Bible translations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JesusFreak84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JesusFreak84

Guest
First off, I’m still rather new to these forums, so if this thread is not in the right forum, admins please move it.

Alright, I’m not terribly thrilled with various aspects of my NRSV Catholic edition. (Also, it’s a Catholic Youth Bible, and the articles are getting rather irrelevant and distracting as I get older.) However, I don’t really like the NAB either, (the translation read during Mass.) Every darn Bible I see in the store, though, is NAB. What translation do you guys use and why?
 
Many here like the RSV Catholic edition. However, if you don’t like the NRSV, you may not like the RSV either. They are very similar in style, and put together by the same group - although several decades apart. Both are excellent in terms of accuracy of translation. This is something that can never be perfect in any Bible, but the RSV/NRSV translations make that their focus, so other translations will trump it in other areas. The main differences between the RSV and NRSV, as I understand it, are
  1. Knowledge of biblical-era Aramaic improved, so knowing a different sense of the original word the translators occasionally chose a different word or phrase in English.
  2. Changes in English usage mean the older translations may differ more from how we would talk today. The most cited example is inclusive language - we don’t talk about the men serving in Iraq, we talk about the men and women, even though “men” has a wider sense that includes women. The NRSV translators tried to determine where the Bible was speaking to or about all Christians, and where it was speaking only to or about a group of men, in rendering their translation. Some take exception to this, but however successful or unsuccessful they were, you know from using it it’s a fairly good and faithful translation.
The NAB is very straightforward and easy to understand, which is why they use it at mass (Canada uses the NRSV). The Douay-Rheims translation has beautiful, though archaic, language - very similar to the King James Version.

As others have said, the best Bible is the one you read.
 
The gender-inclusive language is a major one of my beefs with the NRSV. I’m not such a ditz that I can only understand I’m being refered to if the feminine pronoun is used. :whacky:

I don’t really like the NAB, either, though. So far, the Jerusalem Bible is winning out. 🙂

Thank you for all the helpful adivise {sp?}
 
40.png
JesusFreak84:
The gender-inclusive language is a major one of my beefs with the NRSV. I’m not such a ditz that I can only understand I’m being refered to if the feminine pronoun is used. :whacky:

I don’t really like the NAB, either, though. So far, the Jerusalem Bible is winning out. 🙂

Thank you for all the helpful adivise {sp?}
Click to expand...
I like the Jerusalem Bible too; I use it as my primary Bible translation. It may interest you to know that this translation is the one read at Mass in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and other Commonwealth countries, and until recently, the United States as an alternative option.

Just make sure it’s not the New Jerusalem Bible, which has inclusive language. The Jerusalem Bible though is a dynamic translation, so if you’re doing serious Scripture study, you may want to keep a literal translation as a comparative resource.
 
Hello all,

I just got here so, hello.

I was intrigued by this post which I came across via Google while searching for differences between RSV & NRSV translations. Yes, I too agree with JesusFreak84. My brain and reasoning are intact so that I don’t need to go through a calculus exercise to figure out who is being referred to when specific pronouns are used. And that is also my peeve with newer translations such as the NRSV.

Also, I have a major irritation and dislike for the entire PC (Politically Correct) movement. But suffice it to say, I am a staunch opponent of Political correctness in EVERY form–ideologically, socially, linguistically. It is worse to me than AIDS because PC has become an ideology and it is virtually impossible to eradicate an idea. But, you get my point.

I say all this to ask my question, which, if either NRSV or RSV translation will serve me well to read? Secondly, so I may be informed well, which other translation with a PC perspective should I avoid?
 
JesusFreak84 said:
The gender-inclusive language is a major one of my beefs with the NRSV. I’m not such a ditz that I can only understand I’m being refered to if the feminine pronoun is used. :whacky:

I don’t really like the NAB, either, though. So far, the Jerusalem Bible is winning out. 🙂

Thank you for all the helpful adivise {sp?}
Click to expand...
Overall, I think you will be fine with whatever Catholic approved translation you go with. They all have there strengths and weakness. Certainly go to your local Catholic bookstore and try out some of the different translations. Of course, it is good to know that some are more formal/literal while others are more functional/dynamic. The more formal/literal ones would be the RSV, NRSV, and DR. The NJB and the JB are going to be more functional/dynamic. The NAB seems to fit somewhere in the middle.

Also, I would make sure that you find one that you enjoy reading. I know that seems a bit obvious, but make sure you like the cover binding, the page layout, and the available study helps. When I say study helps, I don’t necessarily mean commentary, but cross-references, maps, a glossary, and concordance. Its no use buying a particular Bible translation, no matter how good it is, if you are not going to read it.

God Bless you on your search!
 
Just so the original poster is aware, the RSV-CE doesn’t use inclusive language as the NRSV does.

I didn’t see if that was stated by anyone in earlier posts.

matt
 
Mattjolley said:
Just so the original poster is aware, the RSV-CE doesn’t use inclusive language as the NRSV does.

I didn’t see if that was stated by anyone in earlier posts.

matt
Click to expand...
And so, what are the differences between the RSV and RSV-CE?
 
Ah yes, the Catholic Edition does have the deuterocanonical books, Although, this is a specific of the RSV-CE and NRSV, But, let me ask, aside from the extra books, and just looking at the RSV by itself, what does the CE offer in that edition of RSV that a regular RSV does not?
 
I’m afraid I don’t quite follow what you’re asking, as my previous post gave a link to the textual changes that the RSVCE made to your general RSV and I noted the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books.

What else is there to need to know? 🤷

I guess other than that, my Oxford Reader’s Edition has Prayers and Catholic devotions at the back, and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, preceeding the text.

Hope this helps,

Matt
 
Mattjolley said:
I’m afraid I don’t quite follow what you’re asking, as my previous post gave a link to the textual changes that the RSVCE made to your general RSV and I noted the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books.

What else is there to need to know? 🤷

I guess other than that, my Oxford Reader’s Edition has Prayers and Catholic devotions at the back, and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, preceeding the text.

Hope this helps,

Matt
Click to expand...
Okay, got the jist of it now, Let me ask this now–being that the NRSV is more gender-inclusive and thus, more akin to Political Correctness, would it be best to go with an RSV so I can avoid the PC lingo/jargon?
 
Yeah, i’d say so, if you were going to choose between the RSV and NRSV anyway.

Many believe it is the best modern translation available, but obviously this is just opinion! (Not actually my opinion)

However you will find it is used in Church documents and, as far as I know, the Catechism too. The RSV prides itself on lack of inclusive language, at least the Second Edition does!:

“This second edition of the RSV doesn’t put the biblical text through a filter to make it acceptable to current tastes and prejudices, and it retains the beauty of the RSV language that has made it such a joy to read and reflect on the Word of God”

Taken from the product description at ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=2765&SKU=IB2-P&ReturnURL=search.aspx%3f%3fSID%3d1%26SearchCriteria%3dRSV
 
i think so. although the second edition on the ignatius press site is from the early 2000’s i think.
 
Wow! Thanks for such an extensive, exhaustive detailed analysis.

Much appreciated and very illuminating.
 
I fully recommend the Douay-Rheims. It is by far the most accurate and quite helpful. It answered a lot questions I had when I read the NAB or any other Bible for that fact
 
The JB is a decent translation as others noted…however it doesn’t render many passages as traditionally recognized and as one would find in the RSV or DR but it gets the point across, has one of the best layouts and reference systems available to Catholics,and is generally easy and enjoyable to read. I don’t understand why the US doesn’t use the JB as it’s primary bible. The RSV is excellent, renders passages as most are familiar hearing, but lacks in study helps, cross-refs, and overall user friendliness…unless you go blow a few hundred bucks on the Navarre set. I’d go with the JB IMO.
 
JesusFreak84 said:
First off, I’m still rather new to these forums, so if this thread is not in the right forum, admins please move it.

Alright, I’m not terribly thrilled with various aspects of my NRSV Catholic edition. (Also, it’s a Catholic Youth Bible, and the articles are getting rather irrelevant and distracting as I get older.) However, I don’t really like the NAB either, (the translation read during Mass.) Every darn Bible I see in the store, though, is NAB. What translation do you guys use and why?
Click to expand...
I use three different translations:
  1. The New Jerusalem Bible. This version does use a bit of inclusive language but not to the point of being obnoxious like the NRSV or NAB. It is very readable and accurate. (There is also a version called The Jerusalem Bible which is older and lacks the inclusive language, but is not as accurate as the New Jerusalem Bible.)
  2. The English Standard Version. This translation was actually done by Evengelical Protestants but it is nonetheless very accurate. It is not quite as readable as the NJB. They released a version of this translation which includes the books which Catholics accept but Protestants reject as well as a couple that the Greek Orthodox churches accept but we reject.
  3. The Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition, especially the recent Ignatius Press revision. Again, this is a very accurate translation which you will probably see most often used in these forums and on EWTN’s programming. It was also a Protestant translation but the changes for the Catholic edition were done by Catholics.
I would stay away from the Douay-Rheims, New American Bible and New Revised Standard Version. There are just too many problems with them. The D-R uses archaic language including words whose meanings have chaged drastically. Also, while it contains no doctrinal errors, it does contain translation errors, a distinction which some here don’t seem to be able to make. The NAB and NRSV were translated with the goal of being poticically correct rather than accurate. The Psalms of the NAB were specifically rejected for use in the Mass by the Vatican.

Gary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top