Your favorite or most used scripture translation

Status
Not open for further replies.
po18guy

po18guy

Well-known member
I would hope that this is a discussion of daily read bibles, versions on the shelf, highs and lows of each translation, or anything else that applies to particular bibles.

Since bibles often are the orphans in thrift stores, eBay and Amazon, I have gathered a few into a collection. My thinking is that each translation aims for the bullseye, but misses by just a bit. Having several translations allows my perception to bracket the bullseye so that I might have a slightly better hint at where that bullseye actually is. All guided by the sacred deposit of faith, of course. So, I will begin with…

As a daily reader, lately I have been reading the Revised English Bible with Deuterocanon (“Apocrypha”), published by Oxford-Cambridge. Aside from being a handsome book, the translation was done in the United Kingdom with the idea of reducing denominational bias as seen in many other translations. The UK Catholic Church was consulted as to the translation.

I find it an easy read and usable by Americans as well as those in Commonwealth and all English-speaking nations. It is well balanced and the Deuterocanon is placed between the Old and New Testaments. I actually find some logic in that, inasmuch as the various Deuterocanonical books tend to speak to the new covenant.

Anyway, what is your favorite?
 
@po18guy yours is a very informed and impelling post.
It’s possibly backward of me but I’ve preferred the Jerusalem Bible. More comfortable with the wording than any other version. It may not now be considered to be the best translation.
Having preferred use of both the original and the revised study version, when quoting texts or reading, I can’t support my preference with reasonable argument.
 
Last edited:
Frances, some translations just “speak” to you. Some you connect with. Some are OK and some may strike you as somewhat flat. All are good if one considers bible reading not so much as words to be read, but as a living experience of God.

My first bible was the New Jerusalem Bible and from it I memorized the Nunc Dimittis (Simeon the prophet’s declaration upon holding the Christ child in the temple). Honestly, my love of scripture developed after I went to a charismatic seminar at our parish in the early 2000s. I went on to find a nearly new 1966 Jerusalem Bible. I like the original 1966 better, but will keep both.
 
Last edited:
Here is a seventeen minute talk by Franciscan Fr. Stephen King entitled “What is Sacred Scripture?”. He gives good insight into translations and the value of having more than one to refer to.

 
Following this list:


and points raised here:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...ds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html

I got cheap (less than $20 each), hardcover copies of a Catholic Prayer Bible (using NRSV-CE) and a Catholic Study Bible (using NABRE).

I’m waiting for the updated version of NABRE which, given consultation between translators and the USCCB and the Vatican, will be used for personal study, catechism, and the liturgy:

http://catholicbibletalk.com/2019/04/a-nabre-for-all-seasons-guest-post-by-bob-short/
 
Of note is the fact ant any and all “USCCB approved” bibles remain on the list. They never “unapproved” any.
 
  • For doctrinal precision, the Latin Vulgate. (Knowing enough Latin to read it is another story.)
  • For a KJV-like experience, the Douay-Rheims.
  • For a more modern experience, the RSV Catholic Edition.
  • For something more poetic, the Jerusalem Bible, or despite its dynamic equivalence, the New English Bible.
It’s a shame that the NIV doesn’t exist in a Catholic version. I find it by far the most readable Bible I’ve found, but it comes with numerous caveats. I found it in some almost-forgotten books I had, and I was blown away by its readability appeal.

Though it’s not totally without merit, the NAB would never be my version of choice.
 
Last edited:
Opinion alert! In a Church which possesses the magisterium and the Apostolic tradition, I am leery of all things “modern” as they tend always and everywhere to soften and blur revealed truth. I don’t want the faith dumbed down. I want to reach, to stretch to grasp it. Just me, however.

An Americanized Knox or the never-published complete 1941 Confraternity would be my first choices. I like both as they are.

As to the NIV, many Protestants hate it. It is far more difficult to demonstrate Catholic doctrine from than most other Protestant bibles. By design, I believe.

Want an easy read? The Catholic Living Bible (Tyndale, but the excellent Deuterocanon translations provided by Our Sunday Visitor). Not new enough?

Try the Catholic New Living Translation, also by Tyndale.

Tyndale. Odd, ain’t it?
 
Last edited:
The Church wants new translations that involve newly discovered manuscripts and tools in order to come up with more accurate translations.

Second, translations need to adjust to reading levels and even the use of idiomatic expressions. For example, the ave. reading level of adults in the U.S. is said to be in the 8th grade. That means NABRE would be suitable for them:


Given these, one should favor translations that are closest to what’s used in liturgy in one’s region.
 
Here is my take. As to the NAB, please use extreme prudence in reading the footnotes and book introductions. For some reason, they contrast sharply with all that has gone before. In my mind, a huge red flag.

Examples? The actual author of Matthew cannot be known and this anonymous person is called “Matthew” for the sake of convenience. Might as well call it Gospel #1.

Another: Mary likely never spoke her Magnificat. Since many modern scholars tend to suppress the supernatural effect of the Holy Spirit, they claim that Luke essentially copied and pasted it in to make a more pleasing read.

I say nonsense!

OK, many will say, “Well, those footnotes and intros are not official” - Fine. So why are they even in there? They seem to lead away from the faith, not deeper into it. Contrast them with the confidence-building equivalents in the Confraternity New Testament (1941) for but one example.

The faith is not modern - it is ancient. It was once for all revealed to the saints. So are we really smarter than those whom Jesus picked? Are we smarter than Saint Jerome and Pope Damasus I? If these “recently discovered” documents are so crucial, why didn’t Saint Jerome have them? They were not found in Church archives, but outside of the Church.

I find nothing lacking in the faith and everything lacking in our culture. But I am apparently an extremist.

Just saying.
 
Last edited:
ralfyman said:
The Church wants new translations that involve newly discovered manuscripts and tools in order to come up with more accurate translations.
Click to expand...
I don’t dispute that recourse to newly discovered manuscripts and more accurate translations are a good thing, but if we’ve had Bibles that “weren’t quite right” up until recent times, where was the Holy Ghost before then? Would He have allowed us to have translations that were materially different from what the Scriptures actually said?

Or do any differences rise to the level of having conveyed a different meaning?

I recall reading once that the actual Scriptural passage regarding “a camel through the eye of a needle” should have been more like “a rope through the eye of a needle” (camels and ropes are two different things, just stating the obvious), meaning that a rope, unlike a camel, can be unraveled, and stray strands discarded, until the rope is small enough to fit — just as a rich man must shed himself, even if metaphorically, of the effect that his riches have upon his soul, and be detached from them. (I’m dealing with memory from 40+ years ago, so I might be mangling that a bit, but my point should be clear.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top