None of those are a Catholic version.
Thanks for all the answers, folks!
Guin, the “New American Standard Bible (NASB)” in the link is not the “New American Bible” mentioned by astorian?
Nope-not unless they took out the Protestant Apochrypha.
Huh. I did not know that. (even the foriegn language ones?)
Personally, I have a very old Douay version. That’s Catholic, right? Anyone still use it?
Well, it has the Vulgate, which I’m pretty sure was used by Catholics for a while.
However, both French Bibles cited, the Louis Segond Bible and the Bible du semeur are protestant versions.
My understanding is that the Jerusalem Bible is the name of the official Catholic Bible in all languages. I know for a fact that it is the official Catholic Bible in Portuguese. It was commissioned by the Vatican in an effort to have a standardized Bible in all languages. Apparently before then the Catholic Bibles in use in different languages frequently differed, sometimes significantly, because each translation had been done seperately. So in the 60s the Vatacan assembled a huge group of translators to make sure that the translations across all the languages were functionally the same. As an interesting side note JRR Tolkien was the primary translator in English of the book of Jonah and did a fair amount of editorial work on several other books. As the Jerusalem Bible is a relatively new translation I understand that it is still fully protected under copyright and that it is not available online.
The most common Protestant Bible in Portuguese is the Joao Ferreira de Almeida translation. It holds the same kind of reputation as the King James in English, pretty language but sometimes difficult to read. As it is rather old several newer version of it have been released including the Corrigada Fiel (Corrected Faithful), Revista e Atualizada (Revised and Updated), and Revista e Corrigida (Revised and Corrected). Outside of the Jerusalem and Joao Ferreira translations the only other common translation is the NVI (Nova Versao Internacional) which is the Portuguese equivalant to to the English NIV.
Yeah, I don’t know if the other Bibles are Catholic-Croatia and Poland are largely Catholic-but none of the English versions are Catholic, as far as I can tell.
Before Vatican Council II, RCs used an English translation of the Vulgate (the official Latin translation of the original texts). This English translation of the Vulgate is called the Dhouay-Rheims. Although, for liturgical purposes, the English was not used, the Latin Vulgate was.
After Vatican Council II (1962-5), English was allowed to be used in the liturgy, and permission was given to use English translations of the Bibile that translated directly from the original language documents (Greek & Hebrew). This led to official approbation of three English versions of the Bible for use in RC liturgy:
[list=1]
[li]The Jerusalem Bible (JB): an English translation of a Catholic French translation of the original language documents.[/li][li]The Revised Standard Version (RSV): The updated translation of the KJV. This translation went back to the original texts rather than simply try to update the language of the KJV.[/li][li]The New American Bible (NAB): The Catholic English translation of the original languages. This eventually became the most popular one for Catholics.[/li][/list=1]
Since that time, the NAB and the RSV have come out with second editions with the most notable change being the use of inclusive language (with regard to people, not the nueterization of God).
The response of some conservative elements within the RC Church was to have a heavy hand in how the Revised NAB turned out and then only to allow the RNAB to be used for liturgy, banning the use of the NRSV and the JB.
Peace.
The standard protestant bible in Spanish is the Reina-Valera, translated by Casiodoro de Reina in 1569 and revised by Cipriano de Valera in 1602.
I gotta trust a bible answer from someone with username NFlanders…
Rod Flanders: the Vulgate of St. Jerome!
Ned: Vulgate it is!
Plus, many “popular” (non-official) Spanish Catholic versions are based themselves on revisions of the Reina-Valera version. Reina-Valera, even w/o the state-sponsored aura of the KJV, has like the KJV heavily influenced how people perceive language as “sounding Biblical”.
Pre-Vat-II the most common Spanish Catholic version was the 1825 Torres-Amat edition, a translation of the Vulgate.
An officially-sanctioned original-languages full translation project into Spanish was realized in 1943-44 resulting in what is known as the “Nácar-Colunga” (after its editors) version, of which (and its revisions) there have been many Church-approved editions, extremely widespread post Vat-II. If your Catholic school was of a more conservative bent, this was the version they pushed on you.
There is a Spanish “Biblia de Jerusalén”, 1967, produced from the same research as the Jerusalem Bible. The annotated versions are very scholarly, as in its French elder sibling. Then there is the “Biblia Latinoamericana”, 1971, a “popular” version of Biblia de Jerusalén, targeted at the Latin-Am “market”, but which some dioceses explicitly stated was NOT for official doctrinal-teaching use (the annotated versions tended to be heavy on the liberal interpretations, and were favored by Liberation-Theology advocates).
In the Protestant side, the Reina-Valera was subject to a series of minor editions/revisions into the late 1800’s that finally were cleaned up and put together into what’s called the “Reina-Valera 1909” revision. A new revision incorporating 20th-century scholarship happened in 1960, though some radical fundamentalists are not too happy with it (and its 1995 edition) alleging contamination by “ecumenists” (i.e. the committee included Catholic scholars and their publications in the process).
A Spanish “people’s language”/“modern language” Protestant version was produced by the Sociedades Bíblicas Unidas in the 1970s, titled “Dios Habla Hoy”, and it has been very popular – their NT is often used even in Catholic Schools. The basis was the Reina-Valera 1960, turned into “everyday language”. Needless to say our R-V fundamentalists are not too happy with this version.