In 1943, we have yet another controversial initiative by the last (so far) Catholic Pope, Pius XII.

His Holiness published the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, on which he says that the original texts of Holy Writ should be used for future translations of the Bible.

In my opinion this is a very dangerous move, since the Vulgate by St. Jerome had always been the definite and official version of the Bible, and was free from any and all (doctrinal) error.

It might be interesting for scholars to use original texts, but I can see no good reason to make something other than the Vulgate or a good translation of it avaliable to the general faithful as an approved version.

I read just yesterday in the fantastic judaism.is website that the "Hebrew Bible" is actually a corrupted version of the Old Testament, altered to erase the most obvious references to Our Lord, in a way that people would not believe that He is the messiah.

I also would like thank Mr. Mark 79 for his fantastic website.

As far as I know, the most reliable source for the Old Testament is the Septuagint, since the hebrew texts that St. Jerome used are not avaliable anymore. The Dead Sea Scrolls could also be useful, but they were not easily obtainable during the 40s and 50s, as far as I know.

Anyway, what I would like to know is what manuscripts were accepted to be used from 1943 to 1958? Was the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew Bible) ever accepted? What other controversial texts were used? The encyclical makes no reference to what can be considered an original text. It simply opens a very dangerous door and leaves it there, unguarded.