Which Bible Translation is your Favorite?

[porthos11]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

Look at Isaiah 14:12. “Lucifer” has been replaced by one of the names of Jesus, “Day Star,” “Son of the Dawn,” Morning Star."

Any takers on what the available Hebrew texts read here?

The Hebrew rendered “Lucifer” in the KJV is ‘helel’, lit. “daystar”, most likely referring to what we now know as the planet Venus, which rises in the morning. “Lucifer” is Latin for light-bearer and in the Vulgate, does not appear as a proper noun, rather, a common one. It appeared carried over to the KJV by the translators who referred to the Vulgate during the translation process.

The immediate meaning and fulfilment of this prophecy is the fall of the king of Babylon, either Nebuchadnezzar II or the Empire in general. So in the original context and translations, this does not immediately refer to the fall of Satan.

This does not mean we cannot apply Christian concepts: we see in the Babylonian exile a representation of our own exile, brought about by Satan.

But overall, the rendering of Morning Star, Daystar, etc. for “helel” should not alarm anyone into thinking that modern Bibles equate Jesus with Satan.

 

[mtr01]

Erich:

But, I was surprised to find that whole entire psalms are numbered differently in the Douay-Rhiems and the NAB! In particular, Ps. 25 in my NAB showed up as Ps. 24 in my DRV (the two translations got “out of sync” around Ps. 9-10, and seemed to alternate between “out of sync” and “in sync” the rest of the time).

What other discrepancies are there between the Douay-Rhiems and other translations that it would be helpful to know about?

The first discrepancy in the Psalms starts at Palm 10/11. Using my RSV-CE (which I have handy) these Psalms are numbered seperately. If I can recall from memory, my Haydock Douay-Rheims has 10/11 as one Psalm (but it comments where Psalm 11 begins “according to the Hebrews”). Thus the Douay is “one-behind” here. The next discrepancy is at Psalm 115/116 (using the RSV-CE). The Douay has the same psalm as 115, except that it includes part of what is listed in the RSV-CE as Psalm 116 in Psalm 115. The remainder (beginning) of Psalm 116 is then listed as Psalm 114 in the Douay, which is now still “one-behind” in numbering. They finally catch up at Psalm 147 in the RSV-CE, which comprises both Psalm 146 & 147 in the Douay. Thus both total 150 in their Psalters.

From what I understand, the Douay (hence the Vulgate) is based on the Septuagint/Greek Psalter, whereas the newer translations such as the RSV-CE and NAB are based on the Hebrew Psalter, which is the source of the discrepancy.

Reading back, I see that my first paragraph is somewhat confusing, so I’ll rephrase in a table-type format:

…Douay (Septuagint)…NAB, RSV-CE (Hebrew)

Psalm…10…10&11
Psalm …115…115
Psalm…114 & 115…116
Psalm…146 & 147…147

As for other differences, I really haven’t done any kind of in-depth investigation into the matter.

Hope this helps, though!

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

porthos11:

The Hebrew rendered “Lucifer” in the KJV is ‘helel’, lit. “daystar”, most likely referring to what we now know as the planet Venus, which rises in the morning. “Lucifer” is Latin for light-bearer and in the Vulgate, does not appear as a proper noun, rather, a common one. It appeared carried over to the KJV by the translators who referred to the Vulgate during the translation process.)

It must have carried over the same way in the Douay-Rheims.

Don’t let the KJV disciples hear you saying that the “corrupted” Latin Vulgate had anything to do with their venerable bible. Actually I’ve read that the Douay-Rheims New Testament was also used in developing the KJV New Testament, something they vehemently refute.

I recently purchased my Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible, it is beautifully made with clear text, much easier to read than I thought. It could very well become my bible of choice.

For all those knocking the NRSV, at least it includes most of the other known variations to it’s text at the bottom of each page for comparative study. Just check out Genesis 1:1.

 

[Lamb100]

I’m enjoying this discussion–I just placed an order for that Community Bible someone mentioned, that’s used in missionary work–I looked at the website and it looks really good–readable print, too!

Does anyone know where I can get a Confraternity Bible? Also, that Oxford edition of the RSV?–amazon says it’s out of print.

I’m a convert (lifelong Presbyterian and sometime-Lutheran)–God brought me to the Catholic faith via wonderful Baptist Bible studies–and straight to the Eucharist. I never knew this existed, so you can imagine how I feel; I’m very sensitive about protecting this pearl of great price, and the notes in the NAB really hurt a lot. Let me explain. I, too, have kept these Bibles (St. Joseph edition and the Catholic Youth Bible) because the notes are in many ways so excellent. However, there are so many problems with them, and I don’t know enough about the Faith to distinguish what’s approved by the Magisterium and what isn’t. Many of the problem notes are very subtle, so Catholics who aren’t well formed in their faith are in great danger. I know–many others like me from mainline Protestant denominations have gradually lost their faith–I’ve seen it in my lifetime, and I largely blame modern Biblical scholarship, or at least the way it’s been taught.

Anyway–here’s the part that bothers me the most. Check out the footnotes in the NAB for John 6. Having been Protestant, I always viewed Communion as symbolic–never occurred to me that anyone really believed it was literal in this day and age. As a Protestant, I always had read that Bread of Life discourse as the Jews being upset because Jesus having claimed to be God. Well, the footnotes say two sections need to be reversed–that the part where his followers say that this is a difficult saying needs to be put right after verse 50, I believe. The notes say this addressed the Johannine community’s concerns about high Christology; i.e., Jesus claiming to be God. But if you didn’t grow up Protestant, or don’t know what “high Christology” means, this sort of subtle influence is so dangerous. In my opinion, these notes are supporting the Protestant doctrines about the Eucharist! This is so outrageous–I’m really upset about it.

Does anyone else see this the way I do, or am I just nuts? Really, this past year, when I say stuff like this to cradle Catholics, they look at me like I’ve grown two heads. I haven’t yet mentioned this problem, but there’s a similar difficulty with John 6:53, I believe in the Amplified Bible–otherwise an excellent research tool. But it’s a Protestant Bible, so I’m not upset that it has Protestant bias. What bothered me was that the group (cradle Catholics) I shared this with didn’t see it at all. So this really makes me concerned when stuff like this infects Catholic Bible notes, because people are not going to be aware that there’s a problem.

Oh, and good news on the Bible front–there is an NAB without the annoying footnotes–it’s the Catholic Serendipity Bible! But mine’s hardcover and a little hard to carry around. However, for old folks like me, it’s got nice, large print.

Blessings in Christ,
Donna

 

[Catholic_Heart]

******I have lots of Bibles, and have to say that I like the RSV-CE best. Has anyone tried the Navare Bible? It has wonderful notes…Very Cathoilc…Each “book” is presented in the New Vulgate Latin as well as the RSV. The notes are phenomenal. **

---

The NAB does have good notes, but the translation does leave something to be desired. However, I do use this translation when working with the RCIA, because that is what they hear at Mass, and it is the translation they are given.

---

Catholic Heart

 

[BayCityRickL]

agname:

I also recommend for people to invest in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary…if you don’t have it already.

I recommend that nobody waste their time and money on the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, unless you like modernist, skeptical, revisionist, nothing-is-sacred Bible commentary. Don’t be misled by the imprimatur and nihil obstat.

The late Fr. Raymond E. Brown who wrote or edited much of the NJBC says that the ‘new’ edition threw out most of what was in the original commentary, and that if there is another edition sometime in the future, much of what was written there would similarly be thrown out.

So, I suggest you cut to the chase scene – buy it and throw it out immediately.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Let’s get serious. How about a large print, study edition, with an accompanying exhaustive concordance?

 

[Tallow]

Lamb100:

Does anyone know where I can get a Confraternity Bible? Also, that Oxford edition of the RSV?–amazon says it’s out of print.

Out of print books can be found at a variety of places. I’ve had terrrifc luck at R. Phillips Book Co.–now apparently moved to Catholic Authors.com. Also, Abebooks.com taps into hundreds of used book dealers all over the place. I did a quick check at the latter and found used copies of what you mentioned.

That Confraternity version is my own favorite. Its rendering of Matthew 6 is unsurpassed. The most beautiful passage in the English language.

 

[chrisb]

Peace be with you all,

I am looking for a good “strong” Catholic Study Bible that presents Catholic “proof-texts” for as many Catholic Doctrines as possible.

In a way, I think it is a shame that we are forced to prove such teaching from text that was never intended to cover all things under our faith but I think it is necessary that we are able to defend Catholic Doctrine and Dogma with Scripture for our Protestant Brothers and Sisters.

Peace.

 

[romano]

[snip]
… Regarding translations, that reminds me a story a orthodox(faithful) diocesan priest told five months ago a certain parish here in Manhattan New York City , during his Sunday Homily. He said he was traveling to Europe on a flight, and next to him sat a fundamentalist protestant minister. Well, when the minister realized he was sitting next to a Catholic Priest, the minister took hold of the moment to “teach” Father about the Bible, because well, catholics (according to many protestants don’t know anything, they don’t know God nor the Bible. Sounds as if they imitate the gnostics, only THEY know) are ignorant. Well, the minister began to preach to Father from a passage of one of Paul’s (notice they don’t ever say Saint so and so, or SAINT Paul) letters. When the minister finished Father asked him if he has ever read that SAME passage in its ORIGINAL language, the minister shouted: “if ENGLISH was good enough for Paul, it is good enough for me.”

Beautiful!

 

[romano]

[snip]
I recommend that nobody waste their time and money on the New Jerome Biblical Commentary…

I’ve read many negative comments about the Jerome, both at this site and elsewhere. The commentary I finally plumped for was ‘A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture’ (Nelson, 1953) edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, et al. It’s a huge quarto volume of 1300 pages and not easy to find but it’s proved an excellent resource. That, along with the superb notes in the Navarre Bible, will usually solve any difficulties I have.

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

Tallow:

Lamb100:

Does anyone know where I can get a Confraternity Bible? Also, that Oxford edition of the RSV?–amazon says it’s out of print.

Out of print books can be found at a variety of places. I’ve had terrrifc luck at R. Phillips Book Co.–now apparently moved to Catholic Authors.com. Also, Abebooks.com taps into hundreds of used book dealers all over the place. I did a quick check at the latter and found used copies of what you mentioned.

That Confraternity version is my own favorite. Its rendering of Matthew 6 is unsurpassed. The most beautiful passage in the English language.

I knew I had stumbled onto something when I found a Confraternity St. Joseph’s Textbook Edition at a gift/consignment shop while honeymooning in Jim Thorpe, PA a year and a half ago. The owner of this bible must have understood it’s value because I couldn’t get the price down, not even a penny!

When I first picked it up I just thought it was an old NAB. But then my heart began race and my hands began to tremble. This bible was well read by someone who was now deceased, a Catholic who read their bible. My new wife couldn’t figure out why I was so excited.

It was this bible that helped lead me “home” to the Douay-Rheims-Challoner bible that I’m now reading.

I just put one of my KJV bibles into a low access book case with a rosary pamphlet and a note warning potential readers about the study guide and foot notes within it.

 

[space_ghost]

I must admit to using the New American Bible as this appears as the authorized one in use as exhibited by the readings at Mass. Previously, I had utilized a New Jerusalem

ok, i here you

Bible and an older Douay Reims Bible and prior to my return home, a King James and New Oxford. What will be my next purchase is up in the air now but I must admit that someone’s suggestion about

ok, i here you

Scripture Matters by Hahn is certainly intriguing me prior to buying another translation. He seems to turn on the light bulb more than other writers. After reading some of his works and listening to him on EWTN, I find myself thinking why didn’t I see this before.

ok, i here you

 

[JLove]

My favourite is the Vulgate. You just can’t go wrong with Latin.

 

[porthos11]

JLove:

My favourite is the Vulgate. You just can’t go wrong with Latin.

Heh heh. Yes you can

Anyway, I’m happy to see this thread still open. I posted earlier that I like the Jerusalem Bible, and I still do, but I’m now more biased to the RSV-CE. The Jerusalem Bible, while easy to read renders quite a lot of familiar passages strangely, although correctly.

I’m thinking of ordering the Scepter leather-bound RSV-CE. Can anyone tell me about it, vis-a-vis the Ignatius? I know contents are the same but how about durability and workmanship?

 

[JLove]

porthos11:

I’m thinking of ordering the Scepter leather-bound RSV-CE. Can anyone tell me about it, vis-a-vis the Ignatius? I know contents are the same but how about durability and workmanship?

I bought one of those about two and one-half years ago (I’m pretty sure that was it. It was blue). It was a gift for my girl-friend and so far it has lasted quite well. Give it a try.

 

[JLove]

porthos11:

Heh heh. Yes you can

No, I’m sorry, you can’t.

Check out this site: 105live.vaticanradio.org/en_latin.html

 

[romano]

JLove:

My favourite is the Vulgate. You just can’t go wrong with Latin.

Have you ever run into a bilingual edition of the Vulgate with Latin and English on facing pages? There are Latin-English editions of the Psalms, and I’ve seen Latin-German and Latin-Spanish editions of the whole Vulgate, but never a Latin-English.

 

[JLove]

romano:

Have you ever run into a bilingual edition of the Vulgate with Latin and English on facing pages? There are Latin-English editions of the Psalms, and I’ve seen Latin-German and Latin-Spanish editions of the whole Vulgate, but never a Latin-English.

I can’t think of one off hand, but the Navarre Bible series has both the Latin Vulgate and English. (At least the NT. I don’t have the OT so I can’t say.)

I don’t know if your looking for an actual text, but this site may be of interest. latinvulgate.com/

 

[Mark_Blackburn]

The very best translation of the Bible (as I joked in my Amazon.com review of Henri Nouwen’s “Bread for the Journey”) is the one you actually pick up and read every day.

Henri’s own favorite, by the way, is the one used everywhere in the English speaking world OTHER than in U.S. Catholic Churches (the NAB) and in Canadian Catholic churches – which use the wretched (the worst to proclaim aloud – the syntax is dreadful) “New Revised Standard Version.”

I like them all actually – I’m partial to the Ronald Knox translation for its readability (the same virtue I singled out at Amazon.com for his unsurpassed translation of “The Imitation of Christ” — it simply “flows” better than most, when you read it aloud which is the real test of a good translation, isn’t it.

My favorite to pick up and read from every day is an old huge paperback which combines eight translations on two facing pages. Get one of those and compare, easily and every time, the eight selected translations — its ease of use is such a joy!

I usually find there isn’t a pinch of difference worth discussing. I have 31 translations (of the 53 English translations of which I am aware) under my own roof. And only one of them adds words our Lord didn’t say to the end of the (longer) Lord’s Prayer in Matthew (Luke’s version omits three elements of the prayer). “For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever, Amen” is a doxology (from the liturgy) found only in the ‘King James.’

That said; having been raised an Anglican, I can only recite wonderful passages like the 23rd Psalm in the lordly English of 16th Century England. Modern translations may be more accurate, but not nearly so musically poetic – wouldn’t you agree?

Thanks for this interesting thread! Good to read the opinions of others!

Mark B.
Winnipeg