Translations of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cubby_Bear
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I prefer the Revised New American Bible. What attracts me to it is that I can understand it.

I often check out coworkersoftruth, which is always faithful to the Catholic church’s teachings. You can look up a verse in the bible and it shows you a paragraph in the Catechism on how to interpret it. Only verses in the Catechism show up.
coworkersoftruth.com/bible-study/
 
New King James. Accurate translation and fairly easy to read
RSV -CE. Same reason as the NKJV
King James Because that is what my parish uses
Sometimes the ESV because others I study with use it

Why do you ask?
 
Cubby_Bear said:
Which do you prefer and why?
Click to expand...
I have spent some time reading all of the following versions.

I prefer the Douay-Rheims-Challoner for literalness and Knox (1955) is an easier read.

I also like the original Jerusalem Bible (1966) which has better Old Testament literary quality.

I prefer the 1970 New American Bible for dynamic translation and that particular version does not use the inclusive language.
 
A tie:
  1. The Knox Translation
  2. The Confraternity Bible (1941-1969)
Actually, the Revised English Bible with Deuterocanon (“Apocrypha”) strikes me as at least as good as the NAB or NAB/RE. At a minimum, it does not have the horrible, doubt-causing introductions and footnotes of the NAB and RE…
 
From the viewpoint of someone who speaks Hebrew and Biblical Greek, among Catholic Bibles I prefer the NABRE.

While I agree that a lot of the information in the introductions and the footnote apparatus is not at all practical for the average Catholic and does little to encourage many in the reliability of the sacred, inspired text, this latest revision of the New American Bible does a good job at capturing the flavor of the original languages, even retaining some of the ambiguity and peculiar word choices employed by the ancient writers.

I would prefer that Isaiah 7:14 kept “virgin” as the main reading, as well as “full of grace” in Luke 1:28 since a precise rendition is not always the theologically sound way to offer a correct translation (the current readings in these places should remain but in the footnotes with practical explanations), but for the most part it’s very good if you want to know what it “tastes” like to read the original texts.

The newly revised Old Testament is very much Hebrew-like, and the New Testament has the “scent,” for lack of a better word to describe this, of what Koine Greek is like. But the downside is that it isn’t always very elegant sounding in English. The marked beauty of the RSV and the Jerusalem versions is not here because the NABRE translators offer an attempt at capturing the experience of reading the original texts, and sometimes these texts read a bit clumsy in the original. The NABRE does not smooth any of this out, not even as the NRSV attempts to do. The NABRE isn’t trying to make advances in literary English as much as they are offering a glimpse of the original text as close as English vocabulary and idiom allow.

If reading the text with a touch of traditional language that matches the liturgy is what you desire, you can’t go wrong with the RSVCE 2nd edition. But the NABRE is currently undergoing another revision, one that will change the readings to match the Vatican’s requirements for liturgical texts, so you might want to get familiar with it anyway.

As for the psalter, I use the latest revision of the Grail Psalter that will soon be the only version we in the US will use in liturgy. It is beautiful and Vatican-approved, but feels more Latin and pre-Masoretic Hebrew in flavor.
 
DelsonJacobs said:
From the viewpoint of someone who speaks Hebrew and Biblical Greek, among Catholic Bibles I prefer the NABRE. While I agree that a lot of the information in the introductions and the footnote apparatus is not at all practical for the average Catholic and does little to encourage many in the reliability of the sacred, inspired text.
Click to expand...
I can’t remember if you have a Confraternity Bible. The later versions that have replaced much of the D-R Old Testament with the Confraternity translation are distinctly similar to the NAB. The New Testament is modern, yet retains the traditional sacral nature of scripture. I greatly appreciate the Confraternity and truly wish that the USCCB would license its re-issue in completed form. The notes and book intros are very solid and confidence inspiring.

As to the NAB/RE, the notes for Luke 1:45 and following absolutely grate on me. I do not believe that such revisionism has a place between the covers of God’s timeless word.
 
I do love the Confraternity Bible. It’s one of the most beautiful English translations I’ve ever seen.

And I agree that a lot of the information in the NABRE would have been better in a separate volume clearly marked as a critical analytical guide to the NABRE or at least made into an appendix. It’s too easy for the average reader to read the footnotes and mistake them for commentary, which they are not–they are technical translator’s notes. While I myself am familiar with much that is presented therein, outside of it exposing others to the current theories in the world of Biblical academia, I’m not sure what else this does.

Academic theories change, and speaking for myself I’ve questioned how knowing them has contributed positively to my faith in Sacred Scripture. Sure, I find it interesting, but practical in my daily life as a Catholic? No, I can’t say that I have. There is a little at the outset of Genesis explaining the first chapter I’ve used, but this same information is found in average catechesis and trustworthy commentaries.

Now getting back to the Confraternity Bible, while I agree with your statements I also have to point out that it waxes poetically to make the best out of English. Bibles that are easy to read and beautiful to the English ear I also recommend, but they don’t always capture what you get when you read the actual texts. Some new readers of the original language texts are often stunned how difficult and clunky the original texts really are. St. Paul is not a very good writer, for example, and even the NABRE tends to hide this fact a bit in its renderings. So when we choose beauty, in English we do so over substance, in my humble opinion…flawed though it may be.
 
DelsonJacobs said:
From the viewpoint of someone who speaks Hebrew and Biblical Greek, among Catholic Bibles I prefer the NABRE.

While I agree that a lot of the information in the introductions and the footnote apparatus is not at all practical for the average Catholic and does little to encourage many in the reliability of the sacred, inspired text, this latest revision of the New American Bible does a good job at capturing the flavor of the original languages, even retaining some of the ambiguity and peculiar word choices employed by the ancient writers.

I would prefer that Isaiah 7:14 kept “virgin” as the main reading, as well as “full of grace” in Luke 1:28 since a precise rendition is not always the theologically sound way to offer a correct translation (the current readings in these places should remain but in the footnotes with practical explanations), but for the most part it’s very good if you want to know what it “tastes” like to read the original texts.

The newly revised Old Testament is very much Hebrew-like, and the New Testament has the “scent,” for lack of a better word to describe this, of what Koine Greek is like. But the downside is that it isn’t always very elegant sounding in English. The marked beauty of the RSV and the Jerusalem versions is not here because the NABRE translators offer an attempt at capturing the experience of reading the original texts, and sometimes these texts read a bit clumsy in the original. The NABRE does not smooth any of this out, not even as the NRSV attempts to do. The NABRE isn’t trying to make advances in literary English as much as they are offering a glimpse of the original text as close as English vocabulary and idiom allow.

If reading the text with a touch of traditional language that matches the liturgy is what you desire, you can’t go wrong with the RSVCE 2nd edition. But the NABRE is currently undergoing another revision, one that will change the readings to match the Vatican’s requirements for liturgical texts, so you might want to get familiar with it anyway.

As for the psalter, I use the latest revision of the Grail Psalter that will soon be the only version we in the US will use in liturgy. It is beautiful and Vatican-approved, but feels more Latin and pre-Masoretic Hebrew in flavor.
Click to expand...
Well said! 👍 Those who like the RSV-2CE might like the upcoming (Oct.) ‘The Didache Bible’ by Ignatius Press. There is a preview on the ‘Catholic Bibles blog’: www.catholicbiblesblog.com
 
Since all translations (out of linguistic necessity) lose and/or change something, it is the greatest blessing on earth that we have an authoritative Church to guide us and set the boundaries of interpretation. I believe that translating into the amalgamated language that English is poses an extreme challenge for biblical experts. Thus, the KJV is praised for being not only an English translation, but wonderful literature. As Delson notes, in producing fine literature, some level of accuracy is lost. The introduction in the 1967 Confraternity bible notes that the KJV OT is praised, while the NT seems to languish in comparison to the D-R. And, while the D-R is not quite as florid in its prose, it remains the English Catholic standard. Yet, those fluent in the original languages still argue over potential meanings.

I prefer a bible with “hell” in it, one in which Mary is full of grace, and in which Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ. Since 1970, that has been too much to ask for American Catholics. So, the Knox or the Confraternity normally fill my hands.
 
po18guy said:
Since all translations (out of linguistic necessity) lose and/or change something, it is the greatest blessing on earth that we have an authoritative Church to guide us and set the boundaries of interpretation. I believe that translating into the amalgamated language that English is poses an extreme challenge for biblical experts. Thus, the KJV is praised for being not only an English translation, but wonderful literature. As Delson notes, in producing fine literature, some level of accuracy is lost. The introduction in the 1967 Confraternity bible notes that the KJV OT is praised, while the NT seems to languish in comparison to the D-R. And, while the D-R is not quite as florid in its prose, it remains the English Catholic standard. Yet, those fluent in the original languages still argue over potential meanings.

I prefer a bible with “hell” in it, one in which Mary is full of grace, and in which Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ. Since 1970, that has been too much to ask for American Catholics. So, the Knox or the Confraternity normally fill my hands.
Click to expand...
I use the D-R-C also, for private reading. I like it for the same reasons you gave. I have compared to KJV and note that some sentences are missing in it compared to D-R-C, I believe they are from the Alexandrian sources.

The NAB 1970 vs NABRE 2010, is a complete revision of both old and new testaments, but it is said that the NABRE is more literal and accurate (contemporary English) and uses recently discovered ancient manuscripts. But I still like the 1970 version NAB better.
 
po18guy said:
Thus, the KJV is praised for being not only an English translation, but wonderful literature. As Delson notes, in producing fine literature, some level of accuracy is lost.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. Also attempting to put things into a sensible English sentence has its drawbacks as well. Reminds me of the uncertainty principle.
 
ProVobis said:
That’s a good point. Also attempting to put things into a sensible English sentence has its drawbacks as well. Reminds me of the uncertainty principle.
Click to expand...
As compared with the elemental languages in use 2,000 years ago, the amalgamated/composite modern English language has become so literary in its nature that there is almost no other way to translate into it. As I see it, no matter how beautifully and artistically a contract is drawn up, the conditions under it remain the same. Inasmuch as confusion remains, I am once again thankful for the Magisterium!

It is fairly clear that the D-R resisted bending toward the literary more than the KJV did. The Confraternity Bible sought to update the readability of the D-R, while remaining Vulgate-based. The NAB strikes me as simply vulgar - that is, its low-grade vocabulary sounds as if one is speaking with a neighbor across the back fence. Perhaps that is an effect of the horizontalism that has crept into the Church.
 
po18guy said:
As compared with the elemental languages in use 2,000 years ago, the amalgamated/composite modern English language has become so literary in its nature that there is almost no other way to translate into it. As I see it, no matter how beautifully and artistically a contract is drawn up, the conditions under it remain the same. Inasmuch as confusion remains, I am once again thankful for the Magisterium!

It is fairly clear that the D-R resisted bending toward the literary more than the KJV did. The Confraternity Bible sought to update the readability of the D-R, while remaining Vulgate-based. The NAB strikes me as simply vulgar - that is, its low-grade vocabulary sounds as if one is speaking with a neighbor across the back fence. Perhaps that is an effect of the horizontalism that has crept into the Church.
Click to expand...
Immense booty removed from the NAB (2 Samuel 12:29-31):

DRCThen David gathered all the people together, and went out against Rabbath: and after fighting, he took it. And he took the crown of their king from his head, the weight of which was a talent of gold, set with most precious stones, and it was put upon David’ s head, and the spoils of the city which were very great he carried away. And bringing forth the people thereof he sawed them, and drove over them chariots armed with iron: and divided them with knives, and made them pass through brickkilns: so did he to all the cities of the children of Ammon: and David returned, with all the army to Jerusalem.
KJVAnd David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it. And he took their king’s crown from off his head, the weight whereof was a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was set on David’s head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance. And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.
KnoxSo David, mustering all his forces, marched on Rabbath and stormed it. He took the king’s crown from his head, a crown of gold weighing a full talent, set with the rarest jewels, and wore it himself; much plunder he carried off from the city besides. As for the people, he had them brought out and sawed in pieces, or crushed under iron chariots, or cut up with knives, or passed through a brick-kiln; and the same treatment he gave to all the cities of Ammon. Then David and his army returned to Jerusalem.
*NAB (Conf.)
*So David assembled the rest of the soldiers and went to Rabbah. When he had fought against it and captured it, he took the crown from Milcom’s head. It weighed a talent, of gold and precious stones; it was placed on David’s head. He brought out immense booty from the city, and also led away the inhabitants, whom he assigned to work with saws, iron picks, and iron axes, or put to work at the brickmold. This is what he did to all the Ammonite cities. David and all the soldiers then returned to Jerusalem.
NABRESo David assembled the rest of the soldiers, went to Rabbah, fought against it, and captured it. He took the crown of Milcom from the idol’s head, a talent of gold in weight, with precious stones; this crown David wore on his own head. He also brought out a great amount of spoil from the city. He deported the people of the city and set them to work with saws, iron picks, and iron axes, or put them to work at the brickmold. He dealt thus with all the cities of the Ammonites. Then David and his whole army returned to Jerusalem.
 
Seems like much ado about the same thing, perhaps lacking some Latin redundancy (or rather intensity) but all made to make sense in the English.
Sed et prædam civitatis asportavit multam valde (2 Sam 12:30)
Click to expand...
multam - many, much
praeda - booty, spoils of war, plunder
valde - intensely, very much, greatly
civitatis asportavit - carried off from city.

One thing to keep in mind is that subsequent translations must comply with copyright laws, which means they have to be different to some extent.
 
Douay Rheims: The standard for centuries
Confraternity: Easier read than the DR, but still in that vein.
Knox: Sounds majestic and beautiful.
Jerusalem (1966): Reads like a good novel. Great study notes on the full version.
RSV (1E or 2E): accurate, has some of the beautiful flow of the King James.
 
I’m just got back into regular bible reading, so I haven’t read a lot, but I have collected several bibles already!

These are the ones I read:

NAB-RE - It’s translated into everyday American language, without being unfaithful to the original text (as it is advertised, I am not a bible scholar). It makes the meanings of the original text very clear, which I appreciate. I have a Fireside “school & church” personal study edition, which is a medium size, but with enough study material to answer questions.

RSV - CE - A classic, poetic bible translation. Easy to read, but I refer to the NAB-RE for actually understanding a passage sometimes. I have a couple ignatius “reader’s” versions that I bought a few years ago (plus a their new testament + psalms version). They have almost no study notes, so mostly I read this for when I want to read without commentaries/footnotes. The editions are printed well and one is a compact bible for travel. This version is as close to Elizabethan english as I care to go at this point.

The Message (New Testament) - I like that it’s not so scholarly, but that it’s still translated from the original texts, got me back to reading the bible. It goes beyond even paraphrasing, probably should not be considered a real bible translation, but I like it because it describes the people, the actions and the places in the stories in a way that make it come more alive, so I understand more of what is going on in a particular story. I don’t read it for the true ‘meaning’ of the text, but it helps to compare it with one of the other translations, which was the translator’s intent. In some places I noticed that the translation combines both the text with footnotes. Some passages were translated particularly strange, but it was intended to read completely differently than a traditional bible. I consider this a “movie verison” of the bible.

NRSV - I just got this translation, so I can’t say much about it. But I just bought a version called “The Catholic Prayer Bible: Lectio Divina Edition” (Paulist Press) which is printed nice, has a tasteful illustration for each book, and has a simple prayer & reflection for each chapter (or two) to encourage slower, prayerful reading. I also found an old Catholic youth bible at the thrift store for fifty cents with this translation. I understand this is one of the most ecumenical translations, which also attracted me to it.
 
For the pleasure of reading I use a Confraternity NT or a 1962 Douay/confraternity. For studying and apologetics I use RSV-2CE Study Bible. For my children, they use a Christian Community Bible Catholic Pastoral edition. I will only own a bible in which Mary is full of grace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top