Own and use a Catholic Bible Version

[Ron_Conte]

It is disturbing that so many Catholics own and use a Protestant Bible version.

Protestant Bible versions lack seven books and portions of two other books, material that is called Deuterocanonical. Although a few Protestant versions include this material in an appendix, the Protestant translators did not consider this material to be inspired by God, and this may well have affected the translation of the text. It is scandalous that so many Catholics have no concern if the Bible that the own lacks these 7+ books.

Protestant Bible versions are usually translated entirely by Protestant Bible scholars (although the RSV did include a few Catholic translators). All Protestants are in a state of material heresy, and an adult Protestant Bible scholar who knows much about the Catholic Faith and yet rejects it is in a state of formal heresy. How is it that many Catholics find it perfectly acceptable to use a Protestant Bible version as their main Bible despite all of the translators being heretics? The doctrinal errors of a group of translators will often have an effect on the wording chosen for the text, such as avoiding ‘full of grace’ because they do not believe the Marian teachings, and rephrasing any text referring to tradition, because they do not believe in Sacred Tradition, and numerous other effects of their doctrinal errors are possible, some so subtle that the reader might not notice at first.

To make matters worse, many Catholics have decided to make use of Protestant Bible studies. In such studies, inevitably, the text teaches numerous serious doctrinal errors, of the type found among Protestants (such as the errors condemned by the Council of Trent). And it is not a reasonable excuse to claim that the Catholic who uses such resources will know enough to screen out any errors. If you are using a Bible Study in order to learn what you do not know, how will you know if what is taught is in error?

Every Catholic should own and use a Catholic Bible Version, and if you wish to use a Bible study, then also a Catholic Bible study. Even some of the Catholic Version of the Bible that are subjec to some substantial legitimate criticisms are better than any Protestant Version.

It is a FALSE claim that I often read in these thread that such-and-such a Protestant Bible version is the most accurate. Theological accuracy cannot possibly be found in a Protestant translation, unless perhaps it has been edited and corrected by Catholic scholars (such as the RSV-CE). [But even the RSV-CE still has some problems because of the influence of the many Protestant translators.] A group of heretics translating the Bible, typically for one or a few particular Protestant denominations, cannot possibly be expected to avoid having their doctrinal errors influence their translation decisions.

If you are a Catholic, you should own and use a Catholic version of the Bible.
Bibles are less expensive and more widely available now than at any time in the history of the Church. So why is it that so many Catholics do not own a Catholic Bible?

 

[Roman_Army]

**Ron Conte:

Good point. I agree with your point in principal. However, in practice, it is another matter. In practice, modern Catholic Bibles are not much different from Protestant bible versions. The only difference I see is the inclusion of the deuterocanonical texts. But, a lot of times their translations of certain passages are in harmony with the Protestants (e.g. no longer is it “full of Grace” but now “favored one” in Luke 1:28). Their commentaries as well are in harmony with them in many respects since they now use a so-called “scientific” method. So, in other words, nowadays Catholic scholars are attempting to divorce their Catholicism from the Bible translating process as well as their commentaries. So, now we get commentaries implying that the Sacred Author lied, contradicted himself, etc. In many cases also completely departing from the interpretation of the Early Church Fathers.

In my opinion, merely getting a Catholic Bible is not enough. Catholics need to educate themselves in the teachings of the Church about proper biblical exegetical methods. They need to learn to spot errors, avoid them, and refute them.
**

 

[COPLAND_3]

Very good points made in both posts. I really like what you said Ron, “and an adult Protestant Bible scholar who knows much about the Catholic Faith and yet rejects it is in a state of formal heresy.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is disturbing that so many Catholics own and use a Protestant Bible version.

Ron-

You make some good points; however, I use a Protestant translation (NIV) because I want to do apologetics using a translation that Protestants typically feel comfortable with.

I reason with JW’s using the NWT and with Mormons using a KJV printed by the Mormon Church.

More directly, however, I think a lot of Catholics own Protestant translations because they are more readily available at Borders or the local Christian (Protestant) bookstores.

 

[DOShea]

I think (OP) you are making a mountain out of a molehill unless you are talking about the only Bible someone owns or if perhaps they are using it to search for bases of doctrine. I own 43 Bibles, and a 44th is in shipping as we speak. I use them for many different purposes. I see footnotes in Protestant Bibles giving the reformed spin on passages, but I recognize it’s not Catholic teaching and thus don’t accept it.

For one, if someone has a question about a passage in Scripture and they are using the NIV or the KJV or one of the other versions, we may be in a conflict of words if I answer it from a NAB or a D-R text. This becomes a special problem when you have a translation that omits passages and you try to engage in discussion with someone using a text that contains them. Matt 18:11 for example. It’s completely gone out of the NIV, it’s gone out of the NAB but is noted in the footnotes, but is present in translations like KJV that used the textus receptus as a basis.

A non-Catholic Bible will not explode in your hands, nor will it, by itself, cause apostasy. If it did, the Gideons would have converted 4 billion by now. The key is knowing what you have, and knowing what the canon is AND Catholic teaching. If I have a Bible with the Apochrapha (Deuteros) in it, I have all the books, and should be aware enough that because that particular edition doesn’t consider them inspired, I certainly can.

Aquinas only had the Vulgate to work with. Is his work deficient in some way because he lacked a Douay-Rheims or a NAB? The Vulgate, btw, contains Matt 18:11.

It is a FALSE claim that I often read in these thread that such-and-such a Protestant Bible version is the most accurate.

I have news for you. NO Bible can make this claim, Catholic or otherwise, because there are two unprovens working against anyone trying to make such a claim. First, we have no original autograph copy of all the books in the canon. We have multiple copies, each slightly different in some way, that were produced from the originals. So anyone making the claim of “most accurate” has the burden of showing how their “copy from a copy” reflects the invisible original better than the next fellow’s attempt. They can’t.

Then there is the matter of how the translation is accomplished. Word-for-word? Sense of passage? Phrase-by-phrase? Each method introduces a possibility of moving the translated text apart from the original meaning. One need only consult one of Lambsa’s odd translations to see an extreme example of how far away from reality this can get one.

The best translations attempt to consider the multiplicity of NT fragments and manuscripts and try to meld them in a sensible, cohesive way. This doesn’t mean they end up with perfection, it only means they try as best as is possible to cover all the bases. Then with good translations, you will get a text where, if there exists possible conflict, it is put into footnotes with alternate possibilities given. The Catholic NAB does do this, but they are not the only Bible that does so. Some Protestant Bibles do likewise.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Roman_Army

Yes, you are right that many Catholic editions are becoming like the Protestant editions; but there are still substantially greater problems with Protestant editions. And I like your point that we must also educate ourselves, so as to spot problems with even the Catholic editions.

Randy

Of course a Catholic may own and use a Protestant Bible for use in apologetics, scholarship (such as comparing different translations), etc. But as the main Bible for personal study and devotion, it should be a Catholic Bible.

DOShea

Most Catholics do not own any Bible at all; those who do usually only own one Bible. I was not referring to Catholics who own and use many Bibles, and who of course may derive some benefit from comparing even Protestant translations. But even when comparing different translations, we should not treat a Protestant translation the same as a Catholic one. And yes, I was referring to those Catholics who own only one Bible, or who own a few, but make substantial use of only one version.

Most Catholics do not know Catholic theology so well that they can avoid being influenced by subtle errors in Protestant translations.

The Council of Trent placed the Vulgate above reproach. Trent also declared that the canon includes all the parts of all the books of the Bible, so it is not licit for any scholar or any edition of the Bible to delete any verse found in the Vulgate. My own translation does not delete any verse.

Accuracy can be understood in two ways (at least). First, accuracy in representing the source text. Second, theological accuracy. I was referring to this latter type of accuracy, which is substantially harmed by having all translators be Protestant, or by having Catholic translators who hold heretical views (such as that the Bible is not inerrant).

 

[COPLAND_3]

I think (OP) you are making a mountain out of a molehill unless you are talking about the only Bible someone owns or if perhaps they are using it to search for bases of doctrine. I own 43 Bibles, and a 44th is in shipping as we speak. I use them for many different purposes. I see footnotes in Protestant Bibles giving the reformed spin on passages, but I recognize it’s not Catholic teaching and thus don’t accept it.

For one, if someone has a question about a passage in Scripture and they are using the NIV or the KJV or one of the other versions, we may be in a conflict of words if I answer it from a NAB or a D-R text. This becomes a special problem when you have a translation that omits passages and you try to engage in discussion with someone using a text that contains them. Matt 18:11 for example. It’s completely gone out of the NIV, it’s gone out of the NAB but is noted in the footnotes, but is present in translations like KJV that used the textus receptus as a basis.

A non-Catholic Bible will not explode in your hands, nor will it, by itself, cause apostasy. If it did, the Gideons would have converted 4 billion by now. The key is knowing what you have, and knowing what the canon is AND Catholic teaching. If I have a Bible with the Apochrapha (Deuteros) in it, I have all the books, and should be aware enough that because that particular edition doesn’t consider them inspired, I certainly can.

Aquinas only had the Vulgate to work with. Is his work deficient in some way because he lacked a Douay-Rheims or a NAB? The Vulgate, btw, contains Matt 18:11.

I have news for you. NO Bible can make this claim, Catholic or otherwise, because there are two unprovens working against anyone trying to make such a claim. First, we have no original autograph copy of all the books in the canon. We have multiple copies, each slightly different in some way, that were produced from the originals. So anyone making the claim of “most accurate” has the burden of showing how their “copy from a copy” reflects the invisible original better than the next fellow’s attempt. They can’t.

Then there is the matter of how the translation is accomplished. Word-for-word? Sense of passage? Phrase-by-phrase? Each method introduces a possibility of moving the translated text apart from the original meaning. One need only consult one of Lambsa’s odd translations to see an extreme example of how far away from reality this can get one.

The best translations attempt to consider the multiplicity of NT fragments and manuscripts and try to meld them in a sensible, cohesive way. This doesn’t mean they end up with perfection, it only means they try as best as is possible to cover all the bases. Then with good translations, you will get a text where, if there exists possible conflict, it is put into footnotes with alternate possibilities given. The Catholic NAB does do this, but they are not the only Bible that does so. Some Protestant Bibles do likewise.

Ron is making the point about Catholics using Protestant Bibles as their main source, and his most important point is the lack of concern for being discerning. He is making the point too that it is dangerous to use Protestant sources in order to “learn” what you do not know. As a very orthodox minded Catholic myself, that is a major concern for me too. I think the whole point is that we as Catholics need to promote self-awareness and careful discernment, and to take our Faith serious enough to be careful to stay within safe boundries. Obviously, the more we grow in our knowledge of our own Faith, the more capable we are to handle non-Catholic resources. Some Catholics may not even know their is a difference between Bible versions, and we as Catholics have a responsibility to promote and inform our brethren and to try to assist them into the right path.

 

[DOShea]

I agree with what you both say about being discerning. I guess the point I’m not in agreement with is that “most Catholics” don’t know the difference, or by extension of that, don’t care. Ron makes the statement, “Most Catholics don’t own any Bible at all.” What is the source of this statistic? Almost every Catholic I’ve ever met owns one, at least a Catholic version family Bible. Am I just seeing a different group of Catholics?

It also seems in conflict to me to say using a Protestant Bible leads one away from the truth. How then do you explain a Jimmy Akin, or the many people who have begun their journey of faith with nothing else but a Protestant Bible and Protestant teaching of it, then ended up in the Catholic Church? This is why I don’t see as much harm in it as might be apparent to others. I will agree that if there was a Catholic not very well Cathechized and introduced to different doctrine, it could lead them away (else we’d never have any Catholic-to-Protestant convert either). But I don’t see this as any kind of norm.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I agree with what you both say about being discerning. I guess the point I’m not in agreement with is that “most Catholics” don’t know the difference, or by extension of that, don’t care. Ron makes the statement, “Most Catholics don’t own any Bible at all.” What is the source of this statistic? Almost every Catholic I’ve ever met owns one, at least a Catholic version family Bible. Am I just seeing a different group of Catholics?

It also seems in conflict to me to say using a Protestant Bible leads one away from the truth. How then do you explain a Jimmy Akin, or the many people who have begun their journey of faith with nothing else but a Protestant Bible and Protestant teaching of it, then ended up in the Catholic Church? This is why I don’t see as much harm in it as might be apparent to others. I will agree that if there was a Catholic not very well Cathechized and introduced to different doctrine, it could lead them away (else we’d never have any Catholic-to-Protestant convert either). But I don’t see this as any kind of norm.

I wondered about that “statistic” myself. But in Truth, I do sometimes believe it is very hard to underestimate the knowledge Catholics have about their own Faith. Of course this message board would not at all be representative. At one time, before Vatican II, there was a cohesive, continuous teaching that stretched back through the centuries. Catholics knew what they believed (even if they didn’t know why.) Now Catholics are being taught that “everything” has changed since Vatican II. I know that is not official teaching, yet it is the subtext in most American parishes nonetheless. So today’s “average” Catholics are vulnerable to all sorts of errors, since they no longer feel they have a rock solid foundation under them, the way they used to. So Ron’s worries are far from trivial.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I’ll amend that statement to:
Many Catholics do not own a Bible at all.

I have the perception that most Catholics either do not own, or own but rarely use, a Catholic Bible. And not infrequently have I run across Catholics whose only Bible, or whose primary Bible for study and devotion, is a Protestant edition.

The errors of Protestantism as no less dangerous to the Catholic Faith than they were at the beginning of the reformation; in some ways these errors are more dangerous in that they have become established over a long period of time very widely in the world. In some areas of the world, such as South America, the number of Catholics is diminishing and the number of Protestants is increasing. Catholics are ‘converting’ to Protestantism.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Holy Spirit did not inspire any Protestant bible.

The Holy Spirit did inspire the Catholic bible.

If one is Catholic the choice is obvious.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Protestant Bible translations are of some use to the scholar and the student.
My complaint is that I find quite a few Catholics are using one Protestant version
of the Bible or another as their main source for study and devotion. It also is
particularly irksome to hear a Catholic say that such-and-such a Protestant
version is the most accurate or the most literal or is in some way the best.

 

[Roman_Army]

Protestant Bible translations are of some use to the scholar and the student.
My complaint is that I find quite a few Catholics are using one Protestant version
of the Bible or another as their main source for study and devotion. It also is
particularly irksome to hear a Catholic say that such-and-such a Protestant
version is the most accurate or the most literal or is in some way the best.

Your point is well taken that a lot of Catholics whether ignorant or not use a Protestant translation as the main one for private study and devotional purposes. It certainly is wrong. The Church came up with the canonical process of Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats for a reason which is so Catholics avoid taking heterodox books and bibles seriously.

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t and won’t use non-Catholic Bible for my personal study. I prefer my RSV-CE 2nd ed and my DRB. I own a lot of different Bibles but these are the workhorses.

 

[garysibio]

It is disturbing that so many Catholics own and use a Protestant Bible version.

Protestant Bible versions lack seven books and portions of two other books, material that is called Deuterocanonical. Although a few Protestant versions include this material in an appendix, the Protestant translators did not consider this material to be inspired by God, and this may well have affected the translation of the text. It is scandalous that so many Catholics have no concern if the Bible that the own lacks these 7+ books.

Protestant Bible versions are usually translated entirely by Protestant Bible scholars (although the RSV did include a few Catholic translators). All Protestants are in a state of material heresy, and an adult Protestant Bible scholar who knows much about the Catholic Faith and yet rejects it is in a state of formal heresy. How is it that many Catholics find it perfectly acceptable to use a Protestant Bible version as their main Bible despite all of the translators being heretics? The doctrinal errors of a group of translators will often have an effect on the wording chosen for the text, such as avoiding ‘full of grace’ because they do not believe the Marian teachings, and rephrasing any text referring to tradition, because they do not believe in Sacred Tradition, and numerous other effects of their doctrinal errors are possible, some so subtle that the reader might not notice at first.

To make matters worse, many Catholics have decided to make use of Protestant Bible studies. In such studies, inevitably, the text teaches numerous serious doctrinal errors, of the type found among Protestants (such as the errors condemned by the Council of Trent). And it is not a reasonable excuse to claim that the Catholic who uses such resources will know enough to screen out any errors. If you are using a Bible Study in order to learn what you do not know, how will you know if what is taught is in error?

Every Catholic should own and use a Catholic Bible Version, and if you wish to use a Bible study, then also a Catholic Bible study. Even some of the Catholic Version of the Bible that are subjec to some substantial legitimate criticisms are better than any Protestant Version.

It is a FALSE claim that I often read in these thread that such-and-such a Protestant Bible version is the most accurate. Theological accuracy cannot possibly be found in a Protestant translation, unless perhaps it has been edited and corrected by Catholic scholars (such as the RSV-CE). [But even the RSV-CE still has some problems because of the influence of the many Protestant translators.] A group of heretics translating the Bible, typically for one or a few particular Protestant denominations, cannot possibly be expected to avoid having their doctrinal errors influence their translation decisions.

If you are a Catholic, you should own and use a Catholic version of the Bible.
Bibles are less expensive and more widely available now than at any time in the history of the Church. So why is it that so many Catholics do not own a Catholic Bible?

If you are going to throw aroung the term ‘heretic,’ you might want to see what it means. A heretic is someone who was Catholic but then left the Catholic Church. Most Protestants today have never been Catholic so they cannot be considered heretics.

Personally, I’m not as interested in who translated my Bible as I am in the job they did while translating it. I have several Catholic translations but, with the exception of the NJB, I seldom use any of them. You make it sound as if there is no such thing as an honest or competent Protestant.

I use the ESV which is a Protestant translation. I have an edition of the ESV which includes the deuterocanonical books. They are located after the New Testament but they are there. I use the ESV because it is very accurate and easy to read. I have another reason, most of the newer Catholic translations are horrible. The Psalms of the NAB are so bad they were rejected for liturgical use. The NAB is also heavily influenced by the feminist agenda. Please do not try to tell me it is a better translation than the ESV. It is not.

 

[garysibio]

Ron-

You make some good points; however, I use a Protestant translation (NIV) because I want to do apologetics using a translation that Protestants typically feel comfortable with.

I reason with JW’s using the NWT and with Mormons using a KJV printed by the Mormon Church.

More directly, however, I think a lot of Catholics own Protestant translations because they are more readily available at Borders or the local Christian (Protestant) bookstores.

Randy,

You might want to consider the ESV for dealing with Protestants. The NIV has a real anti-Catholic bias that is not present in the ESV. In addition, the ESV comes in an edition which includes the deuterocanonical books. (They’re after the NT but they’re there.)

 

[Ron_Conte]

If you are going to throw aroung the term ‘heretic,’ you might want to see what it means. A heretic is someone who was Catholic but then left the Catholic Church. Most Protestants today have never been Catholic so they cannot be considered heretics.

Not correct. And I notice that you do not offer any support for your claim. Here is my support:

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

Any baptized Christian who rejects (by obstinate denial or obstinate doubt) any truth that is required to be believed by divine and Catholic faith commits material heresy; he who does so knowingly and willingly commits the sin of formal heresy.

Canon Law does not exempt Protestants from this definition of heresy. Also, the same definition of heresy is presented in the Catechism as a teaching, so this is not merely a rule for Catholics. Also, the Church has authority over all Christians, even those who reject Her authority, such as the various Protestant groups.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Ron Conte:

Any baptized Christian who rejects (by obstinate denial or obstinate doubt) any truth that is required to be believed by divine and Catholic faith commits material heresy; he who does so knowingly and willingly commits the sin of formal heresy.

Almost all Protestants would not fit that category. They are not in obstinate denial or doubt. They are ecclesial communities of baptized believers. To call all Protestants heretics would be most unjust as well as uncharitable.

 

[garysibio]

Not correct. And I notice that you do not offer any support for your claim. Here is my support:

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

Any baptized Christian who rejects (by obstinate denial or obstinate doubt) any truth that is required to be believed by divine and Catholic faith commits material heresy; he who does so knowingly and willingly commits the sin of formal heresy.

Canon Law does not exempt Protestants from this definition of heresy. Also, the same definition of heresy is presented in the Catechism as a teaching, so this is not merely a rule for Catholics. Also, the Church has authority over all Christians, even those who reject Her authority, such as the various Protestant groups.

OK. Apparently the definition I had of heresy was in error but that is irrelevant to the gist of this thread which is Bible translation. Are you really going to try and tell me that the NAB is a better translation that the ESV?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Are you really going to try and tell me that the NAB is a better translation that the ESV?

Yes, I think the NAB, despite its faults, is substantially better than the ESV.
The ESV lacks the Deuterocanonical books and material. That alone should
disqualify it for use as the main devotional or study Bible for any Catholic.

Also, the ESV is a Protestant revision of the RSV. Whereas the RSV CE2
is a recent Catholic revision of the RSV. Now I can understand if someone
would not prefer the loose renderings still found in the current NAB in many
places (less so than in the 1970 version). but a Catholic would be better off
with the RSV CE2 than with the ESV.

I do have to admit that some of the problems in some Catholic translations are
just as bad as some of the problems in Protestant translations. And some
substantial good work has been done by Protestant scholars in translating
the Bible. But overall a Catholic should find a good Catholic edition for
devotion and study.