on the people, saying “Cursed be anyone who eats food before it is evening, so I will avenge my enemy,” and none of the people tasted food. 25 And all the land ate the midday meal. And Iaar was a wood with a beehive on the ground, 26 and the people came upon the beehive, and behold, they went on talking, and behold, they did not turn their hands to their mouths, for the people feared the oath of the Lord.

NABRE: 24 Even though the Israelites were exhausted that day, Saul laid an oath on them, saying “Cursed be the one who takes food before evening, before I am able to avenge myself on my enemies.” So none of the people tasted food. 25 Now there was a honeycomb lying on the ground, 26 and when the soldiers came to the comb the honey was flowing; yet no one raised a hand from it to his mouth, because the people feared the oath.

As you will note, the Greek and the NABRE cannot be reconciled at all in this passage.

For these reasons, I believe that the person answering your comment on the NABRE page gave an incorrect answer. In any case, here, the NABRE does not follow either the Hebrew or the Greek.

Again, I want to emphasize that I chose these verses at random. The same pattern is repeated frequently throughout the the NABRE.

 

[Bible_Reader]

If any translation is picked apart on these treads line by line, there are going to be people who disagree with which the way it was translated.

Just to clarify, I made the claim that NABRE matched up with the Hebrew less well than the RSV and NRSV, and praxising asked me to prove it with examples. So this analysis is by request. I’ve done my best not to cherry pick, but I normally study the Bible with reference to the Hebrew and Greek, and I have found the NABRE to be wanting (compared with the RSV and NRSV) here.

My biggest gripe about the NABRE is its inconsistency. Some books are heavily annotated, others are barely annotated. Some books have lengthy introductions, other have short introductions. Some books are translated using rather formal language (example: Ecclesiastes) others are translated using less formal language (example: Lamentations). (Note that I am comparing poetic book to poetic book – so this is not an apple-and-oranges comparison).

My second biggest gripe about the NABRE is the footnotes – these are often just too tough for an ordinary reader. And the cross-reference section is one of the worst I’ve encountered. (For example, OT passages that are quoted in the NT often don’t have cross-references in the OT text).

Having said all that, I think that NABRE is a much better translation than the 1970 NAB OT, and is in many ways better than the NJB (and certainly to the JB). It is a huge step in the right direction. I just think wish that the volume were better edited, the footnotes were addressed to an ordinary reader, the cross-references were more accurate and comprehensive, and the text didn’t omit so many phrases in the Hebrew.

My guess is that this volume was pushed out a little quickly – and that if the editors spent a little more time polishing the volume, it could be even better than it is.

 

[johnbres2]

Well, I bought the soft leather-like cover version of the NABRE and have been surprised at how much I like it. It has a great feel to it, and the St. Benedict layout is beautiful. The fonts are smaller than I would like, but that helps keep the size of the book manageable as well, and I need reading glasses with a bigger font as well. What has struck me the most is how this feels like it is finally a complete NAB to me, in a way none of the Catholic Book editions ever did. I find the notes and the translation in the OT very readable. It seems a great deal of care went into it. Despite all the complaints people have, it strikes me as at least being a genuine Catholic-produced bible, that DID NOT come from the King James version, as everything else out there seems to have. This one evolved from the Confraternity and Douay versions, which, despite its shortcomings, does give it a legit Catholic heritage, and I am finding myself accepting that and looking at this Bible with love. Even the NT seems better somehow, in this new cohesive whole. I realize this is illogical to some extent to say that, but it somehow feels the NAB is finally done.

 

[CalCatholic]

Well, I bought the soft leather-like cover version of the NABRE and have been surprised at how much I like it. It has a great feel to it, and the St. Benedict layout is beautiful. The fonts are smaller than I would like, but that helps keep the size of the book manageable as well, and I need reading glasses with a bigger font as well. What has struck me the most is how this feels like it is finally a complete NAB to me, in a way none of the Catholic Book editions ever did. I find the notes and the translation in the OT very readable. It seems a great deal of care went into it. Despite all the complaints people have, it strikes me as at least being a genuine Catholic-produced bible, that DID NOT come from the King James version, as everything else out there seems to have. This one evolved from the Confraternity and Douay versions, which, despite its shortcomings, does give it a legit Catholic heritage, and I am finding myself accepting that and looking at this Bible with love. Even the NT seems better somehow, in this new cohesive whole. I realize this is illogical to some extent to say that, but it somehow feels the NAB is finally done.

I agree, I just received ‘The New Catholic Answer Bible’ in the Librosario synthetic soft cover from Fireside Catholic Publishing yesterday. I plan on using this Bible with my RCIA and Bible study classes. I agree with your statement about the NT, OT and Psalms seeming to flow together better than the previous addition of the NAB. And I agree that it truly is a Catholic Bible (whether it is your cup of tea or not).

 

[rotlex]

I agree, I just received ‘The New Catholic Answer Bible’ in the Librosario synthetic soft cover from Fireside Catholic Publishing yesterday. I plan on using this Bible with my RCIA and Bible study classes. I agree with your statement about the NT, OT and Psalms seeming to flow together better than the previous addition of the NAB. And I agree that it truly is a Catholic Bible (whether it is your cup of tea or not).

How do you like the Fireside edition? I have one of their NAB versions from quite a few years ago, Librosario edition, soft cover, two tone etc. It’s gorgeous, probably one of the nicest Catholic Bibles I have ever seen. What I don’t like about it is the notes layout inside. They literally engulf the page, as they are placed off to the side on all pages, and there are tons of them.

Just wondering, as I hardly ever here anyone on here talking about Fireside. It’s always either St. Benedict Press, or Ignatius. I own a few St. Benedict Press Bibles, and love them, but the quality, IMO at least, is no where near Fireside. I only with Fireside would put out a Douay Rheims, or at least, RSV-CE.

 

[CalCatholic]

How do you like the Fireside edition? I have one of their NAB versions from quite a few years ago, Librosario edition, soft cover, two tone etc. It’s gorgeous, probably one of the nicest Catholic Bibles I have ever seen. What I don’t like about it is the notes layout inside. They literally engulf the page, as they are placed off to the side on all pages, and there are tons of them.

Just wondering, as I hardly ever here anyone on here talking about Fireside. It’s always either St. Benedict Press, or Ignatius. I own a few St. Benedict Press Bibles, and love them, but the quality, IMO at least, is no where near Fireside. I only with Fireside would put out a Douay Rheims, or at least, RSV-CE.

I like it a lot, I don’t know if the this NABRE edition has changed much from the last edition. The print is supposed to be 12 percent larger than their regular font size and it is well spaced. The daily and Sunday Lectionary readings are listed in the back. The New Catholic Answer Bible has the 88 Questions related to Catholic beliefs inserted inside which makes this Bible very useful for apologetics, RCIA and Bible study. I like the soft synthetic cover (w/ the Rosary imprinted on the back cover), it is very comfortable in the hand and is very flexible. The notes are probably in the same layout as the previous editions, but I am not sure. The only thing this Bible is missing is maps, but I can live without that.

 

[melchesidechpio]

The only good thing apparent to me at this point about the NABRE is Psalm 1. Otherwise, it seems to consistently go against traditional Catholic positions. I am a big collector of Bibles, and I don’t see a reason to buy this one.

Don’t care for this version, I’ll stick to my Douay-Rheims

 

[praxising]

Just to clarify, I made the claim that NABRE matched up with the Hebrew less well than the RSV and NRSV, and praxising asked me to prove it with examples. .

Um, I just wanted an example, it wasn’t about “proving” what you said, I assumed you were correct, I just thought it would be good to have something concrete. And I didn’t thank you for doing so, so thank you. I got busy with offline life.

I don’t have the spare cash for a new Bible right now, I own so many, anyway. It is interesting to hear all these perspectives.

 

[rotlex]

Don’t care for this version, I’ll stick to my Douay-Rheims

The Church should have too.

Serious question for anyone. Is there any information anywhere, write ups, whatever, as to WHY the Church stopped using the DR after so many years? Just curious, and really have never heard or read about it.

 

[Salvatore123]

I think the roots of change can be traced to the 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, which mandated that translations be based on the original languages.

By the time of the release of this encyclical, the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) had already finished publishing what I believe to be one of the most beautiful translations into english of the New Testament. But, the CCD’s project was a new translation of the Clementine Vulgate - not a translation based on the original languages.

So, “mid-stream”, the CCD abandoned its original project of producing a new translation of the Clementine Vulgata, and from 1952 through 1969, produced the CCD’s translation of the entire OT based on the original languages. As the CCD’s NT translation was published before the encyclical, the CCD re-translated the entire NT based on the original languages, and issued what became known as the New American Bible in 1970. The only small change to the OT translations to be released as part of the NAB in 1970 was a new translations of Genesis - the “need” for a new translation of Genesis was never fully explained.

The NAB’s history is as follows:

1970 - original release of NAB - first edition
1986 - revision of entire NT of NAB - technically, the second edition
1991 - revision of the Psalms of NAB - technically, the third edition
2011 - revision of the entire OT, retained the 1986 NT revision of second edition - although technically, the fourth edition, it is called the NABRE - New American Bible Revised Edition

Ironically, the NABRE does NOT contain the Revised Grail Psalter, which was the only Psalter approved for liturgical use in the United States. Instead, the NABRE contains a Psalter published by a special committee formed by the Vatican to deal with a three-time rejection of the USCCB’s attempts to revise the Psalter as part of its CCD-NAB revision project.

So, even though we have a “new” bible - the NABRE - it will NOT form the basis of the lectionary that will be used in the revision of the Novus Ordo in the United States.

The Roman Missal, Third Edition, the ritual text containing prayers and instructions for the celebration of the Mass, is now being prepared for publication in the US, with publication rights given to seven publishers: Catholic Book Publishing Corp., Liturgical Press, Liturgy Training Publications, Magnificat, Midwest Theological Forum, USCCB Communications, and World Library Publications. The Roman Missal will be implemented in the United States of America on the First Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2011.

P.S. It is not so much that the Church “stopped using the DR”. Prior to Vatican II and the change to the vernacular, all Latin Rite Catholic Churches (with very few exceptions) used the 1962 Roman Missal - which, of course, was in Latin. So technically, the DR was never used at Holy Mass anywhere, as it was an english translation of the “official” Latin text, Clementine Vulgata (itself, a revision of the so-called Latin Vulgate that had become corrupted between the time Jerome published his version and the late 1500’s/early 1600’s).

The Clementine Vulgata was replaced with the Church’s official text, called the Nova Vulgata in 1979, with a revision in 1986.

To date, the Church has never approved or published an english translation of its “official” bible.

 

[Bible_Reader]

the Church’s official text, called the Nova Vulgata in 1979, with a revision in 1986

Nova Vulgata is the not the Church’s official text – it is only the Church’s current Latin translation of Scripture. Nova Vulgata has no more “authority” than any other approved translation – the authority lies in the original language texts.

I would refer you to “La Nouvelle Vulgate,” Esprit et Vie 89 (1979) 598-603, by Bishop A.-L. Descamps, Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Here is an excerpt from ) that quotes from that articleCatholic Biblical Quarterly (emphasis in original):

There are two authoritative sources for the role of the *Nova Vulgata*: (a) the Apostolic Constitution *Scripturarum thesaurus* of John Paul II of April 25, 1979, which prefaces the final edition of the *Nova Vulgata*; and (b) the authoritative interpretation by Bishop A.-L. Descamps, Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The history of the *Nova Vulgata* can be quickly told. Prior to the conclusion of the Council, Pope Paul VI in 1965 appointed a commission for the *Nova Vulgata* to do for the entire Vulgate what the Council (in *Sacrosanctum Concilium*, no. 91) had decreed to be done for the Psalter--revise the existing Vulgate in accord with modern textual and linguistic studies, while preserving or refining its Christian Latin style. The textual basis of the *Nova Vulgata* was the critical edition of St. Jerome's Vulgate done by the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Jerome in Rome. The Commission published its work in eight annotated sections, inviting criticism from scholars as the sections were published. The Latin Psalter was published in 1969, the sections in the 1970s, and the entire *Nova Vulgata* in 1979.

The original purpose of the Nova Vulgata, according to the Apostolic Constitution Scripturarum thesaurus, was to provide a revised Vulgate for a reformed liturgy. The purpose was never to be fully realized. “While the Commission for the Nova Vulgata was carrying out its work,” explains Bishop Descamps, “there took place an event that was entirely unexpected. Going beyond the presuppositions of Vatican II regarding liturgical matters, Pope Paul VI authorized the general use of the vernacular for the missal and breviary.” Bishop Descamps asks the inevitable question: “What then is the authority of the Nova Vulgata now that the vernacular has come into the public reading of the Bible, exegesis itself, and liturgy?” Commenting on the purpose stated in Scripturarum thesaurus, he rephrases it in the form of three proposals: the Nova Vulgata can still be used for certain liturgies (Descamps suggests abbeys and chapter meetings); it can be a point of reference for translators who know Latin but not Hebrew or Greek as they began the giant task of preparing vernacular translations for the liturgy; it can be a resource in remote areas lacking resources such as specialized libraries for Bible study. It goes without saying that the Nova Vulgata will serve as the official translation in Latin Church documents such as conciliar and synodal decrees, encyclicals, and the like.

It is extremely important to be precise about what the Nova Vulgata itself and the authoritative interpreters of the time claimed for it. It was meant to be the translation for what was foreseen as a reformed Latin liturgy. When the Latin liturgy gave way to the liturgy in the vernacular, its original purpose ended. Its value for translators now is limited to situations that are specified in the documents, i.e., preparing vernacular translations when translators know no Hebrew and Greek and when there are no specialized resources. There is no basis whatsoever in the Nova Vulgata for the claim that it is an authority for all translators of the Bible for liturgical purposes.

 

[Salvatore123]

Bible Reader,

I hope this does not turn into a “debate” on the authority of the Nova Vulgata. Nevertheless, I did want to respond to your last post.

Many people have claimed that the Catholic Church has never had an “official bible”.

I respectfully disagree.

In 1546, at the Council of Trent, after listing the OT and NT books that were formally declared to be part of the canon of scripture, the Council said:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.”

I submit that the above language decrees, as “official”, not only the listing of the books of the bible, but the wording as well, and goes on to state that the Clementine Vulgate (to which this pronouncement was directed) was to be used in confirming dogmas of the Church.

If this is not a declaration that the Clementine Vulgate was to be viewed as the official bible of the Catholic Church, I don’t know what other purpose it had to state such.

Fast forward to 1979, when Pope John Paul II stated in relevant part:

*“ . . . by virtue of this Letter [namely, the Apostolic Constitution - Scripturarum Thesaurus]

we declare the New Vulgate edition of the Holy Bible as “typical” and we promulgate it to be used especially in the sacred Liturgy but also as suitable for other things, as we have said.

Finally we decree that this Constitution of ours be firm and forever efficacious and be scrupulously observed by all concerned, notwithstanding any obstacles whatsoever.

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, 25 April, on the feast of Saint Mark the Evangelist, in the year 1979 the first of our Pontificate.”*

The key for the authority of a promulgation by Rome is the designation “editio typica”, which is assigned to ALL documents/texts/books that are to be considered “official” by the Church.

This language was used regarding the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “It is a caue for great joy that the Latin typical edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is being published.”

Another example regarding the use of the phrase “typical edition” concerns the new Roman Missal to be used beginning during Advent of this year: “Notes on the New Translation of the Missale Romanum, editio typica . . .”

In each instance, insertion of the phrase “editio typica” indicates that the Church considers the document to which that phrase is attached as “official”.

In the encyclical Litugiam Authenticam, No. 37, the encyclical reads in relevant part:

“37. If the biblical translation from which the Lectionary is composed exhibits readings that differ from those set forth in the Latin liturgical text, it should be borne in mind that the Nova Vulgata Editio is the point of reference as regards the delineation of the canonical text. Thus, in the translation of the deuterocanonical books and wherever else there may exist varying manuscript traditions, the liturgical translation must be prepared in accordance with the same manuscript tradition that the Nova Vulgata has followed.”

Bible Reader,

The text you cite is not an official document or decree from the church. On the contrary - it is part of a presentation prepared by the Catholic Biblical Association, written to the USCCB, speaking AGAINST the encyclical Liturgiam Authenticam, citing No. 37 in particular, stating: “LA attributes massive authority to NV in nos. 24, 33, 37, 41a, and 43.”

The Catholic Biblical Association did NOT like the encyclical and admitted that it specifically deferred to the Nova Vulgata as “authoritative” - with which the CBA vehemently disagreed.

What you cited is nothing more than a group of priests and scholars who did not like the idea of the encyclical binding them to the Nova Vulgata when it came to scholarly work.

Now, I am not suggesting that the Nova Vulgata is an excellent translation - I am not even suggesting it is a good translation. I AM, however, suggesting that it is the Church’s OFFICIAL translation of the sacred scriptures.

We can disagree on what the word “official” means.

I respectfully submit that when it comes to the definitive text of the bible to which all official matters must conform, the Nova Vulgata is it. For my purposes, this makes the Nova Vulgata the Church’s “official bible”.

 

[Bible_Reader]

First, paragraph 37 of Liturgium Authenticum (as the title of the instruction clearly implies) only addresses the liturgy (in this case the lectionary), not Bible translations in general.

Second, paragraph 37 of *Liturgium Authenticum *further restricts itself purely to “varying manuscript traditions … the order of verses, or similar factors.” It does not say that translations must be in conformity with Nova Vulgata.

Third, you do appear to understand the meaning of editio typica.

Editio typica in the document means only that when the Nova Vulgata is reprinted, the text of this edition (Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1979) must be followed exactly. . . . The example of a copyrighted translation of a Bible might clarify the difference between liturgical book and biblical translation. The New Revised Standard Bible is licensed to publishers by the National Council of Churches; a licensed publisher cannot change a word unless authorized to do so by the National Council. Such authorization in no way makes the NRSV superior to other biblical translations; it concerns only the NRSV, not other texts. Bishop Descamps made the same point: “The adjective ‘typica’ (from typos, model) means here, as it does in liturgical law, the ‘exemplary’ edition of a text to which any new edition of the text must strictly conform. . . . . Thus, the use of the word ‘typica’ says nothing about the relation between the Neo-Vulgata and texts related to it such as the Vulgate or the original texts of both Testaments.”

Indeed, the USCCB frequently varies from the Latin editio typica in all sorts of documents – for example, p. viii of the US edition of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults clearly states that the translators have changed the ordering of material presented in the interest of clarity. This did not stop the document from receiving a *Concordant cum originali *and the approval of the Bishops to publish. In fact, editio typica cannot apply across languages, for the very simple reason that exact translation is never possible.

Fourth,

The same paragraph (no. 37) specifies “that in the translation of the deuterocanonical books . . ., the liturgical translation must be prepared in according with the same manuscript tradition that the Nova Vulgata has followed.” One must say in response that text criticism is an ongoing task especially today when the Qumran material is still being weighed. Two distinguished text critics have made the point concretely in their severe reviews of the Nova Vulgata deuterocanonical books, P. W. Skehan in CBQ 40 (1978) 607-09, and G. Scarpat in* RivB* 35 (1987) 187-194. The latter judges the text of Wisdom of Solomon so superficial and hastily done that ecclesiastical authority should withdraw it and reedit it.

Fifth, paragraph 41 of Liturgium Authenticum weakens this even more saying it is only “advantageous to be guided by Nova Vulgata” (and again, this only applies to liturgy – not to Bible translation in general.)

None of this implies that the Nova Vulgata is any sort of official Bible. Indeed, various Bishops Conferences in the US and elsewhere have granted imprimatur to translations (in English and other languages) that vary from Nova Vulgata. Further, in practice, it is not even an authority for liturgy. For example, the Holy See has approved the Canadian NRSV lectionary (which frequently varies from Nova Vulgata) since Liturgium Authenticum.