Opinions on Bibles

[po18guy]

My favorite is Confraternity Douay Bible Light of the World Edition 1954.

I think it has the best Catholic Psalms and the Confraternity translation of the first eight books of the bible and especially of Genesis is pretty good–after 1954 they started saying “Happy” instead of “Blessed” in the Psalms which I don’t care for.

Confraternity Douay Bibles have conservative notes and book introductions.

No translation is perfect but the Confraternity New Testament is great–is Catholic not Protestant–and translates 2Corinthians 2:10 with “Person of Christ” instead of “Presence of Christ” which I think is a better translation and shows that Paul offered the incestuous Corinthian Absolution for his sins.

This bible also correctly translates Isaiah 7:14 as “Virgin will conceive” and correctly translates Luke 1:28 as “Hail full of grace”.

The NABRE’s Old Testament is better since it has been revised. If you don’t like the NABRE’s notes then get The New African Bible. It is the NABRE with notes from African contributors.

The only quibble I might have with the Confraternity (and it’s a small one) is they use “Covenant” instead of “Testament” at the consecration of the Eucharist in the upper room. Admittedly a small point, but Fr. Mitch Pacwa notes that the Eucharist, the “New Testament” in Christ’s Blood, is the reason that the 27 books came to be known as the New Testament. The moment that Christ consecrated the wine into His Blood is, in fact, the only place in the New Testament where the actual words “New Testament” are used. Thus, the New Testament is not primarily a book, it is the Eucharist!

Speaking of the NT, I found a Catholic Book Publishing Company 1952 New Testament on eBay. Pocket sized and the notes and intros are fantastic. I don’t know if the current re-print of the Confraternity NT available in Catholic book stores has those notes or not.

 

[Nan_S]

CalCatholic;12104664:

The NAB is used in the U.S Liturgy.

As I understand it… In modified, gender-specific form per Vatican umm, “request”, yes.

The RSV/NRSV was used by the Vatican for its English translation of the C.C.C.

Curious that they did not produce an English catechism using either bible of the English or American Church. What is left unsaid may speak volumes.

Here’s another twist: On the Vatican website, the English-language bible is the 2002 version of the NAB, sourced from the USCCB. This, unfortunately, includes the 1991 psalter and the gender neutral language.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

But the bible on the USCCB website is the 2011 revision of the NAB.

usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

The one advantage of using the Vatican website over the USCCB is that the Vatican has a comprehensive searchable concordance, making it very easy to quickly find key passages in a matter of seconds. The USCCB’s website bible has no concordance.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_FA.HTM

 

[po18guy]

Here’s another twist: On the Vatican website, the English-language bible is the 2002 version of the NAB, sourced from the USCCB. This, unfortunately, includes the 1991 psalter and the gender neutral language.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

But the bible on the USCCB website is the 2011 revision of the NAB.

usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

The one advantage of using the Vatican website over the USCCB is that the Vatican has a comprehensive searchable concordance, making it very easy to quickly find key passages in a matter of seconds. The USCCB’s website bible has no concordance.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_FA.HTM

America badly needs a better Catholic bible. I understand that Divino Afflante Spiritu essentially stopped future Vulgate-based bibles, but really, we can do no better than the NAB?

 

[billcu1]

America badly needs a better Catholic bible. I understand that Divino Afflante Spiritu essentially stopped future Vulgate-based bibles, but really, we can do no better than the NAB?

I agree. You read my mind. I was just going to ask next if there’s any proper version from the Vulgate.

 

[po18guy]

I agree. You read my mind. I was just going to ask next if there’s any proper version from the Vulgate.

The D-R in all of its forms, the Knox and the Confraternity are the English language Vulgate-based translations. Might have missed one, but these certainly.

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

But what did Jesus not reveal? He did not to my knowledge go that deep into the messianic story. It was originally taught that there would come a messiah to begin the return to God. And after that there would be several more to come. To continue and finish the work. I don’t remember that being given to the church and if it was they’re not talking about it.

My friend,

Everyone has opinions, yes. But if this is what you believe, you are apparently not aware of the essentials of Catholic teaching and are certainly not believing what the church considers essential doctrines of the faith.

I don’t want to go too far off topic here but please, for your own well-being, grab a Baltimore Catechism or New St. Joseph’s Catechism, no. 2 or no. 3, and take a look at what the church teaches about Jesus’ singular role and work as the one and only messiah. One thing clear in scripture, and held by the church for 2,000 years, is that Jesus is indeed the messiah promised by God, we do not wait for another, and his work is finished, so far as obtaining salvation for us by his death and resurrection.

God bless you.

 

[billcu1]

My friend,

Everyone has opinions, yes. But if this is what you believe, you are apparently not aware of the essentials of Catholic teaching and are certainly not believing what the church considers essential doctrines of the faith.

I don’t want to go too far off topic here but please, for your own well-being, grab a Baltimore Catechism or New St. Joseph’s Catechism, no. 2 or no. 3, and take a look at what the church teaches about Jesus’ singular role and work as the one and only messiah. One thing clear in scripture, and held by the church for 2,000 years, is that Jesus is indeed the messiah promised by God, we do not wait for another, and his work is finished, so far as obtaining salvation for us by his death and resurrection.

God bless you.

Well Jesus does have a plan and he said to the holy father concerning the head of the other hand and part of the body “…What is it to you if I would have him to live until I return? Follow me.” So he is definitely working with those who as he said “…you have given to me.”

I have a very nice little CCC. I look at it quite a bit. It's by "Image Doubleday" if that means anything to you. It says "Complete and updated". Now what I am wondering here with the Synod coming up in October, just how is that going to change the CCC.

Bill

 

[JSSD]

What are the common complaints against the NAB?

 

[PJM]

=billcu1;12103509]I check out several versions of the Bible as a sort of cross reference. I look at NAB which I’m not too crazy about. The KJV the DR and RSV catholic version. I’m not crazy about the NIV either. Is there an official version that the church supports and recommends. I understand some of these are protestant Bibles but I look anyway. What’s the church suggest?

Bill

The “Official Bible used at Mass” is the NEW"

The RSV is good and the Douay Bible is the Best English Translation

drbo.org/ Here it is

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[po18guy]

What are the common complaints against the NAB?

Even Catholic Answers’ chief of apologetics Jimmy Akin describes the NAB as a “squishy translation.” IMO, it was too heavily influenced by the “spirit of Vatican II” which lead many in the Church astray. If you compare it with the Catholic bible just before it, there is a noticeable difference. My main NAB complaints:

1. The foot notes and book introductions are inconsistent and some are just plain horrible. They can be cloudy and cause confusion and/or doubt. An example: the footnotes intimate that Luke simply made up Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) and inserted it into the Gospel because it seemed to fit well.
2. Mary is not “full of grace” - this does not even match the “Hail, Mary” prayer. In fact, as only a “favored one” in the NAB, Mary seems less blessed than in protestant bibles, in which she is often “highly favored.” Luke 1:28
3. Paul did not forgive sins in the person of Christ, but rather, only in the presence of Christ. 2 Corinthians 2:10
4. Mary was not blessed for her faith (Luke 1:45), but only for believing that God would actually do what He said He would do. This seems nonsensical - God cannot lie or deceive. Saint Jerome translated this as “Blessed art thou for thy believing; the message that was brought to thee from the Lord shall have fulfilment.” This demonstrates faith in both Mary and Elizabeth.
5. Gender-inclusive language. It is worldly.
6. “Hell” does not appear anywhere in the bible. Not once. The NAB editors decided to use “Gehenna”, which is a geographical location, and meant to indicate hell, But, what does that word mean today? Hell is doctrine. Gehenna is not.

 

[JSSD]

Even Catholic Answers’ chief of apologetics Jimmy Akin describes the NAB as a “squishy translation.” IMO, it was too heavily influenced by the “spirit of Vatican II” which lead many in the Church astray. If you compare it with the Catholic bible just before it, there is a noticeable difference. My main NAB complaints:

1. The foot notes and book introductions are inconsistent and some are just plain horrible. They can be cloudy and cause confusion and/or doubt. An example: the footnotes intimate that Luke simply made up Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) and inserted it into the Gospel because it seemed to fit well.
2. Mary is not “full of grace” - this does not even match the “Hail, Mary” prayer. In fact, as only a “favored one” in the NAB, Mary seems less blessed than in protestant bibles, in which she is often “highly favored.” Luke 1:28
3. Paul did not forgive sins in the person of Christ, but rather, only in the presence of Christ. 2 Corinthians 2:10
4. Mary was not blessed for her faith (Luke 1:45), but only for believing that God would actually do what He said He would do. This seems nonsensical - God cannot lie or deceive. Saint Jerome translated this as “Blessed art thou for thy believing; the message that was brought to thee from the Lord shall have fulfilment.” This demonstrates faith in both Mary and Elizabeth.
5. Gender-inclusive language. It is worldly.
6. “Hell” does not appear anywhere in the bible. Not once. The NAB editors decided to use “Gehenna”, which is a geographical location, and meant to indicate hell, But, what does that word mean today? Hell is doctrine. Gehenna is not.

I very much appreciate this! #1 and #2 are particularly interesting to me having been looking at that chapter very recently in the RSV/2CE, which I bought a little while back to have a Catholic Bible having recently ‘converted’ from Lutheran.

As a child, I had the RSV for a very short period and then the whole church switched to the NIV. The NAB, thus far, has a lot of that feel to it, (and it reads in an easy flow) so my immediate reaction was positive. Other reason I just (this week!) got an NAB is that my NIV was a study Bible, my RSV is not. Obviously the NIV interprets some things very differently from Catholic, Matthew 16:19 being one that really jumped out at me (and thus prompted the order). So, it has been a good learning experience. Thank you again!

 

[CalCatholic]

I very much appreciate this! #1 and #2 are particularly interesting to me having been looking at that chapter very recently in the RSV/2CE, which I bought a little while back to have a Catholic Bible having recently ‘converted’ from Lutheran.

As a child, I had the RSV for a very short period and then the whole church switched to the NIV. The NAB, thus far, has a lot of that feel to it, (and it reads in an easy flow) so my immediate reaction was positive. Other reason I just (this week!) got an NAB is that my NIV was a study Bible, my RSV is not. Obviously the NIV interprets some things very differently from Catholic, Matthew 16:19 being one that really jumped out at me (and thus prompted the order). So, it has been a good learning experience. Thank you again!

It is good to have several Catholic translations. I use both the RSV-2CE (and the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible -NT) and the NABRE. I use the NABRE in Bible study, RCIA (since the Lectionary for Mass is based upon the (NAB) and the LOTH. I use the Ignatius RSV-2CE Lectionary for my daily Mass readings and compare its Sunday readings with the NAB based Lectionary, which I use for my duty as a lector at my parish.

 

[po18guy]

It is good to have several Catholic translations. I use both the RSV-2CE (and the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible -NT) and the NABRE. I use the NABRE in Bible study, RCIA (since the Lectionary for Mass is based upon the (NAB) and the LOTH. I use the Ignatius RSV-2CE Lectionary for my daily Mass readings and compare its Sunday readings with the NAB based Lectionary, which I use for my duty as a lector at my parish.

As I see it, each translation is like taking a shot at a target. A single shot may come close to the bullseye, but misses by just a bit. But, by taking several shots, one may bracket that bullseye and, with the help of the Holy Spirit, better discern God’s intent.

My favorite Catholic bibles are the Knox Translation and the Confraternity Bible (1941-1969). Coincidentally, both are Vulgate-based, and 100% clear on Catholic teaching.

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

Having spent a lot of time with a number of translations over the past several years, I have settled on a two-bible routine: Douay-Rheims for primary study and devotional reading with NABRE always nearby for occasional checking and use with lesson preparation and mass readings.

I agree with the “taking shots at a target” analogy. There are times (often) I am amazed at how the Douay-Rheims gets closer to the “original” on a particular verse. Yet now and then, I am surprised at a nuance the NABRE brings out that most translations miss.

If I could only have one, I might have to go with the DR, but thankfully we are blessed to have choices.

 

[po18guy]

Having spent a lot of time with a number of translations over the past several years, I have settled on a two-bible routine: Douay-Rheims for primary study and devotional reading with NABRE always nearby for occasional checking and use with lesson preparation and mass readings.

I agree with the “taking shots at a target” analogy. There are times (often) I am amazed at how the Douay-Rheims gets closer to the “original” on a particular verse. Yet now and then, I am surprised at a nuance the NABRE brings out that most translations miss.

If I could only have one, I might have to go with the DR, but thankfully we are blessed to have choices.

The D-R New Testament was excellently updated in the Confraternity New Testament of 1941. Have you read one? $10 in pocket size. I plan to find out if it has the same intros and notes as the 1952 edition. If so, it is a little gem.

 

[PJM]

":

PJM, post:29, topic:367565"]
The “Official Bible used at Mass” is the NEW-American"

The RSV is good and the Douay Bible is the Best English Translation

drbo.org/ Here it is

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

I have not spent any time with the Confraternity NT. The only form in which I have seen it is a 50-year-old hardcover bible, with a Douay OT and Confraternity NT, published by Catholic Book, which my sister-in-law received at confirmation in 1965? It’s yellowing and the binding is brittle, so I don’t “play” with it much!

But please enlighten me: what sort of changes did they make to produce that version? Is it a DR revision, or a new translation from the Vulgate? What editions are available today?

Thanks!

 

[po18guy]

I have not spent any time with the Confraternity NT. The only form in which I have seen it is a 50-year-old hardcover bible, with a Douay OT and Confraternity NT, published by Catholic Book, which my sister-in-law received at confirmation in 1965? It’s yellowing and the binding is brittle, so I don’t “play” with it much!

But please enlighten me: what sort of changes did they make to produce that version? Is it a DR revision, or a new translation from the Vulgate? What editions are available today?

Thanks!

The Confraternity Bible is an update of the Bishop Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims, done by 100% ordained and degreed clergy of the Catholic Church just prior to WWII. It sought to correct known deficiencies in the various versions of the D-R, as well as to update the English to 20th century usage. There are compromises in each and every bible translation and the D-R was no exception. Some of the succeeding updates on the D-R were quite good, but some could have been sharpened or clarified a bit. The Confraternity endeavored to do this.

The bible that your SIL has contains the excellent Confraternity New Testament. These Douay-Confraternity bibles are fairly common on eBay and in thrift stores. Most can be had for around $10. A great bargain, and many are in excellent to near mint condition. The notes and intros alone are worth the price, as they reflect the best of Catholic scholarship and were produced before the “spirit of Vatican II” began to lead so many astray into modernism.

I may be wrong, but I believe that the USCCB owns any copyright to the Confraternity Bible. As to why it is not re-printed and commonly available in completed form is anyone’s guess. It is my firm opinion that the NAB and NAB/RE do not stand up to it all that well - particulatrly in the New Testament. Textually, the NAB/RE is not bad, but neither is it as good as it could be. It is written for an 8th grade reading level, which leaves those with higher reading abilities wanting. And, those notes…

At the time, no completed Confraternity Bible was printed, as the adoption of the NAB essentially killed that scenario. I have read that the OT in the NAB is derived from the finished Confraternity OT, but the NT is markedly different. The Confraternity editors in the 1941 New Testament were exclusively ordained clergy with upper level degrees (STM, STL, STD, SSD, SSL, DD, etc.).

In stark contrast, the editors of the NAB/RE are, in substantial portion, secular theologians. The very questionable content of the footnotes is evidence of that. Very strangely, the prayer to the Holy Spirit before reading the scriptures was omitted from the NAB and NAB/RE. Every Confraternity bible contains it.

Although it may be hard to tell, I do love the Confraternity Bible.

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

*In stark contrast, the editors of the NAB/RE are, in substantial portion, secular theologians. The very questionable content of the footnotes is evidence of that. Very strangely, the prayer to the Holy Spirit before reading the scriptures was omitted from the NAB and NAB/RE. Every Confraternity bible contains it. *

Good grief. What a subtle statement that makes, huh? It’s hard to suggest a prayer to the Holy Spirit on page one, then say “a great wind was moving over the waters” on page two and question all the supernatural aspects of Pentecost on page 691!

I wish I could give my 7th graders an RSV-CE or NKJV New Testament, with the footnotes from the Challoner Douay-Rheims!

I’d rather hand out paperback Good News bibles or NIVs rather than have them dig into the footnotes of the NAB.

 

[po18guy]

*In stark contrast, the editors of the NAB/RE are, in substantial portion, secular theologians. The very questionable content of the footnotes is evidence of that. Very strangely, the prayer to the Holy Spirit before reading the scriptures was omitted from the NAB and NAB/RE. Every Confraternity bible contains it. *

Good grief. What a subtle statement that makes, huh? It’s hard to suggest a prayer to the Holy Spirit on page one, then say “a great wind was moving over the waters” on page two and question all the supernatural aspects of Pentecost on page 691!

I wish I could give my 7th graders an RSV-CE or NKJV New Testament, with the footnotes from the Challoner Douay-Rheims!

I’d rather hand out paperback Good News bibles or NIVs rather than have them dig into the footnotes of the NAB.

The Holy Spirit comes only by invitation. If one does not invite Him, then some other spirit waits to lead.

Both of my Confraternity New Testaments (1941, 1952) have the same introductions and footnotes (and Holy Spirit prayer). Being a reader’s version, the footnotes are not extensive, but entirely adequate. The book introductions make up for that. They run as much as a page and a half - the intro to the 3-page Epistle of Jude being a full page, for example.