 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
left coast mystic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | La Honda, California USA |
| Posts: | 167 |
| First Name: | Marcee | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nondenominational charismatic, Presbyterian, long-time lover of the RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27th, 2008 06:33 am |
|
I know that the standard translation in these parts seems to be the RSV-CE. I have an original Jerusalem Bible (1966 version) which is quite poetic but too different from the King James that I originally memorized verses from. I found a list of translations at catholic.com, apparently in order of accuracy and readability (at least according to the person who posted the list, as copied below). One question I have is why everyone seems to dislike whichever version is the current "approved" version (I believe it's the NAB), and what makes that version more approved than others (I guess that's actually two questions!). Any comments, especially from David Emery, would be much appreciated.
Marcee
01. Haydock Douay Rheims
02. Douay Rheims
03. Confranternity Bible
04. Mgr Knox Bible
05. Ignatius Study Bible (RSVCE)
06. Navarre Bible (RSVCE)
07. 1966 Jerusalem Bible
08. Chistian Community Bible (1st-3rd Edition)
09. New American Bible 1970
10. New American Bible 1986
11. New Revised Standard Version
12. Christian Community Bible (Later Editions)
13. New Jerusalem Bible
14. Catholic Living Bible
15. Good New Bible
1-8 Is free from Inclusive Language
9-15 Is plagued by inclusive Language
____________________
Godliness with contentment is great gain. (1 Tim. 6:6)
In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and trust shall be your strength. (Isa. 30:15)
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2522 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27th, 2008 10:29 pm |
|
Hi Marcee. Following are some links to past threads on bible versions that you might find helpful.
One
Two
Three
The first thing I need to mention with regard to “approved versions” is that there are several of them. Any bible that contains an Imprimatur (approval by a bishop) is considered doctrinally acceptable — at least by the bishop who approved it. However, what you are referring to with the word “approved” is something a little different. In Catholic lingo the word you want is “approved liturgical version.”
Approving a version of biblical texts for liturgical use (that is, in the Mass, the sacraments and the Liturgy of the Hours) is a process that takes place at the level of bishops’ conferences — the organizations representing all the bishops of a given country. The United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is the bishops’ conference for the USA. This body had a version drawn up to their specifications beginning in the late 1960s (first liturgical edition published in 1970); it was revised in the 1980s and again in 1991 (not used) and 1998. Each version had to be approved by the pertinent dicasteries (departments) of the Vatican before it could be used. You notice the one from 1991 was never used liturgically; this is because it was rejected by the Vatican as unacceptable.
The linked threads tell what happened during the nineties. The result was that, just as the Vatican was about to order its reorganization, the translating body scrambled to get an Imprimatur and published the rejected 1991 version in bible format. This is your current New American Bible (NAB).
OK, now, as to the other versions on your list, I see the Douay-Rheims (it’s actually the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version from the 18th century rather than the original version from the 16th), which is contemporary with the King James version you are familiar with. The difference between the two is that the DR is translated from the Latin Vulgate, as required by the Church’s law in those days, as versus the KJV’s reliance on the Hebrew and Greek. Both versions are dated but usable by those people who can live with the thees and thous and other antiquated language and keep the archaic word definitions straight so they don’t misinterpret. The Haydock edition, popular in the 18th and 19th centuries and recently revived to the delight of traditionalists, merely adds extensive notes (or, if you will, a brief commentary). Those notes are available online here for your perusal.
The Confraternity Version covers the New Testament only. It was originally published in 1943 but was discontinued after the Second Vatican Council in favor of the NAB. It is a bland modernization of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner text, but retaining the thees and thous. It was still translated from the Vulgate, but notes were added to show where it differed from the Greek. This version was out of print for several decades but was recently reissued for those who might prefer it.
The Knox version is a paraphrase. Ronald Knox, the translator, was a grand English stylist, but his approach is neither liturgical nor scholarly in the sense that it can be used to explore the underlying original text.
The Revised Standard Version (RSV) began life as a mainline Protestant version, being roughly contemporary with the Confraternity version outlined above. I became familiar with it in the 1950s while I was still a Methodist, so I am a long-time admirer. The RSV was revised in the 1960s to better conform with traditional textual practice, and a Catholic edition was made at about the same time. The Catholic edition (CE) has basically kept this version alive, and just a couple of years ago a new revision was made of it, known as the Second Catholic Edition (CE2). The CE2 does not change much, just removes the archaic language and touches up a few places where a more traditional rendering was considered necessary to conform with the Vatican regulations on liturgical versions of scripture. (Example: “a virgin shall conceive” instead of “a young woman shall conceive” in Isaiah 7:14.) The RSV-CE2 is accepted by the Vatican for liturgical use and is currently the version used in several areas of the West Indies.
The Ignatius Study Bible is the RSV-CE2 with extensive notes (brief commentary) and study questions by Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch and Dennis Walters. The commentary follows a didactic style, with running verse-by-verse notes plus vocabulary, background material and special sections in separate sidebars. It remains incomplete (currently Matthew through Hebrews) and is published only in pamphlet form. Each individual pamphlet is cheap, but in the aggregate they are costly.
The Navarre Bible is the original RSV-CE with an extensive commentary. This commentary follows the Catholic style with extensive quotes from the Fathers of the Church, popes, ecumenical councils and the writings of the saints, emphasizing the doctrinal and spiritual value of scripture. Textual notes, references to the original languages, etc., are kept to a minimum. This series is available in several editions: a 10-volume hardback full edition; the New Testament in 12 paperback volumes; and a Gospels and Acts with abbreviated notes. Volumes are available separately. The work in its various forms is a translation of an original commentary (and abbreviated commentary) in Spanish, with the RSV-CE taking the place of an original Spanish translation done at the University of Navarre in Spain. The translation was done by Irish scholars and uses British-style spelling and grammar, but is readily understandable by educated Americans.
The Jerusalem Bible (1966 version) is a free (sense-for-sense) translation done in England in imitation of the famous French edition of the bible produced in Israel a few years earlier. They are, however, separate works, as are the extensive notes that accompanied both in their originally published form. Long out of print, this version was re-issued recently in a “readers edition” without the notes. The lack of the notes lowers its value considerably, because they were the real draw to this version, which is otherwise engaging but undistinguished. Its lack of literalness severely limits its value as a scholarly resource. On the other hand, its readability and verve have earned it a place as the liturgical version of scripture in a number of countries, beginning with Great Britain.
I had no knowledge of the Christian Community Bible, so I had to do some research on it. It turns out that I am familiar with its heritage, in that there is a whole series of translations into different languages, the first of them chronologically being the Biblia Latinoamerica that has been popular in south Texas and Mexico for about three decades.
I never liked the Biblia Latinoamerica because of its slant towards Liberation Theology (a Marxist-inspired heresy condemned by Pope John Paul II). Now I find out why: it’s published by the Claretians. The Claretian missionary order, founded by St. Anthony Claret, first bishop of Cuba, a couple of centuries ago, has since the Second Vatican Council been notable for its lack of orthodoxy. My copy of the Biblia Latinoamerica has no reference to the order, including the omission of identifying initials on the names of the translators. So of course I wouldn’t have known. Sneaky.
OK, so it seems the Claretians are behind the English-language Christian Community Bible as well, which was first published in the Philippines. Fortunately, the earlier editions, while extremely loose in their attempt to limit vocabulary for Third World readers, are relatively orthodox. There’s an online edition here which looks acceptable, although I understand that newer editions have become increasingly slanted with regard to genderless language. The online version includes a commentary that seems orthodox, as far as I spot-checked it. I would not trust that a new print edition would measure up, however.
New Revised Standard version: an update to the RSV. Its most notable feature is a heavy application of genderless language, which twists the grammar so badly in places that it is difficult to figure out why they bothered. Well, it’s an agenda. Unfortunately, somehow the bishops in Canada managed to get this version — without Vatican approval, as I understand — as “temporarily” the official liturgical version for that country. Seems it’s been there “temporarily” for over a decade now.
New Jerusalem Bible: an update of the Jerusalem Bible. Somewhat into genderless language, but not so bad as other versions. Otherwise not bad except for being too free.
The last two versions on your list, Marcee, should be lumped together. They have the same source and are simply different editions of basically the same text, which is a limited vocabulary paraphrase. It goes variously under the titles of The Living Bible, the New Living Bible, the Good News Bible, The Way and a couple of others for Protestants. This is a rather poor, pablum way to get your divinely inspired scripture. Not to mention some genderless language in the mix. Sorry.
OK, there you have it. I hope it isn’t “bad news” to too many people. I do have my personal opinion, and it very much excludes genderless language, which at least puts me in line with the Vatican’s viewpoint. I see a lot of theological issues, not to mention linguistic issues (among other things, I’m a professional translator and wordsmith), with the whole idea of a feminist takeover of the English language, especially as applied to religious texts. Understand that throughout this once-over I am referring to personal experience with the various texts, not to hearsay. At least you have that much.
David
|
|
|
left coast mystic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | La Honda, California USA |
| Posts: | 167 |
| First Name: | Marcee | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nondenominational charismatic, Presbyterian, long-time lover of the RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28th, 2008 03:02 am |
|
Thanks, David. Now that I know a bit of your background, can I impose a bit more and ask for your opinion on the NIV and NAS translations in comparison with the RSV? I remember getting the NAS close to 40 years ago because it was supposed to be more poetic than the RSV, yet with the same accuracy.
Marcee
____________________
Godliness with contentment is great gain. (1 Tim. 6:6)
In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and trust shall be your strength. (Isa. 30:15)
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2522 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28th, 2008 03:50 am |
|
Now you are speaking of Protestant versions.
The NIV is not literal enough for my taste (although by general standards it’s probably acceptable for devotional use), and it has an occasional fundamentalist bias, based on how they use the bible and pointing up certain salient doctrines in preferred renderings. (I’m not saying we Catholics don’t have our own “bias,” based on the way we use the bible, as distinct from the Protestant approach.) Nevertheless, we’re looking here at an extremely popular version. For that reason, I need to have at least some familiarity with it, even if I wouldn’t use it myself.
I respect the NAS. If it were available in a Catholic edition, I would consider adding it to my library. Probably it could be converted in similar fashion to the RSV. But since I have used the RSV for over 50 years, there’s little chance I would switch my allegiance.
|
|
|
Current time is 08:58 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
