One Bible for all Christians?

[Jerry-Jet]

Is it harder for Catholics to get a new translation of the scriptures approved or Protestants?

And why is it that imprimaturs are given for many different books and they have been given for bibles in the past–but nowadays it would be nearly impossible to find a bishop to give an imprimatur for a Catholic translation of the Bible?

It wasn’t impossible when the Jerusalem Bible was published in 1966–has it become harder for that to happen in the US since the publication of the NAB?

Put bluntly is there an unwritten streaight-jacket of Bible translation approval in the United States that says "We will not allow other translations than the NAB and those before it?

Do all American Catholic bishops feel that way?

Has any Catholic bishop in the United States ever even mentioned the possibility of a Catholic translation other than the NAB being attempted?

Is EWTN prohibited from asking an American bishop a question like that?

I just think there’s more to the whole situation than nobody wants to try a new translation project–I really believe the American hierarchy of bishops won’t allow it.

That’s the Real problem!

 

[mmortal03]

Is it harder for Catholics to get a new translation of the scriptures approved or Protestants?

Not sure what you are asking here.

And why is it that imprimaturs are given for many different books and they have been given for bibles in the past–but nowadays it would be nearly impossible to find a bishop to give an imprimatur for a Catholic translation of the Bible?

I think you are exaggerating. I don’t think it would be impossible at all.

It wasn’t impossible when the Jerusalem Bible was published in 1966–has it become harder for that to happen in the US since the publication of the NAB?

Maybe relatively speaking, since many wanted to use the new translation that they had put all their work in (the NAB). I don’t think this is an absolute fact or anything, though.

Put bluntly is there an unwritten streaight-jacket of Bible translation approval in the United States that says "We will not allow other translations than the NAB and those before it?

I don’t think so.

Do all American Catholic bishops feel that way?

No.

Has any Catholic bishop in the United States ever even mentioned the possibility of a Catholic translation other than the NAB being attempted?

Yes, I think they have.

Is EWTN prohibited from asking an American bishop a question like that?

Wouldn’t want to question their authority, would they?

I just think there’s more to the whole situation than nobody wants to try a new translation project–I really believe the American hierarchy of bishops won’t allow it.

That’s the Real problem!

I’d say that this is an unfounded claim, and there isn’t really an easy way to prove it. There probably is some stubbornness with many of the bishops, though.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Well I guess there is reason to hope then if what you say is true mmortal03.

I wonder why the conservative protestants that came out with the ESV will be letting it be published with the deuterocanonical books?

Do they think that will lend more respectability to their translation?

Or do they think by allowing “Catholic” versions of the ESV that they can hasten the death of the RSV or NRSV?

I might be wrong but I’ve heard that the ESV keeps more messianic references in the Old Testament than the RSV.

It is possible that IF the people who publish the ESV would allow Catholics wide lattitude in revising it for a Catholic edition that it could turn out to be Superior to the RSV-CE.Stay tuned folks–maybe whithin the next 3 years you’ll see the “ESV-CE needs corrections” thread here!

 

[lak611]

I might be wrong but I’ve heard that the ESV keeps more messianic references in the Old Testament than the RSV.

I do not know. I have the ESV, but I got it a couple months ago and have not read much of the Old Testament from it yet. Maybe I should read the Prophetic books, compare them with the RSV, and then report on what I find. That will probably take me a long time to do, so I probably will not be posting any comparisons for quite some time.

 

[mmortal03]

Well I guess there is reason to hope then if what you say is true mmortal03.

Don’t forget, I am no authority on any of this. I am just writing on here what I think.

I wonder why the conservative protestants that came out with the ESV will be letting it be published with the deuterocanonical books?

Do they think that will lend more respectability to their translation?

Or do they think by allowing “Catholic” versions of the ESV that they can hasten the death of the RSV or NRSV?

Huh? Who said they were putting out the deuterocanonical books?

I might be wrong but I’ve heard that the ESV keeps more messianic references in the Old Testament than the RSV.

Uh huh. And so basically that means that they just changed Isaiah 7.14 back to “virgin” and called it a day, or what? What are these many other places in the OT that they like to talk about that they had to fix?

It is possible that IF the people who publish the ESV would allow Catholics wide lattitude in revising it for a Catholic edition that it could turn out to be Superior to the RSV-CE.Stay tuned folks–maybe whithin the next 3 years you’ll see the “ESV-CE needs corrections” thread here!

I hope not. There is just no point in using the ESV as a base and not just revising the RSV:CE and also looking at the NRSV for non-inclusive language revisions.

 

[thommie]

Lak611, thank you for telling me about e-sword. I’ve already downloaded some stuff and will be downloading a lot more.

Jerry-Jet, to answer your question about Protestants needing any kind of authorization for translations…

Dr. Arthur Farstad, who was one of the editors of the Majority Text edition published by Nelson, as well as a translator and editor of the NKJV, was a close personal friend of mine, so I got a little closer glimpse into the publishing industry through my friendship with him.

From what I have observed, in the United States anyway, about all that is necessary for the production of a new translation is to have the financial backing to do it. It may not carry the seal of approval of any particular denomination once it is done, but there is nothing to prevent one from doing it.

If the publishers of any particular translation considered it a good marketing decision to publish a translation of the Deuterocanonicals, I don’t think there is anything stopping them from doing it.

Would it be possible for a group of Catholic scholars to produce a translation without the prior appoval of the Catholic Church, and just risk the possibility that it may not be accepted?

 

[lak611]

Lak611, thank you for telling me about e-sword. I’ve already downloaded some stuff and will be downloading a lot more.

You’re welcome. I use e-Sword all the time. It is a great help for me.

 

[Manfred]

In Canada the Church uses the NRSV -CE at Mass and many years before that used the New Jerusalem version. I prefer the old NJ version.

I wonder why the Church changed bibles.

My understanding was that the RSV-CE, not the Jerusalem Bible (1966), was the primary translation used for the Liturgy in Canada until the early 1990s, at which time it was supplanted by the NRSV. According to my sources, the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) has never been approved for litugical use in any English-speaking country.

As for WHY the hierarchy of the Church in Canada embraced the NRSV? We kicked this around on another thread without a truly definitive answer, but many of us there agreed the Canadian bishops wanted a more “inclusive” version.