- Status
C
cceerpp
Guest
The Original languages of the most Ancient Manuscripts guides us to the most obvious Scripture contents.
This is somehow a BIG topic, but I believe the simplest way to resolve this is to Know the original Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek languages and compare the majority texts of the ancient manuscript.
Hope that helps,
Godwin A. Delali.
This is somehow a BIG topic, but I believe the simplest way to resolve this is to Know the original Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek languages and compare the majority texts of the ancient manuscript.
Hope that helps,
Godwin A. Delali.
B
BRB
Guest
It needs to flow well, be poetic, not use thee/thou words, yet not be same as our common language either.
Best compromise I’ve found is original RSV.
Best compromise I’ve found is original RSV.
B
BRB
Guest
NAB seems too common. KJV has its good points … but, has outlived its language advantages. Jerusalem edition seems good. RSV has much in its favor … IMO.
I use the NAB. It is our common language.
All based on inspired Word … but, some just seem more inspirational.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
What I was looking for is how is it determined that a version of the Bible is an accurate translation (I can’t be studying Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, plus I think I would be re-inventing the wheel, so many other scholars have already undertaken this task). My understanding is that some Bibles produced during the Reformation were translated with a bias against the Catholic Church (Wycliffe, KJV, Tyndale). Some were purposely mistranslated, contained error, mispellings, etc. I do know the Catholic Church burned many heretical Bibles before and after the Reformation. The Catholic Church does not recognize the New World Translation. Do any Protestant denominations accept it? Why or why not. What is the standard by which a translation is deemed “authoritative” (small a) in Biblical circles?
B
BRB
Guest
Problem with NAB is its written for 8th grader comprehesion.
If one learns scriptures from the adult translations … they will serve you for life.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Almost every Bible translation/edition has its strengths and weaknesses. You can’t solve that problem by dividing translations into authoritative versus non-authoritative, or authorized versus unauthorized, or accurate versus inaccurate.
I often am amazed at how often people exaggerate their desciption of one Bible version or another, so that one version is said to be wonderful, and the next is said to be horrible. The truth is not so simple. Every version has some inaccuracies and some unwise translation or editing decisions; and nearly every version has some good points to recommend it as useful to some persons.
I favor the Clementime Vulgate, but I don’t think that it is without translation or editing errors.
I often am amazed at how often people exaggerate their desciption of one Bible version or another, so that one version is said to be wonderful, and the next is said to be horrible. The truth is not so simple. Every version has some inaccuracies and some unwise translation or editing decisions; and nearly every version has some good points to recommend it as useful to some persons.
I favor the Clementime Vulgate, but I don’t think that it is without translation or editing errors.
L
Lee_M
Guest
As far as I know, the conference of bishops decide what is acceptable. I don’t particularly know how but here is a link that may help you: ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htmewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
N
NPS
Guest
In the Catholic Church there will be an official process to 1) translate and put into print a bible or 2) to accept/reject a version translated and published by outside source.
Some other churches have a process like this, most do not. Publishers hire scholars (abilties vary widely) to translate a bible, then they edit and sell that bible to as many people and churches as they can. Along with typos and other regular “book” errors, there are often translations of words and phrases which are done with social or belief system biases in mind.
Publishers make a bible—then people get to discuss what is a faithful translation and what is not. If your church has an official governing structure, then that body *may *decide to accept or reject the bible. Sometimes a bible is produced or accepted but then widely panned–such as the NAB.
There are many churches with little or no oversight structure and those churches/individual pastors choose whichever bible they want to use. Most of them primarily use one or two of the translations from which they were taught in bible college and then add a couple others, including those oddball “vibrant” or “living” translations.
(If you want some fun—You can spot the use of these last kinds of bibles when watching televangelists—when explaining a passage or word, they will give a couple translations while making their point, then usually say something like, “One commentator says ________”. That “one commentator” is often code for “I will use this badly translated, yet fun bible to make my point”.)
Anyway—as far as who decides which bible is “authentic”?
Like most things in the Protestant world—the answer is “no one and everyone”.
R
richardwy
Guest
The Church.
I love the Douay.
I love the Douay.
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
A translation with a single name may come out in multiple versions. (For example, the New American Bible was published in editions in 1970, 1986, and 1991 – each with revisions to the New Testament). However, even within a particular edition, there are often “silent changes” that reflect correction of typographical errors and other small changes. My understanding is that a new imprimatur is not required to correct typographical errors.
In the case of the Douai-Rheims-Challoner version, the changes are particularly complex. Here is a sequence (certainly not complete) of versions:
While
In the case of the Douai-Rheims-Challoner version, the changes are particularly complex. Here is a sequence (certainly not complete) of versions:
- 1582 New Testament, first edition
- 1600 New Testament, second edition
- 1610 Old Testament, first edition
- 1621 New Testament, third edition
- 1633 New Testament, fourth edition
- 1635 Old Testament, second edition
- 1738 New Testament, fifth edition
- 1749 Challoner revision, first edition
- 1750 Challoner revision, second edition
- 1752 Challoner revision, third edition
- 1761 Hays revision, first edition
- 1783 Macmahon (Troy) revision, first edition
- 1788 New Testament, sixth edition
- 1791 Macmahon (Troy) revision, second edition
- 1794 Macmahon (Troy) revision, third edition
- 1803 Macmahon (Troy) revision, fourth edition
- 1805 Hays revision, second edition
- 1805 Philadelphia edition
- 1810 Macmahon (Troy) revision, fifth edition
- 1811 Hays revision, third edition
- 1812 Haydock edition, first edition
- 1813 Syers revision
- 1814 Hays revision, fourth edition
- 1815 Poynter revision, first edition
- 1817 Hays revision, fifth edition
- 1817 Gibson revision, first edition
- 1818 New Testament, seventh edition
- 1818 Poynter revision, second edition
- 1820 Troy edition without notes, first edition
- 1823 Poynter revision, third edition
- 1824, Haydock edition, second edition
- 1825 Poynter edition, fourth edition
- 1825 Troy edition without notes, second edition
- 1825 Murray revision
- 1826 Poynter edition, fifth edition
- 1828 Gibson revision, second edition
- 1829 Gibson revision, third edition
- 1834 New Testament, eighth edition
- 1834 Poynter edition, sixth edition
- 1836 Glasgow edition
- 1838 Blake edition
- 1839 Denvir revision
- 1840 Philadelphia edition
- 1842 Poynter edition, seventh edition
- 1846 Crolly revision
- 1846 McHale revision
- 1848 Haydock edition, third edition
- 1847 Cardinal Wiseman revision
- 1853 Husenbeth edition
- 1856 Haydock edition, fourth edition
- 1899 Baltimore edition
Undoubtedly some errors have crept into this accounting, and since I rely on an article by Cardinal Newman from July 1859, I cannot address revisions that have appeared since 1859.
While
P
Pier
Guest
The Catholic Church. :yup:
The poster quoted is not Catholic, so I’m not sure what he considers an “authorized” version…
The poster quoted is not Catholic, so I’m not sure what he considers an “authorized” version…
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
It is an over-simplification to say that the Catholic Church decides the authenticity of a Bible version.
The USCCB has had, since 1991,
the Ad Hoc Committee for the Review of Scripture Translations.
Canon 825 gives the local Bishops Conference or the Holy See the authority to approve of vernacular translations.
Editions of the Latin Vulgate do not need this type of approval.
The Church is not merely the Pope and the Bishops. The Church includes all the faithful. So the sensus fidelium naturally has a role in judging Bible versions.
The Pope has approved the Neo-Vulgate version, but the sensius fidelium has not embraced it.
The USCCB has had, since 1991,
the Ad Hoc Committee for the Review of Scripture Translations.
Canon 825 gives the local Bishops Conference or the Holy See the authority to approve of vernacular translations.
Editions of the Latin Vulgate do not need this type of approval.
The Church is not merely the Pope and the Bishops. The Church includes all the faithful. So the sensus fidelium naturally has a role in judging Bible versions.
The Pope has approved the Neo-Vulgate version, but the sensius fidelium has not embraced it.
R
Rulkiewicz
Guest
The answer lies within the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts: Alexandria texts, Byzantine texts, Syriac, etc.
I suggest reading B. Metzger’s book: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Transmission-Restoration/dp/019516122X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211983068&sr=8-1
It may be in your local library.
B
BDewey
Guest
In addition, what many folks refer to as the Douay-Rheims Bible is really the Challoner Bible…which is vastly different from the original. Challoner made many changes. The above-quoted article by Cardinal Newman also makes that clear. The article also makes it clear that the DRB never received an Imprimatur and has never been formally recognized as “authorized.” Some folks on this forum also make these same mistakes some 150 years later! Many online versions are mislabeled as Douay-Rheims, but are actually Challoner. Also, many publishers past & present make this mistake.
Both the KJV and the DRB were modernized in the 18th century because they were so archaic in language, mainly spelling. In fact, what most folks today recognize as the KJV is really the 1769 version, not the original 1611 edition (see here). So also with the DRB at the hands of Challoner.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I’ve noticed that. And I find it very disturbing. It’s willful misrepresentation of the Word.
The poster I quoted accused someone of unsing an “unauthorized” translation. I wondered on what authority he could claim his translation was “authorized” and another’s NAB was not “authorized,” even though the Catholic Church has approved the translation. This is the translation used in Catholic Liturgy.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
So you suggest everyone who wants to read the Bible read the original texts before they can determine which Bible to read in English?
The reason I’m questioning this is because there are so many translations out there, and they differ in which books they include as inspired. Also, I understand that JW’s use a NWT which changes wording so that Jesus appears not to be divine. JW’s claim they are using original Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew scholarship.
The Editor of the NWT was Frederick William Franz.[18] The Watchtower organization’s Board of Directors tasked him to examine the NWT and determine its accuracy and acceptability as it was submitted for publication.[19] Frederick Franz attended the University of Cincinnati where he was an honor student.[20][21] His formal training concentrated on Latin and classical Greek. [22] According to A. H. Macmillan, in addition to his native tongue of English, Frederick Franz was fluent in Spanish, Portuguese and German, conversant in French, and a scholar of Hebrew, Greek, Syrian and Latin.[23]*
Wikepedia
Catholic Bibles contain the Deuterocanonical books and consider them the inspired word of God, since at least the compilation by St. Jerome of the Latin Vulgate in the late 4th century. At some point, Bibles that either omitted or segregated as “Apocryphal” seven books of the OT appeared. When/who decided that these books were not inspired?
If you are not a Catholic, how do you know which Bible translation is “authentic” and why?
R
Rulkiewicz
Guest
There are many different bible version out. Their sources comes from either the Alexandria texts, Byzantine texts, Syriac Texts, or Western textual types (there may be some more). Just search wikipedia or google them.
The original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts are categorized by they textual type line, in other words, where they mainly originated from:
Alexandria texts are from Alexandria Egypt, Byzantine from the Byzantine Empire/monks, and so on. After the **original **manuscripts were written, they were sent to their destination and then copied and distributed onward.
For the most part, all four major text types are similar, but there are some differences.
For instance: the NIV is primarily compiled from the Alexandrian line, and the KJV is compiled primarily from the Byzantine line. Now, other than the obvious modern vs. old English grammar, the content of these two bible vary.
Scholars who translated the modern versions of today’s Bible favor the Alexandrian Text over the Byzantine Text, stating that since the Alexandrian manuscripts are older, they must be more authentic. Using the theory of age equals accuracy; one could assume that the Alexandrian Texts are more accurate.
There are plenty of quote from post apostolic church leaders that quote from the Byzantine manuscripts, where these verses are not in the older Alexandrian text line. So age doesn’t always equal validity.
Marks long ending: The NIV preface Mark 16:9-20 and states they are not found in the earlier texts. Irenaeus, who wrote “Against Heresies”, quoted from the scriptures in question above.
Just a few comparisons:
Matthew 6:13
KJV: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
NIV: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Quote: …for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Didache 8:2[1st - 2nd century]
Matthew 19:9
KJV: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
NIV: I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.
Quote: “For whosoever puts away his wife,” says He, "and marries another, commits adultery;” Athenagoras: A Plea for the Christians: 33 [Late 2nd century]
Quote: The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." Shepherd of Hermas: Commandment Fourth: 1[2nd century]
- Status