So which Bible is the most accurate . . . if such a thing exists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salvatore123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerry,

Ironically, the bible you are suggesting is one of the many “combos” that existed out there while the CCD was working on its Confraternity Bible.

The one you suggest has the 1941 NT Confraternity translation and the OT is the DR Challoner. The irony is that both the 1941 NT AND the Duoay Challoner are BOTH considered new translations of the Latin Vulgate that existed at the time the original DR was published by Father Martin (which, by then, was the Clementine Vulgata - as the original Jerome Latin Vulgate was long lost by then).

The main reason why I prefer the Confraternity OT over the Challoner DR is that even with Challoner’s revision/translation, the Challoner DR still has some archaic English. The Confraternity uses more modern English and is thus a bit more readable.

But I certainly agree on the Confraternity 1941 NT - that is by far (for me) the best NT translation I have seen, written in modern English.

If I am not mistaken, I believe that Tan publishes a 1941 Confraternity NT - it is blue.

William,

The following link shows the various “hybrids” I mentioned:

bibles.wikidot.com/douay-confraternity

The following link shows the entire Confraternity Bible as it appeared in separate volumes from 1941 through 1969 (I have this entire set, including the proposed new translation of John book, the separate commentary on John book, and, a book that is not listed, an entire New Testament commentary by the CCD):

bibles.wikidot.com/confraternity
 
Sam,
Sorry if this question is inaccurate. Is the Confraternity OT you are talking about, the one translated from the original language(s), literal-word-for-word like the D-R and KJV?
 
Yes - it the Confraternity OT is (1) directly translated from the “original languages”, in accordance with the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, and (2) a word-for-word translation like the KJV, except that it uses modern english.

Note that the DR is NOT a translation from the “original languages” - it is a translation of the Latin Vulgate (or, Clementine Vulgate) that existed at the time of Father Martin’s translation.

The ORIGINAL goal of the CCD was to render a new translation of the Clementine Vulgate. With the advent of the encyclical between the time it had already published its 1941 NT and the time it began publishing its OT, the CCD switched “gears” and began publishing the OT according to the old languages.
 
I would hardly call the Confraternity Old Testament a literal word for word translation.

The Confraternity Old Testament is the same as the New American bible of 1970 for every book except that the 1970 NAB retranslated Genesis and used English names instead of Latin ones.

That translation is not as close to the formal equivalence side of translation as the KJV or the Vulgate–it is further in the direction of dynaic equivalence.

When the Confraternity New Testament was done in 1941 it hewed very close to the Vulgate because at that time it had to to be used in the liturgy of the church.

It was slightly freer in English style than the Vulgate but did not depart widely from it.

The Confraternity Old Testament–which would later be the NAB Old Testament except for Genesis did try to use the ancient languages which was a good thing.

The bad thing was that -it took some things from established texts–didn’t take others–and in every way possible tried to be the most wooden stilted bit of English prose ever written!

I’m not saying that the Douay Rheims Challoner didn’t have some archaic words or words that had changed meaning that should have been changed.

And I’m not saying that we didn’t have any advances in biblical scholarship since then or archaelogical discoveries that would have helped us to better reconstruct the biblical text–of course we did.

I’m just saying that in many cases the NAB translators tried at times to render passages differently just to be different!

I think they were horrible English stylists and I don’t think that they made goo translation choices when faced with texts that were variant of the Vulgate.

In my mind translation should work like this–don’t come with a translation different from the Vulgate unless it is a text that doesn’t involve faith, morals, or doctrine and even then only do so when it can be shown that the Vulgate isn’t the best text we have and that other ancient language texts are reliable–in other words don’t use a varient ancient language text just because it suits your fancy and isn’t exactly what the Vulgate says-- when numerous other ancient language texts aren’t in line with that one varient ancient language text that departs from the Vulgate.

Also I have no use for translators who do not view their translation choices through the lense of the Catholic Church’s teaching over the centuries.

I guess what I’m saying is that I wished that the people who had translated the Confraternity New Testament were the exact same people that translated the confraternity old testament and that they could have been as restrained as they were–

Now I know that this wasn’t possible because they weren’t simply re translating the Vulgate into English–they had to use ancient language texts–I just think if their modern English style was as good as the Confraternity New testament and if they had been more restrained in their translation choices and closer to the Vulgate–they then we could have had a truely great bible-So for me it’s Confraternity New Testament–thumbs up–Confraternity Old Testament thumbs down.
 
Jerry,

I do not necessarily disagree with what you said about the Confraternity Bible - both OT and NT.

But, as far as the NT - it will never be permitted because it runs afoul of Divino Afflante Spiritu and Litugiam Authenticam. So that 1941 NT will never see the light of day at Mass.

As far as the OT - the CCD was pretty much forced to change its translation strategy (which you and I agree was pretty “spot on”) in between the time it published the NT and its first OT book. They went from translating the Clementine Vulgate to looking at Hebrew and Aramaic texts (I dont’ think any OT books were originally written in Greek, although I may be wrong about that).

The Confraternity OT may be stilted - but what else can one expect when one is told to try to adhere to a literal translation but still maintain the english sense? I don’t think that is always possible.
 
Something interesting, if anyone is interested (I bought a set and it is pretty good):

lulu.com/product/paperback/the-original-true-douay-old-testament-of-anno-domini-1610-volume-1/306585?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/6

lulu.com/product/hardcover/the-original-and-true-rheims-new-testament-of-anno-domini-1582/1254869?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/3

Note what Dr. von Peters did: He transliterated the original Duoay Rheims - NOT the Challoner Revision of any in between - he converted the old english in Father Martin’s work and simply updated the old english with modern english and spelling.

This is as close to a word-for-word transliteration of the original Duoay Rheims, as it appeared in 1582 and 1610, as one can get.
 
For those interested, I said the following in another thread that was talking specifically about the NABRE change to Isaiah 7:14. I think that what I said was probably better suited to this thread, as it discusses producing what I believe would be the most updated, accurate bible ever produced to date:

"I believe that with the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with the relatively recent discoveries of the Codices such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, we now have both the technology AND the means to do what St. Jerome did in his day: produce a bible translation looking at “original languages” that date from not only St. Jerome’s time, but even before, as with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I wonder how many people realize that with the Codex Sinaiticus, we have a handwritten - well over 1600 years old - manuscript that contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest known COMPLETE copy of the New Testament - written in the same language scholars believe the NT was originally written in: GREEK! (except for a minority of scholars who believe that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and then later translated into Greek).

If I had found such a thing, I would have taken it, along with the Dea Sea Scrolls, published a bible in both Latin and English, and “dared” anyone to find fault with such a publication in terms of accuracy (provided that my translators had no agenda other than accuracy in the translation)."

I would like to hear anyone’s opinion on my humble suggestion for producing what I think could be considered the most accurate bible produced to date, considering the age and quality of the scrolls and codices that would be used to translate.
 
Salvatore, it’s great seeing someone with the same thoughts on the Confraternity Bible as I have. While I don’t own the entire translation, I’m constantly on the search. As for a full volume, let me ask you a question.

Have you thought about taking the time of reformatting the text into a digital format, having it printed and bound in whatever binding you’d like, whatever size, font type and size, and anything else all to your liking. It’d be expensive (200-250), but in my opinion, very much worth it.

If you ever get the itch, let me know. I would love to collect the volumes into one text and have them printed and bound.
 
dsmantz,

I am about to do just what you suggest.

I finally obtained what I consider as close to a mint NT recently, and now have a complete set of every edition of every volume, including the two “stand alone” Psalters/Canticles and the “infamous” Volume 2 - the hardest volume of the Confraternity Bible in the world to locate.

I am currently searching for a book binder to quote me a price to rebind the volumes in real leather that matches (as close as possible) to the pebble grain finish that is on them now, and to reproduce the cover art/wording identical to the original as well.

A complete set consists of 9 volumes, but they are relatively small, and can be found here:

bibles.wikidot.com/confraternity

I have every volume you see on the above site (including numerous duplicates I acquired in my attempt to amass the best of each volume I thought I could get, given the age of the books).

I also managed to find a completed NT commentary that was published in 1942 (pretty rare), as well as what I consider the gem of the religious part of my personal library: a limited edition of the 1941 New Testament published by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine that is covered in fine black leather, dark green moire covering on the inside of each cover, and mine is listed as No. 563 out of 1000 total produced. The typesetting was done, according to my sources, entirely by hand. It is a magnificent volume.

As a book collector, I know that originals of anything in the best condition are always worth more than have them rebound. But this collection is a bit different for me. It is a bible and I want it to last so that I can pass it down to my children.

P.S. If what I plan on doing piques your interest, send me a PM and perhaps we can work out a project together that would benefit both of us. I have never thought of combining all of the OT books into one (the NT IS in just one volume), but to do so, I would have to do what you suggest - digitize and then reformat the printing so that it would fit into one volume - although in the end, I think the best that could be accomplished (using readable type) would still require two volumes - one for the OT and another for the NT.
 
I suggest Leonard’s Books for the rebinding. I had the rebind my '61 Confraternity-Douay and my '41 New Testament, and the work is outstanding. Much better than any publishing house would put on the shelves, Protestant or Catholic.

As for the single volume, I spent some time on the phone with a print house out of Houston that specializes in medical journals and theses for the universities in the area, and seems like it shouldn’t be a problem. The main issue would be the months, if not years, it would take to digitize the text so that font size and selection could be made.

It would certainly be a thing to hold, the Confraternity Edition in a single volume, with all the encyclical letters, maps, notes, and all the other goodies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top