Well, if you have been a regular reader of Marc’s blog, you might wonder where this “update” might come from, since there is no prior post concerning this topic. Well, I have been reading through the Book of Sirach this month with the complete Ignatius Catholic Study Bible close by. As I was reading, I kept noticing the various places that the RSV-2CE followed the Vulgate by adding additional verses not found in the Greek. And I asked myself: “I wonder if any one had ever blogged about that?” So, I did what any reasonable person would do and initiated a google search. And guess what I discovered dear reader? I, myself, had indeed blogged about it back in 2011 on my old blog. You can read the post here along with the many wonderful comments.
Now, one of the questions that we considered back in 2011 was whether or not the completed ICSB would address the lack of textual notes indicating in the RSV-2CE where they parted from the Greek (of the original RSV-CE) to follow the Vulgate. We were a bit critical, at the time, that Ignatius Press did not alert the reader to these issues in the textual notes of the standard RSV-2CE. I am happy to say (although I am sure many are you are aware since you may have already purchased the one volume version of Sirach or the full study Bible) that indeed the commentary does indicate where the RSV-2CE follows the Vulgate rendering. There is also a helpful comment made about the literary background of Sirach in the ICSB introduction, page 1068: “Adding to the complexity of the situation, the New Vulgate, upon which the RSV2CE is largely based, sometimes diverges from the Clementine Vulgate in order to follow the Greek text more clearly (e.g. 3:10, 24).” Problem solved! Well done Ignatius Press.
Thank you to Marc for allowing me to contribute to Catholic Bible Talk so that I can happily bring “closure” to some of my more ancient blog posts.
I chuckle (and cry) a little whenever I celebrate the votive Mass of “Mary Mother of Fairest love,” because that title isn’t in any non-Vulgate main text of Sirach 24 – including the proper lectionary reading for that Mass!
I’d love to know just how “largely based” the RSV2CE is on the Nova Vulgata. To what extent, and in what ways, did the Latin Church’s standard biblical text influence, guide, and shape the RSV2CE?
I personally haven’t found the RSV-2CE to be largely based on the New Vulgate (NV). I have looked into this quite a bit and have not found a whole lot of difference between the RSV-CE, which is not based on the NV (considering the NV wasn’t even in existence at the time), and the RSV-2CE. There were some word changes and other textual changes, but the vast majority of the changes were simply updating archaic language. There are a number of blog posts on this site showing many of those changes.
A colleague and I did a comparative study of all the textual variants in Matthew and Mark (148 in all) in order to see what degree of correlation various translations have with the NV. We found that of all the Catholic edition translations we studied (RSV-2CE, ESV-CE, NCB, NABRE, NRSV-CE, and the DR-Challoner), the RSV-2-CE and the DR-C had the least degree of agreement with the NV. Even the NASB, the GNT, and the RSV 1971 update had a greater degree of agreement with the NV than the RSV-2CE.
So I am likewise curious about what the ICSB is referring to when they say the RSV-2CE is largely based on the NV.
Cory,
The quote about the NV was from the introduction of Sirach, so I don’t think it is meant to represent the entire RSV-2CE text.
It’s about the textual variances for Sirach, not the whole 2ce. The “long” version of Sirach found in the Vulgate plays a huge part in the liturgical patrimony of the Latin Church, and the 2ce brought a handful of those longer readings back into the main text – for liturgical purposes, I presume.
Thank you, that’s exactly the kind of clarification I was looking for.
I think you guys are right that they are referring just to Sirach with that statement. It’s disappointing to me that they didn’t do likewise and follow the NV for Tobit as well, which follows a different manuscript tradition than the RSV-2CE. It kind of flies in the face of Ignatius Press’ claim that “The RSV, second Catholic edition is the only Bible translation that uses standard (non-feminist) English and is in conformity with the Church’s translation guidelines found in the Vatican document, Liturgiam Authenticam”. After all, paragraph 37 of Liturgiam Authenticam states: “If the biblical translation from which the Lectionary is composed exhibits readings that differ from those set forth in the Latin liturgical text, it should be borne in mind that the Nova Vulgata Editio is the point of reference as regards the delineation of the canonical text. Thus, in the translation of the deuterocanonical books and wherever else there may exist varying manuscript traditions, the liturgical translation must be prepared in accordance with the same manuscript tradition that the Nova Vulgata has followed. If a previously prepared translation reflects a choice that departs from that which is found in the Nova Vulgata Editio as regards the underlying textual tradition, the order of verses, or similar factors, the discrepancy needs to be remedied in the preparation of any Lectionary so that conformity with the Latin liturgical text may be maintained.”
If you are going to follow the NV manuscript tradition with Sirach, why not do it with Tobit as well, especially if you are making claims to be in conformity with Liturgiam Authenticam? And why would you not follow the New Testament manuscript tradition of the NV as well, as I highlighted above that it doesn’t?
I love Ignatius Press, the RSV-2CE, The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, and the Didache Bible, but this is a bit of a head scratcher for me.
Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) requested that translations of the Bible be made from the original languages, and not the Vulgate.
The Deuterocanon is unique because we don’t know what the original languages of some of those texts were; we have Greek and Latin, but most of them were probably originally written in Hebrew.
Translating the New Testament from the Latin would be a step backward.
I don’t think people are necessarily saying we should directly translate from the Nova Vulgata’s Latin to English instead of translating from Greek and Hebrew. Rather, the argument is that we should ensure that our translations include all of the text, passages, etc. that are found in the Nova Vulgata. This isn’t about using Latin instead of Greek, but of using the same Greek text that underlies the Latin Church’s standard Biblical text.
Let me illustrate my point with an example, and example that you may well be familiar with. There are two versions of the Greek text of Tobit: a shorter one and a longer one. The consensus opinion among scholars is that the longer one is more ancient, due to its inclusion among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Following this consensus, the Nova Vulgata’s Latin translation of Tobit is based on the longer text. Therefore, Catholic Bibles ought to go along with this and use the longer Greek text of Tobit as the basis for vernacular translations of Tobit. Many older translations, including the RSV, use the shorter text of Tobit, since they date from before the Dead Sea Scrolls were brought to light, when scholars assumed that the shorter Greek text was the original.
This is just one example of why there’s a desire to have our vernacular translations match the Nova Vulgata. It’s not a matter of preferring Latin to Greek (or Hebrew). It’s a matter of ensuring that we’re using the manuscript traditions that the Church’s pastors and Biblical scholars have, in their judgment, decided to favor.
This is true, and Liturgiam Authenticam mandates translating from the original languages as well. But there is a difference between following the manuscript tradition of the NV and translating directly from the NV. In other words, when there are multiple variant manuscript options to choose from, follow the one the NV used so there is uniformity of Scipture in the Bible and the Liturgy within the Universal Church. They don’t want the Church in one country or language having a different reading from Sirach or any other book than what the rest of the Church is using.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1948, while the RSV “apocrypha” was published in 1957, so it was post DSS. However, it took close to 3 decades for the translations of the scrolls to be translated, published and made widely enough available for translators to be able to make use of them.
I understand the ESV-CE uses the longer version of Tobit.
Cory, I’d be curious to know what translation your colleague found had the highest degree of agreement with the New Vulgate? Or was perhaps what the top two translations might have been, as I imagine it may have been difficult to determine a definitive #1 MOST AGREEMENT in an exercise such as this. I’m just fascinated by this concept.
Hi John. Here are our results for Matthew and Mark. Out of 148 variants (84 for CSV because Mark is still in process), here is the percent agreement with the NV:
CSV – 94%
NABRE – 84%
NRSV – 84%
NCB – 84%
GNT – 80%
ESV-CE – 79%
NRSVue – 79%
NASB2020 – 78%
RSV-2CE – 72%
DR-Challoner – 63%
NKJV – 51%
Now I wonder what percentage of accuracy the DR-Challoner is to the old Vulgate. It’s cool to see how it compares to the New Vulgate, but the poor guy is kind of in a league of his own.
CSV? The Christian Standard Version?
It would seem weird and ironic if the official translation of the Southern Baptist Convention was more in line with the Vulgate than a Catholic translation.
That would be fascinating if the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) was more in line with the NV. We didn’t study that one though. The new Catholic translation of the Bible being made by the Augustine Institute, the Catholic Standard Version (CSV) is what is referenced there. They have only released Matthew and Mark so far, and I have only checked the variants for Matthew. But early returns are promising, as shown by the percentages listed above.
Evan, that would be fascinating to compare. If by “Old Vulgate” you are referring to the standard edition Vulgate that was in use prior to the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (excluding the Sixtine Vulgate that only lasted from 1590-1592), I could check the differences between the original DR New Testament (1582) and the DR-Challoner with the known variants. The original DR New Testament was released prior to the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (1592), and the later served as the base text for the DR-Challoner revision, so by comparing both DR versions with each other, we should have a good idea of the differences in the underlying Latin text.
I just finished checking, and there is 100% agreement between the original DR and the DR-Challoner for all 84 variants in Matthew.
Cool, thank you! Thank you for the history on the D-R too. I think it will be cool to see how the revision to the NABRE will compare to the score its current version has. I haven’t gotten any of Augustine’s individual gospels using their CSV, but this makes me want to follow it more closely. Gosh, it has been a real blessing how much Biblical literacy has grown in the Church. I think it is contagious too.
FYI: Here is an update on the RNJB lectionary.
https://www.catholicbishops.ie/2025/07/25/lectionary-group-from-australia-ireland-and-new-zealand-meet-in-maynooth/
The news release notes that “a working group, of women and men, from the three conferences with expertise in both Scripture and Liturgy, meet online each month to consider the submitted comments and revise the text as necessary.”
I don’t know if these revisions are simply those you would find in any attempts to prepare a lectionary, such as incipits. Or if these would represent more substantial changes/translation choices.
You’re always welcome, Timothy! And I’m glad I’m not the only one who forgets about posts I made several years ago. I was looking back through some old posts on this blog a few weeks ago and thought, “huh, I totally forgot I posted that!”
This came as a surprise. I checked the various Catholic editions of the Bible in English, and not one has both the longer version of Sirach AND the longer version of Tobit which are both present in the New Vulgate. The ESV-CE, NABRE, NRSV-CE, RNJB, and the NCB have the longer version of Tobit, but the RSV-2CE, RSV-CE, Knox, and DR don’t. And none have the longer version of Sirach except RSV-2CE, Knox, and DR. So we don’t have a single edition of the Bible in English that follows the NV for both, that I am aware of (I checked JB, NJB, REB, and NRSV-ue as well). Ugh
There is an even weirder case concerning the Nova Vulgata and the Deuterocanon: additions to Esther.
For some reasons, when they were revising the NV, they decided to base themselves on the Vetus Latina (pre-Vulgate text) instead of Jerome’s or the Sixto-Clementine. The Vetus Latina has notable differences with the other two which are close to the Septuagint.
I know no English translations that follow this.
As a result, the only readings from Esther in the Lectionary (the prayer of Esther) contain a text that is not present in any English Bible.
As I’m not familiar with Latin (and I don’t know if I will ever be), I would probably never know of the beautiful prayer of Esther that is contained in the New Vulgate, hadn’t I stumbled on a Bible version in Portuguese (my first language) that happen to be based in the New Vulgate. All other Catholic Bible editions I know about (English and Portuguese) do not follow the New Vulgate for Esther, and as so, they don’t contain that specific version of the prayer of Esther.
It is a loss. I don’t see what would be the problem to have that version of the prayer even as a sidenote, just for the literary value (if anything!). All that ubiquitous scientific rigor is really drying up the experience of reading Scripture for me. All I see are choices that are “science-optimized”, and rarely “piety-optimized” or even “beauty-optimized”.
Vini and Ales, what are the verse numbers for the prayer of Esther? I don’t read Latin yet, but think it would be cool to find the verses on the Vatican’s website https://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_esther_lt.html
We have found that using Google
Translate to translate the whole page is less accurate than copying the Latin and pasting into ChatGPT fyi
I found the prayer of Esther in the RSVCE, NRSVCE, and NABRE, though the verse numbers are not consistent. They could still be using a different text than the Nova Vulgate, but I didn’t have time to check. Ales and Vini, do you notice any difference? Asking so I can make a note in my bible.
NABRE
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther%204&version=NABRE
RSVCE
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther%204&version=RSVCE
NRSVCE
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther%205&version=NRSVCE
NCB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther%204&version=NCB
NJB
https://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=19&bible_chapter=4
Anonymous, you see that all these Esther Prayer versions that you listed are more or less the same. They are based on the same manuscript of the Greek. This other version I’m referring to is much longer.
Look here for the NV version (in latin), look for verse “17p”: https://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_esther_lt.html
I don’t know if there is an English version with this specific choice of manuscript. The prayer is beautiful, though, it goes over many of the OT heroes and how God worked through them, and Esther is praying for God to do the same through her.
It is a kind of a litany, and Esther repeats “Ego audivi ex libris maiorum meorum, Domine”, which would translate to “I’ve heard from the books of my ancestors, Lord…”.
Powerful, powerful moment in the book. I remember being quite impacted by this prayer.
Thank you for pointing this out, Vini. I knew that the prayer of Esther was only included in the Greek text, but I didn’t realize that the Nova Vulgata included a longer version of the prayer. I agree with Cory’s suggestion above. I’ve found AI translation to work amazingly well. If anyone is interested, here is a translation of the prayer from the NV text from Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro model. My instructions to the model asked it to balance accuracy of meaning with a poetic style and vocabulary that is consonant with the style of the Latin:
17n Queen Esther also, fearing the mortal peril that was imminent, took refuge in the Lord.
17o And when she had laid aside her glorious raiment, she took up garments of mourning, and in place of proud ointments, she covered her head with ash, and with fasting she profoundly humbled her body.
17p And she fell upon the earth with her handmaidens from morning until evening, and she said:
17q “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, blessed are You.
Lend aid to me in my solitude,
for I have no defender but You, O Lord,
17r as I take this peril into my own hands.
17s I have heard from the books of my ancestors, O Lord,
that You preserved Noah in the waters of the flood.
17t I have heard from the books of my ancestors, O Lord,
that You delivered nine kings to Abraham and his three hundred and eighteen men.
17u I have heard from the books of my ancestors, O Lord,
that You freed Jonah from the belly of the whale.
17v I have heard from the books of my ancestors, O Lord,
that You delivered Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael from the furnace of fire.
17x I have heard from the books of my ancestors, O Lord,
that You drew Daniel out of the den of lions.
17y I have heard from the books of my ancestors, O Lord,
that You showed mercy to Hezekiah, king of the Jews, when he was condemned to death and prayed for his life, and You granted him fifteen more years of life.
17z I have heard from the books of my ancestors, O Lord,
that You granted the birth of a son to Hannah, who petitioned in the desire of her soul.
17aa I have heard from the books of my ancestors, O Lord,
that You deliver all who are pleasing to You, O Lord, even to the very end.
17bb And now, help me, who am utterly alone
and have no one but You,
O Lord, my God.
17cc You know
that your handmaid has abominated the bed of the uncircumcised.
17dd God, You know
that I have not eaten from the table of abominations,
nor have I drunk the wine of their libations.
17ee You know
that from the day of my elevation, I have taken no joy, O Lord,
except in You alone.
17ff You know, O God,
that from the moment this crown is upon my head,
I have loathed it like a menstrual cloth,
and I have not worn it on any day of gladness.
17gg And now come to my aid, for I am an orphan,
and place a well-wrought word upon my lips in the presence of the lion.
Make me pleasing in his sight
and turn his heart to hatred for the one who assails us—
to his own ruin and to the ruin of those who consent with him.
17hh But deliver us from the hand of our enemies;
transform our mourning into rejoicing
and our sorrows into wholeness.
17ii And as for those who rise against Your portion, O God,
make of them an example.
17kk Appear, O Lord; manifest Yourself, O Lord!”
Vini, thanks for your post. Your words really resonated with me. Having learned about and studied the different manuscript traditions of both the Old and New Testament and how each translation picks and chooses between the vast array of variant readings as they see fit, I am noticing a similar negative affect with my own encounter with the Scriptures. The experience of picking up the Bible and encountering the word of God gets disjointed when I know that the verses I am reading might be utilizing a variant and therefor might be different from the same verse that I hear at Mass, and may be different from the NV, and could be different than the other Catholic Bibles on my shelf. Imagine if the version of the Revised Grail Psalms, or NABRE, or ESC-CE that you hear read in Mass and that you read in the Liturgy of the Hours, was actually the same as the Revised Grail Psalms or NABRE or ESV-CE that you read in your Bible at home, and that they all followed the manuscript tradition of the NV so that there was uniformity of the Scriptures across all languages and countries. Maybe I’m just a dreamer, but that seems better to me than having to use the CSV for Matthew and Mark, the RSV-2CE for Sirach, the Abbey/Revised Grail for the Psalms, and one of the other translations for the rest of the Bible.
I kind of miss the pre-Fall days of reading the Bible innocently as a kid, unaware of all this mess haha!
I’m not against more academical Bibles, I just miss having one or two editions that could be read by my grandmother or my granddaughter with no great difficulty, that explains the hard passages under the light of our Tradition and the Magistery, kind of what the Didache Bible tries to do, though it is not perfect, specially in the introductions. And of course, text uniformity according to the Neo Vulgata would be a major plus.
Heaven knows I myself would like to have one of those too to do my Lectio Divina. Imagine having to do Lectio Divina with a Bible that tells you “Judith didn’t happen, it’s just theological fiction” or similar stuff all the time. I mean, we can pretend that doesn’t affect our prayer, but I think it does. It’s like praying the Hail Mary with someone saying to you “Mary isn’t really listening to you, you’re just imagining it because of your Theology”.
What I’m thinking more and more to do is to have a simple Bible with NO COMMENTARY WHATSOEVER. Just the text. Pure text. No distractions.
Anyway, I apologize for the rant. I don’t want to leave you with the impression that I want more scientific Bibles to be burned. I just miss having a simple Bible to pray with, and with commentaries that really help the prayer, or that at least makes me get into the wonder of the text. I’m really getting tired of following a note to the bottom of the page and read “this character doesn’t exist really” or “this place is not really in this geography” or things like that. I’m tired of Bibles that make me hate reading Scripture.
The hard pill to swallow is that the Protestant world also excels on that. So it excels both in study Bibles and devotional Bibles. But I keep faith one day we will get there too.
Thank you for the explanation on the longer version of Esther. Really appreciate it. Sorry, I got excited and forgot to put my name in the field. Don’t worry about your rant, and I agree with you. And now I really want to read the longer version on Esther.
Thank you, Evan! I hope you can find a good translation of it or can work with the Latin yourself, it sure is worth it.
I should add another thing to my rant that will make it make more sense: the reason why most of the Bibles don’t have this version of the prayer of Esther is because the manuscript that has it is much more recent, and that would mean the text is less true or whatever. But for Catholics, the text is in the New Vulgate, shouldn’t that weight a little? As I said, even a sidenote or appendix would do. It is a loss for us to simply not have it in our vernacular language just for the sake of scientific rigor.
Vini, there is a New Testament edition of the New Catholic Bible (NCB) that puts all of the footnotes in the back so they are not a distraction when you’re reading. Personally it is one of my favorite editions of the Scriptures. It is a good size, 10 pt font, quality paper, almost no show through, single column, and best of all, no distraction from notes while you are reading! The translation and notes are faithfully Catholic without an over-emphasis on the historical-critical method, which is a drawback for many regarding the NABRE and the NRJB. Here is a link to the publishers page and also a sample version so you can see what the format is like. It might not be your cup of tea, but it may be close to the simplicity and faithfulness you’re looking for.
https://catholicbookpublishing.com/products/st-joseph-new-catholic-bible-new-testament-burgundy-630-19bg?srsltid=AfmBOooj3zFko-dfOd8TOzh4tDTVXsKd_y-M9E70oaB5IhWINCHldD9L
https://www.flipsnack.com/688AD699E8C/630_04_9780899426303/full-view.html
Thanks for the recommendation! It sure looks very good! I might get one soon. I’m not based in the US (I’m in Europe), but I’ll try to find one of these over here.
Thanks again, this might be just what is missing in my shelf!
I have done a little digging. The prayer of Esther is used for the Thursday after the first Sunday in Lent (this year it was on March 13, 2025 if anyone wants to check), BUT neither the English nor the Latin include those verses the Nova Vulgata borrows takes from the Vetus Latina (at least from what I using the web version of ibreviary https://www.ibreviary.com/m2/opzioni.php).
Where things get interesting is the Liturgy of the Hours. The prayer of Esther is used in the Office of Readings for the Wednesday of the 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time (which will be October 22, 2025). The English version in the breviary I have and on ibreviary don’t include the Vertus Latina verse, but the Latin does include it.