The Catholic versions of the bibles are

[osddso]

if im not mistaken the recognized versions of the Bible for Catholics are RSV-CE, NRSV-CE, NAB & the Douay-Rhemis.

did i miss any, and which one do you prefer out of all the above?

 

[donsnow]

if im not mistaken the recognized versions of the Bible for Catholics are RSV-CE, NRSV-CE, NAB & the Douay-Rhemis.

did i miss any, and which one do you prefer out of all the above?

Hi, osddso -

Well, my Catholic The Complete Parallel Bible also includes translations from, along with the NAB, the New Revised Standard Version, the Revised English Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. I did not know the last one was Catholic.

 

[Canto]

if im not mistaken the recognized versions of the Bible for Catholics are RSV-CE, NRSV-CE, NAB & the Douay-Rhemis.

did i miss any, and which one do you prefer out of all the above?

It depends what you mean by recognised

-Douay Rheims
-Challoner Douay Rheims
-Westminster
-Spencer
-Kleist-Lilly
-Confraternity
-Jerusalem
-New American
-New Jerusalem
-Christian Community
-New American (Revised)
-St Paul New Testament

And of course
-RSV-CE
-NRSV-CE
-RSV-CE2
-Good News

-Living Bible CE ???

 

[tee_eff_em]

if im not mistaken the recognized versions of the Bible for Catholics are RSV-CE, NRSV-CE, NAB & the Douay-Rhemis.

You are mistaken. You seem to be under the impression that Catholics may use only English language bibles.

tee

 

[Augusta_Sans]

You are mistaken. You seem to be under the impression that Catholics may use only English language bibles.

tee

If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for the rest of us!!!1!one

 

[Transformer]

As Canto demonstrated, there is no definitive list of English translations of the Bible “recognized” for Catholics. The Magisterium is not in the business of sifting through all translations of the Bible and designating certain of them as acceptable or recommended for Catholics. Discerning the merits of any given translation of the Bible is a matter for individual Catholics (on one level) and for professional scholars (on another).

For the record:

There was a time when the Vulgate could be described as an “official” translation of Scripture for the Latin rite of the Church, but not the whole Church. It also never superseded the original language versions in authority (a point Pius XII made in Divino Afflante Spiritu 21). But while the Vulgate in its latest edition—the “Neo-Vulgate” promulgated by John Paul II—has a privileged position based on its use in ecclesiastical documents, the law has changed such that there is no “official” translation of Scripture for the Latin rite.

You might ask which English translations of the Bible have an imprimatur. That can be a useful thing to look into, but keep in mind that an imprimatur simply means that a bishop briefly investigated and skimmed the book and found nothing terrible offensive to Catholic teaching in it. A translation could have questionable content, or be solidly Catholic but an atrociously bad translation, and still have an imprimatur.

You might ask which English translations of the Bible are translated by Catholics. That too is a useful thing to look into, but it certainly doesn’t tell you everything. There are a lot of translations worked on in whole or in part by Protestants that have excellent contributions to make. There are also translations mainly worked on by Catholics that aren’t terribly good as translations. Keep in mind that what is the “best” translation for a given verse theoretically transcends Catholic/Protestant boundaries: the best translation is the one most faithful in form and meaning to the text and to the original human author’s intention, regardless of whether it sounds more Catholic or more Protestant in the context of contemporary theological issues.

Keep in mind also that “Catholics” and “Protestants” are hardly monolithic groups, even in a field of theology as scientific as translation. There is significant variety within the “Catholic” Bible translations horizon. A “liberal” Catholic translation may have much less in common with a “conservative” Catholic translation than a “conservative” Protestant translation does, for instance.

You might ask which English translations of the Bible include the deuterocanonical books, or which include the deuterocanonical books in the Catholic order and not in a separate appendix as “Apocrypha.” That too is a good thing to know, but again, it is hardly everything. If a Catholic limits herself to only translations with the deuterocanon she will miss out on a lot of excellent translations with great contributions to make. Consider, for instance, the New American Standard Bible (unrelated to the New American Bible), which is the most literal translation of the Bible that sounds reasonably natural and is widely used.

So, there is no set list of “Catholic” English Bible translations. Canto lists a number of translations, some that I’m unfamiliar with and that seem very obscure. My list of major English Bible translations with imprimaturs and the deuterocanon generally looks something like this:

• Douay-Rheims (Challoner)
• Confraternity
• RSV-(2)CE
• NRSV-CE
• NAB
• Jerusalem Bible
• New Jerusalem Bible
• Good News Bible (Today’s English Version) - Catholic edition
• Christian Community Bible

There are also a number of more obscure “Catholic” Bible translations that I am vaguely familiar with: for instance, the Knox Bible.

As to which English Bible translation I prefer, I cannot (with many people on this board) recommend the Douay-Rheims Bible. I respect its translation tradition very much, but (a) it is a translation of a translation, and (b) it was published in 1610 and revised around 1750, so it did not benefit from modern scholarship. Those two reasons alone, especially the former, disqualify it for study in my opinion. I don’t care how free from doctrinal error the Latin Vulgate is. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, not Latin, and our oldest Vulgate manuscripts are not closer to the original Hebrew and Greek texts than our oldest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are. Translations of translations are necessarily inferior, especially when they predate modern scholarship and are written in early modern English rather than contemporary English.

I think the New Revised Standard Version with the deuterocanon (maybe the Catholic Edition) may become my favorite translation. I’ve been using the Revised Standard Version: Second Catholic Edition, but the issue of gender inclusive language seems increasingly trivial to me compared to having the most up-to-date and scholarly translation possible. The NRSV is revised in accordance with pretty darn recent finds, including full revision in accord with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library I believe, and it continues in the excellent Tyndale-KJV-ASV-RSV that forms the backbone of modern English Bible translation. It maintains much of that tradition’s beautiful language. The Greek-English interlinear I’m hoping to get for Christmas has the NRSV alongside the Greek New Testament, and I’m glad of it.

Hope all that helps!

 

[Canto]

There are also a number of more obscure “Catholic” Bible translations that I am vaguely familiar with: for instance, the Knox Bible.

Enjoyed your post Had forgotten about the Knox Bible.

-The Westminster Version of Sacred Scripture was a translation by English scholars. Released in sections with lavish notes of textual and doctrinal use, much like today’s Ignatius study Bibles. Released between 1910 and 1940. From the Hebrew and Greek. While not used at Mass had ecclesial approval.

-Fr Spencer’s literal NT was released just before the Confraterntiy from memory. From the Greek with imprimatur.

-Kleist-Lilly a dynamic translation from around the same time as above. Kleist did the Gospels and Lilly did the rest of the NT. From the Greek with imprimatur.

-St Paul New Testament is a newer translation from 1991. Is literal though to coloquial for my taste at times i.e. you will conceive and bear a son become you’ll conceive and… From the Greek with imprimatur.

As to which English Bible translation I prefer, I cannot (with many people on this board) recommend the Douay-Rheims Bible. I respect its translation tradition very much, but (a) it is a translation of a translation, and (b) it was published in 1610 and revised around 1750, so it did not benefit from modern scholarship. Those two reasons alone, especially the former, disqualify it for study in my opinion.

I love the Douay (orignal 1582 version) It actually made countless corrections in light of the best available Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and still stands on it’s feet today in my op when compared to some newer translations. The Confraternity Version has more of the modern scholarship and is more readalble so it’s the one I read the most. Our ye old Douay Rheims even influenced the King James which in turn influenced the Challoner in style.

As for a trans of a trans

Orig > Latin > DR
Orig > Erasmus > Tyndale > Bishop’s > King James > ASV > NASB (with it’s horrid rendering of Matt 1:25)

I think the New Revised Standard Version with the deuterocanon (maybe the Catholic Edition) may become my favorite translation.

Sorry but can’t stand this one.
The inclusive language deadens the beauty and deletes references to Christ in the Old and New Testaments.

 

[Transformer]

Canto, thank you for your post, and especially for your explanations of the Westminster Version of Sacred Scripture.

As for a trans of a trans

Orig > Latin > DR
Orig > Erasmus > Tyndale > Bishop’s > King James > ASV > NASB (with it’s horrid rendering of Matt 1:25)

As to this, I am aware that the King James Version is little more than the Bishop’s Bible filtered through the awesomeness of the Geneva Bible, and I admit it has always struck me as a bit odd that translations which are almost entirely based on earlier translations are still often called “a new translation from the original languages.” That isn’t unique to the KJV tradition, but it certainly comes up a lot with the KJV tradition, as it goes all the way:

Orig > Erasmus > Tyndale > Coverdale > Great Bible > Bishop’s > King James > Revised Version > ASV > RSV > NRSV

if you’re feeling chipper.

Still, it isn’t the same thing as a translation of a translation because the line didn’t pass through a different language anywhere in there. It’s just a revision of a revision of a revision… of a translation.

I looked up your point about the NASB in Matt 1:25. That is quite unfortunate. I’m gonna have to try and look at that in the Greek.

The inclusive language deadens the beauty and deletes references to Christ in the Old and New Testaments.

Canto, do you happen to know off the top of your head where the NRSV eliminates references to Christ in the OT and NT? I’m aware that it fails the Isaiah 7:14 litmus test.

Also, is it true that the NRSV has no vertical gender inclusive language, only horizontal?

 

[Canto]

Canto, do you happen to know off the top of your head where the NRSV eliminates references to Christ in the OT and NT? I’m aware that it fails the Isaiah 7:14 litmus test.

Also, is it true that the NRSV has no vertical gender inclusive language, only horizontal?

It used vert and hor language
This article explains things well

Why Vatican rejected ‘inclusive’ New Revised Standard Version Bible
ad2000.com.au/articles/1995/jun1995p11_859.html

PSALM 81:14-16

NASB he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him;
I will set him {securely} on high, because he has known My name.
He will call upon Me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble;
I will rescue him and honor him.
With a long life I will satisfy him
And let him see My salvation.

NRSV Those who love me, I will deliver;
I will protect those who know my name.
When they call to me, I will answer them;
I will be with them in trouble,
I will rescue them and honour them.
With long life I will satisfy them,
and show them my salvation.

Daniel 7:13 used at Mass this Advent

I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.

As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.

Hebrews 2:6-8

But one has testified somewhere, saying,
"WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM?
OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM?
“YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS;
YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR,
AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET.”

But someone has testified somewhere,
‘What are human beings that you are mindful of them,
or mortals, that you care for them?
You have made them for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned them with glory and honour,
subjecting all things under their feet.’

 

[Jesus_123]

+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . **1966 New Jerusalem Bible ** . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . . incorporated into all this Bible’s versions thereafter and could only recommend the 1966 version.

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . .

The Douay Rhiems Version (DRV) was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin to make it more readable in English. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The original Latin translation was accomplished by the Holy Spirit’s Inspiration through the blessed St. Jerome . . . the Old Testament from the Hebrew . . . the New Testament from the Greek . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Douay Rheims Version
was **
*“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” ***With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . you can’t go wrong with this edition . . .

Below are comments from the Eternal Word Television Network’s (EWTN’s) website . . . which also contain some examples of the Holy See’s gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view on some Biblical translations on the market today.

:bible1: Douai-Rheims.[Douay-Rheims] The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai. Bishop Challoner’s [much extolled] 1899 edition is available from TAN Books.​

**The renown teaching priest Father John Corapi ** endorses and highly recommends the **ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE.

:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE). Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …******​

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to the Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful to request the trustworthy **ORIGINAL RSV-CE **. . . the new untrustworthy version which is being heavily promoted nowadays contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******​

NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991). It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
​

. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​

 

[Jesus_123]

+I don’t think any thread about **the Holy Bible ** is complete without referencing the Catechism . . . below are quotes from both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture regarding the Holy Word of God. As Catholics we know our **Wonderful God as TRIUNE in Nature . . . three persons in One . . . 1. God the Father . . . 2. God the Son . . . and 3. God the Holy Spirit . . . **and we know **God the Holy Spirit **as the one and only **Holy Author **of **Sacred Scripture . . . using mankind as His holy scribes/writers/secretaries . . . To gain a fuller and more comprehensive view of how our Holy Mother Church truly views Sacred Scripture **. . . the rest of these sections of the Catechism are marvelously enlightening and informative reading . . . and shed clear and bright light on why “inclusive language” is incredibly presumptuous sin . . .

**. . . :coffeeread: . . . **

**CATECHISM **
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

Article 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

81
Sacred :bible1: Scripture is the **speech of God **as it is put down in **WRITING **under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

Article 3 - SACRED SCRIPTURE

104
In Sacred :bible1:Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it NOT as human word, “but as what it really is, the **Word of **God.” **In the sacred books,
**the Father who is in heaven ****
comes lovingly
to meet his children,
and talks with them.

---

Link: usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.shtml

:bible1: “How precious also are **thy thoughts **unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand …” Psalms 139:17-18b

:bible1:“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8

:bible1:“So shall **My word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I **sent it.” Isaiah 55:11

:bible1:“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but **my words **shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35

:bible1:“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1​

“And the
**Word **
was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we saw his glory;
the glory as it were of the
only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth.”
John 1:14

**“To be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ.” **- St. Jerome

• God said it . . . I believe it . . . and that settles it for me +
  . . . all for Jesus+
  . . . thank You Blessed Lord+
  . . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
  . . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
  . . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[Jesus_123]

One of our on-the-ball Catholic Forum Junior Members caught a mistake in one of my posts and contacted me . . . Mother Angelica’s recommended Bible is the 1966 Jerusalem :bible1: Bible . . . NOT the . . . “new” :nope: . . . Jerusalem Bible . . . all this “new” and “revised”, etc. stuff is incredibly confusing . . . teaching priest Father Mitch Pacwa mentioned one night on one of his shows that there are now over 1000 so-called “translations” out in the very lucrative market place of Biblical sales . . . whew! . . . I’m reminded of the portion of Sacred :bible1: Scripture below . . .

:bible1: 25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. 26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. 27 And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? 28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? 29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. 30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn. - Matthew 25-30

. . . all for Jesus+​

 

[archangel04]

If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for the rest of us!!!1!one

Jesus spoke English? lol

 

[Transformer]

Jesus spoke English? lol
Reply With Quote

I’m sure he was being sarcastic, archangel. He even typed out the word “one” amid his exclamation points.

 

[Jesus_123]

+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . **1966 Jerusalem Bible ** . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . . incorporated into all this Bible’s versions thereafter and could only recommend the 1966 version and not any subsequent versions . . .

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin. Bishop Challoner’s version simply phrases it to make it more reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The original Latin translation was accomplished by the Holy Spirit’s Inspiration through the blessed St. Jerome . . . the Old Testament from the Hebrew . . . the New Testament from the Greek . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Douay Rheims Version
was **
*“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” ***With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . you can’t go wrong with this edition . . .

Below are comments from the Eternal Word Television Network’s (EWTN’s) website . . . which also contain some examples of the Holy See’s gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view on some Biblical translations on the market today.

:bible1: Douai-Rheims.[Douay-Rheims] The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai.​

**The renown teaching priest Father John Corapi ** endorses and highly recommends the **ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE.

:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE). Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …******​

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to the Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful to request the trustworthy **ORIGINAL RSV-CE **. . . the new untrustworthy version which is being heavily promoted nowadays contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******​

NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991). It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
​

. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​