Please Help Identify This Bible Translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter alwayslooking
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

alwayslooking

Guest
I found a translation of the New Testament at a Goodwill Outlet in St. Louis. It is Catholic, but I can’t figure out what translation it is.

The dust jacket says it is the Kleist-Lilly Verson, but I have never heard of this translation, nor have I seen it mentioned in lists of Catholic translations on this site or others.

Here are the details:

Impri Potest: James W. Stakelum, CM, Provincial
Imprimi Potest: Joseph P. Fisher, S.J., Provincial, Missouri Province
Nihil Obstat: Robert G. Boucher C.Ss.R, S.T.L., SSL, Censor deputatus
Imprimatur: Albertus G. Meyer, Archiepiscopus Milwauchienis, 9a Maii, 1956

Publisher: Bruce Publishing Company

Translators:
Gospels: James A. Kleist, S.J Saint Louis University
Acts, Epistles,& Apocalypse: Joseph L Lilly, C.M Catholic University of America

The introduction mentions that it is a new translation, different from the Rheims-Challoner, version, and that it is written in “American English”.

The jacket also says that it is from original Greek and eliminates inaccuracies and omissions of the Latin Vulgate. On the back cover of the jacket there are reviews from bishops & Our Sunday Visitor, as well as a picture of Pius XII.

Please help. I figured the members who frequent the traditional forum would have a handle on this one.
 
This is called, not shockingly, the Kleist-Lilly New Testament. I don’t think it ever really caught on much. If you google “Kleist-Lilly” you can find some more information about it.

Edit: and you’ll see it mentioned among other Catholic Bible translations in the sources here, particularly, e.g., here.
 
Thank you. That was simple.

Do you know if it is a faithful translation? Liberal? Inclusive?

From the jacket it seemed liberal. It mentioned inaccuracy in the Vulgate which is free of error.
 
alwayslooking said:
Thank you. That was simple.

Do you know if it is a faithful translation? Liberal? Inclusive?

From the jacket it seemed liberal. It mentioned inaccuracy in the Vulgate which is free of error.
Click to expand...
That’s why I would avoid it. Do they think their Greek and Hebrew are better than St. Jerome’s?
 
alwayslooking said:
Thank you. That was simple.

Do you know if it is a faithful translation? Liberal? Inclusive?
Click to expand...
From the little I know, it is a dynamic translation. The beginning of John, for instance, starts:
When time began, the Word was there,
and the Word was face to face with God,
and the Word was God.
This Word, when time began,
was face to face with God.
All things came into being through him,
and without him there came to be
not one thing that has come to be.
That cannot be equated with being “liberal” or “inclusive,” however. Since you’ve got it in your own two hands, why don’t you read a bit and then tell us?
From the jacket it seemed liberal. It mentioned inaccuracy in the Vulgate which is free of error.
Click to expand...
The Vulgate is free of any sort of moral, doctrinal, or theological error, but that is not the same thing as being free of variances due to errors in transmission, lacking nuances due to the realities of translation, and so on. This is why the Sixto-Clementine revision of the Vulgate was carried out a half-century after the “free from error” proclamation, why Sacrosanctum Concilium called for a revision of the Latin Psalter in keeping with modern knowledge and historical discoveries, and also why the Nova Vulgata was commissioned and published in 1979. Besides which, we don’t even have any manuscripts of Jerome’s Vulgate; the earliest we have are copies of copies, through unknown generations, from centuries afterward (see here).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top