C
Crumpy
Guest
I’d like to toss the Jewish Publication Society 1985 Bible (Tanakh ), for the purposes of an alternate English translation.
- Status
K
Khalid
Guest
The JPS Tanakh shows nothing that the NRSV doesn’t except for a second column of Hebrew and twice as many pages, without additional verses from the DSS (although it does retain verses from the LXX and is not as strict a translation of the MT as some would have you believe), and with the conjectural emendations mainly placed in the footnotes instead of in the text.
It’s a secular, non-Christian, but somewhat less gender-neutered interpretation of the Hebrew Bible; compare such translations as Genesis 1, Isaiah 7, 53-55, Psalms 1, 2, 16, 22, 23, 51, etc. in the NRSV and the NJPS and one will find them strikingly similar. The main difference being the NRSV adds some verses in to Samuel from the DSS and uses more neutered language. The original JPS was essentially a King James Version with all of the Messianic prophecies removed, similar to an RSV.
However, the JPS Torah and Tanakh commentaries are something else, and come highly recommended for someone who needs secondary or tertiary reference material (not in regards to layering of sources, but instead to frequency of reference or use, after primary references such as Haydock/good study Bibles, Bib Sac, NJBC, Farmer’s NIBC, CCSS, and some Sacra Pagina, and secondary references like Pillar, NIGNTC, BECNT, Hermeneia, OTL, NTL, and Berit Olam - although Hermeneia [extremely secular historical- and text-critical commentaries] or NIGNTC [technical Greek commentaries] could definitely fall in to “tertiary” range depending on one’s interests, as could the Protestant commentaries and vice versa: for me, Redating the New Testament, Exile and Restoration, and Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority-type books are generally more pertinent) for the moderate to liberal Jewish take on the OT (the Gutnick and Stone Chumashim are better for a more conservative or Orthodox Jewish take).
However, no matter what tradition, many of the same tired historical-critical theories will be trotted out again and again in the same superficial manner (unlike, say, even the New Jerome, let alone a 4,300-page tome of detailed source-, form-, redaction-, and even narrative-criticism such as Bock’s three-volume Luke-Acts of the Apostles) so, that in reading the New Oxford Annotated Bible 4th Edition NRSV or the New Interpreter’s Study Bible or the NABRE and the NJPS Study Tanakh, most of the historical notes (which are the bulk of them) are quite similar.
It’s a secular, non-Christian, but somewhat less gender-neutered interpretation of the Hebrew Bible; compare such translations as Genesis 1, Isaiah 7, 53-55, Psalms 1, 2, 16, 22, 23, 51, etc. in the NRSV and the NJPS and one will find them strikingly similar. The main difference being the NRSV adds some verses in to Samuel from the DSS and uses more neutered language. The original JPS was essentially a King James Version with all of the Messianic prophecies removed, similar to an RSV.
However, the JPS Torah and Tanakh commentaries are something else, and come highly recommended for someone who needs secondary or tertiary reference material (not in regards to layering of sources, but instead to frequency of reference or use, after primary references such as Haydock/good study Bibles, Bib Sac, NJBC, Farmer’s NIBC, CCSS, and some Sacra Pagina, and secondary references like Pillar, NIGNTC, BECNT, Hermeneia, OTL, NTL, and Berit Olam - although Hermeneia [extremely secular historical- and text-critical commentaries] or NIGNTC [technical Greek commentaries] could definitely fall in to “tertiary” range depending on one’s interests, as could the Protestant commentaries and vice versa: for me, Redating the New Testament, Exile and Restoration, and Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority-type books are generally more pertinent) for the moderate to liberal Jewish take on the OT (the Gutnick and Stone Chumashim are better for a more conservative or Orthodox Jewish take).
However, no matter what tradition, many of the same tired historical-critical theories will be trotted out again and again in the same superficial manner (unlike, say, even the New Jerome, let alone a 4,300-page tome of detailed source-, form-, redaction-, and even narrative-criticism such as Bock’s three-volume Luke-Acts of the Apostles) so, that in reading the New Oxford Annotated Bible 4th Edition NRSV or the New Interpreter’s Study Bible or the NABRE and the NJPS Study Tanakh, most of the historical notes (which are the bulk of them) are quite similar.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I use a 1952 Bible–it has the DRC Old Testament–the Confraternity New Testament–and an English version of the New Latin Psalms(Bea Psalter).
I know that it isn’t perfect but let me ask you Khalid–what all about it do you think would need changing?
I know that it isn’t perfect but let me ask you Khalid–what all about it do you think would need changing?
I
IanGE
Guest
More Power to your elbow, Khalid, and I pray the Holy Spirit be with you. I’m not a Greek Scholar, just able to read with help of a lexicon and Strong’s. As a writer I love Greek/Koine because you can put any word anywhere in a sentence to indicate stress and importance. In English one would have to create a clumsy sentence to highlight what you consider important. Greek allows for a subtlety not available in English syntax.
For a small example, John 21:15, in Greek, “…says to Simon Peter Jesus lovest thou Me…” Of course, in English it must be (and is) “Jesus said to Peter do you love Me”, missing tiny nuances. In Greek, Peter has the stress and lovest (agape) of prime importance in Jesus’ words. Perhaps not a good example but if one reads everything exactly how written, one gets an idea what layer of importance the writer wanted to imply.
Perhaps this is why the Church was reluctant to permit translations of the Bible in the vernacular way back then. I wish I could read Latin to see if Jerome captured the flavour of Koine.
However, having wallowed in the groves of academe, I remember asking a Charismatic Catholic priest, "is it OK to read the Apocrypha? He replied, “Read what you like: you’ve got the Holy Spirit in you, He’ll tell you what’s wrong and what’s right!”
My wife still prefers her baby-simple Version “Good News Bible” insisting she got her best revelations from it.
R
Russ_of_Tokyo
Guest
This is a fascinating combination. I have come to enjoy the Confraternity New Testament and also the Fr. Frey “My Daily Psalm Book” which I assume is the Bea Psalter (I could be wrong).
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
The other good thing about this bible combination is that the few notes that it has are conservative.
Does the USCCB INSIST on the atrocious notes that are in the NAB? Maybe when they approve the translation generally they don’t approve the notes specifically?
Who approved the notes?
Catholics who know any of the translators should call them out on that lunacy–if they aren’t responsible for it–someone on the translation team is.
Does the USCCB INSIST on the atrocious notes that are in the NAB? Maybe when they approve the translation generally they don’t approve the notes specifically?
Who approved the notes?
Catholics who know any of the translators should call them out on that lunacy–if they aren’t responsible for it–someone on the translation team is.
C
CalCatholic
Guest
The notes are mandated to be in the NABRE and are approved by the USCCB.
It comes down to two different philosophies of Bible interpretation; historical-critical commentary and theological commentary. The NAB/RE along with the New Oxford Annotated Bibles, The New Interpreter’s Study Bible, Harper Collins Study Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, etc all use historical- notes and commentary. The NABRE falls well within this list of study Bibles. The D-R with Haydock notes and commentary, The Navarre Bible and commentary, The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (NT) use more theological based notes and commentary. Most Bibles use a mixture of both, but lean one way or another. I use both types of commentary and am comfortable in the middle.
K
Khalid
Guest
That Bible is actually the one I consider one of the closest to perfection in the English language (although, for beauty, the KJV still tops it: I am speaking in translational terms only, not formatting: a combination of both is why I rely on the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the “Apocrypha”). The main problems are in the Psalms, such as Psalm 22/23, “…I will dwell in the house of the Lord for years to come”, or some similar rendering (at least I believe so, I’ve never been able to locate a copy of that Bible with that Psalter). But there is no all-important or glaring error in the Douay-Confraternity version; it is one of very few that come with my highest recommendation. The only other is the Douay-Rheims and Douay-Challoner.
Even the KJV misses “full of grace” and has a few anti-priestly renderings in Hebrews and the epistles of Peter. The true “Confraternity Bible” - the one published in the 1960s, with most of the OT in CCD translation as well - is inferior to the Douay-Confraternity with full Douay OT, not for any specific doctrinal reason (outside of the Psalms), but that the Confraternity Bible w/ CCD OT is already well embarked on the path of horrible English and deafness to good prose that continues to characterize the entire stream of translations (CCD - > NAB 70 - > NAB 86 - > NAB 91 - NAB 2011) to this day.
Most of what I would change in it is merely stylistic.
P
pacloc
Guest
I like reading from The Jerusalem bible because of the simple language and extensive references and footnotes. Also the headings make it very easy to find scriptures. The main problem with it is that it is not a literal translation at all, but more of a paraphrase, so to really understand and be able to defend certain verses with it is not very easy.
I also really like Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, which is the opposite, a word for word bible. I think this Bible is the best translation from comparing it with others. The only thing I don’t like about it is that a nice study version with extensive references and larger type is not available.
Seeing how the Douay Rheims seems to be well spoken of here, I may look into it a little more. I thought that it was based off later translations of transcripts creating more errors than other translations. I have not really researched it though.
I also really like Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, which is the opposite, a word for word bible. I think this Bible is the best translation from comparing it with others. The only thing I don’t like about it is that a nice study version with extensive references and larger type is not available.
Seeing how the Douay Rheims seems to be well spoken of here, I may look into it a little more. I thought that it was based off later translations of transcripts creating more errors than other translations. I have not really researched it though.
K
Khalid
Guest
The Douay-Rheims is based upon Jerome’s Vulgate, which is based in part upon the Hebrew, and part upon the Old Latin (the Old Latin was mainly from the LXX, and Jerome maintains its use essentially in the Deuterocanon) - even the Vulgate itself, not its sources, are 600 years older than the oldest Hebrew manuscripts (Aleppo and Leningradensis) available today outside of the Dead Sea Scrolls. That is, Jerome translated from Hebrew manuscripts that are no longer in existence, and older than any that are.
If you are interested in reading the oldest and “most pure” textual streams of the OT, I recommend as well you look in to the Old Greek, the Septuagint (in translation as A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Versions Traditionally Called by that Name as a critical edition, and as a straight translation of the Codex Vaticanus, Sir Lancelot CL Brenton’s Translation of the Septuagint), and the DSS (in translation as anything that doesn’t have Geza Vermes’ name on it: I recommend The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, I believe by Myers, Abegg, and Cook). For the NT, the Byzantine type-text (not the textus receptus, per se) is where it’s at.
I’ve seen Rotherham’s before - isn’t it one of those uber-literal, almost interlinear translations like the Concordant or Young’s, if I remember correctly?
If you are interested in reading the oldest and “most pure” textual streams of the OT, I recommend as well you look in to the Old Greek, the Septuagint (in translation as A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Versions Traditionally Called by that Name as a critical edition, and as a straight translation of the Codex Vaticanus, Sir Lancelot CL Brenton’s Translation of the Septuagint), and the DSS (in translation as anything that doesn’t have Geza Vermes’ name on it: I recommend The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, I believe by Myers, Abegg, and Cook). For the NT, the Byzantine type-text (not the textus receptus, per se) is where it’s at.
I’ve seen Rotherham’s before - isn’t it one of those uber-literal, almost interlinear translations like the Concordant or Young’s, if I remember correctly?
B
bitznbitez
Guest
RSV-CE. Grew up w KJV and later NIV but the RSV keeps the same granduer as the old KJV but in a readable form. Loved it for years. But with the -CE its complete. Best of all worlds.
I
IanGE
Guest
Thanks for your helpful and valuable (name removed by moderator)ut, Khalid. As a linguist, how does Jerome’s Latin compare with the original Koine? Paul Johnson, in his ‘History of Christianity’ claims that the Greek language developed to support the Greeks’ favourite pastime: The Argument. While Latin was developed to support Roman Law and can only have one interpretation and that a legal, doctrinal one. How can that lovely fluid, elastic Koine be nailed to the uncompromising Latin? I ask because Jerome’s Vulgate was used, I believe, for the Douay English - yet another complication? English CAN be fluid if a wide vocubalary is employed and can, of course, be a romantic, quite beautiful language - a la KJV. But Herman Wouk in his “This is my God” dismisses the KJV OT as sacrificing truth for flowery English.
I read somewhere that reading and studying the Bible is like peeling an onion. The more you read, as you mature, the more peels are unwrapped. Although that analogy implies there is, eventually, a kernel of truth. In Church once I suddenly had a vision of an oil dipstick which went on and on, upwards through the roof of Westminster Cathedral to disappear endlessly in the sky. At the very bottom of the dipstick was a tiny oily stain. The Lord said, “that stain is your life on earth, Ian: the rest is your life in eternity. Why do you argue and try to “prove yourself” when you have Eternity to learn and continue learning?”
This was accompanied by a thought of all of us ten thousand years on, admitting “what dam fools we were…”
PS I tried reading the other codices (codexes?) Sinaitus and Alexandrius (?) which are on display in The British Museum, London. I couldn’t: the whole text is in capital Greek letters, contiguous words with no sentences or punctuation whatever. Translating those (and presemably the Vaticanus) into coherent Greek must have been an enormous task in the first place!
D
Duns_Scotus
Guest
Personally, I use the Doaui-Rheims (Challoner) because it is so very beautiful and so poetic - just reading it is like reading a song, the whole thing is one of the most exquisite works, no, the most, I have ever read.
J
JK8619
Guest
Thank you everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It has been very helpful. I Just got the Ignatius RSV-2CE. So far I have been enjoying it. I’m glad to finally have an excellant full length Catholic Bible.
Although I have had several Bibles at my disposal my entire life, they were normally KJVs. For some reason, the only relatives I had that owned bibles were Protestant. Only one of my four grandparents were not Catholic, but all of the Bibles that were passed down to me were KJVs. I do love the KJV, but I still wanted to get the best Catholic version I could find. For awhile I used my wife’s NAB, but I became curious about other Catholic Bibles.
Thanks again for all the helpful tips.
Although I have had several Bibles at my disposal my entire life, they were normally KJVs. For some reason, the only relatives I had that owned bibles were Protestant. Only one of my four grandparents were not Catholic, but all of the Bibles that were passed down to me were KJVs. I do love the KJV, but I still wanted to get the best Catholic version I could find. For awhile I used my wife’s NAB, but I became curious about other Catholic Bibles.
Thanks again for all the helpful tips.
J
JK8619
Guest
Although I have found what I think will be my main Bible that I will be using, I would appreciate any tips on pocket-sized NTs. Currently, the one I carry with me whenever I leave the house is a 1985 Gideon NKJV. Although I love the KJV, I would like to get a Catholic NT.
I found a New Jerusalem NT online that I am thinking about. If anyone has any recommendations regarding the NT only I would appreciate it. I get a lot of use out of my current pocket-size NT, so I want to get a good one.
Thanks,
JK
I found a New Jerusalem NT online that I am thinking about. If anyone has any recommendations regarding the NT only I would appreciate it. I get a lot of use out of my current pocket-size NT, so I want to get a good one.
Thanks,
JK
C
CalCatholic
Guest
Scepter Publishers publishes a Confraternity pocket size (3x5) N.T., but it appears that they are currently sold out. Ignatius Press publishes a very nice N.T. with psalms in the RSV-2CE (with size 9 font!) but it is ‘compact’ not ‘pocket size’ (although it fits in the cargo pockets of my shorts).
B
bauerice
Guest
I use this but, it looks like it is out of stock at this time. The bold print makes it very readable.
scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=565
K
Khalid
Guest
For the NT-only, both the Confraternity and the RSV-2CE are good, and would be my top two recommendations.
IanGE: I’ll read some of each with an eye to comparison over the next few days and post my findings. The general impression I have gathered is that Jerome was so literal in his translation of the Greek and Hebrew, that he essentially invented a new language in the process; his Latin in the Vulgate is absolutely horrible when measured against Cicero (or even Caesar), but it’s faithful to the Greek. Does it lose some precision? All translations do, as no two languages have exactly the same set of signifiers (words) mapped to the same signified (meanings), or else all languages would be very easy to learn: the only difference would be in sound.
Note that it is easier to translate from Greek to Latin than it is to translate a Semitic language in to anything other than another Semitic language, or at least I expect: Semitic languages are very difficult, and completely alien (although I’ve not yet attempted to learn Mandarin Chinese): I speak Arabic, but have been unable to gain decent proficiency (enough to translate) in Hebrew, even though there are so many similarities in the triconsonantal roots, in the verb-subject-object order and sentence structure, in cognates and in the vocabulary itself, that it is possible to, knowing little Hebrew beyond the script, but being proficient in Arabic, one can “almost understand” much written Hebrew. I imagine the process is similar to that by which speakers of Italian and speakers of Spanish feel (and, surprisingly or not, I can muddle my way through Spanish, as it is mainly Latin, with a generous admixture of Arabic). When translating, lest nuance is lost and more is captured, when translating from similar languages to similar languages (say, German to English, or Spanish to Italian, or even French or Greek or Latin to English), than translating to dissimilar languages (say, Hebrew to Greek, or Chinese to English, or English to Farsi).
The Septuagint is similar in the fact that, as Moises Silva puts it, it is as much (especially in the Pentateuch, which he believes to be the only thing originally translated) “Hebrew in Greek clothing” as it is proper Greek: one could not move from reading Herodotus or even Aristotle to the Septuagint easily; to attempt to draw an analogy between English, it would be as if a man had spoken and written nothing but English slang, but found that to read, he must decipher Shakespeare and the KJV (or maybe even Chaucer or Sir Thomas Malory in the original spelling).
IanGE: I’ll read some of each with an eye to comparison over the next few days and post my findings. The general impression I have gathered is that Jerome was so literal in his translation of the Greek and Hebrew, that he essentially invented a new language in the process; his Latin in the Vulgate is absolutely horrible when measured against Cicero (or even Caesar), but it’s faithful to the Greek. Does it lose some precision? All translations do, as no two languages have exactly the same set of signifiers (words) mapped to the same signified (meanings), or else all languages would be very easy to learn: the only difference would be in sound.
Note that it is easier to translate from Greek to Latin than it is to translate a Semitic language in to anything other than another Semitic language, or at least I expect: Semitic languages are very difficult, and completely alien (although I’ve not yet attempted to learn Mandarin Chinese): I speak Arabic, but have been unable to gain decent proficiency (enough to translate) in Hebrew, even though there are so many similarities in the triconsonantal roots, in the verb-subject-object order and sentence structure, in cognates and in the vocabulary itself, that it is possible to, knowing little Hebrew beyond the script, but being proficient in Arabic, one can “almost understand” much written Hebrew. I imagine the process is similar to that by which speakers of Italian and speakers of Spanish feel (and, surprisingly or not, I can muddle my way through Spanish, as it is mainly Latin, with a generous admixture of Arabic). When translating, lest nuance is lost and more is captured, when translating from similar languages to similar languages (say, German to English, or Spanish to Italian, or even French or Greek or Latin to English), than translating to dissimilar languages (say, Hebrew to Greek, or Chinese to English, or English to Farsi).
The Septuagint is similar in the fact that, as Moises Silva puts it, it is as much (especially in the Pentateuch, which he believes to be the only thing originally translated) “Hebrew in Greek clothing” as it is proper Greek: one could not move from reading Herodotus or even Aristotle to the Septuagint easily; to attempt to draw an analogy between English, it would be as if a man had spoken and written nothing but English slang, but found that to read, he must decipher Shakespeare and the KJV (or maybe even Chaucer or Sir Thomas Malory in the original spelling).
I
IanGE
Guest
Thank you Khalid for a scholarly yet Spiritual response. I did Religious Education in Uni and one professor/tutor, a gruff old bag lady told us: “you guys are spoilt: in my day you had to study Hebrew, Greek and Latin before you started Theology!”
BTW Studies were purely academic and almost turned me off the gospels; even Anslem was subjected to scholarly nit-picking!
told us: “you guys are spoilt: in my day you had to study Hebrew, Greek and Latin before you started Theology!”BTW Studies were purely academic and almost turned me off the gospels; even Anslem was subjected to scholarly nit-picking!
J
JK8619
Guest
Does anyone have an opinion on the New Jerusalem NT only. Any info would be helpful.
Thanks,
JK
Thanks,
JK
- Status