Best catholic Bible version to read?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roman_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:thumbsup:In my oppinion the Douay-Rhiems is the best translation of the original text into english. It seems to be more sacred in its wording and more true to the original texts. i tried to go NAB status for awhile but ran into the same problem of it seeming to be that the text was more trying to disprove that the bible is inerrant. a lack of spiritual translators it seems to be was the problem. So you run into the problem of not having any of the sacred typology.
 
Benedict 777,
*
**You wrote: ** I tried to go NAB status for awhile but ran into the same problem of it seeming to be that the text was more trying to disprove that the bible is inerrant. [It’s a matter of] lack of spiritual translators … [that] seems to be … the problem. *

Wow, Benedict, you “hit the nail on the head”! Of course, this tendency to unbelief by those modernists, Roman Catholic not excepted, who produce modern versions (and annotate any version soever polluted, old or new) explains the abusive ways in which they translate or paraphrase (or a bit of both) the Holy Scriptures, of which the N.A.B. is a prime example! There is a pervasive lack of faith in the Bible’s inerrant credentials, lack of humble spirituality, lack of orthodoxy! Yup, you’re so, so right!

Jerry Parker
 
Its too bad they didnt stick with thier plans of publishing the Douay-Rhiems re-edited. I guess after Vatican II they decided to scrap the whole project and rush the NAB version. Bad choice in my oppinion done out of good intentions but bad decision. Hopefully they will still finish the project and publish the DR version.
 
Benedict,

**You wrote: ** *It’s too bad they didnt stick with thier plans of publishing the Douay-Rhiems re-edited. I guess after Vatican II they decided to scrap the whole project and rush the NAB version. Bad choice in my oppinion done out of good intentions but bad decision. Hopefully they will still finish the project and publish the DR version. *

I assume that the project that you describe was the initial Confraternity Bible, of which the N.T. was completed, that wonderful 1941 text that I use often and eagerly. The N.A.B. dumped it for another, slangly, and very inferior N.T. and then continued to revise the O.T. after 1970. Modernising language in revising the D.-R.-C. was okay prior to Vatican II, but the forces of modernism simply have become so deeply entrenched in the academic circles of Bible studies that editorial work so excellent and responsible as that which produced the old Confraternity Version simply will not come forth from those kinds of circles nowadays. Also, these academic types would despise using anything that had as its basis the superb Clementine Latin Vulgate Bible.

I think that a very limited revision of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version would be acceptable, but not necessarily one under the auspices of the U.S.C.C.B., which simply does not have the integrity to produce what is needed and to avoid unwanted revision. Perhaps TAN Books could undertake the slight revisions to clear up the few points on which the D.-R.-C. Bible could profit from “touching up” (forms of name of persons, places, book titles, chapter-verse numberings, as in the Psalms, that sort of thing).

Jerry Parker
 
What really broke open the flood gates for liberal infidelity was the wildly stretched interpretation of the meaning of Divino Afflante Spiritu. (Pope Pius XII, 1943) This was a precursor to the wildly stretched misinterpretations that would soon follow Vatican II. 😦
  1. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents - nay rather today it almost demands - either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority.
Click to expand...
The above was taken as a challenge to find ways to oppose the Vulgate rather than finding ways to corroborate and confirm as the Encyclical proposes. 😦
 
Ambrose SJ,

**You wrote: ** *What really broke open the flood gates for liberal infidelity was the wildly stretched interpretation of the meaning of Divino Afflante Spiritu. (Pope Pius XII, 1943) This was a precursor to the wildly stretched misinterpretations that would soon follow Vatican II.

Quot[ing Pius XII]:
22. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents – nay rather today it almost demands – either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority.

The above was taken as a challenge to find ways to oppose the Vulgate rather than finding ways to corroborate and confirm as the Encyclical proposes. *

Thanks, Ambrose, for making this point! It is becoming more and more widely admitted that the Masorectic Text (M.T.) of the Hebrew Scriptures, being so late (9th cent. A.D.) and wracked by rabinnical distortions, some of them to weaken the impact of the O.T. on the interpretation of N.T. fulfilment of prophecy, are not really so satisfactory as the Protestant Reformers and later scholars (including far too many today among the ranks of Catholic, as well as Protestant and unbelieving academics) have thought the M.T. to be, the more so as the Dead Sea MSS. confirm readings in the Septuagint (LXX) and the Vulgate (that differ from the M.T.), of which the readings and MS. sources are far more ancient than the M.T. One Protestant advocate of the LXX in particular is Charles Provan (in the pages of various issues of Christian News and perhaps elsewhere), who has shown up the failings of the M.T. very trenchantly and in terms that a lay person can understand with relative ease.

Yes, I think that Mgr. Ronald Knox was on the right track in basing his translation on the Clementine Vulgate with only consultation of the Hebrew and Greek texts to aid in rendering into English certain passages; the problem with Knox’ version is not its textual basis, but rather Knox’ tendency to paraphrase at times, a pity, since Knox’ English style is so eloquent and graceful.

Alas, I suspect that the lobby of proud (and even downright arrogant) scholars of “text criticism” feel threatened by the renewed respect for the LXX and the Latin sources (Old Latin and Vulgate), even for the ancient Aramaic version known as the Peshitta, too, for that matter, that is beginning to arise, at last. The Hebrew scholars, especially, find the exclusive status of their professional interest being minimised, so continue to lash out or to ignore scholarship that has greater respect for O.T. Greek and Latin sources.

Jerry Parker
 
Jerry Parker:
Yes, I think that Mgr. Ronald Knox was on the right track in basing his translation on the Clementine Vulgate with only consultation of the Hebrew and Greek texts to aid in rendering into English certain passages; the problem with Knox’ version is not its textual basis, but rather Knox’ tendency to paraphrase at times, a pity, since Knox’ English style is so eloquent and graceful.
Click to expand...
Agreed. 😉 I always felt robbed by the fact that John Henry Newman was prevented from re-translating the Bible into English due to the outcry by Archbishop Kenrick of Phila. who himself was already working on his own new translation. (One that never caught on) :rolleyes: I’m not even sure he completed the entire Bible, nor have I ever seen one of his translations to evaluate it. Be that as it may, Ian Ker felt that was a good thing, or else Newman would never have had time for all of his other great works. So I suppose Ronald Knox with his translation, Literary merits, Commentaries, and other works may have filled that void, at least for me. 😃

I know Ronald Knox does like a mild paraphrase, and in truth, even Newman, when translating the works of Athanasius, dubbed them “freely translated.” I know Ronald Knox somewhere disparaged something about Bishop Challoner’s translation, which is a shame, but on the other hand, Knox was very sound on Newman, and a great admirer as well! 😃
 
Ambrose SJ,

You wrote: *Agreed. I always felt robbed by the fact that John Henry Newman was prevented from re-translating the Bible into English due to the outcry by Archbishop Kenrick of Phila. who himself was already working on his own new translation. (One that never caught on) I’m not even sure he completed the entire Bible, nor have I ever seen one of his translations to evaluate it. Be that as it may, Ian Ker felt that was a good thing, or else Newman would never have had time for all of his other great works. So I suppose Ronald Knox with his translation, Literary merits, Commentaries, and other works may have filled that void, at least for me.

I know Ronald Knox does like a mild paraphrase, and in truth, even Newman, when translating the works of Athanasius, dubbed them “freely translated.” I know Ronald Knox somewhere disparaged something about Bishop Challoner’s translation, which is a shame, but on the other hand, Knox was very sound on Newman, and a great admirer as well! *

I had forgotten that Cdl. Newman wanted to translate the Bible. Well, that would have been some translation! Newman was one of the grandest prose stylists that the English language ever knew! (His poetry, on the other hand, is merely good, not exceptional.) However, a “free translation”, if Newman had done it that way, would only have served the need that Ronald Knox did later, so all’s well. I myself tend to translate freely (secular not usually religious texts) when I do, to avoid stiffness in style, and over the years I have translated fairly often, but the Holy Scriptures require an approach more literal than would be appropriate in translating other writings. To translate with the requisite rigour to precision while still producing something beautiful in English, is not easy. Realising that makes one all the more admire the sheer gracefulness of Bible versions such as the D.-R.-C., Authorised “King James” Version, and English Standard Version, which lose nothing in literary excellence while being as literal as rendering Scripture aright requires.

Mgr. Ronald Knox, alas, had a quite negative view of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, one with which I simply disagree. I eagerly read, fairly recently, a biography of Mgr. Knox that included some telling quotes on these matters. In fact, Knox’ condescending attitude towards the D.-R.-C. Version is one of those few points in which I have to take strong fault with him; his attitude, also, smacked a bit of elitism. The same applies to his liturgical and devotional renderings from such Latin works, which, in their case, I think really are excellent, but not quite so far superior to earlier translations as Knox judged them to be! Well, even great men have their quirks!

Jerry Parker
 
Benedict_777 said:
:thumbsup:In my oppinion the Douay-Rhiems is the best translation of the original text into english. It seems to be more sacred in its wording and more true to the original texts. i tried to go NAB status for awhile but ran into the same problem of it seeming to be that the text was more trying to disprove that the bible is inerrant. a lack of spiritual translators it seems to be was the problem. So you run into the problem of not having any of the sacred typology.
Click to expand...
Thank you!🙂
 
Benedict_777 said:
:thumbsup:In my oppinion the Douay-Rhiems is the best translation of the original text into english. It seems to be more sacred in its wording and more true to the original texts. i tried to go NAB status for awhile but ran into the same problem of it seeming to be that the text was more trying to disprove that the bible is inerrant. a lack of spiritual translators it seems to be was the problem. So you run into the problem of not having any of the sacred typology.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. While reading the NAB, something seemed missing. Something about the text just didn’t seem right. I am convinced to this day it was lack of spirituality in the translation. This lead me to search for a better Catholic Bible and I found that in the Douay-Rheims
 
tobinatorstark said:
I would read the Douay-Rheims. It is the Latin Vulgate in English. Honestly if you don’t care for the NAB you might want to try the Jerusalem Bible. I would most certainly stay away from the RSV-CE at all costs. Something doesn’t strike me of a Protestant based Catholic Edition. I have my reasons for reading the Douay-Rheims, but those are my personal views. The choice is really up to you.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the NAB is preferable to the RSVCE? If you had to choose between the NAB 1970 and the CTS (Jerusalem Bible w/ grail pslams) then which would you pick?
 
Tobinatorstark and Keep Learning,

**You two wrote: Tobinatorstark: ** I would read the Douay-Rheims. It is the Latin Vulgate in English. Honestly if you don’t care for the NAB you might want to try the Jerusalem Bible. I would most certainly stay away from the RSV-CE at all costs. Something doesn’t strike me of a Protestant based Catholic Edition. I have my reasons for reading the Douay-Rheims, but those are my personal views. The choice is really up to you.

**Keep Learning: ** So you are saying that the NAB is preferable to the RSV-CE? If you had to choose between the NAB 1970 and the CTS (Jerusalem Bible w/ Grail Pslams) then which would you pick?​

Tobina (or is that Tobin A.?) Torstark, your instincts are good ones, at least so far as your preference for the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version (D.-R.C.) goes. 👍 I’ll limit comments here to the versions that you and Keep Learning mentioned. I really do believe that “preference” when it comes to Bible versions in English (or any other vernacular) should have a grounding in reasons that are clear and logical. The R.S.V.-C.E.-2 clears up what a lot of Catholics distrusted in the R.S.V.-C.E.-1 and in the oecumenical editions of the R.S.V. The C.E.-2 at last makes adjustments to the Old Testament that were much needed (the C.E.-1 having altered the R.S.V.'s New Testament somewhat, but having left the R.S.V.'s O.T. as it stood in the Protestant/Oecumenical texts). There also is greater stylistic unity and consistency in the R.S.V.-C.E.-2, so if you know only the C.E.-1, you might like to revisit your decision regarding the R.S.V.

The D.-R.-C. and the R.S.V. are real translations from their respective underlying texts in the ancient languages, not paraphrases, so they would merit first consideration, along with a few other of the versions which are true translations, if they are reaonably unbiassed. Especially when studying the Bible, a translated (not paraphrased) text is essential in coming to grips with what the sacred writers really convey.

As for the Jerusalem Bible (and the improved Catholic Truth Society edition of it, with the Grail Psalter as the major difference, which make the J.B. so much lovelier to ear and reason alike), the New Jerusalem Version, and the N.A.B. all are paraphrases, which rules them out for study purposes, though they have their place for “inspiration” and, with care, for worship purposes (though it really does seem to me that the sheer “butt-ugliness” :mad: of the N.A.B. is not condusive, really, for either of those two uses). The C.T.S. ed. of the J.B. and the N.J.B. are for the most part responsible paraphrases and they have rather beautiful English style, which makes them more useful than the rankly dreadful N.A.B. in any of its texts, :eek: the original 1970 one included. While the American bishops, unfortunately, endorse most strongly for public reading the N.A.B., which is merely functional, at best, the bishops in other English-speaking nations have made better choices, here in the Dominion of Canada the bishops having opted for the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (not so good as the R.S.V.-C.E.-2, or, of course, the D.-R.-C., but far better than the N.A.B.!), and England’s bishops having gone for the C.T.S. ed. of the J.B., so do not let American episcopal approbation blind you unduly to the flaws of the N.A.B.

I could say a lot more, but I have done so in earlier postings to this and other Bible-related C.A. Fora, so I won’t repeat myself here (for now, at least!).

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top