Bible Preference

[JRRTFAN]

Oh that’s RIGHT! It says it right on the USCCB website where they have the daily mass readings listed. What’s the difference between the New American and New American Standard translations?

The NASB is Protestant, pretty much a formal equivalence version (word for word) NAB leans more toward dynamic equivalence (thought for thought) but not nearly as far as a Jerusalem Bible which is very much dynamic equivalence.

 

[JRRTFAN]

JRRTFAN,

I didn’t know the RSV is not permitted for liturgical use the U.S. That seems very strange, since the RSV and NRSV are used in the Catholic Catechism. Would you give some insight into why it is acceptable in the Catechism, but not the Liturgy?

Thanks,
Anna

That’s a good question indeed, Anna. Official documents (encyclicals, Catechism) and unofficial scholarly works: Jesus of Nazareth 1 and Jesus of Nazareth 2 (Josef Ratzinger) use the RSV. The NAB is not as formally equivalent, i.e., not a word for word translation. It has also had huge trouble getting Vatican approval becuas of its tendency toward inclusive language. For instance, look a Ps. 1 in the NAB. The “Revised Psalms” of the NAB says “Blessed is the one”, the RSV-CE says “Blessed is the Man”. The male gender has been removed but scholars will generally concede that this a reference to Jesus. That’s why we can’t use the Revised Psalms of the NAB at Mass and that kind of stuff in the translation is why the Vatican won’t put it in the official documents.

 

[Anna_Scott]

That’s a good question indeed, Anna. Official documents (encyclicals, Catechism) and unofficial scholarly works: Jesus of Nazareth 1 and Jesus of Nazareth 2 (Josef Ratzinger) use the RSV. The NAB is not as formally equivalent, i.e., not a word for word translation. It has also had huge trouble getting Vatican approval becuas of its tendency toward inclusive language. For instance, look a Ps. 1 in the NAB. The “Revised Psalms” of the NAB says “Blessed is the one”, the RSV-CE says “Blessed is the Man”. The male gender has been removed but scholars will generally concede that this a reference to Jesus. That’s why we can’t use the Revised Psalms of the NAB at Mass and that kind of stuff in the translation is why the Vatican won’t put it in the official documents.

JRRTFAN,
I still don’t understand why the RSV would be used in the CCC and Official documents, but not the Liturgy.

I guess I could Google it.
Anna

 

[cooterhein]

Is the New Jerusalem Bible very literal or more dynamic. What do you like about it?
Thanks

(Wasn’t directed right at me, but…)

New Jerusalem uses extensive dynamic equivalence rather than formal, but it’s pretty good on accuracy- possibly the best among translations that do this- though it’s not as consistently accurate as the ESV or KJV. Pretty close, though. The NAB is a lot more dynamic, and while the update from the '73 version is an improvement, it’s still got a lot of inaccuracies. Some are kind of flagrant. It doesn’t show up in Catholic parishes everywhere because of its quality- it actually has a lot more to do with dirtier things like politics and money. If you choose between the two, the New Jerusalem is vastly preferable.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s a good question indeed, Anna. Official documents (encyclicals, Catechism) and unofficial scholarly works: Jesus of Nazareth 1 and Jesus of Nazareth 2 (Josef Ratzinger) use the RSV. The NAB is not as formally equivalent, i.e., not a word for word translation. It has also had huge trouble getting Vatican approval becuas of its tendency toward inclusive language. For instance, look a Ps. 1 in the NAB. The “Revised Psalms” of the NAB says “Blessed is the one”, the RSV-CE says “Blessed is the Man”. The male gender has been removed but scholars will generally concede that this a reference to Jesus. That’s why we can’t use the Revised Psalms of the NAB at Mass and that kind of stuff in the translation is why the Vatican won’t put it in the official documents.

When was the Douay changed form use in the missals and liturgy? I know had it been for years. While I think the 1st edition NAB is OK, The newer version seems to have erroded somewhat.

Do you have a Catholic link in regards to the use of the NIV for Catholic use?

Its not even a Catholic Bible right? Does the NIV have the same amount of Books as The Catholic Bibles. Seems that would be another issue?

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

JRRTFAN,
I still don’t understand why the RSV would be used in the CCC and Official documents, but not the Liturgy.

I guess I could Google it.
Anna

Were going to have to get more into this my sister which I know we started and never finished.

God Bless, Gary

 

[cooterhein]

If you want a Protestant version you’d have to go a long way to beat the New International Version Study Bible by Zondervan. I think they publish the same one using the NASB text as well. Scott Hahn gives it high marks (as far as it goes).

I think the ESV is better, and if you have an internet connection, the NET bible gives you a crazy amount of supplementary material along with being higher quality than any NIV- 60,932 translator’s notes, to be exact. NET and ESV are two of the really good translations that are always deemed acceptable when a Protestant has to put something together for a seminary course. NIV translations are generally left off the list. While popular, the quality isn’t quite as high as it needs to be.

And for those who are concerned about the deuterocanon, that’s now available with the ESV if you want it. As of January last year, I believe. Or maybe the year before. Either way, it’s there now.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Heres the link worth noting.

catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

Seems this has changed in a two-week period. I have a 1900 Douay an older KJV and Hitchcock 1869, along with a first edition NAB.

On the search engine here the new NAB isn’t to well recieved. Not that I care much for the old. Revelations I like the wording.

I use the Douay and KJV to match against each other. But as the sight states if old english isn’t a problem for you than thats fine. I grew up reading it so I kinda prefer it.

It seems in a week or so the vatican commented on the NRSV in a not so good sense also, if you access their sigh?.

The Jeruselum seems to have quickly gained popularity.

I’m just looking for a newer which with the age of mine would be more practical for taking out. The others are so old now I just don’t want to tear pages etc.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Oldtimer_7]

I think the Lutheran Study Bible is newer than the Self-Study Bible. Either one would be a good choice. I have the LSB in front of me. It has two columns of text, a center column to give cross references, footnotes, and then commentary on various points of the text. There are even some devotional materials in the commentary, marked by a special symbol. If there is a negative to this book, the margins are not large enough for many notes.

The other criticism that I have and which Catholic readers would quickly note is that the Deuterocanonicals are not present, though there is an article on them. If the Deuterocanonicals are important to you, then the Oxford Annotated Bible may be the most available nationwide. This is not a slam on Catholic Bibles, but the distribution is much more spotty. Of course, pretty much anything you want is available online, but going to a bookstore may allow you to actually handle the books, instead of just relying on a picture or two on a website.

There is also a study Bible put out by the ELCA through Augsburg Fortress, and it is based on the NRSV text. I have not seen this one yet, but will get one in the next few months.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Were going to have to get more into this my sister which I know we started and never finished.

God Bless, Gary

Yes, Gary, I suppose we did.

I’m really fascinated by all the different translations and the history behind them–and the variants among them. I’ve been collecting different Bible translations; but I must say I’m a bit envious of your collection: 1900 Douay, an older KJV, and Hitchcock 1869, along with a first edition NAB.

Back to the topic of the “best” Bible translation; I would just emphasize that not all translations are equally accurate. There are some serious differences among the different versions.

One of the most interesting variants among Bible translations exists in 1 John 5:6-8:

King James Version
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. 7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

NRSV-CE
6* This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. **8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree. **

NAB (Catholic)
6 This is the one who came through water and blood, 2 Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. **7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord. **

New International Version, ©2011 (NIV)
6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. **7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. **

**American Standard Version (ASV) **
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. **8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. **

English Standard Version (ESV)
6 This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one is only found in late manuscripts and is a well known intentional variant that didn’t appear in Greek manuscripts before about the 16th century–if my memory serves me correctly. I’m open to correction (it’s been awhile.)

The KJV and some others contain apparent intentional alterations to help support the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Don’t misunderstand me. I do believe in the Trinity. This is just one of several examples of what some scholars believe are intentional alterations. Sometimes, scribes would copy the notes from the manuscript margins into the main body of text, and some seemed to have an inclination to help Holy Scripture with a few of their own clarifications. Manuscripts containing errors and alterations were copied, and copies copied, etc. so errors continued from one manuscript to another.

When the KJV was translated (though it did borrow from the Latin Vulgate), some of the early manuscripts had not been discovered or maybe I should say rediscovered.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

RE: KJV

I just wanted to add: I think it was the 1631 printing of the King James Bible that omitted the word “not” from Exodus 20:14, which resulted in quite an embarrassing error in one of the 10 commandments. It read, “Thou shalt commit adultery.”

Anna

P.S. Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata. It contains the above and some more interesting printing mistakes.

 

[JRRTFAN]

When was the Douay changed form use in the missals and liturgy? I know had it been for years. While I think the 1st edition NAB is OK, The newer version seems to have erroded somewhat.

Do you have a Catholic link in regards to the use of the NIV for Catholic use?

Its not even a Catholic Bible right? Does the NIV have the same amount of Books as The Catholic Bibles. Seems that would be another issue?

God Bless, Gary

The NIV is an Evangelical Protestant version. It lacks the Deuterocanon and, more importantly, an imprimatur and Vaticvan approval, which it has not sought and would never get. If you hear it used at Mass it will be an aberation.

 

[JRRTFAN]

JRRTFAN,

I didn’t know the RSV is not permitted for liturgical use the U.S. That seems very strange, since the RSV and NRSV are used in the Catholic Catechism. Would you give some insight into why it is acceptable in the Catechism, but not the Liturgy?

Thanks,
Anna

Anna, the powers that be don’t want to use the RSV in the liturgy. We are now, after decades of bad translation, getting a new Missal which more accurately conveys the Latin in the Mass. If it took as long as it has to get the USCCB to submit to a simple translation correction, it would take until judgment day to get them to use a formal equivalence Bible.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Anna, the passage you quote was changed in the third edition of the Textus Receptus by
Erasmus. Luther used the second edition in his German translation while Tyndale used the third in translating the Bible into English. It was then adopted by the committee that wrote the King James Version. Why Erasmus added the text is a matter of some dispute. Older texts than the ones used by Erasmus did not contain the addition, so many newer translations do not include it.

 

[Zooey]

I use the RSV-CE the most at present, along with the Orthodox Study Bible, which is based on the NKJV.
My pastor believes that any of the RSV, RSV-CE, NRSV-- that these are the most literal translations of Scripture.
Mind you, it is the Douay Rheims that I like the best, but if the KJV doesn’t work for you, neither will the D-R!!

 

[JoshuaNY]

(Wasn’t directed right at me, but…)

New Jerusalem uses extensive dynamic equivalence rather than formal, but it’s pretty good on accuracy- possibly the best among translations that do this- though it’s not as consistently accurate as the ESV or KJV. Pretty close, though. The NAB is a lot more dynamic, and while the update from the '73 version is an improvement, it’s still got a lot of inaccuracies. Some are kind of flagrant. It doesn’t show up in Catholic parishes everywhere because of its quality- it actually has a lot more to do with dirtier things like politics and money. If you choose between the two, the New Jerusalem is vastly preferable.

Thanks Cooterhein, and everyone. Its very difficult for me to choose one. Ill have to try and narrow it down to a few and then work it down from there.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, the passage you quote was changed in the third edition of the Textus Receptus by
Erasmus. Luther used the second edition in his German translation while Tyndale used the third in translating the Bible into English. It was then adopted by the committee that wrote the King James Version. Why Erasmus added the text is a matter of some dispute. Older texts than the ones used by Erasmus did not contain the addition, so many newer translations do not include it.

Desiderius Erasmus did seem to have a rather high opinion of himself.

Anna

 

[JRRTFAN]

I use the RSV-CE the most at present, along with the Orthodox Study Bible, which is based on the NKJV.
My pastor believes that any of the RSV, RSV-CE, NRSV-- that these are the most literal translations of Scripture.
Mind you, it is the Douay Rheims that I like the best, but if the KJV doesn’t work for you, neither will the D-R!!

Your pastor is right about the NRSV, if by liberal he means inclusive and trendy. Having said that, apparently the new NAB-RE is a close second.

 

[hn160]

My preference for a Bible is “The Lutheran Study Bible” which is ESV, it has copious notes.

 

[CMatt25]

If you want a Protestant version you’d have to go a long way to beat the New International Version Study Bible by Zondervan. I think they publish the same one using the NASB text as well. Scott Hahn gives it high marks (as far as it goes).

I don’t own one but from previewing it, for a Protestant version I’d say the NIV is rather readable too. A nice mix. Not too contemporary but not KJ either. The GNT I have with Deuterocanonicals and bearing the Imprimatur of the USCCB is very readable as well. Perhaps though too contemporary in some cases. The NKJ I have not as much. And the Douay-Rheims I previously had was not either. My advice when it comes to which version to read, is the one you are going to actually pick up and read.