Is the Confraternity New Testament Good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Aloysius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is good.

Keep in mind that there is no perfect translation, there is no right version of the Bible in English here in 2008.

(There are a few “wrong” ones, I might venture… but not now.)

The “Confraternity Version” is a bit of a misnomer, since there were actually a few editions that were called thus. Check out this Wikipedia article for more information about it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_Bible

It does suffer from being a translation of a translation, and it does tend more or less to use archaic words and phrases and spellings. But it is very unlikely to lead you astray.

Personally, I like to use a D-R-C (ie, essentially a Confraternity) Bible for devotional reading, and the RSV-CE for study.

Regards,
Joe
 
I just got a Confraternity New Testament after giving up on ever seeing a RSVCE pocket New Testament that actually fits a pocket. I’ve discovered I really like it.

The English still has thees and thous and a few related verbs, but most of the English was updated (no more shew or hadst, or words that no longer appear in modern English) so it is very readable.

Apparently it is based on the Douay-Rheims, and therefore the Latin Vulgate, but in the few places where the Latin and Greek differ, they mentioned it in a footnote.

Today I found one verse where it really shines: 2 Peter 1:10 where the Confraternity says “strive even more by good works to make your calling and election sure.”

The RSVCE, NAB, as well as all Protestant Bibles did not include “good works” while the Confraternity NT and Douay-Rheims did. This sent me on a wild chase through many books and the internet to find out what was going on here. Turns out that the Latin Vulgate, the Aramaic translations and the two earliest Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus) include this phrase. My respect for the Confraternity NT suddenly went way up.

I find it significant that the modern Protestant versions usually make a big deal about those two early Greek manuscripts and give them more weight, but completely ignored them in this one case. In this verse, they don’t even mention them in a footnote!

I also like the notes in the Confraternity NT. I might not even care whether or not a pocket RSVCE ever comes out now.

It usually comes in a blue cover, but I found one with a black cover, and it’s classy.
 
St_Aloysius said:
I just saw the most beautiful (and expensive) Bible I think I’ve ever seen: amazon.com/Translated-Annotations-References-Chronological-CONFRATERNITY/dp/B001A82E6Y/ref=pd_bbs_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215838517&sr=8-8

I was wondering if this was a good translation… It might be worth looking into if so.
Click to expand...
This is the version that was translated (from the Latin Vulgate, not from the original Greek and Hebrew) in the period 1941 et. seq. . Translation work was stopped when the Pope gave the go ahead to translate directly from the Greek and Hebrew which resulted in the New American Bible (ca. 1970) the Jerusalem Bible (ca. 1966) etc.

The Confraternity was the version used in the Missal in the late 50’s. My 1962 St. Joseph Missal uses it.

I like it. It’s the version we used in religion class in the late 60s.

There is no reason for you to spend huge bucks to get one on Ebay. Search Ebay for “Catholic Bible” and you’ll find a host of unused ones for nominal bucks. Get one and enjoy!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top