pre-Vatican II Bible

[melchesidechpio]

melchesidechpio,

I don’t mean to pick apart every post on this subject, but as I study and follow it quite closely and regularly, I thought I should respond to your last post:

Currently, the ONLY English translation approved for use as part of the liturgy in the United States is the New American Bible (soon to be replaced by the 4th edition coming out on Ash Wednesday of this year).

Although the Jerusalem Bible and RSV WERE approved at one time, the Vatican’s approval was later withdrawn.

Here is the “mess” I alluded to earlier, and that has caused MUCH confusion amongst the laity:

1. NAB (first published in 1970, with a second edition in 1986, a third edition in 1991 (this edition contained only a Psalter revision), and a fourth edition coming out on Ash Wednesday 2011) is the only english translation permitted for liturgical use in the United States.
2. It is ironic (and sad) that the actual LECTIONARY (that is, the “book” used by priests when reading biblical passage at Holy Mass) is NOT a word-for-word copy of the NAB. The US lectionary approved by the Vatican are often different from the passages found in the NAB. A prime example is the NAB’s use of “favored one” found in Luke 1:28, whereas in the lectionary, the wording is “full of grace”.
3. To further confuse matters, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., actually refers to the Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version when quoting biblical passages in its text. A great deal of confusion arises because the NRSV was specifically rejected for use as a liturgical basis by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith while Pope Benedict XVI was its head.
4. The ICEL (and, to some extent, the USCCB) have “battled” with the Vatican repeatedly over the Psalter language for more than 20 years. At least three US-approved texts have been sent to Rome for approval, only to have them rejected each time. Finally, Rome stepped in and mandated the use of the Grail Psalter for the upcoming NABRE.
5. Lastly, you said: “The RSV-CE is what the Vatican uses when it its documents containing any scripture passage is translated from Latin to English.”

Actually, the Nova Vulgata (published in 1979/1986) is the official Latin text of the Catholic Church and is to be used as the basis for ALL translations to be used in a liturgical setting. The RSV-CE is actually a protestant-based translation that was “catholicized” by adding the deuterocanonicals in their proper place and by changing the text in certain passages to reflect Catholic doctrine/dogma (“full of grace” instead of “favored one”).

just because it was approved for Liturgy doesn’t mean the NAB is the best translation. I am well aware of the changes of NAB for liturgy. Put aside your fears with the RSV-CE. Catholic scholars did the revisions from the RSV to the RSV-CE. Yes the Nova Vulgata is the official Latin Text. Yes the RSV-CE is used in translating from Latin to English. There have been other translations approved for Mass including the Douay-Rheims and the Ronald Knox Translation

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The RSV-CE also uses “In the presence of Christ” instead of “In the person of Christ”.

The Nova Vulgata–the official juridicial text of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church uses “in personna Christi”.

Now who is more right–Catholic “scholars” who polished the RSV and left in the translation of "In the presence of Christ"which abandoned the KJV and the Clementine Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata?

Who would you rather bet your soul on a translation commissioned by the Holy See itself --the Nova Vulgata and a translation–the Vulgate–which the Ecumenical Council of Trent said does not err on matters of doctrine and could be used “in all disputations” or on “scholars” who sided with Protestants who even left their forebearers who produced the KJV which AGREED with the Latin Vulgate?

Even King James himself would side with the Vulgate!

 

[melchesidechpio]

The RSV-CE also uses “In the presence of Christ” instead of “In the person of Christ”.

The Nova Vulgata–the official juridicial text of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church uses “in personna Christi”.

Now who is more right–Catholic “scholars” who polished the RSV which abandoned the KJV and the Clementine Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata?

Who would you rather bet your soul on?

yes the RSV-CE has its weaknesses as well. I don’t agree with in the presence of Christ, but do agree with In the person of Christ. Call me an old fuddy-duddy, I just assume most of the time stick to my Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate, with once in a while my Confraternity NT

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think you are absolutely correct in using the Confraternity New Testament and the Douay Old Testament.

I don’t think that translation is perfect–I just think it beats everything else out there.

 

[Salvatore123]

melchesidechpio,

I think you misinterpreted my post.

I never claimed the NAB is the best translation. On the contrary, I think it is a poor one, and has horrible notes.

I also do not find fault, necessarily, with the RSV-CE or RSV-CE 2nd Ed. I simply pointed out that the ROOT of the Catholic version of the RSV is a protestant work - the RSV.

Finally, I still believe (a personal belief, obviously) that the Confraternity Bible (OT and NT) is one of the best out there. It was translated in accordance with Divino Afflante Spiritu AND it was the first English translation of the Challoner-Douay Rheims. In addition, the Vatican gave the project a special Apostolic Blessing.

P.S. - Many people do not realize that the Confraternity Bible’s OT section was reproduced (except for Genesis - the 1948 translation of Genesis was replaced with a 1970 translation) in the NAB in 1970 and continued to be used until 1986.

P.S.S. - For those wanting a Confraternity Bible, you MUST purchase the 5 volume set (4 OT books and 1 NT book). No single Confraternity Bible was ever produced. Although many people think they received or purchased Confraternity Bibles in the 1960’s, they were actually received a “Confraternity-Douay Bible”, which consisted of a Confraternity NT translation from 1941, most of the Confraternity OT translations from the 1950’s-1960’s, and the remaining OT translations taken from the Duoay OT.

Many people say that with the advent of the NAB in 1970, the Confraternity Bible became “doomed”, but that makes no sense, considering the NT was the only part of the Confraternity project that was translated prior to Divino Afflante Spiritu. All that was needed to be in line with that encyclical was a new NT translation - and this was done and published in 1970.

I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find any fault with the translations found in the entire Confraternity Bible.

 

[melchesidechpio]

melchesidechpio,

I think you misinterpreted my post.

I never claimed the NAB is the best translation. On the contrary, I think it is a poor one, and has horrible notes.

I also do not find fault, necessarily, with the RSV-CE or RSV-CE 2nd Ed. I simply pointed out that the ROOT of the Catholic version of the RSV is a protestant work - the RSV.

Finally, I still believe (a personal belief, obviously) that the Confraternity Bible (OT and NT) is one of the best out there. It was translated in accordance with Divino Afflante Spiritu AND it was the first English translation of the Challoner-Douay Rheims. In addition, the Vatican gave the project a special Apostolic Blessing.

P.S. - Many people do not realize that the Confraternity Bible’s OT section was reproduced (except for Genesis - the 1948 translation of Genesis was replaced with a 1970 translation) in the NAB in 1970 and continued to be used until 1986.

P.S.S. - For those wanting a Confraternity Bible, you MUST purchase the 5 volume set (4 OT books and 1 NT book). No single Confraternity Bible was ever produced. Although many people think they received or purchased Confraternity Bibles in the 1960’s, they were actually received a “Confraternity-Douay Bible”, which consisted of a Confraternity NT translation from 1941, most of the Confraternity OT translations from the 1950’s-1960’s, and the remaining OT translations taken from the Duoay OT.

Many people say that with the advent of the NAB in 1970, the Confraternity Bible became “doomed”, but that makes no sense, considering the NT was the only part of the Confraternity project that was translated prior to Divino Afflante Spiritu. All that was needed to be in line with that encyclical was a new NT translation - and this was done and published in 1970.

I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find any fault with the translations found in the entire Confraternity Bible.

as said before put aside the RSV roots and focus on the Catholic scholars who made it possible to have the RSV in a Catholic version. Divino Afflante Spiritu made it possible to have other translations otherwise not translated before 1943 in the way that the encyclical asked.

 

[mormonfollower]

Hello,

I have a Bible from 1957 which, in stead of having two books of Samuel and two books of Kings has four books of Kings and no books of Samuel.

In addition, the Psalms are not numbered the same way. The Psalm which reads “The Lord is my shepherd” is Psalm 22 in my Bible, but Psalm 23 in my post-Vatican II Sunday Missal.

Was there some kind of change in the Bible at Vatican II? Why did these things change?

Because they have the power to change the bible!!!

 

[melchesidechpio]

Because they have the power to change the bible!!!

wrong. These are the Greek and Latinized names in the Douay-Rheims. In the Douay-Rheims it lists 1st Kings as First book of Samuel otherwise called the first book of Kings. First book of Paralipomenon below in the notations it is Greek and referred to as Chronicles.

 

[MarkThompson]

yes the RSV-CE has its weaknesses as well. I don’t agree with in the presence of Christ, but do agree with In the person of Christ.

Which one is a better translation of the Greek, though? That’s the real question. Seems wrong to judge which is the better translation just based on the fact that you like the theology better. I could give you a translation where Jesus says “You are Peter, and upon this rock shall I build the Roman Catholic Church.” Do I think he was vowing to build the Roman Catholic Church? Yes, of course. Does that make my version any “righter,” though?

 

[StTommyMore]

Which one is a better translation of the Greek, though? That’s the real question. Seems wrong to judge which is the better translation just based on the fact that you like the theology better. I could give you a translation where Jesus says “You are Peter, and upon this rock shall I build the Roman Catholic Church.” Do I think he was vowing to build the Roman Catholic Church? Yes, of course. Does that make my version any “righter,” though?

The Greek word is question is “presupon” which does mean “person,” but the word has several nuanced definitions. We have to remember that where we have only one English word “person,” there are several Greek words with more specialized definitions. I will have to look at my lexicon again to see what this particular Greek word implies. “Person” may well be a more litereal translation, but “presence” my be a better translation of meaning in context. I will look into it.

 

[MarkThompson]

The Greek word is question is “presupon” which does mean “person,” but the word has several nuanced definitions. We have to remember that where we have only one English word “person,” there are several Greek words with more specialized definitions. I will have to look at my lexicon again to see what this particular Greek word implies. “Person” may well be a more litereal translation, but “presence” my be a better translation of meaning in context. I will look into it.

To me it looked like the Greek word in question was πρόσωπον (prosōpon), which would generally mean “face, visage, countenance,” but could also by transferred meaning imply “person,” “presence.” I suppose the question is whether “ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ” should be taken, roughly speaking, as “wearing the face of Christ” (vultu Christi, perhaps) or “in front of Christ’s face” (coram Christo).

 

[StTommyMore]

To me it looked like the Greek word in question was πρόσωπον (prosōpon), which would generally mean “face, visage, countenance,” but could also by transferred meaning imply “person,” “presence.” I suppose the question is whether “ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ” should be taken, roughly speaking, as “wearing the face of Christ” (vultu Christi, perhaps) or “in front of Christ’s face” (coram Christo).

That is what I was thinking as well. English translations (both Protestant and Catholic) are inconsistent in the translation, so this is definitely an issue for the Greek experts.