Can anyone recommend a good easy-to-read Catholic Bible version?

  • Thread starter Thread starter conorsdad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

conorsdad

Guest
I returned to the Church this past year, and am starting RCIA next week, since although I was baptized and received first Communion, I was never confirmed. Can anyone recommend a good Catholic Bible to buy for everyday reading, perhaps even s "study bible: with notes and devotionals, etc? Before coming back to the Church, I was reading a New International Version, and like reading that translation, since it was very easy to understand, without all of the “thees, thous, ye. and arts.” Any recommendations?
 
I recommend the New Jerusalem Bible or the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition. If you are looking for a translation without the “thees and thous”, you probably would not care for the Douay-Rheims because the language is very similar to the King James Version.
 
The Catechism uses the RSV-CE, while the NAB is used for the readings at Mass in the USA.
So if you will be reading the Sunday scriptures aloud in your class, you might use the NAB so everyone can follow along, but if you are going to use it to study the Catechism or just scripture study, then the RSV-CE might be a better choice.
 
I recommend the New Jerusalem Bible and The RSV-SCE as well. Both are Catholic and very readable. I have a hard time reading the NAB.
 
Read the Confraternity Douay Bible for the least amount of errors.
 
conorsdad said:
I returned to the Church this past year, and am starting RCIA next week, since although I was baptized and received first Communion, I was never confirmed. Can anyone recommend a good Catholic Bible to buy for everyday reading, perhaps even s "study bible: with notes and devotionals, etc? Before coming back to the Church, I was reading a New International Version, and like reading that translation, since it was very easy to understand, without all of the “thees, thous, ye. and arts.” Any recommendations?
Click to expand...
 
savedsinner said:
The Catechism uses the RSV-CE, while the NAB is used for the readings at Mass in the USA.
So if you will be reading the Sunday scriptures aloud in your class, you might use the NAB so everyone can follow along, but if you are going to use it to study the Catechism or just scripture study, then the RSV-CE might be a better choice.
Click to expand...
Please be careful not to give the RSV-CE more than it is due; to wit, the Catechism actually uses an ecumenical edition of the RSV, the one that has the 2nd ed. (1971) NT, which should NOT be confused with the RSV-CE or the RSV-2CE. However, the original translators of the English version of the Catechism used the New RSV (NRSV), the one with all the inclusivisms. When then Cardinal Ratzonger and his Congregation got wind of this, they had the English version of the Catechism edited to remove doctrinally ambiguous and misleading, if not, erroneous, inclusivisms, and thus the ecumenical RSV was substitued in many places.
 
By far the best Catholic Bible (Douay-Rheims):

baroniuspress.com/category.php?wid=58&cid=1

If you don’t like the Elizabethan-sytle English, check out the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition 2 (RSV-CE2):

ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/COMPACT+IGNATIUS+BIBLE+BURGUNDY+COVER+WITH+ZIPPER/cid=15/page_no=3/edp_no=3234/shop.axd/ProductDetails

Another really good Bible is the original Jerusalem Bible, found here:

ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/THE+JERUSALEM+BIBLE/cid=15/page_no=3/edp_no=3195/shop.axd/ProductDetails

STAY AWAY FROM THE NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE AND THE NRSV.
 
SemperFidelis said:
STAY AWAY FROM THE NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE AND THE NRSV.
Click to expand...
Definitely stay away from the NRSV. But let’s not be too dismissive of the New Jerusalem Bible (1985).

Yes, it does have inclusive language, but its translators were quite restrained in its incorporation as compared to what you find subsequent versions, viz, the revised NT of the NAB, and the NRSV. Also, you should get the NJB edition with the FULL set of book introductions, footnotes, cross-references, etc. More often than not, the notes shed light on why a particular passage was rendered as such, and the literal Hebrew or Greek is often included in the note.

If, however, one orders the original (1966) Jerusalem Bible brand new, he can only get the Reader’s Edition, with most of the book intros, footnotes, cross-references greatly abridged or omitted. The JB is far more paraphrastic (i.e., more of a dynamic-equivalent translation) than the NJB, and, without the extensive study material included, there’s not much going for it, IMHO.
 
Manfred,

The inclusive language is only one issue. Far worse is the NJB’s guiding priciple of removing Christ and the Holy Spirit from the Old Testament. Whether they do this by dubious translation choices, or manuscript choices, is irrelevant.
It’s the JPS translation, with a cross on the cover.

It makes the TNIV look downright orthodox.

Joel
 
I just don’t see why anyone would choose a modernist, inclusive-language filled Bible over the Douay, RSV-CE2, or Old Jerusalem. Yeah each Bible might have one or two minor flaws, but every Bible pretty much does except the Vulgate or Septuagint. This is nothing compared to the errors of the NAB, NRSV, or NJB. You can argue that the New Jerusalem Bible shouldn’t be disregarded because it only has some inclusive language. I have read it and it’s just as bad as the NRSV or NAB in my opinion. Even if it is slightly better, it still has inclusive language, and that is a major flaw. Why choose this Bible over a Douay or one of the other Bibles I mentioned? They’ve got nothing going for them, and I wouldn’t even consider them Catholic Bibles.
 
I think the combination of Confraternity New Testament plus Douay Old Testament with Psalms that are neither Douay or Olinger is about the least bad one can get in a Bible.
 
The Catholic Truth Society (based in the UK) has very recently published the original Jerusalem Bible, which has no inclusive language, as it is used in the British Mass, and has replaced the Jerusalem’s use of Yahweh etc, with Lord, and uses the ‘Grail’ Psalm translations,as the English missal and mass does, rather than the Jerusalem psalms.
So it’s probably the best bet at the moment, especially if your British, as it is designed to help you follow the readings each week at mass. Run a search for the Catholic Truth Society on Google, you can find the bible through their site. In short, the most reliable translation in Britian today as its based on our lectionary, therefore no inclusive language, and rather easy readability for you too.

Matt
 
SemperFidelis said:
I just don’t see why anyone would choose a modernist, inclusive-language filled Bible over the Douay, RSV-CE2, or Old Jerusalem. Yeah each Bible might have one or two minor flaws, but every Bible pretty much does except the Vulgate or Septuagint. This is nothing compared to the errors of the NAB, NRSV, or NJB. You can argue that the New Jerusalem Bible shouldn’t be disregarded because it only has some inclusive language. I have read it and it’s just as bad as the NRSV or NAB in my opinion. Even if it is slightly better, it still has inclusive language, and that is a major flaw. Why choose this Bible over a Douay or one of the other Bibles I mentioned? They’ve got nothing going for them, and I wouldn’t even consider them Catholic Bibles.
Click to expand...
The original poster asked for a “good easy-to-read Catholic Bible”. As much as I love and admore the D-R, I generally don’t put it in the category of “easy-to-read” unless one has some acquaintance with Latin grammar.

While the RSV-CE is easy-to-read, its page layout is not user-friendly. Single-spaced lines, little white space, no headings, etc., not to mention relatively small print. And from what I’ve heard of the “quality” of the construction of the RSV-2CE (it falls apart), I wasn’t about to recommend that edition.

I’m sorry, my recommendation for the NJB still stands over that of the JB, which is definitely too paraphrastic for serious study. This was, after all, a product of the tumultuous 60s, with liturgical banners, Kumbaya, and all that. I own both of these, and I do not feel confident using the JB.

IMHO, the only decent version ever approved by Rome for liturgical use is the RSV-CE. It is sad that the NAB/RNAB, JB, and NRSV ever got approval.
 
SemperFidelis said:
I just don’t see why anyone would choose a modernist, inclusive-language filled Bible over the Douay, RSV-CE2, or Old Jerusalem. Why choose this Bible over a Douay or one of the other Bibles I mentioned? They’ve got nothing going for them, and I wouldn’t even consider them Catholic Bibles.
Click to expand...
He specifically asked for an easy-to-read Bible without “thee and thou”. That rules out the D-R. The Challoner revision of the D-R uses much of the same Elizabethan English that is in the KJV, with many “thees and thous”. As good as the D-R is, easy-to-read is not one of its attributes.
 
lak611 said:
He specifically asked for an easy-to-read Bible without “thee and thou”. That rules out the D-R. The Challoner revision of the D-R uses much of the same Elizabethan English that is in the KJV, with many “thees and thous”. As good as the D-R is, easy-to-read is not one of its attributes.
Click to expand...
Yes, in which case I recommended the RSV-CE2 and the Old Jerusalem Bible. Read my posts please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top