What do Traditional Catholics think of the Confraternity New Testament?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerry-Jet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jerry-Jet

Guest
Is the Confraternity New Testament the only recent update of the Doauy Rheims Challoner Haydock bible that Traditional Catholics would endorse?

Does it differ much from the Douay Rheims when it comes to doctrine?
 
I like it and its the Bible I read, mainly because it seems to be the easiest traditionally worded Bible to come across.
 
Great. And I think it is one of the few pocket-sized bibles that isn’t the KJV.
 
I have a New Testament Confraternity version…
I love it and it is easy to read.
I think it is a language revised Douay-Rheims version.
I got it from a Traditional Catholic publisher: Angelus Press.
I recommend it.

Pax
Instaurare omnia in Christo
 
Ad_Deum said:
I have a New Testament Confraternity version…
I love it and it is easy to read.
I think it is a language revised Douay-Rheims version.
I got it from a Traditional Catholic publisher: Angelus Press.
I recommend it.

Pax
Instaurare omnia in Christo
Click to expand...
If I’m not wrong Angelus Press sells the Confraternity NT printed by Sinag Tala. And yes the Confraternity is a revised Douay Rheims.
 
I can’t speak for other traditional Catholics, but I love the Confraternity translation. I have the little pocket size New Testament, and I take it with me on trips. Someone please correct me it I am wrong, but I don’t think that there is a Confraternity Old Testament. I have seen Confraternity Bibles on Ebay (since we live outside of the US, I rarely get in the winning bid!) that have either Douay-Rheims Old Testament or the early edition of the New American Bible Old Testament. If I am not mistaken, the American bishops own the copyright for the Confraternity translation. I wish that they would allow it to be reprinted in a standard size book. It has beautiful traditional language, but it does not sound as archaic as the Douay-Rheims does to those who are not use to it. I am sure that it would sell well.
 
Marysann said:
Someone please correct me it I am wrong, but I don’t think that there is a Confraternity Old Testament. I have seen Confraternity Bibles on Ebay (since we live outside of the US, I rarely get in the winning bid!) that have either Douay-Rheims Old Testament or the early edition of the New American Bible Old Testament. If I am not mistaken, the American bishops own the copyright for the Confraternity translation. I wish that they would allow it to be reprinted in a standard size book. It has beautiful traditional language, but it does not sound as archaic as the Douay-Rheims does to those who are not use to it. I am sure that it would sell well.
Click to expand...
For the OT its the Douay-Confraternity. Since they didn’t finish revising, some book were left as the Douay Version. Sinag-Tala reprints the whole Douay-Confraternity Bible as well as the NT. 😉
 
Marysann said:
Someone please correct me it I am wrong, but I don’t think that there is a Confraternity Old Testament. I have seen Confraternity Bibles on Ebay that have either Douay-Rheims Old Testament or the early edition of the New American Bible Old Testament.
Click to expand...
Here is something I posted some months ago in this thread. You may find it of interest:
The Confraternity translation was done under the auspices of the U.S. bishops and was originally planned as a revision of the Douay-Rheims (except for the Psalms which were to follow Pope Pius XII’s new Psalter from the Hebrew). The New Testament was published in 1941 after five years of work. However, after Pope Pius XII’s encyclical on scripture studies, Divino afflante Spiritu in 1943 encouraged consideration of the original texts, the bishops overhauled the Confraternity project and the Old Testament was translated from scratch from the original Hebrew. As OT books were completed, various editions of the Confraternity Bible were published with the Douay translation used for the gradually shrinking remaining portions of the OT. The Confraternity translations of the Books of Genesis to Ruth were first published in 1952; the Wisdom (or Sapiential) Books, Job to Sirach, in 1955; the Prophetic Books, Isaiah to Malachi, in 1961. The remaining books were finished by 1969, but these never appeared under the Confraternity name as far as I know. They were added to the existing Confraternity OT, Genesis was completely retranslated, other minor changes were made and a new translation of the New Testament from the Greek was added. The result was the 1970 New American Bible (NAB). The NAB was now the new official bible of the U.S. bishops. That is why the Confraternity version went away.
You can see that even though the OT work eventually ended up in the NAB, that name was not used until 1970. And Genesis in any Confraternity bible is a unique translation appearing nowhere else.
 
for those in my generation (parochial school before V2 and NAB) this is the version we remember and think of when we thing “traditional bible translation”. We may think we recall the DR, but actually we probably were given a Confraternity bible for Confirmation, and used it in bible history classes all through our school years.
 
+J.M.J+
Marysann said:
If I am not mistaken, the American bishops own the copyright for the Confraternity translation.
Click to expand...
I emailed the CCD last year to ask about that, and they informed me that the Confraternity Version is currently in the public domain. Apparently, they never renewed the copyright or something like that.

In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie
 
If that is the case I wish someone would newly print a Bible that included the Confraternity New Testament and a Douay Rheims Haydock Old Testament.

That would be as modern as you could get without liberals majorly messing up the Bible.

Add to it conservative notes and people would buy it like hot cakes.
 
I have a both Confraternity-Douay Bible, and Douay-Rheims, bible. The only qualm, I have with the Confraternity, is that it didn’t retain the footnotes in the scriptures that elaborates on the nature of the Holy Eucharist, the Last Supper, apostolic Succession, that I’ve found in my regular Douay-Rheims, otherwise, other than the footnotes, which I think are must in any good translation to guard against aberrant Protestant “private interpretations” of scripture and to instruct the ignorant, and those-wishing to study the Bible as Christ’s Holy Catholic Church has preserved it, both Catholic, and non-Catholic alike. My Confraternity-Douay Bible is entitled: The New Catholic Edition.
 
ravenonthecross said:
I have a both Confraternity-Douay Bible, and Douay-Rheims, bible. The only qualm, I have with the Confraternity, is that it didn’t retain the footnotes in the scriptures that elaborates on the nature of the Holy Eucharist, the Last Supper, apostolic Succession, that I’ve found in my regular Douay-Rheims, otherwise, other than the footnotes, which I think are must in any good translation to guard against aberrant Protestant “private interpretations” of scripture and to instruct the ignorant, and those-wishing to study the Bible as Christ’s Holy Catholic Church has preserved it, both Catholic, and non-Catholic alike. My Confraternity-Douay Bible is entitled: The New Catholic Edition.
Click to expand...
I have a Confraternity-Douay Bible too. I don’t mind the lack of footnotes. I use the notes from the Haydock Commentary available here. Although the Old Testament is not complete yet, the New Testament is. The commentary works well with any Bible translation.
 
Does the Confraternity new Testament depart much from the latin Vulgate in favor of the Greek?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Does the Confraternity new Testament depart much from the latin Vulgate in favor of the Greek?
Click to expand...
No, the introduction to it states that the translators had recourse to the Greek for clarifying some of the Vulgate’s obscurities. However, at that time (1941) the Confraternity was expected to be used in the TLM when the Epistle and Gospel were to be read to the Congregation. So they could not “set aside the Latin in favor of the Greek”. In the footnotes they often gave a translation of the Greek for comparison to the Latin.

Most of the time, the text was the Sixto-Clementine, but in a few places they used manuscripts older than the Clementine, particularly where they felt these were closer to the Greek.
 
Manfred said:
No, the introduction to it states that the translators had recourse to the Greek for clarifying some of the Vulgate’s obscurities. However, at that time (1941) the Confraternity was expected to be used in the TLM when the Epistle and Gospel were to be read to the Congregation. So they could not “set aside the Latin in favor of the Greek”. In the footnotes they often gave a translation of the Greek for comparison to the Latin.

Most of the time, the text was the Sixto-Clementine, but in a few places they used manuscripts older than the Clementine, particularly where they felt these were closer to the Greek.
Click to expand...
That’s the one I have. (Remember the other thread where we were discussing which Confraternity version people had?) I have that introduction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top