Looking for another Bible translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter ctb95
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ctb95

Guest
I am thinking about getting another Catholic Bible. I currently have a Knox Bible, which I absolutely love, but the language can get tiring at times. Also, I worry about damaging it when I take it places. It’s not particularly portable. Lastly, it’s not the best for group Bible studies or scripture readings when the text is completely different from those you are studying with.

So, I’m looking for another translation that’s a little more practical. It should be at least somewhat convenient to take places, sturdily made, and easy to read. I’m thinking about the NAB, NABRE (I don’t know the differences between the two, so I’d like someone to explain this), and the RSV-CE

What are your experiences and opinions with each? What are your recommendations? What publishers are good?

Thanks! I look forward to the suggestions.
 
Since bibles are so affordable and available, I maintain a shelf full. Amazon, ThriftBooks, eBay. The RSV-CE and RSV-2CE are both good. The 1941-1969 Confraternity is excellent, containing the Douay OT and the Confraternity NT. Another good choice is the Revised English Bible (with “Apocrypha”), published by Oxford/Cambridge Press. Excellent copies are $4-$5 delivered. Its purpose was to eliminate denominational bias, and it was translated in cooperation with the Catholic Church in the various UK nations.

Many love the Jerusalem Bible. I find it OK and read it semi-regularly, but it strikes me as borderline modernist and a little loose in areas. As to other translations I don’t much like the “New” edition of any bible, as some have jumped into the abyss of gender neutrality. When personal pronouns are avoided, the language begins to sound cumbersome and silly.

I avoid the NAB and NABRE for a variety of reasons. I believe that they are the weakest official English language Catholic bibles that have ever been printed. For example, Mary is not full of grace, (Lk 1:28) but Stephen is (Acts 6:8). I see absolutely no excuse for that. And the notes can be corrosive to faith.
 
po18guy said:
I avoid the NAB and NABRE for a variety of reasons. I believe that they are the weakest official English language Catholic bibles that have ever been printed. For example, Mary is not full of grace, (Lk 1:28) but Stephen is (Acts 6:8). I see absolutely no excuse for that. And the notes can be corrosive to faith.
Click to expand...
I’m aware of some of the problems with the NAB, but it is the Bible used for the liturgy, and by most Catholics, isn’t it?

Can you tell me some of the differences between the NAB and the NABRE?
 
ctb95 said:
I am thinking about getting another Catholic Bible. I currently have a Knox Bible, which I absolutely love, but the language can get tiring at times. Also, I worry about damaging it when I take it places. It’s not particularly portable. Lastly, it’s not the best for group Bible studies or scripture readings when the text is completely different from those you are studying with.

So, I’m looking for another translation that’s a little more practical. It should be at least somewhat convenient to take places, sturdily made, and easy to read. I’m thinking about the NAB, NABRE (I don’t know the differences between the two, so I’d like someone to explain this), and the RSV-CE

What are your experiences and opinions with each? What are your recommendations? What publishers are good?

Thanks! I look forward to the suggestions.
Click to expand...
I actually think it’s helpful to have a variety of different Bible translations present at a Bible study. It can force people to pay closer attention, and each person may have different insights to share because of their translation’s choice of words.

I prefer the RSV, but I generally use the NAB(RE) in class settings simply because that translation is readable and it most closely matches what is used in the liturgy (here in the United States).

Ignatius Press does have a pocket size RSV-CE (2nd edition), which is great. It zips up and everything.

As far as NAB vs. NABRE, the NABRE is sort of like the 4th edition of the NAB. The original NAB was published in 1970. In 1986, they revised the New Testament. In 1991, they revised the Psalms to use gender neutral language. Then in 2011, they revised the whole Old Testament. I guess since, with the 2011 revision of the Old Testament, the entire translation had been revised as compared to the 1970 edition, they decided to finally modify the moniker.
 
ctb95 said:
I’m aware of some of the problems with the NAB, but it is the Bible used for the liturgy, and by most Catholics, isn’t it?

Can you tell me some of the differences between the NAB and the NABRE?
Click to expand...
Actually, the Vatican deemed it unfit for liturgical use until its language was modified - a warning sign in my book. A curiosity: From the Douay-Rheims to the 1971-72 New American Bible, the ‘Prayer to the Holy Spirit before reading the Scriptures’ was in the preface. Pleading for the guidance of the Spirit is entirely appropriate, as well as greatly to be desired. In subsequent and all current versions that I am aware of, that prayer has been eliminated. I find that odd. Other strikes, in my opinion, are that laity were involved in the editing, as well as a Presbyterian pastor from the Union Theological Seminary! Methinks this was tilting way too far in the direction of ecumenism, at the cost of its Catholicity. It is frankly easier to defend the Catholic Church using the King James Version.

As to the liturgically approved NAB/RE, that version is not for sale - another curiosity. The English language Catechism is based on the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. IMO, at least some portion of the malaise that the Church has experienced in the past 50 years is due to this squishy NAB translation (and its often modernist notes) that allow, if not promote, a less supernatural reading of the scriptures.
 
porthos11 said:
I will never hesitate to pitch the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition and Second Catholic Edition.

I love the first Catholic Edition as published by St. Benedict Press.
tanbooks.com/index.php/bibles/revised-standard-rsv-ce/revised-standard-version-catholic-edition-bible-burgundy-premium-ultrasoft-standard-print-size.html

The Second Catholic Edition is an Ignatius Press exclusive.
ignatius.com/Products/IBL2-P/ignatius-bible-rsv-2nd-edition–leather.aspx
Click to expand...
+1
 
RSV Catholic Edition. For sure.I bought a ski line copy and it goes everywhere easily.
 
I’ll vote for the I like the RSV-CE (2nd edition) too.

I like it the best all around.

I purposefully (usually) use this because sooner or later, you start accidentally (or incidentally) memorizing the verses or at least a general sense of those verses.

Since in my opinion the RSVCE (1 or 2 but esp. RSVCE-2) is a great translation and it (RSV-CE) is used in the CCC, this is the version I like to memorize bits and pieces of.

The RSVCE actually IS used in Liturgy in much of the English speaking world (or it HAS been and maybe that has been changed that I am unaware of). Trinidad and Tobogo is one that comes to mind but I did the research on this so many years ago, I may not be correct on this (so please don’t hold me to it).

RSVCE-2 seems more readable to me (and it was designed this way).

For reading the Old Testament as focusing in on the stories themselves, I like the New Jerusalem Bible and the NABRE (this Bible with Thigpen/Armstrong commentary).

But I love all the translations mentioned here.

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Just got through Matthew in my new Ignatius Catholic Study Bible and give it a 👍
 
RSV CE, first edition is good if you want kind of a balance between traditional and modern language. Second edition is a more modern translation, but certainly not gender neutral, and my usual go to.
 
If you like Knox but want modern English, go with either RSV or the Jerusalem Bible. Both have a certain sense of poetry that the NAB/RE editions lack. Some people also like the New Jerusalem Bible but I don’t think it flows as nice as the original JB.
 
ctb95 said:
I’m aware of some of the problems with the NAB, but it is the Bible used for the liturgy, and by most Catholics, isn’t it?

Can you tell me some of the differences between the NAB and the NABRE?
Click to expand...
RE means revised edition, I believe. The Little Rock Scripture Study bible seems to be the latest version, the third or fourth revision of the original NAB. I think the Bible text is rather nice reading, but I personally ignore the LRSB notes, which, in my opinion, contain errors.

For example, the commentary in Matthew has a sidebar on the Second Temple, that asserts that one of the Herods BUILT the second temple in Jerusalem. I don’t think that’s correct, it was built back in the time of Ezra/Nehemiah or thereabouts. One of the Herods expanded the Temple, but did not build it from scratch. I don’t think that’s just a “nit” that I’m picking. It can be misleading to a novice student of the Bible, and the note in Matthew contradicts the story about the construction back in the time of Ezra/Nememiah. This is a glaring mistake and should have been caught by the panel of scholars who were overseeing the writing of this edition.

It’s awkward to go into a Bible study class and have to point out errors in the text.

My pace of Bible reading is SLOW. I’m tumbled and jumbled by these parish courses which “cover” three chapters a week. There’s a lot of comparison of different translation that I like to do, to flush out the nuances.

There’s one edition of the Bible that translates a verse “worship the Lord in holy attire.” What? Do I have to go shopping? Another translation seems to clarify the text " worship the Lord resplendent in majesty." It is the LORD who is resplendent, not the worshippers. Have to keep your eye on these.

Don’t be restrained from getting an inexpensive version of the Tanakh from the Jewish Publication Society, to search the latest Jewish translation of the Jewish bible. Actually, the study Bible verision of this translation is from Oxford U. Press, The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd edition is the latest I am aware of. Lots of interesting essays in there. The text is the official JPS Tanakh and it has translators notes about difficult verses that are seldom referenced in Catholic Biblies. And this study Bible has a respectable commentary as well, for the price. The second edition has a white binding.

My public library has the New Interpreter’s Bible, a protestant Bible, which offers useful insights when Catholic footnotes and commentaries just don’t cover an issue. I co 14:1-3 talks about seeking the gift of prophecy. OK, what’s the gift of prophecy? Prophecy is not defined or mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That’s odd for a ‘gift’ that we are supposed to eagerly seek. Well, the New Interpreter’s Bible (commentary) has much more to say about this. We Catholics are supposed to be OPEN to the truths that are contained in other faiths. This is one example.

Actually Paul’s meaning about prophecy is explained following those introductory remarks - prophecy does not, in this instance, refer to forecasting the future, but to sharing the gospel, the reasons for our beliefs, to convince unbelievers.

So, from time to time, I suggest to have a budget for a library of books, not a single Bible translation, for example, to commit yourself to study and self-growth. My own library is probably a modest $2,000 worth of books. Dr. Scott Hahn and EWTN Radio’s Al Kresta have massive libraries - Kresta’s collection is over 30,000 volumes.

Regretably, you don’t get everything in one book. But, the Vatican Council said that scripture is an inexhaustible source of inspiration for the Church, so there is no surprise to the explosion of new books – commentaries and books on apologetics. Best wishes.
 
ctb95 said:
So, are there any redeeming qualities of the NABRE?
Click to expand...
I know the NABRE can be a favorite punching bag, but I think sometimes we oversell it’s negative aspects.

All translations are trying to balance accuracy and readability. It’s formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence—word for word vs. thought for thought.

The NABRE is actually more middle of the road. There are pros and cons to that, as there are with any Bible translation. I know it’s easy to go right to Luke 1:28 or Isaiah 7:14 and get irritated by their choice of words, but there’s a lot more to the Bible than just those few verses.

Not to dismiss any criticisms of the NABRE. There are plenty of word choices I don’t agree with. And apparently, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship agrees with me as certain passages have to be modified for liturgical use. (You will note that when Luke 1:28 is read at Mass, it does say “full of grace”, unlike what appears in the NAB(RE) you find on the store shelves.) I’m still trying to understand why they didn’t seize the opportunity in the publishing of the NABRE to just go ahead and line it up with what is read in the Lectionary at Mass. It’s odd and unfortunate that there are discrepancies between them. I also take issues with some of their introductions and footnotes.

But is the NABRE the translation of the devil employed to lead people away from God? No. Many people read it and manage just fine.

In the Bible studies I’ve been doing this past year, I use both the NABRE and the RSV-CE (and sometimes the RSV-2ndCE). Most of the participants in the studies have the NAB, but some have the RSV, and most of the materials we use tend to refer to the RSV. So I think it’s good to be familiar with both.

The main thing is to not get so sidetracked with translation issues that we fail to read the Bible. 🙂
 
ctb95 said:
So, are there any redeeming qualities of the NABRE?
Click to expand...
Yes, plenty.

It has benefitted from the most recent scholarship and in many ways improves over the 1970 NAB. It’s a more literal translation but is still easy to read. It uses only moderate inclusive language without going to extremes and shifts to masculine where necessary.

Say what one will about the notes but the translation is excellent. There are some grating renderings but that is true for all translations.
 
ctb95 said:
So, are there any redeeming qualities of the NABRE?
Click to expand...
I just googled “catholic bible translation comparison” and some of the hits have illustrated charts of the spectrum of translations. They actually place the NAB further towards the “word for word” side of the spectrum rather than the “thought for thought”, but still pretty close to the middle.

Just a general note on that, when you go “thought for thought”, you can make the text more readable by updating some of the idioms that don’t make as much sense to a contemporary English audience as they would have to the original Hebrew-speaking and Greek-speaking audiences. But then you also introduce more opportunities for translator’s to editorialize because you’re relying on them to accurately convey to you what those idioms mean. With “word for word” translations, you get less editorializing, but the text can also be more difficult to understand. So there is a trade-off.

I think there is something to be said for translations like the NABRE that try to find the sweet spot in the middle where you get a translation that is readable but not so far from the original as to be more of a paraphrase than an actual translation. But there are always going to be editorial decisions that someone is going to disagree with.

I think the RSV-2ndCE is good in that it takes the more “word for word” RSV and tries to make it more readable through cleaning up some of the archaic language (e.g. the “these” and “thous”). But then, I’m also slightly bothered by the fact that those editorial decisions were made by a publishing company rather than a panel of biblical scholars (even if it is a publishing company I love and trust).

What I really need to do is learn Greek and Hebrew so I don’t have to worry about translations. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top