Truly an ecumenical Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Omyo12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Omyo12

Guest
So I’ve been wanting to start reading the Bible again however have been debating on which translation to read.

I really like the New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition but the amount of inclusive language is simply too much!

The New American Bible is nice but not my cup of tea. The Old Testament is revised but not yet published, the New Testament is really good at times but IMHO sloppy other times, and it bares minor inclusive language…

I’m really not a fan of the Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible translations…

This leaves me with the Douay-Rheims, the Confraternity New Testament, the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition, and the RSV- 2nd Catholic Edition

However, after much consideration I’ve decided this time I won’t stick to a single translation.

I also feel like reading a translation of a more traditional text,

I’ll start by reading the Hebrew Canon from
  • The JPS Tanakh
then I’ll reread it along with the Catholic Deuterocanon from
  • The New English Translation of the Septuagint
finally I’ll read the New Testament from
  • The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible New Testament
*The things I really like about the EOB NT are:
  • “Amen, I tell you” or “Amen, Amen, I tell you” throughout the Gospels
  • “Alleluia” instead of Hallelujah
  • Luke 1:28 reading: “Rejoice, full of grace! The Lord is with you! Blessed are you among women!”
  • 1 Timothy 3:15 reading: “…which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
  • It has footnotes where it differs from the CT and TR*
The only problem of course is that these are not approved Catholic translations and lack the Imprimatur
This is why my primary study bible will remain to be the RSV-2CE 👍

It would also be very bulky to carry around 3 books… 😛
 
Hello,

A couple of reasons that led me to the D.R.:

One of my favorite Bible verses Tobias 3:19-21 is not in the other Catholic Bibles that i’m aware of. Your missing Scripture.

**I Corinthians 7:9 If you *do not *contain yourselves… as opposed to "If you can not contain yourselves.
 
William1964 said:
Hello,

A couple of reasons that led me to the D.R.:

One of my favorite Bible verses Tobias 3:19-21 is not in the other Catholic Bibles that i’m aware of. Your missing Scripture.

**I Corinthians 7:9 If you *do not ***contain yourselves… as opposed to "If you *can not *contain yourselves.
Click to expand...
One of the things that led me to the Douay-Rheims from the NAB was lack of spirituality and another is that the NAB relegates certain verses to either footnotes or omits them completely such as Matthew 18:11. Also is changed is Luke 1:28. I can’t see it enough. It is hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women, not hail favored one. Mark 9:29 omits the word fasting at the end. It should conclude prayer and fasting and prayer.
 
Catholic Digest has an article about Bible reading in it’s September issue. There is also some ideas about other ways to own a Bible, a Kindle like apparatus, or a digital Bible. I’m trying to remember … isn’t Douay-Rheims not from the original Greek and Hebrew?
 
ohioszo said:
Catholic Digest has an article about Bible reading in it’s September issue. There is also some ideas about other ways to own a Bible, a Kindle like apparatus, or a digital Bible. I’m trying to remember … isn’t Douay-Rheims not from the original Greek and Hebrew?
Click to expand...
The Douay-Rheims is the direct translation from the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate translated from the original Greek and Hebrew. Hebrew is definitely not a starter language to speak or write.
 
tobinatorstark said:
One of the things that led me to the Douay-Rheims from the NAB was lack of spirituality and another is that the NAB relegates certain verses to either footnotes or omits them completely such as Matthew 18:11. Also is changed is Luke 1:28. I can’t see it enough. It is hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women, not hail favored one. Mark 9:29 omits the word fasting at the end. It should conclude prayer and fasting and prayer.
Click to expand...
Funny you say this Toby, since I read exclusively the NAB!!!😃
I don’t read the holy DR Bible ( and never will ), but i admit it’s superiority in the following verses:

Mt 3:2 “Do penance” (not Repent) NovaVulgata: Paenitentiam agite

Mt 3:8 “fruit worthy of penance” (not fruit worthy of repentance) NVg: paenitentiae

Mt 6:11 “supersubstantial bread” (not daily bread) NVg: supersubstantialem

Mt 19:11 “All men take not this word” (not Not all men can receive) NVg: Non omnes capiunt verbum istud

Lk 1:28 “full of grace” - this we all know…

Lk 3:8 “penance” (not repentance) NVg: paenitentiae

Jn 14:22 “ordained them Priests in every church” (not “appointed elders for them in every church”) NVg: ordinassent illis per singulas ecclesias presbyteres

Acts 17:20 “do penance” (not “to repent”) NVg: paenitentiam agant

Acts 20:17 “Priests” (not elders) NVg: prebyteros

Acts 20:28 “to rule the Church” (not “to care for the Church”) NVg: pascere ecclesiam

Romans 2:13 “just” (not righteous) NVg: iusti

Romans 3:28 “For we account a man to be justified by faith, w/out the works of the law” (not “We hold that a man is justified apart from the works of the law”) NVg: Arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis

Romans 9:16 “it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (not “it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy”) NVg: Igitur non volentis neque currentis sed miserentis Dei

1 Cor 1:10 “schisms” (not dissensions) NVg: schismata

1 Cor 9:5 “woman” (not wife) NVg: sororem mulierem

1 Cor 13 “charity” (not love) NVg: caritatem … caritas {this occurs EIGHT times!!!}

2 Cor 2:10 “in the person of Christ” (not “in the presence of Christ”) NVg: in persona Christi

i’m sick of typing this stuff but you all get the point…
you want the most accurate? buy a DR
you want to simply pray and meditate? buy any Bible, but keep a DR anyway
 
**Great post Brian!!

You’ve really looked into the differences. **
 
brianmichael said:
Funny you say this Toby, since I read exclusively the NAB!!!😃
I don’t read the holy DR Bible ( and never will ), but i admit it’s superiority in the following verses:

Mt 3:2 “Do penance” (not Repent) NovaVulgata: Paenitentiam agite

Mt 3:8 “fruit worthy of penance” (not fruit worthy of repentance) NVg: paenitentiae

Mt 6:11 “supersubstantial bread” (not daily bread) NVg: supersubstantialem

Mt 19:11 “All men take not this word” (not Not all men can receive) NVg: Non omnes capiunt verbum istud

Lk 1:28 “full of grace” - this we all know…

Lk 3:8 “penance” (not repentance) NVg: paenitentiae

Jn 14:22 “ordained them Priests in every church” (not “appointed elders for them in every church”) NVg: ordinassent illis per singulas ecclesias presbyteres

Acts 17:20 “do penance” (not “to repent”) NVg: paenitentiam agant

Acts 20:17 “Priests” (not elders) NVg: prebyteros

Acts 20:28 “to rule the Church” (not “to care for the Church”) NVg: pascere ecclesiam

Romans 2:13 “just” (not righteous) NVg: iusti

Romans 3:28 “For we account a man to be justified by faith, w/out the works of the law” (not “We hold that a man is justified apart from the works of the law”) NVg: Arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis

Romans 9:16 “it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (not “it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy”) NVg: Igitur non volentis neque currentis sed miserentis Dei

1 Cor 1:10 “schisms” (not dissensions) NVg: schismata

1 Cor 9:5 “woman” (not wife) NVg: sororem mulierem

1 Cor 13 “charity” (not love) NVg: caritatem … caritas {this occurs EIGHT times!!!}

2 Cor 2:10 “in the person of Christ” (not “in the presence of Christ”) NVg: in persona Christi

i’m sick of typing this stuff but you all get the point…
you want the most accurate? buy a DR
you want to simply pray and meditate? buy any Bible, but keep a DR anyway
Click to expand...
I use the D-R for its accuracy and I really feel very spiritual when I read it. I also read the Latin Vulgate (Clementine Edition). I prefer the Clementine Edition over the Nova Vulgata any day. I also have 2 New American Bibles and still use them a little bit, plus the LOTH uses the NAB for readings and Grail Psalms. I don’t care for the revised Psalms of 1991, especially Psalm 23. I do wish however I could find an original NAB. Very seldom do I use the Jerusalem Bible. I personally don’t understand why the NAB and not just the NAB took Matthew 18:11 out and relegated to a footnote.

D-R Matthew 18:11

11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

NAB

10
8 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, 9 for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.
11
10

Here is what footnote 10 says

10 [11] Some manuscripts add, “For the Son of Man has come to save what was lost”; cf Matthew 9:13. This is practically identical with Luke 19:10 and is probably a copyist’s addition from that source.

I don’t agree with that statement completely

Matthew 9:13

Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ 10 I did not come to call the righteous but sinners."

Luke 19:10

For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost."

they belong in those places but not Matthew 18:11???

Also with Luke 1:28

D-R

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

NAB

And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

the awful footnotes

10 [26-38] The announcement to Mary of the birth of Jesus is parallel to the announcement to Zechariah of the birth of John. In both the angel Gabriel appears to the parent who is troubled by the vision (Luke 1:11-12, 26-29) and then told by the angel not to fear (Luke 1:13, 30). After the announcement is made (Luke 1:14-17, 31-33) the parent objects (Luke 1:18, 34) and a sign is given to confirm the announcement (Luke 1:20, 36). The particular focus of the announcement of the birth of Jesus is on his identity as Son of David (Luke 1:32-33) and Son of God (Luke 1:32, 35).

why did they take out blessed art thou among women and why did the change full of grace to favored one???
 
William1964 said:
**Great post Brian!!

You’ve really looked into the differences. **
Click to expand...
thanks, Will,
i learned all this when i compared the DR to the Wicliffe (and to my surprise the Wicliffe PASSES W/ FLYING COLORS ON ALL these NT passages, so to all you anti-Wicliffe people my answer is it’s a damm good transl.!!!)
 
tobinatorstark said:
they belong in those places but not Matthew 18:11???
?
Click to expand...
Tob, my guess is that they’re using the thrice recycled, rinse+repeat Nestle-Aland 27thGraeceHebraicae which scholars will tell you omit the verse…
tobinatorstark said:
why did they take out blessed art thou among women and why did the change full of grace to favored one???
Click to expand...
Tob,
my guess is that scholars simply can’t agree on the word Kecharitomene - it’s almost as if St. Jerome was sitting there one day and his Holy GuardianAngel told him “That’s not what Gabriel said!!”
 
brianmichael said:
Tob, my guess is that they’re using the thrice recycled, rinse+repeat Nestle-Aland 27thGraeceHebraicae which scholars will tell you omit the verse…

Tob,
my guess is that scholars simply can’t agree on the word Kecharitomene - it’s almost as if St. Jerome was sitting there one day and his Holy GuardianAngel told him “That’s not what Gabriel said!!”
Click to expand...
probably. In these cases I feel that these scholars were wrong. These are the reason why I don’t care for the NAB, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be read. These are just concerns I have. When some concerns outweigh the pros that is when it could hinder some peoples beliefs. We owe a great debt to Jerome for his willingness to translate from the original languages to the vulgar tongue of the day. That doesn’t mean however that the Vulgate is in anyway perfect. There is no perfect Bible. We do rely on the Magisterium in what is and what is acceptable for Catholics to read though.
 
The only ‘true’ ecumenical Bibles are the NRSV, the RSV, the REB, NEB. Many other Christians also use the NJB. The NRSV-CE has all the deutrocanonical books (in the Catholic order), but otherwise the translation reads exactly the same as the NRSV. The RSV of course has its Catholic versions (RSV-CE and RSV-2CE), where the translation is changed for Catholic needs. The REB which is the updated version of the NEB, is used mostly in Great Britton. It has the Catholic Churches in England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland as co-sponsors. The REB is the least known of these ecumenical translations in the US. It is a dynamic translation (like the Jerusalem/NJB), but was over shadowed by the release of the NRSV (which was released about the same time in 1989), but is more literary and less literal than the NRSV.

If inclusive language is a problem, then the choices are narrowed down to the RSV, the RSV-CE and the RSV-2CE.
 
CalCatholic said:
The only ‘true’ ecumenical Bibles are the NRSV, the RSV, the REB, NEB. Many other Christians also use the NJB. The NRSV-CE has all the deutrocanonical books (in the Catholic order), but otherwise the translation reads exactly the same as the NRSV. The RSV of course has its Catholic versions (RSV-CE and RSV-2CE), where the translation is changed for Catholic needs. The REB which is the updated version of the NEB, is used mostly in Great Britton. It has the Catholic Churches in England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland as co-sponsors. The REB is the least known of these ecumenical translations in the US. It is a dynamic translation (like the Jerusalem/NJB), but was over shadowed by the release of the NRSV (which was released about the same time in 1989), but is more literary and less literal than the NRSV.

If inclusive language is a problem, then the choices are narrowed down to the RSV, the RSV-CE and the RSV-2CE.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiousity why wouldn’t you consider the Douay-Rheims Ecumenical?? After all it was translated from the Vulgate and the Vulgate was translated from the original manuscripts. Why would you even think that Protestant Bibles such as the NEB and REB are even close to being ecumenical???
 
tobinatorstark said:
Just out of curiousity why wouldn’t you consider the Douay-Rheims Ecumenical?? After all it was translated from the Vulgate and the Vulgate was translated from the original manuscripts. Why would you even think that Protestant Bibles such as the NEB and REB are even close to being ecumenical???
Click to expand...
Because the D-R is a Catholic translation like the NAB, Jerusalem Bible and the NJB. Ecumenical translations (like the NRSV, RSV and the REB) were established with Catholic, Protestant, Anglican and sometimes Orthodox cooperation. They are designed to be used by many different Churches (not just Catholic or Protestant).

That does not mean that a Protestant would not use the D-R or the NJB, they just would be much more likely to use the KJV or the NIV (which are Protestant translations). Ecumenical translations are designed to bridge the gap between the two.

Hope this makes sense.
 
CalCatholic said:
Because the D-R is a Catholic translation like the NAB, Jerusalem Bible and the NJB. Ecumenical translations (like the NRSV, RSV and the REB) were established with Catholic, Protestant, Anglican and sometimes Orthodox cooperation. They are designed to be used by many different Churches (not just Catholic or Protestant).

That does not mean that a Protestant would not use the D-R or the NJB, they just would be much more likely to use the KJV or the NIV (which are Protestant translations). Ecumenical translations are designed to bridge the gap between the two.

Hope this makes sense.
Click to expand...
Yes. I guess that is why I don’t care to read any other Bible other than the Douay-Rheims.
 
This question continues to pose enormous problems for me. How I wish the NAB was really good! How can you accept its ridiculous passages like from the 1st psalm: “Happy those…”? The Douay is great but is very old and a translation of a a translation. It seems to me that the RSC-CE 2d edition would be best for a modern Catholic reader, but there isn’t a nicely produced edition of it!
 
Omyo12 said:
So I’ve been wanting to start reading the Bible again however have been debating on which translation to read.

This is why my primary study bible will remain to be the RSV-2CE 👍

It would also be very bulky to carry around 3 books… 😛
Click to expand...
I mentioned the Catholic Digest article and the new technology, audio as well and compact. Amazon.com has this Bible with leather binding and zipper. It is lightweight and small enough to carry in a purse, or to balance in bed. RSV Ignatius Bible. Not made in USA.

amazon.com/Ignatius-Catholic-Bible-Standard-Burgundy/dp/1586171011/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251129798&sr=1-21
 
johnbres2 said:
This question continues to pose enormous problems for me. How I wish the NAB was really good! How can you accept its ridiculous passages like from the 1st psalm: “Happy those…”? The Douay is great but is very old and a translation of a a translation. It seems to me that the RSC-CE 2d edition would be best for a modern Catholic reader, but there isn’t a nicely produced edition of it!
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps you will like the NAB a little better once the revision of the entire OT and a re-revised Psalms is published in the near future.

catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2009/06/nab-revised-ot-news.html
 
tobinatorstark said:
I for one would like to see a re-revision of the Psalms in the NAB
Click to expand...
Well, it is definitely going to happen, according to the Catholic Biblical Association. It certainly can’t be any worse than the current 91’ Revised NAB Psalms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top