Why is the King James version of the Bible the most known

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna,

An English translation of the Vulgate does exist. It’s called the Douay-Rheims Bible. However, the English translation of the Catechism references the RSV-CE. I agree with you that it is indeed a very curious situation, but it may not be that difficult to understand. I can’t speak for the Holy See, but I can speculate on their reasons for this. . . .

Filii Dei,
I am aware that the Douay-Rheims is an English translation of St. Jerome’s Vulgate. I appreciate your comments about why the CCC doesn’t use the Douay Rheims.

Indeed, the RSV and NRSV are used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, The Catholic Bible Association had to obtain permission from the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States to use the RSV and NRSV.

Quote from the CCC:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
“Scripture quotations contained herein are adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States, and are used by permission. All rights reserved.”

So, the Catholic Bible Association adopted the Revised Standard Version, used primarily by non-Catholics and edited it for Catholic use. The RSV became the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. It has been reissued under the title, The Ignatius Bible (there may be other titles at this point).

This is a quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

“This edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible has been prepared for the use of Catholics by a committee of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. It is published with ecclesiastical approval and by agreement with the Standard Bible Committee and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States. . . . A small committee of members of the Catholic Bible Association was formed and permission obtained to examine this translation and suggest any changes that might be required to make it acceptable to Catholics. The Standard Bible Committee of the U.S.A. was then approached and they gave warm welcome to the proposal."

There were very few changes made to produce the RSV-Catholic Edition. Most changes involve what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes in the case of variants among early manuscripts. While commentaries reflect Catholic theology, the translation remains essentially unchanged.

Even though the RSV and NRSV are considered “ecumenical” translations, the Catholic Bible Association found the need to explain their use of translations, used primarily by non-Catholics—as reflected in this quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

“For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other’s translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions. It must be admitted that these suspicions were not always without foundation. At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike.”

With all the resources of the Catholic Church; I’m surprised by the Catholic Bible Association’s adoption of the RSV and NRSV, rather than using a translation purely from Catholic sources.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Filii_Dei]

Filii Dei,
I am aware that the Douay-Rheims is an English translation of St. Jerome’s Vulgate. I appreciate your comments about why the CCC doesn’t use the Douay Rheims.

Indeed, the RSV and NRSV are used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, The Catholic Bible Association had to obtain permission from the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States to use the RSV and NRSV.

Quote from the CCC:

So, the Catholic Bible Association adopted the Revised Standard Version, used primarily by non-Catholics and edited it for Catholic use. The RSV became the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. It has been reissued under the title, The Ignatius Bible (there may be other titles at this point).

This is a quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

There were very few changes made to produce the RSV-Catholic Edition. Most changes involve what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes in the case of variants among early manuscripts. While commentaries reflect Catholic theology, the translation remains essentially unchanged.

Even though the RSV and NRSV are considered “ecumenical” translations, the Catholic Bible Association found the need to explain their use of translations, used primarily by non-Catholics—as reflected in this quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

With all the resources of the Catholic Church; I’m surprised by the Catholic Bible Association’s adoption of the RSV and NRSV, rather than using a translation purely from Catholic sources.

Peace,
Anna

Hi Anna,

Ah yes, I forgot to contemplate the second part of the question, namely, why NRSV and RSV instead of some other Catholic translation. In fact, I find it rather shameful that it had not occurred to me earlier. Thank you for pointing it out.

As you might imagine, this part of the question is far more ambiguous. As you may be aware, the Catholic Church lectionary employs the New American Bible within America, and the Jerusalem Bible without (exception: Canada uses the NRSV-CE).

This actually puzzles me even more. Given that the availability of not one but two translations of the Bible done by Catholic organisations, it would be puzzling why they would choose to quote a Protestant edition of the Bible.

I could argue that choosing neither the NAB nor the JB was intended to show no preferential treatment to either the American or non-American sources, but that reasoning seems rather weak to me. Alternatively, one could say that the NRSV and RSV are the best choice due to their level of biblical scholarship, but the JB and NAB are both of high quality as well.

I’m afraid I can be of no further help. If only there were somebody from the Vatican to shed some light on this. :yukonjoe:

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anti-Catholic sentiment in the South was the issue which prompted this statement (and it’s still a very real thing …please pray about this, friends). I think he just meant that he, personally, when facing persecution of that nature, doesn’t let it bring him down.

Thanks, Indiana J,
Sometimes, I totally misunderstand why someone says.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Indiana_Jones]

Thanks, Indiana J,
Sometimes, I totally misunderstand why someone says.

Peace,
Anna

Haha no worries…I do the same thing with remarkable frequency!

 

[Indiana_Jones]

Hi Anna,

Ah yes, I forgot to contemplate the second part of the question, namely, why NRSV and RSV instead of some other Catholic translation…

I was actually wondering about this myself earlier. I’d be interested in hearing the answer, if anybody out there can shed some light! I was sort of a Bible collector when I was Anglican, so RSV and NRSV seem pretty ordinary to me (along with several others); but I guess they would seem like curious choices if one was accustomed to the DR or the NAB.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . Alternatively, one could say that the NRSV and RSV are the best choice due to their level of biblical scholarship, but the JB and NAB are both of high quality as well.

I’m afraid I can be of no further help. If only there were somebody from the Vatican to shed some light on this. :yukonjoe:

Filii Dei,
I think the Jerusalem Bible and NAB are both good translations. I especially like the NJB.

I would also assume Biblical scholarship would be a factor in choosing the RSV/NRSV for the CCC. It does indicate Catholics and non-Catholics are on the same page, at least with these translations. The RSV/NRSV are, after all, ecumenical translations.

Still, it would seem that the Catholic Church would have great resources. When I think of the Vatican library; I wish I had the knowledge of ancient languages and a free pass to the library. But that is wishful thinking.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I was actually wondering about this myself earlier. I’d be interested in hearing the answer, if anybody out there can shed some light! I was sort of a Bible collector when I was Anglican, so RSV and NRSV seem pretty ordinary to me (along with several others); but I guess they would seem like curious choices if one was accustomed to the DR or the NAB.

Hey Indiana,
I collect translations too. Fortunately, I’ve received many of them as gifts. My Jewish friends even gave me The Torah: A Modern Commentary—fascinating. It has the English and Hebrew side by side. Now, if I could only read Hebrew. . . .

Peace,
Anna

 

[Filii_Dei]

Filii Dei,
I think the Jerusalem Bible and NAB are both good translations. I especially like the NJB.

I would also assume Biblical scholarship would be a factor in choosing the RSV/NRSV for the CCC. It does indicate Catholics and non-Catholics are on the same page, at least with these translations. The RSV/NRSV are, after all, ecumenical translations.

Still, it would seem that the Catholic Church would have great resources. When I think of the Vatican library; I wish I had the knowledge of ancient languages and a free pass to the library. But that is wishful thinking.

Peace,
Anna

Much agreed, my friend. I have used the NJB, and I’ve been meaning to obtain a copy. It is a shame that neither it nor the NAB were used, but I am sure the Church has its good reasons for choosing the RSV/NRSV. They would not have taken such a decision lightly.

As an aside, it also appears that the NJB will be superseded by a new project called Bibles In Its Traditions. I’m interested to see how it will turn out. The demonstration volumes appear very promising so far. It appears to be a huge undertaking in creating a detailed and comprehensive Bible commentary firmly rooted in tradition, if rather intimidating, given the mountain of analysis that comes out of it, covering every possible angle.

bibest.org/vd/en/02.Jas5.en.pdf

The Vatican Secret Archives are indeed a wealth of knowledge. Many intellectuals and historians wish that they would be given a chance to have a peek at what is stored in those hallowed vaults. In fact, then-Cardinal Ratzinger actually asked Pope John Paul II if he could resign as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and retire as an archivist in the Archives. The good Pope declined his request, of course.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Much agreed, my friend. I have used the NJB, and I’ve been meaning to obtain a copy. It is a shame that neither it nor the NAB were used, but I am sure the Church has its good reasons for choosing the RSV/NRSV. They would not have taken such a decision lightly.

As an aside, it also appears that the NJB will be superseded by a new project called Bibles In Its Traditions. I’m interested to see how it will turn out. The demonstration volumes appear very promising so far. It appears to be a huge undertaking in creating a detailed and comprehensive Bible commentary firmly rooted in tradition, if rather intimidating, given the mountain of analysis that comes out of it, covering every possible angle.

bibest.org/vd/en/02.Jas5.en.pdf

Filii Dei,

Wow, now I have something to look forward to. I haven’t seen any “study” Bible that comes close to the scope of this project. I wonder how long it will take to complete the project. I’ll keep an eye on this. Thanks so much for posting the link.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

The Vatican Secret Archives are indeed a wealth of knowledge. Many intellectuals and historians wish that they would be given a chance to have a peek at what is stored in those hallowed vaults. In fact, then-Cardinal Ratzinger actually asked Pope John Paul II if he could resign as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and retire as an archivist in the Archives. The good Pope declined his request, of course.

Filii Dei,

Well, at least he had a sense of humor. I’m a fan of Pope John Paul II.

I did see a documentary on the Vatican Archives. It gave a glimpse. Fascinating.

Peace,
Anna

 

[CalCatholic]

Much agreed, my friend. I have used the NJB, and I’ve been meaning to obtain a copy. It is a shame that neither it nor the NAB were used, but I am sure the Church has its good reasons for choosing the RSV/NRSV. They would not have taken such a decision lightly.

The Vatican (imho) probably used the RSV/NRSV for the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) because they are formal (more literal) translations that are recognized by scholars from Catholic, Orthodox, and most mainline Protestant denominations. The CCC is published not only for Catholics to read, but also for others to understand what it is that the Catholic Church believes. The Vatican does not use ‘inclusive language’ in the Scripture verses it uses for for these official documents (such as the CCC), so that is why the** NJB** and the NAB probably were not considered. Another reason might be that the** NJB** reflects ‘British English’ while the NAB reflects ‘American English’. That leaves the RSV and NRSV which are ‘neutral English.’

So why the** RSV and the NRSV together? Again (imho) the Vatican could not use the RSV by itself because it uses some archaic language (thees and thous) and the NRSV could not be used by itself because it uses inclusive language, so a combination of the two were used to eliminate both problems. Since the NRSV** is an updated version of the RSV, it made combining the two easier.

Today the RSV-2CE (from Ignatius Press) would have been the ideal solution to this problem, but it was not published until 2006 which was long after the publication of the CCC.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .The CCC is published not only for Catholics to read, but also for others to understand what it is that the Catholic Church believes. . . .

CalCatholic,
I have the CCC and refer to it often. It is an incredible resource.

Peace,
Anna