Which Bible to read

  • Thread starter Thread starter nicholasG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Diaconia said:
The RSVCE 2nd edition ; as presented in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, is what I recommend to others. Accurate, modern English, voluminous study notes that reflect modern Scripture scholarship.
Click to expand...
That’s my favorite for commentary. Can’t wait for the Old Testament to be released later this year or next year.

For the flow and ease of reading I like the NABRE. Maybe because it’s the one I started with and am most familiar with.

I still want to get the Didache Bible for the Catechism commentary.
 
I have three translations that I juggle. Most people don’t realize this, but the RSV-CE is simply a revised version of the King James Bible (says so in the introduction!). But I do use it as it’s a very good translation. I also read the NAB-RE because that’s the translation most of us are used to hearing at the Mass. But my all-time personal favorite is the Jerusalem Bible (to be distinguished from the New Jerusalem Bible). The Jerusalem Bible flows in beautiful English and is very accurate. Whenever I hear Bible scholars like Brant Pitre or Scott Hahn correcting the English of the RSV-CE, I look up the passage in the Jerusalem Bible and, sure enough, that’s exactly how it’s translated there.

Interesting side-note: Fulton Sheen’s favorite Bible translation was the New English Bible (which I don’t think exists in a Catholic edition), and his favorite Bible commentary is William Barclay’s commentary (also not Catholic).
 
Wasn’t the Jerusalem Bible Mother Angelica’s favorite? At least I think it was.
 
It was, yes. I believe it’s also the one Bishop Barron frequently refers to (at least, I’ve seen videos with him holding/reading from a copy of it).

I kind of stumbled across it by accident when I was reading a book by Mother Angelica.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I have three translations that I juggle. Most people don’t realize this, but the RSV-CE is simply a revised version of the King James Bible (says so in the introduction!).
Click to expand...
That’s actually a major reason I like it. The RSV is in the King James tradition. Its descent is this:

KJV–>English Revised Version–>American Standard Version–>Revised Standard Version.

Offshoots are the New American Standard Bible translated independently by those who did not like the perceived liberal “bias” of the RSV. The ESV is something similar in parallel with the NRSV.
 
Nice! Thanks for that. I didn’t realize the full lineage of the RSV.
 
It is also the reason the RSV is the approved Lectionary translation for the Ordinariates for former Anglicans. Its language is the closest to the English used at their Masses, which is also in the King James/Book of Common Prayer tradition.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
No portion of the Bible was originally written in Latin.
Click to expand...
Again… It don’t matter… 🙂
The Witnessed Events preceded any Written accounts;
the original of most of them in whatever vernaculae - are non-existent
For those who Worship God in Spirit - God is our Guide to Interpretation…
 
Do you find the Douay-Rheims harder to read than the KJV? In many parts I find they are almost the same text and they’re from the same period (although D-R was first to press).
 
It’s a big reason why I’m iffy on it, even though I do read it. I don’t understand why the Catholic Church is using a Protestant Bible as a basis for its own bibles.
 
I do find the DR slightly harder too read then the kjv , I also have herd the DR has many errors …just to be clear im using the chanoller edition… i still enjoy it though
 
If all one seems to see or speak about it potential ‘errors’
is it any wonder why Faith Itself might not come one’s Way?
 
My favorite too is The Jerusalem Bible: I still use copies I purchased in the early 1980s. It is the translation used in the Lectionary in England and Australia. I have a three-volume study edition of the Australian lectionary.

The Old Testament of the New English Bible, published in 1970, included what the editors called Apocrypha, meaning the deuterocanonical books: I don’t know if that’s what you mean by a Catholic edition.
 
ELCore said:
The Old Testament of the New English Bible , published in 1970, included what the editors called Apocrypha, meaning the deuterocanonical books: I don’t know if that’s what you mean by a Catholic edition.
Click to expand...
Yes. The “apocrypha” are the Catholic books.
 
I have reasons for not trusting Amazon, and only use it sparingly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top