Too simplistic?

[Manfred]

Does what is written below accurately characterize any of the numerous biblical translations available to Catholics today?

(a) a decidedly-literal translation made from a single predominant text type (and some variant editions thereof) that may have been corrupted by additions, conflations, transpositions, and other scribal errors;

(b) a more interpretative translation made from the best-available critical texts of original-language sources that are judged to have been purged of glosses and other copyists’ errors;

(c) a hybrid of the above;

(d) neither of the above.

 

[porthos11]

Does what is written below accurately characterize any of the numerous biblical translations available to Catholics today?

(a) a decidedly-literal translation made from a single predominant text type (and some variant editions thereof) that may have been corrupted by additions, conflations, transpositions, and other scribal errors;

Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, KJV.

(b) a more interpretative translation made from the best-available critical texts of original-language sources that are judged to have been purged of glosses and other copyists’ errors;

1970 NAB, 1966 Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible.

(c) a hybrid of the above;

Confraternity, to a degree.

(d) neither of the above.

NKJV, Cotton Patch.

 

[Manfred]

porthos,

Thanks for piping in!

I might be accused of “leading the witness” but I didn’t see the RSV anywhere.

Further - of the types given, which - and I realize this can be speculative - would give the reader the most accurate rendering of “the original”?

 

[porthos11]

porthos,

Thanks for piping in!

I might be accused of “leading the witness” but I didn’t see the RSV anywhere.

Further - of the types given, which - and I realize this can be speculative - would give the reader the most accurate rendering of “the original”?

Well, I would place the RSV under #2, but you did qualify as “more interpretive” while I find the RSV more literal.

 

[lak611]

Does what is written below accurately characterize any of the numerous biblical translations available to Catholics today?

(a) a decidedly-literal translation made from a single predominant text type (and some variant editions thereof) that may have been corrupted by additions, conflations, transpositions, and other scribal errors;

Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, KJV.

(b) a more interpretative translation made from the best-available critical texts of original-language sources that are judged to have been purged of glosses and other copyists’ errors;
1970 NAB, 1966 Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible.

(c) a hybrid of the above;Confraternity, to a degree.

I would add the NRSV to this list. It is fairly literal, but full of inclusive language.

(d) neither of the above.

NKJV, Cotton Patch
.

I would actually add the NAB and NIV to (d) neither of the above. Both are dynamic equivalence, which play very loose with the original texts.