What s the best translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sean.McKenzie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
I don’t think this statement 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 that is supposedly taken to make the text flow more.

Both Jerusalem Bibles use the ancient names of God in the Old Testament; Yahweh, El Shaddai. Some people 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.

The best version of the Bible for you, is one that you will read. If you encounter questions in your study, it helps to have other interpretations and commentaries on hand. Also, you can always ask a priest. Go to a store, read through a few and see what works best. Take a look too at the margins, if you like make notes in the Bible. The Ignatius Bible turned me off because it had such small margins and horrible font (at least my eyes found it teribly tiresome). Likewise, I foudn the archaic writing of the Douay Rhems, too exhausting to get much from actually reading the scripture for in depth study.

Hey, I thought the Canterbury Tales were poetic too, but when I moved there for a period of time, the Lonely Planet Guide was far more helpful for my direction, because I better understood what it was talking about . Obviously the Lonely Planet will never be a classic, but what helps you in your journey is important.
 
The question was,“Which is the BEST translation?”

Translation of WHAT?

Since the VULGATE has been the Catholic Bible for at least 1600 years, you want a translation of the VULGATE.

The BEST is the DOUAY - RHEIMS BIBLE …it is not a version …it is the Bible. The DR NT was done in 1588 and the DR OT was done in 1609. I have it in two volumes.
 
Serendipity wrote:"

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 statement 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.
Serendipity,
You dont think Deacon Ed’s statement is true. YOU ARE WRONG!

Do you know what DEACON ED said? If someone translates directly from the Latin (Vulgate) and another person Translates from a translation…which will be more accurate? I can assure you that the first case is more accurate.:bounce:
 
I like the Ignatius RSV-CE because it has minimal notes. If I could get a NAB with no notes I would buy it no matter what the cost. It would be lighter weight. I find the notes footnote style to be intrusive and distracting, and therefore the print has to be smaller to fit it all in. A bible without notes could have larger print. If I want the notes, I can use a study edition, but most of the time I am reading devotionally and the notes are an intrusion.
 
This is what Deacon Ed said that I thought was not true (still think is not true):
The big problem with the Jerusalem bible is that it is an English translation of a French translation of the Vulgate.
Click to expand...
Everything I have read, such as the source below, indicates that the Jerusalem Bible is not an English translation of the French translation of the Vulgate, but the English tranlations of the French translation of the original text.

The Deacon has a good point about the Vulgate possibly being a better representation for consistancy, but it does not nuliify the fact that the Jerusalem Bible is not a tranlsation of the Vulgate.
The Jerusalem Bible (1966)
Alexander Jones, ed., The Jerusalem Bible. Garden City, New York; London: Doubleday; Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966. ISBN: 0232481865.
Click to expand...
This is a version prepared by Roman Catholic scholars in Great Britain, under the general editorship of Alexander Jones of Christ’s College, Liverpool, assisted by twenty-seven colleagues. (1) **It is notable as being the first English version to be done by Roman Catholics on the basis of the Greek and Hebrew texts rather than upon the Latin Vulgate. **In 1943 Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical letter on Biblical studies called Divino Afflante Spiritu in which he gave permission for this departure from Roman Catholic tradition.
Click to expand...
The Jerusalem Bible derives its name and its character from an earlier French version, called La Bible de Jérusalem. This French version (published in 1956, and revised 1961) was prepared by the faculty of the Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem, on the basis of the Hebrew and Greek. An introductory note acknowledges this indebtedness: “The introductions and notes of this Bible are, with minor variations and revisions, a translation of those which appear in La Bible de Jérusalem (one volume edition, 1961) published under the general editorship of Père Roland de Vaux, O.P. by Les Editions du Cerf, Paris, but are modified in the light of subsequent revised fascicules.” The annotations of the French edition were remarkably full and helpful, and the idea of the English Jerusalem Bible was to turn the French version, together with all of its annotations, (2) into English, with constant reference to the Hebrew and Greek. And so the translation is based upon the Hebrew and Greek as interpreted by the French version.
Click to expand...
 
Okay, to put matters on the Jerusalem Bible to rest, the Bible text is a translation INTO ENGLISH from the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES, except for a few initial drafts. It is the notes and introductions that are translations from the French. From the Editor’s Foreword of the JB in the study edition (emphasis added):
The translation of the biblical text itself could clearly not be made from the French. In the case of a few books, the initial draft was made from the French and was then compared word for word with the Hebrew or Aramaic by the General Editor and amended where necessary to ensure complete conformity with the ancient text. For the much greater part, the initial drafts were made from the Hebrew or Greek and simultaneously compared with the French when questions of variant reading or interpretation arose.

(Alexander Jones, General Editor, The Jerusalem Bible, p. v. 1st June, 1966)
Click to expand...
So in short, the JB isn’t a translation from the French (even for some of the initial drafts) because of the direct translations of the original languages, or the word-for-word comparison described above. The French was used as a cross-reference or alternate text for variant readings. The JB was one of the first Catholic translations to come out ofthe recommendations in Divino Afflante Spiritu.
 
Puzzleannie–I have the Catholic Serendipity NAB Bible–it has beautiful large print and none of those offending modernist-influenced footnotes! It’s a study Bible with an incredible number of great study group suggestions. The only quibble I have is that–it has no notes–just a lot of margin questions to stimulate discussion. (I’m one of those persons who likes to have answers–not more questions–lol!) Also, mine is hardcover and a little heavy. But it truly is a beautiful Bible–see if you can take a look at one in a bookstore sometime. It’s by Zondervan publishers; they also have Serendipity versions that are Protestant, so you can get an idea of the format by looking at one of those, too.

Peace in Christ,
Lamb
 
Church Militant:
Just what’s wrong with the Douay-Rheims Bible?
I like it. ❤️ :bible1:
Click to expand...
There’s nothing wrong with it. I like it too. In fact it’s probably the safest choice of all.
 
Exporter said:
[snip]
The question was,“Which is the BEST translation?”

Translation of WHAT?

Since the VULGATE has been the Catholic Bible for at least 1600 years, you want a translation of the VULGATE.

The BEST is the DOUAY - RHEIMS BIBLE …it is not a version …it is the Bible. . . .
Click to expand...

I agree entirely.
 
philipmarus said:
[snip]
. . . 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. . . .
Click to expand...

Sadly the Tan edition of the Douay-Rheims seems already to have gone out-of-print though there is one in print by Baronius Press. I think the notes you refer to may be by Bishop Challoner.
 
YUP! That’s the DR Challoner from Tan.
Barronius has a great leather bound edition for about $50.00. I want one.
here’s the site:baroniuspress.com/

Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
romano:
Sadly the Tan edition of the Douay-Rheims seems already to have gone out-of-print though there is one in print by Baronius Press. I think the notes you refer to may be by Bishop Challoner.
Click to expand...
I just got mine from TAN only two months ago and I just received a flier from TAN last week advertsing the DRB for $45.
 
I once asked Fr. Velo Salo who was making his own translation of the Bible for the people of Astonia, which was the best. I’ll never forget his reply: "There is no one best translation: you have to read them all ! " I however, having been sujected to the worst translations – such as the NRSV and New Jerusalem Bibles, can definately give you my official opinion of which one is the very best. The Vulgate has always been the Church’s standard and therefore the Douey-Rhiems Bible is the ONE TRUE Bible beyond a doubt. It honors God by addressing him in formal English… which is just: eg. THY Kingdom come.

However for younger adults who find English more of a challenge, I agree with Mother Angelica… the Jerusalem Bible(not the New Jerusalem Bible) is probably the most readable Bible and is approved by the Vatican. The RSV is good too, but I find it pretty pricely compared to the Jerusalem Bible in hard cover. The only slight flaw I read in the Jerusalem Bible is they often replace the word ‘holy’ with ‘religious’ – which I find rather ambiguous.

The worst, by far, are the politically correct Bibles which re-engineer language to meet feminist agenda and have never been approved by the Holy See… namely the NRSV(New Revised Satanic Version) and the New Jerusalem: both of which are aweful. I am constantly dismayed at why our Canadian Bishops, who are supposed to be the leaders of the Church have allowed the NRSV at Mass, knowing full well it is not approved by the Vatican. Anyone who wishes to know more about this abomination should read ‘62 Shadows of Man’ previously published in Catholic Insight whereby a professor shows 62 instances of where they have replace the word ‘man’ with other wording. It is truly diabolic.
 
hansgsa said:
[snip]
. . . .
The worst, by far, are the politically correct Bibles which re-engineer language to meet feminist agenda and have never been approved by the Holy See… namely the NRSV(New Revised Satanic Version) and the New Jerusalem: both of which are aweful. . . . It is truly diabolic.
Click to expand...

Yes. A horde of casuists and theologasters attempting to reinvent the wheel.

My vote goes to the Douay-Rheims.
 
mtr01 said:
[snip]
. . . . 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.
Click to expand...

👍 Go to the top of the class!

Yes. It seems to me that what we have is a bunch of casuists and theologasters who, for lack of something better to do, are trying to reinvent the wheel.

St Jerome received a splendid education at Rome and was the greatest Biblical scholar of his age. His dates are ca.340 - ca. 420. In other words, he was 1600 years closer to the sources than we are.

I think that one proof of his superiority is found in the Vulgate Apocalypse 22:1 - “BEATI, QUI LAVANT STOLAS SUAS IN SANGUINE AGNI.” For this Challoner’s 1582 Rheims NT gives: “Blessed are they that wash their robes IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB.”

Here Jerome’s Vulgate gives us the vitally important phrase - IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB - a phrase necessary to complete the sense but which doesn’t seem to occur anywhere else.

Without this phrase we are left with " Blessed are they who wash their clothes" which makes it sound as if a trip to the laundromat will suffice to get us into the Kingdom! Check your translations and you’ll see what I mean.
 
If Catholic Answers is still here 100 years from now, I think people will still be asking,“Which is the Best Bible?”
 
40.png
Exporter:
If Catholic Answers is still here 100 years from now, I think people will still be asking,“Which is the Best Bible?”
Click to expand...
No kidding!
I own and read the NAB, RSV-CE, Catholic Youth Bible - NRSV, GNB -Today’s English Version Bibles, and I listen to the World English Bible in mp3 format. It just depends on what I’m doing at the moment. For ease of read, the GNB -Today’s English Version. For bible study, the RSV-CE with Scott Hahn’s bible study books (from CatholicExchange and the Ignatius sets). For ideas and (name removed by moderator)ut for my 11th/12th grade students, the Catholic Youth Bible - NRSV. To keep up with what most in my parish believe in bible study - the NAB. And just to be hearing the Lord’s words on a regular basis, the mp3 files. We are so blessed to live in a time to have some many versions!
 
I like the RSV-CE, but my personal favorite is the Douay-Rheims. I also own a NAB, and a small pocket edition of the New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs (protestant).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top