I have no problem with a Catholic reading a Catholic translation, but really non Catholic versions should be avoided. Take in consideration this post posted by Canto in another thread from an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Also I disagree that the NAB is closer to the Greek. The NAB isn’t reliable especially in footnotes, while it is readable, but not entirely accurate.
I see that both sources have used the old Gordon Winrod facsimile edition as their sample. I wonder if they reproduce Winrod’s original introduction? It’s amazing to me how one rather negligible edition will suddenly be resurrected and become a de facto standard. Sort of like the Troy Bible being made a de facto standard by all of the Haydock Bibles (which have again been resurrected and continue to be in print.) 