Welcome to the first in a series of posts comparing the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible and the Revised New Jerusalem Bible for one of the readings at each Sunday’s Mass. For today, the 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time, I’ve chosen the second reading (from the Letter to the Hebrews).
Sunday, August 25th, 2019 — 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time
Second Reading: Hebrews 12:5-7,11-13
Jerusalem Bible:
Have you forgotten that encouraging text in which you are addressed as sons? My son, when the Lord corrects you, do not treat it lightly; but do not get discouraged when he reprimands you. For the Lord trains the ones that he loves and he punishes all those that he acknowledges as his sons. Suffering is part of your training; God is treating you as his sons. Has there ever been any son whose father did not train him? Of course, any punishment is most painful at the time, and far from pleasant; but later, in those on whom it has been used, it pears fruit in peace and goodness. So hold up your limp arms and steady your trembling knees and smooth out the path you tread; then the injured limb will not be wrenched, it will grow strong again.
New Jerusalem Bible:
Have you forgotten that encouraging text in which you are addressed as sons?
My son, do not scorn correction from the Lord,
do not resent his training,
for the Lord trains those he loves,
and chastises every son he accepts.
Perseverence is part of your training; God is treating you as his sons. Has there ever been any son whose father did not train him? Of course, any discipline is at the time a matter for grief, not joy; but later, in those who have undergone it, it bears fruit in peace and uprightness. So steady all weary hands and trembling knees and make your crooked paths straight; then the injured limb will not be maimed, it will get better instead.
Revised New Jerusalem Bible:
Have you forgotten that encouraging text which addresses you as sons?
My son, do not scorn correction from the Lord,
do not resent his training,
for the Lord trains those he loves,
and chastises every son he accepts.
Persevere for the sake of training! God is treating you as his sons. What son is there whom the father does not train? Of course, any discipline at the time is painful rather than pleasant; but later, in those who have undergone it, it bears the peaceful fruit of righteousness. So steady all drooping hands and weak knees and straighten the paths for your feet; then the injured limb will not be maimed, it will be healed instead.
New American Bible Revised Edition:
You have also forgotten the exhortation addressed to you as sons:
“My son, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord
or lose heart when reproved by him;
for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines;
he scourges every son he acknowledges.”
Endure your trials as “discipline”; God treats you as sons. For what “son” is there whom his father does not discipline? At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it.
So strengthen your drooping hands and your weak knees. Make straight paths for your feet, that what is lame may not be dislocated but healed.
I prefer the NABRE rendering of verse 5 with “lose heart when reproved by him.”
I prefer the NJB in verse 11 with “any discipline is at the time a matter for grief, not joy”
And in the final verse, I like the RNJB “then the injured limb will not be maimed, it will be healed instead”.
Overall it seems the NABRE is a bit more literal than the RNJB.
You know, what struck me was how “formal” the NABRE sounds when compared to the Jerusalem family of translations. I was pretty surprised to see that. The NAB has such a terrible reputation among those who claim to desire more formal translations that, despite myself, I think I was expecting it to sound looser then it appears to here.
Of course, I know that the NABRE is a whole other animal as compared to the original NAB OT, but still the realization was somewhat startling. I’ve actually decided to sit down and read through the NABRE this year (I try to read through the scriptures once a year, cycling through different translations) and, as someone who’s normally more of a fan of the RSVCE/RSV2CE/ESVCE, I have to say I’ve been surprised by how formal it can be.
None of this is meant to disparage the Jerusalem family either though, I really appreciate how smoothly they read, which was made even more evident in contrast to the NABRE. It’s fascinating to me that the only two in house Catholic translations of the 21st century seem to be going down such different paths, one very formal, and one a bit more dynamic. I’m thankful for both and I hope both projects receive the respect they’re due.
I was struck by the NABRE’s formality too. Even after successive revisions to make the JB more literal, it still has excellent readability.
Not knowing Greek I can only say that the changes in the RNJB are improvements. The NABRE does sound more formal and might actually work better in a church reading, but both are good.
I was interested to see that the RNJB retains some of the NJB’s updates. The words of Proverbs 3:11-12, which the writer to the Hebrews references in verses 5 and 6, are translated the same in the NJB and RNJB (but differently in the JB). Also, in verse 7 the JB says “suffering is part of your training,” while the NJB changes “suffering” to “perseverence.” The RNJB stays close to the NJB but changes the word from a noun to a verb: “Persevere for the sake of training!” So far, it seems safe to conclude that Fr. Wansbrough did indeed refer to the NJB in making this translation.
There’s a lot of NABRE discussion in these comments for a post that only includes passages from the *New* Testament.
In a different note, I have been reading Genesis and a verse from the RNJB caught my eye.
32:21 “For he thought, ‘If I conciliate him by sending a gift in advance ….”
Conciliate is not common in American English. I know one of the complaints about the new missal translation was that it used terms like conciliation.
The JB by the way uses conciliate as well. Aparently conciliate is a much more common term in the UK?
Could the reason for updating both the NAB(RE) and (N)JB from previously more dynamic versions to more literal renderings be from the common movement generally from Protestants that Bible translations need to be strictly formal equivalence?
I’m on fire for my NJB because of the rich vocabulary and exacting text, to me it’s more on the “optimal” end of dynamic equivalence, far from being paraphrastic. Of all Catholic Bible editions to choose from, I’ve never been satisfied because one is either too archaic even the RSV-(2)CE contains these archaisms, or one is overly political in it’s agenda with regards to the NRSV(UE)… The NAB has increasingly proved to be elusive and inaccessible both in that there’s no reader’s edition nor a text that is identical to the Lectionary unless you get a missal, so to me the NABRE is just a liturgical Bible by nature.
Why isn’t the Jerusalem family utilized more in the US Catholic Church? Can I be “sanguine” towards reading the dynamic kind of translation of the NJB, and is the use of the divine Name and El Shaddai an accurate rendering, if jot unique? British Catholics have such a better heritage when it comes to their Jerusalem Bibles.
It’s possible. Doing a little digging into translation history in the 20th century, dynamic equivalence was all the rage in the 60s and 70s and then started to go out of fashion in the 80s, not only in English but multiple languages followed this same trend at the same time. This is why the Jerusalem Bible was initially extremely well received, but flash forward 20 years and the NJB was advertising how it was more literal unlike that loosey-goosey JB. By the dawn of the 21st century, formal equivalence was back on the menu as the preferred translation method, hence the ESV’s slow rise toward the top of the Bible sales charts, recently jumping over the KJV, or some middle ground like the CSB’s advertised “optimal equivalence.” The current NAB revision is no doubt trying to reach the balance of more literal while still being fit for liturgical use.
As for why the JB isn’t utilized more in the US Catholic Church, it’s probably for the same reason the Confraternity was used instead of the Knox Bible in the post-Douay/pre-NAB period. Because the JB, like the Knox, was too British, and the Confraternity/NAB are American creations. The only place American Catholics widely heard about either the Knox or JB were from Fulton Sheen or Mother Angelica quoting them on their TV shows.
I feel like dynamic equivalence is actually a good thing in moderate amounts when it comes to (Catholic) Biblical study, since as Catholics we have a solid way to interpret the text and can test our private interpretation against the Tradition we have in the Catholic faith. So why do a lot of Catholics seems to adopt this Protestant way of trying to use the most literal Bible translation and go so far as literally preferring KJV and ESV?! It’s sad that there seems to be little faith in the modern Catholic Biblical scholarship we’ve had since the beginning of original Bible translations from the manuscripts.
It’s nothing really to do with little faith in Catholic Biblical scholarship imo. I see it as a by-product of engaging in apologetics with Protestants, fueled a lot by YouTube apologists. You can see popular Catholic apologists often using the ESV (not even the ESV-CE, but the standard ESV) and even the NKJV in debates and rebuttals because they want to make it clear that you can refute Protestant interpretations even with a Protestant translation. It’s a less extreme version of how you can refute Jehovah’s Witness doctrine even using their own corrupt NWT. As much as we Catholics may personally enjoy reading the Douay or the Knox or the RSV-2CE or the NJB or other Catholic translations, you’re going to likely hit a brick wall when the very Protestants you’re trying to engage with think you’re arguing using a “corrupt” or “sketchy” translation. As such, it’s much easier to refute Protestantism using their own tools than to convince them to first accept our tools and then use those to refute them. I mean, when was the last time you heard a Protestant apologist using the Douay-Rheims translation to justify Protestant theology? And broadly speaking, I much more often hear Catholic apologists quoting Protestant scholars against Protestants than the other way around. I think it stems from the same mindset.
Then an ecumenical translation is what Catholics should strive for, I wish we Catholics could at least share a solidly common Bible with Eastern/and Coptic Orthodox Christians so we can be united in that sense. On another note, translations that are overly accommodating to both Protestant and other heterodox sects should be avoided in so far as it sows error and problems for Catholic readers. In my opinion we need a middle ground between engaging with Protestant brethren and using approved translations by the ecclesial community. Even if we need to debate Protestants it shouldn’t be the Bible where the politics of translations takes place but the sheer beauty the sacred Text is displayed such as with the Word on Fire Bible. It seems like it would be more alluring for Protestants who are open minded about the Catholic Church to have Biblical resources that are thoroughly academic and technical while also being uniquely Catholic. The closest we might have to that is the Ignatius Study Bible Series or the New Jerusalem Bible… On a personal note, if I want to engage the Bible both in a technical sense and a more spiritual/prayerful way, does the NJB fulfill that aspiration? I’m currently obsessed with learning about the relevance of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and whether using a dynamic(ish) equivalence translation is encouraged for cheerful study if the Bible, and also the unique quirk of the use of the Divine Name and the “El Shaddai” within the NJB. Thank you, your feedback is valued greatly.
If the Dead Sea Scrolls are of textual importance for modern Catholic Bibles then we should prioritize translations that are informed by the scrolls, right?
Aside from the archaeology behind them, how would one compare the RSV-2CE with the NJB? Is the NJB just a little more dynamic than the NAB-RE therefore making it more towards the optimal-side of dynamic equivalence? This is one striking question that staggers me in my quest for Biblical understanding. Is El Shaddai and the Divine Name forbidden to have in a translation (for private interpretation)? It’s so interesting to me.
>If the Dead Sea Scrolls are of textual importance for modern Catholic Bibles then we should prioritize translations that are informed by the scrolls, right?
This is true that Catholic translations typically make more use of the Dead Sea Scrolls than Protestant ones do.
>Aside from the archaeology behind them, how would one compare the RSV-2CE with the NJB?
Based on YouTuber R. Grant Jones’ charts, where he used a sample of 100 known textual variants, the RSV-2CE followed the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, or other ancient non-Masoretic sources in 28 of those 100 places whereas the JB and RNJB did so in 44 and 40 places respectively. He didn’t do the NJB, but it’s fair to say it falls somewhere between those two. So that means the JB family is typically like you say. Meanwhile, the NRSV did so in 49 places and the NABRE in nearly 60 based on those same metrics, while the ESV did so in 26, just for comparison. This makes the NABRE the “best” if your metric is having the most departures from the Masoretic Text.
>Is the NJB just a little more dynamic than the NAB-RE therefore making it more towards the optimal-side of dynamic equivalence?
More than a little. The NJB is significantly more dynamic than the NAB, with the JB significantly more dynamic than even the NJB and the RNJB less dynamic than the NJB but still more than the NAB. The NAB, all things considered, is more “optimal” than dynamic, comparable to the NRSV in literalness.
>Is El Shaddai and the Divine Name forbidden to have in a translation (for private interpretation)?
Liturgiam authenticam stated that the Divine Name was not to be used in Catholic liturgy or Bible translations any longer, out of respect and reverence. This is why the RNJB now reads “the LORD” and the JB was reissued as the CTS New Catholic Bible, with the JB text but with “the LORD” replacing the Divine Name and with a revised Psalter.
I don’t know what to say, I want to utilize an all-encompassing Biblical text that values Catholic Biblical scholarship as well as embraces an ecumenical spirit, being open to Jewish, and Orthodox academic wisdom.
I’ve sort of ruled out the NRSV-CE since it seems like it’s become too liberal/watered down and I don’t like the subtitles in it. The NAB seems like a messy translation yet I give it respect for being a unique American project and as a liturgical translation. With the RSV-2CE being the more archaic one, I’d choose the NAB-RE over it definitely. I could just read the Catholic Study Bible by Oxford (2nd Edition) but I’m not sure if this is a Bible that is suitable for lay enthusiasts like me (who are not formal students), and since I have a Reader’s Edition of the NJB by Doubleday I might pair my NJB (or eventual RNJB Reader’s Editions) with either Anchor Bible Commentary or Ignatius Study Bible…
Depending on one’s objectives, for both spirituality and technical understanding, how do these mentioned translations make an impact on the reader?
I base my choice of using the NJB on the copyright ownership since the biggest thing I’m trying to avoid in my faith formation as a Catholic is partisan/factious divide and ideological camps, but what about just reading the best translations based on it’s own terms and departure from the Masoretic text, then surely I should opt for the NAB-RE Study Bible or an NRSVCE. I’m young and this is my first time reading the Bible and I just want to make sure I have a solid translation (I currently just have the NJB) and I’m wanting to learn about which different translation serves what purpose and if there is one that i should choose over the other based on my desire for a deep technical study while also being steeped in prayerful awe.
Thank you.
Overall, I think the NJB Study Edition (with full notes) will serve the purpose you stated well. It draws on excellent Catholic scholarship, and the translation is a good dynamic equivalent option which is suitable for both study (especially with the notes) and prayer. I think the NJB study edition is near the top of the list of high-quality resources for Catholics who want to explore the Bible.
Honestly, the RNJB study edition is also quite good. It has far fewer notes and cross-references, but to some extent that is an advantage. I go back and forth on whether I prefer a study bible with notes or a reader’s edition Bible that I can pair with a stand-alone commentary. The notes can be helpful, but if they are so voluminous that every other sentence is footnoted, it can be difficult to read extended sections of the text and get the big picture of what the text is trying to convey.
For a beginner, the RNJB study edition is an excellent choice. It has enough footnotes to explain key concepts without completely destroying the flow of reading. It also has key cross-references without being overwhelming.
For deep study, I have grown to like the Oxford Catholic Study Bible 3rd edition (with the NABRE translation). The NABRE gets a lot of criticism, but some of it is outdated (based on the original 1970 text which has now been entirely revised) and some of it is based on the tenor of the notes. The notes are written from a perspective that sees no conflict between contemporary methods of historical criticism and faith. But they place an onus on the reader to think, wrestle, and reflect on how an intellectual approach to the text interfaces with the Catholic faith. The NABRE notes do not give ready-made answers for how to balance historical criticism with faith, and that can be either tiring, frustrating, or disconcerting for readers who want to have their faith affirmed by scripture, rather than struggling with how to reconcile their faith with scripture and history.
This is the most helpful response by far, thank you Marc.
I’ll take a look at the full-study edition(s) of the NJB. I’m a little curious what the main Catholic Biblical experts (like Henry Wansbrough) think of the archaeological importance/epigraphical justification of using the divine name and “El Shaddai” within the NJB text. It’s really interesting to me.
I don’t get why a lot of more conservative Catholics swear by using a Douay-Rheims or RSV-CE (exclusively seemingly) as if those who are new to the faith need to avoid the rich technical understanding of say NAB-RE or NJB…
Is it insulting to Jewish scholars to embrace a Biblical understanding that doesn’t accommodate to “adonai” in place of the divine name. To gain greater awareness of how Jewish scholars interpret the text fascinates me, and whether using the Masoretic text is something that is inherently flawed as a medieval source and should you refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls as “the” base manuscript(s) of the Hebrew Bible?
Maybe I should stop asking questions and start reading these sources firsthand.
My understanding is that there are multiple names used for God in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the NJB preserves some of that variety rather than flattening the various names into the English words “Lord” and “God.” Some scholars theorize that these names originally referred to different gods, and as monotheism was revealed to the Jewish people, later tradition interpreted those names as referring to the one God. That is a very broad overview. I don’t know much about the name “El Shaddai” in particular, but what I said applies to the general names “El” versus “YHWH.”
One example of this is in Genesis 14:18 (the brief passage where Melchizedek appears). The English translation in the NRSV says that Melchizedek was “a priest of “God Most High” but a textual footnote clarifies that the Hebrew reads “El Elyon.” According to the study notes in the NOAB, El Elyon was the ancient high God of the Caananite polytheistic pantheon. The NABRE footnotes provide excellent background on this:
“God Most High: in Heb. El Elyon, one of several “El names” for God in Genesis, others being El Olam (21: 33), El the God of Israel (33: 20), El Roi (16: 13), El Bethel (35: 7), and El Shaddai (the usual P[riestly] designation for God in Genesis). All the sources except the Yahwist use El as the proper name for God used by the ancestors. The god El was well-known across the ancient Near East and in comparable religious literature. The ancestors recognized this God as their own when they encountered him in their journeys and in the shrines they found in Canaan.”
As far as your question about why some Catholics prefer the Douay or the RSV-CE, I think there are a few reasons:
1. Inclusive language: Mother Angelica was famously opposed to inclusive language, and she famously criticized the New Jerusalem Bible on air for its inclusive language. The NAB also came under some criticism for inclusive language, and the Canadian bishops struggled to get approval for their NRSV lectionary due to inclusive language. This contributed to an atmosphere where inclusive language became a dirty concept, associated with liberal political agendas, and any translations that used even a moderate amount of it (like the NJB and NAB) were considered suspect.
2. Historical Criticism and Notes: Some Catholics find the notes in the NABRE to be excessively skeptical. Critics of the NABRE claim the notes are heretical, even though they have been extensively reviewed and approved by Church authorities. The notes are written to instruct readers on the original meaning of the text, regardless of whether that meaning fits neatly with traditional Catholic understandings. The notes trust readers to wrestle with how to reconcile the scholarly debates and historical criticism in the notes with Catholic belief and practice.
In my view, the NABRE with its notes is an exemplary attempt to put into practice the instructions for Bible translations in Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation promulgated by Vatican II:
“22. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.
[…]
It devolves on sacred bishops “who have the apostolic teaching”(7) to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and above all the Gospels. This can be done through translations of the sacred texts, which are to be provided with the necessary and really adequate explanations so that the children of the Church may safely and profitably become conversant with the Sacred Scriptures and be penetrated with their spirit.
Furthermore, editions of the Sacred Scriptures, provided with suitable footnotes, should be prepared also for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation. Both pastors of souls and Christians generally should see to the wise distribution of these in one way or another.”
With the relationship between the NAB-RE and the (R)NJB, them being both Catholic-edited/lead Bible translations, what is the importance or purpose in “departing” from the Masoretic texts? If I want to be ecumenical in my approach to the Bible and in spirit of Dei Verbum, should I utilize the translation that includes more Jewish involvement?
To rephrase it, does the Masoretic show a greater “Jewishness” in faithfulness to the Hebrew Bible textually? Or does consulting and departing away into the Dead Sea Scrolls/Septuagint/Peshitta/Vulgate mean a more-likely original rendering of the ancient canon?
Additionally speaking, I just want to say it has been truly a struggle to find a NAB-RE of comparable quality to the Doubleday NJB Readers Edition that I own, that is why I’ve opted to use this translation but I simply also prefer a lot of the NJB renderings such as: “divine wind” in Genesis 1, “downcast” in Genesis 4, and the more careful consideration Wansbrough has towards inclusive language as opposed to the steam-roller approach to it that the NRSV-CE has. I’m confused with why Word on Fire would use the NRSV-CE if it never had a Catholic notes edition to my knowledge, and also the association it has with the *declining* mainline churches, and not to mention the downfall it might be having with the new “NRSVue”(?). Back to my main point, the MOST appealing NAB-RE I’ve discovered is the HarperCollins Black Imitation Leather NABRE (not the Catholic Bible Press one) and this has red subtitles and a crisp text. A beautiful Bible. Perhaps, I’ll get this one again and use it as my “study” edition whereas my NJB can be my “alternate reading” Bible…
I’m an amateur, I’ve been on to these questions for some time now. Is it wise to consult various translations, since I’m afraid of becoming lost in the selection of different translations where I won’t be able to quote from a particular one in my head since multiple renderings of the same verse might be totally different.
The DSS are sometimes in agreement with the Septuagint, sometimes with the Masoretic. A translation team looks at both as well as other ancient versions and makes a decision on how to translate a passage. The same goes for the NT. Critical editions are an eclectic work, what goes in the main body of the text and what goes in the footnotes are the majority opinion of a committee. Beyond this, a translation team for the vernacular makes another decision to follow the critical edition or an alternate reading. St Jerome compared various ancient versions and manuscripts when compiling the Vulgate, this is not a new idea. My point is this: as Christians, in regards to translations, we are much better off in focusing on how the different versions are substantially the same, rather than nitpicking the differences. All of this is subjective opinion, and has been debated extensively.
Regarding Catholic editions, my opinion is that the ideal translation would follow the document Liturgiam Authenticam. These are the guidelines to making a translation that is worthy to be proclaimed in the liturgy. One should read the document in its entirety on the Vatican website but I will summarize briefly. A translation should be formal, faithful to the gender language in the original texts, and prefer the traditional renderings of the Vulgate as the original languages permit. Essentially translating the Scripture through the lens of the Latin of the Church. The RSV-2CE does not follow this perfectly, but it preceded the publication of this document, and the work done on the RSV-CE by the CDW was part of the inspiration for it. If you go by these principals, translations that are adaptations of non-Catholic Bibles or by ecumenical committees will by nature, most likely miss the mark.
In my spiritual journey years ago as a new Catholic, I felt an urge to engage in translation debates with the objective of picking a “winner.” There will never be an end-all, be-all translation that will make everyone happy, especially if you include atheists, Jews, Protestants, etc, etc. We are blessed as English speakers to have a wealth of Bibles and study resources to choose from, so individuals have a Bible that fits their “needs” at their particular point in their spiritual journey. The real battle is a spiritual one and the answer is the faith and morals handed down through the Apostles. Thankfully there is only one English translation of the Catechism!
That’s great, it’s good that Catholics have multiple translations of the Bible I just think it’s important to choose the one that best aligns with what the Vatican II recommends as well as other documents.
I’ve renewed my interest in the NAB-RE while reading this website and I’m passionate about using the notes for further study of the text, thanks to Marc providing that excerpt from the NAB-RE notes.
It’s curious to me, how along my search for a translation of the Bible, I begin to see that there are real “factions” within the faith whether they call themselves that or not. Is it healthy to have different factions, who hold to their different theologies and positions on church politics or no. I don’t like how some Catholic groups prefer Douay-Rheims or RSV-2CE/ESV-CE while they out right disdain the NAB-RE.
It makes me want to use a more “liberal” (in their words) translation in spite of those groups…
Now that I’ve settled on my translations to use, I’m ready to compare a lot of the striking vocabulary used in the NJB (like potentate/downcast/vault/terror and dread/…) with the NAB-RE. Should I consider all these differences of vocabulary, like “dejected” vs “downcast”, “vaults” vs “dome”
As meaning the same word and concept, or different translational choices and completely different nuances of meaning?
It’s as bad that the best of the best cannot get together and come up with a Catholic bible that the world Catholic body can adopt. And with good, and faithful notes in the story editions. But I guess that’s asking too much. I guess, like the Protestants, Money talks.
For this, that do not know, the RNJB is said to be ready to be accepted as the office bible read in the churches in the UK, Wales, and I think Ireland.
I like the NRJB for the most part. There are a few words here and there that are unknown to me, but I can Google those. The notes in the Study Bible are very solid and to the point. I have a NABRE bible with the notes, and found some notes pretty bad.
You know, it is to bad that the Douay Bible that, I think, does not have a copyright, why does someone not, at least in English, take and reword the text, yet stay faithful to it? And keep the study notes. It’s still a great translation, and based off the Vulgate.
I do use the Good News bible a lot, as it was the first bible as a boy that I read. And it stuck with me.
Best of luck in your studies.
The Church does not say they want a “Catholic bible that the world Catholic body can adopt.” The Church specifically wants countries to choose a Bible translation that suits their Catholics, not a one-size-fits-all translation. As Liturgiam authenticam reads: “[I]n every territory there should exist only one approved translation, which will be employed in all parts of the various liturgical books. . . . The Conferences of Bishops are strongly encouraged to provide for the commissioning and publication in their territories of an integral translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for the private study and reading of the faithful, which corresponds in every part to the text that is used in the Sacred Liturgy. “