Confraternity Version

While used book shopping I happened to find a 1961 Confraternity Version of the Bible. It includes translations for Genesis-Ruth, Job-Sirach and the prophetical books for the Old Testament. The NT is all the Confraternity translation. I rather like it, in spite of the differences in names, but I have a couple of questions about it.

  1. Is it considered to be a good translation? In my hunting around I found on EWTN’s site I found this: "Though hard to find, this edition of the Scriptures is worth possessing." ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
    Not that I don’t trust EWTN, but I have found in other threads here that there is at least one questionable note in it. (Now I can’t find the thread :banghead: but I did check the footnote. It was in Mark.)

  2. Why was this version scrapped for the NAB? I keep seeing mention of it being scrapped in favor of the NAB. From what I can tell, they didn’t have much work left on the Confraternity OT. Seems to me like it is an awful lot of work gone to waste.

Anybody know?

TinaK

In a used bookstore a couple years ago, I came across The Family Rosary Bible, which, even though I was practising Asatru at the time, I picked up. It has the Confraternity version of the New Testament and Psalms, the rest of the OT is the D-R Challoner revision. It’s a wonderful edition of the Bible with plenty of footnotes, two Papal encyclicals on interpreting and understanding Scripture, pages and pages of painitings of Biblical scense from old masters, a photo tour of the Vatican, outlines of the seven Sacraments…

I’m so glad now that I picked it up then. Even Heathens can get promptings from the Holy Spirit.

I love the Confraternity version! It is largely a language update of the D-R (mostly pronouns and removing the eth/est endings), but some of the best known passages preserve the original D-R wording entirely.

As near as I can tell, the move to the NAB was to go with a translation based on the oldest extent documents and take advantage of “modern Biblical scholarship” (which most of us here seem to see as the biggest problem with the NAB), whereas the Confraternity version was based on the Vulgate.

[quote=TinaK]While used book shopping I happened to find a 1961 Confraternity Version of the Bible. It includes translations for Genesis-Ruth, Job-Sirach and the prophetical books for the Old Testament. The NT is all the Confraternity translation. I rather like it, in spite of the differences in names, but I have a couple of questions about it.

  1. Is it considered to be a good translation? In my hunting around I found on EWTN’s site I found this: "Though hard to find, this edition of the Scriptures is worth possessing." ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
    Not that I don’t trust EWTN, but I have found in other threads here that there is at least one questionable note in it. (Now I can’t find the thread :banghead: but I did check the footnote. It was in Mark.)

  2. Why was this version scrapped for the NAB? I keep seeing mention of it being scrapped in favor of the NAB. From what I can tell, they didn’t have much work left on the Confraternity OT. Seems to me like it is an awful lot of work gone to waste.

Anybody know?

TinaK
[/quote]

Tina,

“Lapsed” gave a decent answer to your question. To amplify:

When Pius XII issued Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943, work on the so-called “Confraternity version (CV)” was terminated, since the latter was from the Vulgate and the scholars wanted to go with the “original-language” manuscripts. Now - the texts you have of Genesis-Ruth (1952), Job-Sirach (1955), the Prophets (1961) are, with VERY few changes, what is in the NAB of 1970. The CV NT, however, is from the Vulgate and is vastly superior to ANY NAB NT.

Though I was “raised” in Catholic grammar and high schools on the CV NT and got quite used to its renderings, there are, to my knowledge, only two that I would question to wit, John 2:4 and 1Timothy 6:10. compare both with either the D-R or the RSV-CE.

Manfred

I like the Confraternity version much better than the NAB. I have a Bible from the 50s (poor thing…the covers are falling off…if anyone knows where I can get it rebound, please don’t hesitate to PM me) that is the DR OT and the Confraternity NT. This is easily my favorite translation (although the Vulgata is a fun read…)

-ACEGC

it was not scrapped for the NAB, the NAB is the outgrowth of the Confraternity version. That was the version most in my generation grew up on (pre-V2, and yes, we did study the bible in Catholic school, despite what you may hear). Its translation was based on the Vulgate, relying on the earlier DRC in great part. NAB is an entirely new translation from the original languages, relying in part on previous scholarship, including that which produced the DRC, Confraternity version and the Authorized Version. The NAB translation was actually in progress before V2, took a long time for approval because of problems, and even then the psalms were not approved for liturgical use until further revision.

Hi Tina, if the footnote in Mark is saying that the longer ending is not genuine, then it is correct. Textual critics favor the shorter ending as being orginal to the text.

the revised NAB is the version approved for liturgical use in the US, so every Catholic should have one, but the Confraternity version is the most readable English translation based on the Vulgate, and excellent translation which served the Church well for 1500 years and should not be lost. It is part of our culture, as is the Douay-Rheims-Challoner, a translation based on the Vulgate, as is the Authorized Versions (King James) also an essential part of our culture as Englis-speakers. Every Catholic should also own the RSV-CE because it is the version used in English translations of Vatican documents, and in many of the best bible study resources.

About a :wink: million years ago, or so it seems,(back when:p wild poodles roamed the earth) I picked up a Confraternity New Testament. I was actually just wanting a New Testament that I could fit in pocket or purse, & this one was perfect.
It is one of the best reading versions I have ever read…I would say that I wish I had the whole Bible, but I now read the Douay-Rheims (Challoner), and I like it so well, I hardly ever use any other version any more…except that NT!!

Thanks for the responses :slight_smile: I understand now.

The footnote I was thinking of wasn’t to do with the longer ending. I wish I had taken better note of it, but for all of the odd-ball stuff I remember with out trying, this just isn’t it :slight_smile: At least it was something that I read and thought, oh yeah, I knew that wasn’t right.

The only bad thing I’ve discovered about it is that it is hard to lay in bed and read it (which I probably shouldn’t do anyway). My RSV-CE and NIV are easier to do that with :wink:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.