Looking for the right Bible version

[porthos11]

I’m an avid backpacker/outdoorsman and I’d like to start taking a Bible with me on my trips. I’ve seen a lot of pocket Bibles out there, the array of different versions/translations is overwhelming so figured I’d come here for some advice…

I have a Gideon NT in a pocket size, which I find is pretty easy to read. Which Catholic version is most the easily readable, but still poetic and elegant? Erring on the side of elegance and literary value, like the KJV I read in a college religion class, but without the sometimes difficult archaic English.

Thanks.

Because of your affinity with the KJV, your best bet is the RSV, Catholic Edition. The RSV is the direct successor to the King James tradition and retains much of the elegance and literary quality of the venerable Authorized Version.

Unfortunately, I don’t really know of any good RSV’s that are complete AND pocket-sized. There are compact editions available and even the regular-print editions by St. Benedict Press (about 5x8) are probably light enough to fit in a backpack (but not a pocket).

Perhaps an NRSV thinline might meet your needs if you have deep enough pockets (literally deep), and the NRSV is in the direct line of the King James as well, being a revision of the RSV. Its major weakness is the massive and often improper use of inclusive language.

 

[BartholomewB]

The best part of the NJ, in my opinion, is Jonah because it’s Translated by Tolkien. Other than that, not a fan.

The translation seems to be a bit more “indifferent” so to say. Take Genesis Ch. 3:15 for example. The Douay-Rheims states:

In the Vulgate, Jerome uses the word ipsa which translates into “her”. It shows a gender and who will be crushing the head of the snake.

The New Jerusalem Gen. 3:15 states:

Term used here is it, which is gender neutral. This translation seems to be taking a non-confrontational stance.

Bballer:

It’s interesting that you should have selected Gen 3.15 to quote, because my 1985 Jerusalem Bible (not the New Jerusalem) has a long footnote on this very question, noting that the Mariological interpretation of the words *ipsa conteret *became traditional in the Church, despite the masculine pronoun that appears in the Greek text, referring not to the woman’s descendants as a whole but to just one of her sons.

 

[TimothyH]

Why do you prefer the RSV to the NRSV? What is the main difference? Just curioud because I have read others say the same. Is there that much of a difference?

The NRSV is more modern English and is based on the most modern scholarship including new findings in the dead sea scrolls. It is very literal and the most widely used Bible in academia.

The RSV, upon which the NRSV is based, is older, and retains the more archaic language of the KJV opon which it is based.

-Tim-

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The best part of the NJ, in my opinion, is Jonah because it’s Translated by Tolkien. Other than that, not a fan.

The translation seems to be a bit more “indifferent” so to say. Take Genesis Ch. 3:15 for example. The Douay-Rheims states:

In the Vulgate, Jerome uses the word ipsa which translates into “her”. It shows a gender and who will be crushing the head of the snake.

The New Jerusalem Gen. 3:15 states:

Term used here is it, which is gender neutral. This translation seems to be taking a non-confrontational stance.

It seems both the New Jerusalem and the Douay-Rheims (and by extension the Vulgae) miss the mark in terms of rendering the Greek Septuagint here. The RSV and NAB-RE both translate this passage with the masculine pronoun, which is how the original Greek has it, as has been pointed out.

The problem with both the New Jerusalem and Douay-Rheims is that both are translations of translations: the former from the French and the latter from the Latin. Scripture was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, not French or Latin. The reason the Greek text of the Old Testament are so important for all Catholics (even to the point of taking precedence over the Latin Vulgate) is that in the earliest editions of the New Testament that we have, all Old Testament quotes refer directly to the Greek Old Testament.

Long story short, if you want an accurate translation of the Bible find a translation that is based directly on the original languages and renders the text into our own language, maintaining a delicate balance between being as literal as possible while still being understandable. In reality, any translation is going to limp, and any translation is going to be an interpretation to a certain extent. That is just the nature of translations.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I am aware of everything that you stated here. I understand that the NAB is used. Why I’m not opposed to that being used in the Liturgy is because Priests should be able to properly understand the bible verses themselves and teach the faithful correctly.

I fear improper translations because there are Catholics who are untrained or not taught properly on the faith and may develop a different understanding of the text that is contrary to that of the Church’s understanding.

Again, the Bible ought not to be read as a “stand-alone” book. It is part of a larger Tradition. If one really wants to understand the Bible, then one has to read it in the context of the Tradition from which it arose. Without that context, even the best translations will be misinterpreted at best, and twisted into false teaching at worst.

The Bible must also not be taken as a proof text for Catholic dogma. The Bible is not a text book for dogmatic theology. To treat it as such is to fall into the same error as “Bible alone” Christians. Again, this is why it is so important to read the Scriptures within the context of Tradition.

Also, the RSV-CE and the NAB-RE are both translations that are explicitly approved for the use of the faithful by the USCCB. To call it an “improper” translation, therefore, seems to be overstepping the bounds a little bit.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The NRSV is more modern English and is based on the most modern scholarship including new findings in the dead sea scrolls. It is very literal and the most widely used Bible in academia.

The RSV, upon which the NRSV is based, is older, and retains the more archaic language of the KJV opon which it is based.

-Tim-

Thanks Tim. The RSV is just as accurate correct?

 

[InNomineDomini]

Excuse my curiosity, but could you please be more specific about your dislike of the Jerusalem Bible? I use it all the time (a 1985 edition) for the footnotes, the most useful I’ve found in any Bible.

To some extent, I take back my statement, since it was based in ignorance: I’ve only very briefly browsed through this translation.

The NEW Jerusalem Bible, as I understand it, also suffers from inclusive language. Moreover, I believe the original edition is a dynamic equivalence.

Both of these factors are enough, for me, to not pursue this particular translation. I simply prefer the more literal.

But again, I’m familiar with the JB mostly from Mother Angelica, and so I’m really not qualified to give an extensive review.

 

[InNomineDomini]

The RSV and NAB-RE both translate this passage with the masculine pronoun, which is how the original Greek has it, as has been pointed out.

The original Greek of Genesis?

 

[BarbG]

I don’t know about all these various Bibles that are mentioned – but I do know about the Bible I read every night before I turn out the light – it’s “The One Year Bible - Catholic Edition” – “The entire New Living ranslation with deuterocanonical books arranged in 365 daily readings” – every night there’s a reading from the Old Testament – then possibly from the Psalms – then finish with a reading from the New testament – I figure by the end of a year I have read the complete Bible – I love it!!!

 

[robertericleech]

I don’t think there is a ‘right’ Bible version. I think it’s good to read a variety of translations and compare them. Some translations are good for intensive study, others are good for devotional reading. Every translator has to make thousands of choices in how to render something, and no one is going to agree with all of them. Lately I tend to gravitate toward my recently-acquired Knox translation baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=60#tab=tab-1 for devotional/prayerful reading. I love the Douay-Rheims too, but there are some verses which are so clunky they don’t make any sense in English. Trying to follow St. Paul’s complex train of thought is almost impossible at times in the DR. [What people know as the Douay Rheims is really Bishop Challoner’s revision from the 1750’s. If you really want a wild ride, try reading the original Douay Rheims…yikes! ]

I also like the RSV Catholic edition and the Orthodox Study Bible. I have way too many Bibles.

Bottom line, I guess you have to find what speaks to you.

 

[janeway529]

It seems both the New Jerusalem and the Douay-Rheims (and by extension the Vulgae) miss the mark in terms of rendering the Greek Septuagint here. The RSV and NAB-RE both translate this passage with the masculine pronoun, which is how the original Greek has it, as has been pointed out.

The problem with both the New Jerusalem and Douay-Rheims is that both are translations of translations: the former from the French and the latter from the Latin. Scripture was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, not French or Latin. The reason the Greek text of the Old Testament are so important for all Catholics (even to the point of taking precedence over the Latin Vulgate) is that in the earliest editions of the New Testament that we have, all Old Testament quotes refer directly to the Greek Old Testament.

Long story short, if you want an accurate translation of the Bible find a translation that is based directly on the original languages and renders the text into our own language, maintaining a delicate balance between being as literal as possible while still being understandable. In reality, any translation is going to limp, and any translation is going to be an interpretation to a certain extent. That is just the nature of translations.

I’m going to have to disagree with the assessment on the New Jerusalem version, especially pertaining to the Old Testament, which is originally Hebrew, not Greek. The NJB keeps the poetic language of the Hebrew, especially in the Book of Psalms.

Side note: The New Testament is originally in Greek, not Latin.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I thought the Knox Bible was a protestant Bible? Is it a new translation?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The original Greek of Genesis?

My apologies. I should’ve been a little more clear. I meant the Greek of the Septuagint, which is the normative edition of the Old Testament used by the early Church Fathers universally until St. Jerome did his translation for the Latin-speaking West. See my post above. Again, the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament, when quoting the Old Testament, take the quotations directly from the Septuagint.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’m going to have to disagree with the assessment on the New Jerusalem version, especially pertaining to the Old Testament, which is originally Hebrew, not Greek. The NJB keeps the poetic language of the Hebrew, especially in the Book of Psalms.

Side note: The New Testament is originally in Greek, not Latin.

Admittedly, I’m not very familiar with the NJB. I just remember picking up a copy and reading in the introduction that it was translated from a French edition. Translations of translations tend not to be as accurate as translations from the original languages.

Not all of the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. There were several books - and sections of other books - that were actually originally written in Greek. As I’ve mentioned above, the Greek Septuagint is the normative Old Testament text for Christianity (at least of Apostolic Christianity like Catholicism and Orthodoxy) because that is the text the authors of the New Testament quoted when quoting the Old Testament.

 

[robertericleech]

I thought the Knox Bible was a protestant Bible? Is it a new translation?

Nope, it is a translation of the Latin Vulgate by Msgr. Ronald Knox, which was commissioned by the bishops of England and Wales in the 1930s. Knox was a convert, and an incredible scholar. It took him nine years, and it’s a beautiful translation. It’s one of those gems of English Catholicism that kind of got buried in the years that followed because so many other translations from the original languages came out. Baronius Press reissued it in 2012, and it seems to be gaining a lot of popularity.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Nope, it is a translation of the Latin Vulgate by Msgr. Ronald Knox, which was commissioned by the bishops of England and Wales in the 1930s. Knox was a convert, and an incredible scholar. It took him nine years, and it’s a beautiful translation. It’s one of those gems of English Catholicism that kind of got buried in the years that followed because so many other translations from the original languages came out. Baronius Press reissued it in 2012, and it seems to be gaining a lot of popularity.

Thanks for the info I will have to do more research into Ronald and his translation.

 

[Marysann]

Josh987654321 (I hope that I got that right!). I would imagine that Pope Benedict reads a German translation of the Bible if he is not reading it in the original languages. What I think that you might be referring to would be the translations used by the Vatican. The Holy See uses the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition for its documents. Translations of the scripture readings used at Vatican Masses come from a lectionary based on the Jerusalem Bible which is used in most English speaking countries outside of North America. While living in Rome I went to many Masses at the Vatican, and it was humbling as an American to see that they do not use our translation.

Now to get to the original question, I think that best Bible or at least New Testament to take backpacking would be the Confraternity translation New Testament published by Sinag-Tala Publishers, and put out by Scepter Press in the US. This guy is going backpacking, and this New Testament is about 5 1/4 by 3 1/8 inches, and has a soft, but sturdy, vinyl cover. The Confraternity translation is an American translation, and the forerunner of the NAB. In my humble opinion the bishops should have quit while they were ahead, it is a lovely and reverent translation. It can be hard to find, and I had to buy my large Confraternity Bible on Ebay, so I was glad to be able to pick up this little edition from Scepter. In this thread I have read a discussion of the merits of many Bible translations,(I also like the RSV-CE and the Knox), however this little Confraternity NT can’t be beat for carrying in a purse, or in this case, a backpack.

 

[josh987654321]

Josh987654321 (I hope that I got that right!).

haha, Just count backwards from 9-1.

I would imagine that Pope Benedict reads a German translation of the Bible if he is not reading it in the original languages.

Yea true, good point.

What I think that you might be referring to would be the translations used by the Vatican.

Nope, I remember what it was now, when I was looking at Pope Benedict’s 3 part books series ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ it has under the ‘publishers note’ that the Revised Standard Version (RSV) is the preferred translation for scriptural quotations in it.

The Holy See uses the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition for its documents.

Cool.

Translations of the scripture readings used at Vatican Masses come from a lectionary based on the Jerusalem Bible which is used in most English speaking countries outside of North America. While living in Rome I went to many Masses at the Vatican, and it was humbling as an American to see that they do not use our translation.

Cool, thank you Marysann.

Thank you for the correction.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[TLBrennan]

Wow, I definitely came to the right place with my question! This is actually quite a trove of information and analysis, exactly what was looking for, I really appreciate those who took the time.

Josh987654321 (I hope that I got that right!). I would imagine that Pope Benedict reads a German translation of the Bible if he is not reading it in the original languages. What I think that you might be referring to would be the translations used by the Vatican. The Holy See uses the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition for its documents. Translations of the scripture readings used at Vatican Masses come from a lectionary based on the Jerusalem Bible which is used in most English speaking countries outside of North America. While living in Rome I went to many Masses at the Vatican, and it was humbling as an American to see that they do not use our translation.

Now to get to the original question, I think that best Bible or at least New Testament to take backpacking would be the Confraternity translation New Testament published by Sinag-Tala Publishers, and put out by Scepter Press in the US. This guy is going backpacking, and this New Testament is about 5 1/4 by 3 1/8 inches, and has a soft, but sturdy, vinyl cover. The Confraternity translation is an American translation, and the forerunner of the NAB. In my humble opinion the bishops should have quit while they were ahead, it is a lovely and reverent translation. It can be hard to find, and I had to buy my large Confraternity Bible on Ebay, so I was glad to be able to pick up this little edition from Scepter. In this thread I have read a discussion of the merits of many Bible translations,(I also like the RSV-CE and the Knox), however this little Confraternity NT can’t be beat for carrying in a purse, or in this case, a backpack.

This one – scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=565 – thanks for the recommendation, I will pick this one up. Perfect size, vinyl cover a major plus for moisture/impact/tear resistance, and I like the idea of an American translation (easier for me) which still retains elegance as you say.

Thanks again all. Please continue your discussion, it’s fascinating!

 

[Marysann]

I am glad that I was able to help. I hope that you will enjoy the Confraternity translation. It has a special place in my heart because it was the Bible of my childhood. When I was growing up in the 1950’s and and 60’s, before the Mass was offered in English, in our parish the epistle and gospel were read in the Confraternity translation. I did not become familiar with the Douay Rheims translation until later.