Best Version of the Bible?

[Manfred]

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?

Liturgiam Authenticam requires translations of the Scriptures for use in the Liturgy be from the original languages. To me, this would rule out using a vernacular translation of the NV, since that would be a translation of a translation.

What we refer to as “St. Jerome’s Vulgate” has also been lost, so to speak, for what has come down to us have been copies of copies. Many scholars would regard the Clementine Vulgate as close to what Jerome’s was. As you may know, the Holy See in 1907 commissioned a group of Benedictine scholars to restore the Vulgate to what they regarded as Jerome’s. This effort continued down through most of the 20th century until JPII called a halt and ordered an edition published; that edition was the NV of 1979. My point being that even the Vatican realized that the (Clementine) Vulgate needed revising/correcting. Therefore, we can conclude the Holy See would prefer the NV to the Clementine - as the “standard” LATIN VERSION.

What you are asking for is a “standard”, Vatican-approved English translation. Fuhgeddaboudit.

 

[jbuck919]

Sorry, Richard, but to paraphrase a famous composer reading a review of one of his works, I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have a paraphrase version of scripture (a “dynamic equivalent”) before me. In a moment, it will be behind me. I am happy to report that I had to work as an organist for the Methodists to be introduced to the joy of pararphrased scripture. I hope Catholics continue to have more sense.

 

[Manfred]

Sorry, Richard, but to paraphrase a famous composer reading a review of one of his works, I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have a paraphrase version of scripture (a “dynamic equivalent”) before me. In a moment, it will be behind me. I am happy to report that I had to work as an organist for the Methodists to be introduced to the joy of pararphrased scripture. I hope Catholics continue to have more sense.

Sorry, but you lost me with the obscure reference to the composer, as well as your sentiment of happiness at “be(ing) introduced to the joy of paraphrased Scripture”; care to clarify?

 

[Cranch]

Sorry, but you lost me with the obscure reference to the composer, as well as your sentiment of happiness at “be(ing) introduced to the joy of paraphrased Scripture”; care to clarify?

Lift lid. Introduce dynamic equivalence translation. Flush. (not saying I agree, mind you ). As for the rest, jbuck is being facetious. I think he’s thankful the Catholics haven’t gone the way of the Methodists.

 

[Manfred]

Lift lid. Introduce dynamic equivalence translation. Flush. (not saying I agree, mind you ). As for the rest, jbuck is being facetious. I think he’s thankful the Catholics haven’t gone the way of the Methodists.

Cranch,

Yes, that’s what I thought, but wasn’t sure; thanks.

While Catholics in the pew may not all go the way of the Methodists insofar as inclusive language is concerned, the US bishops certainly are determined to do so!

 

[Cranch]

Cranch,

Yes, that’s what I thought, but wasn’t sure; thanks.

While Catholics in the pew may not all go the way of the Methodists insofar as inclusive language is concerned, the US bishops certainly are determined to do so!

Let’s say a prayer for our bishops!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

RSV-2nd CE and a Jerusalem Bible, then a Douay-Rheims Bible.

 

[MrStain]

I agree with you. Especially since the books have different names in the Douay-Rheims than in any other translation. For example, if somebody refers to Hosea, a new Bible reader may not know that it’s called Osee in the Douay-Rheims. Also the Psalms are numbered differently. Almost everyone knows the 23rd Psalm (The Lord is my Shepherd . . .), except if you use a Douay-Rheims Bible it’s actually the 22nd Psalm.

Being raised with a great love of the King James version of the Bible, I needed a version that was as beautiful to read once I became a Catholic and thus my wife and I picked up a Douay-Rheims. I couldn’t wait to jump into this bible when I got home and I quickly discovered the different names and the numbering order when I looked up the 23rd psalm. Anyways, it is a great translation, but if you are not familiar with the style then you might first try another version.

My first Catholic bible was “The Catholic Answer Bible” which uses the NAB translation and it has sections throughout the bible that addresses and refutes the critics usual disagreements with the Church i.e. Saints, Apostolic Succession, etc.).

Welcome home captainmike

 

[jtav]

I am in the market for a new Catholic Bible as well. My NRSV is falling apart and the inclusive language is annoying anyway. I’m looking for a literal, orthodox translation with decent notes and in one leatherbound or hardback volume volume. I’d prefer a non-DR translation. So far, it seems the Ignatius RSV-CE 2nd edition is a good fit. Are their any substantial problems with this version? Are their any you’d recommend instead?

 

[mmortal03]

I am in the market for a new Catholic Bible as well. My NRSV is falling apart and the inclusive language is annoying anyway. I’m looking for a literal, orthodox translation with decent notes and in one leatherbound or hardback volume volume. I’d prefer a non-DR translation. So far, it seems the Ignatius RSV-CE 2nd edition is a good fit. Are their any substantial problems with this version? Are their any you’d recommend instead?

Get the Oxford Press Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible Reader’s Version instead of the Ignatius 2nd Edition. It has much more worthwhile revisions in it compared to the original RSV:CE versus the Ignatius Second Edition. It will be out VERY soon, if not already shipping from online stores as of today. It amazes me how everyone keeps picking up the Ignatius Second Edition when I continue to tell them that the new Oxford Press RSV:CE is better.

 

[Cranch]

It amazes me how everyone keeps picking up the Ignatius Second Edition when I continue to tell them that the new Oxford Press RSV:CE is better.

You do recognize that view is an opinion, right? I have followed the RSV-CE discussion on this thread which resulted in your page here. I don’t see it as a slam dunk, and if I’ve understood this discussion, the Ignatius would seem to have the additional benefit of a properly traceable lineage.

 

[mmortal03]

You do recognize that view is an opinion, right? I have followed the RSV-CE discussion on this thread which resulted in your page here. I don’t see it as a slam dunk, and if I’ve understood this discussion, the Ignatius would seem to have the additional benefit of a properly traceable lineage.

I completely realize it is an opinion, however, my mission is to keep my opinion as objective as possible. If you hadn’t seen it, don’t forget the following page, as this is where the real difference becomes apparent. That first page is just the beginning. This is where the difference is clear, as none of the following changes are in the Ignatius 2nd Edition:
umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm

The lineage of the Oxford Press Edition is totally traceable. Take the 1971 RSV and add the 1965 CE changes. It’s that simple.

If you don’t see it as a slam dunk, then I haven’t done a good enough job explaining what makes it better. I’ll try to scrap together all my findings and put them into one strong argument soon.

 

[richardeekw]

Dear All

I notisced that there are so many threads on The BEST ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE etc.

If you see the authors/cosntributors to the Catholic “approved” bibles, you will relize that many of these Scripture Scholars are well read (SSL, SSD,STD etc.)

To satisfy my curiousity I wrote to one Priest Professor with such a Degree. (SSL and STD)

William L. Burton, ofm
Antonianum Friary
2054 N. Humboldt Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60647
773.450.0176
www.biblicist.net
(SSL & STD)

I am sure you will respect his opinion too; at least I do.(Psss - except he did not mention my current favourite RSV-ce)

I** asked for his confirmation of my understanding that to obtain a Licentiate in Sacred Scriptures at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, one is required to be proficient in at least 6 languages, including Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English + 2 others) ?**

Here is his response

The Pontifical Biblical Institute offers two degrees, the licentiate (SSL)and the doctorate (SSD).

When I received my SSL from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, our language requirements were as follows:

Modern Languages:
You had to qualify in Italian, German and English.
If any of these was your native tongue, you had to add another one.
I qualified in Italian, German and French.

Biblical Languages:
**Introductory and Advanced **Hebrew,
**Introductory and Advance **Koine Greek, Aramaic, Latin and another Biblically useful ancient language.
Some of which were Arabic, Syriac, Sanskrit, Akkadian, Hittite,Coptic, Greek of the Septuagint, etc.

I finished my SSL there in 1995 and am not sure what their language requirements are today.

I finished my doctorate, not at the Biblical Institute, but at the
Pontifical Gregorian University in Biblical Theology, an STD.

I understand and sympathize with your point about our questioning Scholars about their translations but that doesn’t mean that some translations aren’t better than others for some uses.

For example,
for academic work,I prefer the New Revised Standard Version - Oxford Annotated edition. But it’s not very “beautiful” English and therefore doesn’t sound so good in liturgical settings. For that, I think the New American is better.
The Jerusalem Bible is wonderful for its footnotes.

Of course, nothing compares to the original Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic
But we can’t expect folks to study these languages in order to read the
scriptures.

So we have to choose the best translation available for a
particular use.

How many of us have Mastered some or all these languages to critique of existing Biblical translations? Not me - I am still struggling to master one language - English!

AMEN

God’s Blessings for a Blessed and Peaceful Christmas to All

 

[richardeekw]

Dear All

I notisced that there are so many threads on The BEST ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, RSV-ce NEED REVISION etc.

If you notice the editors/contributors to the Catholic "Imprmatur " bibles, you will realize that many of them have Licentiate in Sacred Scriptures (LSS) , and Doctoral Degrees in Scripture, Theology, Divinity, Philosophy etc. (SSD, STD, PhD etc)

I** have decided to write to a Priest-Professor to confirm my understanding that to obtain a Licentiate in Sacred Scriptures from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, one need to be proficient in at least 6 Languages of which must include Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English and 2 others.

Here is a reply from Fr William with an SSL and STD**
William L. Burton, ofm
Antonianum Friary
2054 N. Humboldt Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60647
773.450.0176
www.biblicist.net

The Pontifical Biblical Institute offers two degrees, the licentiate (SSL) and the doctorate (SSD).

When I received my SSL from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, our language requirements were as follows:

**Modern Languages: **
You had to qualify in **Italian, German and English. **
If any of these was your native tongue, you had to add another one.
I qualified in Italian, German and French.

**Biblical Languages: **
Introductory and Advanced Hebrew,
Introductory and Advance **Koine Greek, Aramaic, Latin **
and another Biblically useful ancient language. Some of which were Arabic, Syriac, Sanskrit, Akkadian, Hittite, Coptic, Greek of the Septuagint, etc.

I finished my SSL there in 1995 and am not sure what their language requirements are today.

I finished my doctorate, not at the Biblical Institute, but at the
Pontifical Gregorian University in Biblical Theology, an STD.

I understand and sympathize with your point about our questioning scholars about their translations but that doesn’t mean that some translations aren’t better than others for some uses.

For example,
for academic work,
I prefer the New Revised Standard Version - Oxford Annotated edition.
But
it’s not very “beautiful” English and therefore doesn’t sound so good in liturgical settings. For that, I think the New American is better.

The Jerusalem Bible is wonderful for its footnotes.

Of course, nothing compares to the original Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic but we can’t expect folks to study these languages in order to read the scriptures. So we have to choose the best translation available for a particular use.

My comments.

1. I have great respect for multi-lingual Biblical Scholars in editing/contributing to the English Translations (endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church) and as many Biblical scholars say – There is a different English translation to fit one;s need. E.g. For apologetic discussion with an anti-Catholic, it may be better to use both their standard KJV and our RSV-ce
2. We have our preferences for a particular English Translation. That is normal ( I am not disturbed; even though Fr William did not mention my favourite RSV-cd); but to critique on the works of such Biblical Scholars… how many of us are near their linguistic abilities and knowledge to be the authrity of any English Translation?

Have a Blessed Christmas and may the Peace of Christ rests in our hearts.

 

[richardeekw]

Dear All

I notisced that there are so many threads on The BEST ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, RSV-ce NEED REVISION etc.

If you notice the editors/contributors to the Catholic "Imprmatur " bibles, you will realize that many of them have Licentiate in Sacred Scriptures (LSS) , and Doctoral Degrees in Scripture, Theology, Divinity, Philosophy etc. (SSD, STD, PhD etc)

I have decided to write to a Priest-Professor to confirm my understanding that to obtain a Licentiate in Sacred Scriptures from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, one need to be proficient in at least 6 Languages of which must include Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English and 2 others.

Here is a reply from Fr William with an SSL and STD
William L. Burton, ofm
Antonianum Friary
2054 N. Humboldt Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60647
773.450.0176
www.biblicist.net

The Pontifical Biblical Institute offers two degrees, the licentiate (SSL) and the doctorate (SSD).

When I received my SSL from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, our language requirements were as follows:

Modern Languages:
You had to qualify in Italian, German and English.
If any of these was your native tongue, you had to add another one.
I qualified in Italian, German and French.

Biblical Languages:
Introductory and Advanced Hebrew,
Introductory and Advance Koine Greek, Aramaic, Latin
and another Biblically useful ancient language. Some of which were Arabic, Syriac, Sanskrit, Akkadian, Hittite, Coptic, Greek of the Septuagint, etc.

I finished my SSL there in 1995 and am not sure what their language requirements are today.

I finished my doctorate, not at the Biblical Institute, but at the
Pontifical Gregorian University in Biblical Theology, an STD.

I understand and sympathize with your point about our questioning scholars about their translations but that doesn’t mean that some translations aren’t better than others for some uses.

For example,
for academic work,
I prefer the New Revised Standard Version - Oxford Annotated edition.
But
it’s not very “beautiful” English and therefore doesn’t sound so good in liturgical settings. For that, I think the New American is better.

The Jerusalem Bible is wonderful for its footnotes.

Of course, nothing compares to the original Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic but we can’t expect folks to study these languages in order to read the scriptures. So we have to choose the best translation available for a particular use.

My comments.

1. I have great respect for multi-lingual Biblical Scholars in editing/contributing to the English Translations (endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church) and as many Biblical scholars say – There is a different English translation to fit one;s need. E.g. For apologetic discussion with an anti-Catholic, it may be better to use both their standard KJV and our RSV-ce
2. We have our preferences for a particular English Translation. That is normal ( I am not disturbed; even though Fr William did not mention my favourite RSV-cd); but to critique on the works of such Biblical Scholars… how many of us are near their linguistic abilities and knowledge to be the authrity of any English Translation?

Have a Blessed Christmas and may the Peace of Christ rule in our hearts.

---

Richard Ee
Singapore

 

[porthos11]

Get the Oxford Press Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible Reader’s Version instead of the Ignatius 2nd Edition. It has much more worthwhile revisions in it compared to the original RSV:CE versus the Ignatius Second Edition. It will be out VERY soon, if not already shipping from online stores as of today. It amazes me how everyone keeps picking up the Ignatius Second Edition when I continue to tell them that the new Oxford Press RSV:CE is better.

mmortal,

I’d like to see your review of the Oxford RSV Catholic Bible (as mentioned in another post, I hesitate to call it RSV-CE).

However, I think we should realize that some people’s definition of “better” can simply be the absence of “thee” and “thou” over “How shall this be?”

If that’s the case, then the RSV-2CE will be “better” for them.

And I DO like the Ignatius RSV-2CE.

 

[porthos11]

1. We have our preferences for a particular English Translation. That is normal ( I am not disturbed; even though Fr William did not mention my favourite RSV-cd); but to critique on the works of such Biblical Scholars… how many of us are near their linguistic abilities and knowledge to be the authrity of any English Translation?

Have a Blessed Christmas and may the Peace of Christ rule in our hearts.

---

Richard Ee
Singapore

Richard, practically all of your posts seem to carry the implication that those of us here who have no SSL’s have no right to critique Bible translations.

We are Catholic and have EVERY right to critique Bible translations. The initials SSL do not guarantee correctness or orthodoxy. All you need to do is pick up the NRSV or open your NAB to the book of Psalms to see this. It was “scholars” who translated the masterpiece called the New World Translation. It was “scholars” who said that Jesus couldn’t really predict the future.

We can critique translations because many if not most of us speak and write English as a first language, and can decently critique with a little knowledge of first-year Greek. And most of all, we do not need the initials SSL to read the Catechism and see what the Church teaches as truth and check it vis-a-vis the Bible.

 

[boppysbud]

The Douay-Rheims!

Best English Bible…ever!

Verily, speakest thou like unto this?

 

[Cranch]

I completely realize it is an opinion, however, my mission is to keep my opinion as objective as possible. If you hadn’t seen it, don’t forget the following page, as this is where the real difference becomes apparent. That first page is just the beginning. This is where the difference is clear, as none of the following changes are in the Ignatius 2nd Edition:
umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm

The lineage of the Oxford Press Edition is totally traceable. Take the 1971 RSV and add the 1965 CE changes. It’s that simple.

If you don’t see it as a slam dunk, then I haven’t done a good enough job explaining what makes it better. I’ll try to scrap together all my findings and put them into one strong argument soon.

Don’t knock yourself out on my account. I did see that second page now that you remind me. However, I’ve developed an affinity for the Douay-Rheims, and I like the similarities to the Douay in the RSV-2CE. I’m probably never going to like “fire and sulfur” over “fire and brimstone”. And why, as an example, is “coming at an unexpected hour” superior than "coming at an hour you do not expect” ? (rhetorical question )

As for my phrase “properly traceable lineage”, point taken. What I guess I meant (and should have said) was “properly legal”:

But I thought Scepter (and maybe even Oxford) had non-compact editions based on the 1959 NT with the 1965-66 Catholic changes, whereas their compact editions somehow managed to interject the Catholic changes within the 1971 NT; do I understand this correctly?

OK, so…
Catholic Truth Society (Gr. Britain) edition, Ignatius First Edition, Scepter full-size edition: based on 1959 NT;
Oxford, Scepter compact editions: based on 1971 NT;
Ignatius Second Edition: based on 1959 NT

(Sorry to be so pedantic, but it seems Oxford “has some splainin to do”.)

I totally favor the new Oxford copyrighted RSV:CEs based on the 1971 RSV, however, it would be nice to have them not deny that it is any different from the original RSV:CE.

Either the people we have contacted don’t know any different, or they are lying to us. Either way, the head Bible director, or whatever his title is, told me by email that it was not possible for it to be any different, because they are not allowed to alter it. He is clearly using faulty logic, because it IS possible for it to be different, because they could have simply broken the copyright. because it is actually a MUCH better bible translation now that it is based off of the 1971 RSV. Who knows?

Here’s what puzzles me: for a publisher to take the 1971 RSV NT as is and then commission someone to edit the text to incorporate the changes peculiar to the RSV-CE - which is based on the 1959 RSV NT - without screwing it up has got to be a minor miracle of sorts. But even more so is that publisher’s ability to keep this all a secret except to the discerning eye of some of the posters on this thread!…

 

[mmortal03]

Don’t knock yourself out on my account. I did see that second page now that you remind me. However, I’ve developed an affinity for the Douay-Rheims, and I like the similarities to the Douay in the RSV-2CE. I’m probably never going to like “fire and sulfur” over “fire and brimstone”.

But didn’t you say earlier that you don’t like the thees and thous?

To be quite honest with you, I don’t recall there being that many verses in the Ignatius 2nd Edition that were more similar to the Douay Rheims anyway. There were maybe a handful that were similar that we found, so unless you know of a good bit more that changed compared to what I have reported in the RSV:CE Needs Corrections thread, then I don’t know what to say.