The Confraternity New Testament

[@bos567564]

Brother in Christ, thank you so much for reviewing my favourite NT! God bless you!

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for the kind comment, brother!

[@bos567564]

@@RGrantJones Something that is worth mentioning is that this NT retains the you singular and you plural distinction, which is the only modern English translation of the NT that I know of that does. The RSV and the NASB 1977 only retain you singular (thou and thee) to refer to Deity for poetic purposes and not for semantic purposes. I think this is important because in my reading of the NT the you singular and you plural distinction becomes highly relevant in certain passages. Sometimes you think that Jesus is speaking to a crowd when he in fact is addressing a particular person or you think he is speaking to a particular person when in fact he is speaking to a group of people. It's a real pity that the English language got rid of this distinction. It is curious because in most Indo-European languages the distinction has been retained.

[@RGrantJones]

@@bos567564 - I agree. Some modern translations provide footnotes to clarify doubtful cases, but I like the older method myself.

[@nailtoncesardossantos136]

May God always inspire and bless you with these precious revisions. God bless you infinitely 🙏

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for the very kind comment, Nailton Cesar Dos Santos! May God bless you and yours.

[@K_e_n_]

Wow! My mother was born in 48! I love your vids Dr. Jones!

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the encouraging comment, KD!

[@HD23777]

Another really great video, Thanks RGJ.

[@duke927]

Thank You for your good info on this Bible. I recently found this Bible, maybe an earlier edition as I don’t have it in front of me, at a used bookshop at a reasonable price not long ago. It is a treasure as it is in direct line with the Douay. Now lost as newer translations have gone more modern. This very day I received “A Commentary on The New Testament” published in 1942. By the same contributors to that Bible translation. The Commentary is one volume about the same size as the Bible. The Confraternity translation of the OT was done piecemeal, finished in one edition and then discarded by the Catholic Church in favor of the NAB which didn’t use the vulgate. Many Confraternity Bibles including the one my Mother gave me are Douay-Challoner OT and CCD NT. The commentary is in the Public domain and can be downloaded as a scanned PDF. Thank you again for your good, informative and comprehensive videos.

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for that informative comment!

[@duke927]

@@RGrantJones As a PS. I found a pocket edition NT Confraternity dated around 1963-64. It is an illustrated edition. It was a quality paperback but had some condition issues but very readable with the same notes as it’s larger brethren. But the cross references were in an appendix. I saw one on the internet a little more expensive and bought it but boy was I surprised. This illustrated pocket edition was the same illustrated book in pristine condition but in hardback. Published on 1965 by the Catholic Book Publishing Company same as the paperback illustrated edition. The dimensions are 5 3/4 by 3 3/4 by 1. A really nice copy and easy to read.

[@paul-the-pilgrim]

I love The Name of the Rose! I'm so glad to hear that you enjoy it also.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, Paul the Pilgrim! Yes, I enjoyed it very much.

[@paul-the-pilgrim]

@@RGrantJones What do you think of Eco's stated belief in the postscript that "The author should die once he has finished writing. So as not to trouble the path of the text."

[@RGrantJones]

@@paul-the-pilgrim - I'm not familiar with that quotation. My copy doesn't seem to have a postscript. It ends with Adso writing in a scriptorium with aching thumbs, craving oblivion.

[@paul-the-pilgrim]

@@RGrantJones Oh, too bad! If you can find it (in digital format maybe) it is worth the read. Especially if you are fascinated--as I am--with authorship, meaning, interpretation, etc. Which is really just an extension of themes from the novel itself. Highly recommend!

[@ggarza]

Thank you for the fascinating review! The Confraternity Version was warmly referred to as the American version outside of North America, according to an article in Dom Bernard Orchard’s, Catholic Commentary published in 1953. According to Cardinal Newman, in his History of the Douay Rheims Bible, published in his newspaper, The Rambler, the Douay Rheims Bible favored the Authorized Version (KJV) more than the original DR text by his time! He wrote by the time of the Challoner Revision of the DR (which itself had 5 revisions) there had already been dozens of major revisions to the text. Newman held, as someone who was invited to be on the Editorial Committee for the Revision of the Authorized Version, that the DR text was purposefully revised to conform with the Authorized Version because it’s primary criticism from the very beginning was its complete lack of literary quality. This observation made by Cardinal Newman was also made by Cardinal Wiseman, as well. Thank you, again for the wonderful work with this fine edition that carries so much history.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for that kind and informative comment, Gil! I hope I can remember that the Confraternity Version = the American Version (outside the U.S.). The method I used in producing the five or so charts I showed here was to note, in the introduction to the 1582 Rheims NT, where they remarked on some difference between their approach and that in the Protestant translations of the time, and to examine the Challoner revision, the "American Version," and the NABRE on each point. I built about 30 such charts altogether, some of which I can perhaps recycle for use in the Douay-Rheims/KJV comparison video, if I ever return to that project. By the way, is this the article by Newman to which you made reference: www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/douayrheims.html ?

[@ggarza]

@@RGrantJones The very same!

[@jasonseaman3392]

Scepter Publishers does a modern reprint of this in a pocket size which I own, which appears to have all of the same footnotes but no cross references. It also has a reading plan included that covers the entire New Testament twice a year, which means I've read through it more often than any other translation and it's become one of my favorites. I think it is the perfect median between traditional and contemporary language. As for "repent" vs "do penance", Fr. Ronald Knox has another, linguistic angle on this from the pamphlet "On Englishing the Bible"-"St. Jerome had to use poenitentiam agere; there is no other way of saying 'Repent', since poenitet has to be impersonal, except in the participle." I'm not a Latinist, but from this it seems that the differences in translation stem from a true doctrine being highlighted because of differences in linguistic expression present in Latin and Greek. I've also been wondering if you are familiar with Richmond Lattimore's translation of the New Testament? I've been wondering what your thoughts on it would be for quite a while now.

[@MAMoreno]

As much as some people would like to claim that the modern Protestant Bibles are conforming to Catholic teaching, every bit of evidence I've seen would point in the opposite direction. Perhaps it's most accurate to say that the cooling of tensions between the two sides has led to fewer "proof-text" glosses in Bible versions on either side.

[@RGrantJones]

That sounds right to me, M.A. Moreno. Thanks for commenting!

[@yaramyah2786]

Is there copies of the Apostolic Bible Polyglot anymore? im looking into buying one

[@RGrantJones]

It appears it's now sold as a three-volume set: www.apostolicbible.com/newstore.html#!/c/0 . Thanks for the question!

[@yaramyah2786]

oh ok didnt pay much attention when i first visited their website. thanks for the clarification

[@larrym.johnson9219]

Look forward always for your reviews and comparisons, hopefully I can find the volume you reviewed . With respect Always brother have a Blessed Easter season, and a restful Sunday. 🤟🔥⛪👨‍👩‍👧‍👦🇺🇸

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you much for the kind comment, brother!

[@douglasj2254]

Thanks for another great analysis. The Confraternity New Testament is one of those little treasures that I wish was available in a few new, large print editions. Knox is good but it is so full of early 20th Century British idiom and phrasing I find it distracting to read. Peace.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the kind comment, Douglas J!

[@ussconductor5433]

Great review- as a non-Catholic, this is one of my favorites. I like the you=plural and thy/thine/thee for the singular/plural distinction. I also have it in the ‘Comparative New Testament’ that has the KJV,ASV, RSV, and New Confraternity New Testaments in it. That way you have a good representation of the Western Text, TR, Westscott and Hort, and first Eclectic Greek Texts.

[@fnjesusfreak]

I have one of these which has a few pages misprinted.

[@geraldparker8125]

This is the translation of the N.T. that I give to those to whom I witness who might have difficulty with Tudor English of the King James Version. It is one of the only translations that can amplify the usefulness of the K.J.V. in such a manner, since it is such a reliable English language version.

[@treeckoniusconstantinus]

I've got a so-called "numbered deluxe edition" of the Confraternity New Testament from St. Anthony Guild Press, out of 1,000 printed, bound in black Morocco. It's a hefty thing, larger than most Bibles, and yet I believe it has the same font sizes for the text, references, and notes as in this standard edition. Same layout too. How is this the case? Becaues it just so happens to have, like, 2 or 3 inch margins, save for the inner margin! If only I liked writing in Bibles...

[@fnjesusfreak]

I contacted the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to confirm someone's claim and they consider this translation to be PD. (I have a PDF of the response) I kind-of wish they had completed the Old Testament in the same style and by the same methodology. The NAB (not to be confused with the NASB which is actually good) is a terrible translation.

[@PadraigTomas]

The NAB is indeed a terrible translation. Where other translations render a phrase in a pithy and memorable manner, the NAB is insipid. Worse still are the notes, which sometimes contradict the plain meaning of the text. The CCD and USCCB inflicted an embarrassment on the Church. It is ashamed of themselves they should be.

[@manfredcaranci6234]

If only the US bishops had allowed the Confraternity translation of the OLD Testament from the Latin Vulgate to be completed and published! But, alas, they stopped the effort dead in its tracks in 1943 because Pius XII had issued his "Divino Afflante Spiritu", which encouraged Catholics to make translations "from the original languages". Well, we did, but we don't have much to show for it. Exhibit A: the New American Bible (1970) and its subsequent revisions, which are ongoing even to this day, which, to me as a Catholic, is an embarrassment.

[@Hardin4188]

I am Protestant, but I would love to see a new translation of the Vulgate. It really is a shame that it seems to be abandoned entirely. It was used by Christians for centuries and it would be nice to have an English translation of it with contemporary language.

[@fnjesusfreak]

@@Hardin4188 I've made a few attempts but it's a _long_ text to try to do on my own. I'd be willing to contribute to one though.

[@redsorgum]

For five dollars, I bought a mint condition Saint Joseph, New Catholic Edition illustrated Bible. It’s the Douay Challoner confraternity edition. New edition copyrighted 1962.

[@TheBurningWarrior]

This is actually a precursor to the New American Bible. They finished the NT in the early 40s, but in, IIRC, 1943, Pope Pius XII promulgated Divino Afflante Spiritu, which encouraged the use of the Greek NT and Hebrew OT over the Vulgate and the LXX generally. Rather than starting a new project, they applied these principles going forward in the Confraternity edition OT which they released in stages in the 40s-60s, but when it was finished, instead of releasing them all as one volume, they translated a new NT in keeping with the D.A.S. and the literary style of their OT and released this as the 1970 NAB. (1986 and 91 revisions were terrible due to inclusive language obscuring messianic typology, and notes which held a strong antisupernatural bias, but my understanding is the psalms were fixed in the NABRE, though not the NT, and the 1970 bible has my personal approval for what it's worth.)

[@TheBurningWarrior]

I also wanted to add that Priest is just a mutation of the word presbyter borrowed into English, just as Bishop is a mutation of the word Episcopos borrowed into English. I prefer preist/bishop in translation, because, while its not less sacral, yet is still more familiar to the average joe; common understanding aside, they are nevertheless variant forms of the same two words. They had intermediary forms as the words were shortened and simplified such as prester and biscop.

[@jobr4472]

I have a copy which evident from the inscription, dated 1942, was presented to a Benedictine nun in England by her nephew. If anyone wants to take a chance on buying an 80-year-old bible online buy one formerly owned by a nun.

[@RGrantJones]

Sounds like she took good care of it, JoBr. Thanks for commenting!

[@tanksgt]

In the old lectionary occasionally the Epistle was a reading from the Old Testament. I think there are one or two feast days on the Temporal Cycle were this is the case and more common in the Sanctoral Cycle.

[@amyk6403]

I like the maps and illustrations in this one.

[@hassanmirza2392]

I read this article from 1985 Translating the Bible by Barry Hoberman It is very good 🧐

[@donecsedy1222]

Thank you for this review and for your reviews of other Catholic bibles. The Confraternity translation is my preferred devotional bible. and my bible for just plain reading, too. The St. Anthony Guild Press NT is now the third bible I've bought due to your reviews (the other two are the LES Septuagint and the St Ignatius NT Study Bible). Regarding the Confraternity OT, the "New Edition" copyright 1962 contains the Confraternity translation of "The First Eight Books (Genesis to Ruth), the Seven Sapiential Books (Job to Sirach), the Eighteen Prophetic Books (Isaia to Malachia)". 1Kings to Esther, 1 and 2 Machabees are the Douay Version. I don't know if there is a later edition containing more Confraternity OT after the 1962 edition. I haven't come across any in my browsing about. I also think The Name of the Rose is worthwhile...not the movie though. Thank you, again for your reviews.

[@humanjesusspecialist]

Quality publishing in 1947.

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for commenting, HumanJesusSpecialist!

[@Yaas_ok123]

Please review Book of the Year -22, Adam Harwood's Christian theology(systematic theology). Gonna be next "Grudem". Blessings from Finland.

[@patcandelora8496]

I have the full version including the rheims OT

[@legacyandlegend]

Technically the October testament would be the most modern vulgate new testament. Even though it's an update of Tyndale's new testament. He did rely heavily on the vulgate though.

[@fightthegoodfightoffaithmi8676]

Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 2 Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 1 John 3:13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.