Which Bible

[porthos11]

I am a reader of the modern Bible translations (RSV-2CE, NABRE, etc.) and prefer them overall**, BUT** I have to agree with you ‘Confraternity Onlyists’ on this. Modern translations use many sources for their OT translations as most know; MT, LXX, DSS, etc, they have to make choices on which English equivalent word to use in some situations. I think in this situation of choosing to use ‘virgin’ or ‘young woman’ which clearly is a choice because the MT use the word ‘almah’ which means young woman and the LXX uses the word ‘parthenos’ which means virgin. So the translators have a choice here.

In my (un-scholarly and lowly) opinion, in a Catholic Bible translation, the translators should have used Church tradition and past usage as the deciding factor of which word to use, and that clearly comes down in the favor of** ‘virgin.’** Matthew’s Gospel clearly interprets it that way, past Catholic Bible translations, Lectionaries and the ECFs interpret it that way, so the choice is clear in my opinion!

The D-R, Confraternity, NAB, RSV-2CE use Virgin

The RSV-CE, Knox Bible, Jerusalem Bible, NJB, NABRE and CCB use Young Woman (or some equivalent)

I agree.

What is wrong, however is the any implication that translating almah as “young woman” Isaiah 7:14 is somehow evil, dishonest or the work of the devil. It isn’t. The only fault of such a rendering in the Old Testament is that it isn’t “traditional.” “Young woman” in the Old Testament passage is an accurate, honest translation and there is no anti-Christian bias whatsoever.

Throw Christian tradition in, and “virgin” is quite acceptable too. A simple footnote like “Gk; Heb. ‘young woman’” easily clears up any issues with the Hebrew.

It WOULD be wrong if that were the case in Matthew 1:23, though.

 

[po18guy]

1953 and 1954 Confraternity versions are good–they have the first eight books of the bible translated and the Psalms aren’t messed up.

In 1955 in the revised Confraternity Psalms they started in Psalms 1 with “Happy is the man” instead of “Blessed is the man”. There’s a big difference between Blessed and Happy.

That’s why my recommendation is for Confraternity bibles BEFORE 1955.

It is true though–even quibbles with the Psalms aside–that ALL Confraternity bible up through 1969 are superior to the NAB.

po18guy: I wouldn’t say that we’re Confraternity Onlyists–maybe we’re Confraternity only because everything else isn’t as good.

1. Compare the list of revisers and editors from the 1941-195X Confraternity (all ordained clergy) to those involved in the NAB/RE (substantial mix of lay “experts” and one non-Catholic). This is a caution flag in the case of the NAB, as it introduces the “vote” of the laity into a bible interpretation - signs of the impending democratization of the Church…
2. The NAB appeared during the reign of the “spirit of Vatican II”, which lead many, even in the Church hierarchy, astray. I find it curious that, during the ascension of the “spirit of Vatican II” that the Confraternity Bible was either killed, or allowed to die. Spiritually, there is an uncomfortable indication, if not a direct message there.

 

[porthos11]

I think the point here being that ‘almah’ was culturally understood to be a virgin without specifying virgin. Virginity was perhaps implicit and explicit in almah, whereas “virgin” applies to all ages within that category. A 90 year old virgin is still a virgin. The NAB/RE NT goes on to use “virgin” pertaining to Mary - but virgin specifies no age group. Mary could technically have been an old maid, but still of child-beraring age, and thus, not compliant with Isaiah’s prophecy, i.e. not being young.

And this is taken care of in Matthew’s quote from the LXX.

In the immediate context if Isaiah’s prophecy, he was not prophesying the birth of a messiah. He was simply indicating a normal, natural birth of a Judean baby whose date of birth would mark the beginning of the fall of Syria and Israel. Other than the timing, there was nothing particularly remarkable about this baby or the young woman who was his mother.

However, as with all prophecy, this one waited for a full fulfillment in Christ and Matthew by providence found his passage in the LXX, which had clearly been written to prophesy a virgin birth, rather than the natural birth given in the Hebrew original. Call it providence that the LXX translated almah this way, but Biblical translators are under no obligation to refer to the LXX if there is no evidence of corruption in the Hebrew text.

 

[po18guy]

And this is taken care of in Matthew’s quote from the LXX.

In the immediate context if Isaiah’s prophecy, he was not prophesying the birth of a messiah. He was simply indicating a normal, natural birth of a Judean baby whose date of birth would mark the beginning of the fall of Syria and Israel. Other than the timing, there was nothing particularly remarkable about this baby or the young woman who was his mother.

However, as with all prophecy, this one waited for a full fulfillment in Christ and Matthew by providence found his passage in the LXX, which had clearly been written to prophesy a virgin birth, rather than the natural birth given in the Hebrew original. Call it providence that the LXX translated almah this way, but Biblical translators are under no obligation to refer to the LXX if there is no evidence of corruption in the Hebrew text.

This particular portion of Isaiah’s prophecy, by itself, meant little. A young woman with child is as common as gains of sand. Prophecy, as with scripture, is a seamless whole and must be considered in its entirety.

The same with Zecharia’s prophecy of lamentation over the “only son” and “first born” who was pierced through in chapter 12, verse 10. We cannot separate out those aspects of prophecy that may not fit our beliefs - rather, we must conform our beliefs to the entirety of prophecy.

 

[ajcstr]

Ah, but the USCCB is just barely giving full disclosure here. They list only those editions approved since 1983. This is easily misleading, since only in the fine print will you learn that all editions approved prior to 1983 are still approved. Rather curiously, the USCCB does not approve of the RSV-2CE, but does approve of the gender-neutral NRSV-CE.

No prior approved edition has ever been “de-approved” That leaves the Douay-Rheims, the excellent Confraternity Bible and the KNOX Translation (Bishop Sheen’s personal favorite). I consider all of them as far superior to the NAB or the RE.

Wonder why the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) is not on the list?

 

[Reborn2013]

I am new to this forum and am trying to decide which Bible would be best for me. A little back round, I’ve been Catholic my entire life, attended Catholic school from 1st grade to college, married with 2 kids. I really don’t feel like I know the Bible and so many times when I listen to the readings at Mass I don’t understand or just have a lot of questions. So I’m looking for a Catholic Bible that is easy to read that would have explanations and maybe a backround on what the whole story is around that particular reading so maybe I would understand it better. I’ve been researching and my head is just spinning. Thanks for any help!

You’re at the wrong place. Didn’t anyone tell you that Catholics don’t read the Bible

 

[po18guy]

Wonder why the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) is not on the list?

Also very curious that the RSV-2CE is not there, but the “inclusive language” NRSV-CE is. Some have asserted that the USCCB has been overly influenced by lay activists.

 

[ajcstr]

Also very curious that the RSV-2CE is not there, but the “inclusive language” NRSV-CE is. Some have asserted that the USCCB has been overly influenced by lay activists.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the RSV-2CE is proprietary to Ignatius Press? Its basically the RSV with the deuterocans and some word changes (I’m thinking of brethren vs brothers of Jesus, etc), not a fresh translation. Or else it may be because they are considering it a variant of the RSV which was translated prior to 1983.

In either event, obviously a solid translation.

Also, didn’t the USCCB say the NRSV-CE could not be used in liturgy because of the inclusive language?

 

[porthos11]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the RSV-2CE is proprietary to Ignatius Press? Its basically the RSV with the deuterocans and some word changes (I’m thinking of brethren vs brothers of Jesus, etc), not a fresh translation. Or else it may be because they are considering it a variant of the RSV which was translated prior to 1983.

In either event, obviously a solid translation.

Also, didn’t the USCCB say the NRSV-CE could not be used in liturgy because of the inclusive language?

The RSV-2CE is an Ignatius exclusive. The key changes are the removal of almost all remaining archaic language (thees and thous), some text/footnote swapping and minor edits to bring it to at least minimum conformity with the directives of Liturgiam authenticam.

The RSV-2CE is now the approved Bible version for the Anglican Use lectionary for Mass. And yes, it is solid.

 

[rotlex]

Actually, it is a heavily modified NAB/RE that we hear at mass. The bible that you and I can buy is not approved for liturgical use by the Vatican due to its relentless gender-neutral language and other issues.

Main issues I have with the NAB and its derivative:

1. Mary is not full of grace (Luke 1:28)
2. Paul did not forgive sins in the person of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:10)
3. Mary’s soul does not magnify the Lord (Luke 1:46)
4. Mary is not blessed for her belief, (Luke 1:45) but only for believing that God would actually do what He said.
5. The mother of the Messiah, a “young woman” is not described as a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)
6. The word “hell” does not appear in this bible.
7. Let’s not even get started on the horrible notes and intros, non-clerical “theologians” and a Presbyterian pastor (a Calvinist) that were involved in this “Catholic” translation.

As a practical matter, it is far easier to defend Catholic doctrine from a King James Version than it is from this “approved” Catholic bible.

To the OP: Get a Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition and you will be well served.

But what I always find amusing is that the KJV lists ALL of the things you mention here, with the exception of “full of grace”.

 

[po18guy]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the RSV-2CE is proprietary to Ignatius Press? Its basically the RSV with the deuterocans and some word changes (I’m thinking of brethren vs brothers of Jesus, etc), not a fresh translation. Or else it may be because they are considering it a variant of the RSV which was translated prior to 1983.

In either event, obviously a solid translation.

Also, didn’t the USCCB say the NRSV-CE could not be used in liturgy because of the inclusive language?

1. I believe that many of the “authorized translations” listed on the USCCB website are proprietary and that the USCCB holds the copyright only to the NAB/RE.
2. The RSV, in all of its Catholic editions, is a “Catholic polished” Protestant translation. Oddly enough, all English language catechisms, including the USCCB’s own version, use scripture quotes from the RSV/NRSV. Of course, the USCCB does not financially benefit from the sale of the RSV, and so pushes its own NAB/RE.
3. As I understand it, the USCCB intended to use its proprietary NAB translation in the liturgy, and submitted it to the Vatican. It was the Vatican who noted various problems in the translation and rejected it. Numerous alterations were required before the NAB was found acceptable for liturgical use. As mentioned, the current US liturgical version is not generally available to the public. I find that very strange.

Due to such issues as these, and the documented difficulties with the USCCB’s own CCHD, I have come to believe that the USCCB is comprised of a minority of Bishops, and that activist laity have steered its course toward modernism for some time.

 

[po18guy]

But what I always find amusing is that the KJV lists ALL of the things you mention here, with the exception of “full of grace”.

It is far easier to defend Catholic doctrine using the KJV than it is the NAB. Something wrong there…

 

[HillbillyHermit]

It is far easier to defend Catholic doctrine using the KJV than it is the NAB. Something wrong there…

I’ve been thinking about reading the whole KJV in a year or two. Besides it’s literary value, this thread makes me want to do it even more.

 

[Razanir]

It is far easier to defend Catholic doctrine using the KJV than it is the NAB. Something wrong there…

Two things that’d really be fun, though:

1. Only using the New World Translation to refute Jehovah’s Witnesses
2. Only using the King James deuterocanon (yes, it exists) to argue against KJV-onlyists

 

[po18guy]

I’ve been thinking about reading the whole KJV in a year or two. Besides it’s literary value, this thread makes me want to do it even more.

Although the KJV is often praised for the literary beauty of its OT, its NT has been panned by the Church for languishing in that regard. The D-R NT has been said to be superior in that regard. Will have to look into that.

But the KJV(D) is still incomplete - they just couldn’t keep from messing with God’s word!

 

[po18guy]

Two things that’d really be fun, though:

1. Only using the New World Translation to refute Jehovah’s Witnesses
2. Only using the King James deuterocanon (yes, it exists) to argue against KJV-onlyists

The New Weird Translation is $4 at Goodwill. I’m not going to lay out that kind of money!

As to the KJV Anglo-supremacists, I think there may be no help available for them.

 

[HillbillyHermit]

Although the KJV is often praised for the literary beauty of its OT, its NT has been panned by the Church for languishing in that regard. The D-R NT has been said to be superior in that regard. Will have to look into that.

But the KJV(D) is still incomplete - they just couldn’t keep from messing with God’s word!

Or, I’ll just stick with my RSV-CE.

 

[po18guy]

Or, I’ll just stick with my RSV-CE.

You know, bible collecting is a wonderful hobby for Catholics. I find 60+ year old Catholic bibles in excelent condition in thrift stores and on eBay. Sadly, that is because they have not been read

 

[HillbillyHermit]

You know, bible collecting is a wonderful hobby for Catholics. I find 60+ year old Catholic bibles in excelent condition in thrift stores and on eBay. Sadly, that is because they have not been read

If having translations on the computer counts, I have a whole bunch of 'em. But, the software doesn’t get used much other than for searches and quick comparisons. It doesn’t stick with me as well as when having a physical copy.

There is a little thrift store in town that I haven’t been to in probably a decade or so…

 

[po18guy]

If having translations on the computer counts, I have a whole bunch of 'em. But, the software doesn’t get used much other than for searches and quick comparisons. It doesn’t stick with me as well as when having a physical copy.

There is a little thrift store in town that I haven’t been to in probably a decade or so…

Examples? A leather-bound 1949 Confraternity Catholic bible $1.99 at Goodwill. A VG/EX 1953 Belmont Abbey family bible on eBay for $4 and postage. Amazing bargains. Almost stealing. It’s a treasure hunt!