Eastern Catholics,the Orthodox and the Holy Bible

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

Crusading_Canuk

Guest
I was wondering which (preferably English) translations of the Bible are (generally) used by Eastern Catholics. Also for those of the Orthodox faith who read this, which English translations do you generally use?
 
I use The Orthodox Study Bible. It has very good notes you just have to watch out because in 2 of their essays they have a sentence slightly bashing the Romans. But overall it is the best I have ever seen and has been recommended to me by some priests too. orthodoxstudybible.com/
 
I use the Orthodox Study Bible, the NT is the NKJV and the OT is the LXX, it is a very good Bible and I highly recommend it. I also have KJV, NIV, NRSV, and an Amplified, out these I prefer the OSB.😉
And saying the RCC is wrong about something does not constitute Roman Catholic bashing maybe you could say more about what two essays you are talking about. I have the OSB so you could just tell me the page numbers.
 
I use the New Oxford Annotated RSV (NOT NRSV!!!) with “Apocrypha.” It retains the poetic beauty of the King James, but provides a bit more linguistic clarity for modern readers. Be aware, however, that the notes are sometimes quite liberal and based on critical scholarship, but this was at least still confessional and generally respectful. The editorial notes are top notch as far as hypothesized source texts in the Old Testament histories, letting you know when it is generally thought that one source ends and another begins.

I also use the Orthodox Study Bible, which is helpful and more for simple-hearted devotion rather than an also academic orientation. I find most of the notes themselves to be banal and irritating, and the typology in the Old Testament gets a little out of hand at times. But the arrangement and completeness of the Orthodox canon all in one place is really a huge asset that everyone needs in English.

Finally, I use the King James Version for its beauty and the obvious devotion of those who translated it. A pious and worthy rendering which lifts the soul to God.
 
So the Orthodox use Protestant translations. When I say this, I hope that I do not offend anubody because that is not my intent. It is an accepted fact that Protestant translations while having poetic beuty are filled with errors, the KJV (one of the more accurate ones) has over 30, 000. What I don’t understand is why the Orthodox do not use the Douay-Rheims based on the Vulgate which was translated from the original languages by St. Jerome before the Great Schism in the 4th century or translate an Orthodox (meant in reference to the Orthodox Church not the word orthodox) version of the Bible in English. Again I hope I do not offend by asking this.
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
So the Orthodox use Protestant translations. When I say this, I hope that I do not offend anubody because that is not my intent. It is an accepted fact that Protestant translations while having poetic beuty are filled with errors, the KJV (one of the more accurate ones) has over 30, 000. What I don’t understand is why the Orthodox do not use the Douay-Rheims based on the Vulgate which was translated from the original languages by St. Jerome before the Great Schism in the 4th century or translate an Orthodox (meant in reference to the Orthodox Church not the word orthodox) version of the Bible in English. Again I hope I do not offend by asking this.
Click to expand...
My guess here is because the Vulgate is Latin which the Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) really has nothing to do with. I wonder if in their “Patriarcial homelands” in their native tongue if they are using better translations of the Bible. Maybe its just that for the English version, they have to rely on whats already out there.
 
I use several different Bibles and translates including the OSB orthodox study bible.
 
ConstantineTG said:
My guess here is because the Vulgate is Latin which the Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) really has nothing to do with. I wonder if in their “Patriarcial homelands” in their native tongue if they are using better translations of the Bible. Maybe its just that for the English version, they have to rely on whats already out there.
Click to expand...
No, I wasn’t suggesting that the Orthodox or Eastern Catholics use the Latin Vulgate , but rather the Douay-Rheims may be more appropriate for when they need an English translation apposed to the KJV or other Protestant translations. Asside from the Douay-Rheims being more accurate than the KJV, for the Orthodox (I noticed one poster said that you had to be careful about the liberal notes in their KJV) the theological notes of Catholic translators may be more usefull than those of the Protestant reformers who translated the KJV. As the theology of the Catholic Church is much more similar to the Orthodox than either are to Protestantism.
 
But wouldn’t an English D-R be already a translation of the translation? The Latin Vulgate was already translated from Greek. Maybe they just prefer something directly translated from Greek, even though it may not be the best of translations.

Besides, the East rely heavily on traditions and what the Church Fathers say. A faulty translation today wouldn’t be that dangerous for Eastern Christians.
 
ConstantineTG said:
But wouldn’t an English D-R be already a translation of the translation? The Latin Vulgate was already translated from Greek. Maybe they just prefer something directly translated from Greek, even though it may not be the best of translations.

Besides, the East rely heavily on traditions and what the Church Fathers say. A faulty translation today wouldn’t be that dangerous for Eastern Christians.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Douay is the translation of a translation, but it was compared to the originals I think. The KJV was compared to the Douay to maintain a standard, and the only accurate parts of the KJV are the ones taken directly from the DR. But I did not start this thred to argue the Douay on the Eastern Catholic forum. Are there any translations made by or for the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches (besides the Orthodox Study bible)?
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
Yes, the Douay is the translation of a translation, but it was compared to the originals I think. The KJV was compared to the Douay to maintain a standard, and the only accurate parts of the KJV are the ones taken directly from the DR. But I did not start this thred to argue the Douay on the Eastern Catholic forum. Are there any translations made by or for the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches (besides the Orthodox Study bible)?
Click to expand...
Wasn’t the Vulgate Old Testament based on the Hebrew text? The Septuagint is the de facto standard liturgical and devotional text in Orthodoxy because of its constant usage since apostolic times.
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
No, I wasn’t suggesting that the Orthodox or Eastern Catholics use the Latin Vulgate , but rather the Douay-Rheims may be more appropriate for when they need an English translation apposed to the KJV or other Protestant translations. Asside from the Douay-Rheims being more accurate than the KJV, for the Orthodox (I noticed one poster said that you had to be careful about the liberal notes in their KJV) the theological notes of Catholic translators may be more usefull than those of the Protestant reformers who translated the KJV. As the theology of the Catholic Church is much more similar to the Orthodox than either are to Protestantism.
Click to expand...
The Anglican Church from which the KJV emerged is probably just as close to Orthodoxy as Catholicism.
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
Yes, the Douay is the translation of a translation, but it was compared to the originals I think. The KJV was compared to the Douay to maintain a standard, and the only accurate parts of the KJV are the ones taken directly from the DR. But I did not start this thred to argue the Douay on the Eastern Catholic forum. Are there any translations made by or for the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches (besides the Orthodox Study bible)?
Click to expand...
Currently the “Eastern Orthodox Bible” is in production. This translation is not meant to compete with the OSB as it doesn’t include the study bible portion and is a fresh translation (whereas the OSB is the NKJV edited to conform to the LXX rather than the MT).
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
So the Orthodox use Protestant translations. When I say this, I hope that I do not offend anubody because that is not my intent. It is an accepted fact that Protestant translations while having poetic beuty are filled with errors, the KJV (one of the more accurate ones) has over 30, 000. What I don’t understand is why the Orthodox do not use the Douay-Rheims based on the Vulgate which was translated from the original languages by St. Jerome before the Great Schism in the 4th century or translate an Orthodox (meant in reference to the Orthodox Church not the word orthodox) version of the Bible in English. Again I hope I do not offend by asking this.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox do use translations made by Protestants.

The Eastern Orthodox Church never has regarded the Vulgate as the official translation of the Church. In fact, even St. Augustine, in reference to St. Jerome’s work, says in his City of God that it’s the (Greek) LXX, rather than any Latin translation, that is the official unerring version of the Church. I do not say this against the Vulgate, but only to show that there is precedence for the Orthodox in viewing the LXX over other translations of the Hebrew OT as the standard for the Church.

The Douay-Rheims Bible, as I understand it, was created in response to the numerous Protestant translations into English that were unsound. The Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims, however, used the King James Version as a base text, and compared with the vast majority of Protestant translations at the time, the KJV is a good translation.

I believe that when the Orthodox committee put together the Orthodox Study Bible, they compared the NKJV translation with the LXX and Patristic interpretation, and made minor changes or annotated comments as required.
 
As far as I know there is not an official English translation of the Scriptures commended for Liturgical use among either Eastern Catholics or Orthodox. My own parish uses Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary’s Apostolos (Epistles), which I believe is the RSV. I’m not sure what translation we use for the Gospel. I believe if you look in the Melkite Menaion the Scripture translations are NAB. However, the Melkites also make use of Archbishop Joseph Raya’s Evangelion (Gospel) and Apostolos. Archbishop Raya/Baron Jose deVink’s translations of the Scriptures are quite lovely, although I can’t comment on the accuracy. I’ve read a scholarly critique of their Psalter which only really lamented a few spelling inconsistencies and the fact that it wasn’t divided up into Kathisma, but other than that it was highly praised. A cantor/friend of mine has also highly praised the Apostolos, even over and above the RSV one provided by Holy Cross. 🤷 Ultimately translations always fall short, thus we have Holy Tradition to enlighten our understanding.

For private use anyone can use any translation of Scripture they want. Again all translations will stumble, but that’s why Holy Tradition interprets Scripture for us. Personally I’m an RSV fan, but I also use the Orthodox Study Bible as well as the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (RSV Catholic Edition).

I do believe that Alveus is correct in stating that the Greek Septuagint is the default. I think this also holds for Catholicism as a whole since the Septuagint was pretty much universally used by the Fathers of the Church.
 
Wouldn’t the Eastern Catholics use the same Bible version recommended by the Episcopal Conference of their territory?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Wouldn’t the Eastern Catholics use the same Bible version recommended by the Episcopal Conference of their territory?
Click to expand...
I suppose it depend on which Eastern Catholic Church you belong to. Things seem to be a little more fluid among the Melkites, for instance, than the Ruthenians. I don’t know about the Ukrainians, but I get the impression that they too are a little more fluid and less rigid than the Ruthenians. I also couldn’t imagine Bishop John Michael of the Romanians allowing things to become too rigid; so I’d venture to say that the Romanians probably also do not have one translation of Scripture to which they are all bound (although if they did I’d imagine Bishop John Michael would prefer the Raya/deVink translations of the Evangelion and Apostolos).
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I suppose it depend on which Eastern Catholic Church you belong to. Things seem to be a little more fluid among the Melkites, for instance, than the Ruthenians. I don’t know about the Ukrainians, but I get the impression that they too are a little more fluid and less rigid than the Ruthenians. I also couldn’t imagine Bishop John Michael of the Romanians allowing things to become too rigid; so I’d venture to say that the Romanians probably also do not have one translation of Scripture to which they are all bound (although if they did I’d imagine Bishop John Michael would prefer the Raya/deVink translations of the Evangelion and Apostolos).
Click to expand...
I thought that the Episcopal Conference would set which translation is to be used in their territory. And since Eastern Bishops are part of the Episcopal Conferences (at least here in North America, I assume this is a world-wide thing) then they would also have to follow what has been agreed upon by the Bishops. At least the RC Bishops do set a standard version which I believe is an agreement struck in the Conference.
 
Another thing. If you ever read any of the catechetical material put out by the ECDD and published by “God with Us Publications” you will find that they employ multiple translations of Scripture within the same book. I believe each volume uses at least three different translations of Scripture. And these are from the official catechetical books for all Catholics of the Byzantine tradition in the U.S.(Ruthenian, Romanian, Melkite, Russian, Ukrainian, Italo-Albanian, etc.). 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top