Which bible do you use?

[Jimmy_B]

There has been 120 post here. Does anybody know how many different Bibles were listed on this thread. And Can anybody explain why there is not one single English version of the Bible. for all Catholics and Christians to share. Why so many Bibles?

 

[lak611]

There has been 120 post here. Does anybody know how many different Bibles were listed on this thread. And Can anybody explain why there is not one single English version of the Bible. for all Catholics and Christians to share. Why so many Bibles?

Probably the Bible that comes the closest in terms of being an ecumenical version is the RSV.

 

[bogeydogg]

I use the English Standard Version as well as the New Jerusalem Bible.

 

[Manfred]

I use the English Standard Version as well as the New Jerusalem Bible.

Since the ESV, based on the 1971 RSV, was designed to give evangelical Protestants another good alternative to the NIV (the NASB being the other), you should be aware that it does not have the Deuterocanonical works, though I hear one publisher is pushing for them.

When I compare the ESV with the NASB and the NKJV, though, I think either of these latter two are better and closer to the originals.

 

[lak611]

Since the ESV, based on the 1971 RSV, was designed to give evangelical Protestants another good alternative to the NIV (the NASB being the other), you should be aware that it does not have the Deuterocanonical works, though I hear one publisher is pushing for them.

When I compare the ESV with the NASB and the NKJV, though, I think either of these latter two are better and closer to the originals.

I agree. I own the ESV, and it is more of a dynamic translation than the NASB and NKJV. The ESV is a good alternative to the NIV, though. The NIV is one of the worst translations available.

 

[Manfred]

The NIV is one of the worst translations available.

How true, Laura.

When an evangelical Protestant and respected English scholar such as Leland Ryken had to embrace the RSV in a closet 9so to speak) so as not to go against the NIV’s sway over evangelicals, it speaks volumes.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I use the English Standard Version as well as the New Jerusalem Bible.

Hello, bogeydogg

I purchased one of these (the New Jerusalem Bible) a couple years ago, either from Catholic Answers or EWTN, I don’t remember now. I like it but I still like my old Saint Joseph Bible (NAB) better.

I am very fortunate to own many Bibles; I even have the Catholic Bible (St. Joseph NAB) on CD, which is awesome!

I also recently purchased a really nice leather-bound family Bible, (Saint Joseph NAB) at Christmas , it’s pretty fancy, I’ve used it a little but the main reason I purchased it, was that I have always wanted to have a nice family Bible, one that I can pass down to my kids.

I try to take care of all books but this is especially the case when it comes to my Bibles. It drives me nuts when I see someone handle a book in such a way as to damage it. That is why I have one dedicated Bible for Bible study and research, and that Bible looks now, somewhat abused.

I like my New Jerusalem Bible (blue soft-cover) because is seems to flow well and because mine is not a study Bible it is a little smaller and more manageable. However, the Bible the I am wearing out is that Saint Joseph’s NAB Bible (with the tan soft-cover). I use this one because it reads the same as the Daily Roman Missal (which I also received at Christmas) and it reads the same as the readings at the Mass.

My St. Joseph’s Bible is somewhat of a study Bible but it isn’t too large or unmanageable, unlike my Catholic Study Bible, which is gigantic.

I think my next Bible (When my wife gives me permission to spend some more money…) will be a Saint Joseph NAB in large print, that is, if there is such a Bible, I’ll have to do some research.

Thank you for your post and God Bless You.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The faithful are best served by having numerous editions of the Bible, some more literal, some more loosely phrased, some based on the Hebrew/Greek, some based on the Latin, in many various languages and versions.

If God intended there to be one definitive edition, then He would have given us the original manuscripts. Instead we must seek the truths of Scripture across many different manuscripts, languages, version, and editions. The truth is thereby better served, because the particulars of language and editing do not become confused with the particulars of truth.

 

[Manfred]

The faithful are best served by having numerous editions of the Bible, some more literal, some more loosely phrased, some based on the Hebrew/Greek, some based on the Latin, in many various languages and versions.

If God intended there to be one definitive edition, then He would have given us the original manuscripts. Instead we must seek the truths of Scripture across many different manuscripts, languages, version, and editions. The truth is thereby better served, because the particulars of language and editing do not become confused with the particulars of truth.

Ron,

While I agree in principle with what you have said, most of us who do not know Hebrew, Greek, or Latin have to rely on translators, Catholic or otherwise, almost all of whom have “agendas”.

Why doesn’t the Church herself provide more guidance in just how key passages, especially those of doctrinal import, should be rendered?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron,

While I agree in principle with what you have said, most of us who do not know Hebrew, Greek, or Latin have to rely on translators, Catholic or otherwise, almost all of whom have “agendas”.

Why doesn’t the Church herself provide more guidance in just how key passages, especially those of doctrinal import, should be rendered?

This kind of prudential judgment would often fall under the temporal authority, which is fallible. Certainly, a decision on doctrine would fall under the spiritual authority, but deciding between different wordings would not.

There are over 35,800 verses in the Bible, and at least several translation decisions per verse (in almost all verses). Is it wise for the temporal authority of the Church to rule on well over 100,000 points of translating, wording, and editing?

Also, such decisions would naturally vary from one Pope to the next. For example, when Pope Sixtus V forbid anyone to make changes in his 1590 Latin Vulgate, this rule lasted until 1592, when Pope Clement VIII began to publish revisions of the 1590 edition. He published revisions in 1592, 1593, and 1598. And that is merely a difference on editing of the Latin between two Popes.

With translations possible into a myriad of different languages, there would be literally over a million translation decisions to be made, pertaining to wording not doctrine.

Not a good idea.

 

[Manfred]

This kind of prudential judgment would often fall under the temporal authority, which is fallible. Certainly, a decision on doctrine would fall under the spiritual authority, but deciding between different wordings would not.

There are over 35,800 verses in the Bible, and at least several translation decisions per verse (in almost all verses). Is it wise for the temporal authority of the Church to rule on well over 100,000 points of translating, wording, and editing?

Also, such decisions would naturally vary from one Pope to the next. For example, when Pope Sixtus V forbid anyone to make changes in his 1590 Latin Vulgate, this rule lasted until 1592, when Pope Clement VIII began to publish revisions of the 1590 edition. He published revisions in 1592, 1593, and 1598. And that is merely a difference on editing of the Latin between two Popes.

With translations possible into a myriad of different languages, there would be literally over a million translation decisions to be made, pertaining to wording not doctrine.

Not a good idea.

Ron,

You’re right, of course. But all I was asking for was a “ruling” on certain passages, such as, Romans 6:7, where the word “justified” is more appropriate than “freed”, or Hebrews 11:1, where “substance” is preferable" to “assurance”.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron,

You’re right, of course. But all I was asking for was a “ruling” on certain passages, such as, Romans 6:7, where the word “justified” is more appropriate than “freed”, or Hebrews 11:1, where “substance” is preferable" to “assurance”.

When translating more literally from the Latin, those are the preferred choices. But it would not be doctrinally incorrect, nor would it in my view be unwise, to use other phrasings when expressing these truths. A looser translation, in general, can make it easier for the novice to access the truths of Scripture.

Again, such rulings would fall under the temporal authority.

 

[Manfred]

When translating more literally from the Latin, those are the preferred choices. But it would not be doctrinally incorrect, nor would it in my view be unwise, to use other phrasings when expressing these truths. A looser translation, in general, can make it easier for the novice to access the truths of Scripture.

Again, such rulings would fall under the temporal authority.

I thought that Benedict XVI’s Spe Salvi pointed out that “substance” is correct for Hebrews 11:1, in accordance with the Greek “hypostasis”.

My Oxford KJV has in its footnotes “Greek, justified” for Romans 6:7.

So I don’t think it’s the Latin only that would require the renderings thus.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In Vatican norms for Bible translation, the Latin Scriptural is still preeminent. The Latin has been in use by the Church since the first few centuries A.D. Useage by the living Tradition is of greater importance than the mere age of a manuscript in the so-called original languages.

[Hebrews]
{11:1} Est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium.
{11:1} Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not apparent.

Also, translations decisions are generally of the prudential order, except where such a decision would substantially affect doctrine.

 

[Manfred]

In Vatican norms for Bible translation, the Latin Scriptural is still preeminent. The Latin has been in use by the Church since the first few centuries A.D. Useage by the living Tradition is of greater importance than the mere age of a manuscript in the so-called original languages.

[Hebrews]
{11:1} Est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium.
{11:1} Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not apparent.

Also, translations decisions are generally of the prudential order, except where such a decision would substantially affect doctrine.

Ron,

My point is that for the two passages I cited, viz, Romans 6:7 and Hebrews 11:1, the preferred rendering, translated faithfully from the Greek, is indeed found in the Latin.

As you well know, Divino Afflante Spiritu stated that pre-eminence was to be accorded the original languages; to wit,

"16. … therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.

“22. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents–nay rather today it almost demands–either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident.”

And, with regard to texts for use in the liturgy, Liturgiam Authenticam has this to say; I believe you could still maintain that “in Vatican norms for Bible translation, the Latin Scriptural is still preeminent.”

"24. Furthermore, it is not permissible that the translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages; rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin, as regards the texts of ecclesiastical composition, or the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture.

“Furthermore, in the preparation of these translations for liturgical use, the Nova Vulgata Editio, promulgated by the Apostolic See, is normally to be consulted as an auxiliary tool, in a manner described elsewhere in this Instruction, in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy.”

 

[Larry1700]

I keep hearing great things about the Jerusalem Bible (1966 version, Alexander Jones, Editor, **not **the **New **Jerusalem Bible), so I bought one recently in a used book store.

I realize Mother Angelica uses it, but I noticed in the Thematic Index that the listing for Ark of the Covenant does not mention any verses related to Mary. In addition, in Revelation, a footnote explicitly says that while some believe the woman with the moon at her feet and the 12 stars in her crown is Mary, there is no basis to support it. (Please forgive any of my inaccuracies – I’m working from memory here, and don’t have the Bible with me now.)

What is your opinion of the notes in the Jerusalem Bible?

 

[Larry1700]

I keep hearing great things about the Jerusalem Bible (1966 version, Alexander Jones, Editor, **not **the **New **Jerusalem Bible), so I bought one recently in a used book store.

I realize Mother Angelica uses it, but I noticed in the Thematic Index that the listing for Ark of the Covenant does not mention any verses related to Mary. In addition, in Revelation, a footnote explicitly says that while some believe the woman with the moon at her feet and the 12 stars in her crown is Mary, there is no basis to support it. (Please forgive any of my inaccuracies – I’m working from memory here, and don’t have the Bible with me now.)

What is your opinion of the notes in the Jerusalem Bible?

BUMP

 

[bogeydogg]

The NJB has a pretty liberal rendering of the Bible in it’s study notes so when I read mine I like to my ESV right next to it to compare. Of course I realize the ESV is a Protestant Bible but I was still in a Protestant Church when I got it and I feel no need to discard it just because I now attend a Catholic Church. I like my ESV because it is also a study Bible, although it is an extraordinarily Reformed study Bible, but even so it takes the Holiness of Scripture and the truth of Scripture very seriously and I like it because it offers a sort of offset to the more liberal notations of the NJB.

As far as trying to figure out whether or not the notes on, to use the example of Larry 1700, remember that the Church is where we need to go when we have questions, and when I find an interpretation that contradicts Church teaching, I ask the Priest if I can, refer to the ECF if they have anything to say about it, and investigate the Church’s teaching on it. The great thing about this is that Church has not simply conjured up a reading of Scripture out of the ether but has rather built its doctrine based upon and thorough study of venerable scholars who’s work has established a uniform teaching of Scripture through the centuries, that is why we have the Magesterium. And because we do have the Magesterium, I feel quite at ease with accepting Church teaching in interpreting Scripture above what the Echol de Biblique has to say about it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

This site has some good commentary on nearly every major version of the Bible, Protestant and Catholic:
bible-researcher.com/romcath.html

I use my own translation of the Bible.

 

[lak611]

This site has some good commentary on nearly every major version of the Bible, Protestant and Catholic:
bible-researcher.com/romcath.html

I use my own translation of the Bible.

I did find some inaccurate information. I clicked on the link for the NAB. The article says that the NJB is approved for the lectionary. That is incorrect. The original JB is approved for the lectionary, but the NJB is not.