Which Catholic Bible is most accurate?

[Dave_Noonan]

He wanted to do so…

Please cite your source.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes we are. I have had too many people tell me about the errors in the D-R, but no facts have been presented :crying:

Just set a DR and, say, an RSV side by side and the differences will start popping out immediately. Here’s a fun one:

Gen 2:8 (DR) And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed.

Gen 2:8 (NRSV) And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Looking at the Hebrew text, גן can’t be “paradise”; it’s really only a garden. “Eden” is perhaps related linguistically to the Semitic root for pleasure but “paradise of pleasure” is a huge stretch. Should be “in the East” versus “from the beginning,” should be “the man” versus just “man.”

Just go verse by verse. Huge differences.

 

[ProVobis]

Just go verse by verse. Huge differences.

Yes, but they have to be to avoid copyright infringement, no? Tough to come up with new translations current with the English language, I would say.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes, but they have to be to avoid copyright infringement, no? Tough to come up with new translations current with the English language, I would say.

Seems dangerous to just make stuff up to avoid copyright infringement, at least where the Bible is concerned. Who would be afraid of infringing on whom?

 

[ProVobis]

Seems dangerous to just make stuff up to avoid copyright infringement, at least where the Bible is concerned. Who would be afraid of infringing on whom?

Yes, but are they really making stuff up or just wording the same thing differently? One could easily find similarities in the translations as differences in many cases. Remember translation is an art, not a science of 1-1 mappings between an original and modern language. Scholars don’t always agree with one another.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes, but are they really making stuff up or just wording the same thing differently? One could easily find similarities in the translations as differences in many cases. Remember translation is an art, not a science of 1-1 mappings between an original and modern language. Scholars don’t always agree with one another.

I guess then it’s up to the reader to decide whether “garden” and “paradise” are basically the same thing and whether “from the beginning” and “in the East” are close enough to not matter. I personally see these as errors or, at a minimum, huge stretches. You don’t have to agree though.

 

[ProVobis]

I guess then it’s up to the reader to decide whether “garden” and “paradise” are basically the same thing and whether “from the beginning” and “in the East” are close enough to not matter. I personally see these as errors or, at a minimum, huge stretches.

In that sense, you have a point.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

So I pose the question-which Catholic Bible is most accurate?
And why do you believe that?

I read the Duay (Douay?)-Reims myself.

The following articles provide some insight into the problems of translation:

The Languages of Biblical Translation

Our Babel of Bibles - 1

Our Babel of Bibles - 2

My least favorite is the NAB, which texts required amendment in order to be used in the Missal, and whose only reason for existence must be to provide copyright royalties to the USCCB.

.

 

[ProVobis]

My least favorite is the NAB, which texts required amendment in order to be used in the Missal, and whose only reason for existence must be to provide copyright royalties to the USCCB.

.

That’s close to what I’m driving at. Thanks.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Gen 2:8 (NRSV) And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Looking at the Hebrew text, גן can’t be “paradise”; it’s really only a garden. “Eden” is perhaps related linguistically to the Semitic root for pleasure but “paradise of pleasure” is a huge stretch. Should be “in the East” versus “from the beginning,” should be “the man” versus just “man.”

The NRSV does a pretty good job of being a literal translation when possible.

.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

My least favorite is the NAB, which texts required amendment in order to be used in the Missal, and whose only reason for existence must be to provide copyright royalties to the USCCB.

.

All English translations undergo amendments. That the NABRE underwent amendments to make it better, and actually to be elevated to be read in the Divine Liturgy - it’s a good thing.

Better than not having amendments…

There’s always room for improvement.

I think that instead of criticizing a USCCB translation publicly, it is much better to write them with a list of suggestions to make the translation better.

After all, we should be doing what is possible to help our Bishops. Should we not?

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

I think that instead of criticizing a USCCB translation publicly, it is much better to write them with a list of suggestions to make the translation better.

That’s already been done.

The version used in the lectionary for the English translation of the Roman Missal in the USA had to be amended to meet theological objections of the Holy See. Those amendments were not carried back to the NAB itself.

The Psalter from the NAB was so bad that it was finally dumped and the Revised Grail Psalter adopted for the 2008 Missal.

Given the high quality translations available, there has never been a coherent explanation of what purpose the existence of the NAB serves. It is now in its fourth edition and can still not be used unedited for the lectionary in the United States due to objections by the Holy See over theological issues.

The bishops are quite aware of the issues.

.

 

[ProVobis]

I think that instead of criticizing a USCCB translation publicly, it is much better to write them with a list of suggestions to make the translation better.

The ICEL has admitted collecting in massive amount of royalties with its translations of the liturgy and other things. To be fair, though, I understand going forward, they are going to make it a little more affordable for parishes with these new translations, which, as Rob pointed out, have to meet new Vatican standards. The question, though, is can this be done at all?