What is the "official" Bible of the Catholic Church? The KJV or Douay-Rheims?

[vnct0000]

What is the "official" Bible of the Catholic Church? The KJV or Douay-Rheims?

I'm not looking to debate you. I'm asking Catholics.

What is better? The KJV or Douay Rheims? Or other?

It's my understanding that the Douay Rheims was published years before the KJV, and that half of the verses in the KJV are basically a 'cheap rip-off' from the Douay Rheims which itself is based on the Latin Vulgate.

Also, does the Catholic Church regard the Latin Vulgate as more authoritative than the Greek Septuagint?

 

[PloverWing]

Wikipedia lists 23 different English translations that are considered acceptable for Catholic readers. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divino_afflante_Spiritu; see also the article here: https://www.catholic.com/tract/bible-translations-guide. This list from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/index.cfm includes a few new translations that weren't in the Wikipedia list.) From what I can tell, modern Catholic translators use the same kinds of principles as modern Protestant translators, looking for oldest and best manuscripts in the original languages.

I assume you're looking for official translations for the English-speaking portion of the Catholic church. A list of translations for speakers of other languages, or for use in Latin, would be different.

(Obviously, I invite correction from Catholic readers if I have gotten my facts wrong.)

 

[vnct0000]

Wikipedia lists 23 different English translations that are considered acceptable for Catholic readers. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divino_afflante_Spiritu; see also the article here: https://www.catholic.com/tract/bible-translations-guide. This list from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/index.cfm includes a few new translations that weren't in the Wikipedia list.) From what I can tell, modern Catholic translators use the same kinds of principles as modern Protestant translators, looking for oldest and best manuscripts in the original languages.

thank you for your thoughtful response.

it is my understanding that all of the versions in these lists are based either directly or indirectly on the douay rheims and latin vulgate, and/or modified to conform to the douay rheims and latin vulgate.

the original manuscripts for the greek new testament are regarded as heretical by the catholic church, so that the latin vulgate is instead preferred.

this means that the standard protestant bibles (KJV, ERV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB) are regarded by the catholic church as corrupt/heretical, since the new testament is based on original greek manuscripts and not on the latin vulgate.

the RSV and NRSV catholic editions have been modified to conform to the douay rheims and/or latin vulgate.

again, the catholic church regards the original greek new testament (upon which protestant bibles are based) as heretical and corrupt. this is why the KJV, ERV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB are essentially rejected as heretical by the catholic church.

 

[FireDragon76]

thank you for your thoughtful response.

it is my understanding that all of the versions in these lists are based either directly or indirectly on the douay rheims and latin vulgate, and/or modified to conform to the douay rheims and latin vulgate.

Now days Catholic Bibles are generally based on the same sort of biblical scholarship as what Protestants use.

I have a TEV New Testament that is approved by the Catholic Church, and it's identical to the ones Protestants use in terms of the actual biblical text, which is sort of ironic because the translation team was largely Baptist.

the original manuscripts for the greek new testament are regarded as heretical by the catholic church...

This isn't true. At Trent, Catholics reaffirmed that the Vulgate translation was Sacred Scriptures. That doesn't deny the value of biblical translations or the worth of studying original texts, necessarily.

"... Moreover, this sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. ..."

the RSV and NRSV catholic editions have been modified to conform to the douay rheims and/or latin vulgate.

Only by addition of the so-called Deuterocanonical books, the same books that are present in some Protestant versions of the Bible.

 

[vnct0000]

This isn't true. At Trent, Catholics reaffirmed that the Vulgate translation was Sacred Scriptures. That doesn't deny the value of biblical translations or the worth of studying original texts, necessarily.

"... Moreover, this sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. ..."

why then does the catholic church omit the protestant bibles (ASV, ERV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB) from their lists of official bibles?

 

[PloverWing]

why then does the catholic church omit the protestant bibles (ASV, ERV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB) from their lists of official bibles?

In some cases, translations don't include the Deuterocanonical books, and thus would incomplete from a Catholic point of view. But the RSV, NRSV, and ESV are all on the list of acceptable versions on the Wikipedia page I cited earlier.

 

[vnct0000]

In some cases, translations don't include the Deuterocanonical books, and thus would incomplete from a Catholic point of view. But the RSV, NRSV, and ESV are all on the list of acceptable versions on the Wikipedia page I cited earlier.

thank you.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

In Australia and in English the RCC uses the Jerusalem Bible.

 

[MarleneJ]

I bought the New American Bible before I was saved, and read it. Then God saved me! Looking back, it really was an excellent translation, it flows well, and is good with translating the Greek and Hebrew. What I didn't like, were all the Catholic footnotes, denying the verses said what they did. It wasn't just that it was Catholic doctrine they were promoting, it was basically wrong. (This Bible is also approved by the RCC)

As far as the Vulgate, I wouldn't give it the time of day. I read Greek and Hebrew, and it becomes apparent when you look at all the mistakes, that Jerome did not! He literally made up words, changed things. I don't think he had access to a lot of good manuscripts, in the 4th century, but it is more than that. He basically did not know the original languages well enough to translate. That being said, I know it is an important manuscript for comparison purposes.

I'm not Catholic, but I do own a Catholic Bible, because in Baptist seminary, we were required to read the Apocrypha and that was the best way to get it. Those books are pretty weird, not inspired. They say things that are no where else in Scripture, and sometimes even the history is just wrong. Although 1 Maccabees is supposed to be a good historical account, 2 Maccabees is not!

 

[tz620q]

What is the "official" Bible of the Catholic Church? The KJV or Douay-Rheims?

There is no "official" bible of the Catholic Church in the sense that we are allowed only one, since the church extends way beyond English-speaking countries. There are bibles that are authorized for usage in the Catholic Church in each country in regards to being read during church services; but other bibles are not condemned. So if someone brings a KJV to our bible study, they are welcome to use it. My first bible was a KJV and I find it to be a good translation.

What is better? The KJV or Douay Rheims? Or other?

Better is a matter of opinion. For me, bible scholarship has progressed in the last 500 years, so in my opinion, it is neither.

It's my understanding that the Douay Rheims was published years before the KJV, and that half of the verses in the KJV are basically a 'cheap rip-off' from the Douay Rheims which itself is based on the Latin Vulgate.

The New Testament part of the Douay Rheims was published in 1582. The Old Testament part was supposedly available to publish at that time but because of financial reasons did not come out until 1609. The first KJV version came out in 1611. I think it might be fairer to say that the KJV NT was at least partially based on the Rheims NT, which was based on the Vulgate. That was mainly because to European translators of that time, they were trained in Latin and the Vulgate was available to them and known to be ancient. Greek manuscripts available to them were later in date and fewer in number than what we have today. So do you make a translation from a translation that is more ancient or do you rely on less ancient manuscripts in the original Greek. They used both.

Also, does the Catholic Church regard the Latin Vulgate as more authoritative than the Greek Septuagint?

In the Catholic Church, bibles do not have authority, the church does. If you mean which is used more in bible translations today, then I would say the Greek Septuagint is used. That does not mean that they don't compare them back to the Latin Vulgate though. Jerome probably had access to manuscripts that have been lost through time, so he shouldn't be discounted just because the translation is in Latin and not in the original language.

 

[tz620q]

why then does the catholic church omit the protestant bibles (ASV, ERV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB) from their lists of official bibles?

Actually, the RSV-CE (Catholic Edition) is used from our lectionary, which is the podium that is used for bible readings. So it is accepted and even one of the "official" bibles within the Catholic Church in the U.S. We use the RSV-CE instead of the RSV because the deuturocanonicals are part of the cycle of readings in our church.

 

[tz620q]

Although 1 Maccabees is supposed to be a good historical account, 2 Maccabees is not!

Historical inaccuracies are used by atheists to discount the whole bible, so it is a slippery slope for one Christian to discount a book and throw it out of the bible based on that rational. I don't think 2 Maccabees was written purely as a historical record and was primarily written from a theological perspective. I can't read 2 Maccabees 7 without getting a knot in my throat. I think it should be read by all Christians. I know the story of the mother and her seven sons being killed because of their steadfastness to their covenant with God is brutal and to the squeamish might seem an unnecessary detail; but to later generations of Jews who had endured Greek rule only to fall under Roman rule, it is inspirational. In like manner, the book of Wisdom is a must read for me. The prophesies of Christ are some of the clearest written in the OT time.

 

[Erik Nelson]

https://taylormarshall.com/2010/08/7-reasons-why-i-love-old-douay-rheims.html

 

[fideetvirtute]

I know I'm several years late to the party, but I felt compelled to kindly clarify some misunderstandings about Catholic belief. The Catholic Church does not reject the authority of Sacred Scripture. The Church, the ekklesia, existed before the New Testament was compiled and formalized. What guided the Church for those 150 years before we had what we today know of as the "New Testament?" It was apostolic authority, passed down from Jesus to the Apostles, to their students, and so on. So, in the Catholic view, Tradition is also a source of authority, because it is what guided the nascent ekklesia. Sacred Scripture is also a source of authority because it's, well, sacred scripture.

Second, the Church doesn't have an "official" Bible translation because their official translation is the Septuagint, as with the Orthodox Church. The Clementine Vulgate, which is also highly esteemed second only to the Septuagint, was translated from text types of the Septuagint and Protomasoretic text types, both of which are hundreds of years older than the Masoretic text types we have available today. This is why the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church both read and esteem the deuterocanonical books, in a lesser esteem than the 66 books that we all use, hence the name, "secondary canon." The deuterocanonicals cover the intertestamental period before the Church arose.

 

[fideetvirtute]

The deuterocanonicals are read and esteemed because they were in the Septuagint, and indeed they were in all English Bibles, including the Douay-Rheims and King James Versions, until Protestant publishers deemed it prudent, from their perspective, to remove them.

 

[fideetvirtute]

As for my own personal tastes, I first encountered Jesus through the King James bible while in basic training for the Army years ago, and then later converted to Catholicism. It will always hold a special place in my heart. This is just a matter of personal preference, of course, but I find the King James Bible with apocrypha to be one of my favorites, even over the Douay-Rheims. It is closer to the Byzantine text types, which are highly esteemed by my Orthodox brethren. The Douay-Rheims comes from what I view as also a more reliable text type than the MT, being translated from the Clementine Vulgate. Just my two cents.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

thank you for your thoughtful response.

it is my understanding that all of the versions in these lists are based either directly or indirectly on the douay rheims and latin vulgate, and/or modified to conform to the douay rheims and latin vulgate.

the original manuscripts for the greek new testament are regarded as heretical by the catholic church, so that the latin vulgate is instead preferred.

this means that the standard protestant bibles (KJV, ERV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB) are regarded by the catholic church as corrupt/heretical, since the new testament is based on original greek manuscripts and not on the latin vulgate.

the RSV and NRSV catholic editions have been modified to conform to the douay rheims and/or latin vulgate.

again, the catholic church regards the original greek new testament (upon which protestant bibles are based) as heretical and corrupt. this is why the KJV, ERV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB are essentially rejected as heretical by the catholic church.

None of these statements are true.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

why then does the catholic church omit the protestant bibles (ASV, ERV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB) from their lists of official bibles?

The Roman Catholic Church does NOT have a list of official Bibles.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

In Australia and in English the RCC uses the Jerusalem Bible.

Not true!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I bought the New American Bible before I was saved, and read it. Then God saved me! Looking back, it really was an excellent translation, it flows well, and is good with translating the Greek and Hebrew. What I didn't like, were all the Catholic footnotes, denying the verses said what they did. It wasn't just that it was Catholic doctrine they were promoting, it was basically wrong. (This Bible is also approved by the RCC)

As far as the Vulgate, I wouldn't give it the time of day. I read Greek and Hebrew, and it becomes apparent when you look at all the mistakes, that Jerome did not! He literally made up words, changed things. I don't think he had access to a lot of good manuscripts, in the 4th century, but it is more than that. He basically did not know the original languages well enough to translate. That being said, I know it is an important manuscript for comparison purposes.

I'm not Catholic, but I do own a Catholic Bible, because in Baptist seminary, we were required to read the Apocrypha and that was the best way to get it. Those books are pretty weird, not inspired. They say things that are no where else in Scripture, and sometimes even the history is just wrong. Although 1 Maccabees is supposed to be a good historical account, 2 Maccabees is not!

The New American Bible is one of the most accurate English translations currently in use by English speaking people.

The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible (1971) has the following note on Rom. 3:21-31,

The justice of God is his mercy whereby he declares guilty man innocent and makes him so. He does this, not as a result of the law, but apart from it (v 21), not because of any merit of man, but through forgiveness of his sins (v 24) in virtue of the redemption wrought in Christ Jesus for all who believe (22-24f), No man can boast of his own holiness, since it is God’s free gift (27), both to the Jew who practices circumcision out of faith, and to the Gentile who accepts faith without the Old Testament religious culture symbolized by circumcision (29f).

The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible with the second edition of the New Testament (1986) has the following note on Rom. 3:21-31,

These verses provide a clear statement of Paul’s “gospel,” i.e., the principle of justification by faith in Christ. God has found a means of rescuing humanity from its desperate plight: Paul’s general term for this divine initiative is the righteousness of God (21). Divine mercy declares the guilty innocent and makes them so. God does this not as a result of the law but apart from it (21), and not because of any merit in human beings but through forgiveness of their sins (24), in virtue of the redemption wrought in Christ Jesus for all who believe (22, 24-25). God has manifested his righteousness in the coming of Jesus Christ, whose saving activity inaugurates a new era in human history.

The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible with the second edition of the New Testament (1986) has the following note on Rom. 4:3,

Jas 2, 24 appears to conflict with Paul’s statement. However, James combats the error of extremists who used the doctrine of justification through faith as a screen for moral self-determination. Paul discusses the subject of holiness in greater detail than does James and beginning with ch 6 shows how justification through faith introduces one to the gift of a new life in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, this is a Roman Catholic Bible with Roman Catholic notes published by the Catholic Book Publishing Company in New York with both the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat.