Catholics reading the KJV?

[drummerboy]

So I've been looking around for a Catholic edition of a pocket New Testament (as in genuine pocket, 3x5", not a 4x6" don't know anyone with pockets that big).  These two editions  represent the only options:

https://scepterpublishers.org/products/pocket-new-testament

https://catholicbookpublishing.com/product/53

I'm looking to replace the Gideon's pocket NT that's issued to military chaplains for servicemen, which of course is NKJV.  However, I give the Gideon's credit, as this is an extremely well printed, thought out edition.  It comes with the Psalms and Proverbs as well, and has several pages with relevant passages regarding life situations, morals, etc.  It really is designed for spiritual warfare.

Now, NO Catholic edition even includes Psalms, the most quoted and spiritually uplifting Book of the OT (but the St Joseph edition includes maps, really?).  And compared to the  NRSV-CE and St. Joseph edition, the NKJV probably stands up well as a translation.  I'm not concerned about dangers to my Faith, I'm well educated and have done quite a bit of Scripture study, so am familiar with issues of Prot translations, but would like the opinion of others here.  And this is partly a rant as well, I am honestly disgusted that Catholic publishers cannot manage something similar but the Gideons can.  Get your act together.

[Jayne]

I found a Gospels and Psalms combination: https://www.amazon.ca/Pocket-Gospels-Psalms-NRSV-Sunday-Visitor/dp/1612789676 but then you are missing half the NT.

Do you have a priest/spitiual director you could ask about using KJV?  In general, we should avoid Protestant translations, but your situation might be an exception. 

You've obviously researched this.  Did you come across this: http://www.walsinghampublishing.com/kjv ?  I thought this was very interesting although it doesn't seem to be of any use to you.

[GiftOfGod]

If I recall, it is a sin to even possess a Protestant Bible.

[Prayerful]

It likely lacks the Deuterocanonical books, and has an array of translations (its translators perhaps with the blessing of James I phrased what usually was render bishop as elder so to support those Protestants hostile to royal episcopacy for which Charles I was larger a Protestant martyr) and influences (Douay-Rheim was one, oft referenced critically in the original notes, but perhaps a bigger influence was the Tyndale Bible on Church government, plus the Great Bible and other English royal efforts).

A truly small and traditional bible might be this 3.5 x 5.25" Confraternity Bible. The Confraternity version was an update of Douay Rheim published in 1941. There are obscure passages in D-R, so too in KJV, which Fr Reginald Knox suggested was not as magnificent as claimed. Generation after generation had to go to church to the KJV Gospel. It's way with words became a standard simply from repetition and currency, for probably the one book many would have possessed was a Bible.

[drummerboy]

I found a Gospels and Psalms combination: https://www.amazon.ca/Pocket-Gospels-Psalms-NRSV-Sunday-Visitor/dp/1612789676 but then you are missing half the NT.

Do you have a priest/spitiual director you could ask about using KJV?  In general, we should avoid Protestant translations, but your situation might be an exception. 

You've obviously researched this.  Did you come across this: http://www.walsinghampublishing.com/kjv ?  I thought this was very interesting although it doesn't seem to be of any use to you.

This was extremely helpful actually!  In my English studies in college (3 credits away from a BA, ugh), I repeatedly came across references to the KJV and its importance.  I've also read that early American Catholics used the KJV, but in their case it was all that was available.

[drummerboy]

If I recall, it is a sin to even possess a Protestant Bible.

Perhaps centuries ago

[Kaesekopf]

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/the-new-testament-confraternity-edition/

Is 3.5"x5" too large?

[Miriam_M]

Raised trad, I was always told that the KJV was not the authorized Catholic version; instead, the Douay-Rheims was, which is what we had at home.  The KJV was known as the Protestant Bible; what was in it at the time (which books, etc.) I do not know. There were strict rules about what we could and could not read -- rules that my parents enforced at home and our priests regularly reminded us about.

Later, as a grad student in Biblical Studies, we used neither because the texts we were analyzing had to be heavily annotated.

Today, the Conservative Catholics I know like to talk about their KJV Bibles.

[DigitalLogos]

If I recall, it is a sin to even possess a Protestant Bible.

I don't know about the gravity of the sin, but the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X supports the ban on Catholic ownership of Protestant Bibles:

On Holy Scripture
32. Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?
A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

33. Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?
A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her.

[Insanis]

I have the "pocket size" Baronius Press Bibles (Douay-Rheims). The smallest most compact Bibles are not approved translations. However, I think the reason for this is that the extra ecclesiastical sects only have the "Bible" (as they see it) and it is of singular importance to them. They hold nothing else really.

Whereas we have holy cards, other books, sacramentals, etc.

A Protestant might carry a smaller Bible more conveniently than we can, but I think we know we can carry something far greater.

I do not recommend using unapproved translations for devotional use, however, I think in many cases using them for reference when you have nothing else at hand is fine, if you are aware of the translations background and you know that interpretation of scripture is not a personal affair.

One thing I look for is judging the extent that the Masoretes influenced the text. These were Jews after the destruction of the Temple who redefined the Torah for their own agenda. They redefined words, added their interpretations (adding definitive vowel markings to Hebrew is interpretation as much as a footnote would), and specifically tried to remove evidence for conception of Our Lord by a Virgin.

The KJV didn't do this, which makes it easier to hold than some modern Catholic approved translations, which follow the trend of using the Masoretic interpretation, and putting the truth in footnotes.

Still, it is best to avoid using a protestant Bible for devotional use. For reference, you can do a lot worse than the KJV, but it is not a Catholic Bible and for general use, avoid it.

[Jayne]

If I recall, it is a sin to even possess a Protestant Bible.

I don't know about the gravity of the sin, but the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X supports the ban on Catholic ownership of Protestant Bibles:

On Holy Scripture
32. Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?
A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

33. Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?
A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her.

I took this seriously when I found out about it soon after discovering traditional Catholicism.  I had been a Protestant before becoming Catholic so I had quite a few Protestant Bibles.  I burnt them.

[DigitalLogos]

If I recall, it is a sin to even possess a Protestant Bible.

I don't know about the gravity of the sin, but the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X supports the ban on Catholic ownership of Protestant Bibles:

On Holy Scripture
32. Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?
A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

33. Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?
A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her.

I took this seriously when I found out about it soon after discovering traditional Catholicism.  I had been a Protestant before becoming Catholic so I had quite a few Protestant Bibles.  I burnt them.

Nice. I had a nice KJV with the Dore prints in it before I became Catholic that I ended up donating once I learned Pius X's teaching. In hindsight, it would have been better to burn it.

[Tennessean]

I have the "pocket size" Baronius Press Bibles (Douay-Rheims). The smallest most compact Bibles are not approved translations. However, I think the reason for this is that the extra ecclesiastical sects only have the "Bible" (as they see it) and it is of singular importance to them. They hold nothing else really.

Whereas we have holy cards, other books, sacramentals, etc.

A Protestant might carry a smaller Bible more conveniently than we can, but I think we know we can carry something far greater.

I do not recommend using unapproved translations for devotional use, however, I think in many cases using them for reference when you have nothing else at hand is fine, if you are aware of the translations background and you know that interpretation of scripture is not a personal affair.

One thing I look for is judging the extent that the Masoretes influenced the text. These were Jews after the destruction of the Temple who redefined the Torah for their own agenda. They redefined words, added their interpretations (adding definitive vowel markings to Hebrew is interpretation as much as a footnote would), and specifically tried to remove evidence for conception of Our Lord by a Virgin.

The KJV didn't do this, which makes it easier to hold than some modern Catholic approved translations, which follow the trend of using the Masoretic interpretation, and putting the truth in footnotes.

Still, it is best to avoid using a protestant Bible for devotional use. For reference, you can do a lot worse than the KJV, but it is not a Catholic Bible and for general use, avoid it.

THE GREAT ENGLISH BIBLE FLOOD

The Jewish press of Joseph Athias "claimed to have printed so many Bibles in English that every servingmaid and ploughboy might aspire to own one," wrote Van Dillen. Herbert Bloom puts the number of Athias Bibles at one million, with destinations of England and Scotland.

Sending a million Bibles to England had far reaching political effects and Athias was not the only Bible printer. The most notable was Rabbi Manasseh Ben Israel (1604-1657), who began printing in 1627. According to Tovey, Manasseh had converted to Judaism; his wife was of the Arabanel family, which claimed a direct line to David of Biblical fame. But this may have been put out for English consumption, as it is not mentioned in the modem Jewish Encyclopaedia.

Manasseh is credited with printing the first Hebrew book and printed mostly Bibles. He engaged in grandiose geopolitical operations, especially in his relations with Oliver Cromwell. In Chapter 10 we discuss how he led efforts to gain re-admission of the Jews to England, who had been banned there since 1290 for clipping the English coinage.

Bloom counts 318 Jewish printers from Manasseh up to 1732. The average published edition was 3,000 copies, a high number even by today's publishing standards, considering the populations involved. But this "average" figure could be skewed because of the great number of bibles printed.

According to Van Dillen, from 1625 various "seditious" books were smuggled into England, attacking her social order, including such titles as:

1634 — Flagellum Pontificum by John Bastwick
1652 — Apologetical Narration by John Lilbume
1657 — Killing no Murder by Colonel Titus & Sexby
1673 — England's Appeal from the Private Cabal at Whitehall by Lisola

The printing business in Amsterdam was not very profitable. Discount sales by peddlers, auctions of unsold books, putting books out on consignment, and consignment pledges not being kept ruined the business and rules out the profit motive as the main reason for publishing in Holland.

The Lost Science of Money, Steven Zarlenga

[Daniel]

Didn't Bishop Challoner model his Douay Rheims revision after the King James Version? Did he sin in doing this, since surely he must have read from, and likely possessed, a copy of the KJV?

Something tells me that the Church does not absolutely forbid it, and that the moral question is probably not so simple.

Get your act together.

I agree. And bring the prices down while you're at it. Why is it that I can buy a KJV at the dollar store for $1, but comparable Douay Rheimses are like $20 or $30?

I can sort of understand though. Protestants believe in sola scriptura, so they have more motive for wanting to make their bible as widely available as possible. And the devil empowers them, giving them sufficient resources to make it happen. Catholics couldn't pull it off, even if they wanted to. (Though you'd think some rich Catholic would at least be able to do it.)

[Insanis]

Didn't Bishop Challoner model his Douay Rheims revision after the King James Version? Did he sin in doing this, since surely he must have read from, and likely possessed, a copy of the KJV?

There is a linguistic aspect to translation. Translating language and style is not a matter of theology.

The KJV was written specifically in an archaic English even at the time to help it maintain some distinction from the vulgar speech.

Its phrasings were iconic, much like Shakespeare. In fact, in English writing, the KJV and Shakespeare can be said to almost define written English in many respects.

Also, he was a bishop and it was his duty to study and know what errors were out there.

Something tells me that the Church does not absolutely forbid it, and that the moral question is probably not so simple.

Not absolutely, no. It is just ill-advised and potentially dangerous to use unapproved or non-orthodox translations and such works, and at times the Church has explicitly forbidden it, however, this rule depends on authority.

We all have an absolute moral duty to avoid leading ourselves to error and away from God.

So, don't disobey lawful authority over you and don't read (or watch or listen to, etc) things that are likely to introduce error or doubt into your mind.

As someone familiar with translations and editions, I can say that the language of the KJV is mostly all fine as a translation, but it lacks the intent to be orthodox to the universal Church and it is lacking orthodox notes and references. If you were to compare the translated text of the KJV and the DR or other editions, you might find them fine, however, if you looked at the footnotes and other explanations in the texts, that is where the problems are.

Also, the KJV in print usually does exclude books, although all were translated if I remember correctly.

I can sort of understand though. Protestants believe in sola scriptura, so they have more motive for wanting to make their bible as widely available as possible. And the devil empowers them, giving them sufficient resources to make it happen. Catholics couldn't pull it off, even if they wanted to. (Though you'd think some rich Catholic would at least be able to do it.)

That is their motive, sure, but Catholics have the best Bibles. We just don't have the cheapest ones. That is not a matter of money or the devil. It is just a matter of putting things in the proper place. My Catholic Bibles (all my Bibles) are far greater in quality than what you'd find with the Protestants.