Complete Ignatius Catholic Study Bible -- I predict that this is at least five years away -- and probably more than ten. I know, they keep on talking about "acceleration" (which I read as "lighter annotation") but the OT has got to take as much time as the NT, right?
Bible that matches the lectionary at Mass -- Does not seem to be on the horizon. As long as the lectionary and Bible translation are controlled by different groups, this seems to be unlikely. Something fundamental would need to change before we see progress on this.
English translation of the Nova Vulgata -- Seems unlikely to ever come to pass. The Nova Vulgata is not that good of a translation -- it is quite uneven, and is easily bested by any number of modern language translations in major languages. Opus Dei prints its editions of the Navarre Bible in diglots with Nova Vulgata now, so that seems to satisfy demand. A translation of the Nova Vulgata probably could not receive the imprimatur, given Divino Afflante Spiritu and the Vatican rules on Bible translation. There is not enough scholarly demand for an English translation of the Nova Vulgata without imprimatur (along the lines of the New English Translation of the Septuagint.)
True Catholic Reference Bible -- I'm not sure why you regard the NABRE and NJB as not being "true Catholic Reference Bibles." Sure, the cross-references could be improved a lot, but that's true of many cross-reference Bibles. There are now several different editions of the NRSV (with full-edition Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals) with cross-references (I think the Oxford edition is the best), and using Bible software such as Logos, BibleWorks, Accordance, or OliveTree, this is easy to achieve as well. And, you've pointed out on July 22 and August 11 that a cross-reference Catholic NRSV is soon to be out from Harper-One.
To summarize:
* Cross-reference Catholic Bibles -- already here (NJB, NABRE)
* Complete Ignatius Catholic Study Bible -- maybe as early as five years away, but more likely ten years or more.
* Bible that matches lectionary -- requires a fundamental political re-alignment.
* English translation of Nova Vulgata -- probably never.
I agree with most of what you have written. However, while it is certainly true that editions like the NJB and NABRE are in many way reference editions, I guess what I am looking for is something similar to the NRSV w/Apocrypha from Cambridge. Reference Bibles like this have a ton of cross-references, useful aids in the appendix, and more-than-your-average maps that cover the entire Biblical period. A Catholic Reference should also contain, IMHO, Mass readings.
Well, I believe the Oxford Catholic Study Bible (even the 2nd edition) has all of the features you enumerate -- it includes a lectionary index (Sundays/holidays/weekdays), a glossary, a concordance, a table of measures and weights, maps, and 500+ pages of additional articles. Of course, one can argue about the quality of the NAB/NABRE's cross-references -- but as I understand it, those are the only cross-references the publisher will allow to be listed. (At least the NABRE does much better than the NAB OT in cross-references.) I believe the NJB has similar issues.
By the way, I am not so impressed with the Cambridge cross-reference list.
If you want a separately compiled list that goes beyond what the , your best bet is probably using Bible software, or just using two books (e.g., here is a Protestant book that provides cross-references alone -- and it is 1500+ pages long.)
I disagree with the idea that a translation of the Nova Vulgata could not receive an imprimatur. An imprimatur is just a censor's stamp that says there is nothing doctrinally inaccurate in it.
The new Baronius Press breviary has a "current" imprimatur and it contains a translation of the original Vulgate. Their missals, which contain Douay texts and much much older manuscript translations within the TLM (Psalm 42 for example) itself also have an imprimatur.
Matt -- there are different rules for liturgy and Scripture. See Liturgiam Authenticam 24:
"Furthermore, it is not permissible that the translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages; rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin, as regards the texts of ecclesiastical composition, or the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture."
Liturgy must be translated from Latin; Scripture must be translated from Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek.
Notice also that it appears that the Baronius Press breviary has the approval of the "local Ordinary" required by Canon Law 826.3, while a translation of "books of Scripture" requires the approval of "the Apostolic See or the Episcopal Conference" under Canon law 825.1.
Note that even if the liturgy quotes Scripture, it is not a "book of Scripture."
I am confused by what you are trying to say. Nothing you cite says that a translation of scripture from the Latin can not receive an Imprimatur. I agree that Latin Rite liturgy needs to be from Latin.
We have books of Scripture today that are essentially translations of translations. For instance, the Jerusalem Bible, right?
Also, I understand that Bible translations now need USCCB approval.
Nothing you cite says that a translation of scripture from the Latin can not receive an Imprimatur.
Once again, let me quote Liturgiam Authenticam (LA) 24:
"Furthermore, it is not permissible that the translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages; rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin, as regards the texts of ecclesiastical composition, or the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture."
So, since Latin is not "Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek" a translation from Latin is "not permissible."
I very much doubt that the Jerusalem Bible could receive imprimatur if it were translated today. My understanding is that materials that have imprimatur before LA retain their original imprimatur.
Are you aware of any "book of Scripture" in English which is translated from a third language (such as French or Latin) which has a post-LA imprimatur?
LA is talking about translations for the Liturgy, not the Bible, right? I read the passage (24) and it isn't talking about Bibles. It is talking about Liturgy. We aren't allowed to translate the Liturgy from English into Urdu anymore. That is what it is talking about.
I don't know of any post LA Bibles that are a translation of a translation. But it might be good to check and see if the JB from CTS has one. It contains changes (Yahweh -> Lord, Grail Psalms), and is a reprint, so an old imprimatur wouldn't count on the new edition - as is my understanding.
Here is Canon Law 825 on printing books of Scripture:
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.
Nothing about translation of a translation. It seems that if a conference of Bishops wanted to approve some translation of a translation it would be up to them.
Hi Matt -- The CTS Bible contains a new imprimatur for Wansbrough notes, but the changing of the Tetragrammaton is the same sort of "insubstantial change" that allowed the the "RSV-CE 2nd edition" to be issued under its original imprimatur. Of course, the Grail Psalter has a separate imprimatur.
Also, Interconfessional Translations must be from the from the original languages. Now it is true that a purely Catholic effort might not be subject to the same restrictions, but I suspect that the same rules would be applied in practice.
Complete Ignatius Catholic Study Bible -- I predict that this is at least five years away -- and probably more than ten. I know, they keep on talking about "acceleration" (which I read as "lighter annotation") but the OT has got to take as much time as the NT, right?
ReplyDeleteBible that matches the lectionary at Mass -- Does not seem to be on the horizon. As long as the lectionary and Bible translation are controlled by different groups, this seems to be unlikely. Something fundamental would need to change before we see progress on this.
English translation of the Nova Vulgata -- Seems unlikely to ever come to pass. The Nova Vulgata is not that good of a translation -- it is quite uneven, and is easily bested by any number of modern language translations in major languages. Opus Dei prints its editions of the Navarre Bible in diglots with Nova Vulgata now, so that seems to satisfy demand. A translation of the Nova Vulgata probably could not receive the imprimatur, given Divino Afflante Spiritu and the Vatican rules on Bible translation. There is not enough scholarly demand for an English translation of the Nova Vulgata without imprimatur (along the lines of the New English Translation of the Septuagint.)
True Catholic Reference Bible -- I'm not sure why you regard the NABRE and NJB as not being "true Catholic Reference Bibles." Sure, the cross-references could be improved a lot, but that's true of many cross-reference Bibles. There are now several different editions of the NRSV (with full-edition Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals) with cross-references (I think the Oxford edition is the best), and using Bible software such as Logos, BibleWorks, Accordance, or OliveTree, this is easy to achieve as well. And, you've pointed out on July 22 and August 11 that a cross-reference Catholic NRSV is soon to be out from Harper-One.
To summarize:
* Cross-reference Catholic Bibles -- already here (NJB, NABRE)
* Complete Ignatius Catholic Study Bible -- maybe as early as five years away, but more likely ten years or more.
* Bible that matches lectionary -- requires a fundamental political re-alignment.
* English translation of Nova Vulgata -- probably never.
Theophrastus,
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what you have written. However, while it is certainly true that editions like the NJB and NABRE are in many way reference editions, I guess what I am looking for is something similar to the NRSV w/Apocrypha from Cambridge. Reference Bibles like this have a ton of cross-references, useful aids in the appendix, and more-than-your-average maps that cover the entire Biblical period. A Catholic Reference should also contain, IMHO, Mass readings.
Just my 2 cents! :)
Well, I believe the Oxford Catholic Study Bible (even the 2nd edition) has all of the features you enumerate -- it includes a lectionary index (Sundays/holidays/weekdays), a glossary, a concordance, a table of measures and weights, maps, and 500+ pages of additional articles. Of course, one can argue about the quality of the NAB/NABRE's cross-references -- but as I understand it, those are the only cross-references the publisher will allow to be listed. (At least the NABRE does much better than the NAB OT in cross-references.) I believe the NJB has similar issues.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I am not so impressed with the Cambridge cross-reference list.
If you want a separately compiled list that goes beyond what the , your best bet is probably using Bible software, or just using two books (e.g., here is a Protestant book that provides cross-references alone -- and it is 1500+ pages long.)
I haven't read Liturgiam Authenticam, but wouldn't a Bible that matches the lectionary essentially be an English translation of the Nova Vulgata?
ReplyDeleteOff the top of my head I can think of one or two places where that might not be the case, but basically that's what LA wants, isn't it?
Jesus will come first.
ReplyDeletePC,
ReplyDeleteYou may be right!
I disagree with the idea that a translation of the Nova Vulgata could not receive an imprimatur. An imprimatur is just a censor's stamp that says there is nothing doctrinally inaccurate in it.
ReplyDeleteThe new Baronius Press breviary has a "current" imprimatur and it contains a translation of the original Vulgate. Their missals, which contain Douay texts and much much older manuscript translations within the TLM (Psalm 42 for example) itself also have an imprimatur.
Matt -- there are different rules for liturgy and Scripture. See Liturgiam Authenticam 24:
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, it is not permissible that the translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages; rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin, as regards the texts of ecclesiastical composition, or the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture."
Liturgy must be translated from Latin; Scripture must be translated from Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek.
Notice also that it appears that the Baronius Press breviary has the approval of the "local Ordinary" required by Canon Law 826.3, while a translation of "books of Scripture" requires the approval of "the Apostolic See or the Episcopal Conference" under Canon law 825.1.
ReplyDeleteNote that even if the liturgy quotes Scripture, it is not a "book of Scripture."
"Bible that matches lectionary"
ReplyDeleteProbably it means a bible that matches lectionary in the USA and Canada, because I think the CTS New Catholic Bible is such a bible :)
Theophratus,
ReplyDeleteI am confused by what you are trying to say. Nothing you cite says that a translation of scripture from the Latin can not receive an Imprimatur. I agree that Latin Rite liturgy needs to be from Latin.
We have books of Scripture today that are essentially translations of translations. For instance, the Jerusalem Bible, right?
Also, I understand that Bible translations now need USCCB approval.
Nothing you cite says that a translation of scripture from the Latin can not receive an Imprimatur.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, let me quote Liturgiam Authenticam (LA) 24:
"Furthermore, it is not permissible that the translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages; rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin, as regards the texts of ecclesiastical composition, or the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture."
So, since Latin is not "Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek" a translation from Latin is "not permissible."
I very much doubt that the Jerusalem Bible could receive imprimatur if it were translated today. My understanding is that materials that have imprimatur before LA retain their original imprimatur.
Are you aware of any "book of Scripture" in English which is translated from a third language (such as French or Latin) which has a post-LA imprimatur?
From Matt: (I accidentally deleted his post)
ReplyDeleteLA is talking about translations for the Liturgy, not the Bible, right? I read the passage (24) and it isn't talking about Bibles. It is talking about Liturgy. We aren't allowed to translate the Liturgy from English into Urdu anymore. That is what it is talking about.
I don't know of any post LA Bibles that are a translation of a translation. But it might be good to check and see if the JB from CTS has one. It contains changes (Yahweh -> Lord, Grail Psalms), and is a reprint, so an old imprimatur wouldn't count on the new edition - as is my understanding.
Here is Canon Law 825 on printing books of Scripture:
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.
Nothing about translation of a translation. It seems that if a conference of Bishops wanted to approve some translation of a translation it would be up to them.
Hi Matt -- The CTS Bible contains a new imprimatur for Wansbrough notes, but the changing of the Tetragrammaton is the same sort of "insubstantial change" that allowed the the "RSV-CE 2nd edition" to be issued under its original imprimatur. Of course, the Grail Psalter has a separate imprimatur.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Interconfessional Translations must be from the from the original languages. Now it is true that a purely Catholic effort might not be subject to the same restrictions, but I suspect that the same rules would be applied in practice.