Thursday, March 3, 2016

Confraternity Bible Poll

If a quality/premium edition of the Confraternity Bible could be produced, I would choose it in the following format:
New Testament (1941) Only
Full Old Testament (1969) and New Testament (1941)
I don't really care to have one in any format
personality test

22 comments:

Biblical Catholic said...

There is really no point in producing a full Confraternity Bible, because there never was a Confraternity OT, the Confraternity OT was the Douay OT, gradually replaced with what would become the 1969 NAB OT.

The only thing that is not readily availabie is the 1941 NT.

Eric Barczak said...

I voted NT only, but what I'd really like to see is a Confraternity NT with the New Latin Psalter translation of the psalms by the Catholic Book Publishing Corporation circa1949-1954, in a format similar to what Ignatius did with their RSV2 NT & Psalms.

Jeff S. said...

James Ignaitus McAuley, and Timothy,
I fully concur with hoping that
Baronius will come out with a Confraternity edition.
The only question would be whether it should be the
final completed 1969 version which is impossible to find,
or a "classic" pre-1955 version which would have some of the
Old Testament still be the Old Douay-Rheims, with
the Psalms starting with "Blessed" rather than "Happy".
I love the fact that all Confraternity editions have the
1941 New Testament which is translated from the Vulgate.

Part of Baronius's decision making process might be the fact
that they already have published complete editions of the
old Douay-Rheims. And the more important constraint might be
that the USCCB might have the "rights" to the Confraternity and
would forbid any new publication of it since they wouldn't want
any competition for their NABRE.

Timothy said...

Thank you!

Mark DeForrest said...

There's another option that isn't listed in the poll: the 1941 Confraternity NT (which was translated primarily from Latin) with the Douay OT. That was how the whole Bible was originally published before the pieces of what would become the Confraternity OT (which later morphed into the NAB original OT) started getting released. I would much prefer to see that arrangement done.

James Ignatius McAuley said...

Jeff S. and Tim

There is actually a Confraternity Psalter, but it is based on the Pian Psalter that came out in 1946. I have seen a variety of translations of this, and the one found in the 1964 Collegeville Breviary (excellent translation, especially Psalm 72 and 73) is different than the one found in the 1975 Short Breviary (being the 1969 Confraternity). The 1954 version (with thees and thous), also found in the Short Breviary from that year is different from both the 1946 (thees and thous) and 1964 (no thees and thous) Breviary versions. Frankly, the 1946 and 1954 is not memorable, but the 1964 is excellent. Baronius could easily get the rights to the Confraternity Psalter found in the 964 Collegeville as they took everything else from this Breviary to make.

But, imagine what that did to your prayer life - a new psalter every few years!

Anonymous said...

Biblical Catholic,

You wrote:

"There is really no point in producing a full Confraternity Bible, because there never was a Confraternity OT, the Confraternity OT was the Douay OT, gradually replaced with what would become the 1969 NAB OT."

Well, actually there was a Confraternity OT. Yes, most of it was carried over into the NAB, but Genesis was significantly revised.

vladimir998

Mike said...

I would prefer the arrangement Mark DeForrest suggested.

Jeff S. said...

Mark DeForrest,
I kind of like what you propose; 1941 NT with Douay-Rheims OT.
You can obtain those from websites like AbeBooks.com and on ebay.
One question, and this would apply to a reprint of any version of
the Confraternity: should names of people and places be "modernized"
or as some might say "King James-ed", or "westernized" so as to be the same as the current usage in the NABRE. Beginning with the NAB in 1970,
the NAB and NABRE made a point to do that. I think I might prefer that
but it would be okay either way with me.

Timothy said...

Perhaps, since it seems that a full OT and NT are being prefered by most, I will do a poll next week that has the option of either the 1969 Confraternity OT or the Douay. Any thoughts?

Mark DeForrest said...

I like the idea of pairing the Confraternity NT with the Douay OT because both are translated from the Vulgate, and it would be a good idea, I think, to have a more modern edition (for the NT at least) of the whole Bible translated from the Vulgate. Right now, the only recent Vulgate translation we have is for the deuterocanonical books in The Message Catholic Edition. Since the Douay OT is in the public domain, a project to regularize the names in the OT to what we are more familiar with now is something that could be done, although I don't know how truly necessary it is given the general lack of overall biblical literacy now.

So, Timothy, I think that running a poll on this would be worthwhile just to gauge your readers about what they might like to see in this regard. Maybe 1969 Confraternity, Douay, and New Names Douay?

Timothy said...

I initially thought I would prefer the 1969 version for the Old Testament, however, I am slowly being swayed to the Douay side. Certainly might be easier in regards to copyright.

Francesco said...

I think Scepter Press still sells pocket Confraternity NTs.

If we are going to mix the Confraternity with another OT I would vote for the Knox OT. The Challoner OT is from another time.

Eric Barczak said...

For a full bible pairing, I'd maybe consider the RSV 1st edition OT. Some thees/thys/thous to make it sound at a similar level to the NT, but not as heavy as the Douay. Although, I'd also want to keep it as an all-Vulgate translation, so Douay would be good too. If it's published as a whole Bible, only the NT would be truly unique, so I'm quite ok as just a NT (or NT and Psalms I previously mentioned).

Jason P said...

The original (1954?) Confraternity translation of Genesis is SO SO SO much better than either the 1970 NAB or the 2010 NABRE version of Genesis.

They should not have touched it. Everything wrong with the NAB Genesis is perfect in the old Confraternity Genesis

Jason P said...

My vote would be for a full 1941 Confraternity NT with a Douay Old Testament - The Psalter in either the original Douay or the new translation of the new latin from Pope Pius XII and as far as the names, I think it'd be nice to see it in paragraph format with modern names (Isaiah instead of Isaias, Chronicles instead of Paralipomenon)

Biblical Catholic said...

"Well, actually there was a Confraternity OT. Yes, most of it was carried over into the NAB, but Genesis was significantly revised. "

I don't see the point in buying an all new version of the Bible to get a slightly different version of Genesis.

Maximilian said...

Francesco: yes, Scepter Press sells a pocket Confraternity NT, as does TAN Books. I accidentally bought both last year - long story - and they're exactly the same, except the TAN one is bound in black and the Scepter in navy blue. It's a great little edition and now lives on my bedside table for daily reading.

With that being on the market, I don't know if a full-size Confraternity NT would serve much purpose. The pocket version does omit most (not all) of the notes, and it would be nice to have those, but I don't think they're extensive enough to justify a whole new NT edition. I'd probably be more interested in a Douay OT/Confraternity NT double.

Jay said...

If you're going to have a Douai OT, then you should pair it with a Douai NT and not mix editions like that. If you think the Douai NT is no longer useful as a lay translation of the NT for general reading (as opposed to one for scholars and others who study the Bible a lot), then logically the Douai OT is no longer useful either. I voted for Confraternity OT/NT, but if there never really was a separate Confraternity OT that was not the same as the NAB70 OT, then I change my vote to "not interested in either", because we already have new printings of the Confraternity NT, to say nothing of the numerous copies of older printings you can commonly find where you find other used books.

Jeff S. said...

I think the 1970 NAB Old Testament had a new revised Genesis
which is how it differed from the Confraternity Genesis.

Jeff S. said...

Meant to say:
"which is how its Old Testament differed from the Confraternity
Old Testament".

And of course the spellings of names and places differed as the
1970 NAB and all revisions of it since culminating in the NABRE
use the "westernized" ("modernized") spellings.

Timothy O'Keefe said...

I would be content with the original Old Testament of the New American Bible paired with the Confraternity New Testament. However, the first edition of Genesis was different from the version that was finally printed in the NAB, and I would like to have that first edition of Genesis in the Old Testament.