Best Bible?

[St_Aloysius]

As far as I know, there’s no place to read the Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition online.

Aha! I’ve proved you wrong! lol I don’t know how I found this, but I did:

geocities.com/sacra_scriptura/eng_bible_index.html

Note that the translation used there is the Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition (1st Edition, that is), meaning archaic language is intact. For the Revised Standard Version: Second Catholic Edition (which I prefer and has eliminated archaic language by and large), here’s the best way you can peruse that I’ve found:

books.google.com/books?id=4koHcLYaKw4C&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=i+praise+you+for+i+am+wonderously+made+wonderful+are+your+works+you+know+me+right+well&source=web&ots=ORKk-7JCK-&sig=RjHbQyi6HXDndD-PSrkYQ-jN8qo

I think that if poeticism is important to you, the Douay-Rheims is your best bet.

If accuracy is, then the Revised Standard Version: First or Second Catholic Edition is best (the first edition uses all the “thees” and “thous,” but doesn’t carry the D-R’s poeticism, IMHO; the second eliminates this but keeps the accuracy and flow).

If accuracy is still your main focus but you want something slightly easier to read, and don’t mind inclusive language or verses sometimes translated in non-traditional manners, then the New Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition is probably good.

If you’re not into literal, word-for-worders, and want something very similar to what’s used in the Mass (RNAB), then the New American Bible is what you’re looking for, though it’s far from perfect, be forewarned.

If you’re REALLY not for literal translation types and want a quick and easy read and don’t mind inclusive language in the least, then the New Living Translation: Catholic Edition is a great dynamic translation, but certainly not endorsed officially by the Church.

But the poster who quoted Graham was right: Whichever Bible you’ll read, that’s the best one.

 

[Alexius]

But the poster who quoted Graham was right: Whichever Bible you’ll read, that’s the best one.

OK, then I’ll go with the “Good as New” version:

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39114

…:banghead:

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Here’s my idea for a great Douay Rheims–take the Carey Revision of the New Testament of the Douay Rheims done by Carey in 1935–

take the Haydock version of the Old Testament of the Douay Rheims Challoner which sometimes followed Dr. Troy instead of Challoner–

and add to it an English translation of the 3d and last Latin version of the Psalms that St. Jerome made that came from the original Hebrew.

Use the current numbering system for verses instead of the Vulgate’s numbering system–

and change all Latin spellings of Names to English spellings

That would be a great Douay Rheims!.

 

[alessandro]

Out of curiosity, anybody ever peruse Robert Sungenis’ Catholic Apologetics Study Bible (CASB)?

catholicintl.com/products/books/casb.html

The CASB is advertised as being an updated Douay-Rheims Bible:

The CASB gives you an updated version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, the most accurate and authoritative Catholic translation available. The CASB replaces some archaic 16th century words with more precise words. The grammar and syntax of the original Greek and Hebrew are analyzed in conjunction with the Latin Vulgate for the most accurate translation.

…And the appendices are supposed to give very detailed apologetic notes:

The CASB’s appendices, 23 in all, give a thorough and detailed analysis of the most controversial biblical topics, defending each Catholic doctrine by a thorough analysis of the original Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Latin, the context, the grammar, word comparisons, patristic witnesses, papal and conciliar decrees, medieval theologians, the Tridentine and post-conciliar catechisms, and other important witnesses. Topics such as: Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” (Mt 13:55), Mary’s perpetual virginity (Mt 1:25); divorce and remarriage (Mt 5:32; 19:9); the unforgivable sin (Mt 12:32); papal infallibility (Mt 16:18-19); guardian angels (Mt 18:10); the End Times (Mt 24:3); the Eucharist (Mt 26:26), and many more are covered. Everything you’ve ever wanted to know about these topics and how to defend them against non-Catholic critics is contained therein.

The study Bible is being released in volumes (final volume projected for publication January 2009). A revised Douay-Rheims in modern English (without apologetic commentary) is scheduled for publication in April 2008.

An earlier page said that the CASB would feature the nihil obstat and imprimatur (as have several of Sungenis’ other works), but I don’t know if this ended up being the case.

Amazon.com gives the first two volumes excellent reviews… but I wonder if anyone has actually read through them.

Any thoughts or comments?

 

[Manfred]

If the Catholic Church is still one holy, catholic and apostolic how come it’s Imprimatured scholars have supposedly gone astray. Frankly, this moronic obscurantism really needs someone to call it what it is. Stop bamboozling the beginners. Go and do a S.S.D. in Rome or Jerusalem and get a life.

Perhaps you are not aware that in some rare cases the Imprimatur had to be withdrawn from a published work after terrible doctrinal errors were later found to be in that work. To my knowledge, none of the works was a bible.

But I hope you are not under the impression that the bishops who grant the Imprimaturs are anywhere close to being Scripture scholars, or have actually read either the text or the notes to which they grant their Imprimatur. No, they supposedly rely on “experts” to do this for them, and then pretty much just take their analysis as “gospel” (pun intended ). And, of course, all these “experts” are conservative, orthodox Catholic scholars who couldn’t possible have any “hidden” agendas, e.g., inclusive language, women priests, married priests, right?

 

[Manfred]

Aha! I’ve proved you wrong! lol I don’t know how I found this, but I did:

geocities.com/sacra_scriptura/eng_bible_index.html

I hate to burst your bubble but no, this is not any of the RSV Catholic editions; it is the RSV with the 1971 NT plus a few changes (e.g., Luke 1:28) from the “real” Catholic edition of 1965-66. You are not the first to believe you have “proved (us) wrong”.

See the following links for some real analysis (courtesy of mmortal03):

umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm

umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/RSVCEdiff.htm

 

[The_Truthinator]

I hate to burst your bubble but no, this is not any of the RSV Catholic editions; it is the RSV with the 1971 NT plus a few changes (e.g., Luke 1:28) from the “real” Catholic edition of 1965-66. You are not the first to believe you have “proved (us) wrong”.

See the following links for some real analysis (courtesy of mmortal03):

umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm

umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/RSVCEdiff.htm

I think I’m going to cry now… I thought he had it.

 

[prayerbead]

Interesting thread. I link to a few different bibles on my website but I honestly don’t know which I prefer. It seems that everyone has there favorite. The NAB would probably be preferred by US catholics for obvious reasons. Maybe it would be easier to ask what catholic bibles are bad

If you’re curious to see what I link too catholicexpert.com/catholic_bible.html

 

[jblake]

Jerry-Jet;:

take the Carey Revision of the New Testament of the Douay Rheims done by Carey in 1935

Under copyright.

take the Haydock version of the Old Testament

Public domain

add to it an English translation of the 3d and last Latin version of the Psalms that St. Jerome made that came from the original Hebrew.

Public domain.

Use the current numbering system for verses instead of the Vulgate’s numbering system

I’ve got a spreadsheet that makes that easy to do.

change all Latin spellings of Names to English spellings

That is fairly easy to do.

That would be a great Douay Rheims!.

If you want to distribute the result, the major obstacle is getting permission to distribute it. I don’t know how easy it would be to get permission for the Carey revision to be included in it.

You could distribute just the Old Testament, as that source material is in the public domain.

If all you want to do is create it for your own personal use, then it will take roughly 250 hours to proof read the etexts, and 100 or so to format the text to your liking. (This includes converting it to the file format of the Bible Study Software of your choice.)

I’m working on too many other projects, to even contemplate doing this. Still, it is a tempting thought.

xan

jonathon

 

[jblake]

EphelDuath;:

the theology will never change; so what’s wrong with a commentary that’s 150 years old?

Whilst it doesn’t affect Catholic theology as much as Protestant theology, the theology does change over time. Studying old commentaries is the easiest way to discern how theology has changed over time.

The 150 year old commentary, that would have been written at the same that Protestant Christianity was being rocked by Dispensationalism and Landmarkism. For Catholics, it would have been written prior to the split of the “Traditional Catholics”.

xan

jonathon

 

[MrS]

Out of curiosity, anybody ever peruse Robert Sungenis’ Catholic Apologetics Study Bible (CASB)?

catholicintl.com/products/books/casb.html

The CASB is advertised as being an updated Douay-Rheims Bible:

Any thoughts or comments?

I don’t think all 13 volumes will be available by 2009. It is a massive undertaking.

The first three are available (third on James and Romans is PDF for now)

The real draw to this work is the in depth coverage of those verses that our separated brethren find most troublesome for their beliefs. In other words, not only are these volumes Catholic, but they are apologetic in nature. They are typical of Sungenis’ other works… filled with references, Early Fathers, Councils etc.

Recommend?? certainly!!

As for the “version” being a “revised” Douay… well the first (Matthew) is. But until the imprimature is received, the books will use the RSV I believe. This will avoid conflict with those who like to criticize Sungenis’ talents.

I have the Haydock in print and on line, the Navarre, a few parallel bibles (one Catholic and one mixed), the Ignatius issues, works by Knox etc etc.

Why? I guess I may be following the pattern of the Early Fathers. They would study many translations of the individual books. When hundreds or more say the same thing, and then one pops up that says something different, it is possible to see the who is right and who is wrong.

Stick with the Church. The volume of commentary from non-Catholic sources is now hugh. Some of what they say/write is actually right. It is the erroneous stuff that will cause you trouble.

.

 

[bengland]

I love the logic of using an 1859 commentary! This makes such sense I’m going to try to find a World Atlas published circa. 1859.
Perhaps I’ll scrap my Encyclopaedia I bought last year and find a Britannica set dated to the mid-nineteenth century. I’m sure that’ll be state-of-the-art.

And I going to e-mail Bill Gates, sorry I meant to say I’ll send him a message by carrier pigeon, to see if he’ll give me an old copy of Windows 1859.

If the Catholic Church is still one holy, catholic and apostolic how come it’s Imprimatured scholars have supposedly gone astray. Frankly, this moronic obscurantism really needs someone to call it what it is. Stop bamboozling the beginners. Go and do a S.S.D. in Rome or Jerusalem and get a life.

The Bible doesn’t need to be updated every 30 days like computer software. It’s essentially the same story as when it was written, at least we hope so. Scripture scholarship goes through phases, but that’s not to suggest that it was so seriously deficient then as to be useless. The Haydock Bible, for around $100, is an excellent resource. I saw someone else mention the Ignatius. I don’t think it’s comparable and it’s even more expensive. The Navarre, which is comparable on the other hand, costs 3-4x’s as much but is that much better. The notes and insights in the Navarre show great scholarship and the cost isn’t terrible for what you get.

The Haydock also has the advantage of not being muddied by either the first or second Vatican councils. It’s a decent translation, with excellent commentary. It can be copied and put to use for the benefit of all and you can trust that the interpretations are reasonably traditional. Some think $100 is a lot to spend, but I don’t think it’s asking too much for that bible. For one thing it’s over 1800 pages. For another it’s a decent quality hardbound book with large print for the main text and a helps section in the back with historical explanations.

The NJB with the notes is priced at about $45 in the Barnes and Noble up the road and it’s not half the bible that the Haydock is. The NAB large print has some strange notes, being a ‘critical’ bible that many here simply don’t trust and it’s also expensive for what you get. Often it’s onionskin paper with a cheap binding for $30+.

For $100 (for the Haydock) you get something trustworthy and faithful that you can really learn a lot from and it won’t require a virus scan every time you open it.

That said, I would very much like a CASB for next Christmas

 

[Lily_Marlene]

By far, the best translation of the Bible is found in the Jerusalem Bible, copyright 1966. There is absolutely no inclusive language and the footnotes contain valuable information. I own several different Bibles so I feel I am able to make this judgment.

It is very difficult to find this 1966 edition but a careful search might result in success. However, the price, at this time because of the popularity of this Bible, may be prohibitive.

It is my greatest treasure.

As far as the translation used at Holy Mass here I find it so unfamilar to me because it has been watered down. I attend Holy Mass daily and oftentimes I am silently remembering the original text. Our pastor has the same problem.

Whatever version you use, please do read it daily.

“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” St. Jerome.

“Love Sacred Scripture and wisdom will love you.” St. Jerome

Lily Marlene

 

[jblake]

Lily Marlene;:

It is very difficult to find this 1966 edition but a careful search might result in success.

There are several versions of The Jerusalem Bible:

• Scholar’s Edition;
• Standard Edition;
• Reader’s Edition;
  I have forgotten the others.

The major reason people like the Jerusalem Bible, is for the footnotes and cross-references. Those are not in the Reader’s Edition. (I was very disappointed when I found that out.)

However, the price, at this time because of the popularity of this Bible, may be prohibitive.

I found The Reader’s Edition for US$1.99 at a local thrift store.

EWTN sells the Reader’s Edition. Probably the only place in the world where you can buy a new copy. [Mother Angelica apparently uses it.]

xan

jonathon

 

[WestonGrant]

I agree on the JB and the Haydock. Great stuff!

Can you get either one of those on CDROM? That would be awesome.

I couldn’t reco the CASB by Dr. Sungenis though. There’s still some people acting like promoters for him here but he doesn’t have imprimaturs on any of the CASBs at this point. He was turned down for it.

I’m sticking with the Church. I’m not going to pick anyone over the Church. If you don’t have the Church’s approval or even get turned down on something so sacred like a Bible translation or commetnary that’s very important. The part about translations is even in canon law. There’s a limit, you know?

I like his first couple of books alot though and he has imprimturs on Not By Scripture Alone and Not By Bread Alone. I think he has one another one named How Do I Get to Heaven (I don’t have that one though so I’m not sure) but he doesn’t have one on his other books.

I already wrote about it because I had a long argument with a promoter back a while ago here at the the CAF who was trying to cover over that Dr. Sungenis was turned down. That still doesn’t sit right with me. Here’s a post I put up with links to it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3126665&postcount=8

 

[jblake]

WestonGrant;:

I agree on the JB and the Haydock. …
Can you get either one of those on CDROM?

Haydock is public domain. I’ve added it to the list of material to convert to e-Sword format.

The text of The Jerusalem Bible text has been distributed as an e-Sword module. (1st English edition, 2nd French Edition, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Spanish Edition.) Needless to say, such distribution was done without the consent, knowledge, or authorization of the copyright holder.

AFAIK, the study aids from The Jerusalem Bible have not been distributed as an e-Sword resource. (I converted the cross-references to a commentary, for my own use.)

If you want to request permission from Tyndale Press, and the other copyright holders, to distribute The Jerusalem Bible with both text, and study notes, do so. (If you can secure permission to distribute the set, I’ll help you convert everything to e-Sword format.)

xan

jonathon

 

[Prince_Hal]

The Vatican website - if I am correct - has the New American Bible. Does anyone know why, rather than the RSV-CE. This fact seems to endorse the NAB over the others. But one reply to this thread suggested that it had “heretical footnotes”.

Any thoughts.

God Bless,

Hal.

 

[EphelDuath]

The RSV:CE is under strict copyright issues. Therefore, you cannot find it in any format except as a book.

So the Vatican can either put the original RSV up or the NAB. Although the RSV is a superior translation, its committee was not Catholic, and endorsing a non-Catholic Bible would be a bad idea.

 

[jblake]

EphelDuath;:

The RSV:CE is under strict copyright issues. Therefore, you cannot find it in any format except as a book.

Do you know what the differences between the RSVA and RSV-CE are?

I have a copy of the RSVA for my Bible Study Software.

xan

jonathon

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned. The Latin Vulgate, if you know Latin. If not, it is probably the Douay-Rheims Bible. After that, the RSVCE.