M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Does anyone know which version(s) of the Bible Pope Benedict prefers and why he prefers them?
- Status
J
jwinch2
Guest
The Catechism cites the RSV-CE from my understanding. It is also my understanding that the Vatican uses it for all official English translations of Church documents, but I could be mistaken on that.
M
melbanglican
Guest
Quite so! I seem to remember Paul saying something to the effect that Christianity is inclusive, ‘neither male nor female’ & ‘neither Jew nor Greek’, something of that nature.
As you say, as long as the use of such language is appropriate, I can’t see the problem.
C
Cristiano
Guest
The Pope is old and of German origins and so I doubt that he spent so much time analyzing all the fine differences of all the English (and American) translations. He is very knowledgeable and I would bet that he sticks to the Bible in Latin or at least that his favorite Bible is not an English translation. While he is extremely educated I doubt that he would consider himself a biblical scholar and so I would assume that he would delegate some translation choices to experts that he trusts because of their orthodoxy.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
In Germany do they have German translations of the RSV, Jerusalem bible, NRSB, and New Jerusalem bible or have they made completely separate attempts at translating the bible into German?
I’ve often wondered in countries other than English speaking countries if they’ve done a better job at translating the bible into their languages than we have into English?
Does anyone know?
I’ve often wondered in countries other than English speaking countries if they’ve done a better job at translating the bible into their languages than we have into English?
Does anyone know?
M
mcrow
Guest
I was given a copy of the
"The Catholic Family Connections Bible " by St. Mary’s Press. It’s an NAB bible but it has top quality production values and nice features.
Mine is a hardcover.
smp.org/ItemDetail.cfm?ItemNum=4400
"The Catholic Family Connections Bible " by St. Mary’s Press. It’s an NAB bible but it has top quality production values and nice features.
Mine is a hardcover.
smp.org/ItemDetail.cfm?ItemNum=4400
C
Cristiano
Guest
I think that a good Bible is expected to be translated in the contemporary local languages from the original Greek texts and so an English translation of an Italian Bible would not be accepted by the Church for any official use. For example as far as I understand it, the “Italian Jerusalem Bible” is the translation approved by the Italian Episcopal Community (CEI) and the notes are a direct translation of the original French ones. Now if you look at the quality of the Italian translations you will see the same trend that you have seen for the English Bibles. The so called “Bibbia Martini” is the equivalent of the “Douay-Rheims Bible” then in 1971 they (CEI) came out with something that could be compared to the NAB and now they have just released a new version that as far as I understand makes quite a few people cringe. If you compare the “Bibbia Martini” and the new one to the Latin text you will understand how much things changed with time.
K
Khalid
Guest
The Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1994 (?) - the newest one - takes Scripture passages from both the RSV-CE and NRSV-CE according to the front page, right under the nihil obstat and imprimatur.Quite so! I seem to remember Paul saying something to the effect that Christianity is inclusive, ‘neither male nor female’ & ‘neither Jew nor Greek’, something of that nature.
As you say, as long as the use of such language is appropriate, I can’t see the problem.
C
Cristiano
Guest
One thing that most people do not know or do not want to accept is that languages are not perfect and that a translation will always miss part of the meaning. Only multiple translations that could appear inconsistent could cover all the meanings associated with the original text; however, that would also create a lot of redundancy. The translations of the Bible are not immune from that either and that is why sometime it is better to own more than one Bible depending on its use. When I look at the documents of the Church, if it possible, I look at the English, the Italian, and the Latin version. I am not an expert and so when I can read more than one version (from experts) of a document I can get a better understanding of the original meaning.Quite so! I seem to remember Paul saying something to the effect that Christianity is inclusive, ‘neither male nor female’ & ‘neither Jew nor Greek’, something of that nature.
As you say, as long as the use of such language is appropriate, I can’t see the problem.
T
Tomcmaj
Guest
I agree.
It’s actually very enlightening to read different versions. I have four: JB, NJB, KJV and NIV. I’m in the middle of my own New Testament “self-study” program where I do a parallel reading chapter by chapter.
L
lewevanhoop
Guest
As a general good idea: Get several translations as this will help clear op some of the difficulties (if you can’t read Greek or Hebrew anyway). I personally use the NRSV- CE and the New American Bible as my two main bibles.
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
I don’t know, but I’d lay money it’s a German translation.
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
I doubt it. Surely they have German translations of the Greek and Hebrew. Why would they translate an English translation into German? Why do you think we have bad translations into English? There is no reason to say that.
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
I have read that he uses a German and a Latin bible.
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
The Latin would be the New Vulgate, which is the official Bible of the Church. I have no idea what they would call the German translation, but I am going to visit Bavaria next month and I will ask a priest if I see one.
A
andy60
Guest
I will say the Navarre Bible great translation understandable good commentary from the ccc to popes and doctors of the church. Pricey but a good buy. I also Have the New Jeruselum, and NAB study bible. Always good to have a couple versions for clarity. Always look for the Imprimatur seal of approval!
K
Khalid
Guest
If they’re butchered well enough, yes. I don’t like the removal of Christological implications and Messianic prophecy in Isaiah, and, especially, Psalms, that are in the NABRE, REB, NJB, RSV, NRSV, and most other modern translations (see Psalm 2, Psalm 16:10, the end of Psalm 17, Isaiah 7 and 9), but they don’t substantially change the message - they just make it so that it’s less obvious that Jesus was prophesied constantly, which it seems would make it harder to use in apologetics.Satan wants us to use Bibles?
However, such things as writing “a pillar and foundation” (ESV) instead of “the pillar and foundation” (D-R, NAB, NASB) at 1 Tim 3:15 removes an important Catholic passage, changing Lk 1:28 “full of grace” to “favored one” (virtually all modern translations) removes the ability to argue the Immaculate Conception from Scripture, changing Gen 3:15 to read as it does in everything except the D-R changes the implication of the passage in a seemingly major way (but not really, see footnote in the D-R), changing Isaiah 7:14 impugns the honor of the Blessed Mother of God (but, Isaiah 7:14, I don’t see the big deal about it: it’s one of the less obvious and more forced prophecies of Jesus, whereas Pss. 2 and 22 and Isa 52-56 are obvious, and can not be translated away), changing Ps 17’s ending removes the implication of the beatific vision and resurrection, changing Ps 16:10 removes the NT allusion and makes it inaccurate (as Jesus did see the pit, but didn’t see corruption), so on.
All of the various Greek Psalters and Septuagint versions also score 100 on the Old Testament (which is all the Septuagint is), and, since my original comment, I’ve found that the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) is pretty good, but the Psalms suck because they’re all rendered in the past tense - it loses power and rhetorical efficacy. Beyond that’s it’s good and it’s more readable than LCL Brenton’s, and it keeps the books in their canonical order instead of trying to squeeze them in to the Judaeo-Protestant Old Testament paradigm, relegating the deuterocanon to the back and splitting up Esther and Daniel. The NETS also has several different versions of several books, and is a thoroughly critical text (in a good way, it doesn’t have any notes, just introductions that deal with the LXX translation issues, and further NETS translation issues) which is more accurate than the LCL Brenton in many ways; however, the printed version is in very small typeface (often four or five chapters per every spread), of uneven printing quality, and, although it doesn’t belong in a critical Bible anyways, doesn’t have any form of division of the text or chapter headings, which can be annoying.
Many Protestant translations translate episkopos “bishop” as “overseer” instead, but it’s easy to gloss over in your mind. Many Protestant translations translate ergon “work” as “work” when it has to do with the Protestant Work Ethic, but as “deeds” or “behavior” or something else when it comes to a soteriological context (the NIV is notorious for this).
However, the Devil might want us to use a Bible and read it thoroughly, and apply it, if it’s one like the New World Translation, which is thoroughly Arian cover-to-cover (translating proskynesis “worship” as “render homage” when it has to do with Jesus, translating ton theon “the God” as “a god” [in John 1:7]). Arianism will get you to Hell just as quickly as any other belief or lack thereof, but those who sincerely believe it think they’re going to Heaven: for the Devil to get someone to read this and think it’s accurate, his work is already done: he’s got a free soul, and the poor soul is happy about it and completely unaware.
My tests are Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9 52:13-53:12, 54-56, John 1:1-17, Genesis 1, Genesis 3:15, Pss 2, 16, 17, 22 and some more for accuracy, and Psalm 1, a random salutation from Paul’s letters, and Daniel 7:13-15 for gender-“neutral” accuracy (viz. lack of gender “neutral” language - it’s not “neutral”, it’s feminist; how would one go about making a language like Latin or Greek gender-“neutral”, since every noun - and hence every object - has a grammatical gender? it would make the language nonsense, or everything would be made to conform to the feminine gender).
The only Bibles that I find to score 100% on the Old Testament count are the D-R, the ESV, and the NASB (the NASB is widely regarded as the most literal translation available within reason, i.e. without getting a Young’s or a Concordant or an interlinear). If one counts the prophecy of Our Lady in Gen 3:15, only the D-R is 100%. The other two most accurate Bibles are Protestant ones - at least the ESV comes with a full deuterocanon in some editions; the NASB doesn’t. The ones that pass the “missing verses” test in the NT are the D-R and NASB, but most of those aren’t that important, and are demonstrable late additions (Comma Johanneum); the ones that are important (Pericope Adulterae) are retained in most versions.
The D-R annoys me because it is in verse-per-line form instead of paragraphed. The Early Modern English isn’t that hard to get used to and read (and when it is, it makes you revisit a passage and thoroughly absorb it instead of blowing through it like a novel like you can do with many modern translations), but the verse-by-verse formatting is annoying, and reduces reading speed, accuracy, comprehension and retention (proven in study, just like reading in all-capitals does). If one came out that was paragraphed (or I could find the original D-R, which was paragraphed and came with copious - like 1200 pages of - notes), it would be even more excellent than it is. There’s no other translation out there that I would put up with verse-by-verse formatting for.
(continued below).
K
Khalid
Guest
(continued from above)
The NAB NT is good, better than most (taking both Protestant and Catholic in to account), but it doesn’t have “Hail, full of grace”. The only Bibles to score 100% on the NT are the D-R, Knox, Confraternity, and RSV-2CE. The NASB is good as well, but doesn’t have Lk 1:28, and always translates episkopos as “overseer”, with “bishop” in a footnote.
The Navarre Bible is good - it has excellent, authoritative, saintly and magisterial commentary - but uses the RSV-CE with its shortcomings (“young woman”, “favored one”, butchered Pss 16-17), but it always footnotes the alternate, more traditional renderings so you can substitute them in your mind.
The RSV-2CE is close when it comes to the OT (It fails Psalm 16 and partially fails Psalm 17). Part of the problem is unless a Bible is translated from an explicitly faith-based perspective (NASB, ESV, D-R, KJV), it inevitably comes with the translators’ presupposition against anything supernatural, including prophecy, virgin birth, typology, etc., and the textual criterion becomes, “if it is possibly conceived as prophetic or Christological, it is a false and late reading; no matter how poorly supported, we need to find a rendering that is not prophetic or Christological, and if that fails, we need to suppose that the writer was writing later than we’ve supposed up until now, or was lying” - the “lying” was often used until archaeology justified some of the supposed lies, and the former - dating - is now used in the division of Isaiah into Proto, Deutero, and Trito.
The most atrocious in this regard is the NAB/RE, as it treats no supernatural, no inspiration as a foregone conclusion, feels like it comes from the perspective of a hostile atheist instead of a Catholic, dates every book late, preaches the JEDP Pentateuch theory on every single page of the Pentateuch, as if it was the only theory and was universally accepted, and preaches the two-document form of the Markan Priority Q-theory on every page of the Gospels, like it is unquestionable Gospel truth, not even mentioning that there are serious problems with the Q-theory that are unresolved, that the dominant form is the four-document hypothesis (tripe like the Q-theory acquires ever more patches in an attempt to keep it from absurdity), and that there is a serious and much more faithful contender - the two-gospel hypothesis. Every note in the Bible is hypothesizing about who wrote what at what time (from a liberal perspective), who plagiarized from who, why it’s not inspired (except for lip-service), so on and so forth, instead of the text as we have it, inspired Scripture - even if Q-theory is true, the Q-document is irretrievably lost, and speculation on it has no place in a mass-market Bible. Leave it for things (like the NJBC and other critical commentaries) that will be read by people interested in textual criticism, or who want their skeptical material separated from their devotional material (like me: I like learning through the historical-critical method, but it doesn’t go well with lectio divina and I don’t want it in my Bible).
So, no, the Devil doesn’t want us to read most Bibles - but some, like the NWT, he’d love for us to read and believe, and some others to a lesser extent, that make it seem that intellectual assent to the truth of Christianity, or this kind of “faith” (sola fide) is all that’s required for salvation, without any form of righteousness (Calvinism; the NIV, much of the ESV New Testament).
Note: I can’t speak or read a word of Hebrew or Aramaic, so, for the NT, I use other criteria in evaluating accuracy, but I can read NT Greek (and the Attic-cum-koine Greek of Plato and Aristotle), so I can use a somewhat objective sense in determining accuracy using a Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece’s critical apparatus of variant readings - but I first must research both the manuscripts and the history and mind of the Church and Magisterium to determine which is the best variant reading, which isn’t always the one listed in the main body of the text instead of a footnote (although it usually is).
The NAB NT is good, better than most (taking both Protestant and Catholic in to account), but it doesn’t have “Hail, full of grace”. The only Bibles to score 100% on the NT are the D-R, Knox, Confraternity, and RSV-2CE. The NASB is good as well, but doesn’t have Lk 1:28, and always translates episkopos as “overseer”, with “bishop” in a footnote.
The Navarre Bible is good - it has excellent, authoritative, saintly and magisterial commentary - but uses the RSV-CE with its shortcomings (“young woman”, “favored one”, butchered Pss 16-17), but it always footnotes the alternate, more traditional renderings so you can substitute them in your mind.
The RSV-2CE is close when it comes to the OT (It fails Psalm 16 and partially fails Psalm 17). Part of the problem is unless a Bible is translated from an explicitly faith-based perspective (NASB, ESV, D-R, KJV), it inevitably comes with the translators’ presupposition against anything supernatural, including prophecy, virgin birth, typology, etc., and the textual criterion becomes, “if it is possibly conceived as prophetic or Christological, it is a false and late reading; no matter how poorly supported, we need to find a rendering that is not prophetic or Christological, and if that fails, we need to suppose that the writer was writing later than we’ve supposed up until now, or was lying” - the “lying” was often used until archaeology justified some of the supposed lies, and the former - dating - is now used in the division of Isaiah into Proto, Deutero, and Trito.
The most atrocious in this regard is the NAB/RE, as it treats no supernatural, no inspiration as a foregone conclusion, feels like it comes from the perspective of a hostile atheist instead of a Catholic, dates every book late, preaches the JEDP Pentateuch theory on every single page of the Pentateuch, as if it was the only theory and was universally accepted, and preaches the two-document form of the Markan Priority Q-theory on every page of the Gospels, like it is unquestionable Gospel truth, not even mentioning that there are serious problems with the Q-theory that are unresolved, that the dominant form is the four-document hypothesis (tripe like the Q-theory acquires ever more patches in an attempt to keep it from absurdity), and that there is a serious and much more faithful contender - the two-gospel hypothesis. Every note in the Bible is hypothesizing about who wrote what at what time (from a liberal perspective), who plagiarized from who, why it’s not inspired (except for lip-service), so on and so forth, instead of the text as we have it, inspired Scripture - even if Q-theory is true, the Q-document is irretrievably lost, and speculation on it has no place in a mass-market Bible. Leave it for things (like the NJBC and other critical commentaries) that will be read by people interested in textual criticism, or who want their skeptical material separated from their devotional material (like me: I like learning through the historical-critical method, but it doesn’t go well with lectio divina and I don’t want it in my Bible).
So, no, the Devil doesn’t want us to read most Bibles - but some, like the NWT, he’d love for us to read and believe, and some others to a lesser extent, that make it seem that intellectual assent to the truth of Christianity, or this kind of “faith” (sola fide) is all that’s required for salvation, without any form of righteousness (Calvinism; the NIV, much of the ESV New Testament).
Note: I can’t speak or read a word of Hebrew or Aramaic, so, for the NT, I use other criteria in evaluating accuracy, but I can read NT Greek (and the Attic-cum-koine Greek of Plato and Aristotle), so I can use a somewhat objective sense in determining accuracy using a Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece’s critical apparatus of variant readings - but I first must research both the manuscripts and the history and mind of the Church and Magisterium to determine which is the best variant reading, which isn’t always the one listed in the main body of the text instead of a footnote (although it usually is).
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Khalid: what is your opinion of the Confraternity New Testament?
K
Khalid
Guest
I thought I mentioned it up there - it’s excellent.
- Status