Talk:Catholic Bible

What books are included in Eastern Orthodox Catholic Bibles but not Catholic Bibles?

Nothing other than the Subject. 70.173.96.234 (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Catholics and Protestants are not the only Christians. The Catholic Bible should be compared for content not only with the Protestant Bible but also with the Bible as understood by other Christians.

There are no such things as "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Bibles". For Eastern Orthodox Bibles, see Deuterocanonical books#Eastern Orthodoxy. Esoglou (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Explaining manuscript tradition

I agree that my brief explanation of the manuscript tradition underlying the difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles doesn't sit well in the opening section. I do think that it's an important detail, however, for an uninformed reader wondering how and why entire books appear in one tradition and not in the other. Can we agree it probably sits better under the "Differences from other Christian Bibles" section, and let it play out there? Luckybucky (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Much better there. Well done. oknazevad (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

But (if the reference is to the latest edit) still mistaken. The Catholic Church does not base its translations on the Septuagint, as this addition claims. The Vulgate translated the books in the Hebrew Bible directly from the Hebrew text, as do all modern Catholic translations. Even the older ones translated from the Vulgate, not from the Septuagint version of those books. The Second Vatican Council said that that the Church accepted as her own the Septuagint, but also "other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate". Why did the Church do that? The Council said it was because "easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful", in order that, through these translations into various languages, they should have that easy access. The Council did not say that it gave special authority to the Septuagint, such as the Eastern Orthodox Church gives to it. Esoglou (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we're all in violent agreement. My point isn't that the Catholic Church only bases its translations on the Septuagint, but rather (as Dei Verbum points out) the collection contained in the Septuagint is what sets our accepted canon. Because the Septuagint contains the deuterocanonicals and set our canon, the Latin Vulgate that translated it, and any vernacular Catholic translation that followed, do too.Luckybucky (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your restoration is still original research, and not admissible in Wikipedia. I recommend that you remove it yourself. No reliable source states what you are saying. That is important in Wikipedia. (In particular, Dei Verbum does not say what you are saying.) The Septuagint includes books that are not part of the Catholic canon of Scripture. That is why the canon of Scripture of the Greek Orthodox Church is wider than that of the Catholic Church and includes, for instance, 3 Maccabees, according to the table at Biblical canon. Esoglou (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks to whomever has tidied it up. It makes the point I want to make, and hopefully passes your blink test. Luckybucky (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your expression of gratitude. Esoglou (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that you've opted to revert my proposed edit to capitalize transliteration of the tetragrammaton properly as "LORD." I am working from the publishers own description here: http://www.ctsbooks.org/new-catholic-bible-standard-edition which explicitly states that one of its new features is "New text alterations, replacing the word ‘Yahweh’ with ‘the LORD’ as requested by Benedict XVI for all new Bibles." Reading the text of the adapted translation, it's not that they use the word "Lord" as a replacement for the word "Yahweh." It's that they stop spelling out the Divine Name at all, and use the English tetragrammaton "LORD" whenever the Hebre tetragrammaton "YHWH" appears in the source text. Therefore, I recommend capitalizing it, precisely as the publisher says. Luckybucky (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As I indicated, and as I gave a source for, what the Congregation said was

Directives

In light of what has just been expounded, the following directives are to be observed:

1. In liturgical celebrations, in songs and prayers the name of God in the form of the tetragrammaton YHWH is neither to be used or pronounced.

2. For the translation of the biblical text in modern languages, intended for the liturgical usage of the Church, what is already prescribed by n. 41 of the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam is to be followed; that is, the divine tetragrammaton is to be rendered by the equivalent of Adonai/Kyrios; “Lord,” Signore, Seigneur, Herr, Señor, etc.

3. In translating, in the liturgical context, texts in which are present, one after the other, either the Hebrew term Adonai or the tetragrammaton YHWH, Adonai is to be translated “Lord” and the word “God” is to be used for the tetragrammaton YHWH, similar to what happens in the Greek translation of the Septuagint and in the Latin translation of the Vulgate.

All you need to do is to drop the claim that the Congregation demanded "LORD" and state merely that the edition does use "LORD", citing for your statement a source such as you are presenting here. Esoglou (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150228015236/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Approval for Catholic Bible Versions

"In addition to the above Catholic English Bibles, all of which have an imprimatur granted by a Catholic bishop...." Not correct. As of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Bishops no longer can approve of Bible versions. Only a Bishops Conference or the Holy See can give said approval. The RSV second Catholic edition, for example, has an approval from the Holy See for use in liturgical texts, but no approval from the USCCB. See this source on that point: http://usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:8200:557:D121:39FE:9A9F:54C7 (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Essential addition of two Bible editions needed

In this list two essential editions of the Catholic Bible shall be added. They are, New Community Bible (2008), and New Catholic Bible-Saint Joseph Edition (2019). A Constantine Winchester (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@A Constantine Winchester: How are they essential? They do not even have articles, so my belief is that they are not even notable. Veverve (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Orthodox Bible

Should we work on creating an Orthodox Bible page? One in a similar vain of Catholic Bible and Protestant Bible. Doremon764 (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doremon764:If you mean bibles which are officialy used in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the artlce should be created at the Eastern Orthodox Bible redirect. Oriental Orthodox Bible could also be created. Veverve (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Bible redirect to a bible with the same name, and not about books within Eastern Orthodox scipture as in additional books. There are other Eastern Orthodox bibles as well. Doremon764 (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doremon764: Yes, if you want to make this article, you will have to first take care that what is currently linked to Eastern Orthodox Bible is linked to Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible. Then, you will have to replace the redirect at Eastern Orthodox Bible with a written WP article. On English WP, to avoid any confusion it is a convention to use "Eastern Orthodox" or "Oriental Orthodox" and not simply "Orthodox". Veverve (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: So we make a similar layout to this page, but for Eastern Orthodox. Doremon764 (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doremon764: Nothing is set in stone, feel free to make the article however you want for it to be as clear as possible. Veverve (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Catholic Bible Translation Infobox

Does anyone agree that there is scope for a Catholic Bible Translation Infobox?

The current Bible Translation Infobox leaves out information about Papal, Council, etc... authority that otherwise needs to be found within the article.

Surely there should be some standardised quick method of gleaming this information. It has enormous value. NoelveNoelve (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Some of the articles do not include imprimatur information, or what vulgate is used, let alone any adaptations of the vulgate from manuscripts (and this happens more than the obligation for the vulgate being used necessarily suggests).

As well as information on whether some standards of translation are present or absent, such as referencing the names of God.

Common categorical questions, that help define the context of the Bible translation. NoelveNoelve (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

... I would go as far as saying some of these Bibles are not really Bibles per se, but editions. NoelveNoelve (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)