An anonymous reader commented in a prior post about the official list of approved Bible translations on the USCCB website. As noted, the revised NAB OT is already on the list. We now just have to wait for the re-revised Psalms to be completed and approved. Here is the full list for your reading pleasure:
USCCB Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures: 1991 – Present
Books of the New Testament, Alba House
Contemporary English Version - New Testament, First Edition, American Bible Society
Contemporary English Version - Book of Psalms, American Bible Society
Contemporary English Version - Book of Proverbs, American Bible Society
The Grail Psalter (Inclusive Language Version), G.I.A. Publications
New American Bible, Revised Old Testament
New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, National Council of Churches The Psalms, Alba House
The Psalms (New International Version) – St. Joseph Catholic Edition, Catholic Book Publishing Company
The Psalms – St. Joseph New Catholic Version, Catholic Book Publishing Company
Revised Psalms of the New American Bible (I would assume the '91 NAB Psalms)
So You May Believe, A Translation of the Four Gospels, Alba House
Today's English Version, Second Edition, American Bible Society
Translation for Early Youth, A Translation of the New Testament for Children, Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society
17 comments:
So the Jerusalem/New Jerusalem and the RSV/RSV-CE are not approved by the US Bishops? Rather strange, eh?
Diakonos,
They are approved, but that was done prior to 1991 when the USCCB began approving translations as a corporate body.
Books of the New Testament, Alba House? Is that the same as the 'New Testament: St. Paul Catholic Edition' by Mark Wauck?
Why would a British translation (such as the JB/NJB) get an imprimatur from the USCCB and not the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales?
I would imagine that no matter where a translation received the imprimatur,it would have to be approved by national conferences for us in their nation?
Diakonis: the rules are set forth in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Ecclesiae Pastorum de Ecclesiae pastorum vigilantia circa Libros, 19 March 1975. I have not seen an English translation of this document, but my reading of the Latin indicates that a local authority (presumably in the initial publishing country) is sufficient.
I note that the New Commentary on Canon Law (Paulist Press, 2000) commissioned by the Canon Law Society, page 980, agrees with me on this point. (Although that same page also includes some rather pointed editorial content which seems inappropriate to me.)
The only "multiple imprimatur" by bishops' conferences I can recall seeing is for the NRSV, which was approved both by the US and Canadian conferences. Have you seen any other examples?
I know the NRSV is widely used by English-speaking Catholics outside the US and Canada (such as in the UK, Ireland, English-speaking Caribbean countries, English-speaking African countries, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, the Philippines, and India) but I am unaware that other bishops' conferences granted imprimatur.
Theophrastus,
I took a Canon Law course two years ago, and the professors, one of which held a high ranking position in the Archdiocese, felt that the commentary in the "New Commentary on Canon Law" was horrible and made it basically unfit for use in a seminary. We ended up using another edition, from another country.
As for translation approval, see this:
Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.
Ted,
As for the Alba House NT, yes, I believe it is the same as the one edited by Mark Wauck.
Timothy --
I can see what you mean about the New Commentary on Canon Law.
You are right, section 825.1 is the relevant canon law; but there is more detail in the CDF's Ecclesiae pastorum. Also, I like to try to keep my Latin skills up.
I guess I don't understand why the rule didn't immediately take effect with the CDF's decree in 1975, or with the new Canon Law in 1983 -- but did not seem to take effect until 1991. Do you know why?
And do you know why the NRSV has a double imprimatur but other translations don't?
Theophrastus,
I don't know why. Things, as you know, tend to move slowly in the Church.
As for the double imprimatur for the NRSV, perhaps this has something to do with the fact that the Canadian bishops were going to use it in their liturgy?
That's an interesting theory (and it is true that as far back as 1991, Canada was planning to use the NRSV for the lectionary.) But it cannot be the full story if I recall correctly, because I understand that Australia was also planning to use the NRSV for the lectionary in 1991.
Why isn't the RSV2CE on this list? It was published in 2002 and states that it has the permission of the USCCB???
Mike,
The reason is that, even with it's minor changes,it falls under the original imprimatur given for the RSV-CE back in the 60's.
You have to do good work buddy. I'm looking good blog/site for post my comment. Now I got it. I'm very happy to your blog/site.
Thanks for sharing, really like your view. Waiting for some more great articles like this from you in the coming days.
Very excellent snap of the child you have taken.I hope it will help you a guide for other.The photo is really a mixture of some living and non living things which look so gorgeous.Thanks.I wait your feed back....
Very excellent snap of the child you have taken.I hope it will help you a guide for other.The photo is really a mixture of some living and non living things which look so gorgeous.Thanks.I wait your feed back....
Post a Comment