Oldest original Bible translations

  • Thread starter Thread starter lisauze
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s not what I understood the others to say. So what translation is from the original texts then if any
 
lisauze said:
That’s not what I understood the others to say. So what translation is from the original texts then if any
Click to expand...
RSV-CE (all revisions), NAB (all revisions), all modern Protestant bibles. Even the old King James was partially translated from a limited number of original language manuscripts.
 
lisauze said:
That’s not what I understood the others to say. So what translation is from the original texts then if any
Click to expand...
The other thing you have to watch out for on this website is Vulgate Onlyism (and it’s related sibling Douay-Rheims Onlyism). They’re very similar to King James Onlyism in Fundamentalist Protestantism. They will reject all modern translations from the originals and point you back to the Latin Vulgate (and it’s vernacular translations) as the only authoritative Scripture.
 
Honestly the best authority I’ve seen around here on bible translations is @porthos11 .

For myself, I use the Catholic NABRE for daily devotional reading, and the Protestant NASB for serious study.
 
Ok question. What about for Old Testament study using a Jewish Bible such as the Tree of Life Bible? What about the Jerusalem Bible? I want an accurate literal English translation of the Bible from original Hebrew/Greek and Aramaic text is it really that hard to find or do I need to learn dead languages. I don’t like paraphrased Bible text or inclusive language or dumbed down versions
 
I don’t mean to derail the thread, but could you define “English”? The venerable Bede translated parts of the Bible in the 7th or 8th Centuries, into what was then English, but I doubt that any English reader today could read or understand it.

Blessings
 
lisauze said:
So the “best” translation from original Greek/Hebrew/ Aramaic text would be the Knox Bible translation? And if I was looking for oldest it would be the Douay-Rheims which is basically the English translation of the Latin vulgate which was the translation of the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic text that the Knox Bible is also based on correct?
Click to expand...
Monsignor Ronald Knox spent more than a decade of his life in essentially solitude, translating the entire bible. That, in itself, is an absolutely amazing devotion and sign of obedience to his Bishop. His aim was to translate as if the scriptures had been written by and for an Englishman. Thus, he was not slavishly literal, as that rendering tends to become stilted.

He also translated in a style that clarifies some post-reformation misconceptions, such as Matthew 1:25:
and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.
Click to expand...
The Knox may not be for everyone - depending on their particular approach to the scriptures, but was and is highly praised.
 
An excellent and economical choice in that regard would be any of the Confraternity Bibles from 1941-1969. The New Testament is an early-mid 20th century rendering that is 100% Catholic, including the notes and introductions. The Old Testament started out in 1941 as the pure Douay-Rheims, and Confraternity translations of certain books were added as time went on. Sadly, it was never published as a completed work, since the NAB killed the project off.

Find them used, normally on eBay, for about $10-$30.
 
Last edited:
The Jerusalem bible is a very loose dynamic equivalence translation: Very readable! It’s mostly translated from the original languages, though there are some parts in the Old Testament that are translated from the original French Jerusalem Bible. The problem with it is that it’s TOO loose a translation in my book and looses too much accuracy. It’s still better than the straight up paraphrases like the “Living Bible” ect.

It’s an ok translation.
 
lisauze said:
I want an accurate literal English translation of the Bible from original Hebrew/Greek and Aramaic text
Click to expand...
I hate to muddy the waters further – because you’re asking good questions! – but… what do you mean by “original” sources?

Do you just mean “from Hebrew and Greek sources”? Or do you really mean “from the very first original of each book of the Bible”?

The first one is doable – many Greek manuscripts exist (and many of these are fragmentary) and have been used to create Scripture translations. However, there are no extant manuscripts that are considered the ‘original’ books. What we have are copies that are handed down throughout time. That means that some are earlier, and others are later, copies.

So, first off, what do you mean by “original”?

Second, though, you’re asking for an “accurate” translation (which is a very reasonable request!). Again… what do you mean by this? Translation is a notoriously difficult task. One approach to translation is to try to get the words as close as possible to exactly what they were in the source document. Another approach is to try and translate meanings, rather than exact words. This is helpful in understanding idioms in the source language.

Both approaches have their drawbacks, though. The first approach (called ‘formal equivalence’) is more ‘accurate’ at the level of individual words or phrases. But, if you’re not familiar with the idioms, then it’s more difficult to understand what you’re reading. (For instance, if you read “gird your loins”, and have no idea that this is used as an allusion to preparing oneself for a task – because it originally referred to putting on armor for battle – then you’ll lose the meaning there.) In addition, if the translation adheres to the grammar and sentence structure of the target language, then it may come across as stilted and difficult to read. (Have you ever copied a sentence in a foreign language and then popped it into Google Translate and found the result difficult to read? Especially in a language like German or Latin, it can be difficult to piece together what’s being said.)

On the other hand, the other approach (known as ‘dynamic equivalence’) can have its drawbacks, too. You really are at the mercy of the translator’s ability to glean the meanings of the text in his translation, and not lose any. In addition, language evolves, so common ways of expressing things in 1930s America now sound foreign in 2018. So, dynamic equivalence is not without its problems.

So, when you say “accurate”, what kind of accuracy are you looking for?

However, if your request is just for a good, solid translation of the Bible in English, I’d agree with those who recommend the RSV-CE. Scott Hahn is putting together a study edition of the RSV-CE, with solid footnotes and short articles. Currently, the New Testament is complete (and is sold as a single volume); they’re still working on the Old Testament (but they’ve published a number of volumes, each of which is a single book of the Old Testament). If you want a good Bible, go with the RSV-CE, but keep an eye on Hahn’s project, too!
 
Last edited:
I think your question is flawed. The oldest English translations of the Bible will not necessarily be the most accurate or understandable to you. There are textual reasons for this, and there are translational reasons for this. First, looking at textual reasons. The older English translations of the Bible such as the Wycliffe, Geneva, Bishop’s, and King James Bibles, are based on primarily medieval Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These relatively newer manuscripts often had additional material, that while not normally impactful to the meaning of the passage, do add things such as titles, phrases, etc., that were not original. However, since they were written many of our earliest manuscripts in both Hebrew (Dead Sea Scrolls) and Greek (vellum scrolls and papyrus fragments dating back to the 2nd - 4th centuries) have been found, giving us insight into the original works.

Second, the purpose of a translation is to take the original text from its original language and putting it into a target language that is easily understood. Here is the problem. Language changes over time. What was good English grammar and vocabulary in 1400-1600 isn’t necessarily readily understood today. So the question before you is what English version best communicates to YOU.

Given that explanation, my personal preference is for a Bible that does a faithful job keeping as closely as possible to the original structure and vocabulary of the Greek and Hebrew, while still attempting to replicate the poetical nature of much of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. In my opinion the ESV does a great job of this.
 
I messaged the person you mentioned. They suggested New Revised Standard Edition Version and the New America Bible Revised Edition.
 
lisauze said:
I messaged the person you mentioned. They suggested New Revised Standard Edition Version and the New America Bible Revised Edition.
Click to expand...
Good recommendations 🙂 Well, other than the inclusive language 😛
 
Last edited:
Porthos really knows his stuff. I take his recommendations seriously even if they don’t necessarily jive with my own 🙂
 
He didn’t like the inclusive language either. They said to keep that in mind and to be careful of the notes
 
Yeah, he’s spot on about the notes. I use the NABRE for my daily devotional readings. I don’t read the notes at all: I pretty much ignore them.
 
lisauze said:
They suggested New Revised Standard Edition Version and the New America Bible Revised Edition.
Click to expand...
Make sure that the RSV that you get is a Catholic edition, though (i.e., the “RSV-CE”).

The NAB is the version you’ll hear proclaimed at Mass in the U.S.; I agree about the notes, though. Also, you’ll find a bit more of the “dynamic equivalence” approach in the NAB than in the RSV-CE!
 
Most of the time the inclusive language is actually in harmony with the Greek (not sure about the Hebrew). From what I have seen it is typically in those places where the Greek is plural and may refer to men and women in a mixed group.
 
Yeah, the RSV-CE is one of the most formal equivalents out there. The NAB is a bit more formal than the Protestant NIV, but still is pretty dynamic. I’ve seen it called “optimal” equivalence as an even balance between formal and dynamic equivalence.
 
Just to be clear, I recommended the RSV-CE, not the NRSV. I did give the caveat that the RSV’s scholarship is now 50 years old so if study was a factor, to refer to the NRSV and NABRE for additional reference on the most recent scholarship. With the cautions on the NRSV inclusive language and the NAB notes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top