Choosing a bible

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

Jonni

Guest
Hi,
my family and I are going through the process of becoming catholic at present. I am 41 yrs old and have little knowledge of religion and want to study well.

I was told by the sister who Is teaching us the basics of the catholic faith, to get a copy of the Jerusalem bible which i did. I have read an article stating that it is not accurate and wanted to know what catholic bible Is. Also Is there any other books/commentary that will help me understand the bible, which I can revert to as I read.

Many thanks in advance.

Jon
 
According the Church teaching, the Septuagint is accurate (it’s the Bible the Apostles themselves handed down). In the West the Vulgate is used, which is a Latin translation of the Septuagint by St. Jerome – the Church has declared this free of doctrinal error too.

But if you want a Bible in English, I would strongly go with the Douay-Rheims, which is the traditional Catholic translation into English, based upon the Vulgate.

Another popular option is the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE, which is based upon the protestant RSV but with corrections to make it acceptable for Catholic use.
 
I’ve got the RSV-2CE, and its a nice balance of easy to understand and poetic language, and faithfulness to the ancient texts. Plus its not a nice looking cover. 🙂

When you are choosing a translation, there is a dichotomy at play. On the one hand, there are bibles that are very faithful, almost literal translations from the ancient (greek, latin, hebrew, whathaveyou) languages. They can be very beautifully written, but sometimes use archaic language or awkward phrasing. On the other hand, there are translations that convey the spirit of the ancient texts (what the authors were trying to say) in more modern/conversational language that is more fluid and readily digestible. You can find great examples of the different translations online.

The Douay Rheims is more like the 1st type I mentioned. The NAB is more like the 2nd type. The RSV-2CE is kind of in the middle, which is why I like it. There are plenty of other translations that fit in-between these, and PLENTY of translations have been approved by the church for personal use. Some are praised for their language. Some for their new testament, some for their old. Some are praised for quality footnotes! I’d recommend doing a search on the forums to pull up what other people have said.

Also:catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide
a helpful article on the subject. 🙂
 
It kinda depends on what you mean by accurate. In the US the standard bible would be the NAB (New American Bible) or NABRE (New American Bible - Revised Edition). This is the version you would find on the USCCB website and mass readings. Many traditionalist lean towards the Douay-Rheims bible. The Douay-Rheims version I have is very similar to reading the King James version of the bible. Those are the only 2 Catholic bibles I have experience with.

As for commentaries I have not used a specific one. You can also buy study editions of many bibles. For instance I have both an NAB and a separate NAB study edition.
 
Best commentaries:

Haydock (based on the Douay-Rheims)
Ignatius (based upon RSV-CE)
Navarre (also based upon it)
 
Jonni said:
Hi,
my family and I are going through the process of becoming catholic at present. I am 41 yrs old and have little knowledge of religion and want to study well.

I was told by the sister who Is teaching us the basics of the catholic faith, to get a copy of the Jerusalem bible which i did. I have read an article stating that it is not accurate and wanted to know what catholic bible Is. Also Is there any other books/commentary that will help me understand the bible, which I can revert to as I read.

Many thanks in advance.

Jon
Click to expand...
I am pleased to read that many on this thread use the Douay Rheims. This is the one I have always used along with the Haydock Commentary. Another commentary that is good but hard to find is the 1953 Catholic Commentary. Another really good one online is Cornelius Lapide’s Commentary. It doesn’t have the full translation online but it has the gospels and a few of the epistles. Here is the website:catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/Lapide.htm
By the way, the Haydock Commentary is online:haydock1859.tripod.com/
 
I have the RSV-2CE for my standard Bible and the Navarre series as well as the Ignatius in terms of commentary. I love all of them. My only major concern with the Navarre is that it has not yet included some recent scholarship calling into question the idea of different “traditions” being woven together at a later date to forum the Pentateuch. However, to be fair, that was prevailing scholarship at the time the OT series was penned. With the recent release of an updated NT commentary, I expect that an updated OT will be coming out at some point down the road. Other than that one little thing, the Navarre series is excellent and I highly recommend it.

Peace,
 
I went through this process myself recently (the process of deciding which bible version to choose.) Here’s what I went through, and the conclusion that I arrived at.

Step 1; Cross off from your list any bibles that have less than 73 books. They’re not complete Catholic Bibles.

Step 2; Cross off any “modern” bibles that change the meanings of the verses too much, as though trying to modernize it. Good examples of this are the awful Cotton Patch Version, which tries to translate everything into modern talk, destroying many of Jesus’ messages, and to a lesser extent, the New Revised Standard Version, which attempts to use gender-neutral pronouns for God every chance it gets.

Step 3; Unless you like wading through archaic language and sentence structure, I would also pass over the Douay-Rheims Bible. It’s good if you like that sort of thing, but not for casual use, I think.

Step 4; Ultimately, I was left with a few translations, which carry the same meaning as the original, but aren’t all that difficult to read either. The most promising of them are the New American Standard Bible (NAS) and the Revised Standard Version (RSV.)

The first time I ever read the bible, it was the NAS, but at the time, I found the footnotes distressing and disturbing, and even frustrating, so if you can get a version without footnotes, that’s for the best.

However, even better than that, in my opinion, is the RSV. The translations sound smoother, and there’s a version of the RSV new testament out with absolutely -excellent- footnotes. I suggest looking it up under the name “the Ignatius Bible.” That is my bible of choice.
 
Thank you very much for all your time in replying. Its much appreciated.

I have another question. Why in Daniel 3:25 (RSV and other new revised versions) does it say God’s and not God?
“But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

In the Douay-Rheims it says God. Is there something I am missing or is it bad translation with the revised versions?

Thanks in advance.

jon
 
Jonni said:
Thank you very much for all your time in replying. Its much appreciated.

I have another question. Why in Daniel 3:25 (RSV and other new revised versions) does it say God’s and not God?
“But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

In the Douay-Rheims it says God. Is there something I am missing or is it bad translation with the revised versions?

Thanks in advance.

jon
Click to expand...
Well, neither is invalid, since it’s a pagan king who’s speaking. He would have been more likely to refer to “the gods” if he saw a figure shining in the midst of the fire, I think. Still, he’d had a lot of exposure to the jews as well, so he might also have used the term “God.” Additionally, this verse can be used, regardless of which version you take, to tie the rescuer of the three faithful jews to the rescuer of the world; our Lord.

I don’t think it’s so much a bad translation as it is a difference in translation. Remember, these books are being translated from Hebrew, which has no vowels, no punctuation, and only rarely uses words that have only one specific meaning. This is the best explanation that I can provide, but I’m not a biblical scholar.
 
mytruepower2 said:
I went through this process myself recently (the process of deciding which bible version to choose.) Here’s what I went through, and the conclusion that I arrived at.

Step 1; Cross off from your list any bibles that have less than 73 books. They’re not complete Catholic Bibles.

Step 2; Cross off any “modern” bibles that change the meanings of the verses too much, as though trying to modernize it. Good examples of this are the awful Cotton Patch Version, which tries to translate everything into modern talk, destroying many of Jesus’ messages, and to a lesser extent, the New Revised Standard Version, which attempts to use gender-neutral pronouns for God every chance it gets.

Step 3; Unless you like wading through archaic language and sentence structure, I would also pass over the Douay-Rheims Bible. It’s good if you like that sort of thing, but not for casual use, I think.

Step 4; Ultimately, I was left with a few translations, which carry the same meaning as the original, but aren’t all that difficult to read either. The most promising of them are the New American Standard Bible (NAS) and the Revised Standard Version (RSV.)

The first time I ever read the bible, it was the NAS, but at the time, I found the footnotes distressing and disturbing, and even frustrating, so if you can get a version without footnotes, that’s for the best.

However, even better than that, in my opinion, is the RSV. The translations sound smoother, and there’s a version of the RSV new testament out with absolutely -excellent- footnotes. I suggest looking it up under the name “the Ignatius Bible.” That is my bible of choice.
Click to expand...
I agree with much of what is here.
However, the bible was written at a different time, in a different culture, in a different language.
There is going to be a learning curve to virtually any bible worth reading since it should capture the culture, time, and language use.

I am still of the opinion that the DR is the best out there.

Yes, you wade through archaic language and sentence structure…but you are reading the words of an archaic culture and language.
 
vz71 said:
I agree with much of what is here.
However, the bible was written at a different time, in a different culture, in a different language.
There is going to be a learning curve to virtually any bible worth reading since it should capture the culture, time, and language use.

I am still of the opinion that the DR is the best out there.

Yes, you wade through archaic language and sentence structure…but you are reading the words of an archaic culture and language.
Click to expand...
No matter what, that’s true.

However, I don’t feel the particular language structure of the DR really adds that much in terms of its similarity to the original texts.

The purpose of reading a deliberately-archaic text, in my view, should be to get a better idea of what was meant by the original, but the archaic hebrew of the original old testament, and the archaic english of its translation in the DR are themselves not a precise translation.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the DR to death. It’s a beautiful bible, and lots of fun (and great mental exercise) to read, but for a casual, before-breakfast experience, I’ll take a more recent translation just as well.
 
vz71 said:
I am still of the opinion that the DR is the best out there.

Yes, you wade through archaic language and sentence structure…but you are reading the words of an archaic culture and language.
Click to expand...
I would politely suggest that archaic English is not necessarily reflective of archaic Greek or Hebrew. In addition, it is my understanding that significant documents have been discovered and translated since after the DR which have lead to substantial improvement in scripture translation. It is worth noting that most modern scripture scholars, to include the ones at Catholic Answers, recommend the RSV-2CE.

catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide

Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with the DR. I just have concerns about propping it up as some sort of Gold Standard, which seems to happen quite frequently on CAF.
 
jwinch2 said:
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with the DR. I just have concerns about propping it up as some sort of Gold Standard, which seems to happen quite frequently on CAF.
Click to expand...
Your right.

Perhaps another question then would be what exactly is the gold standard?
 
vz71 said:
Your right.

Perhaps another question then would be what exactly is the gold standard?
Click to expand...
In Latin, it is probably the Nova Vulgata right now.

In English, I am not sure there is one. I know that the Orthodox are currently working on an updated translation, which might be worth a look when they are finished with it.

orthodoxanswers.org/eob/

There is also the New English Translation of the Septuigant, but I don’t know much about how it has been received in Catholic circles/

ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/#re
 
The God Delusion by Dr.Richard Dawkins, or The Grand Design by Dr. Stephen Hawking, both are really good and tell you the truth about god.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top