KJV (or: Why the orthodox are okay with it?)

[Jestersage]

It’s safe to say that the answer to “Whether Catholic should read KJV” is “No, and you should get Douay Rheims”

So let’s go one step further:
a) Why are Orthodox okay with KJV (aside from the additional deutercanon)?
b) What does the Eastern Rite Catholic use for old-style bibles? (Aka: not RSVCE/ NAB/ NRSVCE/ Jeruslem)

 

[adf417]

It’s safe to say that the answer to “Whether Catholic should read KJV” is “No, and you should get Douay Rheims”

So let’s go one step further:
a) Why are Orthodox okay with KJV (aside from the additional deutercanon)?
b) What does the Eastern Rite Catholic use for old-style bibles? (Aka: not RSVCE/ NAB/ NRSVCE/ Jeruslem)

Is it ok with the Othodox as in it is an approved translation or is it ok as in it is better than nothing? Please clarify.

Peace!!!

 

[thephilosopher6]

It’s safe to say that the answer to “Whether Catholic should read KJV” is “No, and you should get Douay Rheims”

So let’s go one step further:
a) Why are Orthodox okay with KJV (aside from the additional deutercanon)?
b) What does the Eastern Rite Catholic use for old-style bibles? (Aka: not RSVCE/ NAB/ NRSVCE/ Jeruslem)

I’d like to rewrite what you wrote in regards to Catholics using the KJV.

Q: Should Catholics use the KJV?

A: Catholics certainly can read the KJV, after all it contains scripture and is a wonderful translation of it. However, Catholics should read a Catholic Bible for study because it does not omit anything considered scripture and pertains more to the Catholic tradition rather than to the Protestant tradition of which the KJV belongs.

Now, as for your real question, it is my understanding that there is no complete Orthodox Bible translated into English, so most English Bibles will do for the Orthodox including the KJV. I know that the Orthodox Church in America often uses the NKJV, primarily for the New Testament.

 

[porthos11]

Quite frankly, I am of the belief that the King James Version can be approved for Catholic devotional use without changing a single word.

(It does not meet the requirements of Liturgiam authenticam, so it cannot be approved for Lectionary use).

It is notable though, that a King James pericope IS now in official Catholic use. It is the prologue to St. John’s Gospel, read as the Last Gospel in the Ordinariates, as part of the Order of Mass in Divine Worship: The Missal.

Hopefully, the King James can also come into the Catholic fold much as texts from the Book of Common Prayer did.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Quite frankly, I am of the belief that the King James Version can be approved for Catholic devotional use without changing a single word.

Amen. The Orthodox are just using a little better sense on this one…happens more than you might think. (in all fairness I think most Roman Catholics would agree with the thumbs up on the KJV) Oh, and for the umpteenth time…the original KJV has the Apocrypha Books, so is ‘complete.’

 

[TwoNames]

Amen. The Orthodox are just using a little better sense on this one…happens more than you might think. (in all fairness I think most Roman Catholics would agree with the thumbs up on the KJV) Oh, and for the umpteenth time…the original KJV has the Apocrypha Books, so is ‘complete.’

We agree with what the Church says.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Amen. The Orthodox are just using a little better sense on this one…happens more than you might think. (in all fairness I think most Roman Catholics would agree with the thumbs up on the KJV) Oh, and for the umpteenth time….the original KJV has the Apocrypha Books, so is 'complete.'

Thanks.

 

[DaveBj]

Quite frankly, I am of the belief that the King James Version can be approved for Catholic devotional use without changing a single word.

(It does not meet the requirements of Liturgiam authenticam, so it cannot be approved for Lectionary use).

It is notable though, that a King James pericope IS now in official Catholic use. It is the prologue to St. John’s Gospel, read as the Last Gospel in the Ordinariates, as part of the Order of Mass in Divine Worship: The Missal.

Hopefully, the King James can also come into the Catholic fold much as texts from the Book of Common Prayer did.

The KJV never really left this convert’s fold. And yes, I have a replica 1611 complete KJV. That said, I do prefer the NKJV, but that’s another issue.

 

[jas84173]

Amen. The Orthodox are just using a little better sense on this one…happens more than you might think. (in all fairness I think most Roman Catholics would agree with the thumbs up on the KJV) Oh, and for the umpteenth time…the original KJV has the Apocrypha Books, so is ‘complete.’

The King James 1611 version actually also contains 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh which also were moved to the appendix of the Latin Vulgate I believe following the council of Trent however are not regarded as inspired. However the Orthodox do use these books to some extent along with Psalm 151 and 3 and 4 Maccabees as scripture.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

As far as reading ease for a modern American, the D/R is easier IMHO than the KJV, which held on to its antiquated language far longer.

As far as translations, the D/R is from the Latin Vulgate, and the only other English translations are the Knox Bible, Bishop Kenrick’s bible (which is extremely rare) and a couple of very old English New Testaments. The KJV is from the original languages, so it can be used as a study bible in conjunction with a D/R bible, or a modern RSV-CE.

As far as Liturgy, the KJV can be used in the Orthodox Church, (and of course Anglican and some other Protestant ones), the D/R is not approved for ANY English Catholic country liturgies that I am aware of.

 

[Jestersage]

Now that the forum’s back, let’s ask the next part:

1. Which passage in KJV is against catholic teaching that I should be careful?
2. Since I have a DR bible, should I save up (till christmas, etc) to get the Cambridge Cameo Reference with Apocrypha, or just get the Apocrypha volume?

 

[DaveBj]

Now that the forum’s back, let’s ask the next part:

Which passage in KJV is against catholic teaching that I should be careful?
Since I have a DR bible, should I save up (till christmas, etc) to get the Cambridge Cameo Reference with Apocrypha, or just get the Apocrypha volume?

With regard to your first question, I know of no passage in the KJV that is against Catholic doctrine. There is some terminology in the KJV that is different from terminology in the D/R parallel passages, or from terminology that Catholics are accustomed to using, but that is a different issue.

I cannot answer your second question.

 

[ajcstr]

a) Why are Orthodox okay with KJV (aside from the additional deutercanon)?

I think the underlying Greek documents that are used in the KJV/NKJV versions have their origins in the Eastern Church. I can only use the Orthodox Study Bible as my reference bit while that uses the NKJV NT translation, the OT is translated from the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew texts. This makes the NT quotations from the OT more similar.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

There is no passage in the KJV that would be against Catholic teaching; in fact, you will find that the RSV-CE is in complete agreement with the KJV. It is significant that no English speaking country’s Bishop’s Conference allows the D/R Bible for Liturgical use, whereas some DO allow the RSV-CE.

So the question is not really whether you should read the KJV or the D/R, but rather the KJV or the RSV-CE. The RSV-CE is further evolution of the KJV, whereas the D/R (at least currently) represents a dead-end. But with a caveat: it will always be the MOST Catholic translation available, bar-none. So, for myself, it will always be my “go-to” Bible. But because it has ceased being current, it’s language will become more and more difficult to modern readers.

I don’t think some Catholics want to admit it, but the KJV (as it turns out) was ahead of its time, and represents a mainstream Biblical translation even for Catholics today!

The same Biblical developments that have furthered the RSV-CE’s reputation for orthodoxy and accuracy have been used to update the Vatican’s Nova Vulgata. So practically speaking, the Vulgate is conforming to the current school of thought on original languages, or to put it another way, the Vulgate is being made to conform (so to speak) to the KJV-RSV-CE.

One more thing: when I speak of the KJV, I mean all KJV’s with the Apocrypha, after the Oxford Edition of 1769. Early KJV from the 17th century did have some Protestant “errors” that were gradually corrected by the time of the Oxford Edition.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I don’t think some Catholics want to admit it, but the KJV (as it turns out) was ahead of its time, and represents a mainstream Biblical translation even for Catholics today!

I disagree with your assumption. Martin Luther added to God’s Word, his own word “alone” to Romans 3:28

I cant’ use Martin Luther’s king James VERSION of the bible because it is cursed to do so here;

Revelation 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Deuteronomy 4:2
Verse Concepts
"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:6
Verse Concepts
Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Deuteronomy 12:32
Verse Concepts
"Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.

Matthew 22:29
Verse Concepts
But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Mark 7:13
Verse Concepts
thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

Genesis 3:1-4
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”
.
Matthew 24:24
"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.

 

[Jestersage]

I disagree with your assumption. Martin Luther added to God’s Word, his own word “alone” to Romans 3:28

Yes, except KJV have:
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

While DR have:
For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

The problem is “works” vs “deeds”, not the word “alone”

If we go by Vulgate, the original is “operibus”, the plural form of “opus”, which means either, unless one insist on works is by law and deeds is by Spirit, but that have more to do with ones choosing of church and interpretation and nothing to do with translation.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I disagree with your assumption. Martin Luther added to God’s Word, his own word “alone” to Romans 3:28

I cant’ use Martin Luther’s king James VERSION of the bible because it is cursed to do so here;

Martin Luther was long dead and gone when the King James Bible was translated. It’s true the original KJV has a few things that were “fixed” by the time of the Oxford translation of 1769. All of my comments dealt with the KJV after that (which I explicitly said BTW)

In fairness to the KJV, it was their intention to reform and update the Bishop’s Bible (which definitely had a Protestant bias.) So there were some latent issues with the original KJV, that Catholics called foul on. But by the mid-18th century, when Bishop Challoner was revising the D/R Bible, he had no hesitation using many of the phrases and renderings found in the KJV.

If you consider the KJV cursed, you must feel the same way about the RSV-CE, which is in exact agreement with the KJV, and which is used by the Ignatius Study Bible, and the Navarre Study Bible. hmmm.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I’m not sure what y’all mean, because I had a professor that is an Eastern Orthodox priest, and he was very critical of the King James version. Does it vary depending on which Orthodox? I know he’s a former Baptist so that may have something to do with it.

 

[Jestersage]

Does it vary depending on which Orthodox? I know he’s a former Baptist so that may have something to do with it.

Possibly. What we know so far is that Orthodox does not have an “approved” list, but that for English part of the liturgy they will use KJV or NKJV… Maybe?

 

[adamhovey1988]

I might be wrong, but isn’t the NKJV what the Orthodox study Bible uses? So, I’d imagine, if that’s the cast, that at least some Orthodox use that.