C
CalCatholic
Guest
I am hoping next year sometime. The last time I checked I was told a couple of years, that was a little while ago. But with Ignatius Press you never know.
- Status
ericboutin
New member
Thanks for the quick responses! Well at least another year…bummer…but it IS coming so that’s good!
Side note…I just noticed under my name it says I’m a new member…I must be the oldest new member ever! lol…guess I should post more huh? I’m more of a lurker/reader I guess! lol
Side note…I just noticed under my name it says I’m a new member…I must be the oldest new member ever! lol…guess I should post more huh? I’m more of a lurker/reader I guess! lol
B
Bookcat
Guest
H
honkytonk
Guest
Thanks for all the responses so far!
There are several other excellent Catholic Bibles that I did not mention in my first post:
The Holy Bible Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition. This is a purely text Bible without any helps; and
The Holy Bible Good News Translation Catholic Edition with helps, including a liturgical lectionary and the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum of Vatican II, a publication of the American Bible Society.
In addition, I hear through the grapevine that the Old Testament of the superb Ignatius Catholic Study Bible will be out some time in 2014.
In spite of the many excellencies of the Jerusalem Bible (1966 and New JB) my quarrel with this otherwise excellent translation (which, bear in mind, is not a direct translation from the Greek and Hebrew but a translation from the Greek and Hebrew through French) is that it fails to translate the Sacred Name of God, YHWH. There are several problems with this failing.
One problem is that YHWH is the Sacred Name of God and is not to be bandied about casually, as in the JB translation, but is to be used reverently. Our Jewish brothers and sisters, I think, have it right. They have such reverence for the Sacred Name of God that they refuse to pronounce it, substituting “Adonai” (“LORD”) and “HaShem” (“The Name”) and other circumlocutions instead. I say let’s honor the Sacred Name of God by the older practice of rendering it “LORD” in obedience to the Third Commandment not to take the LORD’s Name in vain.
The second problem with the use of the Hebrew Sacred Name of God in the JB text is simply laziness on the part of the translators. They are supposed to actually translate the Sacred Name of God, not merely transliterate it.
The third problem with the use of a transliterated Hebrew form of the Sacred Name instead of “LORD” is that the expression “YHWH” is familiar only to specialized biblical scholars and not to the general public. It is therefore advisable to render the Sacred Name either by what it means (“I am Who I am”) or by the word “LORD” or some other equivalent English language name.
This leads into the fourth problem with the failure to translate the Sacred Name, and that is that there are those who argue that, because God is not a mere Being among beings - or even the Supreme Being among beings - that He has no name, an argument borne out when the Sacred Name is actually translated (see comments above).
Finally, I would argue that the failure of the JB translators to translate or otherwise render the Sacred Name is a simple scholarly and rather pedantic affectation unworthy of Bible translators.
There are several other excellent Catholic Bibles that I did not mention in my first post:
The Holy Bible Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition. This is a purely text Bible without any helps; and
The Holy Bible Good News Translation Catholic Edition with helps, including a liturgical lectionary and the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum of Vatican II, a publication of the American Bible Society.
In addition, I hear through the grapevine that the Old Testament of the superb Ignatius Catholic Study Bible will be out some time in 2014.
In spite of the many excellencies of the Jerusalem Bible (1966 and New JB) my quarrel with this otherwise excellent translation (which, bear in mind, is not a direct translation from the Greek and Hebrew but a translation from the Greek and Hebrew through French) is that it fails to translate the Sacred Name of God, YHWH. There are several problems with this failing.
One problem is that YHWH is the Sacred Name of God and is not to be bandied about casually, as in the JB translation, but is to be used reverently. Our Jewish brothers and sisters, I think, have it right. They have such reverence for the Sacred Name of God that they refuse to pronounce it, substituting “Adonai” (“LORD”) and “HaShem” (“The Name”) and other circumlocutions instead. I say let’s honor the Sacred Name of God by the older practice of rendering it “LORD” in obedience to the Third Commandment not to take the LORD’s Name in vain.
The second problem with the use of the Hebrew Sacred Name of God in the JB text is simply laziness on the part of the translators. They are supposed to actually translate the Sacred Name of God, not merely transliterate it.
The third problem with the use of a transliterated Hebrew form of the Sacred Name instead of “LORD” is that the expression “YHWH” is familiar only to specialized biblical scholars and not to the general public. It is therefore advisable to render the Sacred Name either by what it means (“I am Who I am”) or by the word “LORD” or some other equivalent English language name.
This leads into the fourth problem with the failure to translate the Sacred Name, and that is that there are those who argue that, because God is not a mere Being among beings - or even the Supreme Being among beings - that He has no name, an argument borne out when the Sacred Name is actually translated (see comments above).
Finally, I would argue that the failure of the JB translators to translate or otherwise render the Sacred Name is a simple scholarly and rather pedantic affectation unworthy of Bible translators.
P
Phyllo
Guest
Hi,
With all of the above I will say that I have the 1966 JB and I love that they use God’s name Yahweh. For me it is much more personal .
P
Phyllo
Guest
I am sure this was mentioned. The DRB with Haydock commentary. I find this to be very good . It is my go to commentary. I do have the Ignatius NT Study bible but I usually defer to the Haydock.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Are you honestly arguing that Sacred Scripture is a profane place and it would be inappropriate to use God’s name in God’s written word and reading Scripture (say at Mass) would be a vain usage of God’s name?
Oh…should this not also apply to most other names? Why use the name Jesus instead of ‘God saves’ or Joseph instead of ‘God increases’ or John instead of ‘God’s grace’. Almost every Semitic name has a meaning that could be translated instead of just transliterating from Hebrew to English (usually through Greek and/or Latin first).
Perhaps the bigger issue is why it isn’t familiar to a wider audience, since it really should be common knowledge gained in primary catechetical schooling. My initial religious education wasn’t the best by a long shot (typical 80’s fare), but we learned about the tetragrammaton as part of our preparation for First Communion.
Since God gave us a personal name by which to know him, cf. Exodus 3:14, I think this argument is rather moot.
I suppose based on your premises, this conclusion is somewhat logical, but I argue that the premises are faulty to begin with.
NOTE: With all the being said, it should be noted that the Church wills it that in vernacular translations that a equivalent vernacular meaning be used (e.g., YHWH → Lord or YHWH → I am who I am [NAB for Ex 3:14]) - cf. Liturgiam Authenticam, 41.c.
H
honkytonk
Guest
I have a worthy interlocutor!
I stand by my first point. “YHWH” is a Hebrew name. The translators have failed to render it into English. They should translate it, transliterate it (with a note as to how Jews render that Name) or render it by a circumlocution, as previous Christian translations of the Jewish Scriptures have done.
The objection that names common to English-speaking peoples (“Jesus,” “John,” etc.) need to be translated if the Sacred Tetragrammaton is to be translated is simply fallacious, as such names are familiar names to English speakers. But “YHWH” is not familiar and needs to be rendered not in Hebrew but in English in some recognizably English language form.
The only circumstance in which one can justify not translating “YHWH” in the biblical text is if the entire biblical text is in Hebrew. But in an actual English translation it should be translated into English as well. Otherwise the translators have failed to translate.
I stand by my first point. “YHWH” is a Hebrew name. The translators have failed to render it into English. They should translate it, transliterate it (with a note as to how Jews render that Name) or render it by a circumlocution, as previous Christian translations of the Jewish Scriptures have done.
The objection that names common to English-speaking peoples (“Jesus,” “John,” etc.) need to be translated if the Sacred Tetragrammaton is to be translated is simply fallacious, as such names are familiar names to English speakers. But “YHWH” is not familiar and needs to be rendered not in Hebrew but in English in some recognizably English language form.
The only circumstance in which one can justify not translating “YHWH” in the biblical text is if the entire biblical text is in Hebrew. But in an actual English translation it should be translated into English as well. Otherwise the translators have failed to translate.
D
dagrapevine
Guest
:
All ya need is the King James version and a OPEN mind .
All ya need is the King James version and a OPEN mind .
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Just out of curiosity, what would you say is the proper transliteration for YHWH? Yahweh? Jehovah?
There are plenty of names in Scripture that are unfamiliar to modern American ears. When was the last time you hung out with your buddy Shemiramoth (1 Chr 15:20). Ok, so I jest a little…but, I think an argument could be made either way.
However, there are some words that are purposefully not translated from the original language - amen and alleluia being the two most obvious examples.
I think that an important determination needs to be made, though. Is YHWH a word or title that can and/or should be readily translated? Or, is it a proper name for God and as such should be treated as other names in the Bible are? I think I shall consult my Catechism to try to find some clues.
M
mek42
Guest
Would the Harper Collins NRSV suit your needs?
amazon.com/HarperCollins-Study-Bible-Revised-Updated/dp/006078685X
amazon.com/HarperCollins-Study-Bible-Revised-Updated/dp/006078685X
J
jwinch2
Guest
Have you looked into the Navarre Old Testament series and the New Testament Expanded Edition? If you like the Ignatius, that would probably be right up your alley.HELP!!! I’ve started my new job (praise the Lord!) and have money to buy a new bible.
I have the Ignatius Press RSV New Testament I love it, but need something with both testaments. It should have footnotes,book introductions, and doctrinal notes. I want to be very Orthodox, so the NAB,NABRE, AND JERUSALEM bibles are out. I’m in a bind because
I’ve been searching through the internet and the only translations I can find are either NAB
or NABRE. Does anyone have any recommendations?
amazon.com/Navarre-Bible-Old-Testament-set/dp/B001MJRI30
amazon.com/The-Navarre-Bible-Testament-Expanded/dp/1594170754
I hope that’s helpful.
Peace,
O
october_baby
Guest
It is interesting, but doctrinally is it protestant,catholic or neutral? Does it have the
apothracia? (Sorry I can’t get the spelling right.) Have you used it?
O
october_baby
Guest
As I said in a previous post, my job is temporary, and the Navarre is pricey since you have to buy the sets individually so i’m waiting until I get a stable job. But thanks anyway and God
bless you…
M
mek42
Guest
It has the Apocryphals and Deuterocanonicals. At least it can have them, I think they make a version without also, so make sure to look carefully which one.
I can’t speak for doctrine, maybe neutral / academic. I have owned two copies. It is my first choice for a Bible with the Apocryphals. I am not a Bible scholar though, and you’d need to assess the commentary for your own needs.
I think the paperback version is around $25 USD if cost is a concern.
Hope this helped!
O
october_baby
Guest
It does thank you!
D
dagrapevine
Guest
God the Son - All in all. - Jesus Christ = All Time - He is ALL the Time we have.
God - The Father - Father Time - G-overnor O-f D-estiny
ADAM - Angels Destiny Adhering Man -
The Spirit [transformed from an Angel] entered in the man.
God - The Father - Father Time - G-overnor O-f D-estiny
ADAM - Angels Destiny Adhering Man -
The Spirit [transformed from an Angel] entered in the man.
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
Interesting. What does your open mind say of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35? Remember, when explaining this to me, don’t use any commentary or any kind of Bible study or anything outside of a Bible and your mind.:
**"34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."**
Maybe looking at some commentary on Scripture by the Fathers, and some scholarly research, wouldn’t hurt in the study of Scripture? But this is off topic…
J
jwinch2
Guest
You can buy the individual texts in the OT, which would cost quite a bit less. They are so big that it would likely take you quite a while to get through it which could give you time to save up for the next.
I understand about tough finances though. In the meantime in case no one has mentioned it yet, the Haydock Commentaries for the Douay Rheims Bible is online for free. veritasbible.com/commentary/haydock
D
dagrapevine
Guest
Man is of God
Woman is of Man
Man is to till the ground the rest of thy days and to serve GOD
Woman / Helpmate / is to serve man.
Both jobs being done in all honor.
Woman is of Man
Man is to till the ground the rest of thy days and to serve GOD
Woman / Helpmate / is to serve man.
Both jobs being done in all honor.
- Status