Best Version of the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter captainmike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve heard that Catholic Treasures in January of 2007 will be selling a SINGLE Hardback Burgundy Leather Douay Rheims Haydock Bible that will include the Haydock commentary.

Haydock Douay Rheims Bibles are SLIGHTLY different than Challoner Douay Rheims bibles because sometimes they use Dr. Troy’s translations which in a small number of instances is closer to the Vulgate than to the KJV as compared to Challoner.

That Bible will sell for $125.00.

It might be worth checking ourt!
 
TomBosco,
The commentary on the NAB can definitely be pretty misleading at times. If you just read the Scripture itself and pay no attention to the commentary you’ll be alright. One example of this is the commentary on Rev 12:1. It simply says Israel. Now any Catholic with the slightest bit of knowledge knows that is not completely accurate. It’s more than just Israel. I quite reading the NAB for my daily devotions simply because the commentary really started bugging me. I use the RSV-CE now.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I’ve heard that Catholic Treasures in January of 2007 will be selling a SINGLE Hardback Burgundy Leather Douay Rheims Haydock Bible that will include the Haydock commentary.

Haydock Douay Rheims Bibles are SLIGHTLY different than Challoner Douay Rheims bibles because sometimes they use Dr. Troy’s translations which in a small number of instances is closer to the Vulgate than to the KJV as compared to Challoner.

That Bible will sell for $125.00.

It might be worth checking ourt!
Click to expand...
I have the paperback 2 vol one and well cant wait to see how the single vol one is.
 
I’m surprised I had never noticed the difference in John 3:16 before. I’m always telling people that words mean things, and this is quite a difference when you get out brother Webster and compae the two words. Thanks for contributing, Manfred!👍
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Haydock Douay Rheims Bibles are SLIGHTLY different than Challoner Douay Rheims bibles because sometimes they use Dr. Troy’s translations which in a small number of instances is closer to the Vulgate than to the KJV as compared to Challoner.
Click to expand...
I never heard of Haydock. My Douay Rheims Version is Challoner’s. Which one is an older translation?
 
Hmm… drbo.org, newadvent.org both read life everlasting. So does the Haydock, Loreto Douay and Baronius Douay. It could be that its from another version of the Challoner revision not covered by the sources I listed.
 
Some may not like what I’m going to say but I’l say it anyway.

No matter what the virtues are of the RSV-CE and yes there are some virtues–and no matter how polished it currently has become–yes the Catholic corrections have made it more palatable–it is still in its essence a PROTESTANT version of the Bible.

I have a problem with that.

The NAB is a mess.

Ditto the inclusive language Jerusalem Bible and the NRSV.

The Douay Rheims is far from perfect–but it does not suffer from FATAL flaws.

Would I like a Douay Rheims where they went back to the original languages and corrected inaccuracies in a CATHOLIC way? Of course!

Would I like some of the archaic language revised? Of course! I’m with Manfred though–I don’t think that Thee or Thine is unacceptable

Basically what I want is an improved Douay Rheims or failing that a CATHOLIC version of the Bible in the tradition of the Douay Rheims.

That is currently unavailable. So I prefer the Douay Rheims but use of the RSV-CE with extreme caution is OK because in some small instances it is more accurate than the Douay Rheims.

What I really need to do is learn Latin and Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew and have access to every manuscript throughout all history and know what the Catholic Church and its theologians thought about each and every word of each.

Don’t we all?

Failing that I’ll rely on the Douay Rheims but maybe give the RSV-CE to potential converts!

One last question: IF all inclusive language was removed from the NRSV and changes in it were made equivalent to those in the RSV-CE which version would be more accurate?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
No matter what the virtues are of the RSV-CE and yes there are some virtues–and no matter how polished it currently has become–yes the Catholic corrections have made it more palatable–it is still in its essence a PROTESTANT version of the Bible.

I have a problem with that.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak from personal knowledge, but I have read that the original Douay (OT 1609) and Rheims (NT 1582) translations influenced the protestant King James bible (1611) in some passages, and that conversely, Bishop Challoner’s 18th century revision of the Douay-Rheims borrowed significantly from the King James. So there has been a kind of Catholic-Protestant cross-pollination of Scripture in English.

That being said, I prefer the Douay-Rheims also.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
One last question: IF all inclusive language was removed from the NRSV and changes in it were made equivalent to those in the RSV-CE which version would be more accurate?
Click to expand...
Well the NRSV still gets John 3:16 correct.
 
Jerry-Jet: You may want to check out the Douay-Confronternity Version. It came out during the forties and early fifties after Pope Pius XII wrote Divino Afflante Spiritu. The OT is still the Douay; but, the NT is translated into the English language directly from the Latin Vulgate (St. Jerome’s). I have one that I picked up at a used book store (they refused to sell it because they assumed it had been blessed: gave it to me instead!). I have given my NAB away to someone I knew would not read the DR because I have pretty much lost respect for it and now when I need a more “modern” translation I turn to my Confronternity Version and know that it is according to the Vulgate and that the footnotes are 100% Cathholic, many of them apologetic in nature!😉
 
It is certainly not my intention to go against the prevailing wisdom here. Douay-Rheims it is. I’d like to offer a thought beyond, for those who might be interested.

The Old Testament is being (very) slowly translated in an edition called the Schocken (pronounced Skooken) Bible, which attempts to preserve some of the poetry of the texts. Many peoople are unaware that Genesis, for instance, is a very literary (if not literal) product, on those terms alone one of the great artistic masterworks of all time, filled with marvelous imagery poetically expressed. So I recommend at least the Pentateuch in that edition for those who simply enjoy reading the Bible.

At the other end, and I don’t even know if it is still in print, is the translation of the Gospels and Revelation by Richmond Lattimore, a famous Greek scholar at Harvard who had no axe to grind one way or the other. These texts are not exactly famous for their poetic content, but it is worth reading his neutral translation because it confirms that the potentially tendentious translators over the ages who gave us various familiar forms of the New Testament were pretty darn faithful to the text after all.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
The NAB is a mess.

Ditto the inclusive language Jerusalem Bible and the NRSV.

The Douay Rheims is far from perfect–but it does not suffer from FATAL flaws.

One last question: IF all inclusive language was removed from the NRSV and changes in it were made equivalent to those in the RSV-CE which version would be more accurate?
Click to expand...
Yes, the NAB is flat and bland.

The original 1966 Jerusalem Bible is NOT inclusive; the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible is.

Rather than the NRSV, I’d prefer someone work on the English Standard Version (ESV), a more conservative RSV, but first it needs a set of Deuterocanonicals. It’s not just inclusive language, whether horizontal (bad enough) or vertical (REALLY BAD!), but also political correctness that might also have to be removed from the NRSV. An example of P-C from the NJB is where the ten lepers are referred to as “the ten with a virulent skin disease”.
 
Dear all

I once read in the “New Covenant” magazine many year ago that to obtain a Licenciate in Sacred Scriptures (LSS) ; the Biblical Scholor is expecte dto be proficient in at least 6 languages ( Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, and two others).
I wonder if this is true?

If it is we must have respect for the many LSS who form the Committee to revien and translate the Bible from the Original Languages into English.

We sometimes find it difficult to master One language yet I am surprised that we do critique with authority, on the various English Translations of the Bible.

We expect the “English word/(s)” used ito meet(a) our personal preference and (b) to suit our personal mastery of the English Language. (Here again British English or American English).

I am sure NO single English Translation of the Bible can satisfy all our conditions - only an English Translation prepared for me, myself and I - probable “Cut & Paste from standard English Translations” is probably a solution!

The “Imitation of Christ” – Thomas Kempis
Book ONE -The Fifth Chapter

READING THE HOLY SCRIPTURE

TRUTH, not eloquence, is to be sought in reading the Holy Scriptures; and every part must be read in the spirit in which it was written. or in the Scriptures we ought to seek profit rather than polished diction.

Likewise we ought to read simple and devout books as willingly as learned and profound ones.

God Bless and a Blessed Christmas to everyone.
May the Lord shower His Mercy on us.
 
richardeekw said:
The “Imitation of Christ” – Thomas Kempis
Book ONE -The Fifth Chapter

READING THE HOLY SCRIPTURE

TRUTH, not eloquence, is to be sought in reading the Holy Scriptures; and every part must be read in the spirit in which it was written. or in the Scriptures we ought to seek profit rather than polished diction.
Click to expand...
Being quite the cynic, I must point out that Thomas Kempis lived at a time when the Latin Vulgate was THE Bible of Catholicism, and scholars of that age did their exegetical work from the Vulgate, not the original languages.

While I won’t dispute that the critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures available today are superb, most of us only see these through the biases of TRANSLATORS. It’s much easier to verify how well (or poorly) the Douay-Rheims-Challoner adheres to the Clementine Vulgate than, say, how well (or poorly) the NAB, RSV-CE, JB adhered to the Hebrew and Greek critical editions.
 
There are so many Greek and Hebrew editions–I wouldn’t know which ones should be given more weight.

In the Nova Vulgata did they use what they thought were the best Greek and Hebrew sources–even better than Jerome?

I wonder if the Nova Vulgata differs from Jerome’s version of the Vulgate more because they thought they had better sources than Jerome–or that Jerome didn’t sufficiently edit all the scriptures he had with equal care–or that the authors of the Nova Vulgata were lacking sources he had that had been lost–or that STYLISTICALY they just produced a freer and looser translation?

If anyone knows the answers to these questions chime in!

Many here have said that an “Improved” Douay Rheims will never happen. What about a faithful English translation of the Nova Vulgata?

I’d like to see an English country somewhere in the world USE THAT for their lectionary. Could the Holy See refuse? Would they say it didn’t adhere enought to Jerome’s Vulgate?

I guess what i’m really asking is if the Holy See had to choose between a faithful English translation of the Nova Vulgata or the Douay Rheims following in the tradition of Jerome’s Vulgate–how would they choose?
 
“Ditto the inclusive language Jerusalem Bible and the NRSV.”

Inclusive language in the 1966 Jerusalem? I didn’t know that. Can you refer me to some places where this language is used?
thanks
 
Something I gathered from various sources
  1. Douay Rheims-Challoner (very literal)
  2. Haydock Douay Rheims (Troy-Challoner) (very literal)
  3. Original Douay Rheims (ridiculously literal) – fm Latin (Vulgate) -English
  4. Confraternity Bible (NT only) (literal) – frm Latin (Vulgate) DR - English
  5. Mgr Knox Bible (literal) – fm Latin (Vulgate - English
  6. Ignatius Study Bibles (by book) (1966 RSVCE) (literal)
  7. Navarre Bible (1966 RSVCE) (literal)
  8. Ignatius 2nd Catholic Ed RSVCE (Rev of the 1966) (literal)09. Oxford RSVCE Readers Ed ('71 RSV + the '66 CE verses) (literal) – fm H4b/Gk - English
  9. 1966 Jerusalem Bible (dynamic equivalence) - fm Heb/Gk-French-English
  10. Christian Community Bible (1st-3rd Edtns) (dynamic eq) – fm Heb/Gk – English (Philippines)
  11. New American Bible 1970 (dynamic equivalence) – fm Heb/Gk to English
  12. New American Bible 1986 (in-between formal and dynamic eq)
  13. New Revised Standard Version (“literal” w/ inclusive lang)15. Christian Community Bible (Later Edts) (dynamic eq)
  14. 1985 New Jerusalem Bible (dynamic equivalence)
  15. Catholic Living Bible (dynamic equivalence)
  16. Good New Bible (dynamic equivalence)
1-12 are free from inclusive language
13-18 contain varying amounts of inclusive language
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top