Which translation do you prefer?

[Khalid]

For true biblical scholarship you need to read scripture in the original Greek or Hebrew.

When reading to my kids I wanted a bible that read “nicely” and that was aurally understandable. I found the NAB and the RSV (2CE) required mouth gymnastics at times to read aloud.

The Hebrew is far from original. I read in the original Greek (LXX/OG/TD and Byzantine type-text/TR/Majority text) and the Latin translation, but neither my Greek nor my Latin is as good as my English, because I don’t have to speak and read Greek and Latin 16 hours a day in the course of my life. So, when I’m not comparing minutiae of verses, or trying to work around a tricky theological problem or a poor rendering, or something that seems “off”, I generally stick with the English. Not to mention it’s cheaper, as I can’t stand the “Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece” eclectic text, and that’s the only Greek text I can afford for the NT. For the OT, I can afford Rahlf’s LXX, which is the best out there, being not an insufferably “critically reconstructed by the principles of reasoned eclecticism” text like that of the NTG (which, in any case, is an order of magnitude better than Westcott and Hort’s, which I’ve read online).

If one wants to talk about absolute accuracy, one has to start talking about textual traditions, and about the problems with “reasoned eclecticism” - not just the translation itself, but the textual basis. That, honestly, is too much for most people to understand and keep straight in their head, and isn’t wanted or useful anyways. So, when I recommend a translation, I take in to account both the textual tradition, and the actual translation. This is one reason why the NETS, OSB, KJV, DRC, CCD, Knox, and NKJV are superior to all competitors.

The ESV has some gender-neutering going on, but it matches much more perfectly “actual English” instead of a gender studies professor’s dream of a feminist, sexless, egalitarian (yes, I realize those seem to be contradictions) society, starting which Chomsky’s views on language. It doesn’t pop off the page at one, and it doesn’t corrupt the message as it does in the NAB and NRSV (although the footnote at the beginning of every one of Paul’s letters in the ESV that says, “adelphoi can mean ‘brothers and sisters’” is plain wrong - fortuitously, the translators kept the proper “brothers” or “brethren” in the text. The only major problem I have with the ESV is its rendering of 1 Tim 3:15, “the house of the living God, a pillar of truth”, rendering the Gk articles inconsistently. The Gk doesn’t have a definite article there, so either it should be rendered with no articles, all indefinite articles, or all definite articles - but that’s a relatively small gripe for the translation. Rendering it half and half is the same tactic JW’s use to make Jn 1:1 read, “and the word was a god”. It also likes to render words meaning “husband” or “male” as “man”, to emphasize Calvinist doctrine/unconditional election/total depravity. The OT is excellent.

In all honesty, I use the RSV-2CE or ESV to “read” a book (except for the Psalms), as much as I preach against it, and then the other translations and one of the Greek issues listed above to study it.

 

[Khalid]

At the moment my regular bible is the RSV-CE (& some ICSBs), but I’m considering the ‘ESV with Apocrapha’ because I dislike the some of the ‘wording’ choices that I’ve encountered especially the toning down of the Christological elements of the OT and the fact that the OT quotes in the NT don’t match (where they could from the NT greek; I’m aware that at times the quote doesn’t match) eg. when Jesus quotes Deuteronomy in The Temptation.

My biggest dislike of the NRSV is that it renders ‘he’ as ‘they’ (singular is not plural in any sane world) and doesn’t always indicate the change in the footnotes. This happens almost every other line in the Psalms, which also eliminates the reading of the psalm as speaking of, or by, Christ.

At the moment I consider the RSV-2CE the best Catholic option. The JB is good (very readable) but not very literal; the NJB is literal but has similar problems to the NRSV (not to such an extent, but doesn’t indicate gender-neutral changes to the text at all); and before anyone suggests the NAB most ‘British-English speakers’ intensely dislike the language used.

The NRSV’s Psalms are just about the worst book in the NRSV. The entire RSV tradition has poorly rendered Psalms (RSV, CE, 2CE, NRSV). The ESV, in my opinion, has the best rendering of the Psalms in to modern English of any Bible. The NASB is good too. The RSV-2CE is alright, as I’ve mentioned, but does neuter - pun intended - Christological references in the OT, especially in the Psalms and in the seed promises in Genesis, but the Second Catholic Edition has gone a long way towards rectifying the problems of the original and the first (although I would still appreciate “presbyter” and “bishop” in the NT, I can always swap out “elder” and “overseer” for the proper terms mentally). The RSV-2CE has the strongest rendering of the book of Sirach that I’ve ever read.

I think I speak American-English, although I’m not sure as I didn’t learn in an American school, but I “intensely dislike” the language used too. I always wonder if I’m the only one who can see that it’s some of the most poorly rendered, cacophonic tripe in all of literature, when I comment, “They’ll never be using the NAB to teach atheist freshmen the ‘Bible as literature’”. Not to mention some renderings - not to beat a dead horse, to take an American expression - such as Gen 1:1-2, the story of Joseph, and half the Psalms are just plain wrong.

I can’t make sense of Psalms in Greek (I can make sense of specific lines, but not “the point”), but I don’t think that’s uncommon, granted that most translations are pretty similar until one gets to Psalms, and then each translation is radically different.

 

[Pitcharan]

I found the Gideon’s Bible to be a beautiful blend of RSV and NIV and think it’s the best. I prefer using it along with Douay-Rheims Bible.

However, when it comes to the Book of Psalms, there is NO substitute to the GRAIL PSALMS.

 

[Mintaka]

The original system of Bible chapter numbering, and the original system of Bible verse numbering, were both developed by Catholic monk scholars in the West, for greater convenience of scholastic discussion. (And yes, I should remember the names of both guys involved.) That’s why Greek numbering is the same as the older Catholic system – it’s a Western technology, so to speak.

I don’t know when Jewish Bibles began using chapter and/or verse systems, although obviously they always had separate Psalms. I believe they used to refer to them by name or by the opening words instead of by number.

Protestants changed the chapter and verse system to go along with their theories about what was and wasn’t in the Bible, including moving to the Jewish organization of the Psalms.

 

[Mintaka]

There’s a Wikipedia article on this. Talks a lot about Jewish divisions of the Bible into portions, and about Christian lectionary portions, as the prehistory of Bible chaptering systems.

But the system of chapters used today was invented by Archbishop Stephen Langton in 1205, though he wasn’t the only Scholastic to come up with one; his was the one that stuck.

The same thing happened with verses, but the system that stuck (Robert Estienne’s) wasn’t invented until 1551.

Hebrew Bibles are different, because Jewish scholars went back and put in their own numbering system, based on their traditional way of punctuating and dividing the Bible. Protestant Bibles now follow Hebrew Bible chapter and verse numbering in some ways and do their own thing in others. Most modern Catholic Bibles go along with a lot of this, for clarity of discussion with other Christian believers; but the older Catholic system is still available through the Douay-Rheims, the Vulgate, and other older editions. This allows us to keep in touch with both Catholic and Protestant writings about the Bible.

(It’s still “official” in many ways, and it’s still common for Catholic citations of the Psalms to be given in the Catholic fashion only, or with a slash between the old and new citations of a Psalm verse.)

 

[rotlex]

I own, and have read through, the DR, RSV-CE, NAB and the KJV w/Apocrypha.

My favorite study Bible is my Oxford Press RSV w/Apocrypha

My favorite for daily reading, prayer and meditation is, drum roll… my KJV w/Apocrypha. I know, I know, it’s not a “Catholic” Bible, but I love the way it reads. To me, as it is a version with Apocrypha, it is nearly identical to my DR. I love the DR as well, however, I don’t care for the number of the Psalms, or the use of different names for books and people as well. I know WHY there are differences, I just don’t care to do my daily reading that way.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I do my daily readings from the Challoner Douay Rheims. I like the English, the soundness of the translation and the helpful notes. (I use the original edition)

 

[Khalid]

I found the Gideon’s Bible to be a beautiful blend of RSV and NIV and think it’s the best. I prefer using it along with Douay-Rheims Bible.

However, when it comes to the Book of Psalms, there is NO substitute to the GRAIL PSALMS.

The Gideons Bible is the NKJV. To the other above poster: the KJV is still one of the most Catholic Bibles available today, after only the DRC and CCD, about even with Knox. The NKJV isn’t quite as good (and doesn’t come in a full-canon edition except for the quasi-NKJV OSB), but is still good, and has the best set of textual notes on any translation in English.

Aren’t the Grail Psalms the inclusive-language ones that have “he revives my droopy spirit” and “dwell in the house of the Lord for years to come” in Psalm 23? I don’t think I’ve ever owned a copy, but I’ve heard them sung at the Church and in the Divine Office. They’re better than the NAB/RE (you can never go more wrong than the NAB/RE OT as a rule of thumb - the NAB NT isn’t that bad except for the unmarked neutering of sex, as long as the notes and introductions are removed), but “revives my droopy spirit” and “for years to come”? Heaven is temporal?

If those phrases and uses (LoTH, Mass) are the NAB/RE psalms (I looked in my never-used NAB, and see that it doesn’t have “droopy spirit” but does have “years to come”), I’ve never heard the Grail ones, and tell me where to find a copy - or a preview of Ps 2, 16, 17, and 22 - to insure that they read well, are sufficiently Christian/faithful, and aren’t neutered).

Why can’t Catholics get the book of Psalms right? (To be fair, Protestants usually get it wrong too, but they have many more translations, and what seems to be a much stronger active/faithful/practicing/conservative core, so there are always one or two translations - the ESV, NKJV and for the most part the NASB - that get them right: every single modern Catholic translation is modernist to some degree or another, from moderately modernist [RSV-2CE] to extremely modernist [NJB, NAB]). The Psalms is where most of the differences in a translation shine through. Compare any five Bibles’ renderings of Genesis 1:1-2 (excluding the NAB, of course, which mucks even it up), and the same five Bibles’ renderings of any two Psalms.

A Book of Psalms, to read well, and to read like it was done by Catholics (or at least, Christians and not Jews, or even theists, and not revisionists trying to retroject feminism in to the patriarchal Scriptures): is it too much to ask?.. Even the Confraternity Psalms were bad, in an otherwise good Bible (which, while remaining faithful, nonetheless had the beginnings of that dreadful “NAB-sound” to it, like “Wonder-Hero, God-Counsellor…”)

My ear is deaf to poetry, so it’s one thing that I can’t fix in my translation unless I lift the public-domain KJV Psalms verbatim (and, as I mentioned in another post, my Greek isn’t good enough to interpret the LXX Psalms, but I don’t think even the professional scholars have good enough Gk or Heb to do so, given that translations of Psalms that aren’t direct revisions are always wildly divergent, even amongst literal translations).

The day the Bible matches Lectionary, the day the NAB is faithful, the day the ICSB OT is complete, will be one day after the parousia. Hopefully there will be a decent Catholic rendering of the Psalms that’s easy on the ears and faithful to the original (i.e. “man” and “men”) at least one day before, so I can chant it on my way up (or down) - or else I’ll have to be using a mix of ESV and KJV (the KJV really did nail it above and beyond the Douay-Rheims in the Psalms). It seems more likely Satan will repent before any of that gains an American imprimatur in this generation.

 

[Ter1]

Aren’t the Grail Psalms the inclusive-language ones that have “he revives my droopy spirit” and “dwell in the house of the Lord for years to come” in Psalm 23? I don’t think I’ve ever owned a copy, but I’ve heard them sung at the Church and in the Divine Office. They’re better than the NAB/RE (you can never go more wrong than the NAB/RE OT as a rule of thumb - the NAB NT isn’t that bad except for the unmarked neutering of sex, as long as the notes and introductions are removed), but “revives my droopy spirit” and “for years to come”? Heaven is temporal?

The “Revised Grail Psalms”, which will be what’s used in the new editions of the Lectionary, LoTHs (whenever they appear:shrug, can be viewed here

The “Grail Psalms” currently in use in LoTHs & Lectionary (Britain and Ireland) are not generally inclusive-language - but do read “what is man that you care for him, **mortal man **that you keep him in mind”, which is corrected to “son of man” in the Revised Grail Psalms. By the way, the psalm you object to reads “revives my drooping spirit”, which is not so strange (‘droopy’), and has “will dwell in the house of the Lord forever and ever”.

I think there was an extremely inclusive-language version proposed when the Revision was originally set in motion, which was squashed. And I think there might be an ‘unauthorised’ inclusive language version of the Grail psalms (they for he etc) being used in liturgy by some people.

 

[Pitcharan]

…Aren’t the Grail Psalms the inclusive-language ones that have “he revives my droopy spirit” and “dwell in the house of the Lord for years to come” in Psalm 23? I don’t think I’ve ever owned a copy, but I’ve heard them sung at the Church and in the Divine Office. They’re better than the NAB/RE (you can never go more wrong than the NAB/RE OT as a rule of thumb - the NAB NT isn’t that bad except for the unmarked neutering of sex, as long as the notes and introductions are removed), but “revives my droopy spirit” and “for years to come”? Heaven is temporal?

If those phrases and uses (LoTH, Mass) are the NAB/RE psalms (I looked in my never-used NAB, and see that it doesn’t have “droopy spirit” but does have “years to come”),

No, Grail has “drooping spirit”

I’ve never heard the Grail ones, and tell me where to find a copy - or a preview of Ps 2, 16, 17, and 22 - to insure that they read well, are sufficiently Christian/faithful, and aren’t neutered).

Download free: athanasius.com/psalms/

Why can’t Catholics get the book of Psalms right?

The best translation - Grail is Catholic!!!

 

[Khalid]

I’m probably con-fusing and confabulating the NAB ending with the Grail “drooping”. I have heard it before, in an extremely neutered Mass (“God-this, God-that, God Godself, Our Parent in Heaven”), at a (ostensibly?) Catholic church I attended once where the homily that week happened to be about eradicating “exclusive” language and behavior everywhere - in the Bible, in personal discourse, in the liturgy, by using “inclusive” language and “**re-**allowing” priestesses to promote absolute equality between the sexes in every sphere of life. This same priest had some odd notions about what wasn’t a sin as well.

Needless to say, I did not return to the Church and was nearly scared back into (actually, to stay in, as I hadn’t yet converted) Orthodoxy by it.