Which bible do you use?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Timidity said:
There is an older poll on this same subject, with better options.

In any case, I’m a fan of The Jerusalem Bible.
Click to expand...
I have to say as an English Catholic I have a really low opinion of the JB, it ‘combines liberal tendencies with free and relatively careless translation.’ I’ve been Catholic for 5 years and I’m waiting for it go.

Strangely, I love your NAB. I’m the only person in England I know using one. Perhaps this is a case of the grass been greener on the other side of the Atlantic. The NAB is a great bible, though not literary at all. According to one evangelical commentator if it’s theology was not unorthodox [Catholic] and it’s move toward gender neutrality ‘the NAB would rate as highly as the NASB.’ High praise indeed.

This article is very good regarding the best bibles. Very thorough.
faith.propadeutic.com/conclusions.html
 
TheMese said:
I have to say as an English Catholic I have a really low opinion of the JB, it ‘combines liberal tendencies with free and relatively careless translation.’ I’ve been Catholic for 5 years and I’m waiting for it go.

Strangely, I love your NAB. I’m the only person in England I know using one. Perhaps this is a case of the grass been greener on the other side of the Atlantic. The NAB is a great bible, though not literary at all. According to one evangelical commentator if it’s theology was not unorthodox [Catholic] and it’s move toward gender neutrality ‘the NAB would rate as highly as the NASB.’ High praise indeed.

This article is very good regarding the best bibles. Very thorough.
faith.propadeutic.com/conclusions.html
Click to expand...
The NAB footnotes are very liberal and unorthodox from a Catholic viewpoint.
 
I like the Douay Rheims for it general accuracy. I read the Challoner update but also the original from 1582 downloadable from eebo.chadwyck.com/home if your library has an account.

I love the original Jerusalem Bible from 1966. It to me rather than being word for word accurate gives you the general gist in an understandable way. The literary quality is great. Some bits I don’t like of the translation include the favour business for Mary, interestingly on a footnote on grace it notes Mary has found grace with God.

The complete footnotes are great and very useful, and the cross referecnes are manic - so many! The crown of stars footnote not being Mary made me shriek a bit in Rev, guess you can’t say it has Catholic biases.

It’s used in the lectionary here in Australia. I prefer it to any other translation for the lectionary as when you sit there and listen to it there aren’t any words like concupiscence (lust) or complicated phrases taking your mind of the message.
 
Yes, I have heard many good things about the 1966 Jerusalem Bible from people on this forum, so I was happy to find one in a used book store.

Now, however, I’m wondering if I should waste my time reading the footnotes, because of the aformentioned problems I noticed regarding Mary.
 
The JB is such a loose translation. I wish the English bishops had used the RSVCE which came out the same year. Bad error.
 
Larry1700 said:
Yes, I have heard many good things about the 1966 Jerusalem Bible from people on this forum, so I was happy to find one in a used book store.

Now, however, I’m wondering if I should waste my time reading the footnotes, because of the aformentioned problems I noticed regarding Mary.
Click to expand...
I do not have the JB, but I cannot imagine the footnotes being any worse than those in the RNAB.
 
Could you proffer a couple of verses from the JB that you feel are classic or literary. What is it about this goofy proto-Good News Bible you like.

There are 4 million Catholics here in the U.K. hearing the Jerusalem bible at Mass yet the JB doesn’t sell. Ask why it’s amazon.co.uk rank is 157,400th!

The new Catholic Truth Society JB trails in at 383,533th. We think it’s rubbish.
 
lak611 said:
The NAB footnotes are very liberal and unorthodox from a Catholic viewpoint.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are basing that on. The copy of the NAB I have is authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the United States Catholic Conference.

It is also the bible and footnotes you will find if you go to usccb.org and click on “Bible”. Also, it is my understanding that, since 2000, the Holy See accepted a version of the 1991 New Testament for the Latin-rite Liturgy. The gender inclussive langauge, the source of most criticism, remains primarily intact.

It’s not poetry, but it is a solid study Bible for Catholics.
 
TheMese said:
Could you proffer a couple of verses from the JB that you feel are classic or literary. What is it about this goofy proto-Good News Bible you like.
Click to expand...
If you’re directing the question to me, I don’t have a personal opinion regarding **verses **in the Jerusalem Bible. I became suspicious of the **footnotes ** when I began perusing the thematic index, and saw some verses which weren’t included in the topic on Mary. I purchased it (used) because of the postive comments on the Catholic.com forums. Again, I am referring specifically to the 1966 edition, with Alexander Jones as editor.
There are 4 million Catholics here in the U.K. hearing the Jerusalem bible at Mass yet the JB doesn’t sell. Ask why it’s amazon.co.uk rank is 157,400th!
Click to expand...
Are they using the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, or the newer New Jerusalem Bible?
 
The NJB was never really used in the U.K. because it’s gender-inclusivity ruled it out for liturgical use. It is quite a lot better than the 1966 JB but still a “dynamic equivalence” version and well down the field.

To be honest, I don’t know any Catholics in England who read bibles, except for my priest who likes the JB.
 
TheMese said:
I have to say as an English Catholic I have a really low opinion of the JB, it ‘combines liberal tendencies with free and relatively careless translation.’ I’ve been Catholic for 5 years and I’m waiting for it go.

Strangely, I love your NAB. I’m the only person in England I know using one. Perhaps this is a case of the grass been greener on the other side of the Atlantic. The NAB is a great bible, though not literary at all. According to one evangelical commentator if it’s theology was not unorthodox [Catholic] and it’s move toward gender neutrality ‘the NAB would rate as highly as the NASB.’ High praise indeed.

This article is very good regarding the best bibles. Very thorough.
faith.propadeutic.com/conclusions.html
Click to expand...
Mese,

I read the reviews at the link you posted, and, by and large, I don’t agree with it.

Yes, the NASB is the best Protestant bible right now - far better and more literal than the ESV, which should not have received such high praise. For the life of me, I cannot see why this non-Catholic reviewer rates the NAB almost as high as the NASB. Neither is it nice of him to downplay the KJV, but believe the NIV is suitable for English readers everywhere.

I’m not a fan of the JB, either; it’s way too paraphrastic for Lectionary use. The hierarchy (gotta love 'em!) in most countries gave the nod of approval to the Revised NAB or the NRSV, but completely ignored (wrongfully!) the NJB, which is far more sparing in its incorporation of gender-neutral language than the latter two.
 
SoCalRC said:
I’m not sure what you are basing that on. The copy of the NAB I have is authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the United States Catholic Conference.

It is also the bible and footnotes you will find if you go to usccb.org and click on “Bible”. Also, it is my understanding that, since 2000, the Holy See accepted a version of the 1991 New Testament for the Latin-rite Liturgy. The gender inclussive langauge, the source of most criticism, remains primarily intact.

It’s not poetry, but it is a solid study Bible for Catholics.
Click to expand...
lak611 is basing her comment on plain common sense.

FYI, the 1986 (not 1991) NT had to be scrubbed a bit by Rome before it was approved for Lectionary use; it was far too gender-neutral, and the 1991 Psalms were REJECTED OUTRIGHT for liturgical use in both the Mass and in the Liturgy of the Hours.

Will you be telling me next that you believe the English (mis)translation of the Latin-rite Mass is acceptable because it, too, comes with a high pedigree?
 
TheMese said:
The NJB was never really used in the U.K. because it’s gender-inclusivity ruled it out for liturgical use. It is quite a lot better than the 1966 JB but still a “dynamic equivalence” version and well down the field.
Click to expand...
The NJB is far more restrained in its use of inclusive language than the RNAB.
 
The English speaking countries don’t have a good quality bible.

How about other countries?

Are there German versions of the bible that are close to the Vulgate?

What about Spanish or Japanese or Russian bibles?

Are the English speaking countries the only countries that mess up the bible?
 
For it’s time the Challoner Douay Rheims was a fine English bible.

I believe that outside of America, the New Jerusalem Bible is the biggest seller for Catholics, hence why the original might not be as high in sales.

The orig JB did go out of print for a time, but due to much demand was put back in print, though with condensed notes.

MY son, do not temper your favours with disparagment,
nor any of your gifts with words that hurt.
Does not the dew relieve the heat?
In the same way a word is worth more than a gift.
  • JB (1966) (Love all the cross-references to the New Testament in the Deutrocannon!)
 
I believe that outside of America, the New Jerusalem Bible is the biggest seller for Catholics, hence why the original might not be as high in sales.
Click to expand...
Five years ago I bought a hardback NJB (the full edition with all the notes). I nearly bought the leather edition, 2 in stock, but they were quite a bit more expensive so I chose the hardback.

Five years later, this Catholic bookshop in central London has the same two books in stock. I don’t think this version is selling like hot cakes here in the U.K.
 
Jimmy_B said:
JMJ

Which bible do you use?

Which study bible is best for Catholics to use?

I use the New American Bible (NAB) The Catholic Study Bible
Click to expand...

To the first question:​

  • The New English Bible (1970)
  • the 1970 “sexist” edition of the NAB
  • the AV - AKA the KJV
    The NEB is Protestant - & my favourite 🙂
 
Manfred said:
Will you be telling me next that you believe the English (mis)translation of the Latin-rite Mass is acceptable because it, too, comes with a high pedigree?
Click to expand...
Well, no, just that I defer to the judgement of local canonical authority over the opinions of individual members of the laity…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top