I don't understand

[bauerice]

If a Bible has both an Nihil obstat and Imprimatur doesn’t that make it an acceptable Catholic Bible? The New Jerusalem Bible is the most widely used Bible for English speaking Catholics outside the USA. It is the Bible I use for my daily readings. Yet I hear that so many find it problematic. I have a D-R but find the English used twists me around sometimes.

 

[CathChemNerd]

bauerice:

If a Bible has both an Nihil obstat and Imprimatur doesn’t that make it an acceptable Catholic Bible? The New Jerusalem Bible is the most widely used Bible for English speaking Catholics outside the USA. It is the Bible I use for my daily readings. Yet I hear that so many find it problematic. I have a D-R but find the English used twists me around sometimes.

Hello Beau;
You are correct, the NJ Bible does have both imprimatur and nihil obstat, which essentially state that it does not teach error nor anything contradicting the Catholic Faith. So, the NJB is just fine for scripture study, edification, etc. The problem that some people have with it is that our English version is a translation from the French–the (old) Jerusalem Bible. The old Jerusalem was translated from the Greek and Hebrew. So, the NJB introduced another layer of translation in between, and it is not translated directly from the original languages. So from a scriputre scholar’s perspective, it’s not as useful a translation as, say, the RSV-CE (Revised Standard Version–Catholic Ed.). But that doesn’t mean it’s no good; it’s been double and triple checked to insure that it doesn’t teach heresy or anything like that.

Hope that helps!
CathChemNerd

 

[bauerice]

Thanks I appreciate the info. I just recently purchased the RSV-CE 2nd edition from Ignatius. Haven’t had a lot of time to check it out yet.

 

[didymus]

CathChemNerd:

Hello Beau;
You are correct, the NJ Bible does have both imprimatur and nihil obstat, which essentially state that it does not teach error nor anything contradicting the Catholic Faith. So, the NJB is just fine for scripture study, edification, etc.

Hope that helps!
CathChemNerd

Okay, so the N.O. and Imprimatur mean that a book is “free from error” but does that mean the doctrine in it is sound? I imagine something could be pretty far-out and still not heretical.

Btw, does anyone know if the N.O and the Imprimatur in the NJB (and other Bibles) apply to the footnotes or just to the translations

 

[CathChemNerd]

didymus:

Okay, so the N.O. and Imprimatur mean that a book is “free from error” but does that mean the doctrine in it is sound? I imagine something could be pretty far-out and still not heretical.

Btw, does anyone know if the N.O and the Imprimatur in the NJB (and other Bibles) apply to the footnotes or just to the translations

Didymus;

Officially, imprimatur means that a book has been published by the express authority of the bishop of the publishing diocese. Nihil obstat means that the book is free from doctrinal error. And you’re right, the nihil obstat is more of a negative protection than a positive one. But generally things that tend to be “far-out” stray into some or other heresy that’s been hashed out in the last 2,000 years. For instance, if Jesus in one translation of a Bible sounded more like a Confucian priest, that would probably go throw up red flags all over the place. Why? Because that would detract from Jesus’ divine nature or our understanding of the trinity.

As to the second question, I’m pretty sure that the nihil obstat only covers the actual text of the Bible, not the footnotes. So you gotta be careful there…

CathChemNerd

 

[bauerice]

My New Jerusalem Bible is text only, no notes.

 

[didymus]

CathChemNerd:

Didymus;

Officially, imprimatur means that a book has been published by the express authority of the bishop of the publishing diocese. Nihil obstat means that the book is free from doctrinal error. And you’re right, the nihil obstat is more of a negative protection than a positive one. But generally things that tend to be “far-out” stray into some or other heresy that’s been hashed out in the last 2,000 years. For instance, if Jesus in one translation of a Bible sounded more like a Confucian priest, that would probably go throw up red flags all over the place. Why? Because that would detract from Jesus’ divine nature or our understanding of the trinity.

Sorry I wasn’t clear, I was thinking of other books besides Bible translations – Christology, books about scraments, &c.

As to the second question, I’m pretty sure that the nihil obstat only covers the actual text of the Bible, not the footnotes. So you gotta be careful there…

CathChemNerd

Just as I suspected!

 

[CathChemNerd]

didymus:

Sorry I wasn’t clear, I was thinking of other books besides Bible translations – Christology, books about scraments, &c

Oh, I gotcha. There can be something in books that’s out there crazy, especially if you have a censor (who gives N.O.) who’s not really orthodox. Some wingnut censor could a Jansenist text and give it the okay. But while it’s not an iron-clad guarantee, I still tend to look in the front of books to see if it’s there. The only way to know for sure is to check the content against the CCC, Scripture and Tradition.


CathChemNerd