Traditional Catholics: Which Catholic Bible version do you prefer?

[Young_Thinker]

I agree. or “revised” Why did they “revise” it and will it be “revised” agaiin. .

Yes!

 

[CDNowak]

I agree. or “revised” Why did they “revise” it and will it be “revised” agaiin. .

Well, the latest revision of the RSV-CE (2nd) was to bring it into conformity with Liturgicam Authenticam. Generally, since the meanings of words in living languages change with time, it is a good idea to retranslate or reexamine existing translations to make sure there is as little confusion as possible.

Likewise, we have discovered more ancient copies of the texts in their original (or second) languages. The better access to sources allows for a more accurate translation, even if done later.

 

[Malleus_01]

Well, the latest revision of the RSV-CE (2nd) was to bring it into conformity with Liturgicam Authenticam. Generally, since the meanings of words in living languages change with time, it is a good idea to retranslate or reexamine existing translations to make sure there is as little confusion as possible.

Likewise, we have discovered more ancient copies of the texts in their original (or second) languages. The better access to sources allows for a more accurate translation, even if done later.

Malleus: Well this view has some obvious flaws. One - the Guidance of the Holy Ghost in approving the Exegesis of St Jerome’s Latin Vulgate as given by both the Council of Trent and reiterated at Vatican I with anathemas. Second - the fact that St Jerome had access to documents no longer in existance today and assuming that the “found” documents you cite were unknown to him in 380 AD. Third - St Jerome being closer in history to the time period in question would be in a better position to determine what was meant by any questionable language interpretation thrrough slang or culture. Fourth - St Jerome is one of our Greatest Saints which is a definite factor not to be minimized. Fifth he was an expert linguist for years prior to when Pope Damasus ordered him to compile the New Testament including spoken Hebrew in the days prior to the Masoretic Text , Greek , Latin and dialects like Aramac. Sixth the changes in tenets of Modern Philosophy which trends away from Thomistic in our day and age - Seventh the Fact that St Jeromes Latin Vulgate has been in use in Catholicism for 1630 years successfully.

 

[ChurchTorch]

The (Msgr. Ronald) Knox version.

 

[CDNowak]

Malleus: Well this view has some obvious flaws. One - the Guidance of the Holy Ghost in approving the Exegesis of St Jerome’s Latin Vulgate as given by both the Council of Trent and reiterated at Vatican I with anathemas. Second - the fact that St Jerome had access to documents no longer in existance today and assuming that the “found” documents you cite were unknown to him in 380 AD. Third - St Jerome being closer in history to the time period in question would be in a better position to determine what was meant by any questionable language interpretation thrrough slang or culture. Fourth - St Jerome is one of our Greatest Saints which is a definite factor not to be minimized. Fifth he was an expert linguist for years prior to when Pope Damasus ordered him to compile the New Testament including spoken Hebrew in the days prior to the Masoretic Text , Greek , Latin and dialects like Aramac. Sixth the changes in tenets of Modern Philosophy which trends away from Thomistic in our day and age - Seventh the Fact that St Jeromes Latin Vulgate has been in use in Catholicism for 1630 years successfully.

Translation of translations have the effect of compounding error, as St Jerome noted. St Jerome translated between two living languages, assuring that there would be continuing changes in the meaning of the text after his translation was completed. While St Jerome would probably have known of most of more ancient documents we have today, he would have only had access to a limited number, as each copy was made by hand (and itself only as accurate as the copier).

Thomistic philosophy did not arise for nearly a 1000 years after the Vulgate.

The OT existed for hundreds of years before the Vulgate, and the books of the NT were around for ~250 years before St Jerome.

I would heartily recommend reading the Papal Encyclicals since “Divino Afflante Spiritu” on the usefulness of returning also to the original sources as a real aid to scholarship.

 

[m134e5]

I prefer the RSV-CE. I appreciate the beauty of the Douay-Rheims’ text, but it is a bit too archaic for me to read regularly. I don’t have a hard copy of it either, and my eyes just don’t handle extensive reading on the computer anymore. Also, it’s difficult to talk about scripture using the Douay-Rheims translation to people who aren’t familiar with it (because of the unusual numbering of the Psalms, and the archaic book titles).

 

[Malleus_01]

Translation of translations have the effect of compounding error, as St Jerome noted. St Jerome translated between two living languages, assuring that there would be continuing changes in the meaning of the text after his translation was completed. While St Jerome would probably have known of most of more ancient documents we have today, he would have only had access to a limited number, as each copy was made by hand (and itself only as accurate as the copier).

Malleus: Once again assuming he didnt already know or have access to more than a limited number. I disagree that its provable. His commission to compile under one cover with the assistance of and direction from the Pope himself would indicate he had the resources. I feel that point is debatable.

Thomistic philosophy did not arise for nearly a 1000 years after the Vulgate.

Malleus: The Tenets of Thomstic Philosophy come from Aristotle and Augustinian from Plato as you no doubt know. There are many who feel St Jerome gravitates towards the Thomistic understanding of Aristotle but regardless of whether or not you dispute the point - what I think we can all agree on is that none of them believed in some of the tenets of Hegel and or Kant that have had a definite influence in European Philosophy and in its understanding of Truth and that any Modern Scriptural Scholar has to content wwith that influence.

The OT existed for hundreds of years before the Vulgate, and the books of the NT were around for ~250 years before St Jerome.

Malleus : God’s Chosen People, possessed two Canons of Scripture: the Old Jewish Canon (written in Hebrew) and the Septuagint (written in Greek), which received its name from the Hebrew scholars who translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew language into the Greek language (centuries before the coming of Christ). The Septuagint was diligently used in Jewish synagogues and by Jewish writers (Philo and Josephus), and remained an unchallenged translation of Sacred Scripture until the beginning of the second century. The difference between the Septuagint and the Old Jewish Canon was not only in the language in which they were written, but also that the Septuagint contained seven extra books, namely, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Machabees and parts of Esther and Daniel.

I would heartily recommend reading the Papal Encyclicals since “Divino Afflante Spiritu” on the usefulness of returning also to the original sources as a real aid to scholarship.

Malleus : That doesnt change the fact that Pope Damasus in the year 382 A.D. confirmed the authentic books of Sacred Scripture, and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. the Councils of Trent and Vatican I reiterated this same Canon of Sacred Scripture with anathemas. So we can talk all day how some people want to gravitate towards “modern” interpretations but I tend to try to accept Catholics teachings as a whole. I have read both “Providentissimus Deus” by Pope Leo the XIII as cited by Pope Pius the XII in
“Divino Afflante Spiritu” and in neither encyclical did I find a recommendation that Non Catholic theologians be included in the exegesis as actually took place with the NAB.
So the real aid of scholarship as called for wasnt folllowed IMO. Certainly the motive was good - but the actual result wasnt.

Pax

 

[CDNowak]

Malleus : That doesnt change the fact that Pope Damasus in the year 382 A.D. confirmed the authentic books of Sacred Scripture, and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. the Councils of Trent and Vatican I reiterated this same Canon of Sacred Scripture with anathemas. So we can talk all day how some people want to gravitate towards “modern” interpretations but I tend to try to accept Catholics teachings as a whole. I have read both “Providentissimus Deus” by Pope Leo the XIII as cited by Pope Pius the XII in
“Divino Afflante Spiritu” and in neither encyclical did I find a recommendation that Non Catholic theologians be included in the exegesis as actually took place with the NAB.
So the real aid of scholarship as called for wasnt folllowed IMO. Certainly the motive was good - but the actual result wasnt.

Pax

If you accept Catholic teaching as a whole than you cannot reject the re-sourcement of translations, as specifically allowed for in DAS. IIRC (liturgy, is my field more than Scripture), this was expanded from an allowance to a recommendation for scholarship through Vatican II. (just checked, Dei Verbum 22.)

Also the notion that I was responding to, that revision or re-translation was, *in and of itself *bad, is not supported by the whole of Catholic teaching on biblical scholarship, rather it has been consistently challenged since Pius XII, at the very least.

While I have been addressing in general terms, rather than on any specific text, I would point to RSV-2nd CE as an example of a revised (and repeatedly so) version that has become a better translation by revision and the most recent revision was done with the express purpose of applying Liturgicam Authenticam. This not the NAB, was part of the reason behind my objection to the out of hand rejection of any revised text. (Although the Vulgate, itself a re-translation, exists in three slightly distinct revisions).

The Canon of scripture has relatively little to do with the translation of Scripture (although those whose bibles are missing books tended to have Luther’s “alone” addition, this has changed with revisions). Likewise, I was not talking about interpretations, but actual translations, including into the modern tongue (expressly called for by a Council of the Church…)

 

[StevenFrancis]

I voted for the RSV-CE for several reasons. It is the bible version used for the CCC. It is the version used in the Ignatius Study Bible, and I’m a big fan of both. I pray that eventually it is the English translation adopted for liturgical use, but I doubt it.

Having said all that, and in spite of how I voted, when I’m just reading the bible for my own pleasure of reading scripture, without simultaneously studying, I love my DR, and am learning (very slowly) to read the Latin Vulgate. There are different versions of that too.

The NAB-CE is good for some things. I love the footnotes, cross references and headings. If the RSV-CE would adopt all that, (Which Ignatius has just done with the New Testament, and I’m buying in in a week!!! (I’m excited), it would be very close to being as good as an English translation of the bible can get. I suspect when Ignatius is all done with this project, it will be my favorite, even for personal reading.

 

[Malleus_01]

If you accept Catholic teaching as a whole than you cannot reject the re-sourcement of translations, as specifically allowed for in DAS. IIRC (liturgy, is my field more than Scripture), this was expanded from an allowance to a recommendation for scholarship through Vatican II. (just checked, Dei Verbum 22.)

Malleus: Look - you cannot abrogate Scripture anymore than anything else in the Deposit of Faith. Vatican II isnt the end all be all. Its only one of 20 Church Councils. The Deposit of Faith is whole. I contend that you are rejecting far more than I.

Also the notion that I was responding to, that revision or re-translation was, *in and of itself *bad, is not supported by the whole of Catholic teaching on biblical scholarship, rather it has been consistently challenged since Pius XII, at the very least.

Malleus: Of course it has , by people influenced by the aforementioned Philosophies present in Europe and challenged by Several Popes including Pope St Pius the X in “Pacendi Domenici Gregis” Leo the XIII in “Satis Cognitum” and Pius the IX in “The Syllabus” So are we to , after 1570 years , simply run in fear from these Non Catholic threats or confront them. You decide. The Holy Ghost is the same Holy Ghost before and after the Protestant Revolt and before and after Hegel and Kant. I see that they have little to offer. Either the Holy Ghost was present with Pope Damasus and at Carthage and Trent and Vatican I or he wasnt. It isnt a matter solely of “scholarship” Thats a narrow view IMO.

While I have been addressing in general terms, rather than on any specific text, I would point to RSV-2nd CE as an example of a revised (and repeatedly so) version that has become a better translation by revision and the most recent revision was done with the express purpose of applying Liturgicam Authenticam. This not the NAB, was part of the reason behind my objection to the out of hand rejection of any revised text. (Although the Vulgate, itself a re-translation, exists in three slightly distinct revisions).

The Canon of scripture has relatively little to do with the translation of Scripture (although those whose bibles are missing books tended to have Luther’s “alone” addition, this has changed with revisions). Likewise, I was not talking about interpretations, but actual translations, including into the modern tongue (expressly called for by a Council of the Church…)

Malleus : Ok - lets explore the RSV2E Text Take for example :

Genesis 3
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

Douay Rheims Haydock :

Genesis :

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.*

Douay Rheims Challoner :

Genesis 3 : 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

And of course from Ineffabilis Deus

Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854.

His Holiness writes : “Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture”

The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind – words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed”[13] – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.[14]

Sorry , But we simply disagree. the reasons should be obvious as to why.

 

[CDNowak]

Malleus : Ok - lets explore the RSV2E Text Take for example :

Genesis 3
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

Douay Rheims Haydock :

Genesis :

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.*

Douay Rheims Challoner :

Genesis 3 : 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

snip<
Sorry , But we simply disagree. the reasons should be obvious as to why.

I am an amatuer on Hebrew and Greek, but it appears that both support the masculine (his heel) over the feminine (her heel). Our disagreement is far from simple, but the reasons are indeed obvious.

 

[Malleus_01]

I am an amatuer on Hebrew and Greek, but it appears that both support the masculine (his heel) over the feminine (her heel). Our disagreement is far from simple, but the reasons are indeed obvious.

Except that Pope Pius the IX used heel in Ineffabilis Deus and refered to the Blessed Virgin Mary in his exegesis from the Chair of St Peter and as you know - used this passage as criteria for the DOGMA of the Immaculate Conception. I find this compelling.

The passage from the RSV clearly is closer to the KJV or other Protestant interpretations.

Now I could also cite NUMEROUS depictions in Catholic Art and Statuary throughout Catholic History where the Blessed Virgin Mary is depicted Crushing the head of the Serpent with her foot - We also know that it was the Serpent who caused the Fall of Eve then Adam and it is the Blessed Virgin Mary who assists OUR LORD in our redemption as Pope Pius the IX Spoke about in Ineffabilis Deus. Another prooof I can cite is the Name of the Blessed Virgin of Guadalupe - the name Guadalupe comes from the Indian Dialect Our Lady used the Aztec Nahuatl word of coatlaxopeuh which is pronounced “quatlasupe” - the Spanish word Guadalupe. Coa meaning serpent, tla being the noun ending which can be interpreted as “the”, while xopeuh means to crush or stamp out. So Our Lady called herself the one “who crushes the serpent.”

So you can see that there is more to Scripture than the meaning od the Words arrived at through reason alone. Remember - Scripture is the Word of GOD. It is not designed to be dicerned through scholarship solely. It must be dicerned through a combination of right reason , Tradition , and Spiritual development. Scripture doesnt evolve. Just as GOD doesnt evolve.

I see evidence of a belief that it does in your methodology and or an over reliance of an earthly methodology and over emphasis of modern scholarship which means a diminished reliance on the ETERNAL GOD.

Catholicism is to be taken in totality and Scripture is inherent therein throughout. For that reason - I always gravitate back to Divine Tradition.

Pax

 

[GodSaves]

I recommend Douay Rheims as primary text and RSV-2CE as backup for difficult passages.

Confraternity NT is great but very difficult to find. CPDV (Catholic Public Domain Version) is interesting new translation of the Vulgate but I am hesitant to use it until and if it receives some sort of formal Church approval - as it has none as of now.

 

[Rachael]

I use the revised standard version. One day I would like to own the Douay Rheims verison as I feel that it is beautifully written.

 

[awatkins69]

I picked Jerusalem (However, New Jerusalem is terrible). The Douay-Rheims is my favorite to read. However, it has way more faults. I can think of a few off-hand. First of all, it is rather old. Secondly,since it is all based on the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, it has a “biblical language” that is present throughout, rather than the language of each manuscript and author. Thirdly, it has many textual errors when compared to the original manuscripts, and it has almost no reference to the original manuscripts whatsoever. One of the ones that really bugs me is “Hail Mary”. Not because I think it is wrong to say “Haily Mary” but because of the fact that almost no other modern and critical translation renders it this way. So if I try to show my Protestant friends that it is Biblical, they can turn to any other Bible and show that it is mistranslated.

The Jerusalem Bible is one of the most modern and well-prepared English Bibles of all time. Protestant or Catholic. It has no bias or polemical purpose. It is entirely based on the original language manuscripts. The commentary (at least in my edition) presents a very solid and modern forward to each of the books. The style is beautiful and yet true to each individual author. Plus J.R.R. Tolkien helped to write it! With all this stuff, it still has the benefit of not being Protestant, ecumenical, or ideological in any way (like inclusive language), which is a big plus. It’s just plain old Holy Scripture based on outstanding scholarship. If you REALLY want to study Sacred Scripture, the Jerusalem Bible is the one to go with.

So my favorite Bible to just sit down and read from is the Douay Rheims (with the wonderful Vulgata Clementina side-by-side). However, if I have a serious scholarly or Scriptural question to be answered I pull out my Jerusalem Bible.

 

[Young_Thinker]

I hate what Bishop Challoner did with the Apocryphic books. Anyway, I would like to have both a copy each of the Challoner Douay-Rheims and the Jerusalem Bible(Tolkein!).

 

[Jotobo]

I hate what Bishop Challoner did with the Apocryphic books. Anyway, I would like to have both a copy each of the Challoner Douay-Rheims and the Jerusalem Bible(Tolkein!).

What did he do with the Apocryphra?

 

[Young_Thinker]

What did he do with the Apocryphra?

I do not currently have a copy of his edition, but I think that he took the three books out of the Old Testament that are in the original Douay.

 

[Malleus_01]

I picked Jerusalem (However, New Jerusalem is terrible). The Douay-Rheims is my favorite to read. .

Malleus: The Jerusalem Bible Doesnt have the full backing of three of the 20 Ecumenical Church Councils and Numerous Popes nor does it have 1600 years of successful apologetics much of which predates Protestantism. The fact that it is OLD is its greatest strength. Truth doesnt evolve. And modern understanding is not superior to Early understanding. thats erroneous. As for Protestant Exegesis of their own heretical Scriptures - they are tainted by faulty exegesis (By Heretics) and dubious sources like the Masoretic Text for example. I say the opposite is true. The Latin Vulgate itself is the best for scholarly exegesis for the New Testament and the Greek Septuagint for the Old. Now some say St Jeromes Latin Vulgate has " textual errors "

Pope Leo the XIII Writes in PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS

" Among the reasons for which the Holy Scripture is so worthy of commendation - in addition to its own excellence and to the homage which we owe to God’s Word - the chief of all is, the innumerable benefits of which it is the source; according to the infallible testimony of the Holy Ghost Himself, who says: “All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”(6) That such was the purpose of God in giving the Scripture of men is shown by the example of Christ our Lord and of His Apostles. For He Himself Who “obtained authority by miracles, merited belief by authority, and by belief drew to Himself the multitude”(7) was accustomed in the exercise of His Divine Mission, to appeal to the Scriptures. He uses them at times to prove that He is sent by God, and is God Himself. From them He cites instructions for His disciples and confirmation of His doctrine. He vindicates them from the calumnies of objectors; he quotes them against Sadducees and Pharisees, and retorts from them upon Satan himself when he dares to tempt Him. At the close of His life His utterances are from Holy Scripture, and it is the Scripture that He expounds to His disciples after His resurrection, until He ascends to the glory of His Father. Faithful to His precepts, the Apostles, although He Himself granted “signs and wonders to be done by their hands”(8) nevertheless used with the greatest effect the sacred writings, in order to persuade the nations everywhere of the wisdom of Christianity, to conquer the obstinacy of the Jews, and to suppress the outbreak of heresy. This is plainly seen in their discourses, especially in those of St. Peter: these were often little less than a series of citations from the Old Testament supporting in the strongest manner the new dispensation. We find the same thing in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John and in the Catholic Epistles; and most remarkably of all in the words of him who "boasts that he learned the law at the feet of Gamaliel, in order that, being armed with spiritual weapons, he might afterwards say with confidence, `The arms of our warfare are not carnal but mighty unto God.’ "(9) Let all, therefore, especially the novices of the ecclesiastical army, understand how deeply the sacred Books should be esteemed, and with what eagerness and reverence they should approach this great arsenal of heavenly arms. For those whose duty it is to handle Catholic doctrine before the learned or the unlearned will nowhere find more ample matter or more abundant exhortation, whether on the subject of God, the supreme Good and the all-perfect Being, or of the works which display His Glory and His love. Nowhere is there anything more full or more express on the subject of the Saviour of the world than is to be found in the whole range of the Bible. As St. Jerome says, “To be ignorant of the Scripture is not to know Christ.”(10) In its pages His Image stands out, living and breathing; diffusing everywhere around consolation in trouble, encouragement to virtue and attraction to the love of God. And as to the Church, her institutions, her nature, her office, and her gifts, we find in Holy Scripture so many references and so many ready and convincing arguments, that as St. Jerome again most truly says: “A man who is well grounded in the testimonies of the Scripture is the bulwark of the Church.”(11)And if we come to morality and discipline, an apostolic man finds in the sacred writings abundant and excellent assistance; most holy precepts, gentle and strong exhortation, splendid examples of every virtue, and finally the promise of eternal reward and the threat of eternal punishment, uttered in terms of solemn import, in God’s name and in God’s own words.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Hello to my fellow traditional Catholics! I have a question for you. Out of the Bible versions listed on the poll, which one do you prefer the most? If yours is not listed, please vote for the “other” option and tell us about it in here.

I have a Bible that I found in a thrift store near me that was published right before VII. It even has pics of the and description the sacraments as they were before.