Is the KJV the best english Bible translation?

[AmbroseSJ]

It used to be, but not anymore. In its Second Catholic Edition, it is the sole approved version for the Ordinariates (although if I recall right, the first edition is also permitted for their Divine Office, but this may have changed).

What would REALLY be interesting, especially for the Ordinariates, is if the KJV itself were approved for Catholic devotional use (it will never be approved for liturgical use, as it does not meet the requirements of Liturgiam authenticam), but I have stated before that I believe the KJV can be granted a Nihil Obstat for private Catholic use without changing a single word.

mmm. That’s interesting. Which one “used to be” approved for the Liturgy; the First Catholic Edition of the RSV? Do you know when the approval was removed? I assume you are speaking of the USCCB.

 

[Vico]

mmm. That’s interesting. Which one “used to be” approved for the Liturgy; the First Catholic Edition of the RSV? Do you know when the approval was removed? I assume you are speaking of the USCCB.

Walsingham Ordinariate states that: “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has published a Decree permitting the use of the Revised Standard Version (Second Catholic Edition) for liturgical use in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. This edition of the Holy Bible allows those Catholics originally from the Anglican tradition, to worship using a version of scripture which is familiar to them. It also promotes the English Bible tradition and recent efforts to renew Catholic liturgy with more accurate translations.”

Also in the Book of Divine Worship, page 276, has:“The Scripture readings are taken from the Roman Lectionary for Mass in the translations approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, namely, the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition), the New American Bible, and the Jerusalem Bible.”

 

[porthos11]

mmm. That’s interesting. Which one “used to be” approved for the Liturgy; the First Catholic Edition of the RSV? Do you know when the approval was removed? I assume you are speaking of the USCCB.

It was the first edition, alongside the 1970 NAB and the Jerusalem Bible (this predates the second edition). The RSV and JB approval was withdrawn in the United States when the new edition of the U.S. lectionary was promulgated with an amended text from the 1986 NAB New Testament, leaving the NAB as the only approved lectionary text.

However, some countries that had the same approvals as the United States had not withdrawn permission for the RSV lectionary, which includes, I believe, India.

 

[Vico]

It was the first edition, alongside the 1970 NAB and the Jerusalem Bible (this predates the second edition). The RSV and JB approval was withdrawn in the United States when the new edition of the U.S. lectionary was promulgated with an amended text from the 1986 NAB New Testament, leaving the NAB as the only approved lectionary text.

However, some countries that had the same approvals as the United States had not withdrawn permission for the RSV lectionary, which includes, I believe, India.

The versions are different in the various regions, for example for Latin Catholics in Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops approved use of the *New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). *

I am Byzantine Catholic (USA) and we use the 1970 NAB and Grail Psalms as the base for the lectionary. There are always some modifications for the Liturgy.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It was the first edition, alongside the 1970 NAB and the Jerusalem Bible (this predates the second edition). The RSV and JB approval was withdrawn in the United States when the new edition of the U.S. lectionary was promulgated with an amended text from the 1986 NAB New Testament, leaving the NAB as the only approved lectionary text.

However, some countries that had the same approvals as the United States had not withdrawn permission for the RSV lectionary, which includes, I believe, India.

One point: NAB Bibles can not be directly used in the Liturgy. As you said there is an “amended text” which corrects the “stock” NAB to make it compliant with the Liturgical requirements. That is why the lectionary readings must come from a “work book” and not directly from the NAB.

I am interested in knowing though, if there was an actual directive (and date) when the RSV-CE, or JB was disallowed in the Liturgy. The JB/Grail Psalms are used directly in the Liturgy in the UK and possibly Australia as well.

Vico:

The versions are different in the various regions, for example for Latin Catholics in Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops approved use of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

I am Byzantine Catholic (USA) and we use the 1970 NAB and Grail Psalms as the base for the lectionary. There are always some modifications for the Liturgy.

That makes sense to me, since the NAB was NEVER approved for use in the Liturgy without modification.

Also, do you mean that the NRSV has been approved by the Canadian CCB unmodified in the Liturgy?

This whole “special amended texts for liturgy” trend is troubling I think. It implies that bibles for the masses are intended to satisfy the requirements of scholars, while the Liturgical Lectionary is intended for Catholic believers. IOW, the Liturgical lectionary readings CAN NOT be printed in Bibles (such as the NAB,) either because they would offend biblical scholars, or some other group I can not identify. We are becoming a Church of two Bibles. One for the Liturgy which is deemed correct by the Vatican, or one that is approved by scholars, but not actually detrimental to Catholic readers (or is it?)

 

[porthos11]

The versions are different in the various regions, for example for Latin Catholics in Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops approved use of the *New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). *

I am Byzantine Catholic (USA) and we use the 1970 NAB and Grail Psalms as the base for the lectionary. There are always some modifications for the Liturgy.

One point: NAB Bibles can not be directly used in the Liturgy. As you said there is an “amended text” which corrects the “stock” NAB to make it compliant with the Liturgical requirements. That is why the lectionary readings must come from a “work book” and not directly from the NAB.

I am interested in knowing though, if there was an actual directive (and date) when the RSV-CE, or JB was disallowed in the Liturgy. The JB/Grail Psalms are used directly in the Liturgy in the UK and possibly Australia as well.

That makes sense to me, since the NAB was NEVER approved for use in the Liturgy without modification.

Also, do you mean that the NRSV has been approved by the Canadian CCB unmodified in the Liturgy?

This whole “special amended texts for liturgy” trend is troubling I think. It implies that bibles for the masses are intended to satisfy the requirements of scholars, while the Liturgical Lectionary is intended for Catholic believers. IOW, the Liturgical lectionary readings CAN NOT be printed in Bibles (such as the NAB,) either because they would offend biblical scholars, or some other group I can not identify. We are becoming a Church of two Bibles. One for the Liturgy which is deemed correct by the Vatican, or one that is approved by scholars, but not actually detrimental to Catholic readers (or is it?)

Yes, none of this is under contention; we know the NAB had to be amended as was the NRSV for Canada. None of that is under dispute.

All I’m saying is that once upon a time, there were RSV and JB lectionaries once approved for U.S. use and now that’s no longer the case. This happened when the second editon of the U.S. lectionary came into force. Since you asked about the USCCB, I answered solely about the USCCB.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Why do they call it the Apocrypha? Apocryphal means of dubious origin or authenticity. Are they saying our Bible is inferior or full of lies?

Actually, apocryphal means “hidden,” “secret.” “Of dubious origin or authenticity” is a much later added connotation, coming from Protestants who do consider the Apocrypha to be of dubious authenticity.

So the term “Apocrypha” does not mean unauthentic. Catholics usually use the term deutero-canonical.