What s the best translation

[Sean.McKenzie]

I have a RSV-CE Bible, i heard it was one of the closest translations to the original, what is the best translation. I want an authoritative, original translation. What is the best!?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Sean,

In terms of attempting to convey the original languages, what you have is pretty good. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find one that is better.

Deacon Ed

 

[Pug]

I think the “best” English language translation of the entire bible has not yet been accomplished. Though I could be behind on this as new ones come out all the time. They recently came out with a free internet translation, called the net bible, which will/does include all the books.

Each translation has its slant or methodology. Best depends on what you want to use it for. Public reading? This requires different methods, to make it easier to follow. Children reading it? This requires some simplification. And so on. The version you mention is a fine version. If you are not comfortable reading it, try another.

If you want a more free translation (dynamic equivalence or some such fancy lingo) try the Jerusalem Bible. But always pay attention to the source. If I recall, the JB is from a French translation, and the New JB is corrected to the original languages, but it may have other issues. It is all a balancing game.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Pug,

You are right. A fully praiseworthy English translation is still to come.
As for the Jerusalem Bible, I understand that the first one was too close to the French. The New Jerusalem Bible is totally original, but some find its language too interpretative in some areas.

Verbum

 

[Deacon_Ed]

The big problem with the Jerusalem bible is that it is an English translation of a French translation of the Vulgate. That’s simply too far removed from the Greek and Hebrew.

Deacon Ed

 

[puzzleannie]

on the homepage is a good discussion of the virtues of various translations. there is good in both the dynamic equivalence method and the "word for word’ method. The trouble with the latter comes when the same word in each language does not have the same connotation or literal meaning. Then the translator has to decide to find a word or phrase that conveys as closely as possible the original meaning, or to use the actual word, and in the process subtly alter the meaning. A good example that always comes up is the “brothers” of Jesus. Since the meaning of the original word connoted much more than children of the same parents, to include step and foster relationships, cousins, extended family, the more limited, specific Greek or English meaning of brothers (in the familial sense) creates confusion. dynamic equivalence tries to convey the full sense of the meaning of the passage, but the downfall is that it leaves much more to the ‘creativity’ of the translator, and error can enter that way.

It is probably good to have access to the best examples of each method of translation for serious study, of course if we were all that dedicated we would learn the original languages. But I understand even among that crowd there is room for a lot of debate about meaning and interpretation.

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

Has any body heard of the new RSV-CE (it’s the same as the ignatius except it will be redone) coming out soon that will have footnotes along with the top theologians (name removed by moderator)ut and help, is it just me or have others heard about it, and if indeed ther is one in the making does anybody have any idea of when it would be published

 

[kayla]

Sean.McKenzie:

Has any body heard of the new RSV-CE (it’s the same as the ignatius except it will be redone) coming out soon that will have footnotes along with the top theologians (name removed by moderator)ut and help, is it just me or have others heard about it, and if indeed ther is one in the making does anybody have any idea of when it would be published

I’m also waiting for the release of the new RSV-CE, my local Catholic bookstore says it should be out anytime soon, so I’m patiently waiting, I’m currently using my husbands RSV.
Seems to me Oxford press just released a compact RSV-CE.

 

[BibleReader]

I haven’t found a best translation. Of the Catholic Bibles, I like the 1970 edition of the NAB best. There are still problems with it. Though the well-concordized King James translators shot themselves in the foot when they disposed of the seven books and parts of two others, at places, in the books not excluded by the King James translators, the King James translators are more accurate.

 

[jurist12]

Let me start off by saying that I am appalled at the lack of good Catholic Bible translations into modern English. Surely with all the Catholic Biblical scholars around you would think that they would be the first to come up with an excellent modern translation. The New American Bible, whatever edition is awful, the notes are biased towards “modernist” views of Biblical criticism and the translation of the Biblical texts is terrible. The Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible are Dynamic Equivalence translations which means they are a step above being paraphrases plus the footnotes, though not as bad as the NAB are still biased towards liberal Biblical theories, also the New Jerusalem Bible uses “inclusive language” regardless of what the original languages say. The RSV-CE, though the best of the lot of what Catholics have to choose from is still not that good as it is a very liberal biased translation. The RSV was done by liberal Protestant Bible scholars and the translation reflects their views. Conservative and Evangelical Protestant Christians never accepted the RSV as a reliable translation because of this. My choice for a good reliable modern English Bible would be 1. The New King James Version NKJV 2. New American Standard Bible NASB (NOT New American Bible) 3. Holman Christian Standard Bible HCSB. Yes I know for Catholics they do not have the Deutero-Canonical books included but one can buy them in a separate volume called The Apocrypha which is published by both Oxford and Cambridge University Presses. If I were a Catholic I would toss out the New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and the RSV-CE, or at best keep them only for reference and use the NKJV or the NASB as my main Bible for reading and Study. BTW yes there is the Douay-Rheims but like the King James Version they are difficult to understand and read and comprehend. In Christ, jurist12

 

[Pug]

jurist12:

the NASB as my main Bible for reading and Study.

I enjoy that translation as well. Are you saying one can buy an apocrypha for it? You can for the KJV, that I know.

The NASB has a nice set of cross-references if you buy a “reference” edition.

 

[jurist12]

Yes I know, I use the NASB and it has excellent cross references and a wide margin for taking notes as well, plus I like that it has single column on each page, nice format and larger readable type. In Christ, jurist12

 

[Church_Militant]

Just what’s wrong with the Douay-Rheims Bible?
I like it. :bible1:

 

[porthos11]

jurist12:

Yes I know, I use the NASB and it has excellent cross references and a wide margin for taking notes as well, plus I like that it has single column on each page, nice format and larger readable type. In Christ, jurist12

We cannot as Catholics use a Bible edition without the Deuterocanonical books, which makes the RSV-CE the only decent option out there. The moment the NKJV comes out with the DC’s and the translation receives an Imprimatur, a copy will materalize in my bookshelf. Till then, it’s just a version for cross-reference.

In any case, the RSV-CE has corrected many of the problematic renderings in the New Testament. As for the “liberal” problems, well, for me a lot is a matter of opinion (e.g. translating “almah” as “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14, which is actually the right translation of the Hebrew.) For now, it’s all we got, but since most orthodox Catholic scholars accept it, it’s probably the safest choice.

 

[philipmarus]

I believe in having a lot of different ones to compare. When I started out, I inherited my Dad’s marked up KJV with all the Catholic Apolgetic verses highlighted.It was my Dad’s following Mr. Keating suggestion at the end CATHOLICSM AND FUNDAMENTALISM. I then started out with Harper Collins Study Bible (NRSV) w/ D.C books. I became less satisified with it eventually
and now rarely used it. It reflects a very modernist commentary which is certainly not favorable to Catholic views (or even faith)although it still has some uses such as information on Biblical archeaology and its charts such as the O.T Kingdoms. I also understand it uses inclusive language. I have two New American Bibles (1970 and late 80s version). I find NAB renderings so coarse (and stilted that I seldom use it other than to read the Mass readings or as a Bible of comparison. I have had the the Ignatius RSV-CE which I’ve been pretty happy with. I agree its probably the best choice for Catholics as far as the text itself. However its small size, no margins and lack of Study Bible features leave wanting more. I have tried to supplement it with the Navarre Bible, A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, and a Practical Commentary on H.S. I recently got the DR Bible from Tan books and love it. I agree its a little hard to understand but worth it if you take to time to absorb its renderings.

It (DRB) has two things going for it besides the usual arguments:

1. The Binding and Craftmanship is outstanding compared to RSV-CE Ignatius Bible.
2. The notes in it are minimal but orthodox compared to NAB.

It is my understanding that you can get a copy of KJV w/ the D.C
books off Amazon in a paperback volume. Anybody have this?

 

[mtr01]

porthos11:

In any case, the RSV-CE has corrected many of the problematic renderings in the New Testament. As for the “liberal” problems, well, for me a lot is a matter of opinion (e.g. translating “almah” as “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14, which is actually the right translation of the Hebrew.) For now, it’s all we got, but since most orthodox Catholic scholars accept it, it’s probably the safest choice.

Not to mention that it can’t be all bad if it’s the version used by the Vatican in translations of the Holy Father’s encyclicals and apostolic letters. It’s also the version from which Scripture is quoted in the Catechism as well. At least for me, that’s a pretty good endorsement.

 

[mtr01]

Church Militant:

Just what’s wrong with the Douay-Rheims Bible?

I like it.

:bible1:

I quite like my Haydock Douay Bible as well. The thing that I haven’t been able to understand all that well is this… After V2, there was an emphasis on translation from the original languages . I can understand that completely. However, everything I’ve ever seen about the oldest manuscripts in the original languages is that they are very far removed from the original manuscripts. In other words, what is available in Greek and Hebrew is really just copies of copies of copies, with no way of knowing how accurate those copies are.

Given this situation, why should we over-emphasize these “copies” just because they are in the original languages? From what I understand of the Vulgate, St. Jerome had access to the most ancient manuscripts (perhaps some originals) when he translated it. It stands to reason that the Vulgate is at least as good, but most likely better than anything we could produce today. Thus, I don’t know why translations of the Vulgate are being discouraged. To me, the best situation would be such a translation, checked against the original language manuscripts where needed.

 

[otm]

jurist12:

The New American Bible, whatever edition is awful, the notes are biased towards “modernist” views of Biblical criticism … The Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible are Dynamic Equivalence translations… are still biased towards liberal Biblical theories, also the New Jerusalem Bible uses “inclusive language” regardless of what the original languages say. The RSV-CE, though the best of the lot of what Catholics have to choose from is still not that good as it is a very liberal biased translation. The RSV was done by liberal Protestant Bible scholars and the translation reflects their views.

Here we go again. It would really help if you would define your terms of “modernist” and “liberal”. With no disrespect, I have the feeling that you may be referring to any and all (or almost all) biblical scholarship occuring in the last 150 years.

There is an old phrase that any position taken to its logical extreme becomes illogical. The same could be said about most methodologies of biblical criticism. A good example is the historical - critical method. Cardinal Ratzinger has had some pointed comments about where it has lead, and there are those who insist that the Cardinal’s statements condemn the entire approach (they don’t).

I have the feeling, and I hope that I am wrong, that the position you take would be what one could call a literalist position, one that the Church does not take absolutely.

The difficulty is that theology on the level of theologians gets released to the masses, who often do not understand the parameters under which the theological question was set, and they (the masses) misunderstand and misinterpret what the theologians have said. I am not trying to defend any given theologian, but simply painting them with the “liberal” brush does little to further the conversation.

50 or 60 years ago and longer, much less of the theological research and debates filtered down to the folks “in the pew”. One could argue whether that was better or worse than today’s situation, where every technical statement and arguement is available to all. IMO, most theologians are seeking the truth. Some of it is a fairly sophisticated and narrow search, and too often we “in the pew” cannot determine either the reliabilty or the relevance of the search and the proposed answers. However, calling it “liberal”, or “modernist” doesn’t necessarily lead to a clearer view, either.

 

[netmender]

Sean - stick with that Ignatius RSV. You’ve got a great Bible in your hands there.

 

[serendipity]

Deacon Ed:

The big problem with the Jerusalem bible is that it is an English translation of a French translation of the Vulgate. That’s simply too far removed from the Greek and Hebrew.

Deacon Ed

I don’t think this statemnet is true.Every thing I have read states that The Jerusalem Bible is the result of a translating the original langauges into French and then English. No Vulgate was used. It is the standard edition used for liturgy outside the US in Europe and I think Austraila. I don’t know about Canda.

The New Jerusalem Bible was translated from the original languages into English. It has inclusive langauge for God, but the Our Father is the Our Father, so the language doe sot disturb me so much. What I worry about is the “poetic” license taken to make the text flow more.

Both Jerusalem Bibles use the ancient names of God in the Old Testament; Yahweh, El Shaddai. Soem peopel think it is disrespectful or irksome to hear. I like it, because I don’t understand why God would have given us so many names, if he did not want us to use them.