pre-Vatican II Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boo0295
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Boo0295

Guest
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?
 
Boo0295 said:
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?
Click to expand...
The books are the same, they are just named differently, and likewise there is a minor numbering variation on the psalms.
 
Boo0295 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Hello, Boo0295! Wecome to the forums!

Does this Bible happen to be a Douay-Rheims version? I have a D-R version that also has four books of Kings. However, on the first pages of 1 and 2 Kings, the books are titled “The First Book of Samuel otherwise called First Book of Kings” and “The Second Book of Samuel otherwise called Second Book of Kings”.

Also, other differences are 1 and 2 Chronicles are 1and 2 Paralipomenon in the D-R and Sirach is Ecclesiasticus in the D-R.

I think these are just D-R version differences and not some kind of change to the Bible at Vatican II.
 
The Bible is titled The New Catholic Edition, published by the Catholic Book Publishing Company in New York. The imprimatur is from Francis Cardinal Spellman.

Apparently the New Testament, the Five Books of Moses, Josue, Judges, Ruth, Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantile of Canticles, Wisdom, and Sirach were translated by scholars working with the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.

The rest of the Bible, including all four books of Kings, are from the Douay version.

1 and 2 Chronicles are called 1 and 2 Parapipomenon. Sirach is not called Ecclesiasticus.
 
I ran across a lengthy article someplace that says the Confratenity edition was disapproved. Yes, it had been published, and I have one of them. But, it had some expressions that were eventually to make that translation unapproved, imprimatur not withstanding.
 
Boo0295 said:
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?
Click to expand...
what a beautiful treasure.
 
The Bible today is a MUCH more faithful translation.s.

None of the Bibles that existed before the 1980’s were as accurate as what is available today. Older texts in Hebrew, Arramaic, Greek and Latin are available for everyone that simply could not be utilized before.

In addition, there is a much stronger concept of translating the actual meaning of the ancient texts, and not trying to “interpret” what those texts should mean. It’s like the upcoming changes to the Mass, which will much more accurately translate the original Latin, than the current Mass does.
 
Crumpy said:
I ran across a lengthy article someplace that says the Confratenity edition was disapproved. Yes, it had been published, and I have one of them. But, it had some expressions that were eventually to make that translation unapproved, imprimatur not withstanding.
Click to expand...
That can’t be right. The Confraternity edition is the precursor to the NAB. In fact many people prefer the Confraternity edition to the NAB.
 
The_Old_Medic said:
The Bible today is a MUCH more faithful translation.s.

None of the Bibles that existed before the 1980’s were as accurate as what is available today. Older texts in Hebrew, Arramaic, Greek and Latin are available for everyone that simply could not be utilized before.

In addition, there is a much stronger concept of translating the actual meaning of the ancient texts, and not trying to “interpret” what those texts should mean. It’s like the upcoming changes to the ***, which will much more accurately translate the original Latin, than the current Mass does.
Click to expand...
I highly disagree. As much as I studied on translations, I still find the Douay-Rheims and the RSV-CE the most accurate English Bibles
AmbroseSJ said:
That can’t be right. The Confraternity edition is the precursor to the NAB. In fact many people prefer the Confraternity edition to the NAB.
Click to expand...
I have Confraternity NT and I absolutely love it. I mostly use the Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate, but when I am on the go I have my Confraternity NT and it comes in handy when I need it the most
 
I hate to say this, but the Douay-Rheims, Bible is NOT considered accurate by the Church any longer.

There are texts, much older than the Vulgate, which are available today that simply were NOT available back in the middle ages when that versi0n was translated.

The Vulgate is also way out of date, and it is NOT approved for the Laity at all any more.

You may be a scholar of some sort, but giving answers like this will mislead many people. Your answer would tend to indicate that you are one of those that rejects Vatican II, and essentially is at war with your own church.
 
The_Old_Medic said:
I hate to say this, but the Douay-Rheims, Bible is NOT considered accurate by the Church any longer.

There are texts, much older than the Vulgate, which are available today that simply were NOT available back in the middle ages when that versi0n was translated.

The Vulgate is also way out of date, and it is NOT approved for the Laity at all any more.
Click to expand...
Would you be so kind as to provide references to support these claims?

I realize with better resources etc., better translations are possible. But… “NOT considered accurate by the Church any longer” and “NOT approved for the Laity at all any more” are quite strong statements. Where is the documentation to back up these statements?

Note I know this is off topic, but, since the OP’s question seems to have already been sufficiently answered, I see no harm in discussing related topics. 😊
 
40.png
melchesidechpio:
I have Confraternity NT and I absolutely love it. I mostly use the Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate, but when I am on the go I have my Confraternity NT and it comes in handy when I need it the most
Click to expand...
Same here! 👍 I keep a 1950 Confraternity on my desk for reference, and my 1750 D/R is my source for daily readings.
 
I own all five volumes of The Confraternity Bible and I assure you that NONE of the books were “rejected”. In fact, at the beginning of the texts, a special Apostolic Blessing was given by the Vatican’s representative (and even Pius XII for the first OT volume) for undertaking the work. This version was the first complete translation into the English language undertaken by Catholics following the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.

As someone mentioned earlier, this version was the precursor to the NAB (which has really been a sad affair - I am hoping the Revised Edition “cures” some of the problems) that was published in 1970.

I started a thread recently that dealt specifically with the Confraternity Bible just a couple of days ago, and I went into quite a bit of detail regarding its history and present place in “bible history” in America.
 
Poco said:
Would you be so kind as to provide references to support these claims?

I realize with better resources etc., better translations are possible. But… “NOT considered accurate by the Church any longer” and “NOT approved for the Laity at all any more” are quite strong statements. Where is the documentation to back up these statements?

Note I know this is off topic, but, since the OP’s question seems to have already been sufficiently answered, I see no harm in discussing related topics. 😊
Click to expand...
Totally Agree with your Response here.

I couldn’t go without my Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; my personal favorite.

Reading the opening Preface of of Douay Rheims couldn’t convince more that it is an authentic meaningful Catholic Bible in every way.

Those who do dislike it has most to do with having a difficult understanding of Old English terminology. Personally I love the Douay Rheims, the older the bible the better.
Preface
Click to expand...
: drbo.org/preface.htm

Is there a Catholic Confraternity bible online?
 
Boo0295 said:
Thank you.

Do you know why the names of the books were changed?
Click to expand...
This could also be because Jerome followed the pattern of the LXX and the Hebrew texts available to him which practice endured into modern times.

The Jewish Bible (OT) is not grouped according to how we think of it today. Rather it is Torah (the first five) and then the histories (Joshua, Judges, Kingdoms [including Samuel and Kings]) then wisdom (Psalter, Ecclesiastes, Job, Esther, Ruth, Songs, and Ezra which include Nehemiah and Lamentations) and then the Prophets (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah) and then the Book of Twelve (the minor prophets all compiled in one book) and finally Daniel and if they are included Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, these last books, including Daniel, are all considered deuteocanonical/ apocalyptic by the Jews.

Please feel free to check me on this because I am doing this from memory so look it up, but it seems to me that LV groupings were similar which may explain the groupings in your Bible.

I am not sure the only Catholic Bible I own is NJB so I am guessing here.

God Bless
 
bogeydogg,

I believe you are correct.

Many people, even today, do not realize that the most ancient texts that survive do not have chapter numbers, verse numbers, or even paragraph breaks. And the text was written in uncials (capital letters).

We have become so accustomed to reading modern bibles where people repeatedly cite verses such as John 3:16, that we tend to forget that making such a reference centuries ago would have confounded the listener.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top