pre-Vatican II Bible

[StTommyMore]

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

The only problem I see here is that the canonical status of the so-called “deuterocanonical” books varied from community to community. The Pharisees accepted the canon you suggest. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah, and the Jews of the Diaspora (ie, Jeusus and the Apostles) accepted the whole of LXX as canonical.

 

[bogeydogg]

The only problem I see here is that the canonical status of the so-called “deuterocanonical” books varied from community to community. The Pharisees accepted the canon you suggest. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah, and the Jews of the Diaspora (ie, Jeusus and the Apostles) accepted the whole of LXX as canonical.

True that.

This is the main reason why I think the Church should use the MT as an interesting historical study but rely on the LXX as the source for OT study.

God Bless

 

[melchesidechpio]

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The Vulgate is also way out of date, and it is NOT approved for the Laity at all any more.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

Hey now, I do not reject Vatican II. After reading the documents of Vatican II, gave me more understanding about the Church and its teachings from a traditional prospective and modern prospective. BTW can you provide such documentation that the manuscripts that are used in today’s Catholic versions are older than the those used to translate the Vulgate back in the 300s and early 400s??? By what means would the Vulgate not be approved for laity anymore??? I own a copy of the Clementine Vulgate as well as Douay-Rheims, Confraternity NT, Jerusalem NT and the NAB.

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.

thank you

 

[Poco]

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.

: drbo.org/preface.htm

Is there a Catholic Confraternity bible online?

Also, a brief internet search did not turn up a Catholic Confraternity bible online. But that does not mean there is not one!

Now, to get a bit more back on topic…

From the notes in my Douay-Rheims:

First Book of Samuel/Kings

“This and the following Book are called by the Hebrews the books of Samuel, because they contain the history of Samuel, and of the two kings, Saul and David, whom he anointed. They are more commonly named by the Fathers, the first and second book of kings. As to the writer of them, it is the common opinion that Samuel composed the first book, as far as the twenty-fifth chapter; and that the prophets Nathan and Gad finished the first, and wrote the second book. See 1 Paralipomenon, alias 1 Chronicles 29:29.”

First Book of Paralipomenon (Chronicles)

“These books are called by the Greek interpreters, Paralipomenon, (sorry, unable to insert Greek letters here) that is, of things left out, or omitted; because they are a kind of supplement of such things as were passed over in the books of the Kings. The Hebrews call them Dibre Haijamim*, that is, The words of the days, or* The Chronicles.—Not that they are books which are so often quoted in the Kings*, under the title of* the words of the days of the kings of Israel*, and* of the kings of Juda;* for the books of Paralpomenon were written after the books of Kings; but because in all probability they have been abridged from those ancient words of the days, by Esdras or some other sacred writer.”*

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)

“This book is so called from a Greek word that signifies a preacher; because, like an excellent preacher, it gives admirable lessons of all virtues. The author was Jesus the son of Sirach of Jerusalem, who flourished about two hundred years before Christ. As it was written after the time of Esdras, it is not in the Jewish canon; but is received as canonical and divine by the Catholic Church, instructed by apostolic tradition, and directed by the spirit of God. It was first written in Hebrew, but afterwards translated into Greek by another Jesus, the grandson of the author, whose prologue to this book is the following:”

thank you

You’re welcome! :bowdown2:

 

[Boo0295]

From Wikipedia:

The Nova Vulgata (Bibliorum Sacrorum nova vulgata editio, ISBN 88-209-2163-4), also called the Neo-Vulgata or Neo-Vulgate, is currently the typical Latin edition published by the See of Rome for use in the Roman rite. The Second Vatican Council in Sacrosanctum Concilium mandated a revision of the Latin Psalter in accord with modern textual and linguistic studies, while preserving or refining its Christian Latin style. In 1965 Pope Paul VI appointed a commission to revise the rest of the Vulgate following the same principles. The Commission published its work in eight annotated sections, inviting criticism from Catholic scholars as the sections were published. The Latin Psalter was published in 1969; the New Testament was completed by 1971 and the entire Nova Vulgata was published in 1979. A second edition was published in 1986.
The foundational text of most of the Nova Vulgata’s Old Testament is the critical edition done by the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Jerome under Pius X. The foundational text of the books of Tobit and Judith are from manuscripts of the Vetus Latina rather than the Vulgate. The New Testament was based on the 1969 edition of the Stuttgart Vulgate. All of these base texts were revised to accord with the modern critical editions in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. There are also a number of changes where the modern scholars felt that Jerome had failed to grasp the meaning of the original languages, or had rendered it obscurely.
The Nova Vulgata does not contain some books found in the earlier editions but omitted by the canon of Trent, namely the Prayer of Manasses, the 3rd & 4th Book of Esdras, and the Epistle to the Laodiceans.
In 1979, after decades of preparation, the Nova Vulgata was published and declared the Catholic Church’s current official Latin version in the Apostolic constitution Scripturarum Thesaurus promulgated by the Pope John Paul II. The Nova Vulgata is the translation used in the latest editions of the Roman Lectionary, Liturgy of the Hours, and Roman Ritual.
The Nova Vulgata has not been widely embraced by conservative Catholics, many of whom see it as being in some verses of the Old Testament a new translation rather than a revision of Jerome’s work. Also, some of its readings sound unfamiliar to those who are accustomed to the Clementine.
In 2001, the Vatican released the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, establishing the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for all translations of the liturgy of the Roman rite into the vernacular from the original languages, “in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy”.

The Douay-Rheims Bible and the Confraternity edition are translations of the Vulgate without these revisions made following Vatican II, whereas the current lectionary (The New American Bible, revised edition) takes into account these revisions.

But I don’t understand why the Douay-Rheims and the Confraternity are considered by some to be banned.

 

[centurionguard]

Same here! :thumbs up: I keep a 1950 Confraternity on my desk for reference, and my 1750 D/R is my source for daily readings.

Correct me if I’m wrong but is the TAN Books D/R published Catholic Bible based on the 1749-1752 Bishop Richard Challoner?

I wasn’t quite sure if I already owned a rebound hard cover (“Catholic Confraternity Bible”) (“A Family heirloom”). Anyways I’ll run this by you Copyright 1950-1954 The Catholic Press Inc.
Imprimatur His Eminence Samuel Cardinal Stritch of Chicago, Illinois June 4, 1953.
Printed In the U.S.A. and Toronto, Canada consecutively, Catholic Press Inc.

On the inside next page next to the copyright notations is a Vatican letter with the Vatican emblem from Pope Pius XII with a special address (“To Our Beloved Son Patrick Peyton Priest of the Congregation of the Holy Cross”) There’s well over 1,500 pages if you include all the beautiful color illustrations of Vatican, then Cardinals of the United States and Canada, Vatican archive paintings and statues, Catholic Encyclopedia and Girl and Boys names.

Originally this biblical heirloom was in softcover. I had the loose bindings rebound in Montreal, Quebec many years ago by some Holy Cross Nuns living in a convent near where now rests Saint Brother Andre, Saint Joseph’s Oratory Montreal. Brother Andre was recently canonized by Pope Benedict XVI.

My apologies for the long writ but I’m sure this is a Confraternity Bible or is it?

Peace
Chris

 

[centurionguard]

From Wikipedia:

The Douay-Rheims Bible and the Confraternity edition are translations of the Vulgate without these revisions made following Vatican II, whereas the current lectionary (The New American Bible, revised edition) takes into account these revisions.

But I don’t understand why the Douay-Rheims and the Confraternity are considered by some to be banned.

But I don’t understand why the Douay-Rheims and the Confraternity are considered by some to be banned.

When people say that these Bibles are banned its strictly out of ignorance.
I pay no mind when I here this bias which is often.

Peace
Chris

 

[StTommyMore]

When people say that these Bibles are banned its strictly out of ignorance.
I pay no mind when I here this bias which is often.

Peace
Chris

Especially ocnsidering that “The Index of Banned Books” is a thing of the past.

 

[centurionguard]

Especially ocnsidering that “The Index of Banned Books” is a thing of the past.

Exactly! saying that a Pre-Vatican II Catholic Bible is banned would be like banning the writings of the Saints, The Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

 

[Salvatore123]

centurionguard,

You are correct - the “TAN” DR bible is, indeed, the Challoner Revision. As I mentioned in another thread on both the DR and the Confraternity Bibles, very few people have an original DR bible as published in the late 1500’s/early 1600’s. You CAN (and I have) purchased an online/PDF downloaded version, as well as the hardback version of the Father Martin original DR bible, but other than for academic study or curiousity, the original DR is EXTREMELY difficult to read because of the “old English” wording and style of writing.

 

[Poco]

Somewhat off topic again, but…

FYI, here is the Greek for Paralipomenon from my D-R, Παραλειπομευου (re my post #24).

Also, I’m still waiting to see some documentation to back up this claim:

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.

Methinks centurionguard is correct!

When people say that these Bibles are banned its strictly out of ignorance.
I pay no mind when I here this bias which is often.

Peace
Chris

As an aside, I love reading my Douay-Rheims! However, I tend to read my RSV-CE more because of the large print rather than the style of English!

 

[JeanneH]

From Wikipedia:

The Douay-Rheims Bible and the Confraternity edition are translations of the Vulgate without these revisions made following Vatican II, whereas the current lectionary (The New American Bible, revised edition) takes into account these revisions.

But I don’t understand why the Douay-Rheims and the Confraternity are considered by some to be banned.

This is off topic but considering that Vatican II had a liberal bishop and 6 Protestant ministers revamp our beautiful Catholic Mass to make it a lot more like the protestant services would put me off to anything this pastoral council had to say.

I would guess that liberal like Vatican II and the more conservatives have issues with it.

Just my thought and sorry for getting off topic. If this is to be continued I might start another thread.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I was fortunate to purchase a new in the box mint 1949 bible. It had the Douay
Challoner Old Testament–the Confraternity New Testament and a New translation of the New Latin Psalms approved by Pope Pius XII (Bea Psalter).

I’m not saying that this bible is perfect–but I do think that it is the best bible one can get in a single volume.

The Confraternity New Testament is much easier to read than the Douay New Testament because of its more modern English style–but in content it doesn’t stray far from the Vulgate because at the time it was written it was designed to be used at Mass.

I don’t know why but the Old Teastament Douay Rheims Challoner is easier to read than the New Testament Douay Rheims Challoner.

I often hear around here here about how difficult it is to read the Douay Rheims Challoner. Challoner did his revision in 1749 and 1749 English is Easier to read than 1611 King James English.

I also hear people around here who laud the RSV in its various iterations.

No matter how much it is polished–and the RSV2CE is Catholic polished the most–it is still a PROTESTANT version of the bible.

In 2Corinthians 2:10 in the RSV St. Paul forgives the incestous Corinthain “In the presence of Christ” instead of “In the person of Christ” which is in the Confraternity New Testament–the Knox Bible–the Douay Rheims Challoner and curiously even in the Old KJV!

Granting ABSOLUTION for sin is a doctrinal matter.

Trent declared that the Vulgate was free form error on doctrinal matters and it could be used “in all disputations”.

I refuse to trust and advocate the accuracy of Protestant bibles that use “In the presence of Christ” just as I refuse to trust and advocate the accuracy of Catholc bibles–The Jerusalem Bible–The New Jerusalem Bible–the NRSV–and even the NAB! that also do not use “In the Person of christ”–IN PERSONNA CHRISTI!

I’m not a Vulgate Onlylist or a Douay or Confraternity onlyist.

The Catholic Church has told us to translate from the original languages and yes I do believe that the Vulgate is not perfect when it comes to details in the bible that do not relate to doctrine or faith or morals.

But when it comes to those matters ANY translation must be in agreement with the Vulgate!

I wish the Holy See would oversee vernacular translations of the Nova Vulgata so people could see how other translations VARY from the Vulgate and then they could easily ascertain their biases in translation choices!

They could explore whether the Vulgate was perhaps not always the best translator of the ancient texts and if modern biblical scholarship would serve the Catholic Church well by offering a more accurate rendering of what the sacred authors really meant to convey to us.

As long as the run of the mill vernacular only using Catholic is not able to do that–then how is that layman able to judge Which version of the Holy Scriptures would bring him closer to God?

In the end of course it is good to use and read more than one version of the bible–if one knows those vesrsions’ shortcomings. There isn’t a bible out there that I think is perfect–I’d give anything to just be able to read the Nova Vulgata in English.

But until that happens I tell everyone to get a Old Testament Douay Rheims Calloner–a Confraternity New Testament–and an English transation of the Psalms(aka as the Bea Psalter)".

Those bibles were ususally printed in the late 1940s thorughabout 1952.

Those bibles aren’t perfect but they are Catholic!

I wonder if we’ll ever see the 3d edition of the Jerusalem bible in English? I also wonder if the upcoming revision of the NAB Old Testament will be a good one and lastly I wonder how good the New Grail Psalms will be that we will be using in the Liturgy come next Advent?

P.S. I saw on the internet a bible that was called the Westminster version of the Bible that was produced by some of the Jesuits–its copyright was in the late fifties. It revised the New Testament and the Psalms and the rest of the bible was the Douay.

P.P.S. Has anyone read the translation of the Douay New Testament that was done by Carey in the 1930s?

 

[StTommyMore]

Can we get past these senseless counter-reformation attitudes. Because something is Protestant does not automatically cause it to be without value. The translation of 2 Cor 2:10 does not in any way negate absolution of sin, and furthermore, there is an apologetic value to using a Protestant translation. You can defiend the doctrines of the Church using one of ther translations, and they cannot fall back on “well, that is a Catholic Bible”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It DOES make a difference! Don’t tell me that there is not a difference between “In the presence of Christ” and “In the person of Christ”!

I or you or anyone can forgive anyone in Christ’s presence because Christ is everywhere.

ONLY a priest can forgive someone “In Christ’s person”!

Even the KJV translators recognized that!

Later of course Protestants couldn’t stomach such a truth and some ECUMENICAL Catholics didn’t mind using their translation of “In the presence” because PERFECT accuracy of the sciptures isn’t something to be sought after in their view–the Church’s magisterium can always make up for any shortcomings in the Holy Scriptures in their view–we aren’t a literalist church–ad nauseum infinitum–THEREFORE who cares if we use a slightly less accurate
Protestant translation?!

This is in a nutshell the root of the problem when it comes to modern Catholic translation of the bible!

The Latin only lovers in the Catholic Church could care less about vernacular English versions which of course gives modernists the room to make English revisions which abominate them!

Don’t get me wrong–I’m not saying that most Catholics belong to either of those camps–I am saying that such people do exist.

If the pope spends much time and effort in getting each and every word of his encyclicals PRECISE–if Ecumenical Councils spend much time and effort in getting their words PRECISE–don’t tell me that getting the Holy Scriptures PRECISE isn’t a goal to be sought after.

We strive to be perfect as our Lord commanded us. We don’t just try to get in the neighborhood of perfect.

Bible translation is no different!

 

[StTommyMore]

It DOES make a difference! Don’t tell me that there is not a difference between “In the presence of Christ” and “In the person of Christ”!

I or you or anyone can forgive anyone in Christ’s presence because Christ is everywhere.

ONLY a priest can forgive someone “In Christ’s person”!

Even the KJV translators recognized that!

Later of course Protestants couldn’t stomach such a truth and some ECUMENICAL Catholics didn’t mind using their translation of “In the presence” because PERFECT accuracy of the sciptures isn’t something to be sought after in their view–the Church’s magisterium can always make up for any shortcomings in the Holy Scriptures in their view–we aren’t a literalist church–ad nauseum infinitum–THEREFORE who cares if we use a slightly less accurate
Protestant translation?!

This is in a nutshell the root of the problem when it comes to modern Catholic translation of the bible!

The Latin only lovers in the Catholic Church could care less about vernacular English versions which of course gives modernists the room to make English revisions which abominate them!

Don’t get me wrong–I’m not saying that most Catholics belong to either of those camps–I am saying that such people do exist.

If the pope spends much time and effort in getting each and every word of his encyclicals PRECISE–if Ecumenical Councils spend much time and effort in getting their words PRECISE–don’t tell me that getting the Holy Scriptures PRECISE isn’t a goal to be sought after.

We strive to be perfect as our Lord commanded us. We don’t just try to get in the neighborhood of perfect.

Bible translation is no different!

This is little more than an emotional rant. Perhaps we can continue when you can discuss this rationally. There are many verses in Scripture that support the doctrine of absolution other than the one you mention. Calm down.

 

[Salvatore123]

Anyone who has followed my threads and posts knows that I have been BEGGING for an English translation of a bible that Rome deems to be “as close to the original scriptures as possible”.

The biggest objection to my hope for such a thing was (believe it or not): “The Vatican has much more important things to do”.

Can you believe that? The Vatican has more important things to do THAN PUBLISH AN APPROVED BIBLE TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH, ONE OF THE MOST SPOKEN LANGUAGES ON THE PLANET, WITH AN IMPRIMATUR AS FAR AS ACCURACY???

Geez - I thought that one of the main, if not the primary, functions of the Church was to spread God’s word.

If St. Jerome could produce a bible while living in a cave, that lasted approximately 1000 years and served millions and millions of the faithful, why can’t we produce a bible using the latest biblical archaeological evidence and the best biblical scholars of our time?

Again - if someone searches my name, they will see that I wrote a thread just last week that discussed the history of the Confraternity Bible. I managed to obtain all 5 original volumes - the 4 OT volumes and the NT volume - and, as least to me, it is the best translation I have yet to read, and it is not only Catholic, but it received the Apostolic Blessing from the Vatican.

Unfortunately, no single volume Confraternity Bible was ever published, and the next bible to come from the CCD’s efforts was the dreaded NAB. And we know what that has been like . . . especially the notes

 

[Salvatore123]

Anyone who has followed my threads and posts knows that I have been BEGGING for an English translation of a bible that Rome deems to be “as close to the original scriptures as possible”.

The biggest objection to my hope for such a thing was (believe it or not): “The Vatican has much more important things to do”.

Can you believe that? The Vatican has more important things to do THAN PUBLISH AN APPROVED BIBLE TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH, ONE OF THE MOST SPOKEN LANGUAGES ON THE PLANET, WITH AN IMPRIMATUR AS FAR AS ACCURACY???

Geez - I thought that one of the main, if not the primary, functions of the Church was to spread God’s word.

If St. Jerome could produce a bible while living in a cave, that lasted approximately 1000 years and served millions and millions of the faithful, why can’t we produce a bible using the latest biblical archaeological evidence and the best biblical scholars of our time?

Again - if someone searches my name, they will see that I wrote a thread just last week that discussed the history of the Confraternity Bible. I managed to obtain all 5 original volumes - the 4 OT volumes and the NT volume - and, as least to me, it is the best translation I have yet to read, and it is not only Catholic, but it received the Apostolic Blessing from the Vatican.

Unfortunately, no single volume Confraternity Bible was ever published, and the next bible to come from the CCD’s efforts was the dreaded NAB. And we know what that has been like . . . especially the notes

 

[melchesidechpio]

Anyone who has followed my threads and posts knows that I have been BEGGING for an English translation of a bible that Rome deems to be “as close to the original scriptures as possible”.

The biggest objection to my hope for such a thing was (believe it or not): “The Vatican has much more important things to do”.

Can you believe that? The Vatican has more important things to do THAN PUBLISH AN APPROVED BIBLE TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH, ONE OF THE MOST SPOKEN LANGUAGES ON THE PLANET, WITH AN IMPRIMATUR AS FAR AS ACCURACY???

Geez - I thought that one of the main, if not the primary, functions of the Church was to spread God’s word.

If St. Jerome could produce a bible while living in a cave, that lasted approximately 1000 years and served millions and millions of the faithful, why can’t we produce a bible using the latest biblical archaeological evidence and the best biblical scholars of our time?

Again - if someone searches my name, they will see that I wrote a thread just last week that discussed the history of the Confraternity Bible. I managed to obtain all 5 original volumes - the 4 OT volumes and the NT volume - and, as least to me, it is the best translation I have yet to read, and it is not only Catholic, but it received the Apostolic Blessing from the Vatican.

Unfortunately, no single volume Confraternity Bible was ever published, and the next bible to come from the CCD’s efforts was the dreaded NAB. And we know what that has been like . . . especially the notes

That would be the Douay-Rheims and followed by the RSV-CE. The RSV-CE is what the Vatican uses when it its documents containing any scripture passage is translated from Latin to English. I still prefer the Douay.

 

[Salvatore123]

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”).