RSV-CE Needs Correction - Confraternity Psalms (Split Thread)

[Manfred]

Were the 1970’s Psalms part of the what was criticized as “too periphrastic” or were they ok? How were the 1970 NAB Psalms initially received?

mmortal,

I’m not sure if you are referring to a comment I might have made re a part or parts of the NAB OT that are considered “too paraphrastic”, but, in case I did give such an impression, let it be known that I always felt the 1970 NAB Psalms (aka the Confraternity Psalms of 195x or later) were not to be lumped with the rest of the NAB OT. These were the only Psalms I knew for many a year, until I set my eyes on those in the NJB in 1986. And, remember, except for a few “inclusivisms” slipped into these for the USA Lectionary, these are still used in the Mass (it is the Grail Psalter that is used in the Liturgy of the Hours, but let’s not go there now).

As to how they were received: a Protestant reviewer of the NAB once said he preferred the RSV-CE Psalms better. An article in the New Oxford Annotated Bible on bible versions states that the 1970 NAB Psalms were marked by “a certain literary and liturgical timbre”. As to how feminists regard them: well, hey, they prefer the 1991 version or the NRSV, of course.

in short, the Psalms in the 1970 NAB are fine by me.

 

[SFH]

Are you sure that they are both from the Latin? Is that what their title pages say? It seems to me, due to the amount of differences other than removing archaic language, likely that the 1948 version and the 1950 version came from two different sources, but it could just be wishful thinking on my part. How do your two bibles compare to the following page?: kellerbook.com/LANGUA~2.HTM

Holy Cow, you’re right. The 1948 version says, “New Translation of the Book of Psalms from the New Latin Version Approved by Pope Pius XII.” In the preface to Psalms, it says, “The version of the psalms that follows is from the Latin translation of the original Hebrew text, which was prepared by the Professors of the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome at the command of Pope Pius XII, and published at Vatican City in 1945 A.D.”

And the preface to the NAB says, “The basic text for the Psalms is not the Massoretic but one which the editors considered closer to the original inspired form, namely the Hebrew text underlying the new Latin Psalter of the Church, the Liber Psalmorum (1944, 1 19452). Nevertheless they retained full liberty to establish the reading of the original text on sound critical principles.”

So it looks like the older Confraternity edition was from the Latin text of Pius XII while the newer Confraternity edition was from the Hebrew used by the Latin text of Pius XII.

 

[Cranch]

Holy Cow, you’re right. The 1948 version says, “New Translation of the Book of Psalms from the New Latin Version Approved by Pope Pius XII.” In the preface to Psalms, it says, “The version of the psalms that follows is from the Latin translation of the original Hebrew text, which was prepared by the Professors of the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome at the command of Pope Pius XII, and published at Vatican City in 1945 A.D.”

And the preface to the NAB says, “The basic text for the Psalms is not the Massoretic but one which the editors considered closer to the original inspired form, namely the Hebrew text underlying the new Latin Psalter of the Church, the Liber Psalmorum (1944, 1 19452). Nevertheless they retained full liberty to establish the reading of the original text on sound critical principles.”

So it looks like the older Confraternity edition was from the Latin text of Pius XII while the newer Confraternity edition was from the Hebrew used by the Latin text of Pius XII.

SFH - Which version of Psalm 129 in mmortal03’s post #542 does your 1948 edition match?

 

[mmortal03]

So it looks like the older Confraternity edition was from the Latin text of Pius XII while the newer Confraternity edition was from the Hebrew used by the Latin text of Pius XII.

Isn’t that supposed to be the same thing? How does each compare to the verses I posted above?

 

[Cranch]

Isn’t that supposed to be the same thing? How does each compare to the verses I posted above?

I think what SFH means is, contrary to what he(?) first thought, the 1948 is a Latin to English translation and the 1950 is a Hebrew to English translation. The Latin is the Pius XII psalter and I believe the Hebrew is the text it was based on because I’ve already established his 1950 is Olinger. Olinger and Pius XII’s Latin share the same Hebrew base text. According to the NAB introduction as quoted by Manfred and now SFH, it is not the Masoretic.

That just leaves the question: which translation that we know about—CCD 1941, “Carol’s” [specific early '50s CCD bibles], or your 1947 Fr. Frey—does SFH’s 1948 bible match? I don’t think we know for sure that any of those are from Latin but I suspect they all might be, though the 1941 is not from Pius XII’s Latin because it is too early.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

How rare is that 1948 version?

I wish I could find one.

 

[Cranch]

How rare is that 1948 version?

I wish I could find one.

They’re not as common as the typical Confraternity hybrid OT editions. You might be interested in this one from 1954. I believe it is essentially the same bible as the 1948 in question (check the title page photo).

 

[mmortal03]

They’re not as common as the typical Confraternity hybrid OT editions. You might be interested in this one from 1954. I believe it is essentially the same bible as the 1948 in question (check the title page photo).

I think you can’t just check the title page, though. I think you really have to check what the psalms say. My guess is that a number of these bible’s reused the wrong title page, not knowing that their psalms were different.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Would you have better luck if you limited your search to Confraternity Bibles published in the 1940s?

 

[mmortal03]

Would you have better luck if you limited your search to Confraternity Bibles published in the 1940s?

Those are hard to find, but I also don’t think we can for sure say which is which just yet, because there were supposedly three differing psalms translations floating around in the 40s.

There is no way to trust that the sellers are describing them accurately enough, either, so I would just manually go through all the confraternity bibles on there, and narrow it down that way.

 

[Cranch]

My guess is that a number of these bible’s reused the wrong title page, not knowing that their psalms were different.

I don’t know. That seems to me the height of sloppiness. Do you mean among differing Latin-derived translations? My 1950 Confraternity says “New Testament and Psalms in the Confraternity Text” and contains the Olinger psalter. My 1957 Confraternity says: “With the New CCD Translation of the First Eight Books and the Seven Sapiential Books of the OT” and also contains the Olinger psalter. Those two use the same Psalms translation which we think comes from the Hebrew. Those title pages are very different from the ones that actually reference Pius XII’s New Latin Psalter. I have one such bible coming. I can’t wait to confirm a few things by, as you say, checking the text.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think mmortal03 might believe that they could be that sloppy given all the different editions of the RSV that he discovered.

I agree. Checking the text might really be the own way because alot of them will say the Psalms form the New Psalter of Pope Pius XII.

Most will not say if they came directly from the Hebrew or from Hebrew to Latin to English.

 

[lak611]

1951 and 1952 Confraternity Bibles from Carol:

"Out of the depths I cry to thee, O Lord, O Lord, hear my voice! Let thy ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication. If thou didst keep count of offenses, O Lord, O Lord, who would endure it? But with thee is forgiveness of sins, that men may serve thee with reverence. In the Lord do I hope, my soul hopes in his word; my soul waits expectantly for the Lord, more than night watchmen for the coming of dawn. More than night watchmen for the coming of dawn does Israel await the Lord, because with the Lord there is mercy and with him there is plentiful redemption; and he shall redeem Israel from all its iniquities. "

I don’t know. That seems to me the height of sloppiness. Do you mean among differing Latin-derived translations? My 1950 Confraternity says “New Testament and Psalms in the Confraternity Text” and contains the Olinger psalter. My 1957 Confraternity says: “With the New CCD Translation of the First Eight Books and the Seven Sapiential Books of the OT” and also contains the Olinger psalter. Those two use the same Psalms translation which we think comes from the Hebrew. Those title pages are very different from the ones that actually reference Pius XII’s New Latin Psalter. I have one such bible coming. I can’t wait to confirm a few things by, as you say, checking the text.

I just happened upon a Confraternity Bible that my mother had. It says copyright 1949-1951-1952 Catholic Book Publishing Co. The Imprimatur was by Francis Cardinal Spellman September 14, 1948. The Psalms are "a new translation of the new Latin version approved by Pius XII. The rest of the Old Testament is the Douay Version. Psalm 129 matches the one I quoted above.

 

[mmortal03]

I just happened upon a Confraternity Bible that my mother had. It says copyright 1949-1951-1952 Catholic Book Publishing Co. The Imprimatur was by Francis Cardinal Spellman September 14, 1948. The Psalms are "a new translation of the new Latin version approved by Pius XII. The rest of the Old Testament is the Douay Version. Psalm 129 matches the one I quoted above.

Thanks, lak611.

Ok, so, so far we have not found a Confraternity Bible that contains the CCD (1941) Psalms. My guess is that SFH’s 1948 bible will also match Carol’s and lak611’s.

 

[mmortal03]

I don’t know. That seems to me the height of sloppiness. Do you mean among differing Latin-derived translations? My 1950 Confraternity says “New Testament and Psalms in the Confraternity Text” and contains the Olinger psalter. My 1957 Confraternity says: “With the New CCD Translation of the First Eight Books and the Seven Sapiential Books of the OT” and also contains the Olinger psalter. Those two use the same Psalms translation which we think comes from the Hebrew. Those title pages are very different from the ones that actually reference Pius XII’s New Latin Psalter. I have one such bible coming. I can’t wait to confirm a few things by, as you say, checking the text.

Right, I don’t think we have found any Confraternity Bibles so far that differ and still have that on their title page, that was just speculation, but what we have found is that the My Daily Psalms title page says “New English Version from the New Latin Version”, and does differ. True, it doesn’t say “New Latin Version authorized by Pope Pius XII”, but it does refer to a “New Latin Version”, and states in its pages that it was called for by Pius XII. There may still be a subtle difference there. It could be that there are multiple “New Latin Versions” circulating around that time, one that was before the 1945 (the 1941 CCD one), and then the 1945 one.

Again, we have found those two, but what we haven’t found is the 1941 CCD Psalms, which is supposedly a third one with archaic language. Are we saying that this one is directly from the Latin, instead of Hebrew->Latin->English (the Pius XII one), or what? We need to figure that out, and we need to figure out what the My Daily Psalms actually is.

 

[lak611]

Thanks, lak611.

Ok, so, so far we have not found a Confraternity Bible that contains the CCD (1941) Psalms. My guess is that SFH’s 1948 bible will also match Carol’s and lak611’s.

Further update: I just looked at the introduction to the book of Psalms. It says: “The version of the psalms that follows is from the Latin translation of the original Hebrew text, which was prepared by the Professors of the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome at the command of Pope Pius XII, and published at Vatican City in 1945 A.D.”

 

[Cranch]

…what we haven’t found is the 1941 CCD Psalms, which is supposedly a third one with archaic language. Are we saying that this one is directly from the Latin, instead of Hebrew->Latin->English (the Pius XII one), or what? We need to figure that out, and we need to figure out what the My Daily Psalms actually is.

That’s what I’m thinking, yes, if you mean one of Jerome’s pre-existing Latin translations. I’m still holding out for CCD 1941 being the first fruits of what would have been the Confraternity updating of the Vulgate OT (matching the completed 1941 NT) had Divino Afflante Spiritu not called for the original-languages emphasis two years later. I honestly don’t know how much of the OT was done when DAS came down, but I thought I read somewhere that some was completed and abandoned. Until then, the work on the OT, possibly including the Psalms, would have been the latest and greatest.

Further update: I just looked at the introduction to the book of Psalms. It says: “The version of the psalms that follows is from the Latin translation of the original Hebrew text, which was prepared by the Professors of the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome at the command of Pope Pius XII, and published at Vatican City in 1945 A.D.”

The evidence seems to be accumulating about which text is translated from the Latin of Pius XII’s new Latin Psalter. What I find most mysterious now is indeed mmortal03’s 1947 My Daily Psalms. I’m guessing the English is earlier than the English from Pius XII’s Latin, which I don’t think we have linked to any bible earlier than © 1949. Is there any indication, mmortal03, that the translation is the work of Fr. Frey?

 

[mmortal03]

That’s what I’m thinking, yes, if you mean one of Jerome’s pre-existing Latin translations. I’m still holding out for CCD 1941 being the first fruits of what would have been the Confraternity updating of the Vulgate OT (matching the completed 1941 NT) had Divino Afflante Spiritu

 

[mmortal03]

I received “The Psalms: A Prayerbook, also the Canticles of the Roman Breviary in Latin and English” 1946 - Benziger Brothers, Inc., copyright 1945.

It contains the Liber Psalmorum along with a:

“New English Translation with Ecclesiastical Approbation including The New Latin Version From the Hebrew by The Professors of the Pontifical Biblical Institute Authorized by Pope Pius XII.”

In the Apostolic Letter from Pope Pius XII contained, it specifically mentions DAS.

Psalm 129 VERY CLOSELY matches the 1941 CCD Psalms excerpt from that page. The archaic language is very slightly different, but might just have something to do with transcription differences, or because this is a Prayer Book, or because it is sitting right next to the Latin. I will post the text of Psalm 129 when I get the chance.

Basically, I think that site has the 1941 CCD Psalms mislabelled. I think what the 1941 CCD Psalms are, are what is in Carol’s bibles. What that site has listed should be marked as the 1945 Pius XII Psalms, imo, unless you guys have other ideas.

Edit: Furthermore, I do think that THIS is what the Olinger came from (also, what they have labelled on that page as the 1941 CCD Psalms). It makes more sense. I will contact the author of that page once we discuss it.

 

[SFH]

I thought this was at least the last version, but nope, check this out, I contacted the seller of the one similar to the “My Daily Psalm Book” that I ordered, and it doesn’t match any of the others we have talked about in this thread, including the DR:

Item: 1947 CATHOLIC PRAYER BOOK ~ MY DAILY PSALM BOOK Fr Frey​

It says “Out of the depths I cry to thee, O Lord, O Lord, hear my voice! Let thy ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication. If thou shouldst remember sins, O Lord, O Lord, who could bear it? But with thee is forgiveness, that thou mayest be served with reverence. I hope in the Lord, my soul hopes in his word; my soul waits for the Lord, more than watchmen for the dawn. More than watchmen for the dawn, let Israel wait for the Lord. For with the Lord is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption. And he shall redeem Israel from all his sins.”

Compared to:

1951 and 1952 Confraternity Bibles from Carol:

"Out of the depths I cry to thee, O Lord, O Lord, hear my voice! Let thy ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication. If thou didst keep count of offenses, O Lord, O Lord, who would endure it? But with thee is forgiveness of sins, that men may serve thee with reverence. In the Lord do I hope, my soul hopes in his word; my soul waits expectantly for the Lord, more than night watchmen for the coming of dawn. More than night watchmen for the coming of dawn does Israel await the Lord, because with the Lord there is mercy and with him there is plentiful redemption; and he shall redeem Israel from all its iniquities. "

Challoner:

"1 Out of the depths I have cried to thee, O Lord: 2 Lord, hear my voice. Let thy ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication. 3 If thou, O Lord, wilt mark iniquities: Lord, who shall stand it. 4 For with thee there is merciful forgiveness: and by reason of thy law, I have waited for thee, O Lord. My soul hath relied on his word: 5 My soul hath hoped in the Lord.

6 From the morning watch even until night, let Israel hope in the Lord. 7 Because with the Lord there is mercy: and with him plentiful redemption. 8 And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities. "

CCD
(1941)
Out of the depths I cry to thee, O Lord, * Lord, hear my voice!
Let thy ears become attentive * to the voice of my supplication.
If thou, O Lord, shouldst keep the memory of offenses, * Lord, who shall stand?
But with thee is forgiveness of sin, * so that thou art served with reverential fear.
I hope in the Lord, * my soul hopes in his word;
My soul longs for the Lord, * more than watchmen for the dawn.
More than watchmen for the dawn, * let Israel long for the Lord,
Because with the Lord there is mercy, * and with him plentiful redemption:
And he shall redeem Israel * from all her iniquities.

CCD - Olinger
(1950)
Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord; *
Lord, hear my voice
Let your ears be attentive * to my voice in supplication:
If you, O Lord, mark iniquities, * Lord, who can stand?
But with you is forgiveness, * that you may be revered
I trust in the Lord; * my soul trusts in his word.
My soul waits for the Lord * more than sentinels wait for the dawn.
More than sentinels wait for the dawn, * let Israel wait for the Lord.
For with the Lord is kindness and with him is plenteous redemption.

And he will redeem Israel * from all their iniquities.

Mary Perkins Ryan, 1955
Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord, * Lord, hear my voice!
O listen intently, * hear the cry of my supplication.
If you, O Lord, were mindful of our sins, * Lord, who could endure it?
Bur forgiveness is yours, * so that with reverence men may serve you!
I hope in the Lord, * my soul hopes in his word:
My soul looks to the Lord, * more than watchmen look for daybreak.
More than watchmen look for daybreak, * let Israel look to the Lord:
For mercy is the Lord’s * and abundant redemption:
He will redeem Israel * from all his iniquities.

Knox
Out of the depths I cry to thee, O Lord; * Master, listen to my voice;
Let thy ears be attentive * to the voice that calls on thee for pardon.
If thou, O Lord, wilt keep record of our iniquities, * Master who has the strength to bear it?
Ah, but with thee there is forgiveness; * be thy name ever revered.
I wait for the Lord, * for his word of promise my soul waits;
Patient my soul waits, * as ever watchman that looked for the day.
Patient as watchman at dawn, * for the Lord Israel waits.
The Lord with whom there is mercy, * with whom is abundant power to ransom.
He it is that will ransom Israel * from all his iniquities.

SFH’s 1948 Confraternity: ?

Sorry for the delay. The 1948 Psalms seems to be the same translation as the 1951 and 1952 Confraternity Bibles from Carol.