What's the best bible for Catholics? Bonus points if annotated.

>>9940723
Either Ignatius Bible (RSV-2CE) or NABRE, the latter is annotated.

What the guy below the guy above said

douay rheims is standard

>>9940738
This is not true and has not been true for decades.

>>9940755
why would you get rid of it before the protestants?

File: bobby fischer.jpg (55KB, 661x280px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 661x280px

I was shocked when I found out that Bobby Fischer was the Second Coming of Jesus.

NRSV Catholic Edition

>>9940760
I don't understand what you mean. Most Catholics use modern translations. The Novus Ordo, which most Catholics attend, uses modern translations. The official Latin translation used by the Church is not the Vulgate of Clement, but the post-Vatican II Nova Vulgata, which is a new translation into classical Latin and based on modern textual criticism. The old Vulgate has been abandoned and so has the Douay-Rheims, except among a minority of traditionalists.

>>9940774
Douay Rheims is preferred by traditionalists, but the original reason why it kept sway was because it's close to the KJV. Which means it's intelligible for purposes of literature, and maintains Catholic doctrine in its interpretation as a contrast to the Protestant one. It's annotated specifically to not cause Protestant heresy, and far more useful than any other vulgate for literature, along with being the preferred traditionalist translation.

On the other hand, you could get the newer version, which means that traditionalists will hate you, you'll probably miss literary references, and you'll have to read V2 and hope for not saying something Protestant. Course if you want to get on modern classical Latin which means you'll mispronounce all the hymns, you go with God.

>>9940822
>Douay Rheims is preferred by traditionalists, but the original reason why it kept sway was because it's close to the KJV...
I don't really have an issue with its quality, only with it being called "standard," which it most certainly is not.
>On the other hand, you could get the newer version, which means that traditionalists will hate you
So? Traditionalists are a minority in the Church today and hold virtually no power.
>you'll probably miss literary references
There are annotated modern translations available.
>and you'll have to read V2 and hope for not saying something Protestant.
God forbid a Catholic read the texts of their Church's most recent ecumenical council. Your anti-Protestantism has been passe for half a century now.
>Course if you want to get on modern classical Latin which means you'll mispronounce all the hymns, you go with God.
Classical Latin refers to style, not pronunciation. There is no "correct" pronunciation of Latin, even within an ecclesiastical context.

>>9940879
>I don't really have an issue with its quality, only with it being called "standard," which it most certainly is not.
It is for most all purposes /lit/ would use it. >So? Traditionalists are a minority in the Church today and hold virtually no power.
Yeah sure, that's why V2 needed to backtrack. While we're at it, one of the things about V2 they backtracked: allowing Latin at all. Which is kind of inconvenient if you want to promote a Latin version, because they're the only reason there is a Latin version allowed.
>There are annotated modern translations available.
So, instead of reading common phrases in the text naturally, you can read about the alternate phrasing they took out for the modern phrasing in the footnotes? That seems terribly efficient.
>God forbid a Catholic read the texts of their Church's most recent ecumenical council. Your anti-Protestantism has been passe for half a century now.
Yeah, it would be terrible if they knew the reason why Latin was still valid and could point it out to you in a conversation where you were trying to be king.
>Classical Latin refers to style, not pronunciation. There is no "correct" pronunciation of Latin, even within an ecclesiastical context.
No, it refers to pronunciation. Church Latin is pronounced different. Hence we say Venite adoremus, not Wenite adoremus. Google it, dumbfuck.

>>9940879
Traditionalist now hold most of the quality Catholic publications, it's hardly virtually no power. It's not institutional, it's formational because it influences young priests (that's why there's a bunch of articles of Crux that lament their power).

>>9940906
I don't feel like responding to most of this, as I said what I wanted to say, but:
>No, it refers to pronunciation. Church Latin is pronounced different. Hence we say Venite adoremus, not Wenite adoremus. Google it, dumbfuck.
1. The issue I was referring to was the translation of the Nova Vulgata, which is translated into a more classical style. Classical Latin is written in a different manner than later Latin. You can pronounce it however you like.
2. There is no singular "church pronunciation." After Latin became a literary language, the most common practice was to pronounce the language in the same manner as one's native tongue. This lead to differing pronunciations in different nations. Around the beginning of the 20th century there was a movement to adopt a singular pronunciation within the Catholic Church, that being the pronunciation which was then in use in Italy. This movement was resisted in some countries and never fully accomplished its goals. Today the Italian pronunciation exists among several other native pronunciations which are still in use. Even the reconstructed classical pronunciation is used at times. So again, there isn't a "correct" in this regard.

>>9940723
>Catholics appropriating a Protestant meme
What has become of this board?

>>9940952
>1. The issue I was referring to was the translation of the Nova Vulgata, which is translated into a more classical style. Classical Latin is written in a different manner than later Latin. You can pronounce it however you like.
So you think that the Clementine version is further from Jerome than the Nova? Are you smoking something that makes you see angels? The purpose of the NeoVulgate was to translate it away from Church Latin as written by Jerome, you utter tit.

>there is no Church latin
Yes, yes, there is. It has a standardized pronunciation, and it's taught as ecclesiastical Latin, because the problems of not teaching one dialect became a problem which Clementine was designed to solve. That's in the middle ages and not the early 20th Century.

The one you are recommending is pretty much useless unless you want to do exegesis, and even then, it's pretty useless compared to learning Greek and Hebrew.

I'll point out as well that Classical Latin was preserved in the insular church, so we have a very good idea of what the Romans sounded like and how the church changed it from contemporary accounts, rather than liars like you.

>>9940982
Why are you being so hostile? Your message would be far more effective if you simply removed the insults, there's really no need for them. Sure, modernists annoy you, but you won't convince them with that attitude.

>>9940982
>So you think that the Clementine version is further from Jerome than the Nova?
What does this even mean?
>Are you smoking something that makes you see angels? The purpose of the NeoVulgate was to translate it away from Church Latin as written by Jerome, you utter tit.
Jerome did not write "Church Latin." Jerome wrote in the Latin that was in use at the time he lived. I'll be frank here: you do not know much about Latin and it shows.
>Yes, yes, there is. It has a standardized pronunciation, and it's taught as ecclesiastical Latin, because the problems of not teaching one dialect became a problem which Clementine was designed to solve. That's in the middle ages and not the early 20th Century.
You are confusing the style of language used and pronunciation, which I distinguished between. You don't know what you're trying to say. Feel free to look into the French resistance to the Italianate pronunciation. How is Latin pronounced in churches in Germany? In Russia? Do you even know?
>I'll point out as well that Classical Latin was preserved in the insular church, so we have a very good idea of what the Romans sounded like and how the church changed it from contemporary accounts, rather than liars like you.
Stop embarrassing yourself and go read a book about the history of Latin and a book about the history of Latin pronunciation within the Church.

>>9941003
He's being a dick. His suggestions not good for what OP probably needs, and rather than be wrong, he'll try to convince OP to get a bible that won't help him understand most literary allusions to the bible, and which has the main benefit of being a classical Latin bible, when the only people who care about Latin bibles are traditionalists, while also being a bible that traditionalists would never use. Sure, if OP wants to study classical Latin rather than any of the other uses of bible, it might be a good choice, but he's so blinkered he can't see OP probably would start with a classical Latin textbook rather than a backtranslation.
>>9941015
>What does this even mean?
Jerome closer to the classical period. It's literally someone writing in vulgate, i.e. common speech. That's why when they were cementing Church Latin, they used that, because it was the closest source to anyone who spoke Latin. >>9941015
>Jerome did not write "Church Latin." Jerome wrote in the Latin that was in use at the time he lived. I'll be frank here: you do not know much about Latin and it shows.
That is why the Clementine version being to secure the emerging Church Latin of the medieval period is mentioned in my above post. They use it to teach standardized Latin, not in the 20th C, but the 16th. Telling me I don't know much about Latin is a lark when you're demonstrably wrong, and anyone can google either of our claims. You're just wrong.
>You are confusing the style of language used and pronunciation, which I distinguished between. You don't know what you're trying to say. Feel free to look into the French resistance to the Italianate pronunciation. How is Latin pronounced in churches in Germany? In Russia? Do you even know?
Literally look up Church Latin pronunciation. It's been taught in seminaries for hundreds of years to get everyone on point for when the Latin mass (preserved by the traditionalists you think don't mean shit to Latin kek) was the only Mass. Vernacular masses are very fucking recent, and you're a fucking idiot if you think they didn't see the problem arising much earlier. They've been publishing guidelines on this since 1570.
>Stop embarrassing yourself and go read a book about the history of Latin and a book about the history of Latin pronunciation within the Church.
caudex indecensque es

>>9941015
Also you're so dumb I missed it in the first pass
>Latin mass in Russia
It's pronounced Church Slavonic there.

>>9941025
>>9941032
At this point I have to just assume that you are trolling. I'd like to think that traditionalists are more informed on the subjects that they purport to care about, rather than blabbering nonsense like this. I'm going to bed.

>>9941037
>present facts about Church
>y-you m-must be trolling
yeah I rigged all of google, Church history, and V2 to agree with my trolling just in case anyone checked. Nightly reminder God knows you through and through.

>>9941037
They are indeed pronounced in old Slavonic, it's one of the three big liturgical languages. Just recently we had a Czech priest celebrate Tridentine mass in old Slavonic.
Gospodi pomiluj
Gospodi pomiluj
Gospodi pomiluj

File: kys.png (225KB, 540x405px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 540x405px

>>9940960

>>9941003
To be fair, that guy is an utter tit and a liar. What's he supposed to say
>truth-challenged
>overabundantly confident

His point isn't that modernists annoy him, I don't think, it's that the anon pretending to be a modernist doesn't know modernist or traditional shit.

If the "modernist" were recommending the public domain version because "it's all in there", he might not call him a tit or liar.

However, telling someone who might well be a traditionalist that there isn't such a thing as Church Latin but you should read the Bible in Classical Latin written by modern scholars translated from the Greek is retarded. It's not modernist.... it's just retarded. Someone who kept up with the revisions knows that's a fight you're not winning and that it's not a modernist argument. Vatican II was supposed to make Latin thoroughly unimportant. Yah, the traditionalists kicked up shit to keep the Tridentine mass and shit, but no modernist would try to sell you a bible because "the latin's real good". It's retarded if you're a modernist, so I think that guy might well be just a tit.

>>9940723
KJV. Suck it up.

>>9941201
Anglicans are nicer than you, so I'm sorry that you're an English grad.

>>9941203
I just left secondary school.

>>9941201
That doesn't include some books the Catholics do, like Maccabees

>>9941209
not him but that's just if you get the cheap versions where they omit the apocrypha, i thought?

>>9941209
It does because Anglos are """protestant""".
>>9941232
Correct.

>>9941241
>It does because Anglos are """protestant""".
Akshually, Martin Luther himself kept the apocryphal books in his physical bible, he just moved them to a separate section because he didn't think they were inspired. They were only taken out later to save on printing costs, which has lead to the modern protestant misconception that the "original bible" was just the 66 books.

>>9940723
Jerusalem Bible

>>9940723
Elberfelder
https://www.bibleserver.com/start/ELB