Best catholic Bible version to read?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roman_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mccorm45 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I refuse to believe these texts are better and more accurate. Anyone can say they found texts and they appear this many years old. I too love the Latin Vulgate, the Clementine version as I wish to have nothing to do with the Nova Vulgata or Struttgart. I just seems weird that for 1400 years many if not most Bibles followed the same with the lengths of the verses and such and in the 1800’s these texts that were found had parts of verses chopped off (ie. Luke 1:28). I am not impressed by them and will not read them especially the horrible RSV-CE. Worst Catholic translation I have ever come in contact with
 
tobinatorstark said:
I refuse to believe these texts are better and more accurate. Anyone can say they found texts and they appear this many years old. I too love the Latin Vulgate, the Clementine version as I wish to have nothing to do with the Nova Vulgata or Struttgart. I just seems weird that for 1400 years many if not most Bibles followed the same with the lengths of the verses and such and in the 1800’s these texts that were found had parts of verses chopped off (ie. Luke 1:28). I am not impressed by them and will not read them especially the horrible RSV-CE. Worst Catholic translation I have ever come in contact with
Click to expand...
In effect, the RSV-CE was the forerunner of the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, the 1970 New American Bible, the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible, the NAB with the 1986 NT and 1991 Psalms, and the RSV-2CE. So, then, it would be safe to assume that all these others are equally as bad as, or maybe worse, or perhaps only slightly better than, the RSV-CE. They ALL depart from the Clementine Vulgate, translated instead from “original-language” texts, and pretty much all have shortened (or deleted) verses here and there. :bigyikes:
 
Which “prejudices” are superior–those of Jerome–a saint who lived a life of heroic virtue and loved the Catholic Church or those of others who were not saints and were at odds with its teachings?
 
Perhaps the point was missed. The reason there are variations in the translation of various issues of the Bible is due to the same reasons each of us selects our preferences here. As Far as prejudices and Saint Jerome, I would hope that he had prejudices but I would like to suggest categorizing those prejudices as dedication to the word of God. And if he were dedicated to the word of God no man, Pope or otherwise could steer him into translating in a way that would be deliberately misleading.
If I write a letter and in it I say… “Sally was cool with the way she handled the issue with George” I would have written it in terms of today. If that letter is found 300 or 1500 years from now, who would have a better indication of the context I meant “cool”? And yet would it necessarily be accurate? If we can understand as best as humanly possible the messages within the text, which I must trust in the Catholic Church to discern to the most reliable degree based on it’s origins, the point has been made. The rest is all “interesting” if you know how I mean interesting.
 
Manfred said:
In effect, the RSV-CE was the forerunner of the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, the 1970 New American Bible, the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible, the NAB with the 1986 NT and 1991 Psalms, and the RSV-2CE. So, then, it would be safe to assume that all these others are equally as bad as, or maybe worse, or perhaps only slightly better than, the RSV-CE. They ALL depart from the Clementine Vulgate, translated instead from “original-language” texts, and pretty much all have shortened (or deleted) verses here and there. :bigyikes:
Click to expand...
I do know that and that is the reason why I use the Douay-Rheims. The NAB isn’t much better than the RSV-CE and the Jerusalem is probably the best of them except psalms. I prefer to stay with those based off the Clementine Vulgate and not these so called original texts
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Which “prejudices” are superior–those of Jerome–a saint who lived a life of heroic virtue and loved the Catholic Church or those of others who were not saints and were at odds with its teachings?
Click to expand...
First, just because he is a Saint, doesn’t make him infallible. Here is one of St. Jerome’s prejudices: He did not want to include the Deuterocanonicals in the Old Testament. If you want to read a great book about the Deuterocanonicals, try Gary Michuta’s “Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger” . In it, he has a great section on St. Jerome, with plenty of quotes which prove that St. Jerome was dead wrong about the Deuterocanonicals. (See pg. 139-152). Here is one:

When talking about the book of Sirach in his Preface to Ezra he states that: “What is not received by them (the Hebrews) and what is not of the twenty-four ancients is to be repulsed far from me.”

So, my point is that St. Jerome’s contributions to Biblical studies are awesome and essential, but they are not infallible.

And if you refuse to believe that the original texts we have now are better than before, that is your business. Just know that the Biblical scholarship and the Catholic Church disagree with you.
 
bromark said:
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
Click to expand...
For some time, I have said in these forums that I recommend the Bible de Jerusalem in French and the Nova Vulgata in Latin. However, in light of the Congregation for Divine Worship’s recent letter on use of the tetragrammaton in biblical translations, I must now withdraw my support for the Bible de Jerusalem and unqualifiedly recommend the Nova Vulgata.

I am currently working on a translation of the Nova Vulgata into English. More to follow …
 
I do believe that SOME original language texts are better than what we had before.

What I disagree with are which ones are better.

And I also disagree that even if you do know those texts and accurately choose to use them that that necessarily means that you will translate them accurately into English.

I don’t have an issue with improving the Vulgate or improving the bible.

I have an issue with the people who claim to improve it and with their choices.

For those who claim that the RSV does that better than any other translation and that it is superior to the Vulgate–I reject that claim because the RSV does err in doctrinal matters such as absolution–and that is true even if hypotheticaly the RSV was superior in ALL its other translation choices!

Trent said that the Vulgate could be used in “all disputations”.

In the “disputation” over “person” and “presence” regarding 2 Corinthians 2:10 I rely on the Vulgate.

Why would anybody disobey Trent–rely on the RSV and DISPUTE the Vulgate?

The DISPUTE is not with the original language text–the DISPUTE is with the translation of that text into English!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I
And I also disagree that even if you do know those texts and accurately choose to use them that that necessarily means that you will translate them accurately into English.

I don’t have an issue with improving the Vulgate or improving the bible.

I have an issue with the people who claim to improve it and with their choices.

For those who claim that the RSV does that better than any other translation and that it is superior to the Vulgate–I reject that claim because the RSV does err in doctrinal matters such as absolution–and that is true even if hypotheticaly the RSV was superior in ALL its other translation choices!

Trent said that the Vulgate could be used in “all disputations”.

In the “disputation” over “person” and “presence” regarding 2 Corinthians 2:10 I rely on the Vulgate.

Why would anybody disobey Trent–rely on the RSV and DISPUTE the Vulgate?

The DISPUTE is not with the original language text–the DISPUTE is with the translation of that text into English!
Click to expand...
I would have to also agree with that statement. Everyone who like the RSV-CE says “Oh its, better and more accurate” They believe with the discovery nearly 1500 years after St. Jerome started his work in translating into Latin like that the texts that were used in translating the Vulgate aren’t important because the text of modern bibles are more correct. IF these texts are more correct then why do some of these verses have been butchered like Luke 1:28. How does one of either the texts that were discovered in the 1800 or the the texts that St. Jerome used not contradict Rev. 22:18-19, Duet. 4:2 and with the possible subject to being proved and corrected???
 
Augustine, warmly recommended to the Catholic scholar, who undertook the investigation and explanation of the Sacred Scriptures, the study of the ancient languages and recourse to the original texts.[22] However, such was the state of letters in those times, that not many - and these few but imperfectly - knew the Hebrew language. In the middle ages, when Scholastic Theology was at the height of its vigor, the knowledge of even the Greek language had long since become so rare in the West, that even the greatest Doctors of that time, in their exposition of the Sacred Text, had recourse only to the Latin version, known as the Vulgate.
  1. On the contrary in this our time, not only the Greek language, which since the humanistic renaissance has been, as it were, restored to new life, is familiar to almost all students of antiquity and letters, but the knowledge of Hebrew also and of their oriental languages has spread far and wide among literary men. Moreover there are now such abundant aids to the study of these languages that the biblical scholar, who by neglecting them would deprive himself of access to the original texts, could in no wise escape the stigma of levity and sloth. For it is the duty of the exegete to lay hold, so to speak, with the greatest care and reverence of the very least expressions which, under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, have flowed from the pen of the sacred writer, so as to arrive at a deeper and fuller knowledge of his meaning.
  2. Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical as well as in other oriental languages and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply. This indeed St. Jerome strove earnestly to achieve, as far as the science of his time permitted; to this also aspired with untiring zeal and no small fruit not a few of the great exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the knowledge of languages then was much less than at the present day. In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.
 
  1. The great importance which should be attached to this kind of criticism was aptly pointed out by Augustine, when, among the precepts to be recommended to the student of the Sacred Books, he put in the first place the care to possess a corrected text. “The correction of the codices” - so says this most distinguished Doctor of the Church - “should first of all engage the attention of those who wish to know the Divine Scripture so that the uncollected may give place to the corrected.”[23] In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.
 
Don’t listen to these proponents of Vul. or DR only. Find some place that compares translations or gives you insight into the process.Catholic answers has a good little write up about translations.If you belong to the BAS there is a lot of info on translations and it’s limits. Find out for yourself-which of the Church authorized versions you want.You don’t have to listen to folks only to what the church says is all right.😛
 
mccorm45 said:
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.
Click to expand...
True, if you know those languages. If you are willing to have a bible printed in different languages in different parts. I wouldn’t mind that myself but if you just want to learn one language and have one bible in just one language, then the Vulgate in Latin is your best choice.
 
As far as English Bibles go, it is best to listen to the Church and read what the Church publishes and reads. This would mean NAB or New Jerusalem. I have both of these and they used simple direct language that keeps the meaning of the original words. I would have made slightly different translation choices if I were the translator but in themselves there is nothing wrong.

As for these Bibles printed with Ancient English, I avoid them. I don’t understand German and that is what they seem like to me. I also avoid anything printed by protestants. Their goal is to separate you from Christ, don’t trust them.

Again, I read the Vulgate. I can read the Greek, Hebrew and Syriac but I like Latin. I have read the Nova Vulgata as well as the older Clemintine Vulgate. I like the Clementine better in some areas but the Nova Vulgata better in other. The psalms are a notable section for comparison for obvious reason. They are both good and neither is dificient in any way.

Also, keep in mind that if you know Greek, ancient Greek that is, and want to read the Bible in Greek, get the version published by the Catholic Church not the orthodox churches. The Melkite Catholic Church has a web site with the version in Greek that Catholics use.

For Syriac, you can get the version used by the Maronites and Chaldeans.

Coptic and Slavonic I must admit are kind of like English in having many versions that Catholics use. But I doubt anyone here speaks those languages so never mind.

There seems like there should be a version of the Bible for Catholics in Hebrew but amazingly there is not. Not that I have found. Catholics in Israel read the Bible in Greek, Syriac or Arabic. (yes I know, Arabic of all languages.) They Bible they used depends on the rite they belong to. Latin Catholics for the most part use the Arabic. ( I know, I know, It is hard for me to believe too). A lot of palistinian Catholics also use the French version of the Jerusalem Bible. Don’t ask me how that happened because I couldn’t explain it.

If you happen to live in Japan, there is the “interfaith” that a lot of Catholics use, since it was the Bishops of the Catholic Church who created it, but a large minority use the Japanese translation created by the Fransicans and sold by St.Paul’s bookstore. They created a Manga based on this one. Still others use what is called the Mitte Dakke, which was their bible when Christianity was outlawed. The name means “look only”.

I struggle to read Japanese of course but I can always fall back on Latin. Good old Latin. No problems to worry about and no protestant theology trying to separate me from the grace of God.
 
Claudius said:
True, if you know those languages. If you are willing to have a bible printed in different languages in different parts. I wouldn’t mind that myself but if you just want to learn one language and have one bible in just one language, then the Vulgate in Latin is your best choice.
Click to expand...
I agree that reading Latin is quite a joy, however if I knew Greek I would much prefer to read the LXX and the Greek New Testament. Being able to understand Paul in the actual language he wrote would be fantastic. Perhaps in the future…when I can afford a summer Greek seminar in Steubenville or Notre Dame.👍
 
Read the translation guide in “catholic answers” Apparently Pius XII was wrong "Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical as well as in other oriental languages and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply. This indeed St. Jerome strove earnestly to achieve, as far as the science of his time permittedd; to this also aspired with untiring zeal and no small fruit not a few of the great exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the knowledge of languages then was much less than at the present day.R]
 
oCOLOR=“Red”]r its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.
 
I guess I’ll have to ask a higher authority since no one seems to know an answer to my question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top