Best catholic Bible version to read?

[tobinatorstark]

I have that list. Are you sure you want it? It’s a very long one, covering several thousand manuscripts.

But before we go through all that trouble, let me ask again, as on two other threads.

The Catholic Church says the original language manuscripts are accurate. The Catholic Church commands biblical scholars to use them.

So again. Why do you oppose the Catholic Church?

I do not oppose the Catholic Church, I simply wanted to know what makes the texts that were used to translate the RSV-CE more accurate. I never said they weren’t accurate. I will stress this time and time again. I don’t care for the RSV-CE. I am sorry that offends you but I don’t care for the RSV-CE. I don’t get the point of taking a Protestant bible with Protestant views and try to make it Catholic. You and a number of others are trying to force me and Jerry-Jet to approve of the RSV-CE. I for one don’t want to read it anymore. I wouldn’t force the Clementine Edition on you nor would I force the Douay-Rheims. All I wanted was for the OP to know what I recommend and what I don’t recommend. As soon as I said I don’t recommend the RSV-CE everyone has been jumping down my throat like I am some heretic. If I had just said Jerusalem Bible and Douay-Rheims I would have been alright to you. I don’t like the way you guys diss the NAB. I don’t particularly care for it, but it just seems that all you RSV folks don’t want anything to do with the NAB because it doesn’t fit your standards. Well the RSV-CE doesn’t fit my standards of a good Catholic Bible. You just can’t accept the fact that some people don’t care for the RSV-CE. There are people who dislike this translation or that translation for their own personal reasons. So if it bothers you that I don’t care for the RSV-CE so be it. I am not telling you that you shouldn’t read the RSV-CE but I am saying I would stay away from it personally (I, meaning me, that Toby Stark would stay away from it.)

 

[porthos11]

I do not oppose the Catholic Church, I simply wanted to know what makes the texts that were used to translate the RSV-CE more accurate. I never said they weren’t accurate. I will stress this time and time again. I don’t care for the RSV-CE. I am sorry that offends you but I don’t care for the RSV-CE. I don’t get the point of taking a Protestant bible with Protestant views and try to make it Catholic. You and a number of others are trying to force me and Jerry-Jet to approve of the RSV-CE. I for one don’t want to read it anymore. I wouldn’t force the Clementine Edition on you nor would I force the Douay-Rheims. All I wanted was for the OP to know what I recommend and what I don’t recommend. As soon as I said I don’t recommend the RSV-CE everyone has been jumping down my throat like I am some heretic. If I had just said Jerusalem Bible and Douay-Rheims I would have been alright to you. I don’t like the way you guys diss the NAB. I don’t particularly care for it, but it just seems that all you RSV folks don’t want anything to do with the NAB because it doesn’t fit your standards. Well the RSV-CE doesn’t fit my standards of a good Catholic Bible. You just can’t accept the fact that some people don’t care for the RSV-CE. There are people who dislike this translation or that translation for their own personal reasons. So if it bothers you that I don’t care for the RSV-CE so be it. I am not telling you that you shouldn’t read the RSV-CE but I am saying I would stay away from it personally (I, meaning me, that Toby Stark would stay away from it.)

No one is forcing to you read the RSV. We are forcing you to accept that the Church is not wrong in choosing it or endorsing the original languages. We are forcing you to accept that the original language manuscripts are accurate based merely on the Church’s opinion before we present scholarly proofs.

We diss the NAB because the Church rejected it. We don’t diss the JB because the Church did not reject it. We diss the NRSV, despite its scholarship, because the Church rejected it.

The RSV-CE fits the Holy See’s standards for a good Catholic Bible. The Vulgate does as well. So does the Nova Vulgata. So does the Douay. We dare not reject the Vulgate, Nova Vulgata, Douay, lest we find ourselves at odds with the Church. We do not reject Church judgment regarding the original language manuscripts, lest we find ourselves at odds with the Church. You are at odds with the Church, both on its choice of manuscripts AND its choice of translations.

Your standards vs. the Pope’s standards, and I think we have a clear distinction.

So again. Why do you insist on the inaccuracy of the present manuscript tradition when the Church has clearly said that it is the one that carries weight and authority?

 

[juliamajor]

I do not oppose the Catholic Church, I simply wanted to know what makes the texts that were used to translate the RSV-CE more accurate. I never said they weren’t accurate. I will stress this time and time again. I don’t care for the RSV-CE. I am sorry that offends you but I don’t care for the RSV-CE. I don’t get the point of taking a Protestant bible with Protestant views and try to make it Catholic. You and a number of others are trying to force me and Jerry-Jet to approve of the RSV-CE. I for one don’t want to read it anymore. I wouldn’t force the Clementine Edition on you nor would I force the Douay-Rheims. All I wanted was for the OP to know what I recommend and what I don’t recommend. As soon as I said I don’t recommend the RSV-CE everyone has been jumping down my throat like I am some heretic. If I had just said Jerusalem Bible and Douay-Rheims I would have been alright to you. I don’t like the way you guys diss the NAB. I don’t particularly care for it, but it just seems that all you RSV folks don’t want anything to do with the NAB because it doesn’t fit your standards. Well the RSV-CE doesn’t fit my standards of a good Catholic Bible. You just can’t accept the fact that some people don’t care for the RSV-CE. There are people who dislike this translation or that translation for their own personal reasons. So if it bothers you that I don’t care for the RSV-CE so be it. I am not telling you that you shouldn’t read the RSV-CE but I am saying I would stay away from it personally (I, meaning me, that Toby Stark would stay away from it.)

don’t revise what you and Jerry Jet profess-you were the accusers- we the accused. you the pure of heart- we the tainted(by protestants)I could care less which Bible you read.If the DR suits your fancy-great but don’t complain if we think the language or translation is a barrier. i prefer the RSV- I use it when I teach and it makes it easier for me- but I also use a Tanakh, the JB the DR , NIV,NEB, and any thing that I can get my hand on that gives me a better insight. heretic? that’s funny- your own medicine doesn’t taste so good- having the tables turned on you- not very pleasant is it?NAB to me is a awkward read- that’s all.I don’t see Satan or protestants lurking under every version I don’t like or use.Terms you used very loosely and with frequency.My like or dislike of a particular version is unimportant but accusing folks of not being good catholics or protestant tainted is an in your face disrespect. maybe that was not your intention but that’s definitely how it came across. i don’t ask people what bible they use and nver recommend one unless asked.And usually my students ask what version I use because they like the flow, esthetic reasons. i don’t judge people by the bible they use- and like i said before I’ve got so many different translations that I know that each one has it’s strong points and it’s weak ones and that not one is perfect in regards to the translation itself.Peace

 

[colliric]

I never ruled it out. That is not what I was saying at all. Read again what I wrote and you’ll see what my issue was with this whole case.

My issue was that the change of wording would cause Protestant to allege that Catholics misuse scripture. I never said that the use of “the presence of Christ” was wrong. I just said that I wish more modern bibles said in the “person of Christ”. Not saying all but some.

oh…

I think this is a case where we actually agree, but I read your post incorrectly to mean you actually didn’t like “Person of Christ”… sorry! my mistake!

 

[RedSoxFan]

oh…

I think this is a case where we actually agree, but I read your post incorrectly to mean you actually didn’t like “Person of Christ”… sorry! my mistake!

LOL Im just glad to see Im not losing my mind!

 

[Donna_P]

So, Which is it? I have a plethora of versions, And I can’t decide which is most accuratwe and which is in common with most other catholics and Catholic Apologists. I find I am not very comfortable with the NAB, as the notes seem to contradict the inspiration of the scriptures, on the other hand, they do point out alot of places where the Gospels differ significantly (another of my problems)… Thanks to all who reply

Dear Roman,

May God be with you!

I really like my Ignatius RSV Catholic 2nd Ed. I’m not at the point where I like having all of the cross references. The language/translation is beautiful.

I would say that ultimately, the absolute best Bible to read ever…is any Bible that you READ!!!

God bless you!

 

[jblake]

tobinatorstark;:

Jerry-Jet also as requested proof these texts. What are the names of these texts??? I bet you can’t answer that for me

The very short list:

• WLC;
• BHS;
• NA-27;
• USB-4;

xan

jonathon

 

[porthos11]

The very short list:

• WLC;
• BHS;
• NA-27;
• USB-4;

xan

jonathon

Well, to start off, here’s the slightly longer list, for the New Testament alone:

Papyrus 2, P2
Papyrus 3, P3
Papyrus 4, P4

Papyrus 5, P5

Papyrus 6, P6
Papyrus 7, P7
Papyrus 8, P8
Papyrus 9, P9

Papyrus 10, P10
Papyrus 11, P11
Papyrus 12, P12

Papyrus 13, P13

Papyrus 14, P14
Papyrus 15, P15

Papyrus 16, P16

Papyrus 17, P17

Papyrus 18, P18

Papyrus 19, P19
Papyrus 20, P20

Papyrus 21, P21
Papyrus 22, P22

Papyrus 23, P23

Papyrus 24, P24

Papyrus 25, P25
Papyrus 26, P26
Papyrus 27, P27

Papyrus 28, P28

Papyrus 29, P29

Papyrus 30, P30

Papyrus 31, P31
Papyrus 32, P32

Papyrus 33, P33
Papyrus 34, P34
Papyrus 35, P35
Papyrus 36, P36
Papyrus 37, P37

Papyrus 38, P38

Papyrus 39, P39

Papyrus 40, P40

Papyrus 41, P41
Papyrus 42, P42
Papyrus 43, P43
Papyrus 44, P44
Papyrus 45, P45

Papyrus 46, P46

Papyrus 47, P47

Papyrus 48, P48

Papyrus 49, P49

Papyrus 50, P50
Papyrus 51, P51
Papyrus 52, P52

Papyrus 53, P53

Papyrus 54, P54
Papyrus 55, P55
Papyrus 56, P56
Papyrus 57, P57
Papyrus 58, P58
Papyrus 59, P59
Papyrus 60, P60
Papyrus 61, P61
Papyrus 62, P62
Papyrus 63, P63
Papyrus 64, P64

Papyrus 65, P65

Papyrus 66, P66

Papyrus 67, P67

Papyrus 68, P68
Papyrus 69, P69

Papyrus 70, P70

Papyrus 71, P71
Papyrus 72, P72

Papyrus 73, P73
Papyrus 74, P74
Papyrus 75, P75

Papyrus 76, P76
Papyrus 77, P77

Papyrus 78, P78

Papyrus 79, P79
Papyrus 80, P80

Papyrus 81, P81
Papyrus 82, P82
Papyrus 83, P83
Papyrus 84, P84
Papyrus 85, P85
Papyrus 86, P86

Papyrus 87, P87

Papyrus 88, P88
Papyrus 89, P89
Papyrus 90, P90

Papyrus 91, P91

Papyrus 92, P92

Papyrus 93, P93
Papyrus 94, P94
Papyrus 95, P95

Papyrus 96, P96
Papyrus 97, P97
Papyrus 98, P98

Papyrus 99, P99
Papyrus 100, P100

Papyrus 101, P101

Papyrus 102, P102

Papyrus 103, P103

Papyrus 104, P104

Papyrus 105, P105
Papyrus 106, P106

Papyrus 107, P107

Papyrus 108, P108

Papyrus 109, P109

Papyrus 110, P110
Papyrus 111, P111

Papyrus 112, P112
Papyrus 113, P113

Papyrus 114, P114

Papyrus 115, P115

Papyrus 116, P116
Papyrus 117, P117
Papyrus 118, P118

That’s just the papyri. Of course, they’re mostly fragmentary, but their sheer number provides much value for cross-checking and correction. Many of these date back to the second or third centuries.

 

[porthos11]

Codices are as follows:

       [Sinaiticus](http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/sinai.html)

À
01
Alexandrianus
A
02
Vaticanus
B
03
Ephraemi
C
04
Bezae
D
05
Claromontanus
Dp
06
Basiliensis
E
07
Laudianus
Ea
08
Sangermanensis
Ep
Borelianus
F
09
Augiensis
Fp
010
Wolfii A
G
011
Boernerianus
Gp
012
Wolfii B
H
013
Mutinensis
Ha
014
Coislinianus
Hp
015
Washington
I
016
Cyprius
K
017
Mosquensis
Kap
018
Regius
L
019
Angelicus
Lap
020
Campianus
M
021
Purpureus Petropolitanus
N
022
Sinopensis
O
023

P
024
Porphyrianus
Papr
025

Q
026
Nitriensis
R
027

S
028
Borgianus
T
029

U
030
Mosquensis
V
031
Freer
W
032
Monacensis
X
033

Y
034
Dublinensis
Z
035

G
036
Sangallensis
D
037
Koridethi
Q
038
Tischendorfianus III
L
039
Zacynthius
X
040
Petropolitanus
P
041
Rossanensis
S
042
Beratinus
F
043
Athous Laurae
Y
044
Athous Dionysiou
W
045
Vaticanus 2066
046

This is clearly cut-and-paste, but these are consistent with the UBS4 edition, for the most part.

 

[porthos11]

Lectionaries

     *l*32
         *l*44
         *l*47
         *l*59
         *l*135
         *l*150
         *l*181
         *l*182
         *l*183
         *l*185
         *l*233
         *l*302
         *l*303
         *l*330
         *l*451
         *l*542
         *l*562
         *l*648
         *l*809
         *l*1033
         *l*1491
         *l*1575
         *l*1623
         *l*1691
         *l*1839
         *l*1965
         *l*1966
         *l*1967
         *l*2210
         *l*2211

 

[porthos11]

Miniscules. These come much later, but nevertheless are useful to to check the preservation of the New Testament.

     1

         2

         3

         4

         5

         6

         13

         14

         16

         17

         21

         22

         27

         28

         33

         35

         36

         61

         [461](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uspenski_Gospels)

         1423

         1739

         1780

         [2427](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_2427)

         2495

         2768

         2802

         2803

         2804

         2805

         2806

         2807

         2808

         2809

         2810

         2811

         2882

 

[porthos11]

And of course, we have the Patristic citations, and the other ancient translations, such as the Vulgate and Old Latin, the Syriac, Coptic, etc., which are invaluable in reconstructing difficult or obscure passages.

A pretty complete summary of Greek manuscripts can be found at
earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/table_gkmss.html

And although this is from Wikipedia, it’s lifted mainly from the work of K. and B. Aland, pre-eminent Greek scholars. This table shows the general categorization of the various manuscripts and their dating.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts

 

[juliamajor]

And of course, we have the Patristic citations, and the other ancient translations, such as the Vulgate and Old Latin, the Syriac, Coptic, etc., which are invaluable in reconstructing difficult or obscure passages.

A pretty complete summary of Greek manuscripts can be found at
earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/table_gkmss.html

And although this is from Wikipedia, it’s lifted mainly from the work of K. and B. Aland, pre-eminent Greek scholars. This table shows the general categorization of the various manuscripts and their dating.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts

Thanks Porthos for a list of those texts that some people believe don’t exist! I swear some people think that an angel came down to Jerome put a book in his hand and said"Here!" Thanks again:thumbsup:

 

[tobinatorstark]

Thanks Porthos for a list of those texts that some people believe don’t exist! I swear some people think that an angel came down to Jerome put a book in his hand and said"Here!" Thanks again:thumbsup:

Ha Ha, very funny. I will look at the text when I have a chance later this week

 

[johnbres2]

The Douay-Rheims is the ONLY choice if you are serious about reading a Catholic Bible. The NAB is tarnished by its ecumenical compromises and inclusive language, the RSV and its derivatives are really protestant bibles (the Navarre is in this category), and the jerusalem is just a BAD translation. The Douay is wonderful, and is truly Catholic.

 

[johnbres2]

YES!!! Exactly.

I just find all other translations other that I have read besides the Douay-Rheims lackluster. As far as the RSV-CE, I am just not comfortable with a Protestant based Catholic Bible. That would be like if I were of some Protestant denomination and instead of the NAB there was a NAB-PE(NEW American Bible-Protestant Edition). I am sorry, but the RSV-CE just doesn’t appeal to me at all. I know many of the people here don’t care for the NAB, but it is what it is and so is the RSV-CE, NJB and the Jerusalem Bible. It’s not to say that one shouldn’t have the translation in their collection, because it would come in handy for comparative analysis purposes. I honestly don’t get what is so great about the RSV-CE anyway. It isn’t my decision to say what one person uses for his translation or not,but my recommendation is the Douay-Rheims. Again I am sorry, but the a Protestant based Catholic Bible like the RSV-CE just doesn’t do it for me.

 

[johnbres2]

The RSV has the SPIRIT of protestantism in it. That is its problem. And how about not saying “full of grace”? That is clearly ulterior motive, in a BIG way.

The Pope using it is a good argument in its favor, but you won’t see him quoting it for what the angel said to Mary. I think he likes it because it is widely used and is n clear English for the masses.

The Douay-Rheim has the spirit of Christ’s true church in it, not the spirit of rebellion from that Church.

Please fill in the blanks:

I don’t like the RSV-CE because in the Book of ____________ chapter ____________ verse _________ it is “leading people towards Protestantism.”

Feel free to give as many examples as you like. The more the better.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The Douay-Rheims is the ONLY choice if you are serious about reading a Catholic Bible. The NAB is tarnished by its ecumenical compromises and inclusive language, the RSV and its derivatives are really protestant bibles (the Navarre is in this category), and the jerusalem is just a BAD translation. The Douay is wonderful, and is truly Catholic.

I will agree with you on reading the Douay-Rheims for serious reading of a Catholic Bible and I do agree with you on the NAB. The RSV-CE I just cannot stand it whatsoever. The Jerusalem I found the Psalms terrible

YES!!! Exactly.

I am glad someone around here agrees with me and isn’t all gun hoe about the RSV-CE

The RSV has the SPIRIT of protestantism in it. That is its problem. And how about not saying “full of grace”? That is clearly ulterior motive, in a BIG way.

The Pope using it is a good argument in its favor, but you won’t see him quoting it for what the angel said to Mary. I think he likes it because it is widely used and is n clear English for the masses.

The Douay-Rheims has the spirit of Christ’s true church in it, not the spirit of rebellion from that Church.

Churches here in Ohio use the NAB and I don’t believe I have been to a Catholic mass that has used the RSV-CE and I would like to keep it that way.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’m just sad that so far a group of Catholic scholars has not been able to produce a Bible with the at least the quality of the RSV without the Protestantisms in it!

I sympathize with those Catholics who prefer the RSV-CE.

Don’t tell me that the Douay Rheims cannot be improved upon.

The Confraternity New Testament was a step in that direction. The Bea Psalter was a step in that direction.

The Nova Vulgata was a step in that direction where the Vulgate was wanting.

Anglicanize the Latin names–update the style past the English of Challoner–in cases where the Nova Vulgata differed with that of the Vulgate of St. Jerome–go with the Nova Vulgata–in cases where Haydock differed with Challoner–go with Haydock–get rid of some Catholicisms such as chalice–and where no doctrinal issues were involved use original language texts such as the RSV used in some cases but without Protestant bias.

Now that would be a great bible.

And if all of that wasn’t ideal submit it to the Holy See and let them decide.

It is quite possible to USE original language texts without Protestant bias.

The REAL bible lies somewhere inbetween the Protestant bias of Protestant scholars–the inclusive language bias of some Catholic scholars–the Ecumenical bias of some Catholic scholars–the St. Jerome bias of some Catholic scholars–the bias of the Vulgate onlyists–and the bias of the original language selectivists!

 

[mccorm45]

The Douay-Rheims is the ONLY choice if you are serious about reading a Catholic Bible. The NAB is tarnished by its ecumenical compromises and inclusive language, the RSV and its derivatives are really protestant bibles (the Navarre is in this category), and the jerusalem is just a BAD translation. The Douay is wonderful, and is truly Catholic.

Wow! Unfortunately you have neither examples from the Scriptures or documentation from the Church hierarchy of the last 50+ years, Catholic Biblical Scholars, or Catholic apologists to support your statement.