Best catholic Bible version to read?

[Ron_Conte]

There are variations in the text between different Scriptural traditions, such that the Latin will have a wording here or there that is only found in the Latin, not in the extant Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek texts. These differences in the texts should be preserved. There should be some translations from the Latin, and some from the other languages.

 

[bengland]

The following is in regards to my personal application and justification of various translations, and not meant to demand that anyone read only a certain translation or even accept newer or older translations.

A lot of people mention the JB being bad. I happen to like it for its literary value and for devotional reading, but there are places that made me stop and double check elsewhere.
For instance - Philippians 3:19
They are destined to be lost. They make foods into their god and they are proudest of something they ought to think shameful;
Imagine reading that after you just finished reading the ‘death cookie’ tract that a nice fundamentalist handed you 15 minutes ago.

The NJB is also good. The prose is superior to most translations while remaining mostly literal, but it follows the same text and leaves out the same verses as all of the modern translations. Lately, this has been my translation of choice, and I’m looking forward to the next revision which is supposed to take into consideration other Scriptural traditions besides the earliest known texts, including greater interest in the LXX, Latin Vulgate, Orthodox Scritural heritage, the Peshitta, and even for ecumenical purposes - the Textus Receptus.

The RSV is alright. Many of the converts to our Church use the RSV-CE and used the RSV prior to becoming Catholic. The translators aggressively abandoned centuries of Scriptural Tradition, however, in favor of what appears to be a minimalist text based on the Codex Sinaiticus, and in favor of a translational style that was meant to impart no doctrinal meaning upon the text. It is a useful text because of this.

The DR/Haydock are the bibles I go to for study, however. Like most people I don’t speak Latin, or Koine Greek (or any Greek), or Hebrew. If there’s something that reads strange, or is lacking in the continuity of my own understanding, the Douay-Rheims usually clears it up and provides a historical and traditional understanding of the meaning of the text. It also reveals passages with loose verbage that may have multiple renderings when translated to a more precise understanding in English. The notes in the Haydock are informative and also traditional, devoid of experimental commentary which exists in the NAB and other translations that seems at times to question the authenticity of various books and Gospel accounts.

I don’t enjoy reading the NAB and never did, but have several, gifts and purchased, because it’s the Bible they sold in the Catholic bookstores here. They now have more variation.

 

[mccorm45]

The following is in regards to my personal application and justification of various translations, and not meant to demand that anyone read only a certain translation or even accept newer or older translations.

A lot of people mention the JB being bad. I happen to like it for its literary value and for devotional reading, but there are places that made me stop and double check elsewhere.

For instance - Philippians 3:19They are destined to be lost. They make foods into their god and they are proudest of something they ought to think shameful;Imagine reading that after you just finished reading the ‘death cookie’ tract that a nice fundamentalist handed you 15 minutes ago.

The NJB is also good. The prose is superior to most translations while remaining mostly literal, but it follows the same text and leaves out the same verses as all of the modern translations. Lately, this has been my translation of choice, and I’m looking forward to the next revision which is supposed to take into consideration other Scriptural traditions besides the earliest known texts, including greater interest in the LXX, Latin Vulgate, Orthodox Scritural heritage, the Peshitta, and even for ecumenical purposes - the Textus Receptus.

The RSV is alright. Many of the converts to our Church use the RSV-CE and used the RSV prior to becoming Catholic. The translators aggressively abandoned centuries of Scriptural Tradition, however, in favor of what appears to be a minimalist text based on the Codex Sinaiticus, and in favor of a translational style that was meant to impart no doctrinal meaning upon the text. It is a useful text because of this.

The DR/Haydock are the bibles I go to for study, however. Like most people I don’t speak Latin, or Koine Greek (or any Greek), or Hebrew. If there’s something that reads strange, or is lacking in the continuity of my own understanding, the Douay-Rheims usually clears it up and provides a historical and traditional understanding of the meaning of the text. It also reveals passages with loose verbage that may have multiple renderings when translated to a more precise understanding in English. The notes in the Haydock are informative and also traditional, devoid of experimental commentary which exists in the NAB and other translations that seems at times to question the authenticity of various books and Gospel accounts.

I don’t enjoy reading the NAB and never did, but have several, gifts and purchased, because it’s the Bible they sold in the Catholic bookstores here. They now have more variation.

While I don’t agree with 100% of your assertions, I do think you give a fair survey of the different translations. In particular, I think the your comments on the JB and NJB are spot on. The two great strengths of the JB/NJB in my opinion, outside of the translation itself, are the textual notes and the way the Bible is set up. I just love the single column format and all the cross-references.

 

[tobinatorstark]

A lot of people mention the JB being bad. I happen to like it for its literary value and for devotional reading, but there are places that made me stop and double check elsewhere.
For instance - Philippians 3:19

The RSV is alright. Many of the converts to our Church use the RSV-CE and used the RSV prior to becoming Catholic. The translators aggressively abandoned centuries of Scriptural Tradition, however, in favor of what appears to be a minimalist text based on the Codex Sinaiticus, and in favor of a translational style that was meant to impart no doctrinal meaning upon the text. It is a useful text because of this.

The DR/Haydock are the bibles I go to for study, however. Like most people I don’t speak Latin, or Koine Greek (or any Greek), or Hebrew. If there’s something that reads strange, or is lacking in the continuity of my own understanding, the Douay-Rheims usually clears it up and provides a historical and traditional understanding of the meaning of the text. It also reveals passages with loose verbage that may have multiple renderings when translated to a more precise understanding in English. The notes in the Haydock are informative and also traditional, devoid of experimental commentary which exists in the NAB and other translations that seems at times to question the authenticity of various books and Gospel accounts.

I thought the JB was good except for the Psalms. I like the Douay-Rheims because I tend to study what the meaning of the passages say. And the Douay also clears things up. What you said about the RSV-CE hits the spot, Converts to the Church use the RSV-CE.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I thought the JB was good except for the Psalms. I like the Douay-Rheims because I tend to study what the meaning of the passages say. And the Douay also clears things up. What you said about the RSV-CE hits the spot, Converts to the Church use the RSV-CE.

Would that be converts like John Paul II and Benedict XVI?

 

[SacredHeartFan]

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

NAB is the best one to read. Ignore the footnotes.

Ignatious (sp?) is the best one for study. or you can use the NAB and buy Dr. Scott hahn’s scripture study book. ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/UNDERSTANDING+THE+SCRIPTURES+THE+DIDACHE+SERIES/cid=16/page_no=8/edp_no=3185/shop.axd/ProductDetails

 

[tobinatorstark]

Would that be converts like John Paul II and Benedict XVI?

again you have totally twisted the message that I was quoting from. Converts from Protestants to Catholicism tend to use the RSV-CE I am not talking about John Paul II and Benedict XVI. If you had read the passage that I quoted from meaning the key word in his passage Converts

 

[mccorm45]

again you have totally twisted the message that I was quoting from. Converts from Protestants to Catholicism tend to use the RSV-CE I am not talking about John Paul II and Benedict XVI. If you had read the passage that I quoted from meaning the key word in his passage Converts

My question is so what? Are you trying to make a division between Catholics who were raised Catholic or who converted?

 

[bengland]

My question is so what? Are you trying to make a division between Catholics who were raised Catholic or who converted?

He was quoting what I said, in which I mentioned that it seems that many converts prefer the RSV-CE, although it wasn’t intended in any way to suggest any sort of superiority or division, nor does it mean all who use the RSV-CE are converts from another Christian tradition. That’s obviously not the case, but many of the Catholic apologists, maybe even most, who converted, seem to prefer the RSV-CE over other translations. Scott Hahn said that the fact that there was the RSV-CE bible for him to reference made it easier to dialogue with those from non-Catholic Christian traditions. The RSV-CE is an effective ecumenical bible and a literal translation. This makes it a perfect choice for the CCC. It doesn’t seem un-Catholic and reading the RSV-CE or DRB doesn’t make anyone more or less Catholic.

I also assumed that familiarity plays a role in the selection, as it does in my own. I have memorized passages from the DR, and prefer Catholic bibles for reading. These are more familiar to me since I grew up in a Catholic family, although so are many passages from the RSV since it borrows heavily from the KJV and this is a Protestant country. You can’t be an American without hearing “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death…” and the RSV is very close to that. Several people on the forums who converted continue to study their KJV, preferring it over other translations because they know it. No harm or division intended. That would be uncatholic.

BTW. I completely agree on the paragraph format. It’s much easier to read and digest with the notes, verse numbers and cross referencing off to the side instead of in the way. The RSV-CE could use cross referencing on par with the NAB/NJB/JB. Maybe the Navarre has it, but I don’t have the money to find out.

 

[mccorm45]

bengland,

That is what I figured…I didn’t think you meant it that way.

Yeah, I really wish more Catholic Bibles would be imaginitive in their format. I love the the single column layout…the JB/NJB does a really good job at that. It gives you plenty of room to add your own notations as well.

I would also like to see some thin-line versions as well. Perhaps I am asking too much! Overall, I just think the quality of Catholic Bibles, regardless of translation, is lacking.

 

[jblake]

mccorm45;:

The two great strengths of the JB/NJB in my opinion, outside of the translation itself, are the textual notes and the way the Bible is set up. I just love the single column format and all the cross-references.

One big caveat here: The Reader’s Edition of those translations does not contain all of the cross-references and textual notes.

For the other editions, those are its strength.
One of the virtues of Good Bible Study Software, is the ability to read one translation, but use the commentary from somewhere else, and cross-references from a third source.

For example, the NJB text, with the Haydock commentary, and cross references from a Greek/Hebrew/Latin concordance.

xan

jonathon

 

[Jehuty_X]

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

i recommend the new jerusalem bible … stay away from the new american bible …

 

[rocketrob]

Wow…this has been a very passionate thread, and I hesitate to even enter the fray. I’ll just give a few thoughts related to my own personal experience.

I converted to the Catholic faith nearly 10 years ago after being raised in a protestant tradition. Up to that time, I had been using an NIV Ryrie study bible. I had noticed in my studies from that bible that I often couldn’t follow the logic or conclusions reached in the study notes of that bible, which are obviously protestant based.

After becoming Catholic, I spent several years using a St. Joseph’s edition of the New American Bible while referring occasionally to a first edition of the Catholic Study Bible (also NAB based). As time went on, I noted some dissatisfaction with thoughts, ideas or translations presented in the NAB and its notes, and knew that parts of its text had been rejected for use in liturgy. I subsequently asked a priest whom I greatly respect about the NAB, and he was the first person to make me aware of the RSV-CE. (So, I only learned of the RSV-CE several years *after *becoming Catholic.)

In recent years, I have been attending live Jeff Cavins’ bible studies, which recommend using either the RSV-CE or the NAB. So, I am familiar with the groups of apologists that prefer using the RSV-CE. Still, I found the lack of study notes and aids in the RSV-CE to be disappointing, so I did acquire a very reasonably priced Douay Rheims bible which was being sold due to binding imperfections.

I have to say that the scriptural basis for several Catholic doctrines have come alive for me by reading the Douay Rheims text along with the study notes or commentary found in that bible. I did not have the fullness of this experience with either the NAB or the RSV-CE editions.

Now, I am not an ‘only-ist’ for any of the above mentioned bible translations. Today, I do my bible study by reading the RSV-2CE and the Douay Rheims together, along with a Douay Rheims based concordance and commentary. (My catechism is also usually nearby.) The RSV-2CE has the advantage of the modern english and translation techniques, while the notes and commentary in the Douay-Rheims are solid and sound.

As a convert, I can affirm that there is currently a real frustration in trying to find a quality Catholic study bible that combines both a sound modern translation and commentary, notes, introductions, etc. And the fact that you can’t even buy a bible containing the text approved for use in the Catholic liturgy is simply remarkable (and not in a good way).

At any rate, I value both the RSV-CE and Douay Rheims translations…for different reasons. It shouldn’t be so difficult to combine the best of both in a reasonable timeframe.

Sincerely,
rocketrob

 

[Claudius]

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

I read the Bible in Latin from the Vulgate. This works best for me and I know that protestants won’t go near the Latin to mess with it. I avoid KJV in any form like the plague and tell others to do the same. For me, since there are so many Bibles out there, most completely inaccurate, I took it upon myself to learn the Biblical languages and read the original. It was far easier to learn Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, and Coptic than to argue with people about the best translation. I still sometimes read from the Greek and Syriac but mostly if I really want to understand, I read Latin. Latin is best and the Vulgate is the most accurate translation of the Bible in any language out there.

I mean it. Plus Latin is the easiest language to learn. It is far easier to learn Latin that to read the very old English that doesn’t make any sense. Latin is simple and very straighforward. Plus, if you read the Bible all in Greek, then the old testament isn’t so accurate. If you read the New Testament in Hebrerw, watch out. Syriac is Ok for the New Testament but then you step into this theological debate about which books were originally Syriac versus which ones were originally Greek. When all is said and done the Latin version is the most accurate when compared to any of it. It has an accurate old testament and an accurate New Testament. It is a completely accurate book.

 

[mccorm45]

Latin is best and the Vulgate is the most accurate translation of the Bible in any language out there.

I have taken 2 years of graduate latin and enjoy reading from the Nova Vulgata from time to time, but I can’t agree with your statement. Latin is a wonderful language, probably my favorite…but it is clear that having the closest possible Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic originals is better.

 

[bromark]

For “reading”, I prefer the *Jerusalem Bible *(NOT the New Jerusalem Bible)

For study, I recommend the RSV-CE. If one doesn’t read Hebrew or New Testament Greek, the *RSV *is closer to the original languages than is the Douay-Rheims, which is filtered through Latin.

Br Mark

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The RSV is “filtered” through the textual varient choices of those seeing such choices through the windows of their own theological upbringing.

The “original” sources used are never “original”–they simply match the prejudices of their choosers.

Very old and ancient “original” language texts can still be inaccurate!

 

[tobinatorstark]

The RSV is “filtered” through the textual varient choices of those seeing such choices through the windows of their own theological upbringing.

The “original” sources used are never “original”–they simply match the prejudices of their choosers.

Very old and ancient “original” language texts can still be inaccurate!

agree with 100%

 

[twb1621]

although the RSV-CE is recognized and in fact by SOME more favorable for them personally, due to the fact the Vatican presents the use of the New American Bible on their web site, I feel it more acceptable to use this as a norm. I am sure the Vatican will determine and reflect the most acceptable version. Too much confusion has come over the years with reflections generated from (although in some cases subtle) differences in versions.

 

[mccorm45]

The RSV is “filtered” through the textual varient choices of those seeing such choices through the windows of their own theological upbringing.

The “original” sources used are never “original”–they simply match the prejudices of their choosers.

Very old and ancient “original” language texts can still be inaccurate!

Disagree 100%. You don’t think St. Jerome had to choose between different sources? Also, everyone has prejudices…including St. Jerome. Didn’t he think the Deuterocanonicals shouldn’t be in the Bible?

And sorry, the simple fact is that the original sources are better than a translation from the Latin. Again, I love the Latin vulgate, I have studied it and I enjoy reading the Nova Vulgata. However, the Church certainly recognizes the importance of original texts and understand that Biblical scholars have the abililty to access the ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic to come up with the most accurate ancient text. They not only acknowledge this, but they also promote it. See all recent Church documents about this subject.