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

[SemperFidelis]

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.

To me it sounds like this person is new to reading the Bible according to the Catholic understanding of Sacred Scripture. Why give them a Bible full of inclusive language (which in many translations takes away from the original meaning of certain verses), or a Bible that has heretical and erroneous footnotes. You can get the RSV in about ten different sizes, formats, etc. You can buy paperback, leather hardback, large, small, and almost any combination thereof. Just get one of those. You don’t have too many people complaining about the RSV, while I know many who question the orthodoxy of the NJB, NRSV, and NAB.

 

[Jennifer123]

That is the RSV-CE. It was already mentioned.

Oh my apologies - I missed it. It’s not a great study bible but it’s nice to read IMHO. Mine is hardback but if that is an obstacle it is in paperback, though according to another poster it may be less sturdy than other editions.
My in-laws just gave a substantial amount of $ to a Protestant org that distributes bibles (KJV I would assume) in the 3rd world. Too bad there isn’t a Catholic equivalent.

 

[EphelDuath]

Can you post some of the questionable/dubious verses in the NJB? I was thinking of picking it up for the great footnotes, but forget it if it’s a bad translation for seekers.

Also, is there anybody here who has any criticisms of the original Jerusalem Bible and the RSV:CE?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Can you post some of the questionable/dubious verses in the NJB? I was thinking of picking it up for the great footnotes, but forget it if it’s a bad translation for seekers.

I can, but I’ll have to look them up. Mainly, it’s just verses that are filled with inclusive language. The additions of inclusive language can oftentimes render a different meaning to a scripture verse.

Also, is there anybody here who has any criticisms of the original Jerusalem Bible and the RSV:CE?

Not really, because both of these translations are pretty good.

 

[mccorm45]

Here are my thoughts:

1. If you want to do serious study, then get the RSV-CE. Currently, there are no good one volume versions of the RSV-CE out there that have complete study notes…so you will have to wait on that.
2. If you want reliable, easy to read edition, then the New Jerusalem Bible is probably a good option. The translation is fine and it contains many good notes and cross-references. The format and font of the NJB version is also easy on the eyes and very accessable. In regards to the inclusive language issue, there have certainly been excesses in recent years…ie the NRSV and the NAB '91 Psalms. However, the New Jerusalem Bible is not one of them. It is far more restrained than all the other modern versions in regards to this issue. In my opinion, the debate over inclusive language has been generally fought by those on the margins. People tend to take extreme stands on both sides of the issue, thus preventing any real discussion on how to come up with the best answers.
3. Finally, I think there are many people who simply restate opinions on this forum without really checking the facts. Some will condemn translations, forgetting that they were approved by the proper ecclesiastical authorities. To be sure, some translations may be more literal than others, but to simply say a translation is terrible or heretical is simply being ignorant. While I primarily use the RSV for study, I can certainly gain much spiritual fruit by referencing the Douay-Rheims, New Jerusalem, or even the New American Bible.

 

[SemperFidelis]

If you want reliable, easy to read edition, then the New Jerusalem Bible is probably a good option. The translation is fine and it contains many good notes and cross-references.

Why not just go with the Old Jerusalem Bible then? The translation is just as easy to read and doesn’t contain ANY inclusive language. The notes are more limited, but they are still good. If you want really good footnotes, then the only place to really go is Fr. Haydock’s Bible anyway. I’ll agree that the NJB isn’t as bad as the NAB or NRSV, but it still isn’t as good as the DRB, RSV, or the JB.

Some will condemn translations, forgetting that they were approved by the proper ecclesiastical authorities.

Just because the USCCB endorses it, doesn’t mean it’s good. I have no problem saying the footnotes are heretical. I know many people who also have as well. The USCCB isn’t perfect. Their “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” comes to mind, which is a blatantly heretical document.

To be sure, some translations may be more literal than others, but to simply say a translation is terrible or heretical is simply being ignorant.

Well then call me ignorant, and call Fr. Neuhaus ignorant too:

adoremus.org/0306BibleTranslations.html

and Jimmy Akin:

jimmyakin.org/2005/01/the_new_america.html

 

[mccorm45]

SemperFidelis,

Thanks for your comments.

1. In regards to the NJB vs. JB debate there are two reasons why I would choose the NJB. First is that the translation has been made more literal, and second the notes have been upgraded. An example of the upgraded notes in the NJB can be found in relation to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The notes for John 2 and John 19, as well as Rev. 12 are all very helpful and very Catholic. (Also, the original JB was largly a translation from the French, while the NJB is directly from the Greek and Hebrew.)
2. In regards to the NAB, I think point I was trying to make is that the translation itself, while not being the greatest, is certainly not heretical as some have said. While I agree with alot of what Fr. Neuhaus says, I do not think he would argue that the NAB translation is heretical. Are some of the notes questionable at times? Sure. But I found many helpful ones as well.

(Also, I own the Haydock Bible and have used it on occasion. I am quite glad to own it. However, I would much rather have a modern Bible with study notes. When I am in need of clarification that generally could be found in the Haydock Bible, I can typically find it in my handy pocket sized Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is more up to date.)

1. Finally, I am not sure that you siting the “Covenant and Mission” document was fair. In a press release dated August 16, 2002 Cardinal Keeler said that “the document, entitled Reflections on Covenant and Mission, does not represent a formal position taken by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) or the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (BCEIA). The purpose of publicly issuing the considerations which it contains is to encourage serious reflection on these matters by Jews and Catholics in the U.S.” So, basically you used an example of something that was never officially taken up by the entire USCCB. So, its not an official stance of the USCCB.

Nothing good comes out of ripping the USCCB. They are our bishops like it or not. Anyways, I think there are some very good things going on right now at the USCCB: 1) Approval of much needed Liturgical changes, particularly in the translation of the Mass, 2) New President of the USCCB is Cardinal George, 3) Better, more focused documents like “Faithful Citizenship” which will be much better than its predecessor.

My overall point would then would be to rely on the Holy Spirit to work through the bishops of our country. The current bishops are successors to the Apostles, so we should be supportive and show some obedience to them. Is everything that comes out of the USCCB great stuff? Of course not. However, I am pretty sure none of it is heretical. We may not like their focus from time to time, but that certainly doesn’t mean that they are actively trying to undermine the church in America. Sure, there are a few strange bishops out there who clearly have their priorities upside down, but I think the vast majority of them are humble men trying to do God’s will. Ultimately, Christ is calling us to be faithful to Him and His Church…therefore they need our prayers, not our condemnations.

 

[Manfred]

Can you post some of the questionable/dubious verses in the NJB? I was thinking of picking it up for the great footnotes, but forget it if it’s a bad translation for seekers.

Also, is there anybody here who has any criticisms of the original Jerusalem Bible and the RSV:CE?

There’s a thread in this very same Scriptures forum, entitled “RSV-CE Needs Corrections”. Some parts of it were lost during the CAF server crash of 2006, but the jist of the thread is still there.

JB criticism? Sure.

The Beatitudes all begin with “Happy are”, instead of “Blessed are”. I understand the underlying word may mean either, but, c’mon, we’ve heard “blessed” for so many years.

“Simon, son of John, you are a happy man!” Matt. 16

“…sex is always a danger…” 1 Cor. 7:2

Tobit chap. 2: “March the seventh”; I didn’t know te ancient Hebrews knew about the month of March! (They didn’t.)

Job 31:35: “Here is my mark, from A to Z”. There is no “A” or “Z” in the Hebrew alphabet.

1 Cor. 16: “…every Sunday…” instead of “on the first day of the week”.

And these were just off the top of my head. Now if I really sat down and compiled a more complete list…

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Only in the Douay Rheims and the Confraternity in 2 Corinthians 2:10 does Paul forgive the Incestuous Corinthian and grant him Absolution “In Persona Christ”–“In the Person of Christ”.

Other translations say that he forgave in the “Presence of Christ”.

Anyone can forgive anyone “In the Presence of Christ”. Only priests and bishops can forgive “In the person of Christ”.

Corinthians 2:10 is Biblical take it to the bank and cash it Proof of absolution.

The other translations are Doctrinally Deficient in not translating “In the person of Christ”.

Why would anyone want to read a bible that was Doctrinally in error?

The Vulgate on which the Confraternity and Douay Rheims Versions is based has been declared by the Catholic Church at Trent to be free from error in faith and morals and that it can be used in All Disputations.

None of the other translations can say that.

My challenge remains to anyone who does not like the Confraternity or Douay Rheims translations:

Prove the translation you like is Doctrinally superior to them.

If you can’t then explain why reading a translation that is doctrinally inferior is a good thing!

 

[lak611]

Only in the Douay Rheims and the Confraternity in 2 Corinthians 2:10 does Paul forgive the Incestuous Corinthian and grant him Absolution “In Persona Christ”–“In the Person of Christ”.

Other translations say that he forgave in the “Presence of Christ”.

Anyone can forgive anyone “In the Presence of Christ”. Only priests and bishops can forgive “In the person of Christ”.

Corinthians 2:10 is Biblical take it to the bank and cash it Proof of absolution.

The other translations are Doctrinally Deficient in not translating “In the person of Christ”.

Why would anyone want to read a bible that was Doctrinally in error?

The Vulgate on which the Confraternity and Douay Rheims Versions is based has been declared by the Catholic Church at Trent to be free from error in faith and morals and that it can be used in All Disputations.

None of the other translations can say that.

My challenge remains to anyone who does not like the Confraternity or Douay Rheims translations:

Prove the translation you like is Doctrinally superior to them.

If you can’t then explain why reading a translation that is doctrinally inferior is a good thing!

Is there a translation based on the Vulgate that does not have “thee and thou”? The OP wanted a Bible that did not have “thee and thou” so it would be easy to read. D-R and Confraternity are both doctrinally correct but hard to read for a beginner.

 

[puzzleannie]

I . 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?

for OPs purposes, I recommend the New American Bible since it contains the readings as they appear in the lectionary, which is a key component of RCIA. Also it is the closest to the NIV in the tone of the English used, which is average “business usage” not the most poetic rendering, but an accurate translation. The Oxford Press Catholic Study Bible NAB is a good one, though expensive. others on this forum will suggest dictionaries and study aids to amplify the sometimes ambiguous and less than helpful footnotes in the NAB. there is an NAB concordance, if you are used to studying with that type of aid, and a Dictionary of Biblical Theology tied to the NAB (Emmaus Road wordamongus.com).

If you like the NIV language, the NAB will be most congenial to you. If you prefer the NRSV, there is a comparable Catholic version with the added books. If English is your second language and you are struggling, the Good News translation, Catholic version, is acceptable for personal reading and devotion, but not for study, as it is a paraphrase, not a translation. United Bible Societies-American Bible society, for instance, has a volume with the English and Spanish GNT side by side which is good say, for a prayer group of mixed English and Spanish speakers, but not adequate for a study bible or for RCIA

If you prefer the NKJV, you will probably like the RSV-CE which is more poetic, a highly accurate translation, but with minimal footnotes unless you get a study edition such as the Ignatius Press one-volume series by Scott Hahn, or if you have a lot of money and are really into bible study, the Navarre bible and commentary. (this IMO is the Gold Standard of Catholic study bibles, but don’t invest the money unless you are really committed, start with the one-volume series).

If you grew up with the KJV you will like the Douay-Rheims Challoner “old” Catholic bible, which was translated around the same time and reflects 16th, 17th & early 18th c English language and the best scholarship of that era of bible translation. the Haydock Commentary (expensive) accompanies this.

the 1966 Jerusalem Bible is also a good modern translation, was at one time approved for liturgical use (although not now in the US) and is preferred by many. the New JB has inclusive language, although some passages are translated more accurately. Some volumes come with notes, some without depends on the publisher.

I only want to add, that an RCIA candidate should have (ideally should be given) a translation that is approved and used for liturgy in his country.

 

[SemperFidelis]

for OPs purposes, I recommend the New American Bible since it contains the readings as they appear in the lectionary, which is a key component of RCIA. Also it is the closest to the NIV in the tone of the English used, which is average “business usage” not the most poetic rendering, but an accurate translation. The Oxford Press Catholic Study Bible NAB is a good one, though expensive. others on this forum will suggest dictionaries and study aids to amplify the sometimes ambiguous and less than helpful footnotes in the NAB. there is an NAB concordance, if you are used to studying with that type of aid, and a Dictionary of Biblical Theology tied to the NAB (Emmaus Road wordamongus.com).

If you like the NIV language, the NAB will be most congenial to you. If you prefer the NRSV, there is a comparable Catholic version with the added books. If English is your second language and you are struggling, the Good News translation, Catholic version, is acceptable for personal reading and devotion, but not for study, as it is a paraphrase, not a translation. United Bible Societies-American Bible society, for instance, has a volume with the English and Spanish GNT side by side which is good say, for a prayer group of mixed English and Spanish speakers, but not adequate for a study bible or for RCIA

If you prefer the NKJV, you will probably like the RSV-CE which is more poetic, a highly accurate translation, but with minimal footnotes unless you get a study edition such as the Ignatius Press one-volume series by Scott Hahn, or if you have a lot of money and are really into bible study, the Navarre bible and commentary. (this IMO is the Gold Standard of Catholic study bibles, but don’t invest the money unless you are really committed, start with the one-volume series).

If you grew up with the KJV you will like the Douay-Rheims Challoner “old” Catholic bible, which was translated around the same time and reflects 16th, 17th & early 18th c English language and the best scholarship of that era of bible translation. the Haydock Commentary (expensive) accompanies this.

the 1966 Jerusalem Bible is also a good modern translation, was at one time approved for liturgical use (although not now in the US) and is preferred by many. the New JB has inclusive language, although some passages are translated more accurately. Some volumes come with notes, some without depends on the publisher.

I only want to add, that an RCIA candidate should have (ideally should be given) a translation that is approved and used for liturgy in his country.

I would rather have an RSV with no footnotes, then an NAB with all the footnotes in the world. Those footnotes down right deny the Faith in certain parts. I would not recommend the NAB to anyone, especially someone starting RCIA. They might get the idea that those footnotes are remotely orthodox.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

for OPs purposes, I recommend the New American Bible since it contains the readings as they appear in the lectionary…

Actually that’s not correct. From what I can gather, the only way one can buy a printed version of what you hear in Church on sunday, would be to buy a missal. There is no “NAB” edition that matches the US lectionary.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Confraternity New Testament isn’t hard to read.

Too bad they never completed the Confraternity Old Tstament from the vulgate.

I’ve always wondered if some of the books were completed before the project was abandoned and are locked away somewhere never to be seen because the USCCB supports the NAB and doesn’t want the Confraternity Version to be compared to the NAB?

 

[princeoflight]

Why read the Catholic version. You need an interlinear if you want to learn the truth in scriptures. The translations are what causes people to stumble. It is by the sweat of your own face that you will eat bread. For an easy step by step approach to understanding the scriptures and how they are written, go to this link…

lordswitnesses.us/index2.htm

Blessings,
Bill

 

[EphelDuath]

My opinion;

The DR is the most faithful to Catholic teachings, but it’s hard to read. The NJB is the most readable and aesthetically pleasing, and has excellent footnotes, but has a few questionable renderings. The NRSV is the most scholarly accurate, but has a lot of anti-Christian renderings. The RSV:CE is a good balance between the three.

 

[Manfred]

The Confraternity New Testament isn’t hard to read.

Too bad they never completed the Confraternity Old Tstament from the vulgate.

I’ve always wondered if some of the books were completed before the project was abandoned and are locked away somewhere never to be seen because the USCCB supports the NAB and doesn’t want the Confraternity Version to be compared to the NAB?

Not inconceivable, Jerry-Jet.

Recall that when the NAB’s infamous revised NT came out, publication of the 1970 NT ceased.

When I enquired of the USCCB why the 1970 NT and Psalms (not the horrid 1991 version of the latter) were not available on their web site, I was given a stern rebuke that the bishops felt the 1986 revised NT and 1991 Psalms were superior to their predecesors and would NOT be available online.

So, whatever OT work was completed before the Confraternity project was abandoned in 1944 may indeed be locked away somewhere by order of the bishops, who appear to want absolutely no competition for their beloved NAB.

And, of course, we need not bring up again the situation of the US lectionary’s only “authorized” version.