J
JayCL
Guest
Excellent! That’s what I’ve got now. 
Last edited:
- Status
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Love your avatar btw.
J
JayCL
Guest
Aaw! Thanks! Yours is lovely too!
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Oh thank you. 
T
ThomasMT
Guest
I actually looked them up earlier. Interestingly enough, only the softcover is specified as having a sewn binding 
. I’ll give 'em a buzz tomorrow to confirm, but a 27$ hardcover seems like a worthwhile buy either way. From what I recall of my “what’s the best translation” period, ESV came up as a reasonable option, but a Catholic edition didnt exist at the time.
. I’ll give 'em a buzz tomorrow to confirm, but a 27$ hardcover seems like a worthwhile buy either way. From what I recall of my “what’s the best translation” period, ESV came up as a reasonable option, but a Catholic edition didnt exist at the time.
O
otjm
Guest
We do. But I seriously doubt any trained sociologist would even find any evidence, let alone sufficient evidence, that loss of the language of the Douay Rheims has led to a collapse in belief in the Real Presence.
In fact, I challenge the degree to which loss of belief has occurred. when the litmus test is "what does the word “transubstantiation” mean, failure to know the technical term of Scholasticism does not refelct a failure to understand and accept Real Presence. The Church succeeded for centuries without the term. and the polls which used it provided a false negative.
I ahve taught adult ed, and have been amazed at the number of adults, who were young adults before Vatican 2 occurred, who did not know the term when they came to class - but they were among the most faithful Mass attendees and were involved in Perpetual Adoration.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
This is the newest version of the Jerusalem Bible, published just last year. The editor, Henry Wansbrough, is a British Benedictine monk, though the original JB was produced by the Dominicans at their French School of Biblical Studies (EBAF) in Jerusalem, hence the title.
https://www.amazon.com/Revised-New-...w+jerusalem+bible&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
The last thing I as a DR reader want is a “modern translation” of it.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by “a modern translation of D-R”. Knox, for instance, never attempted to “translate the DR.” He translated the Vulgate. In fact he didn’t think very highly of the DR. You can read what he wrote about it in his little book, Trials of a Translator, for example on pp. 22-23:
J
JayCL
Guest
I really like how that one reads! I will definitely get a copy! Thanks!
X
Xarto
Guest
You are correct I should have said Vulgate.
X
Xarto
Guest
Well I’d like to see where the D-R became the catalyst for many new translations of the bible the way the KJV did.
S
Swordsman
Guest
Greetings.
There’s so much to comment on here, but I just wish to share a few things with which I am familiar, in the hope that it helps someone.
Funny how questions like yours always expand to involve countless translations about which you didn’t ask! Oh well, no worries right? It’s great that folks want to share!
Regarding the NABRE and RSV-2CE… as others have already noted, the RSV is essentially a revision of the previous RSV, which was a revision of the KJV. It does retain traditional language in many places that has been lost in other recent translations and it is generally not given to loose or weak translations for the sake of eliminating “him” or “he.” That’s good because it prioritizes accuracy over political considerations.
The NABRE has been recognized as a solid translation for the most part. While it does use inclusive language at times, it does it far less than the NRSV, NIV, JB, and others. And another point in its favor? It’s one of the few translations that (like the Douay Rheims) retains important theological terms like “Amen” and the “I AM” statements of Our Lord. That can be a plus not only for study but sometimes even in devotional reading, in my opinion.
Sorry for the long post but I hope it is helpful to someone.
Peace.
There’s so much to comment on here, but I just wish to share a few things with which I am familiar, in the hope that it helps someone.
- Someone wrote that all modern translations come from the KJV, or something to that effect. That isn’t an accurate statement. Many translations do- such as RSV, ESV, NKJV and more. But many are fresh works, going from the Greek and Hebrew critical texts to English. In this second category would be the NABRE, NIV, JB, NJB, CSB and more.
- Someone likewise stated that the NAB was “rejected” in some sense, leading to the NABRE or RSV-CE2? That could be misleading. As far as I know, the only rejecting that went on was that Rome decided the text of the NAB was not suitable for use in the lectionary. That’s why the current US lectionary sounds a lot like the NAB but if you listen carefully, you will notice places throughout where the text was tweaked to make it useable. One example might be Luke 1:28, where the NAB does not read “Full of Grace” but our lectionary does.
- I wish I had a nickel for every time I hear that old pronouns like “thee” and “thou” were intended to show respect to God or sound fancy. They are actually more accurate, since with them the writer may indicate if he is speaking too one person or multiple people. That is what one loses when they are eliminated. That being said, they are obviously no longer common in our language but they did serve a purpose.
Funny how questions like yours always expand to involve countless translations about which you didn’t ask! Oh well, no worries right? It’s great that folks want to share!
Regarding the NABRE and RSV-2CE… as others have already noted, the RSV is essentially a revision of the previous RSV, which was a revision of the KJV. It does retain traditional language in many places that has been lost in other recent translations and it is generally not given to loose or weak translations for the sake of eliminating “him” or “he.” That’s good because it prioritizes accuracy over political considerations.
The NABRE has been recognized as a solid translation for the most part. While it does use inclusive language at times, it does it far less than the NRSV, NIV, JB, and others. And another point in its favor? It’s one of the few translations that (like the Douay Rheims) retains important theological terms like “Amen” and the “I AM” statements of Our Lord. That can be a plus not only for study but sometimes even in devotional reading, in my opinion.
Sorry for the long post but I hope it is helpful to someone.
Peace.
Last edited:
T
ThomasMT
Guest
Welcome Swordsman! Glad to see you jumping in on fire 
Curious, what are the common alternatives used in other translations?
Last edited:
S
Swordsman
Guest
Good question.
As for amen, many translations have used words like “truly,” “verily” or even “most assuredly.” Aside from losing the liturgical value and tradition, it’s unfortunate because there are not that many words attributed directly to Our Lord that the gospel writers conveyed (transliterated) instead of translating or paraphrasing. For example, “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5. There’s a reason Mark gives us the Aramaic instead of just the translation and many scholars believe it is because the actual words of Christ were so cherished from the beginning they were preserved. I love the think about that when I read the gospels! Also, the meaning of amen is richer that just “truly.” It’s an expression of “let it be so” or “this is trustworthy.”
Regarding the “I am” statements… most translations sort of hide them a bit in their attempt to make them sound more like natural speech. For example, you may see “I am he” or “It is I,” when the Greek (and Latin for that matter) that underlies it actually says simply “I am.” See John 6:20 or 18:5. In 6:20, the NAB text says “It is I” but alerts the reader in the footnote it’s an “I am” statement. In 18:5 they put the “I am” in the text. That’s just some off the top of my head.
Peace!
As for amen, many translations have used words like “truly,” “verily” or even “most assuredly.” Aside from losing the liturgical value and tradition, it’s unfortunate because there are not that many words attributed directly to Our Lord that the gospel writers conveyed (transliterated) instead of translating or paraphrasing. For example, “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5. There’s a reason Mark gives us the Aramaic instead of just the translation and many scholars believe it is because the actual words of Christ were so cherished from the beginning they were preserved. I love the think about that when I read the gospels! Also, the meaning of amen is richer that just “truly.” It’s an expression of “let it be so” or “this is trustworthy.”
Regarding the “I am” statements… most translations sort of hide them a bit in their attempt to make them sound more like natural speech. For example, you may see “I am he” or “It is I,” when the Greek (and Latin for that matter) that underlies it actually says simply “I am.” See John 6:20 or 18:5. In 6:20, the NAB text says “It is I” but alerts the reader in the footnote it’s an “I am” statement. In 18:5 they put the “I am” in the text. That’s just some off the top of my head.
Peace!
T
ThomasMT
Guest
That is very insightful, thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
I’ll continue clinging to the DR and RSV2CE
Wow, that completely undermines the metaphysical and cosmological depth that I have come appreciate that verse with.
I’ll continue clinging to the DR and RSV2CE
- Peace
Last edited:
Z
Zach
Guest
It seems I’m in the minority for I prefer the NABRE to the RSV2CE. Perhaps because it was my first Bible. It’s more readable and flows more smoothly and easier to memorize, for me at least. That’s why when I was looking to buy the Didache Bible I chose the NABRE translation over the RSV2CE. The Didache Bible NABRE translation also contains the original NABRE introductions and footnotes. It’s interesting to compare the two side by side. The Didache commentary from a total Catholic perspective, while the NABRE footnotes from the critical/historical perspective.
Last edited:
J
JayCL
Guest
My 12 year-old daughter wasn’t a fan of the way the RSV-CE reads either, so I got her the Good News Translation, which I feel like at age 12 is perfectly appropriate since she’s not going to be doing any delving into semantics of why it’s more correct to say “Amen I say to you” vs. “Truly I tell you” or whatever. For basic daily reading, it seems to be a nice translation.
Z
Zach
Guest
I read the RSV2CE just as much though for the Ignatius Bible footnotes which like better than either the Didache Bible commentary or the the NABRE footnotes. For now only the New Testament. The Old Testament is supposedly coming out soon.
J
JayCL
Guest
I have the RSV-2CE and it’s the whole Bible… Am i missing something? Mine is kinda short on detailed footnotes, though…
- Status