Bible help......Which one?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SonSearcher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rainaldo said:
Correct, the original 1582-1609 DR was a clunky literal translation of the Latin Vulgate but the study notes were awesome, having been prepared by 16th-century Jesuits. There is a three-volume facsimile version of it out there but it’s hard to find.

Because the translation was accurate to the point of being ugly (LOL), Bishop Richard Challoner, who was apostolic vicar of London at the time (mid 1700s), touched it up to make it more readable. Challoner grew up Protestant with the King James Version and in his revisions of the DR he largely brought the wording of the DR into conformity with the KJV except where it compromised the Catholic sense of a passage or was based on a textual tradition at variance with Jerome’s version.

Example: Matthew 6:9-13
  • 1582 DR: “Our father which art in heaven, **sanctified **be thy name. Let thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, in earth also. Give us today our **supersubstantial **bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.”
  • 1611 KJV: “Our Father which art in heaven, **Hallowed **be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”
  • 1749-1752 DRC: “Our Father who art in heaven, **hallowed **be thy name. **Thy kingdom **come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our **supersubstantial **bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.”
Click to expand...
Wow. Awesome reply. So with these minor changes that make it more readable, how close do you think it still is to the original Latin?
 
Rainaldo said:
Correct, the original 1582-1609 DR was a clunky literal translation of the Latin Vulgate but the study notes were awesome, having been prepared by 16th-century Jesuits. There is a three-volume facsimile version of it out there but it’s hard to find.

Because the translation was accurate to the point of being ugly (LOL), Bishop Richard Challoner, who was apostolic vicar of London at the time (mid 1700s), touched it up to make it more readable. Challoner grew up Protestant with the King James Version and in his revisions of the DR he largely brought the wording of the DR into conformity with the KJV except where it compromised the Catholic sense of a passage or was based on a textual tradition at variance with Jerome’s version.

Example: Matthew 6:9-13
  • 1582 DR: “Our father which art in heaven, **sanctified **be thy name. Let thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, in earth also. Give us today our **supersubstantial **bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.”
  • 1611 KJV: “Our Father which art in heaven, **Hallowed **be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”
  • 1749-1752 DRC: “Our Father who art in heaven, **hallowed **be thy name. **Thy kingdom **come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our **supersubstantial **bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.”
Click to expand...
So which notes are better? rsv2ce or douay rheims, because I can purchase either one right now. I would rather better more full notes to learn from. any suggestions?
 
LittleHannah said:
I personaly like the Douay Rheims version. Its the best translation in English from the Latin.
Click to expand...
If thou canst uderstandeth it. Surely you know I am joking.

But the DR has the same problems as the KJV, comprehension.

I prefer the Orthodox Study Bible, and the 66 Jerusalem.

The OSB has the same book deutero canonical as the DR, and even the KJV originally had them.
 
dje101 said:
Wow. Awesome reply. So with these minor changes that make it more readable, how close do you think it still is to the original Latin?
Click to expand...
It’s not word-for-word, it’s not so close that you can guess what the underlying Latin must have been. When the KJV departs from Jerome’s Latin, the DRC follows Jerome; otherwise the DRC is basically the KJV.

Example:

DRC: Our Father who art in heaven
Latin: Pater noster qui es in caelis
Literal: Father our who is in heavens

DRC: Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven
Latin: Fiat voluntas tua sicut in caelo et in terra
Literal: Let-be will your just-as in sky and in land

DRC: Give us this day our supersubstantial* bread
Latin: Panem nostrum supersubstantialem* da nobis hodie
Literal: Bread our oversubstantial* give us today

*Jerome made this word up because nobody knows exactly what Jesus, Matthew, or Luke (6:11) meant by the underlying Greek word (ἐπιούσιος; ἐπι = over, ούσιος = substantial), so he just translated it part-by-part literally. It occurs nowhere else in the NT, the Septuagint, or all of recorded ancient Greek literature.
 
SonSearcher said:
So which notes are better? rsv2ce or douay rheims, because I can purchase either one right now. I would rather better more full notes to learn from. any suggestions?
Click to expand...
The notes in the original DR in my opinion are better, but they are only available as part of that 3-volume facsimile edition I mentioned.

The notes you find in the usual more recent editions prepared, for example, by TAN Books & Publishers such as the 1899 edition of Challoner’s revised DR or the Haydock Bible are fresh preparations. All of them are good, but the original DR notes include hard-hitting anti-Protestant arguments that you would expect from today’s Catholic apologists, based on Church fathers and doctors and common sense, moreso than the notes found in the more recent editions.

Example: Note on Matthew 4:10, from the 1582 DR but not in the 1971/1989 TAN reprint of the 1899 Murphy edition.

[Then Jesus saith to him, Avant Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.] It was not said, saith S. Augustine, The Lord thy God only shalt thou adore, as it was said, Him only shalt thou serve: in Greek, λατρεύσεις. Augustine sup. Gen. q. 61. Whereupon the Catholic Church hath always used this most true and necessary distinction, that there is an honour due to God only, which to give unto any creature, were idolatry: and there is an honour due to creatures also according to their dignity, as to Saints, holy things, and holy places. See Euseb. Hist. Ec. li. 4. c. 14. S. Hierom. cont. Vigil. ep. 53. Aug. li.10. Civit. c. 1 Li. 1. Trin. c. 6. Conc. Nic. 2. Damase. li. 1 de imag. Bed. in 4. Luc.
 
SonSearcher said:
Hey y’all

I have a three copies of the new american bible, given to me for free, a copy of the kjv, from parents, a living word bible, and a message new testament.

So you say what the hecks the problem?

Well my problem is that none of these bibles speak to me. I just met with an apologist friend of mine and he stated that when he opened his bible (nkjv orthodox study bible)that he has been using for the past couple of decades it was a new world. I have tried his and I like it but it doesn’t get me pumped to read.

Can’t say I like the kjv the language is too fuddled for my taste.
the new american doesn’t seem to speak directly to my heart.
the living word translation should be called “funky news for modern man”
and finally the message bible seems like an over dubbed cd that has been recorded from a tape that was recorded from an lp. It is in fact too modern for my taste.

Now I have had my hands on a 66 Jerusalem and loved it. But the problem is that one is so hard to come by, and when you find one it is expensive.

Now I know a bible should be a bible and lets not condemn me for having a bunch of bibles and not being happy with any of them. I will read them if I need to, so no worries there.

So my questions are:

Which one do you read?
Why?
Has it always been your favorite?

And please folks, this is just a bit of fun mind you so don’t get to crazy here.😃
Click to expand...
If the Jerusalem Bible floats your boat get one. You can find them easily on eBay. I have a 1966 Doubleday edition (big thick red cloth binding, the leather bound are EXPENSIVE!) with the full notes (excellent) not the Readers’ Edition (no notes). Mother Angelica used to use the Jerusalem Bible (not NEW Jerusalem) exclusively and you can get the Reader’s edition on EWTN shopping site.

There is nothing wrong with the NAB although I find it blah.

I use the RSV (Ignatius publishes 2 the RSV-CE and RSV-CE2, you can get either on eBay in good shape fairly inexpensively.

The Message you have pegged accurately. It’s a paraphrase, not a translation, by an Evangelical Protestant written for his kids while he commuted by train. Give it a wide pass.

Your Catholic options are: DRC (Douay Rheims Challoner, I like it but the language has evolved and it’s tough to read sometimes), NAB - the one from which the Lectionary at Mass arises (except for the Psalms which never did meet Vatican acceptance for liturgical use), the JB, the NJB, the RSV-CE and RSV-CE, the New RSV-CE (hard to find, easy to read).

Having all these options, I really think your best bet is the JB if that’s the one you’ll read for example:

ebay.com/itm/THE-JERUSALEM-BIBLE-1966-J-R-R-TOLKIEN-ALEXANDER-JONES-/150771153609?pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&hash=item231aa93ac9
 
SonSearcher said:
So my questions are:

Which one do you read?
Why?
Has it always been your favorite?

And please folks, this is just a bit of fun mind you so don’t get to crazy here.😃
Click to expand...
I read both the Douay-Rheims (Challoner) and New Revised Standard Version (with the Apocrypha). The reason why is because both read well and the Douay-Rheims (Challoner) edition is the best english Catholic bible translation at the moment. Neither is my favorite at the moment.
 
Doesn’t matter…I perfer the King James Version and NIV but it doesn’t matter at all…no matter what Christian Denomination you are from…it only matters that you read the Bible, God doesn’t care which one it is.:bible1:
 
DJ_Representa said:
Doesn’t matter…I perfer the King James Version and NIV but it doesn’t matter at all…no matter what Christian Denomination you are from…it only matters that you read the Bible, God doesn’t care which one it is.:bible1:
Click to expand...
Actually, God vastly preferred to quote from the Septuagint :cool:
 
JRRTFAN said:
Your Catholic options are: DRC (Douay Rheims Challoner, I like it but the language has evolved and it’s tough to read sometimes), NAB - the one from which the Lectionary at Mass arises (except for the Psalms which never did meet Vatican acceptance for liturgical use), the JB, the NJB, the RSV-CE and RSV-CE, the New RSV-CE (hard to find, easy to read).
Click to expand...
The New Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition) is not hard to find.
 
dje101 said:
Wow. Awesome reply. So with these minor changes that make it more readable, how close do you think it still is to the original Latin?
Click to expand...
The Clhalloner-Douay is very, very close. (My mama was a Latin teacher; I know Latin.).

I recommend the RSV-CE over other modern translations.
 
Judith48 said:
It is in fact too modern for my taste.

Now I have had my hands on a 66 Jerusalem and loved it. But the problem is that one is so hard to come by, and when you find one it is expensive.http://www.datamar.info/avatar4.jpg
Click to expand...
There is no more “modern” version than the Jerusalem Bible. I like mine but it is a very, very dynamic equivalent translation - MUCH more “modern” than the RSV-CE.
 
Jehuty_X said:
The New Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition) is not hard to find.
Click to expand...
Where would you find one? I think they’re rare as hen’s teeth. You might be thinking of the RSV-CE2, which is a whole different kettle of fish.
 
JRRTFAN said:
Where would you find one? I think they’re rare as hen’s teeth. You might be thinking of the RSV-CE2, which is a whole different kettle of fish.
Click to expand...
Actually,unless you’re buying direct from Ignatius Press, most that I see are the RSV-CE.🤷 I believe that Oxford has one.
 
As someone who is reestablishing her faith (always a believer, just was not always a church goer), I wanted to purchase a new bible as well.

I have only an older KJV study bible that was a gift from a friend’s youth pastor and a very old Haydock Douay…

So, I went with this: amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Douay-Rheims-Version-Burgundy/dp/1935302043/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332214449&sr=8-1-spell

Hopefully I made a good choice!

I wasn’t sure which to pick, so I went for a new version of my old one.
 
SonSearcher said:
Now I have had my hands on a 66 Jerusalem and loved it. But the problem is that one is so hard to come by, and when you find one it is expensive.
Click to expand...
It is not at all hard to find a Jerusalem Bible.

Here is a version (without notes) for $19.20 on Amazon. You can buy good-condition used copies for less than $10.

If you want notes, you can buy the CTS Bible (which is Jerusalem, but with a few minor changes to match the UK liturgy, and which has notes) for $26.10.

If you insist on a 1966 Jerusalem Bible, you can find editions from $30 on Amazon, and from $20 on eBay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top