What are the main differences between Bible translations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter matthewdknight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matthewdknight

Guest
I was raised a Methodist, and when I was very young my pastor gave me a Bible. I have since found and grown to love the Catholic Church, and will be confirmed next Easter. But I still have this old Methodist Bible, and as of today it is the only Bible I personally own. It is the Cokesbury NRSV Red Letter Edition.

My question is twofold: (a) What is the main difference between this edition and the NRSV Catholic edition, and (b) Is it wrong for a [soon to be] Catholic to study the scripture and gospels of this edition?

I’m sure I can locate a Catholic edition, but it probably take me a while, and I want to begin my scriptural study as soon as possible before my sacramental prep classes.
 
The Catholic version would have the same words, only it will include the deuterocanonical books that are part of the Catholic Bible, but not the Protestant one. If you aren’t studying those books, you should be fine with your current Bible until you find a Catholic version. If you have a smart phone or tablet, there is an app that will give you the Catholic RSV for around 6.00. You can also get iPieta for much cheaper, which comes with the Douay Rheimes Bible as well as tons of Catholic prayers, but I like the RSV better for Bible study.
 
Hit up the book store at a Catholic high school (if there is one near you) for inexpensive used bibles, or one of these 8 bucks including shipping deals until you find the perfect bible for your needs. Then you don’t have to worry about those missing pages. 😉

I sort of like the inexpensive St. Joe’s. I can give it away or misplace it without too much heartburn, because it’s so easy to replace – millions of used copies out there to buy.

amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0899429513/ref=sr_1_11_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1316001028&sr=8-11&condition=used
 
There is no one true and infallible translation of the bible.
Many editions of the bible deliberately omit some books that the catholic church say belong. these are all in the Old Testament.

Some translations or paraphrases very deliberately modify their translations towards the theology of the editors. an example of this would be:
the Amplified Bible: deliberately “Amplifies” and simplifies complex passages.
The NRSV: Deliberately uses “Inclusive language” for example gender neutral pronouns instead of He or She. In some cases it does this in passages which can be interpreted to revere to God - which is inapropriate.
Those versions of the NRSV are not permitted to be used in Liturgy (the mass), Some Catholic versions of the NRSV modify some of these passages to restore the gender specific references.

Some people have a preference for “Modern English” and have a lot of translations to choose from
Some people prefer the archaic language of the King James bible and the Douay-Rheimes (personally I cant stand those - but they do better translate some of the complexity in Thee / Thy / Thou that modern english cannot replicate, but did exist in the original languages.)

For academic bible study, it is useful to have more than one translation available.
All translations have their advocates and their detractors.
I use both the NRSV and the Christian Community Bible.
The latter is not well known. It is a specific Catholic Translation, and approved for use in the liturgy in many English speaking 3rd world countries. It has beautiful pastoral commentary throughout.
Some bibles contain translation footnotes which specifically point out where alternate translations exist or double-entendres exist that are lost in translation. These are useful - especially for study purposes.

On the internet it is possible to legally download many translations for free, or access sites which offer a wide range of translations and cross reference them. there are to many sites to mention. but do Google the Christian Community Bible and take a look at it (Free download of books or the whole thing in multiple formats).

There are some translations you should avoid, like the “New World Translation” (translated by the Jehova’s Witnesses). this contains deliberate modifications which are Heretical - i.e. they are Unitarian in belief, and deliberately translate passages referring to the different aspects of the Trinity to obfuscate any possibility of there being 3 persons in the Trininty. This method of translation is dishonest. - it does not acknowledge the truth expressed in the original languages.
 
Catholics should look for Catholic Bibles.
They contain “Imprimaturs”, which mean there is no error.
Look for an “imprimatur”.

The best way to find Catholic Bibles is to use Catholic Internet catalogues such as but not limited to:
EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network)
ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/
Ignatious Press
ignatius.com/?AID=536337&PID=1798975
or many other Faithful Catholic sites and Catholic book stores.

Next - Catholic Bibles contain 7 more books in the Old Testament, that were removed by Martin Luther in the 1500s. Non-Catholic Bibles do not contain these. (The dead sea scrolls prove that the Catholic Church was correct.)
Catholic Monks originally preserved and translated the Bible.

The differences that exist are also in translation.

There are many references to Scripture (the Holy Bible) in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.

My personnal preference is: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) in large print. (Large print is easier readingbfor longer periods of time.)
 
So, why has not the pope created a infallible bible translation?
 
Big_Dummy said:
So, why has not the pope created a infallible bible translation?
Click to expand...
Languages change. If one was created, it may be out of date next week.

Look at the word ‘gay’. 100 years ago we might find

‘Gay is the man who worships Mary’ now we would have to render that thought as

gay -archaic = happy - modern
man-archaic = person - modern
worship-archaic = honor - modern

‘Happy is the person who honors Mary’

I guess you might say, the Vulgate is as close as you will get to an infallible translation.
From one fixed language (Greek) to another (Latin).
 
I was just in Williamsburg, Va. and looked at the KJV in the Black Religion Museum. It was a facsimile copy and included the Deuterocanonicals. When I visited Bruton Parish Church, I stumped the historian on duty when I asked whether the pulpit Bible presented by King
Edward VII had the Deuterocanonicals. The Bible was used in worship for many years, but is now in a sealed case. The historian did not know, but was going to find out in case anyone else asked. The point is that not all non-Catholic Bibles omit the Deuterocanonicals.
 
Oldtimer_7 said:
When I visited Bruton Parish Church, I stumped the historian on duty when I asked whether the pulpit Bible presented by King
Edward VII had the Deuterocanonicals.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the Bruton Parish church in question is the Episcopalian church in Williamsburg, Virginia, it would be have contained the books used in the Anglican readings of the Daily Office. This would include three books not found in the Catholic Bible, as well as the standard Catholic deuterocanonical material.

Amber
 
Big_Dummy said:
So, why has not the pope created a infallible bible translation?
Click to expand...
Arguably, the Vulgate is an infallible Bible translation.

The two major issues with translation are:
  • Words change meaning over time;
  • Linguistics redefine the meaning of the words in the original language, due to linguistic discoveries that are made;
Amber
 
matthewdknight said:
My question is twofold: (a) What is the main difference between this edition and the NRSV Catholic edition, and (b) Is it wrong for a [soon to be] Catholic to study the scripture and gospels of this edition?
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is a big difference in the translations themselves. One poster mentioned already that the OT in Catholic Bibles contain 7 books that your Bible probably does not - unless you have an apocrypha section in it. That is a much bigger difference than the translation differences.

The table in this article lists the exact different NT verse translations and footnotes that the Catholic edition has - its for the RSV but I would imagine the differences would very similar to the NRSV. As you can see, nothing earth shattering.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition

Finally, I believe the footnotes in the NRSV are different based on the publisher of the edition, they are not standard for that translation. Contrast that with the New American Bible where regardless of the edition or publisher, will have the same footnotes.
 
Big_Dummy said:
So, why has not the pope created a infallible bible translation?
Click to expand...
Pope Sixtus V 1585 - 1590 actually attempted his own translation. From what I understand, the version was not the best of translations, but he died suddenly and was never able to officially release it.

Some believe this to be a dramatic example of papal infalibility.
 
Oldtimer_7 said:
I was just in Williamsburg, Va. and looked at the KJV in the Black Religion Museum. It was a facsimile copy and included the Deuterocanonicals. When I visited Bruton Parish Church, I stumped the historian on duty when I asked whether the pulpit Bible presented by King
Edward VII had the Deuterocanonicals. The Bible was used in worship for many years, but is now in a sealed case. The historian did not know, but was going to find out in case anyone else asked. The point is that not all non-Catholic Bibles omit the Deuterocanonicals.
Click to expand...
Right, although they were contained in a seperate section until that point, I don’t think the actual omission of these books began until around the 1800’s - well after the reformation.
 
matthewdknight said:
I’m sure I can locate a Catholic edition, but it probably take me a while, and I want to begin my scriptural study as soon as possible before my sacramental prep classes.
Click to expand...
The New American Bible (NAB), New American Bible revised edition (NABRE), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) are also Catholic translations and very easy to find. As far as the NRSV-CE - I have been seeing more of these as Harper Bibles seems to be publishing more of them.

Here is the NAB online (again, footnotes here have a Catholic flavor)
old.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml
 
ajcstr said:
I don’t think the actual omission of these books began until around the 1800’s - well after the reformation.
Click to expand...
  • In 1599, editions of the Geneva Bible that omitted the deuterocanonical books were published. There were also printings that contained those books;
  • In 1615, Archbishop George Abbot declared a penalty of imprisonment of one year for distributing the Bible without including all of the books used reading the Daily Office of the Church of England;
  • During the* Long Parliamen*t (1640-1648/1660), it was illegal to print Bibles that contained the Apocrypha;
  • In 1826, The British and Foreign Bible Society as a matter of policy, due to fiscal restraints, that Bibles without the deuterocanonical material be printed;
  • In 1831, The Trinitarian Bible Society was established. The organization will not print Bibles that contain the apocrypha;
 
amber_lux said:
  • In 1599, editions of the Geneva Bible that omitted the deuterocanonical books were published. There were also printings that contained those books;
  • In 1615, Archbishop George Abbot declared a penalty of imprisonment of one year for distributing the Bible without including all of the books used reading the Daily Office of the Church of England;
  • During the* Long Parliamen*t (1640-1648/1660), it was illegal to print Bibles that contained the Apocrypha;
  • In 1826, The British and Foreign Bible Society as a matter of policy, due to fiscal restraints, that Bibles without the deuterocanonical material be printed;
  • In 1831, The Trinitarian Bible Society was established. The organization will not print Bibles that contain the apocrypha;
Click to expand...
Yeah - that 1826 one was the one I was thinking of - I remember it had to do with cost of printing. Point being it is relatively recent phenomenon.
 
ajcstr said:
Yeah - that 1826 one was the one I was thinking of - I remember it had to do with cost of printing. Point being it is relatively recent phenomenon.
Click to expand...
The cost of printing surfaced in 1610. When printers discovered that they could get the same price for a Bible without the deuterocanonical material, as with it. And since the former was cheaper to print, it was more profitable to print. Which led to Archbishop Abbot’s decree.

I don’t know when the Bible Society first started distributing Bibles that only contained the New Testament. No doubt, in a century or two, the dominant Bible will be one that contains only the New Testament.

Amber
 
What are the main differences between Bible translations?
Click to expand...
Particularly, the symbols & letters of the alphabet and the pronunciation of the letters.
 
matthewdknight said:
I was raised a Methodist, and when I was very young my pastor gave me a Bible. I have since found and grown to love the Catholic Church, and will be confirmed next Easter. But I still have this old Methodist Bible, and as of today it is the only Bible I personally own. It is the Cokesbury NRSV Red Letter Edition.

My question is twofold: (a) What is the main difference between this edition and the NRSV Catholic edition, and (b) Is it wrong for a [soon to be] Catholic to study the scripture and gospels of this edition?

I’m sure I can locate a Catholic edition, but it probably take me a while, and I want to begin my scriptural study as soon as possible before my sacramental prep classes.
Click to expand...
matthewdknight,

There isn’t much difference between the NRSV and the NRSV-CE. Most differences involve whether variants are placed in the main body of text or in the footnotes. Also, the commentary varies. I have the NRSV with Deuterocanonical Books. I plan to purchase the Catholic Edition, as well–mainly for the commentary. I do have The Catholic Comparative New Testament, which contains a list of changes made for the Catholic Editions.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, uses the RSV and NRSV by permission from the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
“Scripture quotations contained herein are adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States, and are used by permission. All rights reserved.”
Click to expand...
The RSV and NRSV are considered to be ecumenical translations. However, with all the resources of the Catholic Church; I’m surprised by this adoption of the RSV and NRSV, rather than a translation purely from Catholic sources.

Quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:
“This edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible has been prepared for the use of Catholics by a committee of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. It is published with ecclesiastical approval and by agreement with the Standard Bible Committee and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States. . . . A small committee of members of the Catholic Bible Association was formed and permission obtained to examine this translation and suggest any changes that might be required to make it acceptable to Catholics. The Standard Bible Committee of the U.S.A. was then approached and they gave warm welcome to the proposal."
Click to expand...
Quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:
“For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other’s translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions. It must be admitted that these suspicions were not always without foundation. At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike.”
Click to expand...
So, though the RSV is an ecumenical translation, this Catholic introduction seems to be answering potential objections to the adoption of a translation used primarily by non-Catholics.

The Catholic Bible Association adopted the Revised Standard Version, used primarily by non-Catholics and edited it for Catholic use. The RSV became the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. It has been reissued under the title, The Ignatius Bible—and perhaps other titles at this point (I haven’t checked lately.)

Peace,
Anna
 
Obviously, all English translations did not come from the same manuscripts. There are two streams of manuscripts which go back into antiquity. One stream is extremely polluted, the other is not polluted. Surf: “two streams of scripture” on the www. See also the adventures of the first souls who dared translate the holy writ into the English–Wycliffe, Tyndale, etal. This is an interesting dig–for an open mind.

Peace,

James Least
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top