Is it OK to read unauthorized Bible versions?

[Pray4Life]

Is this a sin for a Catholic to do? I have seen a “public domain version” that is supposed to be Catholic but of course has not been approved (as yet). I already own a couple of approved versions in paper (NAB, RSV-CE, D-R) but I’d like something for devotional reading on my Kindle and this translation seems very readable. Would it be wrong to use it since it hasn’t been approved? Sorry if this is a dumb question, I still remember feeling like SUCH a rebel as a Baptist teenager for buying a NEW King James Version Bible.

 

[Holly3278]

I seriously doubt that it’d be a sin. Catholics don’t have lists of forbidden books anymore as far as I know. It might be discouraged but I seriously doubt that it would even be a venial sin.

 

[OraProNobisIHM]

Is this a sin for a Catholic to do? I have seen a “public domain version” that is supposed to be Catholic but of course has not been approved (as yet). I already own a couple of approved versions in paper (NAB, RSV-CE, D-R) but I’d like something for devotional reading on my Kindle and this translation seems very readable. Would it be wrong to use it since it hasn’t been approved? Sorry if this is a dumb question, I still remember feeling like SUCH a rebel as a Baptist teenager for buying a NEW King James Version Bible.

Can’t you get the NAB from the USCCB for the Kindle?

Or what about Project Gutenberg??

You can get the Douay-Rheims Challoner revision here:
gutenberg.org/wiki/Bible/Douay-Rheims%2C_The_Challoner_Revision

 

[Pray4Life]

My choices according to Amazon, unless I missed something, are 1) the D-R and 2) the Catholic public domain version by Ron Conte and some other guy (no offense to the other guy, but his name is longer ) I just cannot use the D-R for any sort of casual reading. I internalize Scripture better when it is writ in something akin to the tongue of my birth (American English )

 

[PrayHarder]

I think the fact that you are reading the Bible is great. I think if it came down to reading an “unauthorized” version or not reading one at all, go with the former choice. I read a non-Catholic Bible and it didn’t seem too different than what is read during Mass. If you want to do some more in depth Bible study then you’ll probably want a Catholic though.

 

[Canto]

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum, Jan. 25, 1897, art. 1., “Of the Prohibition of Books,” chaps. 2,3, trans. in the Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (New York: Benziger, 1903):[p. 412]

CHAPTER II.
Of Editions of the Original Text of Holy Scripture and of Versions not in the Vernacular.

1. Editions of the original text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to those engaged in theological and biblical studies, provided also that the dogmas of Catholic faith are not impugned in the prolegomena or annotations.
2. In the same manner, and under the same conditions, other versions of the Holy Bible, whether in Latin or in any other dead language, published by non-Catholics, are permitted.

CHAPTER III.
Of Vernacular Versions of Holy Scripture.

1. As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the Holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm that utility is thereby [p. 413] caused, owing to human temerity: all versions in the vernacular, even by Catholics, are altogether prohibited, unless approved by the Holy See, or published, under the vigilant care of the bishops, with annotations taken from the Fathers of the Church and learned Catholic writers.
2. All versions of the Holy Bible, in any vernacular language, made by non-Catholics are prohibited; and especially those published by the Bible societies, which have been more that once condemned by the Roman Pontiffs, because in them the wise laws of the Church concerning the publication of the sacred books are entirely disregarded.
   
   Nevertheless, these versions are permitted to students of theological or biblical science, under the conditions laid down above (No. 5)

Found this on a dodgy anti-Catholic site saying we banned the Bible - and pigs might fly.

It would seem that we should read transaltions approved by the Church. But that non-Catholic transaltions can be read for study if the notes don’t criticise or cast doubt on dogma.

A Catholic translation has to be approved by a council of Bishops (i.e. the US Bishops approved the NAB) or the Holy See. In my op, such a translation is what we should read. For apologetic and evangelic or study purpouses if we know our faith then we could read an unauthorised translation, but not as our main Bible for reading. Hope this makes sense.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The original poster is referring to my translation of the Bible, the CPDV:
sacredbible.org/catholic/index.htm

The kindle version was prepared from my edition by Frederick Manligas Nacino. He did not work on my translation at all; he took the completed public domain translation and put it into kindle form with many helpful footnotes from various sources.

There is no prohibition in canon law against reading any version of the Bible, whether Protestant or Catholic.

Throughout most of Church history, there was no such thing as an imprimatur, or any approval for a version of the Bible. In the early Church, many different Christians translated various books of the Old and New Testaments; they did so without ‘authorization’ and without ‘approval’. Their authority to do so rests on the command of Christ to the baptized to spread the Gospel. These many translation efforts gave rise to the Latin Scriptural tradition, to which the Council of Trent gave a special place in the Church. And when Trent approved of the Latin Scriptural tradition, they did not specify a particular edition, but the tradition itself.

Even the Gospel writers had no authority or permission or approval from Peter or his successors to write the Gospels. They did so out of the need of the faithful for the Gospel message.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I don’t think there’s a general prohibition for Catholics reading non-approved translations of the Bible, though probably you wouldn’t be eligible for the partial indulgence when you do so.

On the other hand, Canon Law does prohibit the publication of Scriptures for Catholics to use without the required approval:

Can. 825 §1 Books of the sacred Scriptures may not be published unless they are approved by the Apostolic See or the Episcopal Conference. The publication of translations of the sacred Scriptures requires the approval of the same authority, and they must have necessary and sufficient explanatory notes.

§2 With the permission of the Episcopal Conference, catholic members of Christ’s faithful, in cooperation with separated brethren, may prepare and publish versions of the Scriptures, with appropriate explanatory notes.

So Canon Law places the burden on publishers, not the readers. I would expect internet publishing etc to fall within the ambit of the juridical concept of publishing.

The Church has exercised, in various forms, her authority to approve translations of the Scriptures. St Jerome wrote about the Church’s approval of Theodotion’s translation for the book of Daniel (instead of the Septuagint), and St Jerome’s Vulgate itself took quite some time to win general acceptance and approval in the Latin Church and supplant the Old Latin translations. None of the gospel writings would be canonical Gospels without the authority of the Church. There is always a close, inseparable link, between the Church and the Scriptures.

 

[Pray4Life]

Thanks for all the replies! I still have not decided what to do, but it takes me a while sometimes to make up my mind. Slow but steady. Just wanted to let y’all know I appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut & am mulling it over.

 

[Disciple96]

Thanks for all the replies! I still have not decided what to do, but it takes me a while sometimes to make up my mind. Slow but steady. Just wanted to let y’all know I appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut & am mulling it over.

I think that reading the unauthorized version is not forbidden, but adhering to it over the authorized versions would be problematical. You’d have to ask yourself why you would want to do that. As for reading different versions, I read many versions just in order to know what they say and how to answer people’s questions when they ask.

But I accept and embrace the Church’s teachings and translations over anybody else’s. The Church always has the final word in my book.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I wouldn’t chance reading an unauthorized Bible version

 

[Primox]

Most translations are robust, and the best translation is one that you’ll get something from. I doubt there are translations that differ so sharply from “authorized” editions as to cause a person to stumble, either spiritually or docrinally.

I suppose, you can’t go wrong with an authorized version, but you likely will not go wrong reading one that isn’t yet authorized. Pray about it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I suppose, you can’t go wrong with an authorized version, but you likely will not go wrong reading one that isn’t yet authorized.

You can go wrong with an authorized version. Here is the current list of approved editions by the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for the Review of Scripture Translations:
usccb.org/dpp/translations.htm

The Protestant Contemporary English Version is approved, even though it is a very loose translation, it entirely lacks the deuterocanonical books, and it was not translated in accord with the Vatican norms for Bible translation.

They have also approved of some books from the Protestant New International Version.

The revised Psalms of the NAB is approved by the USCCB, but was rejected by the Holy See for use in the Mass.

New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, was rejected by the Holy See under Pope John Paul II for use in the Mass, but has been approved by the U.S. and the Canadian Bishops conferences. The Canadian Bishops used the edition even though it was rejected by the Pope. Pope Benedict XVI recently approved the use of that edition in Canada, but this seems to be merely a reluctant concession to the Canadian Bishops, since that edition does not adhere to the Vatican norms for Bible translation written by then Cardinal Ratzinger.

The USCCB committee refused to review the second edition of the RSV CE, and that edition is still not listed as approved on their site, even though the CDW approved the lectionary based on the RSV CE2.

The Grail Psalter (Inclusive Language Version) was approved by the USCCB committee in 1991 and received the imprimatur. Then in 1993 the full body of the conference voted against it. This version is still listed on the committee’s page as an approved version even though the Conference rejected it for liturgical use due to its inclusive language.

Norms from the Holy See on inclusive language and on other aspects of Bible translation are directly contradicted by the approval practices of the USCCB committee.

See this good article:
adoremus.org/1108Psalter.html

 

[Primox]

Unfortunately, the distinction between declaring that a translation is free from doctrinal error, and that it is authorized for use in the liturgy has not always been adequately explained or understood.

I didn’t say it would be a good idea to read one that is doctrinally flawed. That would be foolish. There are clearly versions which are not deemed doctrinally flawed which are also “unauthorized.”

By all means, read a Catholic Bible. By all means, read a doctinrally accurate bible. But I wouldn’t say it’s something to get hung up on. It’s only because people can’t stand to see time-honored words changed that there’s a big deal made of it. Other versions help the new believer, preliminary abstracts enhance understanding, “gender-neutering” is correcting a practice that was custom for the text at the time (will anyone’s faith be rocked when they read the inclusion of sisters to “Brothers…”?). It’s moot if you ask me, and what funner thing to argue and get red in the face over than that which is moot.

 

[Crumpy]

Is this a sin for a Catholic to do? I have seen a “public domain version” that is supposed to be Catholic but of course has not been approved (as yet). I already own a couple of approved versions in paper (NAB, RSV-CE, D-R) but I’d like something for devotional reading on my Kindle and this translation seems very readable. Would it be wrong to use it since it hasn’t been approved? Sorry if this is a dumb question, I still remember feeling like SUCH a rebel as a Baptist teenager for buying a NEW King James Version Bible.

I haven’t read the other posts, so sorry if I’m repeating anything.

A book called the New Jerome Bible Commentary has a section on “versions” of the Bible. It notes that back in 1917 or 1918, the Vatican issued a new set of Church laws called the Code of Canon Law.

It said that Catholics could use any version of the Bible, even non-Catholic versions. I suppose this was to open the door for scholars to look at other versions of the Bible, for comparing translations, etc. The qualification was that the Bible should not be one that is openly anti-Catholic, and I suppose that refers to either the translation and/or the accompanying commentary. My relatives gave me a Ryrie Bible, which is openly anti-Catholic, for example. It’s good as far as being an edition of the New American Standard.

Recall too that the Catholic Church recognizes 73 inspired books with various additions to other books, that Protestants do not.

The NJBC gives examples of versions, which I presume illustrate acceptable copies. One of those mentioned is the 1985 Jewish Publication Society translation – which of course is limited to what we would call the “Old Testament.”

Kindle: no comment, your preference to be sure.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I haven’t read the other posts, so sorry if I’m repeating anything.

A book called the New Jerome Bible Commentary has a section on “versions” of the Bible. It notes that back in 1917 or 1918, the Vatican issued a new set of Church laws called the Code of Canon Law.

It said that Catholics could use any version of the Bible, even non-Catholic versions. I suppose this was to open the door for scholars to look at other versions of the Bible, for comparing translations, etc. The qualification was that the Bible should not be one that is openly anti-Catholic, and I suppose that refers to either the translation and/or the accompanying commentary. My relatives gave me a Ryrie Bible, which is openly anti-Catholic, for example. It’s good as far as being an edition of the New American Standard.

Recall too that the Catholic Church recognizes 73 inspired books with various additions to other books, that Protestants do not.

The NJBC gives examples of versions, which I presume illustrate acceptable copies. One of those mentioned is the 1985 Jewish Publication Society translation – which of course is limited to what we would call the “Old Testament.”

Kindle: no comment, your preference to be sure.

I’ve heard some bad things about the New Jerome Bible Commentary. The original is out of print and everyone says its the one to have between the 2. Have you read the the original one??

 

[Disciple96]

Some comments on choosing a Bible then doing Bible study (first in general and then from a Catholic point of view, since I am Catholic, don’t ya know):

Anyone who thinks that one version or translation is as good as another and that the matter of which translation to use is a small matter of little import, just try asking Fr. Mitch Pacwa about it. Then stand back. He’ll have plenty to say, I’m sure.

If you’re in a denomination where doctrinal concerns are, shall we say, somewhat loose and left up to the individual’s preferences, well, then, I suppose you could pick any Bible you want to, based upon size, weight, and type of cover as much as upon translation. You might even think that one translation is just as good as any other. But you might not be aware that with translation comes interpretation and there is always a bias, always unspoken assumptions. Look at the footnotes. Look at what different versions have to say about John 6. Or about the Holy Spirit moving upon the waters in Genesis. You’ll find big differences between the Catholic and Protestant footnotes about the Eucharist in the Gospel of John. And you’ll find interesting differences between footnotes in Catholic or Protestant Bibles and the Tanakh from the Jewish Publication Society.

If you are a Catholic and you know your faith very very well and very firm in that faith, then you could probably use a non-Catholic Bible or non-approved version occasionally, especially if you are good at catching errors and exposing them. But to depend upon such Bibles for your study or spiritual reading would surely be a mistake. Why fill your mind with erroneous ideas that are hard to get rid of once they get lodged in there?

Bottom line: Choose your Bibles carefully, use several, along with good commentaries, and listen to the Church. Go to Mass, listen to the Bible readings in the Mass (Old and New Testaments every day) and listen to good homilies. (Watching the Mass on EWTN is an excellent way to study the Bible. You can download their homilies daily too, subscribe on their podcast page.)

 

[Crumpy]

I’ve heard some bad things about the New Jerome Bible Commentary. The original is out of print and everyone says its the one to have between the 2. Have you read the the original one??

I’ve read a hundred things I don’t like in the NJBC, at least. There are some worthwhile essays in there, especially on St. Paul. This is a big book with small print, which doesn’t help anything, except maybe that it kept the work from going into multiple volumes.

The thing I keep in mind is one of the things that Fr. Raymond Whats-His-Name said, that nobody should take this book all that seriously, that should someone try to update it, they’d probably pitch a lot that was in there. I think that’s a point to keep in mind, when reading some of the stranger things in there.