Bible translaions

[scoobydoo]

What Bible translations are used by the Eastern Catholic Churches? Which ones are approved by the Eastern Catholic Churches? Which are used as the lectionary translation or Epistle and Gospel? For this I would to know what is accepted in English speaking countries.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by scoobydoo

What Bible translations are used by the Eastern Catholic Churches? Which ones are approved by the Eastern Catholic Churches? Which are used as the lectionary translation or Epistle and Gospel? For this I would to know what is accepted in English speaking countries.

The Byzantine Catholic Church (USA) uses the 1970 NAB for the Epistle and Gospel.

The scriptures used in the Divine Liturgy have been modified from the 1970-1991 NAB, and the 1963 Grail Psalms.

History of the NAB and NABRE is:

New Testament
- 1941 (Confraternity), 1970, 1986

Old Testament
- Genesis - 1948, 1970
- Psalms - 1949, 1955, 1991
- Exodus to Ruth - 1952
- The Sapiental books - 1955
- Prophetic books - 1961
- Samuel to Maccabees - 1969

NABRE = 2011 revision of the Old Testament

[rciadan]

Originally Posted by Vico

The Byzantine Catholic Church (USA) uses the 1970 NAB for the Epistle and Gospel.

The scriptures used in the Divine Liturgy have been modified from the 1970-1991 NAB, and the 1963 Grail Psalms.

History of the NAB and NABRE is:

New Testament
- 1941 (Confraternity), 1970, 1986

Old Testament
- Genesis - 1948, 1970
- Psalms - 1949, 1955, 1991
- Exodus to Ruth - 1952
- The Sapiental books - 1955
- Prophetic books - 1961
- Samuel to Maccabees - 1969

NABRE = 2011 revision of the Old Testament

Really????
The NAB is one of the worst translations ever! It may as well be Protestant!

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by rciadan

Really????
The NAB is one of the worst translations ever! It may as well be Protestant!

You seem surprised I don't know if I can agree with you, but I am sure you have your reasons.

It happens to be approved by the bishops, and it is on the Vatican website.

[Nine_Two]

The OCA specifically prohibits the use of the NRSV in bible studies or the liturgy. Other than that any translation may be used. As Hesychios notes, NAB is most common in liturgy. I'd guess NKJV is most common in private use, due to the popularity of the OSB, but I really have nothing to back that up.

[dzheremi]

The Coptic Orthodox Church uses the NKJV. There is no OO equivalent of the OSB (though our priests tell me that the OSB is acceptable for private use, and there are many copies in our church that are used for Bible study), and I'm under the impression that the Arabic translations of the Bible that are available are mostly or entirely of Protestant origins, so the NKJV is the best of what's around. I have no idea what the Coptic NT readings are based on (I know the OT is LXX, in common with all Orthodox Churches), but we don't generally have Coptic-language readings outside of Holy Week, so I guess it doesn't come up too often.

[rciadan]

I am aware of these facts. Consider the following passages from the "Preface to the New American Bible, OId Testament". I have also quoted passages from Providentissimus Deus, an Encyclical of Pope Leo Xiii, on the Study of Holy Scripture. I will refer to Providentissimus Deus as "Pope Pius Xiii", also, all words printed in red in order to draw attention were originally in the same color font as the rest of the words surrounding them.

Preface:The first English Catholic version of the Bible, the Douay-Rheims (1582-1609/10), and its revision by Bishop Challoner (1750) were based on the Latin Vulgate. In view of the relative certainties more recently attained by textual and higher criticism, it has become increasingly desirable that contemporary translations of the sacred books into English be prepared in which due reverence for the text and strict observance of the rules of criticism would be combined.

• Pope Pius XIII: There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of the "higher criticism," which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone. It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted "higher criticism" will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics.

Preface: The New American Bible has accomplished this in response to the need of the church in America today. It is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work. The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that "correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books," but that, "with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers" so that "all Christians may be able to use them."

• Pope Pius XIII: But it is most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or contempt, the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance, and to have recourse to the works of non-Catholics -- and to seek in them, to the detriment of sound doctrine and often to the peril of faith, the explanation of passages on which Catholics long ago have successfully employed their talent and their labor. For although the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student, he should, nevertheless, bear well in mind -- as the Fathers also teach in numerous passages[41] -- that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt out side of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.

I also recommend reading "Which Bible Should You Read?" By: Thomas A. Nelson
Here is a link;
https://www.catholicbooksellers.com/merchantmanager/product_info.php?products_id=284

BTW- I can also heartily recommend the other books listed on this site, especially "The Incredible Catholic Mass"

[Vico]

Originally Posted by rciadan

Really????
The NAB is one of the worst translations ever! It may as well be Protestant!

The dynamic equivalence does make it easier for younger people to understand. The 1970 NAB does not have the inclusive language like the 1986 and later.

I like the Douay-Rheims-Challoner and the King James (with Apocrypha), both of which require a higher grade level of understanding. The main difference being that the KJV uses the Antiochian texts rather than the Alexandrian texts as the DRC does. The Catholic Church has always stayed with the Alexandrian texts, whereas the Reformed and Protestant favored the Antiochian texts.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by rciadan

I am aware of these facts. Consider ...

Please don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion. I can see that this may be a problem for you but the NAB is approved by your church. I wonder at the surprise, do you consider yourself a traditionalist? If so, does your parish use the Douay-Rheims?

It really isn't a surprise Eastern Christians (specifically Eastern Catholics) use the NAB when it has been used for decades in thousands of Latin rite churches as well. The bishops have decided upon it and so it goes.

I guess what I am trying to say is it is not so much an Eastern Catholic concern as it is a Communion-wide concern.

I am not entirely too fond of the NAB myself, I have always had several different translations at hand and the NAB is not my usual choice for reading or study. My church does not use it in liturgy. But the reality is that this is a USCCB issue and it is in that context that the best Bible translation should be debated.

BTW, out of respect for the Catholic Answers forum I have always had a policy of quoting the NAB when posting, and only a few times have I ever quoted anything else, and that would be the Douay-Rheims Challoner.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by scoobydoo

What Bible translations are used by the Eastern Catholic Churches? Which ones are approved by the Eastern Catholic Churches? Which are used as the lectionary translation or Epistle and Gospel? For this I would to know what is accepted in English speaking countries.

The ones approved by their respective synods. Sometimes what is approved by the Catholic Episcopal Conference, which the Eastern Catholic Bishops are a part of.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by scoobydoo

What Bible translations are used by the Eastern Catholic Churches? Which ones are approved by the Eastern Catholic Churches? Which are used as the lectionary translation or Epistle and Gospel? For this I would to know what is accepted in English speaking countries.

The Melkite Greek Catholics typically use either the editions of the Apostol and Evangelium (Apostolic Letters and Gospels) translated by Archbishop Joseph Raya and Baron Jose deVinck, or they'll use the Apostol and/or Evangelium translated and published from Orthodox sources. My own parish uses the Apostol published by Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Theological Seminary and the Evangelium translated by Kyr Raya.

[rciadan]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

Please don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion. I can see that this may be a problem for you but the NAB is approved by your church. I wonder at the surprise, do you consider yourself a traditionalist? If so, does your parish use the Douay-Rheims?

It really isn't a surprise Eastern Christians (specifically Eastern Catholics) use the NAB when it has been used for decades in thousands of Latin rite churches as well. The bishops have decided upon it and so it goes.

I guess what I am trying to say is it is not so much an Eastern Catholic concern as it is a Communion-wide concern.

I am not entirely too fond of the NAB myself, I have always had several different translations at hand and the NAB is not my usual choice for reading or study. My church does not use it in liturgy. But the reality is that this is a USCCB issue and it is in that context that the best Bible translation should be debated.

BTW, out of respect for the Catholic Answers forum I have always had a policy of quoting the NAB when posting, and only a few times have I ever quoted anything else, and that would be the Douay-Rheims Challoner.

Yes, it is approved, but I am not bound to like it or to consider it a good translation. Neither is the approval at a doctrinal level: it is not deemed an infallible decision. I think the fact that it has gone through so many "revisions" in so short a span of time proves that! Pope Leo XIII warned us of what would happen if a translation such as this was approved, and all he warned us of has come to fruition...
And no, I do not consider myself a "Traditionalist".

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by rciadan

Yes, it is approved, but I am not bound to like it or to consider it a good translation. Neither is the approval at a doctrinal level: it is not deemed an infallible decision. I think the fact that it has gone through so many "revisions" in so short a span of time proves that! Pope Leo XIII warned us of what would happen if a translation such as this was approved, and all he warned us of has come to fruition...

Well, to be honest I don't think there ever was an infallible directive on which translation is best.

Even the Vulgate has had to be corrected.

This has nothing to do with infallibility and everything to do with authority and jurisdiction. If one is under the jurisdiction of a bishop, one accepts that bishop's authority in these matters.

But you are right to say you don't have to like it, and of course if enough bishops come around to the same conclusion they can authorize something else, and ask the Pope to approve.

Originally Posted by rciadan

And no, I do not consider myself a "Traditionalist".

I meant no offense, so I hope you did not take it that way. Years ago I considered myself something of a traditionalist, but these days the term is not relevant to me.

I wasn't sure, because I thought perhaps the EF, employing the Missal of 1962, was authorized to use the Douay-Rhiems. I really don't know the current regulations about that and I was hoping to learn something one way or another.

Some individuals coming from that environment might be surprised to learn many EC parishes (often perceived as more traditional) are using the NAB. It was just a guess. Your surprise threw me off.

kind regards

[rciadan]

I did not take offense. It is just that most of those I know who think of themselves as "Traditionalist" are SSPX, and I will always be in Communion with the Holy See. I do prefer the TLM to the Novus Ordo though, mainly because there are so many abuses in the NO.
As far as the Douay; it has been authorized since the council of Trent...and in use longer than the KJV.

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

The Coptic Orthodox Church uses the NKJV. There is no OO equivalent of the OSB (though our priests tell me that the OSB is acceptable for private use, and there are many copies in our church that are used for Bible study), and I'm under the impression that the Arabic translations of the Bible that are available are mostly or entirely of Protestant origins, so the NKJV is the best of what's around. I have no idea what the Coptic NT readings are based on (I know the OT is LXX, in common with all Orthodox Churches), but we don't generally have Coptic-language readings outside of Holy Week, so I guess it doesn't come up too often.

I read the NKJV for private use,but of course I do have other Bibles and Catholic ones as well.