Which Bible should I purchase/use?

[Traditional_Ang]

Douay Rheims, if you want the Vulgate (still Rome’s official Bible?).

The Orthodox Study Bible, if you want the Sepuagint, which is what the Church used.

Oxford Study Bible with Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals (older editiion), if you want to go with the Protestants taking Jerome to his logical conclusion and adopt the Jewish version.

Isa:

Douay Rheims Challoner is available free here:
Douay Rheims Bible
drbo.org/

It’s very nicely laid out, and the price is right.

The Orthodox Bible is new (The New Testament has been out for a couple of years) is available for a discount through Amazon.com. The notes are actually very good, although you do have to look out for the Orthodox version of Anti-Catholicism.

If you’re going to get the Oxford RSV with Apocrypha, unless you need the notes, you might as well get the Ignatius Bible (RSV - 2nd Catholic Edition). The first time I got the Oxford Study Bible over 3 years ago, I accidentally got the NRSV, and was I ever unhappy!

Ignatius Press is publishing a series of Books of the Bible with complete study guides for the Ignatius Bible - They’ve almost completed the NT so far, and it’s excellent.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Matt,

Well said! I actually use the NRSV from time to time…If they actually were a little more careful in the way the implemented the inclusive language, I think it would be an outstanding translation. I decided to spend the first half of this year reading from it, and while I enjoyed a number of the renderings, particularly in the OT, I could not get over some glaring problems like the Son of Man renderings in the OT and Hebrews and some stuff in Titus. Yet, overall it is a really good Bible for Prayer and Study. The one thing I do appreciate is the fact that the NRSV includes notes in all of its Bibles that indicates where they have used inclusive language. At least they are not hiding from the issue.

So, I have recently gone back to a 1990 edition of the NAB I found used. It just sits well with me. I do like the RSV-CE 2nd edition, but I just don’t think there is an edition out there that has all the additional features and helps that I want in an everyday Bible.

McCorm:

Did you know that Ignatius Press has been publishing a set of Books with study guides for the RSV- 2nd Catholic Ed… They’re excellent and they’ve completed most of the NT. These are far more orthodox and in line with Church Teaching than the notes in the NAB.

And, I’ve found I like both the translation and the notes on the original Jerusalem Bible Study Edition than I do those on my copy of the NAB.

Neither the Ignatius Bible nor the Jerusalem Bible has the “Inclusive Language” curse, while both the NAB and the NRSV do. That means that at least part of the translation was put at the service, not of communicating the Catholic Faith or what the original authors’ wrote, but of modern political ideologies and social mores.

I just can’t see how that isn’t a violation of, “You shall have no Gods before me.” And, Apparently the Vatican agreed with me when it came to the subject of the NRSV:

Why Vatican rejected ‘Inclusive’ New Revised Standard Version Bible
Fr. G.H. Duggan, SM
**
In a press release of October 25, 1994, the Catholic News Service reported that the Vatican “has rejected the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] of the Bible for use in liturgical and catechetical texts, after doctrinal officials found fault with its use of inclusive language.”**
*
It is clear, when one considers the facts, that this decision of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was fully warranted. *The NRSV is not a faithful rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, but a propagandist version, which mirrors the feminist ideology.

Bruce Metzger, the chairman of the Commission which produced the version, makes this clear. One object of the translators, he writes in the preface, was to eliminate the linguistic sexism and the masculine bias of earlier translations.

*“Linguistic sexism,” like “patriarchy,” and “sexism” in general, is a myth, created for the purposes of political propaganda, by feminists. These women appear to have a profound dislike of men and strive to have the word *man eliminated from every text in which it occurs.

*A recent article in the Canadian journal *Catholic Insight (January /February 1995) by Dr Thaddeus Pruss notes that this has led to the replacement of “man” in the NRSV by no fewer than thirty different expressions, all with their own “specific places, and often very different connotations.” Such an approach betrays a basic linguistic ignorance - or worse.

ad2000.com.au/articles/1995/jun1995p11_859.html

AS I said, I accidentally bought one and was extremely displeased. My pastor informed me that one of the Orthodox Churches had Anathematized the thing, and from my experience, it made sense, but I haven’t been able to find any verification. But, The Official Condemnation of it by the Vatican should be enough for a Catholic.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

PS.: As you saw from my list, and others have seen from what I post for links for those who can’t afford Bibles, I’ll pretty much use anything except the NRSV for the reasons stated above. I’ll even use **The Message **if that gets the message across…

 

[Traditional_Ang]

[Well said and again if an imprimatur is granted then be assured it is a fine translation to use…again once one finds one with the imprimataur then find one that reads well, and meets ones needs… good luck all and keep reading your Bibles… whichever edition you find for you] blessings!

Poor Clare and McCorn:

How can a “Local Bishop” give an “Imprimatur” to a Translation of the Sacred Scriptures which has been rejected by the Vatican for both Liturgical and Catechetical Use??

And, Why would you want to recommend that Translation to someone who is just starting to read and study the Scriptures and learn the essentials of the faith??

I know the “Best Translation of the Bible” is the one someone is going to read and study, but don’t the people who ask us for our advice deserve the best advice we can give?

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[mccorm45]

Poor Clare and McCorn:

How can a “Local Bishop” give an “Imprimatur” to a Translation of the Sacred Scriptures which has been rejected by the Vatican for both Liturgical and Catechetical Use??

And, Why would you want to recommend that Translation to someone who is just starting to read and study the Scriptures and learn the essentials of the faith??

I know the “Best Translation of the Bible” is the one someone is going to read and study, but don’t the people who ask us for our advice deserve the best advice we can give?

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

\

Michael,

Here are my brief points:

1. Last time I checked the NRSV was just approved for liturgy up in Canada. catholicregister.org/content/view/1024/849/

The NRSV also is used in the Catechism, along with the RSV.
%between%

1. I trust the Bishops
2. I am aware that the RSV-2nd edition by Ignatius has been published and that they are in the process of putting together a study Bible which I will most certainly get when it is all completed. However, a) I would like to know more about who made the various minor changes in the translation, b) a list of what the changes are c) Ignatius is very slow in publishing the Ignatius study Bible…so I would prefer to use a complete study Bible right now that has footnotes, notes, maps, etc…
3. The inclusive language debate is still a debate. While there should never be an vertical inclusive language, which the NRSV does not do, it seems that the Vatican is open to some horizontal inclusive language. Why else would the NAB be used in the US and now the NRSV in Canada.
4. I am not someone who is selling the NRSV to people. I just think that it has some good qualities. I don’t use it for my primary bible, but will refer to it in study. Right now I am going to be using the 1990 NAB as my primary Bible.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Why is there so many approved for liturgy in various countries??? Why can’t the Vatican approve 1 translation for all nations according to the translation and language that they speak?? I still say that the Douay-Rheims should be the standard in the U.S. I read the Jerusalem Bible from time to time, it just seem every other translation has been lackluster. Why do we even need another translation. Some of the stuff approved after Vatican II is just down right ridiculous. Not to knock a translation or boost a translation I just think some things should have not changed after Vatican II. It seems that that Vatican II was for the worse and the better.

 

[Poor_Clare_tobe]

Poor Clare and McCorn:

How can a “Local Bishop” give an “Imprimatur” to a Translation of the Sacred Scriptures which has been rejected by the Vatican for both Liturgical and Catechetical Use??

And, Why would you want to recommend that Translation to someone who is just starting to read and study the Scriptures and learn the essentials of the faith??

I know the “Best Translation of the Bible” is the one someone is going to read and study, but don’t the people who ask us for our advice deserve the best advice we can give?
[Excuse me Michael but I "was giving the best advice I could give… as stated before I personally use the New American Bible and Jerusalem. As also stated I explained that one ought to look for Catholic translations with the Imprimanter. My other point was that once one finds those editions and compares the translations for the use one is making of it [ie bible study, prayer , etc ] then then next most important thing was to actually purchase a translation which one will read and use. I think that perhaps you missed my earlier posts?]
Blessings of Peace and Good
Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Poor_Clare_tobe]

Sorry my puter went down mid answer… I did not mean to sound harsh in the above answer, my point was that all of us were trying to give the best answers we could based on the questions raised.
The other piece of advice I had included in one of my previous answers was to talk to their priest or confessors.
As I said most of my clerical friends both priests and nuns use either the NAB or Jerusalem unless doing serious scripture study then yes they compare different translations.

Poor_Clare_tobe:

 

[jblake]

Traditional Ang;:

The second best to be the Jerusalem Bible Study Edition (you’ll have to get a used book from Amazon or some used book service)

The Biblical text of the Reader’s Edition and the other editions is the same. However, the footnotes and other study aids are not the same.

If you want the text only, The Reader’s Edition is fine. If you expect to do any in depth study, the other editions of The Jerusalem Bible are much better. Unfortunately, none of the other editions have been printed in the last twenty odd years.
A point that nobody else has made.
Make sure that the typeface is both clear, and large enough for you to easily read it.

xan

jonathon

 

[RedSoxFan]

I personally love both the RSV-CE and the JB. I love the JB a bit more and really wish they would make a new printing of the original. As for the RSV-CE as many said it might be the more scholarly of the two. Look to the Navarre Bible which is basically the RSV-CE with ton of notes if you want to get really in depth answers.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

McCorm:

I just took a look at the link you gave, and this concerns me:*“That this has come is obviously a positive thing, not just for women but for all people,” said feminist theologian Doris Keiser, a lecturer in theology at the University of Alberta’s St. Joseph’s College. “When we’re moving forward in the world and allowing our understanding to open up, everyone benefits.”
*http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1024/849/

That means something else besides teaching the Faith and transmitting the Gospel is the priority to this “Feminist Theologian” - Could that be the Ordination of “Women Priests” which the POPE has already said CAN’T BE DONE?!?!

Michael,

Here are my brief points:

1. Last time I checked the NRSV was just approved for liturgy up in Canada. catholicregister.org/content/view/1024/849/

The NRSV also is used in the Catechism, along with the RSV.

Even the article you cited stated:
Canadians have been reading the NRSV at Mass since 1992, when the first edition of the new Sunday Lectionary was published with approval from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The Canadian NRSV lectionary for weekdays was published in 1994. It was only then that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith objected to NRSV translations. The NRSV uses inclusive language, referring to both men and women, when the text refers to people. References to God in the NRSV use the pronoun “He.”
There’s a reason behind the original Vatican dismissal. Unless the Scriptures in the Canadian Lectionary were reworked so the worst of the Inclusive Language was removed, I still have to go with the original verdict of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Although the NRSV is cited in the Title Page of the CCC along with the RSV, except for the Scriptural citations where “you” seems to be substituted for the archaic, “Thee”, “Thou”, “Thy” and “Thine”, I can’t see any place where the NRSV was used. And, In those places, we’d probably use the Ignatius Bible now (the 2nd Catholic Edition hadn’t been published yet). And, I’ve seen no cases where the Inclusive Language was accepted when the RSV or Vulgate was available.

1. I trust the Bishops

I trust the Pope and those Bishops who are acting in concert with him. I’m sorry, but I’ve seen my Archdiocesan try to arrest people merely for wearing T-shirts which said, “You can’t be Catholic and Pro-Choice,” while he was hosting the “Pro-Choice” Mayor of my city in the Cathedral, and I’ve seen another local Bishop try to force faithful Catholics out because they refused to receive the Lord standing up, and refused to stand during the Agnus Dei.

As one Poster said, The Imprimatur is only a guarantee that something is free from Doctrinal error, and sometimes that isn’t as much of a guarantee as it should be.

1. The inclusive language debate is still a debate. While there should never be an vertical inclusive language, which the NRSV does not do, it seems that the Vatican is open to some horizontal inclusive language. Why else would the NAB be used in the US and now the NRSV in Canada.

I didn’t know there was any debate about placing any agenda in any translation of the Scriptures except for accurately translating what the authors wrote and accurately communicating the “Faith Received from the Apostles”. As inclusive language does neither, I fail to see any reason for it.

The NAB originally didn’t have Inclusive Language when it was included in the liturgy in the late 1960’s, and the Vatican has required the publisher of the Lectionary to rework the readings from the Revised Edition so they will not have as much of the “Inclusive Language” as the Revised NAB contains. I imagine the Vatican required the same of the Canadian Council of Bishops.

You also have to remember the Vatican is not a Monolith, and that the one whose decisions matter is the Pope and that he’s primarily delegated Doctrinal Decisions to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith…

Oh, and the Publisher of the NAB is the USCCB

1. I am not someone who is selling the NRSV to people. I just think that it has some good qualities. I don’t use it for my primary bible, but will refer to it in study. Right now I am going to be using the 1990 NAB as my primary Bible.

McCorn, I’m not saying that you are selling it… But, we were asked for our advice as to a good study and devotional Bible. In good conscience, I can’t recommend the NRSV (I have owned one and gave it away). In good conscience, I can recommend the NAB because the Inclusive Language isn’t nearly as bad as the NRSV - It’s just that the NAB is not as good a “reader” as the Ignatius Bible or the Jerusalem Bible.

With so many resources and commentaries available, and some available for free here at Catholic Answers (you just have to study the books in the same order as the studies here) and elsewhere (**St. Paul Center for Biblical Instruction **- see link below) the need for “authoritative notes” isn’t as great:
salvationhistory.com/

If you still need “Dead Tree” Editions:
Jerusalem Bible Study Edition - Used Copies still available and Great Notes
**Orthodox Bible **- Newly Published, Great Notes and available with a discount from Amazon.com
New Oxford Annotated Bible w/ Apocrypha (RSV) - Same notes as yours, NO Inclusive Language.
English Standard Version with Apocrypha - my father used to have one and I’ve used it for some of the OT Readings at St. Mary’s.
Archeological Study Bible: An Illustrated Walk though History and Culture (NIV) “Sawed-off Bible” with excellent notes.

I believe all of these are superior to the NRSV. I simply see no reason giving hard earned money to people who have an agenda other than Teaching the Faith or Promoting the Gospel.

As I said, I trust the Holy Father on this.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I personally love both the RSV-CE and the JB. I love the JB a bit more and really wish they would make a new printing of the original. As for the RSV-CE as many said it might be the more scholarly of the two. Look to the Navarre Bible which is basically the RSV-CE with ton of notes if you want to get really in depth answers.

RedSoxFan:

Thanks for the suggestion of the NAVARRE BIBLE. It definitely looks to be a full commentary with the Text of the Sacred Scriptures, and it was started by St. Josemaria Escriva. It looks to be even more in depth than the Ignatius Bible Commentary series, & I have most of the books they’ve published so far.

How does one get a FULL NAVARRE BIBLE?

I agree with you about the Jerusalem Bible. Doubleday did a Reprint of the Readers’ Edition but the quality was that of a bad photocopy. I ended up giving mine away and buying the used Study Edition I use now. What shocked me was that the 40 year old study edition with smaller typeface proved to be much easier to read than the brand new Readers’ Ed. I had bought just a few months ago. The Readers’ Edition left as fast as I could find a recipient.

Message to Doubleday - If you decide to reprint the JB, please make sure the print quality is as good as the original. Anything else would not only be an insult to the buyer, but would be unworthy of someone who claims to be a “World Class Publisher”. Oh, And that’s what you did with the Readers’ Edition…

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[terryobrien80]

I see the RSV-CE is still ni the lead in the poll. Thats good.

 

[Mattjolley]

RedSoxFan:

Thanks for the suggestion of the NAVARRE BIBLE. It definitely looks to be a full commentary with the Text of the Sacred Scriptures, and it was started by St. Josemaria Escriva. It looks to be even more in depth than the Ignatius Bible Commentary series, & I have most of the books they’ve published so far.

How does one get a FULL NAVARRE BIBLE?

I agree with you about the Jerusalem Bible. Doubleday did a Reprint of the Readers’ Edition but the quality was that of a bad photocopy. I ended up giving mine away and buying the used Study Edition I use now. What shocked me was that the 40 year old study edition with smaller typeface proved to be much easier to read than the brand new Readers’ Ed. I had bought just a few months ago. The Readers’ Edition left as fast as I could find a recipient.

Message to Doubleday - If you decide to reprint the JB, please make sure the print quality is as good as the original. Anything else would not only be an insult to the buyer, but would be unworthy of someone who claims to be a “World Class Publisher”. Oh, And that’s what you did with the Readers’ Edition…

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

You may want to take a look at the thread entitled ‘CTS New Catholic Bible’; it’s a reprint of the JB with corrections ordered by the Pope (E.G. ‘Lord’ rather than ‘Yahweh’, as every new Bible will have) and has the ‘Grail Psalms’ rather than the JB originals, so it matches the UK Lectionary. It’s a brand new publication so you can be assured of its quality as far as printing goes, and it has brand new notes aswell. Check it out if you like, the thread should be a few down from here

Matt

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I use the Ignatius Bible-RSV CE. Wish there were more footnotes though.

Sarah:

I agree with you on both points. Have you tried the Ignatius Bible “Study Guides”? They’re quite good - They use the Ignatius Bible as the Text, providing extensive notes, cross-references and commentaries. I’ve found them to be “not cheap”, but quite useful.

Yours in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Sorry my puter went down mid answer… I did not mean to sound harsh in the above answer, my point was that all of us were trying to give the best answers we could based on the questions raised.
The other piece of advice I had included in one of my previous answers was to talk to their priest or confessors.
As I said most of my clerical friends both priests and nuns use either the NAB or Jerusalem unless doing serious scripture study then yes they compare different translations.

Poor Claire - Soon to be:

Sorry about your P/C - That’s always a pain in the “You know What” when it goes down. Mine has acquired some nasty habits of its own now that it’s 4 years old - Couple that with the 12 year old orange male cat who always needs attention…

I think the OP was asking what versions we use ourselves and which ones we avoid and would advise others to avoid - It’s sounds as if you live in a community, so your community’s experience would actually be far more valuable than the advice you gave. That was definitely true for the short time I lived in a Christian Community in the early 1980’s.

My father taught me to use 3 or more different translations for everything but casual or devotional reading. I tried to go against that when I came back and that’s when I got the New Oxford NRSV. The first thing I did was get a cheap Daily Bible RSV-CE (That’s what I could afford), dug out the sawed-off pocket edition NIV someone had given me 15 years ago and bookmarked every translation I could on the WEB.

As soon as I could afford to, I started buying translations and got rid of the NRSV. Please understand, I had a New Oxford RSV, aa original NAB and a couple of “sawed-off Bibles” as a teenager and had lost them during the 1980’s along with all of my father’s translations that went to my stepmother after he died.

My favorite Priests use the Ignatius Bible (one’s the Publisher), The New Oxford (RSV w/ Apocrypha) the JB, the NAB and the ESV w/ Apocrypha. And, One is trying to assist on the translation of the International Standard Version.

I’m sorry, but I need to go - I’m sorry if I was too sharp with you or if was too hasty and misjudged you.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

PS: Have you seen this?
Catholic Truth Society - CTS NEW CATHOLIC BIBLE
cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/info_SC101.html
I think those in your community who use the JB might be interested…

 

[RedSoxFan]

I noticed that one person asked where you can find Navarre Bibles. Any good catholic bookstore should have a good deal of it in hardback. I would also check out online and suggest trying to buy the complete set for a discount.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Confraternity New Testament is being sold brand new today.

I challenge anybody who lauds the other translations mentioned in this thread to explain how they are superior to it.

I also challenge anyone who extols the RSV-CE and its translation choices to show how they are superior in Catholic Doctrine to the Vulgate.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

The Confraternity New Testament is being sold brand new today.

I challenge anybody who lauds the other translations mentioned in this thread to explain how they are superior to it.

I also challenge anyone who extols the RSV-CE and its translation choices to show how they are superior in Catholic Doctrine to the Vulgate.

Jerry:

If I remember correctly, Divine Afflante Espiritu said that those of use who don’t speak, read and write the original languages the Sacred Scriptures were written in and didn’t have access to the original texts should use the most reasonable translations from the original languages we can find.

According to that, if Latin were my first or second language, the Vulgate would be an excellent choice. The problem is that I don’t speak, read or write Latin and the only Latin I know is that which is needed to do some of the parts of the Mass in Latin. At that point, reading a translation of the Vulgate has me reading a “translation of a translation”. Jerome was a Saint, but he was not perfect, and whoever is translating him can’t be perfect - That’s 2 sources of error vs. one.

The RSV-2nd Catholic Edition is being published by someone I know personally and has been endorsed as the most accurate and understandable translation by many of the priests and commentators on EWTN. I don’t think I can go very far wrong following their advice. I do use a Greek-English Interlinear, and the RSV- 2nd Catholic Ed. is close to the original Greek texts.

The Jerusalem Bible incorporates the Alexandrinus (or Western) Text in many places, and doesn’t do the questioning of whether a text is a “gloss” that many modern versions do. In the OT, the JB often does a better job of conveying Hebrew Poetry and how God probably felt than many other translations and included scriptures the Jewish Scribes probably revised out in the Masoretic Text. I also like that whoever wrote in that the notes in the NT used the Patristic (Early) Dating for most of the Books of the NT unlike many Modern Translations who tend to use the later (Scholarly) Dating.

I have and read the NAB, but I’m not qualified to comment on it, esp. in its present form. I preferred the older non-feminized edition.

My father owned and occasionally used the Confraternity Bible until the RSV w/ Apocrypha, JB, NEB w/ Apocrypha and NAB were published, But I think it was mainly because of the lack of decent translations of the “Apocrypha”. As he acquired those others, the Confraternity Translation got less and less use.

I’m no fan of the NEB, but the others all seem to be better…

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[ElizabethPH]

The Confraternity New Testament is being sold brand new today.

I challenge anybody who lauds the other translations mentioned in this thread to explain how they are superior to it.

I also challenge anyone who extols the RSV-CE and its translation choices to show how they are superior in Catholic Doctrine to the Vulgate.

I found an old copy of the St Joseph Confraternity Version with Confraternity-Douay OT and the Confraternity NT. I really like it and find myself using it the most.

 

[mccorm45]

Jerry:

If I remember correctly, Divine Afflante Espiritu said that those of use who don’t speak, read and write the original languages the Sacred Scriptures were written in and didn’t have access to the original texts should use the most reasonable translations from the original languages we can find.

According to that, if Latin were my first or second language, the Vulgate would be an excellent choice. The problem is that I don’t speak, read or write Latin and the only Latin I know is that which is needed to do some of the parts of the Mass in Latin. At that point, reading a translation of the Vulgate has me reading a “translation of a translation”. Jerome was a Saint, but he was not perfect, and whoever is translating him can’t be perfect - That’s 2 sources of error vs. one.

The RSV-2nd Catholic Edition is being published by someone I know personally and has been endorsed as the most accurate and understandable translation by many of the priests and commentators on EWTN. I don’t think I can go very far wrong following their advice. I do use a Greek-English Interlinear, and the RSV- 2nd Catholic Ed. is close to the original Greek texts.

The Jerusalem Bible incorporates the Alexandrinus (or Western) Text in many places, and doesn’t do the questioning of whether a text is a “gloss” that many modern versions do. In the OT, the JB often does a better job of conveying Hebrew Poetry and how God probably felt than many other translations and included scriptures the Jewish Scribes probably revised out in the Masoretic Text. I also like that whoever wrote in that the notes in the NT used the Patristic (Early) Dating for most of the Books of the NT unlike many Modern Translations who tend to use the later (Scholarly) Dating.

I have and read the NAB, but I’m not qualified to comment on it, esp. in its present form. I preferred the older non-feminized edition.

My father owned and occasionally used the Confraternity Bible until the RSV w/ Apocrypha, JB, NEB w/ Apocrypha and NAB were published, But I think it was mainly because of the lack of decent translations of the “Apocrypha”. As he acquired those others, the Confraternity Translation got less and less use.

I’m no fan of the NEB, but the others all seem to be better…

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Well stated! I agree with your analysis here Michael. Having a Greek-English Interlinear is a wonderful thing, and I too am glad to be able to use it in study. Like you said the RSV matches up really well to the Greek. It certainly is the most literal edition for us Catholics to use. (Although it will be interesting to analyze it in relation to the ESV w/apocrypha which Oxford is publishing in early 2009.)

Jerry-Jet: Why don’t you prove how the Confreternity is better? Again, however, should we not focus on accuracy of what the text actually says as oppose to theological doctrine? I have not seen any book published in English by authors like Pope Benedict (or as Cardinal Ratzinger), Scott Hahn, or others that use the Confraternity edition as its translation of choice. The Catechism, which is a collection Catholic doctrine in a sense, doesn’t even use it.

Like I have said in early posts, if you like the Douay-Rheims or Confraternity versions I think that is great. Enjoy them…use them! But I think it is a bit overstated to come on these forums and suggest that those are clearly and far and away the best translations available. That simply is not true and does not seem to match up with what the Church has been practicing since Divine Afflante Espiritu.