The TEV

[ATeutonicKnight]

I read in The Essential Catholic Survival Guide about the TEV, and it made me sick. Calling the Ark of the Covenant the “Covenant box”? Referring to “the abomination of desolation” in the book of Daniel as “the awful horror”? Seriously?! What do you guys think of this abomination-er, I’m sorry, “awful horror”? Personally, I need to read a Douay Rheims to calm me down…

And yes, I fall to Douay-Rheims-ism, something in which I’m proud of.

 

[patrick457]

I read in The Essential Catholic Survival Guide about the TEV, and it made me sick. Calling the Ark of the Covenant the “Covenant box”? Referring to “the abomination of desolation” in the book of Daniel as “the awful horror”? Seriously?! What do you guys think of this abomination-er, I’m sorry, “awful horror”? Personally, I need to read a Douay Rheims to calm me down…

And yes, I fall to Douay-Rheims-ism, something in which I’m proud of.

After growing up with it, I’ve become also sick with it. “Covenant Box” I can understand since it’s close to what the Hebrew says - the word 'aron used for the chest is different from that used for Noah’s ark and Moses’ ark of bulrushes, which is tebah (the Septuagint and the Vulgate render both the box and Noah’s ark as kibotos/arca and Moses’ basket as thibin/fiscella though, which is probably where we got ‘Ark of the Covenant’) but ‘Awful Horror’ is just bland, almost crass IMO.

And I wouldn’t consider your Douai-Rheims-ism legitimate if you’re not referring to the original 1582-1609/10 version. (Sorry, just had to butt in that one)

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

After growing up with it, I’ve become also sick with it. “Covenant Box” I can understand since it’s close to what the Hebrew says - the word 'aron used for the chest is different from that used for Noah’s ark and Moses’ ark of bulrushes, which is tebah (the Septuagint and the Vulgate render both the box and Noah’s ark as kibotos/arca and Moses’ basket as thibin/fiscella though, which is probably where we got ‘Ark of the Covenant’) but ‘Awful Horror’ is just bland, almost crass IMO.

And I wouldn’t consider your Douai-Rheims-ism legitimate if you’re not referring to the original 1582-1609/10 version. (Sorry, just had to butt in that one)

Well, you’re more lenient than I. When it comes to Bibles I prefer the more scholarly and distinguished ones, preferring words like thou, hath, thee, ye, etc. So when I see something as frightening as the TEV, turning words into modern English, I become frightened over it’s astounding popularity.

Well, I’m not a strict Douay-Rheims fanatic. I do enjoy the Revised Standard Version and the NAB (Although at times the NAB makes me sick as well, changing the words exchanged between Mary and Gabriel in Luke. If it doesn’t say anything close to “Hail, full of grace!” it’s not up to par), but I prefer Douay-Rheims and the Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims myself.

 

[patrick457]

Well, you’re more lenient than I. When it comes to Bibles I prefer the more scholarly and distinguished ones, preferring words like thou, hath, thee, ye, etc. So when I see something as frightening as the TEV, turning words into modern English, I become frightened over it’s astounding popularity.

Well, I’m not a strict Douay-Rheims fanatic. I do enjoy the Revised Standard Version and the NAB (Although at times the NAB makes me sick as well, changing the words exchanged between Mary and Gabriel in Luke. If it doesn’t say anything close to “Hail, full of grace!” it’s not up to par), but I prefer Douay-Rheims and the Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims myself.

‘Lenient’ is perhaps not the best word to use. I actually prefer the few highly-literalistic-it’s-wooden-and-ungrammatical translations out there that you might as well ask me to just buy an interlinear. Definitely no more dynamic-equivalence translations for me.

I haven’t got the same fascination as some people have with thees and thous, or my fascination is oddly-oriented: if the vvords are not speled in the randome and unfixd maner that characteriseth periode Englishe of the tyme I find vsage of thees and thovvs to be grating vnto mine eies.

 

[puzzleannie]

so if you don’t like a specific translation don’t use it, the TEV is not a Catholic translation so why bring it up? There is (sadly) a version that got an imprimatur in the 70s, still published by ABS, but unless it was for someone who is really struggling with English as a second language it cannot be recommended for Catholics. For that person, the GNT would be better if they simply cannot yet read the NAB.

there are other legitimate Catholic alternatives to the DR-C as well, including those currently approved by the various national bishops’ conferences.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

so if you don’t like a specific translation don’t use it, the TEV is not a Catholic translation so why bring it up? There is (sadly) a version that got an imprimatur in the 70s, still published by ABS, but unless it was for someone who is really struggling with English as a second language it cannot be recommended for Catholics. For that person, the GNT would be better if they simply cannot yet read the NAB.

there are other legitimate Catholic alternatives to the DR-C as well, including those currently approved by the various national bishops’ conferences.

It’s just a way for us Douay-Rheims snobs to come together and talk about these atrocities and about our preferred version, as demonstrated above…

 

[porthos11]

The TEV’s easy reading level actually made it my first “real” Bible when I was 10 thereabouts, so yes, it is a good Bible for that purpose. But then that’s what the language is for: early reading levels.

I would never use the Good News Bible/TEV now given my current age and reading level, but to diss it outright is not fair. It has value for a particular audience.

I also find it a bit irritating that threads about other Bible versions attract the DR-onlyists who then extol only the DR and condemn other versions as the works of the devil. It seems to me the DR-onlyists have pretty much hijacked every recent RSV and NAB thread out there.

 

[patrick457]

The TEV’s easy reading level actually made it my first “real” Bible when I was 10 thereabouts, so yes, it is a good Bible for that purpose. But then that’s what the language is for: early reading levels.

I would never use the Good News Bible/TEV now given my current age and reading level, but to diss it outright is not fair. It has value for a particular audience.

I also find it a bit irritating that threads about other Bible versions attract the DR-onlyists who then extol only the DR and condemn other versions as the works of the devil. It seems to me the DR-onlyists have pretty much hijacked every recent RSV and NAB thread out there.

I might like the (original) DR, but I’m hardly a DR-onlyist. Does that qualify me for being burned at the stake?

But to be serious. I’ve seen DR-onlyists and KJV-onlyists, but I’ve yet to encounter any NAB- or RSV- or TEV-onlyists. Perhaps in a few hundred years?

 

[porthos11]

I might like the (original) DR, but I’m hardly a DR-onlyist. Does that qualify me for being burned at the stake?

Why should it? I respect those who prefer the DR as their primary translation. The question is, why don’t the DR-onlyists (or DR-whatevers) give the same courtesy to those with other preferences?

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

The TEV’s easy reading level actually made it my first “real” Bible when I was 10 thereabouts, so yes, it is a good Bible for that purpose. But then that’s what the language is for: early reading levels.

I would never use the Good News Bible/TEV now given my current age and reading level, but to diss it outright is not fair. It has value for a particular audience.

I also find it a bit irritating that threads about other Bible versions attract the DR-onlyists who then extol only the DR and condemn other versions as the works of the devil. It seems to me the DR-onlyists have pretty much hijacked every recent RSV and NAB thread out there.

Well, the problem with the TEV is that it’s not a real Catholic Bible, and Catholic Answers says in The Essential Catholic Survival Guide that simplified versions of the Bible are very dangerous. This is why we have Bibles designed for children. It’s not distinguished language, but it’s not dangerous because of it’s inaccuracies, either.

And as a response to your later comment, I respect your preferred versions, just as I respect the other approved versions of the Bible. As I said, I read from an NAB, and I particularly like the Revised Standard Edition. I just prefer more refined and closer translations.

And it might interest you to know that at times I’m disappointed with some of the versions of the Douay-Rheims as well.

 

[puzzleannie]

Well, the problem with the TEV is that it’s not a real Catholic Bible, and Catholic Answers says in The Essential Catholic Survival Guide that simplified versions of the Bible are very dangerous. This is why we have Bibles designed for children. It’s not distinguished language, but it’s not dangerous because of it’s inaccuracies, either.

.

for the record, for educational purposes I prefer, and it has been a traditon in the Catholic schools, to use a children’s book with bible stories edited for them, with good accurate pictures, in the primary grades up into middle school, because no matter what the translation “bible language” can be confusing for adults and more so for children. Dumbing down the language does not help much with that. Witness the children’s lectionary. When they are old enough, usually about 5th-6th grade to get into their first formal bible study they need a translation at their reading level. If the NAB low cost editions were available in a print and type style, without the very confusing footnotes, for school and parish use, that would be my first choice, but it is very hard to navigate even for high schoolers, without a lot of help. For that reason we use the Breakthrough Bible from St. Mary’s Press in middle school. For one thing it was donated, otherwise we could not afford it, and the quality makes it sturdy, readable and easy to handle for them. It is based on the GNT but the supplemental material is so good, on bible personages, events, timelines, connections with church teaching, etc. that it is the best I have seen for the first classroom use of the bible for formal study.

For high school and RCIA we use the NAB in an edition with acid free paper and a larger print. We buy hardcovers when they are on sale because they last much longer. It also has the most support resources available. If I could afford the St. Mary’s youth bible in NAB (not NRSV) I would get it.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

I am always interested in discussions of which Bible to use. I am particularly taken with PuzzleAnnie’s comments, I have had similar experiences, though not on the scale of hers. I am particularly taken with the Bible in Basic English (BBE). It is not designed for children, but for people who have English as a second language. I am impressed by the way it is able to put forward the ideas of Christianity in a vocabulary of less than 2,000 words.

On 6 June, 2006, I was secretary at our local fire department. The 13-year-old daughter of a member came to me after the meeting and said something it about it being 6-6-6 and the meaning of that number. She was the granddaughter of a Pentacostal Holiness minister. This is a very fundamentalist Protestant denomination and many of its churches are KJV only.

Since I had Bible study software on my laptop, I pulled it up and we did an impromptu Bible study. I used the BBE as my basic text. The girl was thrilled and exclaimed, “I can understand this!” Her eyes were glowing. She had only been exposed to the KJV and knew it was Holy Scripture, but could not relate to its language. I was busy typing and looking up various items and when I looked up, about ten young people were around me listening in rapt attention.

Recently, I went to the funeral of an African-American friend’s father. One of the ministers used 1 Corinthians, Chapter 13. I was so happy that this was a much more appropriate use than at a marriage. I recall the minister used one of the modern language translations. In this context, the text was much more accessable than one of the scholarly texts.

If I were looking for deeper understanding of the text, I would and do go to one of the more literal translations. The most literal ones, though, have their own set of problems. The most useful ones have to have some degree of dynamic equivalence to be meaningful. Just one quick example, what would the phrase “white as snow” mean to people who had never seen snow? If we take this to its logical conclusion, we would go back to only using Koine Greek and Hebrew.

 

[patrick457]

Why should it? I respect those who prefer the DR as their primary translation. The question is, why don’t the DR-onlyists (or DR-whatevers) give the same courtesy to those with other preferences?

Burned at the stake. By DR-onlyists.

 

[Zooey]

for the record, for educational purposes I prefer, and it has been a traditon in the Catholic schools, to use a children’s book with bible stories edited for them, with good accurate pictures, in the primary grades up into middle school, because no matter what the translation “bible language” can be confusing for adults and more so for children. Dumbing down the language does not help much with that. Witness the children’s lectionary. When they are old enough, usually about 5th-6th grade to get into their first formal bible study they need a translation at their reading level. If the NAB low cost editions were available in a print and type style, without the very confusing footnotes, for school and parish use, that would be my first choice, but it is very hard to navigate even for high schoolers, without a lot of help. For that reason we use the Breakthrough Bible from St. Mary’s Press in middle school. For one thing it was donated, otherwise we could not afford it, and the quality makes it sturdy, readable and easy to handle for them. It is based on the GNT but the supplemental material is so good, on bible personages, events, timelines, connections with church teaching, etc. that it is the best I have seen for the first classroom use of the bible for formal study.

For high school and RCIA we use the NAB in an edition with acid free paper and a larger print. We buy hardcovers when they are on sale because they last much longer. It also has the most support resources available. If I could afford the St. Mary’s youth bible in NAB (not NRSV) I would get it.

I do very much like some of the children’s Bible storybooks.
I am, however, irritated by the current practice of labelling these as simply “Bibles”. Its confusing to eve ryone, especially when the author made a real clanger, not to be able to say, “Of course, this isn’t actually a Bible”, with “Children’s Bible” displayed in boldtype on the front.
But I won’t burn anyone at the stake.
OK, that’s possibly not entirely true, but not anyone who frequents this part of the 'Net.

 

[Crumpy]

It’s just a way for us Douay-Rheims snobs to come together and talk about these atrocities and about our preferred version, as demonstrated above…

Well, I don’t know. Was the DR based on the Vulgate? I know that it was very popular and “authorized” and all that. But, as a Church, we seemed to have moved past the obsession with the Vulgate.

This is the problem with the new Mass translations – they’re faithful to the Latin – so what? Why not be faithful to the original languages, as best as we know them?

Example:

Dominus vobiscum. The Lord be with you (plural).

Et cum spiritu tuo. And with YOUR spirit. (singular)

                        There would have been a different form of the irregular for you, if it
                        the formal form of address were indicated.

Example

Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum.

Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with you. NOT with “thee”, it’s the informal “te” with the prepositional suffix “cum” — “with you.”

I got into the short end of an argument with a nun about this, 45 years ago. She was a strictly authoritarian, if not always authoritative, teacher.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

Well, I don’t know. Was the DR based on the Vulgate? I know that it was very popular and “authorized” and all that. But, as a Church, we seemed to have moved past the obsession with the Vulgate.

This is the problem with the new Mass translations – they’re faithful to the Latin – so what? Why not be faithful to the original languages, as best as we know them?

Example:

Dominus vobiscum. The Lord be with you (plural).

Et cum spiritu tuo. And with YOUR spirit. (singular)

                        There would have been a different form of the irregular for you, if it
                        the formal form of address were indicated.

Example

Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum.

Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with you. NOT with “thee”, it’s the informal “te” with the prepositional suffix “cum” — “with you.”

I got into the short end of an argument with a nun about this, 45 years ago. She was a strictly authoritarian, if not always authoritative, teacher.

From what I’ve heard, it’s based off the Latin Vulgate. There are some changes that were made by Bishop Challoner a few hundred years after it was published, but it was and still is known as the closest translation on earth. Normal people that simply want to read the Bible are advised to read the dynamic (Modern) versions of the Bible such as the NAB, and sometimes the Bible that has the perfect balance, the Revised Standard Version, but for scholars, scholar wannabees, and study, literal translations such as the Douay-Rheims are the gold-standard. However, in order to completely understand it, you must know the history of the Jews and their words, as well as know what the words have been translated from to fully grasp what’s been said. People don’t realize this, but there is no such thing as a completely accurate English Bible, since there are many words and terms that English doesn’t have.

For instance, when the Angel Gabriel says in our translation “Hail, full of grace!”, that is translated from a Greek word that the English language doesn’t have an equivalent to. I can’t remember what the word is, but it means that she had grace before, now, and will always have in the future. This is why we argue our case for Mary having been born without original sin, and this is also why it’s important to learn the translations and original texts. Most Protestants and Catholics think we have the perfect translation, when we really don’t. This is why we have run into so many problems with Protestants and heretics: they believe English has a perfect translation, and therefore there is no need to study the original texts and their meanings. If they did, we wouldn’t have to worry about arguing with them about the things we do.

 

[patrick457]

Well, I don’t know. Was the DR based on the Vulgate? I know that it was very popular and “authorized” and all that. But, as a Church, we seemed to have moved past the obsession with the Vulgate.

This is the problem with the new Mass translations – they’re faithful to the Latin – so what? Why not be faithful to the original languages, as best as we know them?

Example:

Dominus vobiscum. The Lord be with you (plural).

Et cum spiritu tuo. And with YOUR spirit. (singular)

                        There would have been a different form of the irregular for you, if it
                        the formal form of address were indicated.

Example

Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum.

Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with you. NOT with “thee”, it’s the informal “te” with the prepositional suffix “cum” — “with you.”

I got into the short end of an argument with a nun about this, 45 years ago. She was a strictly authoritarian, if not always authoritative, teacher.

Here’s a little history on the thou / thee / thy/thine and you / ye distinction.

 

[WesleyF]

I read in The Essential Catholic Survival Guide about the TEV, and it made me sick. Calling the Ark of the Covenant the “Covenant box”? Referring to “the abomination of desolation” in the book of Daniel as “the awful horror”? Seriously?! What do you guys think of this abomination-er, I’m sorry, “awful horror”? Personally, I need to read a Douay Rheims to calm me down…

And yes, I fall to Douay-Rheims-ism, something in which I’m proud of.

I consider it to be a Bible for children and nothing more. As a teenager, I read it voraciously and enjoyed it. Then, in my late teens I switched to NRSV and now I have the RSV. It’s good for children and for those who are completely new to Christianity and want an easy read through the Bible. It’s not good for getting an in depth understanding of the scriptures, because the deeper teachings are not well expressed because “easier” words have been chosen to describe them.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

I consider it to be a Bible for children and nothing more. As a teenager, I read it voraciously and enjoyed it. Then, in my late teens I switched to NRSV and now I have the RSV. It’s good for children and for those who are completely new to Christianity and want an easy read through the Bible. It’s not good for getting an in depth understanding of the scriptures, because the deeper teachings are not well expressed because “easier” words have been chosen to describe them.

Well, as another poster stated, it is not approved by the Vatican, and therefore should not be read under any other circumstance but for research when taking a class on Protestant Bibles, or personal interest on the vast differences. However, I can see what you are coming from. It is great for those just beginning and that have no interest in serious study. However, even for someone such as I that is not interested in research, I still find the Douay-Rheims more fun to read when just reading it.